Speaker 1: Hi, it's Gary jubilin here. I'm excited to announce I'll
Speaker 1: be hosting a live podcast recording at the Factory Theater
Speaker 1: in Sydney on the twenty seventh of November. Spend the
Speaker 1: evening with myself and two special guests as we take
Speaker 1: a deep dive into the world of crime and punishment.
Speaker 1: You'll even be able to take part in a live
Speaker 1: Q and A. I'll be there before and after the
Speaker 1: show to have a chat. Tickets are available through the
Speaker 1: link in the show notes, or visit the Eyecatch Killers
Speaker 1: Instagram or Facebook group. I hope to see you there.
Speaker 1: It's going to be raw and I reckon a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. The public has had a long held fascination
Speaker 1: with detectives. Detective see a side of life the average
Speaker 1: person is never exposed to. I spent thirty four years
Speaker 1: as a cop. For twenty five of those years I
Speaker 1: was catching killers. That's what I did for a living.
Speaker 1: I was a homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing
Speaker 1: bad guys. Instead, I'm taking the public into the world
Speaker 1: in which I operated. The guests I talk to each
Speaker 1: week have amazing stories from all sides of the law.
Speaker 1: The interviews are raw and honest, just like the people
Speaker 1: I talked to. Some of the content and language might
Speaker 1: be confronting. That's because no one who comes in the
Speaker 1: contact of crime is left unchanged. Join me now as
Speaker 1: I take you into this world. Welcome back to part
Speaker 1: two of my chat with Geraldine Kine. Geraldine's younger sister,
Speaker 1: Lisel Smith, disappeared on the New South Wales Central Coast
Speaker 1: back in twenty twelve. After a lengthy investigation, a person
Speaker 1: known to James Church was charged with Liesl's murder. In
Speaker 1: Part one, we talked about the way that Geraldine became
Speaker 1: aware of Lisel's disappearance and the impact it's had on her,
Speaker 1: and bearing in mind this is over a six year
Speaker 1: period that Part one Geraldine described. We're now going to
Speaker 1: hear from Geraldine what it was like attending the trial
Speaker 1: and what she learnt during the trial, and her version
Speaker 1: of the unforeseen twist at the end of the trial
Speaker 1: and how she dealt with that. We're also going to
Speaker 1: discuss if there is any way Lisaal's family can find
Speaker 1: out what happened to Lusel and get some form of justice. Geralone,
Speaker 1: Welcome back, he Gary again. I apologize for discussing this
Speaker 1: and dragging this up, but I think it's important that
Speaker 1: people talk about their experiences, like your experience. So I
Speaker 1: want people, and I was always at pains as a
Speaker 1: homicide detective, if I want people to understand what families
Speaker 1: are going through when people who have disappeared or people
Speaker 1: have been murdered, and it's horrendous and unless you've been there,
Speaker 1: I don't think you can fully fully appreciate it.
Speaker 2: It wasn't on my bucket list of things to do.
Speaker 2: Put it that way, I don't know anyone that would
Speaker 2: have that as something to do on their bucket list. No,
Speaker 2: as I said before, you know that sort of stuff
Speaker 2: always happen to other people and you feel compassion and empathy,
Speaker 2: and then you know, as you said, you know, go
Speaker 2: into the next thing until you become those other people
Speaker 2: and it happens to you. It's certainly not something that
Speaker 2: I ever thought would happen to me, or that I
Speaker 2: would have to explain to people. Even now, I don't
Speaker 2: really talk about it. It's quite difficult. I tend to
Speaker 2: talk about it with people that I've known for a
Speaker 2: long time, so if I meet someone new, it's not
Speaker 2: really something that I bring up.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just it's a hard, hard topic to
Speaker 1: bring up, and sometimes people don't know how to deal
Speaker 1: with you bringing the topic up, and it's almost what
Speaker 1: do I say, Well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. And
Speaker 2: you know, I think a lot of people tend to
Speaker 2: think that, you know, we want you to fix what's
Speaker 2: gone on, and.
Speaker 3: You can't.
Speaker 2: I don't necessarily have that expectation of anyone that I
Speaker 2: talk to lisl about, but you know, sometimes I just
Speaker 2: want people to listen or to recognize that, you know,
Speaker 2: missing people affect everybody in society. It's not just you know,
Speaker 2: the immediate families and their friends, but it is the
Speaker 2: whole of society, you know. It's it's the fabric of
Speaker 2: society that missing people, you know, affect. And as I
Speaker 2: said to you in a previous conversation, you know, society.
Speaker 2: I look at society as a bolt of fabric that's
Speaker 2: got different weaves in it, and missing people are one
Speaker 2: of those threads. And if you don't have that thread,
Speaker 2: then that fabric pattern isn't complete. You're missing a thread.
Speaker 2: It's you know, it's not like you can suddenly find
Speaker 2: out it's a pulled thread and fix it up. And yep,
Speaker 2: in some cases that happens. And I am so happy
Speaker 2: for those families that do find their missing loved ones,
Speaker 2: but there are also quite a number of us that don't,
Speaker 2: and you know, realistically never will.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's hard, isn't it. It's very hard to come
Speaker 1: to terms with that. We're going to talk about the
Speaker 1: murder trial with Liesel's case. Before we do, just describe
Speaker 1: the type of person Lisel was. She was twenty three
Speaker 1: years old where she disappeared.
Speaker 2: She was her own person, she liked her own company.
Speaker 2: She was just doing life like any other twenty three
Speaker 2: year old, you know, making mistakes, you know, making good choices,
Speaker 2: making bad choices, you know, working out what she wanted
Speaker 2: to do as a job, whether that was for the
Speaker 2: rest of her life or you know, for six months
Speaker 2: until you know, she found something else she wanted to do.
Speaker 2: You know, she was working, she was working it out,
Speaker 2: you know, like any other twenty three most twenty three
Speaker 2: year olds.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a great time of life, isn't it.
Speaker 1: You're old enough to make the mistakes, but you've also
Speaker 1: got some control on your life, and it's an exciting
Speaker 1: time of life as twenty five now.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't mind being twenty three again, but that's never going.
Speaker 1: To happen if we work out the war and the
Speaker 1: clock back. Yeah, I'll keep the wisdom.
Speaker 3: I'll keep the wisdom, thanks, but I'll take the rewinding age.
Speaker 1: I think we could sell that to a few people.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sure we could.
Speaker 1: Okay, experits of a murder trial and I've been to
Speaker 1: countless murder trials and I've got to say they're emotionally
Speaker 1: and physically draining. I'd never come out at the end
Speaker 1: of a murder trial the same as I went into it.
Speaker 1: And I'm just city a police officer involved on the perif.
Speaker 1: I can't even fathom how much it drains. You been
Speaker 1: a family member going through a murder trial? Do you
Speaker 1: want to talk us through the whole process?
Speaker 2: So I got informed that I would be subpoenaed to
Speaker 2: give evidence at the trial and got served with a
Speaker 2: subpoena that was arranged. I was warned, which was good
Speaker 2: because I could warn work that I was required because
Speaker 2: I worked for State Health Service. There are requirements about
Speaker 2: when I'm subpoena, like when I was subpoened that I
Speaker 2: had to inform certain.
Speaker 3: People and whatnot.
Speaker 2: So I was forewarned and I spoke to the barristers
Speaker 2: a couple of times before I got on the stand.
