Speaker 1: Listeners are advised that this podcast series Brown contains course
Speaker 1: language and adult themes. This podcast series is brought to
Speaker 1: you by me Headley Thomas and The Australian Michael Drury
Speaker 1: was the undercover cop they Couldn't Corrupt, a plain clothes
Speaker 1: detective with a relentless determination to expose organized crime in
Speaker 1: Sydney's underworld. His name is synonymous in Australian police and
Speaker 1: crime circles.
Speaker 2: Ray had morning onto GB.
Speaker 3: It was ten past six in the evening on June sixth,
Speaker 3: nine eighty four on the North side of Sydney, and
Speaker 3: the unbelievable happened. A serving police officer who'd been undercover
Speaker 3: about to testify in a giant drug case. We shot
Speaker 3: in his own home in front of his wife and
Speaker 3: two small children. When the undercover drug squad officer woke
Speaker 3: for his CAMA twelve days later, he was in no
Speaker 3: doubt that a fellow officer, Roger Rogerson, was involved in
Speaker 3: that assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: My colleague Matt Condon told me that his friend Michael
Speaker 1: Drury had been paying a lot of attention to the
Speaker 1: evidence in our podcast investigation into Bromin's disappearance. Matt confided
Speaker 1: that the long retired detective had focused his still sharp
Speaker 1: inquisitive brain on some of the angles in the case.
Speaker 1: Mick Drury also knows Lennox Head well. The force's most
Speaker 1: bent cop was Roger Rogerson in the nineteen eighties. A
Speaker 1: skilled detective but a sociopathic killer who had crossed the
Speaker 1: dark side. Rogerson ordered the execution of his fellow officer,
Speaker 1: Michael Drury. Many years later, The Sixty Minutes reporter Liz
Speaker 1: Hayes took Mick Drury back to his old home in
Speaker 1: which he was shot twice and almost died.
Speaker 4: This is the kitchen and the kitchen window, of course,
Speaker 4: and unfortunately this is where it all happened. The first
Speaker 4: shot hit me straight through the stomach, into the area
Speaker 4: just next to the backbone and lodged between the ribs,
Speaker 4: and the second shot hit me alongside the heart and
Speaker 4: underneath the shoulder blade.
Speaker 1: He has been living in northern New South Wales for years.
Speaker 1: I wanted to pick his investigative brain. We caught up
Speaker 1: at a roadside cafe. One of the first things Mick
Speaker 1: confided to me there was his awe at the potential
Speaker 1: for true crime podcast investigations to solve old cold cases.
Speaker 5: And when you've got exposure Australia wide and even overseas
Speaker 5: for that matter, you've got tens and tens and tens
Speaker 5: of thousands of people listening to it, that one a
Speaker 5: positive and truthful outcome, and someone out there may have
Speaker 5: a fresh idea. Why would a loving, dedicated mother, for
Speaker 5: no reason whatsoever, after one so called private phone call
Speaker 5: in the bedroom, come out the front and say to
Speaker 5: John Winfield, oh, by the way, I'm off see you later,
Speaker 5: A wave to him, close the door and off into
Speaker 5: the never never and be never seen later. Absolute bullshit.
Speaker 5: That is not correct. I state my entire career on that.
Speaker 5: It just does not ring true. I would love to
Speaker 5: interview him to get his version of the store.
Speaker 1: Mick Drury zeroed in on a crucial period of fewer
Speaker 1: than twenty four hours, the period from when John arrived
Speaker 1: in Lennox Head after the flight from Sydney on Sunday
Speaker 1: evening May sixteenth, until the Monday afternoon when he turned
Speaker 1: up at Andy and Michelle's house in the Shire.
Speaker 5: On that Sunday, he was awake for most of the day,
Speaker 5: had short notice. He caught a plane from Sydney to Ballana.
Speaker 5: I find this interesting. He went to the police station
Speaker 5: and forecast them that he was going to his house
Speaker 5: with some pending, perhaps a verbal drama with his wife
Speaker 5: because they weren't on good terms. John Winfel was a
Speaker 5: dedicated surfboard rider. He brings the surfboard up by plane
Speaker 5: from Sydney, which would indicate is coming home for several days,
Speaker 5: and he leaves later that night. There is no doubt
Speaker 5: in my mind that something very disturbing happened that night
Speaker 5: after driving almost non stop back to Sydney that night
Speaker 5: with amazing stamina and fatigue that I would suggest zero notice.
Speaker 5: He's requested that the mother in law take care of
Speaker 5: the two children, and that freed him up with the
Speaker 5: motor car to do whatever he wanted, unobserved and unsupervised.
Speaker 5: Now that worries me, because then that means he's got
Speaker 5: freedom of use of the motor car whatever may be
Speaker 5: disturbing in the car. I would suggest he was concealed
Speaker 5: in the boot in the hysterics of the moment that
Speaker 5: he must have been going through through in scooping up
Speaker 5: the children, in leaving the house in an extremely untidy condition,
Speaker 5: when he's realized whatever this disaster may be, he has
Speaker 5: jumped in his car and driven non stop to Sydney.
Speaker 5: Something very serious has happened. He has taken flight away
Speaker 5: from the area.
Speaker 1: What about the risk of driving a vehicle that's unregistered
Speaker 1: some eight hundred odd kilometers with a body in the boot.
Speaker 5: As you put it, If there was a body in
Speaker 5: the boot, there is a risk involved. But I would
Speaker 5: suggest Sunday night at twelve midnight, one, two, three, four,
Speaker 5: five in the morning. You don't have that many highway
Speaker 5: patrol in those days on the old wading, very slow
Speaker 5: driving Pacific Highway.
Speaker 1: And in those days, would an unregistered vehicle have been
Speaker 1: immediately obvious to a highway patrol.
Speaker 5: No, he would have known that. He's a man of
Speaker 5: a high degree of intellect. I've got to give him that,
Speaker 5: and he's got more opportunity and flexibility of doing something
Speaker 5: sinister like disposing of a body in the Sydney area.
Speaker 1: That's where John flourished a receipt for petrol purchased for
Speaker 1: the overnight drive from Sandstone Crescent to Sydney with the
Speaker 1: two girls. He produced it to Andy Reid and Michelle Reid.
Speaker 5: I think it's very disturbing behavior. When you're the suspect
Speaker 5: of a crime and you have this ridiculous example of
Speaker 5: alibi construction on the balance of probability does not work
Speaker 5: in your favor. It is a mark against you. It's
Speaker 5: alibi construction by someone who's trying to cover their tracks.
Speaker 5: Bromlin actually had a little bit of a background in banking,
Speaker 5: et cetera, so she would understand the format of a check.
Speaker 5: Back to front. There he is, five years later, being
Speaker 5: interviewed by the police to do a formal statement or interview.
