Speaker 1: Three years ago I sat down with renowned journalist Claire Harvey,
Speaker 1: who interviewed me following public criticism by the then New
Speaker 1: South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller of the way I
Speaker 1: handled the investigations. The things that I said in that
Speaker 1: interview are still relevant as they were three years ago.
Speaker 1: I invite you to have a listen to that interview.
Speaker 1: I stand by everything I said in that interview. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it has now been over five and a half years
Speaker 1: since I was removed from the investigation, and I think
Speaker 1: I'm as confused as a public as to what is
Speaker 1: going on. I sincerely hope we find out what's happened
Speaker 1: to weir. Leading an investigation in the disappearance of a
Speaker 1: three year old child comes with responsibilities and accountabilities. If
Speaker 1: mistakes were made, those responsible need to be held to account.
Speaker 1: That comes with the job. Here now is the interview
Speaker 1: I did with Claire Harvey.
Speaker 2: We're recording this on Thursday, the eighteenth of November. I'm
Speaker 2: Claire Harvey, a journalist, and I am speaking with Gary Jublin.
Speaker 2: This is a special episode in the Eyecatch Killers podcast
Speaker 2: feed because there's been some news this week about the
Speaker 2: William Tyrel matter. Gary William Tyrell was a three year
Speaker 2: old boy who disappeared seven years ago from a property
Speaker 2: on the New South Wales Mid North coast. Tell me
Speaker 2: how you got involved in this case.
Speaker 1: At the time of his disappearance, I was working at
Speaker 1: homicide with the New South Wales Police. I was a
Speaker 1: detective Chief inspector. I took the investigation over five months
Speaker 1: after he disappeared. It was in September twenty fourteen. It
Speaker 1: was run for five months and then the person that
Speaker 1: was running that was retiring and I took over the
Speaker 1: investigation five months after he disappeared. I worked on it
Speaker 1: for four years, led the investigation for four years. My
Speaker 1: role was a supervisor, which as an inspector you sit
Speaker 1: over a team of investigators and in that role you're
Speaker 1: responsible for the direction of the investigation and operational decisions,
Speaker 1: strategies and whatnot. After around four years or just sure
Speaker 1: the four years, I was removed from the investigator And
Speaker 1: there's no hiding the fact that it was in somewhat
Speaker 1: controversial circumstances. Allegations were made against me and that resulted
Speaker 1: in me being charged with recording conversations with a suspect
Speaker 1: in the William tyrrel matter on my telephone. It was
Speaker 1: a local court matter, relatively minor matter, but powers it
Speaker 1: be removed me from the investigation. I since retired from
Speaker 1: the police. I decided that the organization was not the
Speaker 1: right fit for me anymore. I've been in the police
Speaker 1: for thirty four years, so it wasn't an easy decision,
Speaker 1: but I left the police at the time of running
Speaker 1: the investigation. At the time of leaving the investigation, I
Speaker 1: should say I wasn't afforded the opportunity to speak to
Speaker 1: anyone still on the investigation or provide a handover, which
Speaker 1: I always thought that was not the best way of
Speaker 1: transition one investigation to someone else taking it over. At
Speaker 1: your trial.
Speaker 2: In that local court matter, one of the people who
Speaker 2: gave evidence was the foster mother of William, who told
Speaker 2: the court that she had she had greatly respected you
Speaker 2: as a detective and that she was really afraid that
Speaker 2: with a dogged detective like you off the case, that
Speaker 2: it would ultimately be sent on unsolved homicide and that
Speaker 2: would be the end of the investigation into William. She
Speaker 2: made it clear that she wanted this murder investigation to
Speaker 2: keep going. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's pretty much right in summary, and I
Speaker 1: feel and really the facus should always be on the victim,
Speaker 1: victim's families and trying to resolve it. Unfortunately, it got
Speaker 1: caught up in the internal conflict that was happening in
Speaker 1: with the new South Isles Police, with the issues that
Speaker 1: were happening with me, and she had concerns that the
Speaker 1: matter would be referred to unsolved unsolved homicide. So that's
Speaker 1: she chose to actually give evidence at my hearing was
Speaker 1: something that she decided that there was some information she
Speaker 1: provided that would support my position on what happened in
Speaker 1: the allegations against me. It was her choosing and I
Speaker 1: appreciate it obviously, and after that that was my involvement
Speaker 1: in the investigation.
Speaker 2: She has now been publicly named this week as the
Speaker 2: only person of interest in the investigation as it's been
Speaker 2: run by the new team, and the Police Commissioner Mick
Speaker 2: Fuller and the Police Minister David Elliott have been out
Speaker 2: in public making some pretty strong comments about the history
Speaker 2: of this investigation. How does it all make you feel
Speaker 2: now about the way it all unfolded?
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, when I heard what the Commissioner was saying
Speaker 1: and breaking it down. He was announcing what was considered
Speaker 1: to be a breakthrough in the investigation, which I see
Speaker 1: as a positive, positive line if I'm just looking at
Speaker 1: it from the outside, and I should say that that's
Speaker 1: what I'm doing. I've been off the investigation for two
Speaker 1: years ten months. Once I left the investigation, I didn't
Speaker 1: say anything negative about the investigation, and I honestly believe
Speaker 1: the police that are heading up the investigation or working
Speaker 1: on the investigation want to solve it as much as
Speaker 1: I did in the team I was working with at
Speaker 1: the time. But strangely, and yeah, there was to me,
Speaker 1: it seemed very unnecessary. Commissioner Fuller, in this public interview
Speaker 1: on two GB decided to talk about the new developments
Speaker 1: in the case and also made the comment that the
Speaker 1: current team running the investigation inherited a brief that was
Speaker 1: described as shambles, and also made a comment later on
Speaker 1: that the detectives were following suspects that were clearly not involved,
Speaker 1: wasting time, I think was the wording of it. Wasn't
Speaker 1: aware of this, Like I've been keeping my eye on
Speaker 1: anything that develops in the wiim tyrial matter. But then
Speaker 1: I got inundated with text messages saying the U Okay,
Speaker 1: how do you feel about this? And I didn't know
Speaker 1: where that was coming from. And then a source back
Speaker 1: to the comments of the commission that were clearly directed
Speaker 1: as an investigation that I was running, running it for
Speaker 1: four years, I thought it was unnecessary. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a very smart play. I think airing something like
Speaker 1: that in an investigation is dangerous because it makes it
Speaker 1: harder to convict people because it will give the defense
Speaker 1: a foot in the door to question the integrity of
Speaker 1: the evidence or the manner in which the investigation was run.
