Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective see a side of life the average person has
Speaker 1: never exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talked to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to part three of my chat. We've retired
Speaker 1: Detective Chief Inspector Pamela Young. If you missed the first
Speaker 1: couple of episodes, we got to learn a little bit
Speaker 1: about Pam's career and some of the interesting investigations that
Speaker 1: she led. You'd also found out what goes on in
Speaker 1: the home of too highly strung homicide detectives because we
Speaker 1: lived together for quite some time. Now we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about an investigation that I think, Pam and full
Speaker 1: credit to you, I say it upfront, the family law
Speaker 1: court bombings. It was something that was a blight on
Speaker 1: our state or even the country, that judicial offices being targeted.
Speaker 1: So the significance of the investigation should never be understated.
Speaker 1: I'll let you talk us through that investigation. You became
Speaker 1: involved later in the investigation because it was a reinvestigation,
Speaker 1: and that I want you to take us right through
Speaker 1: that investigation because I think it's a fascinating story in itself.
Speaker 1: But we'll delve into the dark areas. We're also going
Speaker 1: to delve into the interesting areas because it's not often
Speaker 1: that you get two people in a podcast that were
Speaker 1: both homicide detectives and lived together. I was taught very
Speaker 1: early in my career, policing career, not to ask questions
Speaker 1: that you don't know the answers to. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to throw caution to the win and I've got two
Speaker 1: questions for you. You can choose which one you answer first.
Speaker 1: What was the best thing about living with me? And
Speaker 1: what was the worst thing about living with me? And
Speaker 1: please be kind?
Speaker 2: Oh well, I'll be efficient, So I'll deal with the
Speaker 2: shorter of those two, which is the bad things. So
Speaker 2: I was first indeared to you when you came up
Speaker 2: with something that you thought would make me like you
Speaker 2: after I had rejected you.
Speaker 1: This is interesting because I.
Speaker 2: Said, I don't think we've got much in common other
Speaker 2: than work, because and I'm more into arts and cultural
Speaker 2: things and you're a sports person. True, so there was
Speaker 2: a delay with us getting together, but then you found
Speaker 2: a play on boxing.
Speaker 1: I still think that's one of the better players I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. That was a great call.
Speaker 2: Wasn't it really clever because I don't think there'd ever
Speaker 2: been a play on boxing before that or since, But
Speaker 2: you just found one. You've researched and hunted it down,
Speaker 2: and you invited me to play. So I got my
Speaker 2: arts and you got your sport because of play on boxing.
Speaker 2: So I thought that was a big tick.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad that there was something I like plays
Speaker 1: but it was Yeah, we were we had different interests,
Speaker 1: but you broadened my scope on the on things. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure how how much I broadened your your scope
Speaker 1: on different things, but yeah, I do have an interest
Speaker 1: in the theater now and have continued that on I
Speaker 1: still to this day haven't been able to find another
Speaker 1: one about boxing, but keep looking looking out for it. Okay.
Speaker 1: So that was the highlights of living.
Speaker 2: With me, So I do have other little things on
Speaker 2: the list. So very are you, very passionate and generous
Speaker 2: lover jubilin.
Speaker 1: I expect that, but thank you. I'll take take a compliment.
Speaker 2: The bonus was you also were very good at cleaning
Speaker 2: the house, so that combined combination was perfect.
Speaker 1: Well, as they say, behind every good woman, there's a
Speaker 1: little man in the house. That was that was my role.
Speaker 2: Oh and there's something else. It was seeing you be
Speaker 2: such a good father to your children. I believe their
Speaker 2: names are in public.
Speaker 1: Yeah we can talk about them.
Speaker 2: And seeing them bring out a soft affection and giggles
Speaker 2: in you that no one else in the whole world could.
Speaker 1: Well that that actually means a lot, because people perception
Speaker 1: of me when I was in the police at least
Speaker 1: was not much fun in this life, but just a
Speaker 1: serious hard ass. But yeah, you've gone into an area
Speaker 1: that's and it affects so many people too. You come
Speaker 1: into the life and I bring a little bit of baggage.
Speaker 1: I've got two kids, but you're a good influence on
Speaker 1: them too, so I'll compliment you, compliment you there. You
Speaker 1: do realize we're having this conversation for all the public
Speaker 1: to listen. We better move on.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's not forget that second question.
Speaker 1: Right, I was going to move straight into the family
Speaker 1: law corpse bombs. Okay.
Speaker 2: What was the problems living with so definitely the fact
Speaker 2: that every time we were having sex your phone would ring.
Speaker 2: It certainly felt like every time, which you can understand,
Speaker 2: you know, busy cases and on call and all that,
Speaker 2: But it was the fact that you answered it, Jubilan,
Speaker 2: that is unforgivable and disrespectful and very disappointing. So that's
Speaker 2: the top of the negative list.
Speaker 1: They were important phone calls half the time they were informants.
Speaker 2: Oh when the other activity wasn't thank you.
Speaker 1: For that in the hull anyway, Yep, I regret that, Pam.
Speaker 1: I apologize. I publicly said I apologize for answering the
Speaker 1: phone whilst having sex.
Speaker 2: I really didn't take to the distance we had to
Speaker 2: live away from the office for you to be close
Speaker 2: to your children. I understood why it was important, but
Speaker 2: I didn't like it physically because I'm not a morning person.
Speaker 2: So the other good thing about living with you was
Speaker 2: how you would wake me up gently. It seemed like
Speaker 2: middle of the night pretty well. Was you'd dressed me,
Speaker 2: carry me to the car, tuck a little package of
Speaker 2: vegemite toast in my briefcase for when I woke up.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised you realized we lived a long way from
Speaker 1: the office, because you slept the whole time and I
Speaker 1: just woke up when we're driving into.
Speaker 2: The car p yeah, yeah, yeah, And the toast had
Speaker 2: gone cold by then.
Speaker 1: I wrapped it in foil. I tried to keep it
Speaker 1: warm best. But okay, well, yeah, interesting times if you
Speaker 1: want to get an insight into what it's like. And
Speaker 1: we'll talk a little bit more about the precious von call,
Speaker 1: living in the household where people like the phone call
Speaker 1: can dictate your life for the next couple of months,
Speaker 1: so you don't know where you're going to head. Let's
Speaker 1: get off the personal stuff for a bit and family
Speaker 1: law court bombing. Can you give us an overview of
Speaker 1: that if people are not for me with the particular case.
Speaker 2: Yes. So it was a series of three murders and
Speaker 2: five bombings that occurred between nineteen eighty and nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: five in Sydney, mostly targeting the Family Court of Australia.
Speaker 2: It was my first deployment out of the academy to
Speaker 2: guard the homes of judges, along with a lot more
Speaker 2: professional and experienced hundreds of others. Huge resources went into
Speaker 2: it and it was the last case that I was
Speaker 2: asked to solve. By chance, there's that link, So that's
Speaker 2: a nice yeah, yeah, yeah, so yes. So the crimes
Speaker 2: started in nineteen eighty with Justice Opus being shot as
Speaker 2: he answered his door at close ranged by an unknown offender.
Speaker 2: Then four years later, oh by the way, his children
Speaker 2: and wife were home of course at the time. Four
Speaker 2: years later, a bomb is placed on the doorstep of
Speaker 2: Justice g another judge of the Family Court. The bomb
Speaker 2: went off in the middle of the night took down
Speaker 2: most of his house in which he and his two
Speaker 2: children were sleeping. Fortunately and unexpectedly they survived, of course
Speaker 2: injured and scarred, but survived. Then within a short period
Speaker 2: after that and there was a bomb placed at the
Speaker 2: courthouse at Paramatta, so the Family Court of Australia courthouse.