Speaker 2: They did their best to me, which I found really helpful,
Speaker 2: and they were very understanding that, you know, that's something
Speaker 2: else that wasn't you know, it was never on my
Speaker 2: bucket list. So I was always, you know, always worried
Speaker 2: about going to coroner's court for work and not probably
Speaker 2: have nothing to worry about that in that regard. So
Speaker 2: they did their best to sort of prep what they
Speaker 2: would ask and what they were going to question me about.
Speaker 2: Obviously they couldn't tell me what the defense was going
Speaker 2: to ask. They also had told me a few months
Speaker 2: previously when this was moving through the courts. So as
Speaker 2: you would know, with a homicide charge, it moves through
Speaker 2: the local and the district courts first, and then an
Speaker 2: application is made to the Supreme Court to have the
Speaker 2: charge heard in the Supreme Court. All those unaware, it's
Speaker 2: a very long process. And in the midst of this process,
Speaker 2: COVID had hit, so we had a delay of I
Speaker 2: think about six to eight months because everything just shut down,
Speaker 2: which certainly didn't help.
Speaker 1: It adds to the trauma.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it certainly didn't help because you want things to regress.
Speaker 2: At the same time, it was a world wide pandemic,
Speaker 2: so you know, yet something else that's out of your
Speaker 2: control that you can't do anything about. And so I
Speaker 2: knew that the judge was, you know, was pretty She
Speaker 2: was strict but fair, and I have nothing but the
Speaker 2: utmost praise for Justice Fullerton. So I was subpoened. I
Speaker 2: couldn't listen to the first two weeks of the trial
Speaker 2: because I was a.
Speaker 1: Witness, which explain that to people, because again most people
Speaker 1: don't get experience in her criminal courts, especially the murder trial.
Speaker 1: But if you're a witness in a murder trial, regardless
Speaker 1: of your relationship to the victim or your involvement, until
Speaker 1: you've given evidence, you're excluded from the court. You can't
Speaker 1: go in there and understood why you can't hear other
Speaker 1: people give evidence before you give your evidence. But that
Speaker 1: then itself can be very frustrating. I've been in charge
Speaker 1: of murder investigations where I've had to sit I'm virtually
Speaker 1: the last witness, so I've had to sit outside the
Speaker 1: whole trial of matter that you've invested years in two
Speaker 1: and not knowing what's going on. I'm mainly the police officer.
Speaker 1: You're a family member. How frustrating was it sitting outside
Speaker 1: while the murder trial for your sister was going on.
Speaker 3: I actually had.
Speaker 2: To do my evidence via AVL audio visual. I had
Speaker 2: had some health problems and had required surgery and I
Speaker 2: wasn't allowed to fly. So originally the defendants lawyer had
Speaker 2: wanted me up in Sydney in person, so I don't
Speaker 2: live in New South Wales, and there was a lot
Speaker 2: of toing and frowing about me going up there, and
Speaker 2: in the end I had to get a letter from
Speaker 2: the specialist saying that I was not medically cleared to fly,
Speaker 2: and Justice Fullerton went, that's it, She's doing it via
Speaker 2: audio visual, which was done at one of the court
Speaker 2: houses in the capital city I live in.
Speaker 3: The biggest issue was the dates.
Speaker 2: Kept changing, so I think there was like one or
Speaker 2: two dates. Initially we were given a date and then
Speaker 2: that was changed because they didn't get through witnesses or
Speaker 2: there was some sort of discussion between the barristers and
Speaker 2: the judge and then it got changed again. And it
Speaker 2: was frustrating because you know, we've got kids.
Speaker 3: I was trying to get time off work.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to like a doctor's surgery. They line up
Speaker 1: about ten patients that they know they can the same day,
Speaker 1: in the same hour, and that's what they do with witnesses.
Speaker 1: So I do understand. Yeah, your frustration. That is the
Speaker 1: nature of the justice system in the courts always got
Speaker 1: to have them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was explained to me. That I wasn't left hanging.
Speaker 2: I was explained we didn't get through everyone, you know,
Speaker 2: evidence took longer today, and I was like, okay, cool,
Speaker 2: and that I didn't have a problem with that necessarily
Speaker 2: because I was kept in the loop of what was
Speaker 2: going on, and I was like, yep, fine. And then
Speaker 2: finally they cemented in a date and a time and
Speaker 2: I had to basically sit in a room. The only
Speaker 2: person who I could see was the judge and the
Speaker 2: defense lawyer and the two barristers. I couldn't see the
Speaker 2: defendant or anybody else in the courtroom, which in all
Speaker 2: honesty was completely fine with me. I gave evidence. Justice
Speaker 2: Fullerton was very thorough and there are a couple of
Speaker 2: instances where I think.
Speaker 3: She realized that I.
Speaker 2: Possibly not didn't quite understand what was being asked, and
Speaker 2: so she clarified for me, which was very appreciated. I was.
Speaker 3: I gave evidence, I think.
Speaker 2: For just under two hours, and the DPP were very good.
Speaker 2: You know, they covered what they had said that they
Speaker 2: would cover, so I was prepared for that. And then
Speaker 2: the defense lawyer started and some of the questions that
Speaker 2: he asked I just found completely in a and irrelevant.
Speaker 2: But it's not my job to work out why he
Speaker 2: was asking those questions. I answered as best as I could.
Speaker 2: Towards the end, I got frustrated and didn't lose my temper,
Speaker 2: but my frustration showed, and I remember sitting there, you know,
Speaker 2: feeling like I'd run a marathon. I had tried to
Speaker 2: keep myself calm, you know, and recognize that you know,
Speaker 2: I'm doing this to help with my sister. You know,
Speaker 2: I can't get emotional, I can't get frustrated. But he
Speaker 2: kept hammering home one particular point, and in the end
Speaker 2: I just turned around and snapped at him, for want
Speaker 2: of a better word, and then that was the end
Speaker 2: of questioning. I was excused. I remember just getting up
Speaker 2: and going as soon as I was excused, because my
Speaker 2: understanding was that once you're excused. If they want you
Speaker 2: back in court, they have to recipoena you, so I
Speaker 2: didn't want to give them any time to do that.
Speaker 2: And then smart play, Yeah, I flared out of the Yeah.
Speaker 2: In some ways, I felt a sense of relief and
Speaker 2: like a way to being lifted off my shoulders because
Speaker 2: I could now find out what was going on. I
Speaker 2: could listen to the evidence. They had to apply to
Speaker 2: the judge to get clearance for me to be able
Speaker 2: to and she gave that. I think it was about
Speaker 2: a week before I felt like I could sit there
Speaker 2: and listen to what was being said in court.
Speaker 1: So they set up facility for an AVL for you
Speaker 1: to listen to the form.
Speaker 2: They email you a link that you can link into
Speaker 2: and they you know, you have to log in and
Speaker 2: they obviously realize who it is and then off you go.
Speaker 3: That was horrendous.
Speaker 2: The thing that really got me is that they were
Speaker 2: discussing Lisel and the things that were said about her,
Speaker 2: in particular.
Speaker 3: By the defense.
Speaker 2: I know that the defense lawyer was doing a job
Speaker 2: that he was being paid to do, but it's still
Speaker 2: not nice to hear certain things said, regardless of whether
Speaker 2: they are true or not, about a family member, as
Speaker 2: I'm sure you know people that have experienced this can appreciate.
Speaker 2: And I guess the bier sense of injustice at that
Speaker 2: point for me was that Liseel had no way of
Speaker 2: defending herself against against.
Speaker 3: What was being said.
Speaker 2: You know, in if any of half of what was
Speaker 2: said was said in a public domain or on Facebook
Speaker 2: or any other social media, you could go after someone
Speaker 2: for defamation, you know, and what not, on slander and
Speaker 2: everything else. And you know, this is in a criminal court,
Speaker 2: and they can basically say what they like about the person,
Speaker 2: you know, in this case, my.