Speaker 1: But probably more importantly, and I'm making the life outside
Speaker 1: the outside the police. But you know, basically, I've been
Speaker 1: a career detective and have a commissioner of police say
Speaker 1: that about an investigation that you ran. I found that
Speaker 1: highly offensive. I must admit I was in two minds
Speaker 1: where I wanted to even respond to it, and my
Speaker 1: initial thought I was angry, and then Carma Garry stops
Speaker 1: and thinks, okay, maybe just just let it slide through.
Speaker 1: But the amount of people that said I should be
Speaker 1: aggreeved by the comments that were made made me feel
Speaker 1: that I couldn't just sit on my hands, and I
Speaker 1: had to address it and a couple of points because
Speaker 1: it's simply well I say it's incorrect, and people might
Speaker 1: dismiss that and say, well, yeah, that's your view. The
Speaker 1: commissioner's view is something different. I like dealing with facts,
Speaker 1: and I think that comes from being a detective as
Speaker 1: long as I have been that you need to back
Speaker 1: up opinions. Leading an investigation like William Tyrrel's and I
Speaker 1: would call it the state's highest profile investigation, if not
Speaker 1: one of the highest profile investigations in the country. Obviously
Speaker 1: and quite appropriately, if you're running the investigation, you need
Speaker 1: to report up what you're doing to your senior officers.
Speaker 1: As an inspector, my senior officer is the Commander of Homicide,
Speaker 1: who sits at the level of superintendent. We then now
Speaker 1: also have a director, which is a chief superintendent, and
Speaker 1: assistant commissioner sits above that in the State Crime Command.
Speaker 1: Leading the investigation, I was responsible for submitting what's called
Speaker 1: the progress report. Progress reports are as a name would suggest.
Speaker 1: It's outlining the progress of an investigation and to be
Speaker 1: submitted every four weeks. In that you have to outline
Speaker 1: what you've achieved in that period of time, so that
Speaker 1: four weeks identify what suspects that you've got. What are
Speaker 1: you doing, what are your strategies, what are your future directions?
Speaker 1: How many staff have you got? Basically the nitty gritty,
Speaker 1: in minute detail of what's happening on the investigation. I
Speaker 1: complete that. It then gets forwarded to up the chain
Speaker 1: of command to the Commander of Homicide, then the director,
Speaker 1: and then the Commander of State Crime, all of which
Speaker 1: have to sign off on the document to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: they're satisfied with the direction of the investigation. Now, what
Speaker 1: I find quite strange is a commissioner has come out
Speaker 1: and said that it was in a shambles. I submitted,
Speaker 1: I believe it was forty four progress reports, not once
Speaker 1: where I criticized about the direction or the strategies of
Speaker 1: the investigation. The only different opinion we had in regards
Speaker 1: to the way I was running the investigation. I wanted
Speaker 1: more staff, which I couldn't get, which I understand because
Speaker 1: I was at management level. I understand that it's limited resources,
Speaker 1: but I'll always ask for it, even with the expectation
Speaker 1: that I might receive the staff. The other thing was
Speaker 1: whether the investigation should be shut down. They're the only
Speaker 1: and I won't even say disagreement, so just discussions. But
Speaker 1: for the four years I ran the investigation, there was
Speaker 1: no criticism in the direction that I was running the investigation,
Speaker 1: who I was targeting, how I was targeting the investigations,
Speaker 1: targeting the suspects. I should say also with this particular investigation,
Speaker 1: because it was such a high profile, I also had
Speaker 1: to participate in regular reviews and reviews. You have a
Speaker 1: panel of senior police sit down and listen to what's
Speaker 1: happening and let's agree or disagree or point it in
Speaker 1: a different direction. So there were a number of reviews,
Speaker 1: and because of the William Tyrrell the nature of it,
Speaker 1: I also had to report up to a Deputy commission
Speaker 1: at one stage fortnightly. So to now, almost three years
Speaker 1: after I've left the police, here the commissioners say the
Speaker 1: investigation was in the shambles and the detectives were wasting
Speaker 1: time following suspects that clearly weren't involved. I may not
Speaker 1: have got to say something. And those the records I
Speaker 1: talk about, this is not just an opinion based thing.
Speaker 1: Those records I talk about are retained with the new
Speaker 1: South Files Police. I also did an investigation plan that
Speaker 1: was updated regularly. All these things outline the strategies and directions.
Speaker 1: So to sit back and just accept that sort of criticism,
Speaker 1: I'm not prepared had to do it.
Speaker 2: So why if it appears the way it is, are
Speaker 2: they trying to throw you under the bus?
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't answer that answer that question. I
Speaker 1: can speculate is that what's happening. I think throwing under
Speaker 1: the bus is a good description that certainly people that
Speaker 1: I have worked with in the past that are now
Speaker 1: out of the police have termed it exactly that. Why
Speaker 1: are they throwing you under the bus? It worries me.
Speaker 1: It worries me that a false narrative could be created,
Speaker 1: that the investigation is not solved because the person that
Speaker 1: got charge with a criminal offense relating to the investigation
Speaker 1: has stuffed up the investigation. We also had the police
Speaker 1: minister suggests that maybe an inquiry is necessary on that,
Speaker 1: I say, bring that on. I have no problems with
Speaker 1: an inquiry in the manner in which I ran the investigation.