Speaker 2: It was placed near a supporting pillar, so if it
Speaker 2: had been more successful quite possibly could have taken down
Speaker 2: most of that rink. Fortunately no one was injured. Then
Speaker 2: then there's a lovely woman, Pearl Watson. She was the
Speaker 2: wife of another Family Court justice Ray Watson. She did
Speaker 2: what she usually does in the morning when her husband
Speaker 2: is just finishing packing his briefcase. She went to open
Speaker 2: her front door to wave to the government driver. So
Speaker 2: they all had drivers for good reason. She was intending
Speaker 2: to waive to say, you know, he'll be out soon.
Speaker 2: She also worked at the Family Court, but she wasn't
Speaker 2: going to work on that particular day. As she opened
Speaker 2: the door, she was thrown back through two brick walls,
Speaker 2: two internal brick walls, and lost her limbs and her
Speaker 2: head and of course died instantly. Then there's a four
Speaker 2: kilogram bomb found in a car, wired to the ignition
Speaker 2: of a solicitor of the Family Court. If there's anything
Speaker 2: amusing in any of this, it's when the because it
Speaker 2: was in the days we didn't have bombings and we
Speaker 2: didn't have a bomb squad as such, we had scientific unit,
Speaker 2: and they came. They thought it was a joke. They
Speaker 2: came and saw the capacity of it, and the only
Speaker 2: equipment that they had to make it safe was to
Speaker 2: place a fishing hook around the detonator and with the rod.
Speaker 2: Then they went to the back of the house or
Speaker 2: a regular suburban house surrounded by other houses. Of course,
Speaker 2: this was after everyone had been moved to a safe
Speaker 2: distance from the back of the house. They reel in
Speaker 2: the fishing hook, which renders the bomb safe. We ended
Speaker 2: up buying the same car model and blowing it up,
Speaker 2: and it would have we could have. We showed it
Speaker 2: could have destroyed that whole house and surrounding once as well,
Speaker 2: a very large bomb. The reason it didn't detonate was
Speaker 2: the see that the solicitor of the family court had
Speaker 2: lived there but had moved out quite recently. The tenants
Speaker 2: who were there. Peter, he went to work on his car,
Speaker 2: which was parked on the driveway and he's literally he
Speaker 2: sat in the driver's seat to turn the ignition. He stopped.
Speaker 2: He thought, no, if I turned on the ignition, the
Speaker 2: exhaust pipe, which is what he wanted to work on,
Speaker 2: would get hot je so in a moment he decided
Speaker 2: not to turn the car on. So he then, in
Speaker 2: preparing to work on it, he opened the bonnet. He
Speaker 2: discovered the four kilo bomb in that car. So how
Speaker 2: lucky is that? And then we have by now we're
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty five, then we have a very large
Speaker 2: explosion of a bomb under the podium at the Jehovah's
Speaker 2: Witness Kingdom Hall Temple in Western Sydney. At that time
Speaker 2: there was a congregation gathered of about one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty people and the bomb was placed directly under where
Speaker 2: the preacher was speaking. He was when the bomb went off.
Speaker 2: He was thrown up through what was now vacant ceiling
Speaker 2: space roof space, and he landed in a tree and
Speaker 2: most of his clothes were removed in the blast. He
Speaker 2: survived amazingly with fractures. The randomness of bombs shows by
Speaker 2: there was one victim who died, David. He was sitting
Speaker 2: in the second row from where the preacher was with
Speaker 2: his family, and he died instantly. He had, by chance
Speaker 2: turned to his wife. Of course, he had no idea
Speaker 2: what was about to happen, but she told the police
Speaker 2: at the time that the last words he said to
Speaker 2: her was I love you. Well, so yeah, really really, Again.
Speaker 1: Just outlining those offenses, the magnitude of it is hard
Speaker 1: to comprehend, even like it as homicide detectives, and we've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of shit, but that is just an
Speaker 1: amitude and the random not randomness, because it was targeted
Speaker 1: the victims of catastrophic effect when you start placing bombs
Speaker 1: in locations like that.
Speaker 2: That with the church when they were roughly ninety seven
Speaker 2: seriously injured people, seventy went to hospital, sixteen were children
Speaker 2: and five babies. At that time, they weren't absolutely clear
Speaker 2: whether they were targeted, I and linked or random. But
Speaker 2: we got to the bottom of that when the case
Speaker 2: came to me in twenty thirteen, and yeah, we got.
Speaker 1: To take I want to break it down because I
Speaker 1: found that particular case fascinating. And I remember before you
Speaker 1: were at Unsolved Thomas Side. I did a stint there
Speaker 1: and I think you took my place when I took
Speaker 1: some time off and I was asked to have a
Speaker 1: look at that investigation, just to have a cursory look
Speaker 1: over it. And I remember I think we had a conversation.
Speaker 1: I said, Jesus, I hadn't appreciated I worked on it
Speaker 1: like you as a young uniform officer where we were
Speaker 1: at the camp out the front of the judges' homes
Speaker 1: to protect the judges. Yeah, it was a fascinating fascinating case,
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff. There was a lot, you know,
Speaker 1: resources were put into it, and I've got to say
Speaker 1: I'm surprised in a way that didn't come to a conclusion.
Speaker 1: I know, like investigations evolve and it's easier sometimes to
Speaker 1: investigate all the matters. But yeah, it just died, didn't it.
Speaker 1: Most of our most of our homicide career, it was
Speaker 1: never mentioned the family law court bombings, was it? There
Speaker 1: wasn't something that was actively being worked on.
Speaker 2: No, I guess no case can be in its entirety,
Speaker 2: but at that time there's full effort. The Prime Minister,
Speaker 2: who was Bob Hawk at that time, he announced he
Speaker 2: got involved. He announced the largest what was called Task
Speaker 2: Force then the Joint Bomb Task Force, which was combining
Speaker 2: the new Southised Police, Federal Police and the Millet Tree.
Speaker 2: So we had no no real we needed explosive knowledge.
Speaker 2: So and of about one hundred and twenty personnel, so
Speaker 2: certainly the biggest to that time.
Speaker 1: Okay, well let's fast forward. So you're the you're the
Speaker 1: detective chief inspector in charge of unsolved Thomasoe, and you've
Speaker 1: got the that case has been allocated to you.
Speaker 2: Yes, it had been reviewed a few times. People had
Speaker 2: gone back into it, but we did a we dug
Speaker 2: deep and did a reinvestigation. So what happened within the
Speaker 2: first a few months is you would have known when
Speaker 2: you were there, but there's a certain group of investigators
Speaker 2: there at come and call it cold case. You want
Speaker 2: to go the unsolved homicide cold case. Everyone knows what
Speaker 2: that is. Cold who just knew that it was You
Speaker 2: know that knew and were prepared to dig for exhibits
Speaker 2: long thought to have been destroyed, which would have been
Speaker 2: perfectly within policy at that time because you can't keep
Speaker 2: the billions of exhibits always collected, but were prepared to
Speaker 2: do the grunt work, which was literally dig and in
Speaker 2: a way defy exhibit officers that said, no, it's not
Speaker 2: on our list, it's not.
Speaker 1: Here, and breaking that down. That's just to give people
Speaker 1: a sense of what we're talking about here. Quite often
Speaker 1: that's going to some dusty room and brushing the dust
Speaker 1: and cobwebs off and going through old boxes and looking
Speaker 1: for bits and pieces. Yes, that really is. It's a painstaking,
Speaker 1: dirty job.
Speaker 2: Yes, because it's from an era where the term DNA,
Speaker 2: the idea of it, the concept of it, was alien.