Speaker 1: Sister, And it is hard for loved ones that with
Speaker 1: victims that And you've nailed the point. She's not there
Speaker 1: to defend herself, so they can throw speculative comments up
Speaker 1: about the type of person she is or things that
Speaker 1: might have been done, and she's not there to defend
Speaker 1: her self. So I can understand how painful that would
Speaker 1: be for a loved one to watch that play out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it basically felt like it was a free for all,
Speaker 2: you know, open slather on her, and that was really
Speaker 2: frustrating and quite upsetting a number of times. Some of
Speaker 2: the things that were said, especially by the defense defense lawyer,
Speaker 2: and as I said, I understand he's got a job
Speaker 2: to do. And that's from what I understand. That's whey
Speaker 2: criminal court.
Speaker 1: Is you know exactly well, it's an adversarial system and
Speaker 1: that is the way that matters are adjudicated. Can I
Speaker 1: just to put it in context so people understand, and
Speaker 1: we won't go through all the evidence, but just in
Speaker 1: context the basic summary of the trial. So in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: Lisal left house one day to drive to Tugara train station,
Speaker 1: parked a car, and then a witness saw her getting
Speaker 1: into another white uit. It was the last time she
Speaker 1: was seen alive. She was a missing person for six years,
Speaker 1: never found a body. Everything pointed to Jim Church, an
Speaker 1: older neighbor who was a local horse trainer. Rumors were
Speaker 1: Lisal had an affair with him, got pregnant, and he
Speaker 1: killed her. Her body has not been found. Now that's
Speaker 1: a very brief description of the type of allegation. It's
Speaker 1: not going into the full facts of the matter, but
Speaker 1: just so people when we're talking about understand what was
Speaker 1: going on with this trial, because the trial ran for
Speaker 1: our correct me if I'm wrong thirteen and a half
Speaker 1: weeks seventy days. Yep, it was a judge alone trial.
Speaker 3: Yes, it was.
Speaker 1: My understanding, is that explained to you?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it basically meant that it was the judge and
Speaker 2: the judge alone who heard all the evidence, heard all
Speaker 2: the arguments, and you know, made rulings on what could
Speaker 2: or couldn't be submitted and whatnot. There was no jury whatsoever.
Speaker 2: My understanding is usually there's a choice. You can have
Speaker 2: a judge and a jury, or you can have a
Speaker 2: judge loan trial. The option, as far as I understood,
Speaker 2: wasn't given in this case because of COVID, so, which
Speaker 2: is to me, neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: So, Yeah, during the course of the trial, you're listening
Speaker 1: to it. You've got over the time period where you
Speaker 1: were excluded from the court, You've given your evidence, and
Speaker 1: now you're starting to listen to the trial. How did
Speaker 1: you think the trial was going.
Speaker 2: I kept an open mind because as in as everyone
Speaker 2: knows in this country, you know, you have the right
Speaker 2: to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court
Speaker 2: of law. And in some ways I wanted to listen
Speaker 2: to bear witness for Lisel. That was how I felt,
Speaker 2: and I wanted to hear what the evidence was with
Speaker 2: my own ears. There are a number of witnesses that
Speaker 2: were expert witnesses on like phone towers and roadworks and
Speaker 2: you know all these other bits and pieces that were
Speaker 2: crucial to the case for the DPP. And what I
Speaker 2: found really good was that Justice Fullerton, if she wasn't
Speaker 2: clear on something, she got the person who was in
Speaker 2: the stand at the time to clarify so that she
Speaker 2: completely understood what the evidence they were giving was about,
Speaker 2: which I know was very helpful. As the trial progressed
Speaker 2: and more and more witnesses were gone through, I started
Speaker 2: forming my own opinion, and I think the crux of
Speaker 2: it came towards the end when both my stepdad and
Speaker 2: the defendant were called to give evidence along with By
Speaker 2: this stage the police interviews with the defendant had been played.
Speaker 2: I think they're about five or six. So you just
Speaker 2: saw the only way to eliminate this thread was to
Speaker 2: murder Lusel anyway.
Speaker 1: For what you don't know is that Lucil was never
Speaker 1: bringing up.
Speaker 2: That's a difference to me.
Speaker 1: We believe he murdered Lusel in the world right. We
Speaker 1: believe that her remains are located in the Hunter and
Speaker 1: we want to know where she is.
Speaker 3: I haven't murdered a run. I don't know where she is.
Speaker 3: I certainly don't own a gun.
Speaker 2: I've never murdered anyone. I said to the arrises for
Speaker 2: the DPAP at one stage, I'm surprised they didn't hear
Speaker 2: me yelling at the computer from interstate because I was
Speaker 2: just so incredulous about what the defendant had said. You know,
Speaker 2: in regards to Lisel, the way that he spoke about
Speaker 2: her and the person he was with at the time,
Speaker 2: who was apparently the love of his life was just disgusting,
Speaker 2: you know. And the way that he presented himself in
Speaker 2: court verse is what he said when he thought no
Speaker 2: one was listening, was a very stark contrast.
Speaker 1: This was the covit evidence was gathered through listening devices
Speaker 1: or phone taps.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, so there were listening devices planted in his
Speaker 2: parents house where there were conversations recorded between his parents
Speaker 2: and his sister as well as him. They planted listening
Speaker 2: devices in his I think his car and in his house,
Speaker 2: and there had also been intercepts picked up between him
Speaker 2: and other witnesses. So basically he had an outright asked
Speaker 2: people to lie for him.
Speaker 3: To provide an alibi, but.
Speaker 2: He had said, oh, you know, you stick with the story,
Speaker 2: and once those had been disproven, you know, my understanding
Speaker 2: was that he really had nowhere to go with, you know,
Speaker 2: explaining where he'd been. Phones had been turned off and
Speaker 2: then turned on, and he was like, oh, but I was,
Speaker 2: you know, at my girlfriend's house at the time, and
Speaker 2: they said, okay, fine, you know, but she's wrung immobile
Speaker 2: and you know, everyone's done the thing where, you know,
Speaker 2: I can't find a mobile, can you ring it for me?
Speaker 3: Sort of thing.
Speaker 2: But she'd also rung his landline as well, and it
Speaker 2: showed when they had telecommunication experts coming that he'd actually
Speaker 2: turned his phone off until like one one point thirty
Speaker 2: or something in the morning.
Speaker 1: It was on the crucial time.
Speaker 2: On the crucial time. The other thing was that up
Speaker 2: until the nineteenth of August, he and Lisal I think,
Speaker 2: in the course of four to six weeks or something
Speaker 2: had exchanged nearly two thousand text messages. I think it
Speaker 2: was like eighteen hundred, just over eighteen hundred, you know, contacts,
Speaker 2: And the nineteenth of August came and went was literally like.
Speaker 3: It had dropped off a cliff.
Speaker 2: There was nothing. He didn't text her, he didn't message her,
Speaker 2: he didn't ring her to find out if she was Okay,
Speaker 2: you know, I know I'm not the only one that
Speaker 2: messaged or tried to contact her. There was nothing from
Speaker 2: his phone.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, yeah, yeah, I think that's pretty telling. And
Speaker 1: I look, and I'm talking in the general sense here,
Speaker 1: want to clarify that. But if I'm looking and there's
Speaker 1: just someone disappears and then the person that's meaning constant
Speaker 1: contact doesn't contact, that person, makes you ask questions. Tell
Speaker 1: me with the detail there, like the way that you're
Speaker 1: describing it, and we should explain or disclaim here. This
Speaker 1: is just the observations of a trial that your witnessed.