Speaker 1: LEADERSHI is about accepting responsibility. I accept my responsibility at
Speaker 1: my level of a inspector running a homicide investigation. Let
Speaker 1: the people that sit above me accept the same responsibility
Speaker 1: the decisions they made.
Speaker 2: What do you think that the police minister and the
Speaker 2: police commissioner would expect you to do in response to
Speaker 2: this kind of criticism.
Speaker 1: I honestly think, because I've left the police, and I've
Speaker 1: said it, and I've said it publicly, and I genuinely
Speaker 1: mean this, I have no animosity towards it, towards the police,
Speaker 1: and I've got on with my life. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: forge your career in the media, doing the best I can,
Speaker 1: and I've sort of moved past the police. Each day
Speaker 1: a little bit more of the police evolves from me,
Speaker 1: and I become more I'm looking at things not through
Speaker 1: a policeman set of eyes. But I've made a conscious
Speaker 1: decision not to criticize criticize the police because I respect
Speaker 1: the work that they do, and I haven't criticized the
Speaker 1: wim terial investigation. So I don't know if they think
Speaker 1: I was just a week boy that oh, he'll take it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, most people that know me, there's a limit
Speaker 1: to how far I can be pushed. And I suppose,
Speaker 1: and this is deeply personal but to actually bring me
Speaker 1: out and talk about this, it's because it's hurt me.
Speaker 1: I don't mind if people say they don't like me.
Speaker 1: They might have opinions on me, and you know, I
Speaker 1: don't like some people. Other people I do like. That's fine,
Speaker 1: but they've taken it to another level, questioning my professionalism
Speaker 1: as a career detective. I'd also like to make the
Speaker 1: point that the commissioners was his whole tenure as a commissioner.
Speaker 1: This investigation was running as well, so he was the boss.
Speaker 1: He was the boss. So I don't know why, Claire.
Speaker 1: I don't know why it's come out this way. The
Speaker 1: fact that it's come out this way when there's supposedly
Speaker 1: possibly I don't know because I'm watching from the sideline
Speaker 1: as everyone else, is a breakthrough in the investigation. But
Speaker 1: you know, I've got to be honest. Everything is running
Speaker 1: through my mind because I've never seen that done before.
Speaker 1: I've never seen a commissioner, or any senior office for
Speaker 1: that matter, criticize an investigation whilst an active investigation is
Speaker 1: being run. So I'm had a loss why it occurred.
Speaker 1: And getting back to your question, what did they expect
Speaker 1: me to do? I don't know, like, do they really
Speaker 1: think I'm just going to sit back and take that
Speaker 1: because I'm not.
Speaker 2: I imagine when you walk into any homicide investigation, you know
Speaker 2: you're encountering hundreds of people who are potentially persons of interest,
Speaker 2: You're potentially suspects. You've said to me before that your
Speaker 2: best witness is dead, and that's a very natural work.
Speaker 1: That is the nature.
Speaker 2: So take me back to the start of the William
Speaker 2: Tyrrell investigation. When you took it over five months after
Speaker 2: William had disappeared. What was the first thing, What was
Speaker 2: your first priority and what did you do, particularly in
Speaker 2: relation to William's family.
Speaker 1: Well, the first priority, even prior to me starting on
Speaker 1: it five months into the invesstigation, there was no investigation plan. Now,
Speaker 1: for all homicide investigations have an investigation plan. How for
Speaker 1: five months that managed to slip through with an investigation plan,
Speaker 1: I'm gobsmack by. So the first thing I did was
Speaker 1: sit down and do an investigation plan. An investigation plan
Speaker 1: outlines all the steps and directions. It's like a it's
Speaker 1: like a framework of the way that you can freeform it,
Speaker 1: but it's like a framework of the way that you're
Speaker 1: going to conduct this investigation. Okay, we're going to look
Speaker 1: at people close to at the time William disappeared, and
Speaker 1: you outline strategies for a complex investigation like William Tyrell.
Speaker 1: I think it's a no brainer and it's something that
Speaker 1: should have been done and it hadn't been done. So
Speaker 1: that's the first thing I did when I took over
Speaker 1: the investigation. I was introduced to the Foster family in
Speaker 1: a briefing by hands Rup and sorry, he was detective
Speaker 1: chief inspector that was running prior to myself, and it
Speaker 1: was quite right that there was a handover done and
Speaker 1: that he introduced me to the foster parents, so they
Speaker 1: had a point of contact when we were what we're doing.
Speaker 1: At that time, they were eliminated as suspects, So they.
Speaker 2: Had already been eliminated as suspects by the previous investigation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so yeah, I inherited the investigation and they
Speaker 1: had been eliminated. So I still going there. I think
Speaker 1: this is a detective detective in you. I accept and
Speaker 1: I respect what hands does his work. So you know,
Speaker 1: if he's telling me they've been eliminated, that carry some weight.
Speaker 1: But you look at it as anyone would if you
Speaker 1: took over an investigation that that classic saying that fresh
Speaker 1: set of eyes. I was keeping an eye on the
Speaker 1: family to see, Okay, is there something that I'm missing,
Speaker 1: something hands missing, or something that's just developed. I didn't
Speaker 1: see any of that. There was another suspect at the
Speaker 1: time that I took it over, and that was the
Speaker 1: without naming names, that it was a high profile one.
Speaker 1: Search warrants had already been executed on his place before
Speaker 1: I even took over the investigation, so I had to
Speaker 1: concentrate on that to start with and get things I
Speaker 1: won't say sorted, but get things in order in the
Speaker 1: way that I thought the investigation had to progress. Because
Speaker 1: it's a live animal homicide investigation, priorities change on a
Speaker 1: daily basis, so you've got to be fluent in your thinking.
Speaker 1: But with the investigation plan concentrated on looking at the
Speaker 1: person that was being targeted, that he was a priority suspect,
Speaker 1: and then the family. So the meeting with the family
Speaker 1: was not It sounds to the layman you're meeting with
Speaker 1: someone whose child has been abducted. That's a fairly common
Speaker 1: thing for a homicide detective. You're meeting with the family
Speaker 1: of the victim. So they were very emotional. I remember that,
Speaker 1: and there was a lot of tears during the first meet,
Speaker 1: and I think they were concerned that Hands was leaving.