Speaker 5: John Winfield produces this check and claims he founded on
Speaker 5: the kitchen table five years earlier when he went up
Speaker 5: there the second time with her signature on it, and
Speaker 5: it should not have been her signature. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Didn't need her signature? Correct?
Speaker 5: Correct? Why would he keep that check for five years?
Speaker 5: Why would he keep a petrol docket five years? This
Speaker 5: is what's called alibi construction at its finest. It takes
Speaker 5: my breath away. This is nonsense.
Speaker 1: So you're seeing now a pattern of alibi constructions. Oh yes, yes,
Speaker 1: Mick Drury circled back to John's hasty departure from the
Speaker 1: house at Sandstone Crescent, on Sunday night, and then John's
Speaker 1: telephone call from Sydney to his neighbor Murray Nolan two
Speaker 1: days later, asking Murray to break into the house.
Speaker 5: John was very obsessive with the hygiene and placement of
Speaker 5: things around the house that he owned at Lennox Head. Yes,
Speaker 5: now this is important. I believe that he is obsessive
Speaker 5: compulsive in his behavior in that regard. The next door
Speaker 5: neighbor is instructed by John Winfield to go and knock
Speaker 5: on the door of the house and if there's no answer,
Speaker 5: if they be break in, and it's a bit of
Speaker 5: a mess here there and everywhere, the children's bedrooms, the
Speaker 5: kitchen area, and John some days earlier has driven back
Speaker 5: to Sydney and left his house in a mess. I
Speaker 5: find leaving the house in that state or condition diametrically
Speaker 5: opposed to the normality of John Winfield, which is obsessive
Speaker 5: compulsive in that regard what was going through his mind.
Speaker 5: It is so ridiculous that it is, in my opinion humble,
Speaker 5: as it is absolutely compelling evidence of a very disturbing nature.
Speaker 1: Turning to that Monday in Sydney, he has dropped his
Speaker 1: daughters off at his ex wife's house, where his mother
Speaker 1: in law answers the door, and no doubt a bit bewildered,
Speaker 1: agrees to accept the children for several hours. We then
Speaker 1: surmise in the podcast that John may have gone directly
Speaker 1: to this building site at a place called Illawong in
Speaker 1: the Shire where he had been working as a brick
Speaker 1: lath and part of our suspicion over Illawong is based
Speaker 1: on a fairly recent discovery which the police and the
Speaker 1: coroner didn't know about many years ago, and that discovery
Speaker 1: being council documents from nineteen ninety three showing that the
Speaker 1: inspectors of the council had approved just days before Bromwin
Speaker 1: disappeared the pouring of concrete for the patio and the
Speaker 1: garage slab.
Speaker 5: And that's wonderful evidence about the date for approval the
Speaker 5: pouring of the concrete.
Speaker 1: It's possible that Bromwin was put underneath the plastic and
Speaker 1: the rio that was all there ready for the concrete pause,
Speaker 1: and then the paws have occurred and she remains there entombed.
Speaker 5: It's far easier to dig a hole in an area
Speaker 5: like that than it is somewhere around Lennox Head. The
Speaker 5: grave only has to be twelve inches deep and from
Speaker 5: their backfill, was Sad put the plastic over in the
Speaker 5: rio and it's done. It wouldn't be the first time
Speaker 5: our body's been located in that type of location.
Speaker 1: Is that a site that you, if you're a detective
Speaker 1: on this case, would regard as low, medium, or high
Speaker 1: priority based on the circumstantial evidence you've heard in the podcast.
Speaker 5: My view is when I look at the movement to
Speaker 5: John Winfield from that fabled Sunday night, it is absolutely
Speaker 5: critical to find out what may be happening underneath. That
Speaker 5: is a vital area of consideration for intense forensic examination.
Speaker 1: Listening to the podcast as closely as you do as
Speaker 1: a retired detective of impeccable standing and knowing the area
Speaker 1: Lenox and Ballana surrounding beaches, do you feel a connection
Speaker 1: to this case that has led you to volunteer this.
Speaker 5: Help Look Podcasts are very very new forms of educational
Speaker 5: entertainment in this modern day for everyone in the community.
Speaker 5: It gives an opportunity for those tens of thousands of
Speaker 5: people out there in Australia and perhaps overseas to send
Speaker 5: you emails or ring you up or one of your
Speaker 5: staff members and say what about this?
Speaker 1: What about that?
Speaker 5: We're doing a process of critically analyzing the facts that
Speaker 5: we're aware of. You have an investigational team of ten
Speaker 5: thousand or more. That's one hell of a team. This
Speaker 5: is a twenty first century version of Sherlock Holmes before.
Speaker 1: You read the final chapter. When investigations go bad at
Speaker 1: an early stage, there's a tendency for people to speculate
Speaker 1: that it must have been because of corruption.
Speaker 5: With the benefit of hindsight, it's very easy to be
Speaker 5: critical of an individual or what may or may not
Speaker 5: or should or should not have been done. We're not
Speaker 5: dealing with a shoplifting from the local corner store. We're
Speaker 5: dealing with a suspected murder. It doesn't come more serious
Speaker 5: than a suspected murder. I happen to know retired Detective
Speaker 5: Sergeant Graham Diskin personally. He actually joined the cops with
Speaker 5: me the same class. I haven't seen him for forty
Speaker 5: years or more. I won't go into the way his
Speaker 5: mind works. I don't want to be unfairly critical of anyone,
Speaker 5: but I can tell you now something very disturbing happened
Speaker 5: on that Sunday night.
Speaker 1: We do not know whether the owners of the Illawong
Speaker 1: house share our suspicions and the suspicions of thousands of listeners.
Speaker 1: For all we know, those owners have never heard of
Speaker 1: the Bromwin podcast. But I have talked to Cariina and
Speaker 1: Andy about whether perhaps we should visit, introduce ourselves to
Speaker 1: the owners and just tell them about everything.
Speaker 6: I was just thinking back to what Maddie said one day.
Speaker 6: I think you and Maddie and Andy Hedley were in
Speaker 6: the car driving away from Illowong, and Maddie said, can
Speaker 6: you imagine if someone came up to your door and Toddy,
Speaker 6: this may be a person underneath your what?
Speaker 7: I don't know if i'd like to hear that.
Speaker 6: How would you even approach that? I guess I worry
Speaker 6: that we might cause them some angst and concern at
Speaker 6: a time when we can't do anything much to alleviate that.
Speaker 1: I feel like it would be transparent of us and
Speaker 1: talked so much about this property to talk to the
Speaker 1: owners without putting any pressure on them. We can just
Speaker 1: talk to them on background, just a conversation to fill
Speaker 1: in any gaps they might have.