Speaker 1: So we're not saying going through facts detail by detail.
Speaker 1: We're just your observations. Seems to be a thorough investigation.
Speaker 1: Let's wind it back when you're frustration with the police,
Speaker 1: if the communication was better, like I would suggest, you're
Speaker 1: looking at the investigation now and it was playing out
Speaker 1: in the trial that you think, okay, well, they were
Speaker 1: working on it. Does it change your view on your
Speaker 1: dealing with the dealings with the police.
Speaker 2: I think they'd obviously put a number of resources and
Speaker 2: a lot of time into the investigation. At the trial,
Speaker 2: they were there along with their wives, which I was
Speaker 2: very appreciative of, given how much time that this has
Speaker 2: taken up of their lives. You know, it wouldn't just
Speaker 2: be it's not a nine to five job.
Speaker 1: No should pushed that for a very long time.
Speaker 2: So I was very appreciative that they came along to
Speaker 2: see see the outcome. I don't I give credit to
Speaker 2: how much work and resources was put in. I just
Speaker 2: feel that if they had have explained that at the start,
Speaker 2: you know, and just had that compassion and that empathy
Speaker 2: in humanity, at least in their dealings with me. I
Speaker 2: can't speak for their dealings with anybody else. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: feel that I probably would have had a different view,
Speaker 2: and I would have a different view now. I still
Speaker 2: view it as you know, they really could have done
Speaker 2: it better, and you know, not necessarily treated me with
Speaker 2: key gloves, but not treated me the way that they did,
Speaker 2: you know. I just I felt that that was unwarranted
Speaker 2: and undeserved, and if they had have changed the way
Speaker 2: or you know, approached the way that they interacted with
Speaker 2: me on a different angle, and I guess expressed understanding.
Speaker 2: You know that I was frustrated, you know what's going on,
Speaker 2: and explained, as I said earlier, you know, we are working,
Speaker 2: but we can't explain what we're doing at the moment.
Speaker 2: I think things may have been a lot easier for
Speaker 2: me to some degree in that I would have understand
Speaker 2: understood that they were working. Yeah, at the trial, they
Speaker 2: had put a lot of work into their case. You know,
Speaker 2: proving time. You know how long it took to drive
Speaker 2: from point A to point B. You know why it
Speaker 2: was impossible that he said he was here when his
Speaker 2: car was you know, he was at point C, when
Speaker 2: his car was at point D, et cetera. And all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, you know, the case was built around
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence that was quite strong.
Speaker 1: Because there was no evidences presented where Liesl's body is.
Speaker 1: That Lisel's body wasn't recovered, so there's no evidence presented there, No,
Speaker 1: there's nothing. You're you've been watching the trial now for
Speaker 1: ten eleven weeks. At the end of the trial, the
Speaker 1: prosecution would have summed up and the defense would have
Speaker 1: summed up and pulling together all the evidence that's gone by.
Speaker 1: How did you feel did you were you when I
Speaker 1: say confident, confident being they show me the result that
Speaker 1: you were seeking would be that the person was convicted.
Speaker 1: Were you confident that he would be found guilty?
Speaker 2: I will be honest and say I certainly hope that
Speaker 2: he would be From my personal observations, I couldn't see
Speaker 2: how any other verdict could be reached. You know, there
Speaker 2: were huge gaps in things that he said, and the
Speaker 2: way you know, he tried to explain certain things away
Speaker 2: just made absolutely no logical sense. You know, it may
Speaker 2: have made sense to him, but you know it certainly
Speaker 2: didn't make sense to me. And from some of the
Speaker 2: questions that the judge had asked, I got the impression
Speaker 2: that she was trying to work out how it made
Speaker 2: sense as well. I didn't know what the judge would
Speaker 2: come to down with, and this was a discussion between
Speaker 2: my husband and I. Actually he said, you know what
Speaker 2: if he is found guilty, and I said, look, you
Speaker 2: know I'm not the judge. I don't have that legal backing.
Speaker 2: You know, she has nothing to do with the case.
Speaker 2: And that's the whole point of the legal system in Australia.
Speaker 2: You know, you bring forth your argument, you argue on
Speaker 2: the basis of your evidence as to what you think
Speaker 2: has happened, and then you know, the judge retires to
Speaker 2: make a verdict on the basis of points of law
Speaker 2: that you know they've spent god knows how long you know,
Speaker 2: understanding and applying and that's what should happen. If it
Speaker 2: had have come back not guilty, I would not have
Speaker 2: necessarily agreed with her. But at the same point, I'm
Speaker 2: not a Supreme Court judge. You know, I don't have
Speaker 2: to apply the law, and in all honesty, I would
Speaker 2: never want that responsibility because you're making judgments about people's
Speaker 2: lives for all you know, intents and purposes. You're either
Speaker 2: you know, sentencing them to jail for whatever period of
Speaker 2: time you may deem relevant at some point, or you're
Speaker 2: setting them free. And on the flip side, you know
Speaker 2: you have a family, you know that may or not
Speaker 2: agree with what you come up with. You know, that's
Speaker 2: a huge responsibility.
Speaker 1: Gerald. Just in what you've said there, I think you're
Speaker 1: showing what a fair and objective person you are, even
Speaker 1: when you're looking at a trial like that. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it says a lot about a lot about you as
Speaker 1: a person that you can offer that opinion when you're
Speaker 1: talking about a murder trial relating to your sister. You
Speaker 1: got notified that the verdict was going to be handed down,
Speaker 1: and I think the date that was set was the
Speaker 1: eighth of July twenty and twenty two. What went through
Speaker 1: your mind when you knew a date was going to
Speaker 1: be set, when the judge was going to come back
Speaker 1: with a guilty or not guilty verdict?
Speaker 3: Not a lot.
Speaker 2: Initially, Funnily enough, we were we were driving coming up
Speaker 2: to see my in laws when we got the I
Speaker 2: think it.
Speaker 3: Was a message to say that the judge had set
Speaker 3: a date.
Speaker 2: We'd asked for a date because obviously, living into state,
Speaker 2: we had to organize work schedules and flights and whatnot.
Speaker 3: And I think I was just in shock.
Speaker 2: That, you know, at this stage it had been.
Speaker 3: Just on a month.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think it was a month to the day
Speaker 2: when we got told that the judge was ready to
Speaker 2: hand down her verdict. We duks for a week's notice
Speaker 2: and she gave us five days. Originally I think it
Speaker 2: was going to be forty eight hours. Yeah, in some
Speaker 2: ways I wish it had a been forty eight hours,
Speaker 2: but I don't necessarily think that would have changed anything
Speaker 2: that happened afterwards, and so it was a mad scramble
Speaker 2: to organize flights and whatnot. And I don't think I
Speaker 2: actually processed anything, and I hadn't up until the day before,
Speaker 2: I think, just because so much needed to be organized.
Speaker 2: You know, I still had to go to work.
Speaker 1: You were going up there to see the judge handed
Speaker 1: down the findings.
Speaker 3: That was y yep.
Speaker 2: I would not have missed that for the world. I
Speaker 2: couldn't be there during the trial physically, you know, other responsibilities,
Speaker 2: you know, during that thing called life. But I was
Speaker 2: definitely going to be there for the verdict.
Speaker 1: And then this roadblock, this thing that I've never heard
Speaker 1: of in all my time in policing. At such a
Speaker 1: crucial stage, you get notified that the person that was
Speaker 1: charged with your sister's murder and had been the accused
Speaker 1: in the thirteen and a half week trial, the judge
Speaker 1: was going to hand down her findings on the eighth
Speaker 1: of July, and on the seventh of July, he killed himself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember that phone call.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'll forget that as long as I live.