Speaker 2: So we've got to remember it's at a time when
Speaker 2: no one knew that in the future it was possible.
Speaker 2: DNA wasn't readily available to law enforcement till the nineties
Speaker 2: in fact.
Speaker 1: And so for an exhibit, those old exhibits, if you well,
Speaker 1: we've got a photograph of it, do we need to
Speaker 1: care like it because there's no forensic value retaining this
Speaker 1: in the exhibit room.
Speaker 2: Yes, and blood would you get a blood group that was?
Speaker 1: That? Was it?
Speaker 2: So then get rid of the bloodied exhibit. So Matt,
Speaker 2: who was one of those senior constables you worked with, Yeah,
Speaker 2: say soon, Matt Heffnan.
Speaker 1: We're not going to attack him, So I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I always.
Speaker 2: Think it's up to the individual to want to be named.
Speaker 2: I'm sure he's in public anyway. But anyway, Matt Hello, So,
Speaker 2: and he was one of the ones that was just
Speaker 2: ready to do the work, the hands and work relentlessly.
Speaker 2: He did find within So we started in July twenty thirteen.
Speaker 2: In October, he's been digging and digging and he gets
Speaker 2: to the areas of the Sydney Police Center and he finds,
Speaker 2: of course, the damp, smelly bags keeps going in some
Speaker 2: dark corner and he sees the ripped corner of a
Speaker 2: bag that had the word I don't quote me on it,
Speaker 2: but Jehovah or some such so related to bombing I've
Speaker 2: just mentioned. So then in there he found cardboard and
Speaker 2: carpet that was not from the bombing, that was from
Speaker 2: a break and enter that it occurred at that Jehovah's
Speaker 2: Witness temple the week prior to it. And the scientific
Speaker 2: officers of the day who were the ones going to
Speaker 2: each scene too, mostly they just thought it's worth grabbing,
Speaker 2: didn't know what they could do with it. It's worth grabbing,
Speaker 2: and it could have been destroyed within policy, it wasn't.
Speaker 2: We tested that, and around those few months after we'd started,
Speaker 2: we did get a result, which was the blood on
Speaker 2: the carpet belonged to the father of a woman known
Speaker 2: as Trudy. So we went to Trudy and her father
Speaker 2: was Leonard John Warwick.
Speaker 1: Okay, remember that name.
Speaker 2: So this is a good time to say, because a
Speaker 2: lot of people think and a lot of shows can
Speaker 2: suggest that finding DNA is the bill and end all
Speaker 2: we worked for it. It was at least another eighteen
Speaker 2: months after that. And remember that was from one offense,
Speaker 2: and not even the offense, but just the location.
Speaker 1: I think break that down because I think the due
Speaker 1: credit for yourself and your team that worked on it.
Speaker 1: That is by no means a set of facts that
Speaker 1: you can present to the court. Because DNA was found
Speaker 1: from a break and enter in a place that was
Speaker 1: blown up a week later. It's yes, at points, perhaps
Speaker 1: you can place some weight on that, pointing you in
Speaker 1: the direction, but that's not the entry value on that side.
Speaker 2: No, it's it's not. Nor was I going to be
Speaker 2: satisfied with the because I was convinced the offences were linked.
Speaker 2: I wasn't going to be satisfied with charging with one
Speaker 2: offense and saying well, at least we got exactly so,
Speaker 2: so what then then happened? It is just a very good, focused,
Speaker 2: small team that I was merciless with in that they're
Speaker 2: all very motivated and developed expertise in areas. So we
Speaker 2: had a bomber, So Mel was a bomber. She could
Speaker 2: have built bombs for us. She had to learn it
Speaker 2: as a layperson because it was always well, is it
Speaker 2: possible for that for that to happen? We you know,
Speaker 2: others are building rapport with witnesses who were much older, forgetful,
Speaker 2: not willing to be involved in something that had been
Speaker 2: you know, promised a solution earlier, and it had never
Speaker 2: come that all these nuanced are necessary approaches, including what
Speaker 2: we didn't find in the one hundred and fifty three archived
Speaker 2: boxes from the previous investigation was a complete set of
Speaker 2: family law call transcripts. So where it all came together
Speaker 2: was you know how I'm pretty good on paper?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Oh no, you're very good on paper.
Speaker 2: And you know how irritatingly good I am with small details? Yes,
Speaker 2: So I determined to write up the evidence, every bit,
Speaker 2: and I formed a document. It ended up being one
Speaker 2: hundred and ten pages long.
Speaker 1: And the listens he is sometimes a slight obsession helped
Speaker 1: an investigation, but yes.
Speaker 2: So the document, which ended up being an aid memoir
Speaker 2: for the Department of Public Prosecutions, was fed by the
Speaker 2: experts that my team had developed.
Speaker 1: And can we just break that down, because I think
Speaker 1: our listeners are interested in the dynamics of investigations. But
Speaker 1: going through and we talked in one of the earlier
Speaker 1: episodes about little things are important, but when you actually documented,
Speaker 1: I often when I was stuck on an investigation, I
Speaker 1: type it down. Okay, if I think this person has
Speaker 1: done this crime, I'm going to type up a set
Speaker 1: of facts and have a look at it, stare at
Speaker 1: it and see, Okay, what's in there? But going through
Speaker 1: in that infinite detail that you went it helps understand
Speaker 1: what you've got because you can't. You can't retain all
Speaker 1: that information in your brain precisely.
Speaker 2: Plus, it's no use even if you can retain it
Speaker 2: in your brain. It's not about you. It's about you
Speaker 2: convincing what you can present. Yes, well, convincing your hierarchy,
Speaker 2: which was necessary in this case. Beyond that the prosecutors
Speaker 2: that there's a worthy case for them to be involved
Speaker 2: in an invent So yes, writing up we shared that
Speaker 2: that approach absolutely essential.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I learned a little bit from you
Speaker 1: on that in investigations, because you're always about put it
Speaker 1: down in writing. And this happened, that happened, blah blah blaheah,
Speaker 1: put it down in writing. I learned something, and I
Speaker 1: tried to pass out on the people too.
Speaker 2: And it gives you clarity in your own mind. And
Speaker 2: is it is it convincing in writing to any any
Speaker 2: other relevant party to read essential. So that was my
Speaker 2: approach to it was a work in progress. It's not
Speaker 2: like we got to the inter and of that. I
Speaker 2: just whipped this up. It grew and developed and was
Speaker 2: a very unwilldy document to make chronological or because because
Speaker 2: it was fed by our discoveries.
Speaker 1: And going back again. I just want to break it down.
Speaker 1: You said your team, how you drove them? You did
Speaker 1: drive them. I saw saw what was going on, and
Speaker 1: you need on investigation sometimes the breakthroughs. And take this
Speaker 1: as a compliment, but I firmly believe it. You need
Speaker 1: people just driving, pushing, pushing, pushing, because the ones, the
Speaker 1: difficult ones to crack are the ones that people go
Speaker 1: above and beyond. And I know you and your team
Speaker 1: went above and beyond.
Speaker 2: It really was a huge effort, and I really appreciate
Speaker 2: my team bearing with it. Some a couple went by
Speaker 2: the wayside. It was too intense, but the ones that remained,
Speaker 2: and that wonderful humor you get with the intensity I
Speaker 2: put on them and all my teams. It's apparently called
Speaker 2: being pommeorized, So I think that was quite I think.