Speaker 6: We don't know what the current state of play is
Speaker 6: with the police, so we can't really give them particularly
Speaker 6: up to date information or tell them what the lie
Speaker 6: of the land is at the moment. I mean, obviously
Speaker 6: they could turn us away. That's not the end of
Speaker 6: the world for us. But I'm a bit worried about
Speaker 6: the effect that it could have on them as a family,
Speaker 6: especially if they have children. If they know nothing at
Speaker 6: the minute and we sort of go and burst that bubble,
Speaker 6: then it could potentially cause them quite a lot of
Speaker 6: stress and anxiety, I think.
Speaker 1: But if we're assuming that the police will go there
Speaker 1: to search, then that bubble is going to be burst anyway.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it will. But again I think there's a difference
Speaker 6: between having your bubble burst by law enforcement. They could
Speaker 6: really welcome contact from us and might have been say, oh,
Speaker 6: we've been waiting for you to get in touch. But
Speaker 6: on the other hand, it might just come completely out
Speaker 6: of the blue and be a real shock.
Speaker 1: But what if nothing's going to happen despite the letter
Speaker 1: to the state coroner, despite the new evidence pointing to Illowong,
Speaker 1: nothing happens. Let's hypothetically say that we have chosen to
Speaker 1: avoid the family at Illowong, to knock go and knock
Speaker 1: on the door and introduce ourselves in good faith, and
Speaker 1: then the promin series comes to an end. The police
Speaker 1: keept diverted elsewhere. You and I are diverted elsewhere onto
Speaker 1: another murder investigation, and Illawong goes completely overlooked, and we
Speaker 1: never ever spoke to the family, who may say, look,
Speaker 1: if the police have no interest in searching our property.
Speaker 6: Will you and I see what you mean about the
Speaker 6: fact that people might move on and get distracted by
Speaker 6: other things. But it is something we could revisit down
Speaker 6: the track if there was no police action ultimately taken.
Speaker 1: Do you agree that it's more likely than not the
Speaker 1: family living there knows about the history of that property.
Speaker 6: There's definitely a possibility that they know about it.
Speaker 1: What is the worst thing could happen by us going
Speaker 1: there and introducing ourselves and just offering to answer questions
Speaker 1: and telling them that in the event police don't search,
Speaker 1: we'd like to come back and talk to them.
Speaker 6: The worst thing that can happen is that we approach
Speaker 6: the owners at the Llowong house now at this stage
Speaker 6: when there's not a real need to go there, and
Speaker 6: they are unhappy about that contact from us, And then
Speaker 6: down the track the authorities might decide not to go
Speaker 6: to Illawong, and we really do need to go in
Speaker 6: at that point if we want to try to bring
Speaker 6: about a search of the site, and the owners might
Speaker 6: be less inclined to engage with us at that time
Speaker 6: if we've sort of irritated them now through an unnecessary approach.
Speaker 1: I was going to stand right behind you when you
Speaker 1: knocked on the door, just.
Speaker 8: Time it off and made it my responsibility.
Speaker 1: Andy was going about his own building job when I
Speaker 1: reached him to talk about it. The owners of that
Speaker 1: house in Illawong must now know that it's their house
Speaker 1: that has been discussed in the podcast as being a
Speaker 1: possible burial ground.
Speaker 9: For Bromwind thinks, so, yeah, don't don't know that.
Speaker 10: It wouldn't surprise me. Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 1: Your all, how did you feel about you and I am,
Speaker 1: possibly Karina going up to that property and offering to
Speaker 1: answer any of their questions based on the that they
Speaker 1: do know and we're not trying to cause them trouble,
Speaker 1: and we have the one to identify the property really
Speaker 1: just as a good will gesture, and we'll ask them,
Speaker 1: how would you feel about the police coming here? If
Speaker 1: that's their decision, but we won't be saying to them
Speaker 1: we want to do it ourselves. We wouldn't be interfering
Speaker 1: with the site in doing that, we wouldn't be contaminating anything.
Speaker 1: We'd simply be knocking on the door and offering to
Speaker 1: have a chat to them about what's been unfolding, but
Speaker 1: not asking them for their permission to do anything subterranean.
Speaker 1: This is based on that assumption that they must know
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 9: How would we find out whether they know about it,
Speaker 9: because you'd be pretty confronting for them if they didn't
Speaker 9: and we turned up there, Well.
Speaker 1: We can't find out whether they know. We just have
Speaker 1: to front up. But what are the chances they don't?
Speaker 1: And he clearly feels for the people living at that
Speaker 1: address in Illawong if the police are going to visit
Speaker 1: and do a proper search under concrete there, and his
Speaker 1: view is that it should be done quietly.
Speaker 9: I've long thought that it would be beneficial to that
Speaker 9: family that you've siftly turn up there and you've put
Speaker 9: a building shine out in the front, as if that
Speaker 9: family's doing some renovations, and you'd go in there and
Speaker 9: quietly do the work you're playing close. Why would you
Speaker 9: turn up there with all the fans there and crap?
Speaker 9: So make a song and dance about it.
Speaker 1: You really acknowledge that, but made that ship has sailed.
Speaker 1: Neighbors will just put on social media. Word'll get out
Speaker 1: and then about half an hour you'll have TV crews
Speaker 1: there because they'll realize what's going on. It's just not
Speaker 1: possible anymore to do this quietly. In view, I reckon, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just a show, all right, mate, I'll let you go.
Speaker 1: You're on a building site, yep. Yeah, make sure you
Speaker 1: get the levels right of course.
Speaker 9: Mate.
Speaker 1: Before we reconstructed the five days of the two thousand
Speaker 1: and two Inquest with episodes that were faithful to the evidence,
Speaker 1: you heard a lot from John Winfield's nineteen ninety eight
Speaker 1: record of interview with the then detective Sergeant Glenn Taylor.
Speaker 1: That interview was held in the Ballaner police station, right
Speaker 1: near the start of Glenn's reinvestigation of Bromwin's disappearance. You'll
Speaker 1: recall that over multiple episodes, Glenn re enacted his questions
Speaker 1: from the official transcript of that interview, and a voice
Speaker 1: actor for John Winfield read the answers, which the real
Speaker 1: John gave. Here's a reminder of the very start of
Speaker 1: that interview. It's from episode fourteen.
Speaker 10: The interview has commenced at eight fifty two AM. For
Speaker 10: the purpose of the tape record, Can everyone present state
Speaker 10: their full name on Detective Sergeant Glenn William Taylor.
Speaker 1: Detective Senior Constable Wayne Tembe introduced himself, and John followed.
Speaker 5: Suit Jonathan Winfield.
Speaker 10: Mister Winfield. As I've already explained to you, Detective Temby
Speaker 10: and I are making inquiries in relation to the disappearance
Speaker 10: of your wife Broman Joey Winfield on or about the
Speaker 10: sixteenth of May nineteen ninety three from Lennox Head. We're
Speaker 10: going to ask you some further questions about this matter.