Speaker 2: I was at work, I think I was like two
Speaker 2: hours into a shift. I was working in recovery at
Speaker 2: this stage. I'd had to leave ICU because of the
Speaker 2: stress of what was going on with the trial. And then,
Speaker 2: you know, ic use a high acuity area. As I've mentioned,
Speaker 2: I couldn't do both. I had nothing left, so I
Speaker 2: moved to another area where I could use those skills,
Speaker 2: but it wasn't, as you know, emotionally demanding.
Speaker 3: And I remember.
Speaker 2: I had my phone in my pocket because we were
Speaker 2: trying to organize flights and you know, and bits and pieces,
Speaker 2: and it rang, and I remember pulling it out of
Speaker 2: my pocket, out of my scrubs and thinking, oh, that
Speaker 2: number looks odd and I don't know what it was,
Speaker 2: but I was like, I've got to answer this. So
Speaker 2: I worked, walked around the corner from the nurse's desk
Speaker 2: where it was semi private, and answered the phone. And
Speaker 2: it was the social worker attached to the case, and
Speaker 2: she asked me if I was at worker at home.
Speaker 2: I said, no, no, I'm at work, and she's like, oh,
Speaker 2: there's been a development. And I remember saying he played guilty.
Speaker 2: I mean I would have fallen over, you know, because
Speaker 2: I was adamant that there was no way he was
Speaker 2: going to change his PLA, which had been not guilty,
Speaker 2: and he was very adamant that he hadn't done it
Speaker 2: the entire way through the trial and she went no,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, okay, so you know, I think I
Speaker 2: said something else and she was like no. She said, look,
Speaker 2: is there any way that you can get on a
Speaker 2: video conference call? This was at about ten ten thirty
Speaker 2: in the morning, and I said, I'm at work and
Speaker 2: she said, oh, what time do you finish? And I
Speaker 2: was like, well five, but like, what's going on? She said, Oh,
Speaker 2: I don't really want to tell you. And I just said,
Speaker 2: you've got to tell me. I said, like, I need
Speaker 2: to focus for what I do. If you don't tell me,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be able to focus, and that
Speaker 2: potentially puts, you know, my patients at risk because I'm
Speaker 2: going to be wondering what's going on. And she said,
Speaker 2: let me just dial in the two barristers. So she
Speaker 2: did that and she said, oh. They got on the
Speaker 2: phone and you know, asked me how it was and stuff,
Speaker 2: and they said, oh, there's been a notification at the
Speaker 2: defendant's house. There's been an ambulance and the police called
Speaker 2: of a deceased body and I do believe the entire
Speaker 2: word of mother f came out of my mouth loudly, understand.
Speaker 2: And I remember just saying like, are you serious and
Speaker 2: they said, yeah, we're waiting on confirmation. We can't get
Speaker 2: in touch with your step dad. We're trying to at
Speaker 2: the moment. And I was like okay, and they said,
Speaker 2: you know, are you able to set something up so
Speaker 2: that we can talk to you, you know, face to
Speaker 2: face through zoom And I.
Speaker 3: Said, leave it with me.
Speaker 2: I'll have a chat to my bosses and I'll get
Speaker 2: back in touch and they said yep. I walked around
Speaker 2: to my in charge and said, I've got a codo
Speaker 2: like our nursunit manager. So my big boss's office, I
Speaker 2: remember walking in there and I saw one of the
Speaker 2: other a and ums from anesthetics. So anesthetics is sitter recoveries.
Speaker 3: When you wake up.
Speaker 2: And I remember walking there and just asking where my
Speaker 2: boss was because she knew, and I remember just shaking,
Speaker 2: and they were like, oh, no, she's at a meeting.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, can you please ring her? And I
Speaker 2: think the look on my face they just went yeah, sure,
Speaker 2: and they said, I do want me to tell her
Speaker 2: what's about and I said, just tell her it's Geraldine
Speaker 2: and she needs to come here, and so he very
Speaker 2: kindly rang her. She turned up five minutes later. I
Speaker 2: rang matt in that time. He had been in town
Speaker 2: and was on the way home and basically did a YUI.
Speaker 2: I was like, I can't drive home, Matthew if I
Speaker 2: if I get into the car, I'm going to have
Speaker 2: an accident. You know, I just I'm in no shape
Speaker 2: to drive. So he did a UI and came back
Speaker 2: in and my boss had come back at that point,
Speaker 2: and I had quickly explained to her what had happened,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm out for the shift,
Speaker 2: and she was like, not a problem. My husband turned
Speaker 2: up in theater cat booties and a theater gown that
Speaker 2: was two sizes too small for him.
Speaker 3: Because we're in theater you have to be in scrubs.
Speaker 3: But you know, I just he just looked utterly ridiculous.
Speaker 3: God love him.
Speaker 2: And she set up Microsoft teams and we had a
Speaker 2: discussion with the barristers. They were in the midst of
Speaker 2: going through all the legal cases in Australia where anything
Speaker 2: like this had happened, and they were of the opinion
Speaker 2: that as far as they knew, there was nothing, and
Speaker 2: they ended up having to go back to British common law,
Speaker 2: so back through Britain or the UK's legal cases as
Speaker 2: well to see if any increased it and being sent there. Yep,
Speaker 2: it's never happened before and as the law currently stands,
Speaker 2: as was explained to us at the time and again
Speaker 2: just before we got the verdict, they were pretty confident
Speaker 2: that we would not get a verdict because the law
Speaker 2: as it currently stands in New South Wales does not
Speaker 2: allow for a verdict to be handed down where the
Speaker 2: defendant has died, no matter what stage of the proceedings
Speaker 2: you were in. So even though it was less than
Speaker 2: twenty four hours that this occurred.
Speaker 3: The law was the law.
Speaker 1: Now, so many things to unpack you that, how did
Speaker 1: that make you feel that you weren't the verdict that
Speaker 1: you've been waiting for, the decision getting some ants as
Speaker 1: perhaps some answer is about what happened to your sister,
Speaker 1: just taking the word from you like that, how did
Speaker 1: it make you feel?
Speaker 3: Initially?
Speaker 2: I was hoping against hope that we would still get
Speaker 2: a verdict because to me rationally it was like, well,
Speaker 2: we've just been through a thirteen and a half week trial,
Speaker 2: the evidence has been examined, the judge has already written
Speaker 2: her verdict. You know, the defendant participated how he wanted
Speaker 2: to within that trial, and you know, nothing was going
Speaker 2: to change the verdict that she had written in you know,
Speaker 2: twenty four hours before it was due to be handed down,
Speaker 2: you know, and then I remember feeling really angry because
Speaker 2: I felt like this was a final if you not
Speaker 2: just to the family I grew up with, and the
Speaker 2: judge and the legal system, but most of all to Lisel.
Speaker 2: You know, he didn't want to be held accountable. He
Speaker 2: didn't want to be held responsible, and you know, I
Speaker 2: think he's a coward. He didn't want to face the prospect,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: Of what.
