Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy aside of life, the average person is never
Speaker 1: 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 talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Welcome to a bonus follow up episode of I Catch Killers.
Speaker 1: Back in twenty twenty three, our guest Geraldine Kane reached
Speaker 1: out to me to discuss the murder investigation of a sister,
Speaker 1: Liesel Smith. Lisel Smith was just twenty three years old
Speaker 1: when she vanished from the central coast of New South
Speaker 1: Wales in twenty twelve. The police believed that she had
Speaker 1: been murdered and that they knew who was responsible police
Speaker 1: were in the process of getting answers for Liesl's family.
Speaker 1: They had charged her partner, James Scott Church, with a murder,
Speaker 1: and after a lengthy judge only trill that sat for
Speaker 1: over sixty eight days, Justice Elizabeth Fulton indicated she would
Speaker 1: hand down her verdict on the eighth of July twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. Geraldine and the family had waited ten years
Speaker 1: for this moment, but the day they had been waiting
Speaker 1: for was taken away from them when James Church took
Speaker 1: his own life the day before the verdict was due
Speaker 1: to be handed down. Geraldine was informed, due to this
Speaker 1: the rigid legal system that seems to lack any compassion,
Speaker 1: that the verdict could not be made available to the public.
Speaker 1: That just added to the trauma of the family. I
Speaker 1: always believed that if the law was broken or failed
Speaker 1: the people is there to serve, it should be changed.
Speaker 1: After meeting with Geraldine, I suggested that the simplest way
Speaker 1: the hurdle could be overcome was for the matter to
Speaker 1: be referred to the coroner and the coroner could deliver
Speaker 1: a finding. This was without precedent, but to me it
Speaker 1: seemed to be a simple fix on the back of
Speaker 1: those discussions, Geraldine appeared on I Catch Killers and lobbied
Speaker 1: in the media and with the law makers to see
Speaker 1: if this could be achieved. It makes me very happy
Speaker 1: to announce that Geraldine's efforts were rewarded. And on the
Speaker 1: twenty ninth of September this year, Deputy State Coroner Harriet
Speaker 1: Graham found that Liesel Smith was killed by a partner,
Speaker 1: James Scott Church. So I thought they'd get Geraldine back
Speaker 1: on the podcast to discuss the process and the impact
Speaker 1: that it's had on her. Geraldine Kane, Welcome back to
Speaker 1: I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2: Thanks Gary, Thanksgarving me.
Speaker 3: Well, it's good to have you back here.
Speaker 1: But the circumstances that we'd probably we all be happier
Speaker 1: if I wasn't speaking to you, But there's been Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is what it is, isn't it. There's been some
Speaker 1: developments on Lisel's case. Now I've explained to the audience
Speaker 1: about the background to the situation, and can you just
Speaker 1: tell us in your words what's occurred since we last
Speaker 1: had you on the podcast and spoke to you at
Speaker 1: the coroner's court I think was the last time I
Speaker 1: saw you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So Coroner's finished and she went to basically think
Speaker 4: over what had been presented to her, and she was
Speaker 4: also taking some leave that had been pre planned a
Speaker 4: while before, and then gave us a date that it
Speaker 4: was on the date of my birthday. Actually that she
Speaker 4: presented her findings, and basically she found that Jim Church
Speaker 4: had killed Lisel, he was responsible for her death, and
Speaker 4: that if Lisel's remains were ever found that she would
Speaker 4: reopen the case because the manner of death could not
Speaker 4: be ascertained, obviously, but she accepted the evidence that had
Speaker 4: been put before her, and she also mentioned to the
Speaker 4: ag there'd been a review I think it was twenty
Speaker 4: twenty three, and a certain number of recommendations have not
Speaker 4: been implemented, one of which was recommendation thirty four. My
Speaker 4: understanding is that the coroner should not have to name
Speaker 4: a person as having done an action that has caused
Speaker 4: the death of another.
Speaker 2: I might be wrong.