Speaker 10: These questions and any answers that you care to give
Speaker 10: to those questions will be recorded electronically, both on video
Speaker 10: and audio cassette tapes as the interview takes place. Do
Speaker 10: you understand that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, some former and serving police and several lawyers
Speaker 1: with experience in criminal defense work have been in touch
Speaker 1: since the interview between John and Glenn Taylor featured heavily
Speaker 1: in the podcast. They wanted to raise something that is
Speaker 1: troubling if true. They are concerned that the formal interview
Speaker 1: which John did might not be admissible evidence in the
Speaker 1: event of any prosecution. The reason for their concern revolves
Speaker 1: around something known as a caution. A suspect needs to
Speaker 1: be alerted to his or her rights, one of which
Speaker 1: is the right to silence, the right to say nothing
Speaker 1: at all. The record shows that Glenn did not caution John,
Speaker 1: did not tell him that he had the right to
Speaker 1: say nothing at all. As you'll hear later, that was
Speaker 1: a deliberate decision by Glenn. He had his reasons for
Speaker 1: omitting the caution, and he explains those reasons. Ultimately, it
Speaker 1: could be up to a judge to determine. Karina Burgers
Speaker 1: spoke to Rachel Fisher, a lawyer experienced in criminal defense cases,
Speaker 1: about the caution, why it is important, and what can
Speaker 1: happen under certain circumstances if no caution is given.
Speaker 8: Can you explain what a caution is?
Speaker 6: What does that mean?
Speaker 11: So a caution is a legal requirement that is to
Speaker 11: be given to an individual who is in police custody
Speaker 11: being interviewed. It is a phrase of wording that essentially
Speaker 11: is critical and very important to make sure the person
Speaker 11: being interviewed understands that they essentially don't have to participate
Speaker 11: in the process, and they don't have to answer any questions,
Speaker 11: and if they choose to do that, or if they
Speaker 11: choose to participate in the interview, that anything that they
Speaker 11: say can and usually is used in any proceedings against them.
Speaker 6: In what circumstances should a person be given a caution?
Speaker 6: If they're being interviewed by police, in every circumstance they
Speaker 6: should be cautioned.
Speaker 1: Rachel works with Street and Lawyers in Sydney. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, she was recognized by members of the profession
Speaker 1: as a criminal law rising star in what's called the
Speaker 1: Doyle's Guide.
Speaker 8: As a defense solicitor, Rachel, would you make an application
Speaker 8: to exclude an interview in which a caution wasn't given
Speaker 8: to a person? Would you do that? As a matter
Speaker 8: of course.
Speaker 11: It would really come down to whether or not I
Speaker 11: was at the view that the interview or anything that
Speaker 11: was contained within the interview was essentially problematic or against
Speaker 11: my client's interests. If my client is sitting down with
Speaker 11: police and making what we refer to as admissions, which
Speaker 11: is statements that go against their interest, then absolutely it
Speaker 11: would be the first thing that I do. My first
Speaker 11: question is did you participate in an interview? And if
Speaker 11: they say yes, well, one of the first things that
Speaker 11: I check in the transcript or the recording of that
Speaker 11: interview is whether or not they were given a caution,
Speaker 11: because if they weren't given a caution, it is very
Speaker 11: standard for me to make an application to exclude it. Obviously,
Speaker 11: I'll make the strategic call to not make the application
Speaker 11: if the interview is from my perspective, something that assists
Speaker 11: them or makes them look better, or provides explanations for
Speaker 11: things that I think are helpful or in their interests.
Speaker 11: But that is quite rare.
Speaker 6: And if someone isn't a suspect at the time of
Speaker 6: their interview, let's say they're being treated as a witness, would.
Speaker 8: You expect that person to be cautioned.
Speaker 11: They don't have to be cautioned necessarily in the same
Speaker 11: way that someone who is a protected suspect or someone
Speaker 11: who's been arrested is. But I think it's quite important
Speaker 11: for police to tell people that they don't have an
Speaker 11: obligation to speak to them.
Speaker 8: But that's as high as it's taken.
Speaker 11: They don't have to caution them in the way because
Speaker 11: they're not necessarily talking to police whilst being expected of
Speaker 11: committing a crime, so they don't necessarily have the right
Speaker 11: to silence. But they are not in the same position
Speaker 11: as someone who's been charged or is being suspected of
Speaker 11: committing an offense.
Speaker 6: And hypothetically, if you were acting for someone who's interviewed
Speaker 6: in the capacity of a witness, So they're not a
Speaker 6: suspect at that stage, but they later go on to
Speaker 6: become a suspect in say a murder investigation, and they
Speaker 6: hadn't been cautioned in their initial witness interview. What do
Speaker 6: you think you might do in that situation as a
Speaker 6: defense solicitor for them, Well, I would absolutely look at
Speaker 6: putting on an application to exclude it. And one of
Speaker 6: the basis upon which to do that is to try
Speaker 6: to ascertain and understand whether or not the police actually
Speaker 6: did have a reasonable suspicion or a suspicion that they
Speaker 6: were involved in some way. Police can often speak to
Speaker 6: people and say, I just want to hear your side
Speaker 6: of the story. I don't necessarily think that you've done
Speaker 6: anything wrong, and treat them like a witness, speak to
Speaker 6: them as if they are a witness and haven't given
Speaker 6: them their rights, whereas the police state of mind and
Speaker 6: the reason that they're doing certain things is critical. So
Speaker 6: if there is anything that I would discover, usually through
Speaker 6: a subpoena of police notebooks, police indices, that would indicate
Speaker 6: that there might be some reason that the police have
Speaker 6: a suspicion about this individual and they haven't treated them
Speaker 6: like they are a suspect and they haven't given them
Speaker 6: their rights, but there could be something in the back
Speaker 6: of their mind that might be raising that suspicion. I
Speaker 6: would absolutely be putting on an application to exclude it
Speaker 6: on the basis that the police have improperly obtained an interview.
Speaker 6: It doesn't necessarily mean if they're not cautioned that anything
Speaker 6: that they say is automatically excluded.
Speaker 11: There's no guarantee because that application is balancing test. The
Speaker 11: law says that sometimes the desirability of admitting evidence that
Speaker 11: is improperly or unlawfully obtained outwighs the undesirability of losing
Speaker 11: evidence that's what we refer to is really probative or
Speaker 11: really strong. So it's a balancing exercise by the court.
Speaker 8: And why is.
Speaker 6: A police caution during an interview so important.
Speaker 11: That requirement is underpinned by a fundamental principle in our
Speaker 11: criminal law system, which is the right to silence. People
Speaker 11: need to understand that if they are being investigated or
Speaker 11: suspected of committing a crime, that they have a right
Speaker 11: to silence. They don't have to answer police questions, and
Speaker 11: they don't have to essentially assist the authorities who are
Speaker 11: looking to investigate whether or not they have committed an offense.