Speaker 1: You pick up on what that might mean terrified. I
Speaker 1: recommend that, but no, you've got to drive it. And
Speaker 1: I'm big on this, and this is where the passion
Speaker 1: comes into it, Like if people fall by the way side,
Speaker 1: we'll get out of there. Like this is a homicide investigation,
Speaker 1: and I know it doesn't make me popular, but if
Speaker 1: people are not up to it, don't do it. You're
Speaker 1: not a conscript. Don't strutt around calling yourself a homicide
Speaker 1: the ticket unless you're prepared to pay the price. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and I know you share that, and I know you
Speaker 1: paid the price. And your team that you got working harmoniously,
Speaker 1: the ones that stuck through with it.
Speaker 2: Yes, And even just what I found useful there was
Speaker 2: there were one or two experienced doubters, so experience in
Speaker 2: that they could their opinion could be relied upon. But
Speaker 2: they doubted that Leonard Warwick had committed all the crime.
Speaker 2: So I found it very useful to task them with
Speaker 2: being the devil's advocate. Yes, and solely the devil's advocate.
Speaker 2: They weren't involved in any of the other aspects. Devil's
Speaker 2: advocate on the other suspects which the origin investigation had
Speaker 2: dug up a lot somewhere like there was one standout
Speaker 2: for for the Watson matter, the one where Missus Watson
Speaker 2: she died, absolutely stand out. He'd been part of the
Speaker 2: construction crew for the for the apartment blog. He'd been
Speaker 2: in the military, some red flags, Yeah, and he'd come
Speaker 2: out and said how much he hates hates them all.
Speaker 2: But so, but your real good use of Devil's adivocate
Speaker 2: because you if you don't do it yourself, the defense
Speaker 2: are going to the defense are going to bring up
Speaker 2: these things.
Speaker 1: So it's a good way to use use stuff. And
Speaker 1: we're talking here at the management level of an investigation,
Speaker 1: which which we don't often talk. We more get into
Speaker 1: the nitty gritty of it. But from a management point
Speaker 1: of view, I called them the what ifs. I'd be saying,
Speaker 1: this happened, but what if it's that person? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a good way. Okay, we'll back it up, put it in. Yeah. Ok.
Speaker 1: They're the doubters and the what if types in investigations.
Speaker 1: If it plays out the way you said or believe
Speaker 1: it's playing out, they go, well, I just thought they'd
Speaker 1: raise it, and if it doesn't, then they strut around
Speaker 1: going oh well, I said, yeah, So it's a good
Speaker 1: way to for anyone listening that might end up running
Speaker 1: a homicide investigation for the doubters or what ifs give
Speaker 1: them the task to approve it.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's important and can be useful comment for people
Speaker 2: to make. Everyone should contribute. Every good leader encourages and
Speaker 2: even makes people contribute. But so many jobs get bogged
Speaker 2: down in that conversation. It doesn't go further than that
Speaker 2: type of conversation. Someone's got to come through with clarity.
Speaker 2: What are your the best prospects here? We're going for
Speaker 2: them even and it's a term you use, you even
Speaker 2: should get tunnel vision on good ones until that tunnel
Speaker 2: vision is not justified. With limited resources, you must concentrate
Speaker 2: your efforts. That's a way of concentrating your efforts.
Speaker 1: So with.
Speaker 2: Your comment earlier about you know, isn't it surprising it
Speaker 2: wasn't solved earlier? I might share that too, though I
Speaker 2: know they worked very hard and in very different circumstances,
Speaker 2: just with information management and being able to recall.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're talking about card system as distinct from a
Speaker 1: computer and and I and everything else that goes on
Speaker 1: the plat.
Speaker 2: But what I discovered was through close reading of the
Speaker 2: thousands of pages of family court transcripts lots of things,
Speaker 2: But this is just a demonstration, which is so Justice Opus,
Speaker 2: who was Leonard John Morrick's first victim. He had he
Speaker 2: Warwick was before the family Court because his wife Andrea
Speaker 2: wanted to one divorce and property settle. So Justice Opus
Speaker 2: was the first justice trying to sort through these applications.
Speaker 2: The orders become very complex and it's very tedious to
Speaker 2: read because there's I think you've had court matters with
Speaker 2: family called and they're quite convoluted, wouldn't you agree? Am
Speaker 2: I triggering? Are there any triggers happening here?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 2: So Justice Opus would make multiple orders. So and just
Speaker 2: an example one was after after the parties have just
Speaker 2: putting in Lamor's terms, after the parties have done a
Speaker 2: b c dn E, then a period of seven days
Speaker 2: can pass until all the all the documents are exchanged
Speaker 2: for instance. That's the type of thing. So that can
Speaker 2: happen over six, eight, ten separate hearing dates. So I
Speaker 2: got those transcripts and I remember sitting there counting after
Speaker 2: all the putting them in sequence, working out what this
Speaker 2: process of and then the seven day thing, which is
Speaker 2: counting the date from when the order was made or
Speaker 2: when the last seventh step was made, so counting the
Speaker 2: days specifically around Opus's orders, and the day that I
Speaker 2: came up with on my fingers was the day that
Speaker 2: Opus was shot dead out his door. Now I'm really
Speaker 2: hopeless at maths, hopeless, but I managed to do that.
Speaker 2: I doubted it. It was so clear and such heavy evidence,
Speaker 2: heavy good evidence. I thought I've missed something, and I
Speaker 2: went back, went back, but no, I hadn't missed it.
Speaker 1: Thoroughness of it that that's a huge coincidence, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Then you're looking at it hadn't been discovered before.
Speaker 1: Yeah. These are the type of things that sort of
Speaker 1: kicking and you think, okay, well maybe I am heading
Speaker 1: in the direction because you do doubt yourself when you're
Speaker 1: running the investigations like that, Like there's a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure to get it right.
Speaker 2: Yes, and you should doubt yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's this tricky balance, isn't it, Confidence, clarity, doubt, And
Speaker 2: you don't have it in there.
Speaker 1: I've to say sometimes I've had investigations where above have
Speaker 1: interfered and I've been frustrated because of the report and
Speaker 1: have to answer all this, But by the time it
Speaker 1: comes to court, I'm glad they interfered, because I've got
Speaker 1: everything prepares and that. But even and it's a robust
Speaker 1: Fieled working homicide investigations. Everyone's got an opinion. And I
Speaker 1: was not against other people having opinions because that helped
Speaker 1: me check myself if I was heading off in the
Speaker 1: direction and someone has said something. But yeah, I find
Speaker 1: that fascinating the amount of detail. I know how thorough
Speaker 1: you are, but they're the type of things that can
Speaker 1: sometimes get investigations across the line.
Speaker 2: So will we skip forward to the result.
Speaker 1: Well, I remember reading the brief was something about a clock.
Speaker 1: Was quite interesting.
Speaker 2: Yes, So we ended up so the whole so that
Speaker 2: all the elements. It was a oh goodness. So what's
Speaker 2: that term a circumstantial? That that term.
Speaker 1: You have how long you've been there, that's where.
Speaker 2: You have direct or circumstances circumstantial, But so many elements
Speaker 2: like so, when we looked at the photographs of search
Speaker 2: warrants conducted on Leonard Warrick, because he was interest, he
Speaker 2: was a personal interest in a pool of them. We
Speaker 2: looked at the photographs that had been taken during search
Speaker 2: warrants at his home, and then we conducted our own
Speaker 2: search warrant, and we found in both the same brand
Speaker 2: clock that had been used to time one or two
Speaker 2: of the device.
Speaker 1: It was a breakdown of the components in the clock
Speaker 1: that that's from the bombing. That's what they see, is
Speaker 1: that's that's my understanding.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, to know it was a certain brand clock.
Speaker 2: And then yes, the same yes, the same was found
Speaker 2: in his possession.