Speaker 4: It's all very much legal jargon and everything. But she
Speaker 4: was not impressive. None of the recommendations have been implemented
Speaker 4: from that review, and she also referred basically not our case,
Speaker 4: but more the circumstances in terms of the issue of abatement,
Speaker 4: which has been the biggest hurdle in terms of not
Speaker 4: getting a verdict, has asked the AG to refer that
Speaker 4: to the new South Wales Legal Commission four of you
Speaker 4: to see whether there can be any sort of changes
Speaker 4: to the law on specific circumstances such as what happened
Speaker 4: with Lisal, which is what she can do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've been through the findings of the coroner and
Speaker 1: there's some significant things in there, and from a personal
Speaker 1: point of view for yourself and your family, calling that
Speaker 1: limbo situation of sitting through I think it was over
Speaker 1: or sixty eight days hearing of a trial for the
Speaker 1: person that was charged with murdering Lisel and then have
Speaker 1: that person kill themselves on the virtual day that the
Speaker 1: judge only it was a judge only trial was going
Speaker 1: to hand down the verdict. How distressing that would have
Speaker 1: been for the family because you battled. It was a
Speaker 1: ten year battle to get it to that point basically,
Speaker 1: and then you're left in limbo with no one being
Speaker 1: accountable for what's happened to your sister.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was interesting because the detectives involved in the
Speaker 4: coastal had different points of view as well, but the
Speaker 4: current actually found that quite helpful. She said, because it
Speaker 4: shows the amount of consideration that or the variance of
Speaker 4: perspectives that is raised with term of abatement and how
Speaker 4: that would apply. What I found really interesting was that
Speaker 4: not one family member from the defendant, none of his friends,
Speaker 4: nobody turned up to defend him or to say no,
Speaker 4: the evidence you've presented his role and they had the
Speaker 4: opportunity to do so.
Speaker 2: A nata kind you know, if everyone's saying, oh, he didn't.
Speaker 3: Do it, where were they?
Speaker 1: And also on the thing and when we first met,
Speaker 1: and this was the thing that I could tell was
Speaker 1: your frustration, but that it was mine having a bit
Speaker 1: more of an understanding about the legal system and about
Speaker 1: what it takes to convict someone of murder or at
Speaker 1: least have a murder trial. All the evidence had been presented,
Speaker 1: any defense opportunity that was available to him, it could
Speaker 1: have been taken during the trial, if I could understand,
Speaker 1: it would be a completely different situation if he had
Speaker 1: no opportunity to defend himself. But the system was set
Speaker 1: up to allow him to defend himself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he had every availability to participate how he wanted to.
Speaker 1: And then when we talk the abatement, I think we're
Speaker 1: talking in legal terminology, we're talking about whether a decision
Speaker 1: can be made in the absence of the accused person
Speaker 1: when the person's passed away.
Speaker 2: So that's my understanding.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think the coroner will touch on a
Speaker 1: little bit later in the recommendations that the coroner has made.
Speaker 1: But looking for legislation to be changed because clearly a
Speaker 1: legal system should be there to serve the people that
Speaker 1: represents and if justice is not done because of some
Speaker 1: antiquated legal principle, maybe that's when changes should be done.
Speaker 1: I'm look, I'm happy for you, and happy is a
Speaker 1: funny word put when you're talking about the murder of
Speaker 1: your sister, But I'm happy at least someone has been
Speaker 1: identified as been responsible for the murder of Lisel.
Speaker 4: I think it just confirmed, especially after listening to all
Speaker 4: the relevant evidence that was presented in coroners, because obviously
Speaker 4: there's different ways that the courts are run, criminal versus coroners.
Speaker 4: It just really cemented what I've come to. The conclusion
Speaker 4: I come to during the criminal court was that you know,
Speaker 4: he did it, you know, and I have to commend
Speaker 4: the women that were his intimate partners that had been abused,
Speaker 4: you know, quite extensively by Church, who submitted after David's
Speaker 4: in support of the criminal child.
Speaker 2: It was never presented basically because.
Speaker 4: The DPP at the time felt that they had enough evidence,
Speaker 4: which is fine, but because it was relevant in criminal
Speaker 4: court as sorry in Coronis court, they looked at that
Speaker 4: he was still perpetrating domestic violence, or rather violence against women,
Speaker 4: because there's nothing domestic against about it against the partner
Speaker 4: that he had when he died. So you know, I
Speaker 4: just I take my hat off to these women that,
Speaker 4: even under fear and you know, fear of their life
Speaker 4: from him and the abuseit he perpetrated against them, stepped
Speaker 4: up and provided evidence to show that he had a.
Speaker 2: History of it.
Speaker 4: He certainly had motive, and he had an extensive history
Speaker 4: of violence against women and animals as well, which you know,
Speaker 4: a huge red flags. So look, the thing for me
Speaker 4: is that he can't appeal it. He can't say you
Speaker 4: didn't do it. It confirms what majority of us believed, even
Speaker 4: though we don't have a verdict. And I really hope
Speaker 4: that the age takes on board what the Coron has
Speaker 4: said and refers, you know, refers to as she's recommended,
Speaker 4: and you know, stops another family from having to do this.
Speaker 4: It's just, you know, it's not that it's not fair,
Speaker 4: but there was no need for it. I don't think,
Speaker 4: And I think if it can be prevented in the future,
Speaker 4: as I said, you know, specifics with legislation and stuff,
Speaker 4: then it should be you know, people shouldn't be forced
Speaker 4: to go through this just because, as you said, there's
Speaker 4: an antiquate, hated yeah law or reasoning that you know,
Speaker 4: that's because it's always been the way.
Speaker 2: Well that's not good enough never, you know, nor should
Speaker 2: it be.