Speaker 11: The caution is essentially the practical way in which those
Speaker 11: rights are secured.
Speaker 1: Of course, every case is different with unique circumstances. At
Speaker 1: the time of the interview in Ballana Police Station, Glenn
Speaker 1: Taylor was an experienced detective. He had investigated and helped
Speaker 1: solve murders while working for the homicide squad in the
Speaker 1: city of Newcastle, north of Sydney. As you'll hear, Glenn
Speaker 1: still believes that it was appropriate for him to not
Speaker 1: caution John because of the interview occurring at a very
Speaker 1: early stage of Glenn's investigation. However, he acknowledges that a
Speaker 1: criminal defense lawyer would possibly try to bring a challenge
Speaker 1: about it and seek to knock all the evidence from
Speaker 1: John's interview out of a possible future prosecution.
Speaker 12: Joel winf was the very first person that was the
Speaker 12: interview just to commit aversion from him, And that's why
Speaker 12: I did an issue a cause. If you've got a suspect,
Speaker 12: you may have enough evidence to charge a person early
Speaker 12: in the interview, you would administer a formal call that
Speaker 12: they don't have to say anything unless they wished to,
Speaker 12: as anything they say may later be given in evidence.
Speaker 12: So we didn't use that caution because at that point
Speaker 12: in time we simply didn't have any formal statements taken
Speaker 12: and we had very little information other than what was
Speaker 12: in the running sheets of Detective Sergeant Diskin. There's a
Speaker 12: little bit of a fine line administering a caution that
Speaker 12: this stage we were not at that level. I mean,
Speaker 12: we didn't have not one statement from the previous investigation
Speaker 12: with all we had was running sheets from Diskin to
Speaker 12: say they'd spoken to him and they've spoken to the
Speaker 12: neighbor and she hadn't touched the bank accounts. But we
Speaker 12: didn't have anything concrete or been written for that would
Speaker 12: want him getting a caution. So that's why the commencement
Speaker 12: of the interview I still wanted him to be legally
Speaker 12: bound to say what he's going to say, to the
Speaker 12: best of his knowledge is the truth.
Speaker 1: Glenn is talking here about what he read to John
Speaker 1: at the start of the interview. Here's another reminder from
Speaker 1: episode fourteen.
Speaker 10: I'm just going to read this onto the record here
Speaker 10: and if you understand it, I'll just get you to
Speaker 10: acknowledge that the statement made by you accurately sets out
Speaker 10: the evidence which you will be prepared, if necessary, to
Speaker 10: give in court as a witness. The statement is true
Speaker 10: to the best of your knowledge and belief, and you
Speaker 10: make it knowing that if it is tended in evidence,
Speaker 10: you shall be liable to prosecution if you are rawfully
Speaker 10: stated in it anything which you know to be false
Speaker 10: or do not believe to be true to you give
Speaker 10: an undertaking to tell the truth in his interview.
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, so that paradought read out to him is
Speaker 12: like a declaration by any witness. When you interviewed in
Speaker 12: New South Wales and when you take a statement from somebody,
Speaker 12: you're saying that what you're going to say in the
Speaker 12: statement is the truth, and you know you could be
Speaker 12: prosecuted if you're telling deliberate laws. But in a legal sense,
Speaker 12: you have not made up your mind at that point
Speaker 12: that they're sufficient to.
Speaker 1: Charge without a caution. Is that record of your interview
Speaker 1: with him admissible in a murder prosecution?
Speaker 12: Hypothetically, Well, that would be opened to a court a
Speaker 12: judge to decide that at the time that was taken
Speaker 12: in good faith. I believe it would be admissible because
Speaker 12: as an investigator, we had not made up our mind
Speaker 12: that there was sufficient evidence at that point, because we
Speaker 12: vientually hadn't interviewed anyone. And then, when a detective trained,
Speaker 12: you should only administer a caution when you believe there's
Speaker 12: sufficient evidence that crime's been committed and you have sufficient
Speaker 12: evidence to wright this person being charged. When we interviewed him,
Speaker 12: he was like everyone else we're interviewing early an investigation.
Speaker 12: He was a witness. There's something myself and Wayne Tenby
Speaker 12: would have considered before we even brought him into the
Speaker 12: police station. Okay, what do we know to this point?
Speaker 12: There was certainly a lot of things we didn't know.
Speaker 12: It's sometimes good to get someone committed to a version
Speaker 12: early in the peace, before we've interviewed all the other witnesses,
Speaker 12: and after you've got a person committed to a version
Speaker 12: you can come back to them later. But by the
Speaker 12: time we finished the investigation, it was clearly of the
Speaker 12: view that he's either got to charge with murder now
Speaker 12: and that was considered, or let's test all the evidence
Speaker 12: before a coroner and then put a submission to the
Speaker 12: coroner that the coroner referred to the DPP, which we
Speaker 12: thought would be the more appropriate way to go about it.
Speaker 12: We could have invited him back for a second interview,
Speaker 12: but we strongly believe by that time that he would
Speaker 12: have had legal representation and said no, I'm not willing
Speaker 12: to be interviewed, not willing to answer any further questions.
Speaker 12: Because we would have then had to give him a caution.
Speaker 12: He would know then that he's no longer just being
Speaker 12: able to be treated as a weakness. He's going to
Speaker 12: be treated as a suspect. There's no set thing in
Speaker 12: police rules and instructions as to who should interview first.
Speaker 12: There's benefits probably both ways. If we had gone the
Speaker 12: other way around and interviewed everyone else and then invited
Speaker 12: him in for an interview, I feel pretty confident that
Speaker 12: he would have been legally represented or advised was solicitor
Speaker 12: not to answer any questions we would get no version
Speaker 12: from him whatsoever. That's my belief. You were to closed
Speaker 12: up shop and said no, I'm not going to answer
Speaker 12: anything because you clearly think I've murdered Bromlin. I believe
Speaker 12: myself personally it could be it should be still admissible,
Speaker 12: because we had not come to any reasonable belief that
Speaker 12: we're going to charge him. Even at that point or
Speaker 12: even later, we needed to gather evidence. We certainly had
Speaker 12: some suspicion because there was red flags flying everywhere that
Speaker 12: this is more than just a missing person.
Speaker 1: Retired New South Wales homicide detective Stuart Wilkins played a
Speaker 1: key role in the investigation of the serial killer Ivan Malatt.
Speaker 1: But I spoke to Stuart in December twenty seventeen about
Speaker 1: the Chris Dawson matter because in January nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: Stuart Wilkins was a relatively junior detective and he went
Speaker 1: to the Gold Coast with the season Detective Sergeant Paul
Speaker 1: Mager to conduct a formal recorded interview with Chris Dawson
Speaker 1: over his wife Lynn's disappearance eight years earlier. Stuart went
Speaker 1: on to help solve many murders in the homicide squad
Speaker 1: in New South Wales. Here's what he told me shortly
Speaker 1: before Christmas twenty seventeen, as we sat at the kitchen
Speaker 1: table in his home and he recounted that nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: one interview with Chris Dawson.