Speaker 2: One of the possibilities was all, you know, and I
Speaker 2: think it was a power play, you know, that he
Speaker 2: still had control. He was out on bail the entire time,
Speaker 2: apart from I think a couple of months where he
Speaker 2: was held in remand. And the judge ruled that, you know,
Speaker 2: because how long it was expected before we were to
Speaker 2: go to trial and the length of the trial, that
Speaker 2: it was unfair to keep him in jail. And it
Speaker 2: was raised by the DPAP that they had considered asking
Speaker 2: for him to be held in remand, but there was
Speaker 2: no you know, there was no justifiable reason to put
Speaker 2: him into remand. Prior to the trial. He turned up
Speaker 2: every day. He you know, had surrendered his passport that
Speaker 2: was part of the conditions. There was nothing to indicate
Speaker 2: that he would not turn up to the verdict being read.
Speaker 2: You know, they had no justifiable reason. I understand the logic,
Speaker 2: you know, I just.
Speaker 3: I just remember.
Speaker 2: Hoping against hope that there would be something that would
Speaker 2: let us get a verdicts of what that verdict was,
Speaker 2: the only thing that we didn't get is something called
Speaker 2: a theory of tendency because, as the judge explained, if
Speaker 2: she ruled us to whether it basically came down to
Speaker 2: whether she accepted his or not his alibi, but his
Speaker 2: version of events or not. And it was a very
Speaker 2: short walk, as she said, from there to work out
Speaker 2: whether she felt he was guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 1: Right, So she didn't articulate that during the trial or
Speaker 1: during her closing address.
Speaker 2: No, because it was so tied up with the verdict
Speaker 2: that you yeah, so there were both things that we
Speaker 2: didn't get.
Speaker 1: I I'll bring you back to earlier on in the podcast,
Speaker 1: you said you have absolutely no criticism of the judge,
Speaker 1: Justice Fulton in the matter, in the way that was
Speaker 1: conducted the trial, not at all.
Speaker 2: If anything, I felt when she was reading out why
Speaker 2: she couldn't give us a verdict, that she was as
Speaker 2: empathetic and compassionate as she possibly could be. She recognized
Speaker 2: that you know, a number of family had traveled from interstate,
Speaker 2: and that she hoped She did say that she hoped
Speaker 2: that we could understand that the law simply did not
Speaker 2: allow her to give the verdict. I think, and this
Speaker 2: is my personal observation from sitting in the courtroom, I
Speaker 2: think she was just as frustrated and angry that this
Speaker 2: had occurred as you know, as what everyone else was.
Speaker 1: I've got a quote from her from what she said
Speaker 1: after it, and this is from Justice Fullton. Because of
Speaker 1: mister Church's death yesterday, which brought his trial to an end,
Speaker 1: I cannot announce my verdict today. I want to assure
Speaker 1: Miss Smith's many friends and many members of her family
Speaker 1: that the law simply does not allow me to publicly
Speaker 1: announce it or to publish the very lengthy reasons which
Speaker 1: were ready to be published clearly, I can hear the
Speaker 1: frustration in her in what she's saying them, the empathy
Speaker 1: and everything else that we've talked about to me, and
Speaker 1: let's yeah, you're a very balanced and objective in what
Speaker 1: you're saying. But you brought it back to the point
Speaker 1: that it's been through the trial. The trial had finished
Speaker 1: for all intents and purposes, and it was a verdict
Speaker 1: to be handed down. The fact that it's never or
Speaker 1: they couldn't find any law, common law or anything to
Speaker 1: refer to and had to keep digging back. It is
Speaker 1: such an unusual situation. I haven't seen it in my time.
Speaker 1: The closest I've come to anything like this was a
Speaker 1: person that I was looking at for his wife surprisingly
Speaker 1: disappeared ten years before, and he reported it. Then his
Speaker 1: business partner disappeared. I became involved in the investigation. When
Speaker 1: he reported his business partner having disappeared. It looked suspicious
Speaker 1: to me. That's the second person that's disappeared in his life.
Speaker 1: Then the wife had disappeared ten years earlier. We started
Speaker 1: investigating that matter. We charged him with some drug relay defences.
Speaker 1: He skipped to into state. We brought him back and
Speaker 1: we got a warrant and brought him back to New
Speaker 1: South Wales. He was in custody, he was notified that
Speaker 1: I was coming out to speak to him about the murders,
Speaker 1: and he killed himself in prison and left a nate.
Speaker 1: But there was I felt so bad for the family,
Speaker 1: the wife's family, because they were looking for answers. They've
Speaker 1: never found their loved one's body, and they were hoping
Speaker 1: that if these charges, which looked like they were going
Speaker 1: to be laid, might give them answers. And I know
Speaker 1: how cheated they felt. But that matter was referred to
Speaker 1: the coroner, or his death was referred to the coroner,
Speaker 1: and from my memory that's going back probably fifteen or
Speaker 1: more years, that the coroner made a comment that, based
Speaker 1: on the information, the most likely likely scenario is that
Speaker 1: he took his own life, but he was also involved
Speaker 1: in the disappearance of the two people. Doesn't give you
Speaker 1: a definitive answer that it helps to a degree. Is
Speaker 1: that something that you think could work with your situation?
Speaker 1: What recourse do you want?
Speaker 2: I think something at this point in time is better
Speaker 2: than nothing. You know, thirteen and a half weeks of
Speaker 2: a huge emotional impact that still has ramifications and consequences
Speaker 2: on me and my family today. I remember when the
Speaker 2: judge was reading this out. You know, I just sat
Speaker 2: there and stared at her. I'm sure she thought I
Speaker 2: was giving her a death stare, but I actually had tears.
Speaker 3: Rolling down my face.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I just something, you know, because at
Speaker 2: this point we've got nothing. We've got nothing. We don't
Speaker 2: have any idea where Leathal is. She could be anywhere
Speaker 2: between the Central coasts and the Upper Hunter Valley. You
Speaker 2: know that's a couple of hundred square kilometers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just.
Speaker 3: I understand that.
Speaker 2: You know, he doesn't have the right to appeal because
Speaker 2: of what he did. But as I said, you know,
Speaker 2: something's better than nothing, and at the moment, you know,
Speaker 2: anything's better than what we've got, which is nada.
Speaker 1: And I believe his legal team spoke out on his
Speaker 1: behalf and said, look, he shouldn't be the verdict hasn't
Speaker 1: been handed down, so he's not a convicted murderer, and
Speaker 1: pushed that aspect of it. You actually reached out to
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, Mark Speakman at the time, and you've
Speaker 1: got a response back, and you kindly pass that on
Speaker 1: to me. I just might read out an extract from
Speaker 1: that and this is response that the Attorney General gave
Speaker 1: to an email sent on the ninth of July twenty
Speaker 1: and twenty two. Please accept my deepest sympathy for the
Speaker 1: tragic loss of your sister and the grief that you
Speaker 1: and your family have endured. I understand the strong sense
Speaker 1: of dissatisfaction you have experienced as a result of the
Speaker 1: conclusion of proceedings. I also understand that you and your
Speaker 1: family sat through many days of evidence hoping for an
Speaker 1: outcome and the resolution to the matter that would bring
Speaker 1: closure to your family and justice for the lease that
Speaker 1: you would denied that opportunity is a matter about which
Speaker 1: you have every right to feel aggrieved. I appreciate your
Speaker 1: concerns about the current state of the law which preclude
Speaker 1: the judge in this case from delivering her judgment. This
Speaker 1: is a complex matter, and therefore I have to ask
Speaker 1: the Department of Community and Justice to provide me with
Speaker 1: advice on the legal and policy issues involved. I will
Speaker 1: carefully consider the advice in determining whether any form is
Speaker 1: any reform is appropriate to help me to consider the
Speaker 1: issues further. I would welcome any input you have on
Speaker 1: your experience in this case, and would ask you that
Speaker 1: you please contact my executive assistant. That was a response
Speaker 1: to an email that you sent to the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: Getting that must have given you some comfort at the
Speaker 1: time that it looks like they're at least looking into it,
Speaker 1: they're taking your concerns seriously.