Speaker 1: And see this type of evidence, because when you go
Speaker 1: to court, people are going to attack your integrity, attack everything.
Speaker 1: But those type of evidence, that type of evidence really
Speaker 1: stands up. Well, you know, how have we created that
Speaker 1: there's a phato of the clock. This is a component
Speaker 1: that was found in the bomb that is in that clock. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's fascinating it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so all those, all those elements came together. None
Speaker 2: of them which is the nature of circumstantial briefs. None
Speaker 2: of them by themselves are the home run. But in
Speaker 2: combination and we uh, you know, the elements come together
Speaker 2: and they're often better briefs than direct briefs because it
Speaker 2: stands alone. So when we did so, I knew towards
Speaker 2: the end, when I just knew we had him, I
Speaker 2: also knew we didn't need to interview him we prepared
Speaker 2: an interview, but we didn't need him to say anything
Speaker 2: truth or lies. We did not need anything from him
Speaker 2: because the circumstantial brief was so good.
Speaker 1: I remember the interviewing because you did approach me at
Speaker 1: one stage and said, look, this is building up. I'd
Speaker 1: like you, would it be possible, would you be interested
Speaker 1: in interviewing him in resources to do what you do
Speaker 1: in an interview room. I was so excited. I spent
Speaker 1: the whole weekend. If you're eating up on the brief
Speaker 1: and thinking, I know how I'm going to approach this lunatic.
Speaker 1: But we had a discussion. You said you want to run,
Speaker 1: and I agree with you. You wanted to run it past
Speaker 1: your team if they wanted to have a go at it.
Speaker 1: I think it was more appropriate they had to go
Speaker 1: at it. But I've got to say I was disappointed
Speaker 1: because I wanted to have a crack at him. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think it would have been a fascinating that I think.
Speaker 2: Of a discussion, fascinating to watch, and you had always
Speaker 2: some fearless reputation as an interviewer. In fact, I've had
Speaker 2: it in mind if I get a chance to us
Speaker 2: or anything, it would have been what are your tips. Yeah,
Speaker 2: whether that's now later.
Speaker 1: Of cause my passion. You know, that was my go
Speaker 1: to place and my fun place, and I think you
Speaker 1: brought me on one other investigation and I still remember
Speaker 1: what I did in that interview room, and I'm so proud.
Speaker 1: It was all above board. There was nothing untoward that
Speaker 1: just jammed up a solicitor and these client big time.
Speaker 1: And the amount of preparation you have to do before
Speaker 1: the interview. You have got to prepare yourself because knowledge
Speaker 1: is power in the interview room. So you need to
Speaker 1: know so much detail about that person. So if they
Speaker 1: take you off on a tangent or whatever, you can
Speaker 1: bring them back. You've got to have a strategy. You've
Speaker 1: got to be flexible in your thinking with the strategy.
Speaker 1: Sometimes i'd prepare a couple of strategies. He's even going
Speaker 1: to talk, he's going to deny it all this and
Speaker 1: create the atmosphere. It can be one of intimidation. I
Speaker 1: know we're not their threat, promise or in if someone's intimidated,
Speaker 1: because I'm professional and thorough and I walk in a suit,
Speaker 1: all my papers lined up and ready to go, and
Speaker 1: the interview room is my place. So if they feel
Speaker 1: intimidated by that. That's not you can't argue that they
Speaker 1: feel intimidated because I'm professional. Well, I'm not doing anything
Speaker 1: wrong being professional. You can also play and again strategies
Speaker 1: for interview the bumbling detective you come in there, the
Speaker 1: disinterested detective and just yeah, yeah, whatever. You're listening to
Speaker 1: everything that's been said. I whether this is a strength
Speaker 1: for a weakness, I don't know. In the interview room,
Speaker 1: some people listen to the word that's spoken, the actual
Speaker 1: word that's been spoken. I'm looking at the reaction from
Speaker 1: the person when I'm asking the question, what's the reaction.
Speaker 1: I'm getting more from what's not said than what is said.
Speaker 1: And yeah, it's worked for me in the interview rooms.
Speaker 1: What I would say about the interview room is how
Speaker 1: taxing it is. I would come out from an interview
Speaker 1: room and I would just be exhausted. I would be spent,
Speaker 1: leave nothing else. So I give everything I've got, so
Speaker 1: just the intensity, and I would honestly feel sick before
Speaker 1: I went into an interview room because of the pressure
Speaker 1: that you're putting on yourself.
Speaker 2: A similar feeling here, Am I doing that to you?
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how nervous. I was when I
Speaker 1: you need a break, the break. But yeah, those little tips.
Speaker 1: But the other, probably the biggest tip, is you've got
Speaker 1: to be yourself in the interview room. I've seen people
Speaker 1: I've tried the copy people their style and it doesn't
Speaker 1: work because it's not me. I've seen people tried the
Speaker 1: copy my style. It doesn't work. You've got to be
Speaker 1: genuine self in the interview room.
Speaker 2: That really, that's such an interesting last point. I don't
Speaker 2: think I've heard you say that, but it makes so
Speaker 2: much sense. I was not Interviewing was never my strength.
Speaker 2: I had other strengths, and I always figured it was
Speaker 2: because some of the crimes are so hideous. I could
Speaker 2: not be in the room with any respect for the
Speaker 2: person as a human being. And I'm sure I radiated that,
Speaker 2: and that was being myself, whereas you would feel the
Speaker 2: repulsion and the anger on behalf of the community and
Speaker 2: the victims and things the same. But you, if you're
Speaker 2: able to cover it up, I much more.
Speaker 1: Suss well, you break something down, that's very interesting there,
Speaker 1: I would cover it up. I've sat opposite some despicable
Speaker 1: human beings and I didn't give an ounce of judgment.
Speaker 1: There and I'm just saying, yeah, we're just having a chat,
Speaker 1: and they can be talking, you know, we're talking murderous
Speaker 1: pedophiles saying the most horrific things, but they wouldn't get
Speaker 1: a reaction out of me. Internally, I'd be feeling it,
Speaker 1: but on the face they wouldn't see it. So a
Speaker 1: bit of poker. But yeah, anyway, Sorry I digressed, but
Speaker 1: that was an exciting time. I was so excited that
Speaker 1: weekend thinking because I remember it from my early days
Speaker 1: in ployees and it's such a significant job. I would
Speaker 1: have sat loved to sit down opposite him in an
Speaker 1: interview room.
Speaker 2: But because he had actually never to an interview. In
Speaker 2: what I mean by that is he had been interviewed,
Speaker 2: as in arrested, taken for interview, he'd been put before
Speaker 2: the coroner at a hearing while it was still unsolved.
Speaker 2: He only ever, he often wouldn't confirm even his name.
Speaker 2: If he spoke, it was to confirm his name. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so yes, the challenge between you and him.
Speaker 1: You would have had been, well, if we're talking the
Speaker 1: way to interview, you've got to think outside the square
Speaker 1: a little bit, like if you go in there. I
Speaker 1: was thinking I'm going to rattle him by being as
Speaker 1: strange as he is. That would have been that would
Speaker 1: have been my gay game. Yeah, yeah, that was I
Speaker 1: was thinking. But anyway, we digress. It must have been
Speaker 1: so eighteen months you worked on it. How did it
Speaker 1: feel when you knew when when you got to that point,
Speaker 1: when all the all the ducks had lined up and
Speaker 1: you gan to arresting. How did you feel?
Speaker 2: And your team felt really really excited in a calm
Speaker 2: way because it was just a done deal. So by that,
Speaker 2: I mean I had complete faith in the material we
Speaker 2: had put together. Resting him was a bit of a challenge.