Speaker 1: They had got accustomed to Hands dealing with them. So
Speaker 1: Hands and I thought it's important that we show them
Speaker 1: that there's continuity in Hands. Vouches for me and I
Speaker 1: vouch for Hands, and we take it from there.
Speaker 2: And so you sat down for a cup of tea.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if we got to a cup of
Speaker 1: tea situation, but I remember sitting sitting in their home.
Speaker 1: They are firing more questions at Hands because Hands had
Speaker 1: the answers, and I just got a sense of who
Speaker 1: they were and they got a sense of what I
Speaker 1: was about, and so that's how that's when I first
Speaker 1: met them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I understand that there were members of the Strike
Speaker 2: Force who were keen for there to be another look
Speaker 2: at the Foster family. So what did you do then?
Speaker 1: It just putting it in time frame, so we're talking
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, this is probably mid twenty sixteen. Always something
Speaker 1: to do, like we always had suspects, too many suspects,
Speaker 1: so we're prioritizing that. But we would have regular briefings
Speaker 1: as a team. And when I talk, I'm talking a strikeforce.
Speaker 1: So a strikeforce. Yeah, it's a combination of things. I'm
Speaker 1: listening to other people's opinions. We'd have a weekly briefing
Speaker 1: in difficult times, it might be daily briefings. It might
Speaker 1: be briefing in the morning, briefing in the afternoon. One
Speaker 1: of the briefings, a detective that I respect mentioned that
Speaker 1: there was a couple of things that had been troubling
Speaker 1: her about the foster parents, and bearing in mind we
Speaker 1: hadn't solved it, so we're open minded to everything. She
Speaker 1: outlined what the concerns were. I respected her. I'd work
Speaker 1: with her, I think, very early in her career, and
Speaker 1: so I listened to what she proposed. And so I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if it was just her or other members.
Speaker 1: It was a sort of people were coming in and
Speaker 1: going out of the strikeforce all the time. But I decided, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to target them. It's not something I wanted
Speaker 1: to do. I admit I didn't want to do it.
Speaker 1: I saw them as the victim's family, the foster family,
Speaker 1: and the biological family, and it's never going to be pretty.
Speaker 1: But I took it upon myself to do the interview
Speaker 1: with the officer that identified areas that she believed needed
Speaker 1: to be addressed. And this is when I talk this
Speaker 1: and I think I need to clarify that it's things
Speaker 1: that may need to be clarified. It's not necessarily evident.
Speaker 1: It's not like we saw you with blood on your hands.
Speaker 1: It's little things that a version of events. While you
Speaker 1: said this, what did you mean? They're that type of thing?
Speaker 1: She prepared the interview plans and then we sat down
Speaker 1: and she brought me up to speed on it and
Speaker 1: the way I decided to do the do this, and
Speaker 1: I think it's important with the narrative that's going now.
Speaker 1: And this is not something I would normally talk about
Speaker 1: in an active investigation, but I think it needs to
Speaker 1: be said that I invited them into police headquarters as
Speaker 1: I would probably a couple of a couple of times
Speaker 1: a year. They would come in and meet the strike force,
Speaker 1: because that's another thing I do, the keep people motivated,
Speaker 1: let them meet the victim's family so they understand what
Speaker 1: we're working towards, especially on the difficult homicides. That's very important,
Speaker 1: and I would have briefings where the family would come
Speaker 1: in and there'd be members of the Strikeforce crime and
Speaker 1: the family. But after the family left, I had a
Speaker 1: highly motivated group of people that wanted to solve what
Speaker 1: was going on. So on this particular day, I invited
Speaker 1: them to come and see me. There's something i'd need
Speaker 1: to speak to you about. And this is not verbatim,
Speaker 1: but that went along these lines. They came to police
Speaker 1: headquarters and they shook hands when we met, and I said,
Speaker 1: you're not going to like me today, and my demeanor changed,
Speaker 1: became very professional and I became very homicide detective ish.
Speaker 1: I suppose as the way of saying it. I said,
Speaker 1: you're not going to like me. I don't want your
Speaker 1: talking to each other. We're going to Paramatta Police station.
Speaker 1: I'm going to interview you first, and then I'm going
Speaker 1: to interview you second. You're not going to get an
Speaker 1: opportunity to talk between the interviews, and at the end
Speaker 1: of the day we'll see where the cards lie. But
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're not going to like me with that.
Speaker 1: We take them over to Paramatta Police station.
Speaker 2: So you ambushed them.
Speaker 1: It was I think the ambush is a fair way
Speaker 1: of describing it, and yeah, it's smart policing. Also, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong there. You don't put you don't give suspects
Speaker 1: questions on notice, you drop it on them. So they
Speaker 1: would have had no idea that's how their day was
Speaker 1: going to play out. But they came over to the
Speaker 1: police station. I interviewed I think the foster mother first.
Speaker 1: I can't be sure, but it doesn't really matter. With
Speaker 1: the detective that had area that want them to be concerned.
Speaker 1: We did an electronic interview with them, sit down Q
Speaker 1: and as answer the questions, finish with the first parent,
Speaker 1: and then without letting the other one see or speak
Speaker 1: to the person, we bought the other one in and
Speaker 1: did the second second interview straight away. After that, we
Speaker 1: stayed with the We stayed with them both so they
Speaker 1: had no opportunity to talk. And then I don't want
Speaker 1: to go into a lot of details, but we had
Speaker 1: a COVET operation in place, and so we'll be able
Speaker 1: to monitor conversations after their first available opportunity.
Speaker 2: So what they said to each other when they got
Speaker 2: back together.
Speaker 1: What they said to each other in what they considered
Speaker 1: a safe environment, and it was as to be expected,
Speaker 1: they said disparaging things about me and part and parcel.
Speaker 1: A lot of people might say they're right, that only
Speaker 1: went on for a short time and then they talked
Speaker 1: about just doing their job and that hopefully they'll find it.