Speaker 13: And you'll see during the interview he was cautioned did
Speaker 13: he need not answer any further questions and the rules
Speaker 13: of evidence are quite clear our minds we had potentially
Speaker 13: enough evidence to heading down a criminal path.
Speaker 1: The caution was given at around the half way mark
Speaker 1: of the police interview. The then detective Sergeant Paul Magar.
Speaker 14: Says, Chris, I'm going to ask you questions, a series
Speaker 14: of questions now, but before I do, I want you
Speaker 14: to understand that you're not obliged to answer these questions
Speaker 14: unless you wish to do so, because anything you do
Speaker 14: say will be recorded and may later be used in
Speaker 14: evidence at court. I'm not saying that it will be,
Speaker 14: but it may be. Do you understand that.
Speaker 13: Yeah, So, anything that he said after that time was
Speaker 13: given to us after a caution was given to him,
Speaker 13: and the caution years, of course, that anything you say
Speaker 13: will be used or will or can be used an
Speaker 13: interview for court.
Speaker 15: Lord.
Speaker 1: The video recording and transcript from that interview which Chris
Speaker 1: Dawson did in nineteen ninety one with detectives Stuart Wilkins
Speaker 1: and Paul Magar, were admissible in Dawson's Murder Trap in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, and those documents were important parts of
Speaker 1: the prosecution's evidence all those years later.
Speaker 13: The law expects us as investigators to ensure that if
Speaker 13: we think we've got enough evidence to at least put
Speaker 13: a charge or put someone before a court in any format,
Speaker 13: that we should caution them before we actually speak to them.
Speaker 13: And I've been in a number of homicide investigations where
Speaker 13: unfortunately that caution wasn't delivered prior to police asking questions
Speaker 13: of suspects, and the actual information and the answers to
Speaker 13: those questions have been precluded from being accepted the court
Speaker 13: because of the very rules of evidence.
Speaker 1: It is very difficult and it gets frustrated.
Speaker 13: I remember another case where there was the execution murder
Speaker 13: of an X and his partners actually had taken out
Speaker 13: a contract and actually killed at Porchat. We interviewed the
Speaker 13: suspect and whilst he wasn't a suspect at the time,
Speaker 13: the law and the legal process was that we should
Speaker 13: afford that he was a suspect no matter what information
Speaker 13: we had of so we lengthy in detailed interview of
Speaker 13: him that unfortunately got precluded to evidence.
Speaker 1: I told Andy Reid and his wife Michelle of the
Speaker 1: potential complications with the nineteen ninety eighth interview of John
Speaker 1: Winfield at Ballana Police Station. It's giving them that notification
Speaker 1: up front, the caution words like the words that you
Speaker 1: have to use you have the right to ride silent
Speaker 1: to ensure that what is said in that interview can
Speaker 1: be admissible. Otherwise defense lawyers will say, well, can't use it.
Speaker 1: I asked a former police officer with legal qualifications.
Speaker 12: To read the record of interview.
Speaker 1: It is possible that despite there being what we believe
Speaker 1: is evidence of deceptive answers and lies in the interview,
Speaker 1: they may not actually be admissible at all in the
Speaker 1: event of any case. Maybe that was part of the
Speaker 1: consideration of the original DPP.
Speaker 16: Well, we didn't actually get a specific reason. We only
Speaker 16: just got a very generalized reason that they weren't going
Speaker 16: for it. You might be quite aware that anything he
Speaker 16: said in that interview is not going to be able
Speaker 16: to be used anyway. This might be the reason he
Speaker 16: says things like the little or blow over. That's a
Speaker 16: bit of a bummer.
Speaker 13: It's just my knowing.
Speaker 1: It's a double edged sword, isn't it. Yeah, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Andy and Michelle have given me a copy of a
Speaker 1: letter they received from Glenn Taylor in two thousand and three,
Speaker 1: one year after the inquest. At that time, Glenn had
Speaker 1: recently retired as Ballina's Detective Sergeant of Police. Glenn has
Speaker 1: not been able to let Bromin's case go. He is
Speaker 1: still offering help and advice, even where it throws a
Speaker 1: poor light on police and on the badge that he
Speaker 1: wore with pride. Glenn has been challenged in Ballina by
Speaker 1: serving police who are unhappy that he has spoken his
Speaker 1: mind in the podcast, but he has also been congratulated
Speaker 1: by retired and serving police who hope that it will
Speaker 1: make a difference. Glen agreed to read some of his
Speaker 1: two thousand and three letter. It was sent soon after
Speaker 1: he had visited his old workplace at Ballena Police Station.
Speaker 1: He went there about giving evidence in court for another case,
Speaker 1: but what he saw prompted him to write to Andy
Speaker 1: and Michelle.
Speaker 12: To my disappointment, I found that all of my old investigations,
Speaker 12: including Broman's disappearance, have been thrown into a storage room
Speaker 12: with other old court briefs. I found four boxes relating
Speaker 12: to Broman's disappearance scattered all over the room. I've now
Speaker 12: put them all into one area of the storage room
Speaker 12: to try to keep them together, but I am not
Speaker 12: sure what will happen now that I'm no longer there.
Speaker 12: Another detective should have been assigned the investigation in case
Speaker 12: further information comes to hand, and to keep the police
Speaker 12: brief intact, but it is obvious that this hasn't happened.
Speaker 12: I have obtained some documents out of the four boxes,
Speaker 12: and I have enclosed a copy here for you. It
Speaker 12: beggars belief that criminal investigation files for unsolved cases as
Speaker 12: serious as alleged murder was thrown in police stations with
Speaker 12: such a cavalier disregard for victims of crime and their
Speaker 12: loved ones.
Speaker 1: Glenn Taylor quit shortly after the two thousand and two
Speaker 1: inquests run by Karl Milavanovitch, as he disclosed to Andy
Speaker 1: and Michelle read in his.
Speaker 12: Letter, Unfortunately I couldn't continue in the near Southwelles Police
Speaker 12: after twenty seven years aden of them. As a detective,
Speaker 12: I was just mentally burnt out. I will leave in
Speaker 12: hope for you that one day justice will be done
Speaker 12: and John Winfield will be brought to account. Hopefully Bromlin's
Speaker 12: remains will one day be found.
Speaker 1: The preservation of evidence from unsolved homicide should be one
Speaker 1: of the most important priorities for every police force, but
Speaker 1: there have been some lamentable failures. In Romlin's case, documents disappeared,
Speaker 1: and it also happened in the case of Lynn Dawson
Speaker 1: now known as Lynn Simms. In late twenty seventeen, during
Speaker 1: interviews with Lynn's brother Greg Simms and his wife Marilyn,
Speaker 1: they disclosed the loss of important evidence in the original
Speaker 1: homicide investigation we were.