Speaker 2: He certainly was older, but.
Speaker 1: He grabbed him.
Speaker 2: They yes, so that that decision you have to make,
Speaker 2: as in our positions, where.
Speaker 1: To arrest dangerous exactly.
Speaker 2: Booby traps, guns, anything. So the gym. I chose the
Speaker 2: gym because he had developed a habit of going at
Speaker 2: a certain time, so we had reliable geography that we
Speaker 2: could set up securely. He had an affection for a
Speaker 2: particular treadmill, so we knew precisely which one in the group,
Speaker 2: and we knew to keep the other treadmills occupied by
Speaker 2: people who could handle handle things. If it got out
Speaker 2: of control. And yeah, so that was a successful day.
Speaker 2: There were over eighty police involved. That was after the
Speaker 2: aid memoirs I've described. It was put in front of
Speaker 2: a legal panel, which is unusual, but because of the
Speaker 2: size of the job, I guess the status of the victims,
Speaker 2: but also the the nature of it being unsolved for
Speaker 2: so long. For the new Southwest Police Force. My hierarchy,
Speaker 2: which was also your hierarchy, didn't want to risk failure.
Speaker 2: So I was more than happy to do that. I
Speaker 2: understood why I had been asked to do that, and
Speaker 2: it had the green light. So yeah, it was a
Speaker 2: good day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great day.
Speaker 2: When Matt Heffernan and Matt Russell, so Matt Russell was
Speaker 2: my detective sergeant on the job, a great rapport builder
Speaker 2: with witnesses and things, so they were they were doing
Speaker 2: the rest, of course, and when they've put their their
Speaker 2: common arm on Warwick and taken his sports bag, his
Speaker 2: first words and only words, were there are no explosives
Speaker 2: in it, which.
Speaker 1: Of course I would have had so much fun with him.
Speaker 2: He's not a man you trust his words. So we
Speaker 2: checked it and the Bob squad's standing by and I
Speaker 2: don't think so.
Speaker 1: I want to ask this because when you work on
Speaker 1: the investigation of that intensity and that, did you feel
Speaker 1: and I'm like, from a personal point of view, did
Speaker 1: you feel excitement after the arrest, did you feel pressure
Speaker 1: off or what? Did you feel numb? Because sometimes you
Speaker 1: have different reactions when you get a result with investigations.
Speaker 2: Yes, no, no, it was I do know what you
Speaker 2: mean with this one. It was very satisfying. We had
Speaker 2: and I think I said at the time, we had
Speaker 2: worked in the shadows for a very long time. We
Speaker 2: weren't going out saying, look what we're doing. And the
Speaker 2: primary reason, two reasons is we didn't want him to
Speaker 2: get active again.
Speaker 1: But equally your place get blown up. That's important. That
Speaker 1: was sensible.
Speaker 2: But the victims and their families had been through so much,
Speaker 2: the highs and loads of big, big investigation, lots of
Speaker 2: heavy investigators, it's going to be successful, and were let
Speaker 2: down terribly. It was forty years nearly to the day
Speaker 2: before it was entirely resolved. So we were working in
Speaker 2: the shadows. Yes, for safety too. We didn't tell them
Speaker 2: we were working on it again because I wasn't going
Speaker 2: to promise something and then not deliver. So it was great.
Speaker 2: What was great was at that time the day of
Speaker 2: the rest, which of course started been letting them know gently.
Speaker 2: The big satisfaction was the comfort we were able to
Speaker 2: give them, Yes, that they hadn't had for such a
Speaker 2: long long time. That was really significant. Heavy weight was off.
Speaker 1: Yeah okay, and he was convicted. Ah.
Speaker 2: Yes, So he toyed with the family court earlier through
Speaker 2: his crimes over years. His own family court matter might
Speaker 2: have been slightly shorter than yours. He's went for seven years.
Speaker 2: He's went for seven years. He was very good at it.
Speaker 2: So when he got arrested, he you know, a number
Speaker 2: of things happened, of course, but part of it was
Speaker 2: he manipulated the court system again, this time the criminal court,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. It took five years after arrest and
Speaker 2: a twenty two month trial for him to be found guilty.
Speaker 2: It was judged only for him to be found guilty,
Speaker 2: and he was sentenced for three murders. He got life,
Speaker 2: So three life sentences plus if we add up the
Speaker 2: rest two hundred and fifty or so years of for
Speaker 2: the connected incidental crimes. Yeah. So well, it was a
Speaker 2: good That was another good day.
Speaker 1: It was a good day. But I want I was
Speaker 1: proud of being part of the New South Wales Police
Speaker 1: when that was that case was solved them. Very proud
Speaker 1: of you and your team on what you did because
Speaker 1: I saw how hard you worked on it. But and
Speaker 1: I what I like about it too. It sends out
Speaker 1: a message to all these people that think they've got
Speaker 1: a way with crimes that hey, there might be people
Speaker 1: just like you and your team working on them and
Speaker 1: they never know when they're going to get the knock
Speaker 1: on the door or get their their training in the morning.
Speaker 1: Did you let him finish his training session or just
Speaker 1: grab him off off the running machine? But no, that
Speaker 1: was that was I think all the good elements of
Speaker 1: what cold case and unsolved homicide and reinvestigation should be
Speaker 1: about came into play. So full credit and it was significant.
Speaker 1: Wasn't like I can't remember a crime of that magnitude
Speaker 1: and attacking the justice system?
Speaker 2: Yes, well, it was described, including by the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: but other other people as the most significant case of
Speaker 2: domestic terrorism attacking our democracy and system of justice. That's
Speaker 2: they're the terms being used over that forty years.
Speaker 1: And what like with each investigation it takes a little
Speaker 1: piece of out of you or whatever? What price did
Speaker 1: you pay in that investigation?
Speaker 2: Could I before that? And I want to are you
Speaker 2: curious what his motivation was?
Speaker 1: Oh? Yeah, take over the podcast is podcast. But that's
Speaker 1: a good question.
Speaker 2: It's I'm going to say topical now, but it always
Speaker 2: has been and should be. It was domestic violence related.
Speaker 2: It was as straightforward as he was a violent boyfriend
Speaker 2: to Andrea, a violent husband to Andrea. He also had
Speaker 2: psychopathic tendencies, but so many do.
Speaker 1: He was a fireman, wasn't he?
Speaker 2: And that was the other part. He was a full
Speaker 2: time fireman, so had the appearance of normality, but a
Speaker 2: brute And it's I don't even know how to express it,
Speaker 2: but clearly it's an example of how if domestic violence
Speaker 2: isn't properly attended to or stopped eliminated would be good,
Speaker 2: then these things, these further crimes, things can grow out
Speaker 2: of it and it's all bad. And yes, so that
Speaker 2: you know, its very essence is domestic.
Speaker 1: Violence, and the essence of domestic violence. Correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, But from my understanding of it, the bombing
Speaker 1: that the Jehovah's Witness Church was because that's where his
Speaker 1: ex wife attended that church. Yes, well he is his
Speaker 1: because they were they were offering her shelter.
Speaker 2: Yes, so his wife's sister asked members of that was
Speaker 2: her congregation to help move Andrea away to safety. And
Speaker 2: and they did that generosity of spirit, which normal good
Speaker 2: people do. They moved covertly, so secretly, and and she
Speaker 2: was she was just sick of the violence. And yes,
Speaker 2: he got to learn, not specifically that they had helped,
Speaker 2: but he's he learned a lot enough just just to
Speaker 2: target them in case they had helped. So it really
Speaker 2: is a mindset is incomprehensible.