Speaker 3: Yes and no.
Speaker 2: It's easy to say things and pass commiserations on when
Speaker 2: you know these things haven't happened to you. And it's
Speaker 2: easy to express that you understand someone's frustration, as we've
Speaker 2: spoken about before, unless it's actually happened to you. I
Speaker 2: don't think people quite understand the frustration, you know, when
Speaker 2: people give you platitudes and then don't follow up with anything.
Speaker 2: I had a teleconference call with him shortly after that
Speaker 2: that was organized. And you know, the Attorney General has
Speaker 2: the ability to change legislation. Yes, I understand that. You know,
Speaker 2: from a legal point, there needs to be a number
Speaker 2: of considerations. You know, you don't want to create loopholes
Speaker 2: where things have to go back to trial, you know,
Speaker 2: especially if the legislation is made retrospective so that it
Speaker 2: could apply to Liesl's case, which is what I would
Speaker 2: be looking for. And that was all well and good,
Speaker 2: But then I've heard absolutely nothing since that teleconference. I
Speaker 2: have no idea what they've done. I have no idea
Speaker 2: whether they've gone any further than that, you know, and
Speaker 2: I think if it's happened once, it'll happen again. You know.
Speaker 3: It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. To learn more, visit iycatchkillers dot com
Speaker 1: dot au. If you're a crimex plus subscriber, I hope
Speaker 1: you're enjoying your early and add free access to this podcast.
Speaker 1: We've got heaps of other great news series. One to
Speaker 1: look out for at the moment is Shandy's Legacy, created
Speaker 1: by the term behind your favorite podcast including The Teacher's
Speaker 1: Pet and The Teachers Trial. Shandy's Legacy follows the hearings
Speaker 1: into a major public inquiry into the Queensland DNA lab.
Speaker 1: Listen early and ad free at crimex or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Well, there's some counter arguments if they
Speaker 1: made the legislation. I've been involved in legislation changes on
Speaker 1: different matters. I've been involved in parable murders, double jeopardy legislation,
Speaker 1: and I understand the arguments going backwards and forwards. Eventually
Speaker 1: it was changed. But part of the argument for not
Speaker 1: changing legislation. If we change this, the the sky is
Speaker 1: going to fall everyone's It'll change the very structure of
Speaker 1: our justice system. It was changed and it didn't happen.
Speaker 1: This is such a rare occurrence. As the DPP identified
Speaker 1: as said, they can't find case law on it because
Speaker 1: we haven't seen it occur, and we're talking at the
Speaker 1: end of the trial, not during the trial, at the
Speaker 1: very end of the trial. If they made legislation that
Speaker 1: covered that, I don't think it did even have to
Speaker 1: be enacted on very often, but it would prevent what
Speaker 1: you guys have been through with the situation here, simple
Speaker 1: legislation change. I'm not a legal person, clearly, and I'm
Speaker 1: not informed enough to know the changing legislation, But just
Speaker 1: from an observational point of view, I can't see that
Speaker 1: the sky would fall if they made a change to
Speaker 1: find out what the verdict was going to be handed down,
Speaker 1: given that the trial had already concluded, you followed up
Speaker 1: with some letters, again still trying to get answers. There
Speaker 1: was a new Attorney general. Can I'll just read out
Speaker 1: some extracts of more communication that you had with the
Speaker 1: now new Attorney General the day before we receive the
Speaker 1: verdict mister Church committed suicide. This meant, as I'm sure
Speaker 1: you are aware, that we're unable to hear the verdict handed
Speaker 1: down as per the current legislation around this. Surely you
Speaker 1: can emphasize how traumatic that was, especially after giving evidence,
Speaker 1: along with everything pertaining to her disappearance over a decade
Speaker 1: now and the ongoing trauma this continues to put us through.
Speaker 1: We have no closure, We have nothing to me that
Speaker 1: comes as a that's pleading on the emotions. Please help us.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard a response at all to that.
Speaker 1: Well, you didn't finish off there. I spoke with your predecessor,
Speaker 1: mister Mark Speakman, who indicated this would go to the
Speaker 1: new South Wales Coroner. After thirteen and a half weeks
Speaker 1: of criminal trial evidence put under the microscope and the
Speaker 1: potential to have to reappear. I'm rather a gast disappointed
Speaker 1: and frustrated, to say the least, not to mention there
Speaker 1: has been nothing from your office, the coroner or the
Speaker 1: DPP to indicate what is happening or moving forward. We
Speaker 1: have no way of recourse. Again frustration, and you haven't
Speaker 1: heard anything back.
Speaker 2: I haven't had a phone call, I haven't had a
Speaker 2: text message, I haven't had an email. I've had absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: I find it of interest there that they're mentioned in
Speaker 1: the New South Wales Coroner. Now, I know we had
Speaker 1: this discussion a few days ago. To me, and this
Speaker 1: is a very simplistic plan, but I can't see why
Speaker 1: the matter couldn't be referred to the New South Wales Coroner.
Speaker 1: The coroner could get access to Justice Fulton's findings, review
Speaker 1: that with all the other evidence that came out through
Speaker 1: the trial, and perhaps make a finding on what happened
Speaker 1: to Lisel. Now, the role of the coroner is to
Speaker 1: investigate this where the cause is unknown, where there is
Speaker 1: a reason to think that death may not be due
Speaker 1: to natural causes, to determine the identity and the date,
Speaker 1: place and circumstances of the death. To me, and again,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but that seems
Speaker 1: to be a solution to this problem. Your thoughts.
Speaker 2: As I said, something's better than nothing. I mean, like
Speaker 2: legislation would be great and I'd be rapped if it
Speaker 2: was changed. You know that that would just be the
Speaker 2: you know, the holy grail, I guess, And you know,
Speaker 2: legislation is so specific, you know, it's it's there in
Speaker 2: black and white. You know, it's very specific to make
Speaker 2: sure that you know, you can't find loopholes. So I'm
Speaker 2: sure that it could be done. Failing that, because you know,
Speaker 2: as you said, they're worried the skyfall. I mean, never
Speaker 2: mind that my sky has already fallen. But you know,
Speaker 2: a coronial inquest I think would at least hold Jim
Speaker 2: Church to accountability. It's not a conviction, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's something, you know, and at this point in time,
Speaker 2: you know we're most likely never going to find where
Speaker 2: Lesa is, you know, and that's devastating, but at least
Speaker 2: there would be some accountability, you know, in some sort
Speaker 2: of respect from I guess, like a legal standpoint of view,
Speaker 2: for want of a better phrase.
Speaker 1: Well, I think a legal point of view is that
Speaker 1: at this point you've got zero. It's just up in
Speaker 1: the air. It's like everything's been thrown up in the
Speaker 1: air and the pieces haven't landed and no one's going
Speaker 1: to comment on it, so you're just left wondering. I think,
Speaker 1: if you know, if the best you could get is
Speaker 1: through if a person is in charge with murder. It
Speaker 1: goes before the coroner for the coroner to determine cause, manner,
Speaker 1: and location, time of death, all the details around what's happened.
Speaker 1: But I would hope then there's some accountability, some accountability
Speaker 1: if the coroner came back with a finding, and if
Speaker 1: we need to protect what justice Fulton, we can't just
Speaker 1: hand it out to everyone because he doesn't have the
Speaker 1: he's no longer here. Surely the system could set up
Speaker 1: that the coroner could look at. It doesn't have to
Speaker 1: make all the findings public, but just based on the
Speaker 1: information that's contained there, make a very very informed decision.