Speaker 1: Based on the information that their answers to the questions
Speaker 1: that were on the interview and the way they responded
Speaker 1: in the Covit investigation, I formed the opinion and when
Speaker 1: I say, I am talking for the strike Force, although
Speaker 1: the butt stops with me, but based on the information,
Speaker 1: everyone was comfortable with the fact that they've been eliminated.
Speaker 1: It was important time too, because it was in the
Speaker 1: lead up to the million dollar reward.
Speaker 2: So you came up with the strategy or the strike
Speaker 2: force came up with a strategy to announce a million
Speaker 2: dollar award, which at the time in New South Wales
Speaker 2: was very unusual.
Speaker 1: It was the first first reward and it was approved
Speaker 1: at ministerial level, and that was on the back of
Speaker 1: a phone call that I received from a minister and
Speaker 1: said what would you like and said a million dollar reward.
Speaker 1: We might be able to use that strategically.
Speaker 2: Because it not just might motivate someone, but it might
Speaker 2: also get people talking.
Speaker 1: Get people talking, and it tell a lot too if
Speaker 1: there's at that particular point in time, I think there
Speaker 1: was a focus on the pedophile ring, A me and
Speaker 1: dollar reward would separate that. If there's a group of
Speaker 1: people that might potentially be involved in it, A me
Speaker 1: and dollar reward is a life changing type of situation.
Speaker 1: There was a strategy, a very clear strategy that I
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time with doctor Sarahuel, who was
Speaker 1: a senior forensic psychologist with the New South Wales Police.
Speaker 1: She was a leader in a field in the country.
Speaker 1: She was pretty well embedded in the investigation that I
Speaker 1: relied on her heavily because it was a difficult investigation
Speaker 1: because to solve this investigation without any physical evidence, which
Speaker 1: we didn't have, you needed either a confession or you
Speaker 1: needed forensic evidence link physical evidence linking a person to
Speaker 1: the crime, or eyewitness accounts of which we didn't have any.
Speaker 1: So the me and dollar reward was a strategy. We
Speaker 1: announced that I think it was on the second anniversary
Speaker 1: to give it the power that needed. And this was
Speaker 1: all in consult consultation with Sarah. There was very key
Speaker 1: messages I was putting out that with a million dollar reward,
Speaker 1: the person you might be watching at home. We're interested
Speaker 1: in someone that reacts strange when it comes on, gets
Speaker 1: nervous when it comes on, or turns the TV off,
Speaker 1: that type of thing. If someone's reacting strange when this
Speaker 1: type of announcement is made. We also had the Premier
Speaker 1: mister bed there and Andrew Scipioni, the then commissioner there
Speaker 1: that supported.
Speaker 2: It at the press court as a press conference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it was a big deal and this was
Speaker 1: something that we were really going to go hard on
Speaker 1: and see what came from this announcement of the million
Speaker 1: dollar reward. And as I said, the first first in
Speaker 1: the state, the very clear message would put out that
Speaker 1: and normally the rewards and I think when this was
Speaker 1: announced last week that was slightly wrong. They were saying
Speaker 1: me and dollar reward for the conviction of William Tyrell
Speaker 1: for the conviction of person responsible for the deduction and
Speaker 1: murder of William Tyrell. That's not the case. It was
Speaker 1: me and dollar reward for anyone that provided information to
Speaker 1: find out what happened to So even in the wording
Speaker 1: of the reward, it was very specific the way that
Speaker 1: we did it. So then we're we received the type
Speaker 1: of information you expect at.
Speaker 2: That press conference as well. You said something about your feeling,
Speaker 2: your thoughts about the foster and biology will, didn't.
Speaker 1: You part of the reason I wanted to do make
Speaker 1: sure that satisfy myself with that operation. I told of
Speaker 1: where we interviewed them and had the COVID operation was.
Speaker 1: I knew at the press conference I would be asked
Speaker 1: have the families been eliminated? The foster family and the
Speaker 1: biological family, And I had to make sure that I
Speaker 1: was comfortable and everyone else that was supporting the press
Speaker 1: conference were comfortable that we could say, yes, the family
Speaker 1: have been eliminated, both biological and foster family eliminated.
Speaker 2: Whenever a child disappears, I think it's not surprising that
Speaker 2: most outsider's response is to immediately suspect the people closest
Speaker 2: to that child. I've done it myself. You know, you
Speaker 2: see a family on TV and you think, have you
Speaker 2: done it? And I know that in any high profile
Speaker 2: Murtter investigation, rumors are swirling. You know, we go back
Speaker 2: to Lindy Chamberlain, to Joanne Lee's. As recently as last month,
Speaker 2: a little girl disappeared in w A Cleo Smith and
Speaker 2: that had a very different result. What is that about,
Speaker 2: and how is that playing into the situation that we're
Speaker 2: seeing right here in South Wales.
Speaker 1: Now, okay, we'll make the observation because it's fairly recent
Speaker 1: in all our minds Cleo smith disappearance. When you first
Speaker 1: saw the family doing the press conference. I think, if
Speaker 1: we're all honest with ourselves, we all formed an opinion
Speaker 1: and we don't even have to break down the opinion.
Speaker 1: I think we all know what I'm talking about. When
Speaker 1: we were watching that press conference play out and watching
Speaker 1: the way people were reacting, that wasn't the way that
Speaker 1: we thought they should be reacting, and we came to
Speaker 1: a conclusion. We all became arm chaired detectives. I was
Speaker 1: an arm chaired detective and we're all thinking maybe that,
Speaker 1: but take away the armchair. The real professional detectives understand
Speaker 1: that means nothing. That's that rumor, that's white noise. That's
Speaker 1: the things that gets you distracted. And with the Cleo
Speaker 1: Smith thing, I think we're all honest with ourselves. The
Speaker 1: majority of us were wrong with the assumptions that we made.
Speaker 1: I think with children, it is likely that you start
Speaker 1: at ground zero. Of course, you start at ground zero.