Speaker 17: Interview Dug I would say about nineteen eighty eight, eighty
Speaker 17: nine here and.
Speaker 1: Then the Regial Chrome Squad was disbanded and all their
Speaker 1: paperwork and everything went to different areas. A year or
Speaker 1: two after that.
Speaker 7: Our original statements we had taken were lost.
Speaker 12: They went to Missing Persons and got lost from there.
Speaker 17: And we didn't have copies of those.
Speaker 15: It's been a miss.
Speaker 6: The whole thing's been at real miss.
Speaker 1: Five years after I spoke to Greg and Maryland. A
Speaker 1: retired homicide squad detective gave evidence at Chris Dawson's murder
Speaker 1: trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court about the
Speaker 1: loss of evidence at an early stage in the case.
Speaker 1: It got little attention at the time. These are the
Speaker 1: retired detective's words. It's not his voice.
Speaker 18: When we relocated from the Chatswit office into the centralized
Speaker 18: system over in Surrey Hills, all our records, all our briefs,
Speaker 18: everything was boxed up and taken into storage. And I
Speaker 18: had later visited warehouse to try to find something else,
Speaker 18: and what I found was quite a disaster. There were
Speaker 18: boxes of records stacked four and five high cardboard boxes
Speaker 18: from all of the crime squads and they'd been there
Speaker 18: on this concrete floor for so many months. The weight
Speaker 18: at the top had started to collapse the bottom boxes
Speaker 18: and the damp had come through the concrete. It was
Speaker 18: just a mess. Really, trying to find stuff was almost impossible.
Speaker 1: Glenn Taylor's experience and the disclosures like those you just
Speaker 1: heard from a retired detective who was giving testimony under
Speaker 1: oath begs a couple of questions, how many cases of
Speaker 1: vital importance to hundreds of people will be forever unsolved
Speaker 1: because the evidence has been lost or destroyed due to
Speaker 1: thoughtless or incompetent handling. Do the families of the victims
Speaker 1: even know that the historical records are gone. The loss
Speaker 1: or destruction of evidence from unsolved cold cases is more
Speaker 1: often than not swept under the carpet. Fortunately, the problem
Speaker 1: has been formally recognized.
Speaker 19: An eight eighth month inquiry into the police investigations of
Speaker 19: unsolved gay hate deaths revealed police files were missing or lost.
Speaker 19: Some exhibits, including the murder weapon in a number of cases,
Speaker 19: had been lost as well.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three in New
Speaker 1: South Wales, a special Commission of Inquiry investigated unsolved LGBTIQ
Speaker 1: murders and assaults and the unresponsiveness of police in many
Speaker 1: of these cases. The inquiry was led by the then
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Justice John Sacer, he has since retired. In
Speaker 1: his final report, Justice Sacca called out.
Speaker 20: The historical legacy of poor record and exhibit management practices
Speaker 20: concerning unsolved homicides, and he wrote in some cases entire
Speaker 20: sections of investigative files appeared to be missing, with limited
Speaker 20: evidence from which to discern whether records had been lost
Speaker 20: or never made. Significant exhibits had often been lost or destroyed.
Speaker 20: It became apparent that there were long standing problems with
Speaker 20: exhibit and documentary record management within the New South Wales
Speaker 20: Police Force.
Speaker 1: Justice Sakker questioned Detective Chief Inspector David Laidlaw of the
Speaker 1: Unsold Homicide Unit during the inquiry. We have relied on
Speaker 1: a voice actor to read out the now retired Judge Sackers' findings,
Speaker 1: but we do have the actual audio from the exchange
Speaker 1: with Inspector laid Law during the inquiry.
Speaker 21: Has it ever occurred to anyone in the New South
Speaker 21: Wales Police Force at a specially funded project be in
Speaker 21: urgently to take place, by way of audit of all
Speaker 21: unsolved matters to find out where the records are such
Speaker 21: that do exist, whether exhibits are sitting in boxes somewhere untested,
Speaker 21: which may be. These are all people's lives and people's.
Speaker 22: Families are so I appreciate that and as anyone, as
Speaker 22: far as you know, ever put to the Commissioner, a
Speaker 22: current one or any chronic commissioner, some specially funded project
Speaker 22: is urgently needed to get a grip on all of
Speaker 22: these unsold cases on aware.
Speaker 1: The inquiri's report, including recommendations, was delivered in December twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three and it ran to almost three and a
Speaker 1: half thousand pages. Recommendation ten was that the New South
Speaker 1: Wales Police.
Speaker 20: Force conduct a systematic review or audit of all unsolved
Speaker 20: homicides pertaining to the period nineteen seventy to twenty ten,
Speaker 20: including an audit of what exhibits have been retained in
Speaker 20: relation to each death and their current location.
Speaker 1: This is very significant because it recommends a review of
Speaker 1: all unsold homicides and is not limited to unsolved suspected
Speaker 1: hate crime deaths. The Police Commissioner Karen Webb said sorry
Speaker 1: to victims and families who had been failed by New
Speaker 1: South Wales Police, including for.
Speaker 6: The gaps in those investigative processes where records and exhibits
Speaker 6: were lost or not examined with enough rigor.
Speaker 1: Our research suggests there may be more than two hundred
Speaker 1: unsolved homicides requiring auditing, and that twenty five detectives have
Speaker 1: been assigned to help. Michelle and Andy have forged what
Speaker 1: they believe will be long and deep connections with people
Speaker 1: who have come forward in the podcast to help and
Speaker 1: give them moral support, but this series is still coming
Speaker 1: at a heavy personal cost. Their connection to their niece,
Speaker 1: Bromman's eldest daughter, Crystal, who is siding with Lauren and
Speaker 1: John and Jody, was frayed before we took the break.
Speaker 1: At the end of episode thirty two, connection appears to
Speaker 1: be severed, at least for now. Can you just paraphrase
Speaker 1: what Crystal told you, Andy?
Speaker 9: She said, Look, I can't be in contact at the
Speaker 9: moment because I don't agree with your version of events,
Speaker 9: and I need to be there for my family, meaning
Speaker 9: she needs to be there for the Lena's Head side
Speaker 9: of the family more than the Sydney side of the family,
Speaker 9: which I thought was pretty confronting. Now obviously feeling rather
Speaker 9: that way, mate.
Speaker 1: So she's rejecting the arguments and the facts and narrative
Speaker 1: of the podcast series.
Speaker 9: She refers to them as a version, when all we're
Speaker 9: doing is following the facts and the statements and the
Speaker 9: information that's on public records. So I'm not sure why
Speaker 9: you refer to it as a version, because this isn't fiction,
Speaker 9: you know what I mean. We're not making this stuff up.