Speaker 1: Because this matter has already gone through the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: as a murder trial as to what's happened to Lisel
Speaker 1: and the other thing that I see another potential benefit
Speaker 1: here if that is done, I think it would be
Speaker 1: a good opportunity to call out to the media if
Speaker 1: anyone knows anything that might have happened to Lisel. Given
Speaker 1: the circumstances that someone that might have been loyal to
Speaker 1: the accused, now the fact that James Church's deceased might
Speaker 1: decide to come forward, that would be a great platform
Speaker 1: to make an appeal and then my understanding, what every
Speaker 1: family wants when a person's missing a suspected murder is
Speaker 1: to be able to find the body and lay their
Speaker 1: loved one with some respect and dignity.
Speaker 2: That would that would be nice. I don't think that
Speaker 2: leasels remains are probably going to be found in my lifetime,
Speaker 2: which is something that I really struggle with. You know,
Speaker 2: she's my sister. I want her home wherever or however
Speaker 2: that looks. And I think that if we have the
Speaker 2: ability to get something from the coroner, I would take that.
Speaker 2: You know, people talk about closure. I've had that mentioned
Speaker 2: a lot of times to me over the course of this.
Speaker 2: There will never be closure, you know. There's no such
Speaker 2: thing as closure for anyone who's got a missing person
Speaker 2: or a case such as this where you know you
Speaker 2: don't know where where your loved one is. I think
Speaker 2: there's just more questions. You know, Some questions get answered
Speaker 2: and others don't, and you have to work out what's important,
Speaker 2: which is sort of where I'm at as to which
Speaker 2: question do you want answered? And so at this point
Speaker 2: in time, you know, i'd take a coroner's in quest,
Speaker 2: you know, and I would take whatever you know, the coroner,
Speaker 2: you know, came up with on the basis of you know,
Speaker 2: them examining the evidence from Justice Fullerton, because they would
Speaker 2: at least allow you know, the ability to process, you know,
Speaker 2: and knowing that in some way, you know, he was
Speaker 2: held accountable. And I'm speaking from from my point of
Speaker 2: view because of what I you know, observed and what
Speaker 2: I think. But I just don't understand why, you know,
Speaker 2: there's been such a lack of response. And as I said,
Speaker 2: it's not a matter of if this happens again, it's
Speaker 2: a matter of when, and no other families.
Speaker 3: Should go through this, ye you know, this.
Speaker 2: Has completely shattered what was left of the family I
Speaker 2: grew up with. You know, it's certainly had an impact
Speaker 2: on the way that you know, my immediate family, so
Speaker 2: my husband and my kids, you don't interact and deal.
Speaker 2: It's been extremely stressful. I've had to leave an area
Speaker 2: of my career that I loved doing because emotionally, I
Speaker 2: just I had nothing left, you know, which was something
Speaker 2: that I didn't want to do, but there was no
Speaker 2: other option for me. And you know, this is something
Speaker 2: that I will be dealing with for the rest of
Speaker 2: my life. And you know, at some point, I'm going
Speaker 2: to have to explain to my daughter, you know, what's
Speaker 2: happened to her aunt, because I'm sure with the Internet
Speaker 2: that she'll come across it or something will get said
Speaker 2: and she's going to have questions. And you know, fair enough,
Speaker 2: what I don't understand is the lack of response from
Speaker 2: the people that can do something about this. You know,
Speaker 2: I've sent two letters. I know that there was quite
Speaker 2: a bit of pressure, but I just don't understand how,
Speaker 2: you know, there's a lack of consideration for responding. I
Speaker 2: know that they're busy, but everyone's busy. You know, she
Speaker 2: was my sister, she was she belonged to a family,
Speaker 2: She was here, you know, and I'm sure that if
Speaker 2: this ever happened to any person who you know, is
Speaker 2: in politics or the legal system, you know, they'd move
Speaker 2: heaven and to get something to happen. I mean, you've
Speaker 2: seen it with the police force, for example. You know,
Speaker 2: something happens like one of your own, happens to one
Speaker 2: of your own, and you guys do everything you can
Speaker 2: to work out what happened, and quite rightly, you know, yeah,
Speaker 2: I just feel that because it's not one of their own,
Speaker 2: that you know, in some regards it doesn't have as
Speaker 2: big of an impact, and I'm sure it matters to them,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't matter as much as if it was
Speaker 2: one of their family members.
Speaker 3: You know, the law of the laws.
Speaker 2: That we have are supposed to reflect society's values and
Speaker 2: what society holds up as the standard, as an and
Speaker 2: as being important and the failed they don't. You know,
Speaker 2: I understand that the way that the legal system is
Speaker 2: geared is that you're innocent to proven guilty, and as
Speaker 2: I said, you know, I get that, but at the
Speaker 2: same time, I think there needs to be in a
Speaker 2: case like this, a consideration for the victim's family and
Speaker 2: for the person who you know, bore the brunt of
Speaker 2: what happened, which in this case is Leesel.
Speaker 3: You know, she deserves better than apathy, which.
Speaker 2: Is essentially how I feel that you know, I've gotten
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 3: You know, they're just apathetic. It's sort of.
Speaker 2: While it was in the media, it was important and
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, we've got to do something. And now
Speaker 2: because it's not front page news anymore, it it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Well, sadly, I've seen it too many times, and you
Speaker 1: hit on some very good points there. The justice systems
Speaker 1: there to serve the community, and everyone should be treated
Speaker 1: equal in the justice system. There shouldn't be a disparity
Speaker 1: bit about what resources or what things have done because
Speaker 1: of who the victim is. It shouldn't shouldn't come into it.
Speaker 1: When you reached out to me to ask, I ask
Speaker 1: if I could help. I can't bring any skills as
Speaker 1: a homicide detective to the table, but what I can do,
Speaker 1: and you have done it. I've just given you a
Speaker 1: platform to talk, and I hope people are listening. I
Speaker 1: hope the policy makers are listening to your account of it,
Speaker 1: because no one could accuse you have been going off
Speaker 1: just angry and bitter, and you'll never be satisfied. You
Speaker 1: have been so reasonable, so open, and you've articulated your
Speaker 1: positions so clearly. I hope people do listen to this
Speaker 1: and push to make a change, because why you deserve
Speaker 1: an answer. Your family deserves an answer, lethal deserves an answer,
Speaker 1: and I think she'd be very proud of what you're
Speaker 1: doing in her memory and keep fighting to get justice
Speaker 1: for it. Credit for coming on and telling us your story.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Garry. It's much appreciated.
Speaker 1: Okay, we'll be in touch and let's find out if
Speaker 1: people do actually get back to you that have told
Speaker 1: you that they will get back to you. Let's see
Speaker 1: if they get back to you now, no worries, Thank you, cheers.
Speaker 1: I reckon we can get justice for Lisel here. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's that hard. They could even make a
Speaker 1: legislative change and hand down the findings of Justice Fulton
Speaker 1: after trial has been completed, or another way that I
Speaker 1: think is a very simple way, refer the matter to
Speaker 1: the coroner, give the coroner access to Justice Fulton's findings,
Speaker 1: and then the coroner can hand down the decision on
Speaker 1: what has happened to Lisal Smith. I really appreciate Geraldine
Speaker 1: Caine coming on the show, and I hope it helps.
Speaker 1: And I hope the people that said they're going to
Speaker 1: get back to Geraldine and the family do get back
Speaker 1: to Geraline. Let's hope we can find some justice for
Speaker 1: Lui and that n