Speaker 1: I mean you'd have to be a numb school not
Speaker 1: to look at where did the child disappear from. They're
Speaker 1: rare in the types of time it happens. And I
Speaker 1: think even the way that the police responded with the
Speaker 1: Cleo Smith one and Q doos to good police work.
Speaker 1: It looked like they hit the ground running, not just
Speaker 1: for the search for the child lost, but from an
Speaker 1: investigative point of view, and I think that was pretty impressive.
Speaker 1: But yeah, with children, I think there is a natural
Speaker 1: assumption we don't want to find the bad the monster
Speaker 1: under the Yeah I was going to say boogie man,
Speaker 1: but yeah, monster on the bed's probably a better term.
Speaker 2: So you know, as parents, we don't want it to
Speaker 2: be a reality that someone might snatch a child, that
Speaker 2: a stranger might snatch a child. So it's potentially more
Speaker 2: reassuring or less frightening to think, oh, it's got to
Speaker 2: be the parents, or it's got to be the cousin,
Speaker 2: or it's got to be someone who's in the household.
Speaker 1: I agree to a certain extent, but there is also
Speaker 1: I saw this with the William Tyrell matter. There was
Speaker 1: a narrative everyone wanted the pedophile. Yeah, when you've been
Speaker 1: around as long as I do. You know how pedophiles look,
Speaker 1: and they don't always stand because they prey on people
Speaker 1: feeling comfortable in their environment. But people wanted this pedophile
Speaker 1: monster with horns coming out of their head to be
Speaker 1: the offender, and that's not always the case. So I
Speaker 1: agree with what you're saying. Yes, it's easier to process
Speaker 1: if it's someone that's known to the child.
Speaker 2: Part of the way that the William Tyrole case unfolded
Speaker 2: is that William disappeared, his mother called Tripolo and then
Speaker 2: immediately it was a search for a lost kid and
Speaker 2: so the site was absolutely inundated with well meaning people
Speaker 2: looking for him as it lost in the bush. So
Speaker 2: the pony club, the sees, everyone from the street was
Speaker 2: out trampling all over the site, so any evidence that
Speaker 2: might have been there was gone. Yeah, And in the
Speaker 2: Cleosmith case, we saw that police came in very quickly.
Speaker 2: It was immediately a homicide. It was a potential abduction
Speaker 2: case that they were looking at, and so you know,
Speaker 2: they were DNA testing rubbish from all the rubbish bins
Speaker 2: and they were going through everything very forensically from the
Speaker 2: very beginning, and no doubt that helped them in that
Speaker 2: matter in relation to William Tyrrel. How did that And
Speaker 2: you've touched on this a little bit before, What does
Speaker 2: that mean in terms of finding a suspect. So you
Speaker 2: don't have any DNA, you don't have any footprints, you
Speaker 2: don't have fingerprints, there's no blood.
Speaker 1: What are you looking for? Yeah, well that's what makes
Speaker 1: this type of investigation difficult. You're looking for confessional material
Speaker 1: so you get someone to confess. You're looking for forensic
Speaker 1: evidence that will link that person to the offense, or
Speaker 1: witness testimony, all of which were not available with the
Speaker 1: William Tyrell one. So what you've got to do, And
Speaker 1: this is why on this particular matter, I thought it
Speaker 1: was necessary to have doctor Sarah Yule heavily involved in
Speaker 1: the investigation from the outset, and I know hands was
Speaker 1: relying on her before I became involved to help look
Speaker 1: at the suspects. Now, with the William Tyrell matter, people
Speaker 1: talk about the publicly identified suspects, and there's been a
Speaker 1: few of them, and some have been right in everyone's face.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of other suspects that we're targeting,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other suspects that were working on that.
Speaker 1: No one knows about, and it was a process of elimination.
Speaker 1: When I'm doing a homicide investigation, I was taught this
Speaker 1: by people before me. I had some very good people
Speaker 1: training in the art of a homicide investigator. Motive, opportunity,
Speaker 1: and capability, now that was what I think. I put
Speaker 1: that in the investigation plan. When I've created the investigation plan,
Speaker 1: we look at motive, we look at the opportunity, we
Speaker 1: look at capability. Let's move motive aside, but opportunity, you've
Speaker 1: got to have someone there. And that's where the William
Speaker 1: Tyrrell matter is fairly unique because at the end of
Speaker 1: Bend and Ruin Drive, it's a dead end street. You're
Speaker 1: not going to drive there and get lost. It's almost
Speaker 1: you get a sense that it's going to come to
Speaker 1: a dead end. So you've got to put someone there
Speaker 1: in ben and Ruin Drive capability. This is a difficult
Speaker 1: one too, because who's capable of abducting a three year
Speaker 1: old three year old child? Clearly, an evil pedophile type
Speaker 1: might be. But Sarah, you'll caution me that the person
Speaker 1: that's done this mightn't even know why they've done that.
Speaker 1: I've done this, so that sort of opens it up
Speaker 1: as well. Then the motive. What is the motive? Well,
Speaker 1: people I think can only kid It must be a pedophile,
Speaker 1: that's the motive. But you also have the childless couples
Speaker 1: or that might try to take a child, So we
Speaker 1: look at those things. Obviously, opportunity is the easiest to
Speaker 1: rule out. If someone's in prison when we're looking at
Speaker 1: them at the time of William's abduction, they're gone, They're
Speaker 1: off the list. The other thing that we did with
Speaker 1: this investigation, and this is where when there's criticism of
Speaker 1: the investigation, I invite people to scrutinize it. As a
Speaker 1: minister said, let there'd be an inquiry because I was
Speaker 1: presented with a situation. We're inundated with evidence and we
Speaker 1: had to prioritize how we work our way through through
Speaker 1: the suspects. I think there was over a thousand sightings
Speaker 1: of William Terial we were dealing with that we had
Speaker 1: at one stage, and I'm talking when I say that's
Speaker 1: the time period that I was responsible for the investigation.