Speaker 9: But I firmly believe that's because of the pressure that's
Speaker 9: put on her and the parrot that's sort of always forever.
Speaker 9: They're being dangled about having a relationship, but it's not
Speaker 9: really a true relationship.
Speaker 1: Crystal's in her early forties and you've known her since
Speaker 1: well since she was a baby, yep. At times as
Speaker 1: an adult, have you observed her having a very different
Speaker 1: perspective and view about her stepfather John and his alleged conduct.
Speaker 9: Yes, well, look at her statement and her evidence given.
Speaker 9: There's some fairly damning sort of evidence there and in
Speaker 9: her testimonial.
Speaker 1: But is it the case that when you telephone her
Speaker 1: she doesn't pick up the phone.
Speaker 10: No, she doesn't want at all.
Speaker 9: She's even taken Mel off Facebook. He's taken Mel off
Speaker 9: Socialism isn't in touch with Mel anymore.
Speaker 1: Mel's mum, deb told me that yesterday. Melanie Taylor has
Speaker 1: shared memories and observations of Bromwyn and John from the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties when Mel and Crystal were close friends and
Speaker 1: childhood neighbors in Sandstone Crescent. Mel saw Bromwin and her
Speaker 1: girls leave the house as part of Bromwin's termination of
Speaker 1: the marriage with John. Mel was there when Crystal, Lauren,
Speaker 1: and Bromwin returned to the house while John was living
Speaker 1: away and working in the shire in May nineteen ninety.
Speaker 15: Three to got back to that home to give the
Speaker 15: kids a house rather than will be unit and be
Speaker 15: the mum And for all I know is that's what she.
Speaker 1: Ever wanted, And over the years it's been suggested that
Speaker 1: Bromwin just went off to, as John said, start a
Speaker 1: new live. No way. Mel's candor has led to her
Speaker 1: being attacked on social media by Bromwin's youngest daughter, Lauren.
Speaker 1: Lauren and Jody remain staunchly loyal to their father John.
Speaker 1: Andy Reid believes that Crystal's recent cutting of her ties
Speaker 1: with him and also with Mel on social media pleases
Speaker 1: the Winfields. Tell me how you feel about the side
Speaker 1: that she's picked.
Speaker 9: I can understand in a sense. So I can understand
Speaker 9: because h's flutching extrawtion. She doesn't want to lose the
Speaker 9: relationship with her sister. I think her relationship with Lauren
Speaker 9: is more important than anything else. That's what she clings to. Yeah,
Speaker 9: it's disappointing, but anyway, I can't do any about it.
Speaker 9: I can't do any about it. It's more important to
Speaker 9: get justice for Bromlan than to worry about my feelings.
Speaker 17: We don't know you from a bar of soap. You've
Speaker 17: never stepped foot in our household or our shoes, So
Speaker 17: what right exactly do you have to make these claims
Speaker 17: and assumptions on here?
Speaker 1: Lauren has expressed heartfelt criticisms speaking art against her uncle
Speaker 1: Andy Reid, as well as some of the listeners who
Speaker 1: are part of an ongoing conversation about what possibly happened
Speaker 1: to Bromwyn. We have always wanted Lauren to have her
Speaker 1: say within respectful boundaries.
Speaker 17: Most educated people know that just because the media publishes something,
Speaker 17: it doesn't deem it factual or truthful accusations, speculations, opinions, gossip, judgments,
Speaker 17: condescending acts, bullying tactics, stalking, filthy staes, doxing, harassment, intimidating approaches,
Speaker 17: threats to safety. Should I continue my list of what
Speaker 17: people are doing to us daughters and our families.
Speaker 1: There is always a standing invitation to her, Jody, Crystal,
Speaker 1: and John to sit down for an interview in person
Speaker 1: or over an online platform like zoom. Lauren has been
Speaker 1: assured that she can say much more in an interview
Speaker 1: than she could say on the Facebook discussion group page.
Speaker 1: Her father John has declined to be interviewed since day one.
Speaker 1: I spoke to Bromwin's cousin Megan about this.
Speaker 2: From what I've heard from Crystal and I speak to
Speaker 2: Crystal every day, Lauren has been going through a dreadful time.
Speaker 2: But as I said, this had to come out eventually,
Speaker 2: and I wish I was close to her like I
Speaker 2: am to Crystal. She looks so much like Bronwyn, a
Speaker 2: burst in a cheese and Isiah.
Speaker 10: She walks like Bromwen.
Speaker 2: She's got Bromwin's eyes, It's the Bromin's physique.
Speaker 7: She's just so much like Bromwin. It's like a double ganger.
Speaker 6: It's like coming back.
Speaker 1: Crystal's antipathy about the podcast became apparent in some of
Speaker 1: her social media writings months before this episode.
Speaker 7: The podcast only ever shares part of statements, comments, fabrications
Speaker 7: and stories that serve their agenda. I'm not turning a
Speaker 7: blind eye to anything, However, there is always two sides
Speaker 7: to every story. I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced
Speaker 7: in this story. Mum would have always put her children's
Speaker 7: happiness first, just like I would for my child. I
Speaker 7: wish she were here, Mum.
Speaker 9: I feel for it terribly, you know that. I think
Speaker 9: she's burnt shrung along a bit to help their cause anyway. Disappointing,
Speaker 9: but this is already our time and see if she
Speaker 9: comes around.
Speaker 1: Bronwyn is written and investigated by me Headley Thomas as
Speaker 1: a podcast production for The Australian. If anyone has information
Speaker 1: which may help solve this cold case, please contact me
Speaker 1: confidentially by emailing Bronwyn at the Australian dot au. You
Speaker 1: can read more about this case and see a range
Speaker 1: of photographs and other artwork at the website Bromwyn podcast
Speaker 1: dot com. Our subscribers and registered users here episodes first.
Speaker 1: The production and editorial team for bromwin includes Claire Harvey,
Speaker 1: Kristin Amiot, Joshua Burton, Bridget, Ryan Bianca, far Marcus, Katie Burns,
Speaker 1: Liam Mendez, Sean Callen and Matthew Condon, Karina Verger and
Speaker 1: David Murray, with assistance from Isaac Iron's. Audio production for
Speaker 1: this podcast series is by Wasabi Audeo and original theme
Speaker 1: music by Slade Gibson. We have been assisted by Madison Walsh,
Speaker 1: a relation of Bromwyn Winfield. We can only do this
Speaker 1: kind of journalism with the support of our subscribers and
Speaker 1: our major sponsors like Harvey Norman. For all of our
Speaker 1: exclusive stories, videos, maps, timeline and documents about this podcast
Speaker 1: and other podcasts including The Teacher's Pet, The Teacher's Trial,
Speaker 1: The Teacher's Accuser, Shandy's Story, Shandy's Legacy, and The Night Driver.
Speaker 1: Go to the Australian dot com dot au and subscribe.