Speaker 1: It is incomprehensible that put a bomb in the church
Speaker 1: with one hundred people in there. That the and I
Speaker 1: remember when your team were looking at the investigation before
Speaker 1: you took it on, they were getting statements from eighteen
Speaker 1: month old child at the time had cut from the explosion.
Speaker 1: It could have know how many people he could have
Speaker 1: killed with that, but he just didn't.
Speaker 2: Yes, he didn't care. And I fully expect that he
Speaker 2: thought there would be more fatalities. It really is just
Speaker 2: how the bomb is packed. And he whilst we didn't
Speaker 2: know it was him at that time, we were we
Speaker 2: were learning that the bombs were more amateurish than professional.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, So the damage wasn't yes a question than
Speaker 1: I think people would be wanting to ask this, So
Speaker 1: I've got my thoughts on it. But why those major
Speaker 1: offenses could years? Again? What did he get up to
Speaker 1: post those offenses? What was he what was his life
Speaker 1: did he have? Was there any other episodes of violence
Speaker 1: or things that he.
Speaker 2: So when we arrested him, he was in the company
Speaker 2: of his new family, wife, children, So he the passage
Speaker 2: of time and it being unsolved for so long had
Speaker 2: allowed him to live a full life, reap the benefits
Speaker 2: of a government pension, and pretend he was a normal,
Speaker 2: good person.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it does tie into what's going on now,
Speaker 1: But that's the extremes that people go to when the
Speaker 1: emotion kicks him. So what was the price you paid
Speaker 1: personally for that?
Speaker 2: It was a very heavy period because it was also
Speaker 2: the period that I'd been given the Scott Johnson matter, Right, Okay,
Speaker 2: So there was a lot of sleeping in the car
Speaker 2: in the basement and not going home and keeping clear
Speaker 2: focus on both high profile jobs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you basically had to forego your private life and
Speaker 1: just concentrate on work for those times. Yes, yes, Okay,
Speaker 1: Now that's fairly heavy topic, so let's delve into another
Speaker 1: fun fact. I think it's fun. It's funny in some regards,
Speaker 1: it was a bit confronting in others. Just set the scene.
Speaker 1: We've been living together for a long time, we've broken up,
Speaker 1: we'd both I think we'd both remarried at this particular
Speaker 1: point in time, or you had remarried. I was getting
Speaker 1: remarried and I was approached by some writers to do
Speaker 1: an Underbelly TV series, Underbelly Badness. They approached me and
Speaker 1: senior Police actually pointed them to me, which is quite
Speaker 1: i wright think because it worked against my career for
Speaker 1: the rest of my time. But Senior Police pointed them
Speaker 1: there and they wanted to do a story about they'd
Speaker 1: done the Melbourne one, they'd done The King's Cross, and
Speaker 1: they said, we want to do a story about policing,
Speaker 1: but following the police. The police will be the main characters,
Speaker 1: and we know the job that you're running, and we'd
Speaker 1: be really interested in covering you in the series. And
Speaker 1: they asked me about my personal life and I said
Speaker 1: I was divorced, and they said that's good. And I said,
Speaker 1: I had a real relationship with someone I work with
Speaker 1: and I can see I'm writing notes. That's great, blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. And so the series was who was it young?
Speaker 2: It was you, that poor woman.
Speaker 1: I think, as history dictates, it was you young. So we'd
Speaker 1: had that, and the relationship was out in public and
Speaker 1: all that. We've been there, done that, and then I
Speaker 1: come to you and I think you've just been recently
Speaker 1: remarried or about to get married. I said, look, Underbelly
Speaker 1: are going to do a story about my career, and
Speaker 1: you have gone that's good like that, And I said,
Speaker 1: but they want to talk about my private life. Are
Speaker 1: you happy for you to be included in my private life?
Speaker 1: I can't remember the response I got, but it was
Speaker 1: not this similar to the stare that you're giving me now,
Speaker 1: and it was basically whatever you said. It was more
Speaker 1: eloquent than this, but I interpreted as what the fuck
Speaker 1: I think you said? Look, I'm not giving permission, but
Speaker 1: I will sit down and speak with the writers and
Speaker 1: just see what they're going to cover. It was an
Speaker 1: interesting experience for both of us, wasn't it. Oh?
Speaker 2: Yes, it was. So My irritation was that you know
Speaker 2: how even today, how Australian society likes their heroes to
Speaker 2: be male and they have to have their male heroes
Speaker 2: have a love interest. So I was reduced to a
Speaker 2: love interest. That was quite irritating.
Speaker 1: But it was very brave of you because you did
Speaker 1: say yes.
Speaker 2: I did say yes, and I even gave permission for
Speaker 2: my name to be used. And I was asked at
Speaker 2: work why on earth, you know, why would you do that?
Speaker 2: And Chase, I don't have any shame over these things.
Speaker 2: And it was fun, but goodness, certainly upsets and male
Speaker 2: egos in your peer group, did it not?
Speaker 1: Oh yes? Oh yes? I think after that, yeah, I
Speaker 1: had had a target on my back, not the not
Speaker 1: the and I put it this way, and if you're listening,
Speaker 1: they don't care. The genuine detectives that all did hard
Speaker 1: work would come up and say that's great. It was
Speaker 1: the ones that didn't do any work but had the
Speaker 1: shits that they weren't featured in the TV series. But
Speaker 1: from our point of view, I thought it was very
Speaker 1: gracious of you to say yes, you'll do it. And
Speaker 1: it was quite funny. I remember the first episode like
Speaker 1: people were saying, we'll come around and watch it with
Speaker 1: you or whatever, and I said, no, I'll watch it
Speaker 1: on my own. And then watching our private life play
Speaker 1: out on TV. I think I was in the fetal position,
Speaker 1: sucking my thumb. You make it stop it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was yeah, very sort of unbalancing or is
Speaker 2: that a term or something quite confronting.
Speaker 1: And then watching our relationship break down, not only our
Speaker 1: relationship start on the show, and then the relationship breakdown.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was even more hilarious.
Speaker 1: Well, I was sad bad. I don't know about you.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I was crying, but I was upset.
Speaker 2: I was crying, okay, But at the end of the
Speaker 2: day sort of harmless fun.
Speaker 1: Really, it was harmless fun. And when you look at it,
Speaker 1: the actress that played you absolutely nailed you and got
Speaker 1: your voice down. Pat, I don't know how that came about.
Speaker 2: But and my walk, I don't know what you had
Speaker 2: said about my walk, but she perfected it.
Speaker 1: Yes, she did portray you very well. And I do
Speaker 1: remember after the first episode was played, and this is
Speaker 1: when you wonder what goes on in a homicide inspectors meeting,
Speaker 1: high level meeting. All the inspectors from homicide gather with
Speaker 1: the commander of homicide. It was Monday morning or the
Speaker 1: Tuesday morning after the first episode had played out, and
Speaker 1: we sit round the table and there's all the inspectors
Speaker 1: there and the commanders talking about the cases. And then
Speaker 1: I think it was someone piped up stuff that we're
Speaker 1: not talking about that. What about these two yes?
Speaker 2: Yeah, goodness, so yeah, And.
Speaker 1: I know these problems with recruiting police and that at
Speaker 1: the moment, and we should touch on that, touch on
Speaker 1: that briefly. But look, what can happen when you join
Speaker 1: the police relationship play out on a high rating national
Speaker 1: TV show and sit there and be embarrassed.
Speaker 2: And you get to see the world as well.