Speaker 1: That for year period, six hundred suspects, six hundred persons
Speaker 1: of interest. Now people go, Jesus, you must have no
Speaker 1: idea what's going on? But we would prioritize those persons
Speaker 1: of interest. We'd high priority, low priority, medium priority, and
Speaker 1: we'd categorize them and that way we could work through it.
Speaker 1: So we'd eliminate a suspect depending on the resources what
Speaker 1: we did. And some and these are suspects that you
Speaker 1: don't even know about. They're very complex operations. We've got
Speaker 1: to test the water, push a little bit, find out
Speaker 1: how that person reacts, and cover that and then come
Speaker 1: to a conclusion where that person can go off the
Speaker 1: suspect list or not. So that's how we dealt with it.
Speaker 1: State Crime they saw that we just did not have
Speaker 1: the resources to manage what we were doing at the time,
Speaker 1: so they created an additional strike force with other police
Speaker 1: coming in and we created packages for the suspects and
Speaker 1: those packages had everything that the people, the full time
Speaker 1: people worked on and we'd hand those packages out to
Speaker 1: other teams and detectives and that have all the information
Speaker 1: contained in the folder, and then they would follow that
Speaker 1: up and then they'd have to report back. So that
Speaker 1: was a way that we addressed with the numbers. So
Speaker 1: there was some you know, I think, and I don't
Speaker 1: take credit for it, because it was a team effort,
Speaker 1: but there were some very innovative ways that we dealt
Speaker 1: with the sheer volume of information that came in about
Speaker 1: William Tyrrell. And I think I personally think and this
Speaker 1: is this is other people might have different views and
Speaker 1: it's only that police just didn't realize what we're sitting
Speaker 1: on with William Tyrell. Like people the William Tyrell or
Speaker 1: William Tyrel, someone would sneeze and it's on the front
Speaker 1: page as we see now. Why. I think partly because
Speaker 1: of the iconic fate of William and people could relate
Speaker 1: to it. I also think the fact that William disappeared
Speaker 1: from his grandparents or grandmother's home, which everyone you take
Speaker 1: your child to grandparents' home, everyone feels safe for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: that captured the imagination of the public, the media, and
Speaker 1: that added to the pressure of running the investigation. But
Speaker 1: certainly not out of our depth running the investigation, but
Speaker 1: there just needed to be an appreciation of what this
Speaker 1: investigation was about. I mentioned earlier that the only disagreements,
Speaker 1: and that's probably putting too strong a word on it,
Speaker 1: was when we're talking about whether the investigation should be
Speaker 1: shut down or referred to unsolved homicide. You know, benefits
Speaker 1: a great thing, or hindsight's a great thing. I should say.
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here now, three years after I've left, and
Speaker 1: I know this, they're still running very heavily on the investigation.
Speaker 1: So I think I was probably right when I was
Speaker 1: saying the investigation shouldn't have been downsized all those years ago.
Speaker 2: Was there significant pressure to send it to unsolved tom site?
Speaker 1: There was pressure, But I also want to say that
Speaker 1: policing is a robust business. There's always competing interests. So
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I'll argue my point and that might
Speaker 1: be overruled, and I'll accept that because sometimes you've got
Speaker 1: to move on. So I don't want to be critical
Speaker 1: in terms of the way resources are managed because people
Speaker 1: are sitting above me deciding, well, we've got to prioritize
Speaker 1: that I operate at my level, and my level was
Speaker 1: on my retirement was out of chief inspector, so I'm
Speaker 1: a commissioned officer. So you're in that management level. So
Speaker 1: you can allocate your resources that you've given the way
Speaker 1: you want to allocate those resources, but people above me
Speaker 1: allocate the resources to me. So yeah, there's a chain
Speaker 1: of command and That's where I bring back to and
Speaker 1: the comments that it was in the shambles. Well, I'll
Speaker 1: accept responsibility for what I've done on the investigation, but
Speaker 1: my expectation these people above me also accept responsibility. They're
Speaker 1: going to call that the shambles. And what I find
Speaker 1: quite ironic is that it were so heavily reported on
Speaker 1: and there was no criticism whatsoever in the way that
Speaker 1: I was running the investigation, and the commanders were well
Speaker 1: in their right to take me off the investigation if
Speaker 1: they thought I was out of my depth running the investigation.
Speaker 2: What is this case all about? Who is this case about?
Speaker 1: The case should always be about William Tyrrell and that
Speaker 1: is the real tragedy of what's taken place in that
Speaker 1: And I think that was the foster mother's concern, or
Speaker 1: the foster family, and I'm sure and the biological family
Speaker 1: that the only priority should be that of finding Whim,
Speaker 1: finding out what happened to Wim. And I think an
Speaker 1: organization like the New South Wales Police should be judged
Speaker 1: on how we respond to a job like this.
Speaker 2: If the person who's currently a person of interest, the
Speaker 2: foster mother, is ultimately charged and convicted, what would your
Speaker 2: responsibit of that.
Speaker 1: My priority response is I want to find out what's
Speaker 1: happened to wim wherever the cards fall, and that's the
Speaker 1: lot of a homicide detective. So if, and I say if,
Speaker 1: because I saying at the time that I left the
Speaker 1: investigation there was no evidence, I don't know what's taken
Speaker 1: past there, well and good. I'm all for bringing to
Speaker 1: justice people that have committed crimes, especially serious crimes such
Speaker 1: as this, So I have no qualms with that. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm think now that the door's been open and I've
Speaker 1: I've been sitting on this for ages. Yeah, like I
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about it because and it's an
Speaker 1: open investigation or it's a current investigation, so it's not
Speaker 1: good form to talk about the investigation. But I think
Speaker 1: people think I go down one path and then won't
Speaker 1: change my view if you've got to base your opinions
Speaker 1: on evidence. And I can't stress this enough, and I
Speaker 1: wish we could all when I say, well, because I'm
Speaker 1: a member of the public, now take a step back,
Speaker 1: take a breath. With everything that's coming out in the
Speaker 1: news at the moment, like the Leads story was William
Speaker 1: Tyrell all week every time turned on the TV or
Speaker 1: listen to the radio, or open the paper. It was
Speaker 1: William Tyrell. William Tyrell. Everyone needs to take a step
Speaker 1: back and let's see how it plays out. William Yrell,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, has played out very publicly, so many
Speaker 1: many times, and I think we'd all be best served
Speaker 1: in just taking a deep breath, take a step back
Speaker 1: and see what's happened. Very easy to paint someone in
Speaker 1: a light without knowing the full details, and so from
Speaker 1: my point of view as a former homicide detective now
Speaker 1: member of the public, but with the experience of a
Speaker 1: homicide detective, let's just see what happens before people come
Speaker 1: to conclusions.
Speaker 2: If that doesn't happen, if the person of interest is
Speaker 2: not charged, not convicted, and this does end up going
Speaker 2: to unsolved homicide, what are the events of this week mean?
Speaker 2: What's happened this week?
Speaker 1: This week? This week, My observation has been someone has
Speaker 1: been publicly hung out, and there's no other way of
Speaker 1: describing it. There's strategies we're in policing. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: stuff that people don't know, but pressure is applied. That's obvious.
Speaker 1: From the time I was locking people up for breaking
Speaker 1: enters or shoplifting your apply pressure. The way it's played
Speaker 1: out now, I hope the people are orchestrating this know
Speaker 1: what they're doing because it's playing high stakes and playing hardball,
Speaker 1: playing high stakes, but with high stakes there's consequences. And yeah,
Speaker 1: if let's just say hypothetical, nothing comes of it, no
Speaker 1: one's charged. Well, yeah, look at how many lives have
Speaker 1: been impacted upon. And that's what worries me about this.
Speaker 1: And people think I wouldn't want it solved because I've
Speaker 1: said that publicly. You know they're being eliminated or whatever.
Speaker 1: I want to see this solved as much as anyone.
Speaker 1: And I think that's I really want to get that,
Speaker 1: get that point across, because I don't know what's been
Speaker 1: said about me, But the fact that the commissioner comes
Speaker 1: out and says the things he did, he doesn't know
Speaker 1: me and has no understanding of who I am to
Speaker 1: make those comments.
Speaker 2: It's I think the the implication is jubilant got too
Speaker 2: close and a cloud at his man.
Speaker 1: I'd lock up my mother if I thought she had
Speaker 1: murdered someone. So I laugh at that because that's what
Speaker 1: it needs. It needs to be laughed at. And I
Speaker 1: just find it. And when I say I find the defensive,
Speaker 1: I know you're just free laying it. So I'm not
Speaker 1: angry at you, but I'm so angry at people that
Speaker 1: suggest that because what I'm prepared to cover up a murder.
Speaker 1: I've got close to every victims family throughout my whole career,
Speaker 1: and I make no bones about it. And I'm going
Speaker 1: to make a strong point here because I'm sick of
Speaker 1: hearing this narrative that he gets too close to victims.
Speaker 1: Lazy people say that because managing victims is hard, but
Speaker 1: to manage a victim, give them a little bit of
Speaker 1: humanity is not a big ask when they've lost a
Speaker 1: loved one. And it's lazy police that say you get
Speaker 1: too close to victims. From a good to take this
Speaker 1: point of view, if I'm going after someone, I want
Speaker 1: to be as close as possible as well, So think
Speaker 1: of it that way. You want to know what's going
Speaker 1: on with the victim, get close to someone that knows
Speaker 1: the victim well, and you'll get information that if you
Speaker 1: keep yourself at a distance distance you won't. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's a narrative that plays out, and I think
Speaker 1: it's lazy people hide behind it, Oh, get too close,
Speaker 1: too passionate or whatever. You're talking about the murder of
Speaker 1: someone or a disappearance of a three year old child,
Speaker 1: and I think the other thing. And it's just made
Speaker 1: me think about it now. What we're dealing with William's
Speaker 1: disappearance and the likelihood is it's unlikely that he's going
Speaker 1: to be found alive, but we don't know. And yeah,
Speaker 1: no one thought Cleo was going to be found alive
Speaker 1: and she was. We're working with that as well on
Speaker 1: the on the William tyrole matter, so we're dealing with that.
Speaker 1: So all those factors sort of have played in. And
Speaker 1: one thing I think it's very important I should say
Speaker 1: that I've taken offense to what was said by the commissioner.
Speaker 1: There were so many hard working detectives on that strikeforce.
Speaker 1: That reflects on them as well. I'll take the Knox
Speaker 1: because I was the figurehead of it, but I know
Speaker 1: people that that would upset them greatly because I saw
Speaker 1: how hard people worked on that investigation when I was
Speaker 1: running it for four years. Not everyone. Some people didn't
Speaker 1: want to be on it, but the majority of the
Speaker 1: detectives gave it their all and it impacted on their lives.
Speaker 1: They spent a lot of time away from home. The
Speaker 1: job wasn't based in Sydney. There was a lot of
Speaker 1: time away. And I saw, I don't think I've had
Speaker 1: an investigation where I've seen so many detectives crying and like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's emotion that was attached to that investigation. So when
Speaker 1: these people are given their all and some of them
Speaker 1: have been broken by the investigation, it has broken people.
Speaker 1: And then the commissioner is saying, well, you know you're
Speaker 1: wasting time. That is just so offensive and that's what's
Speaker 1: brought me out from behind the behind the covers. Basically,
Speaker 1: Like as I said, I sat for a day or
Speaker 1: to thinking what do I do? How do I respond?
Speaker 1: I don't want to pick a fight. I don't want
Speaker 1: to have an argument. I didn't pick a fight. The
Speaker 1: fight was picked with me and criticizing my professionalism and
Speaker 1: this is my response to it. And I say, the
Speaker 1: documents are there, the records are there. I'm a homicide detective.
Speaker 1: I keep documents. It's all there, retained by the New
Speaker 1: South Wales Police.
Speaker 2: Gary. Thanks very much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thanks claim