Speaker 1: What about that trip to Paris? You can't you can't
Speaker 1: make this stuff up. And this is the life of
Speaker 1: being in a relationship to homicide detectives. I remember you
Speaker 1: always Paris was your thing. You loved love going to Paris,
Speaker 1: and you're always talking about and I think you had
Speaker 1: a trip planned to Paris. One of the benefits that
Speaker 1: we got when we were in the police working together
Speaker 1: is that occasionally we had to escort prisoners to overseas destinations.
Speaker 1: I think we did Fiji, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and then
Speaker 1: a trip to Paris came up. I'll tell you my
Speaker 1: side of the story. I've been on call, been called
Speaker 1: out to a bad murder, a murder of Jaden Marsh,
Speaker 1: a young young child, and basically been up for forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. Was at headquarters swearing out a listening device
Speaker 1: mid morning Friday. I had the kids for that weekend,
Speaker 1: hadn't slept for forty eight hours. And you phone me,
Speaker 1: it's so normal, normal week to get a sense of
Speaker 1: the chaos. And you phone me, and I'm with Jason,
Speaker 1: Jason Overs who's been on the podcast, and good mate,
Speaker 1: my partner in work for years.
Speaker 2: You Fhaine, non intimate partner.
Speaker 1: We just could never get that working. He's you'll fhone
Speaker 1: me and I am just stressed to the eyeballs and
Speaker 1: I'm signing out for David's and I know it's just
Speaker 1: going to be a chaos over the weekend. And you go, Jubilan,
Speaker 1: We've got an offer. Do you want to go to
Speaker 1: Paris for the weekend, And of course I want to
Speaker 1: go to Paris for the weekend, but I'm a little
Speaker 1: bit busy at the moment, having slept, and I think
Speaker 1: I said no to you, and I hung up, and
Speaker 1: Jason goes, who was that, and I said it was Pam.
Speaker 1: We've got one of those extraditions to Paris for the weekend,
Speaker 1: but there is no way I can go. We're signing out,
Speaker 1: listening to vice warrants. We've got to install them. I've
Speaker 1: got to win interview the suspect in a couple of
Speaker 1: days and he's gone, you're mad, why don't you When
Speaker 1: he took me into it, I've phoned you back and
Speaker 1: said stop, I'll go from my point of view. I
Speaker 1: then had to finish signing out the warrants, plan everything,
Speaker 1: Drive back to the central coast, pick up my change
Speaker 1: of clothes, pick up my passport, take I think it
Speaker 1: was Jake. It was Jake and Jemmet's a swimming swimming
Speaker 1: practice because I have him for the weekend. Phone my
Speaker 1: father and say can you meet me on the highway.
Speaker 1: I'm coming down. Can you look after Jake and Jemmy
Speaker 1: for the weekend? Co ordinate things. I was on the
Speaker 1: phone the whole time, totally strung out. We get to
Speaker 1: the airport at about nine o'clock and the prisoner is
Speaker 1: handed over to us. This mad Frenchman. And remember he
Speaker 1: was carrying a digitidop that what he had done. He'd
Speaker 1: come into the airport and flew in sold the AFP
Speaker 1: officer or one of the work. So they didn't let
Speaker 1: him in and he had to be escorted back to
Speaker 1: back to parents. So we get on the plane. I
Speaker 1: am dead tired. We got the three seats down the
Speaker 1: back of the plane, put the prisoner near the near
Speaker 1: the window, and he misbehaved the whole time. I remember
Speaker 1: there was a stopover at Hong Kong. You had to
Speaker 1: get off the plane. I wasn't allowed to get off
Speaker 1: the plane. I had to stay with him. You had
Speaker 1: to take your passports and Heathrow. Remember at this time,
Speaker 1: I don't think I'd slept for seventy two hours wrestling
Speaker 1: with him, and he would he would be just elbowing
Speaker 1: me and just carrying on a true We get the
Speaker 1: Heathrow airport and the only way we didn't really have
Speaker 1: any power of those extraditions, did we.
Speaker 2: It was just sort of it was bluff. Yes, it
Speaker 2: was so we the people who asked us to do
Speaker 2: it knew that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he gets off the Heathrow and we've got
Speaker 1: a three hour stopover and I'm pointing to it because
Speaker 1: he didn't speak English. I'm pointing to the police walking
Speaker 1: around with guns and pointing at the guns and pointing
Speaker 1: at him and with his passport, pretending to rip it
Speaker 1: up and prow it in the bin to try and
Speaker 1: control it. And he responded saying, he'll settle down by
Speaker 1: if I'd take him in. Remember they had those smoking rooms,
Speaker 1: a little fishing Yes, yes, I sit there. And then
Speaker 1: we got to know when we got the Paris. Remember
Speaker 1: he turned it on at Charles de Gaure Airport and
Speaker 1: started fighting with us and the friends.
Speaker 2: I got on with him. Fine, I don't know what
Speaker 2: your issue.
Speaker 1: You were asleep in the seat in front. I remember
Speaker 1: that trip. I was stuck with him the whole time,
Speaker 1: and can you get the well, here we are. I
Speaker 1: am totally strung. Anyway, it was a fun trip. And
Speaker 1: then you got cranky at me because we had to
Speaker 1: go back because I had to interview the suspect for
Speaker 1: the murder.
Speaker 2: And only you could do the interview. There wasn't another
Speaker 2: person on the planet who could possibly have done it.
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of that interview, and we got a
Speaker 1: conviction and it was a very important interview. But you
Speaker 1: said you were just so cranky at me because we
Speaker 1: had to go home a day early from Paris.
Speaker 2: You got your conviction and all I got of my
Speaker 2: holiday might have seemed like worked to you, but that
Speaker 2: was my Paris holiday. Is a photograph of you asleep
Speaker 2: on a park bench, Well, but it's a Parisian park bench,
Speaker 2: that's the important thing, and I still have that photo.
Speaker 1: It was a fun trip, but I remember we got
Speaker 1: back and we were just so tired and we thought, no, no,
Speaker 1: we can roll in the work, but they were in.
Speaker 1: We did. We went, and I think the first trip
Speaker 1: we actually had without the prisoner was to Vietnam, and
Speaker 1: we're no one to talk to because we didn't have
Speaker 1: a prisoner between us. But join the police and see
Speaker 1: the world. It is another another layer of it. But
Speaker 1: it was a fun, fun time.
Speaker 2: It was yeah, yeah, yeah, And we had to do
Speaker 2: things like that. There wasn't you know. We were not
Speaker 2: as ranked as we became, and you had a family responsibility,
Speaker 2: so we took advantage of anything free that came along.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so just take this prison. I think the bloke
Speaker 1: we took back was that Hong Kong. He was described
Speaker 1: as Hannibal Lecter. He was one of the nicest blokes
Speaker 1: I had when he handed over. When he was handed
Speaker 1: over to us, people going to be careful, be careful,
Speaker 1: but we got on famously. But yeah, there were fun times. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we talk some heavy stuff, but there's also some fun
Speaker 1: times to policing and the chaos and it's not your average,
Speaker 1: average life, but there's some exciting things that play out.
Speaker 2: Isn't it.
Speaker 1: Definitely when we get back for part four, we're going
Speaker 1: to continue continue the chat with Pam, but we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about them something. This is where we better
Speaker 1: enjoy ourselves now because the Scott Johnson matter that you
Speaker 1: were heavily involved in, and I think it's fair to
Speaker 1: say that particular investigation was a tipping point of your
Speaker 1: career in the New South Wales Police. Yes, so try
Speaker 1: and keep a smile on your face when we get
Speaker 1: back Apart four, or remind you of some fun memories.
Speaker 1: But when we come back, we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: Scott Johnson matter and it's played out very publicly and
Speaker 1: we'll get insight from Pam's perspective on that job.
Speaker 2: See you then, mm hmm.