Speaker 1: And that was the frustration that was coming across with
Speaker 1: you when you're explaining the situation to me when we
Speaker 1: first met that you've constantly been told, well, this is
Speaker 1: what we do. But the situation that presented yourself in
Speaker 1: this particular case is a unique set of circumstances. It's
Speaker 1: not going to happen very often, but it potentially could happen.
Speaker 1: And by changing the legisla that it's not going to
Speaker 1: open the floodgates. The world's not going to change. It
Speaker 1: will just stop families like your family going through what
Speaker 1: you've gone through before. And that's interesting when all the
Speaker 1: evidence is presented at a coroner's inquest because it's an
Speaker 1: inquisitorial so the rules of evidence differ from the adversarial
Speaker 1: system that the criminal core is. But it just adds
Speaker 1: to the weight of evidence against him.
Speaker 4: I think it certainly supported the case that the DPP had.
Speaker 4: It showed that, you know, as I said, there was
Speaker 4: history and everything. I think the other thing in getting
Speaker 4: the law change is that it acts as at a turrent.
Speaker 4: If people that are considering doing the same thing know that, well,
Speaker 4: you can do that, but this is what's going to
Speaker 4: happen regardless. Then you can either take the chance what's
Speaker 4: what gets said an appeal and you know, try and
Speaker 4: do it that way, or you just get named and
Speaker 4: that's it and you don't have any chance of running
Speaker 4: an appeal. Then yeah, I honestly think it will, you know,
Speaker 4: act as a terrent for people that are considering that
Speaker 4: path to try and get out of.
Speaker 2: Having to do time. That's just my personal opinion whether
Speaker 2: that's the case or not.
Speaker 1: I hadn't that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't even considered that.
Speaker 1: I was thinking more of the anks that would cause
Speaker 1: the families of loved ones. But yes, because it is
Speaker 1: a way that people could take out to protect their
Speaker 1: reputation knowing the inevitables coming, and well, if I'm no
Speaker 1: longer here my reputation there'll still be an element of doubt.
Speaker 1: So that's a very valid point, a very valid point,
Speaker 1: and I think it's something that should should be considered.
Speaker 4: I think the two acting is a too terrent in
Speaker 4: preventing anks for the family go hand in hand.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: There's innocent until presumed guilty, but at the same time
Speaker 4: you know you shouldn't. That shouldn't be in the pursuit
Speaker 4: of not causing a victim's family more angst than.
Speaker 1: Needed, And it could be a case of a drag
Speaker 1: a court matter out until someone passes by natural causes
Speaker 1: rather than suicide. So it shows that there's no benefits
Speaker 1: in delaying matters as well. So no, I think it's
Speaker 1: a significant result that you've managed to get. Is it
Speaker 1: a double edged sword in a way because the person
Speaker 1: hasn't been held accountable why he's still on this earth
Speaker 1: and you don't know the full details. Taught me through
Speaker 1: it from a personal point of view, it's.
Speaker 4: Been something that I've I've had to work out what
Speaker 4: I'm happy with, would I've liked him to be held
Speaker 4: accountable and be doing jail time, and you know, his
Speaker 4: to him, his reputation in tatters. Yeah, you know, but
Speaker 4: at the end of the day, as I said before,
Speaker 4: it doesn't bring it back. It doesn't change what he did.
Speaker 4: It doesn't mitigate the abuse that she went through, or
Speaker 4: you know, the steps that he took off towards to
Speaker 4: try and cover what he did. At the end of
Speaker 4: the day, it doesn't change anything. Lisel's not here. I
Speaker 4: can't do anything about that. Him being alive or not
Speaker 4: doesn't change that. I guess the biggest thing that I
Speaker 4: have felt was the best for me was that the
Speaker 4: Corona has named him as contributing or causing Liesl's death,
Speaker 4: rather and the fact that he can't do anything about it.
Speaker 4: He's been named as causing the death of my sister.
Speaker 4: He can't appeal it, His family can't do anything. They
Speaker 4: certainly weren't interested in defending his reputation or defending his
Speaker 4: character in coronial court. And you know that is forever
Speaker 4: on the record now, and I think in the scheme
Speaker 4: of things and the context of what's gone on, that
Speaker 4: was probably the best outcome that we were going to
Speaker 4: get and as I said, something you know said mentioned
Speaker 4: before something was better than nothing.
Speaker 2: That's something, as you said, is quite substantial. You know.
Speaker 2: It's it's not.
Speaker 4: Necessarily set a precedent, but it's shown that what happened
Speaker 4: was not okay. And so it provides, I guess, the
Speaker 4: founding blocks of things to be built upon for that.
Speaker 4: And if that's what's come of what's occurred, I'm okay
Speaker 4: with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 2: As I said, it just doesn't change anything.
Speaker 1: One thing that you missed out on the opportunity in
Speaker 1: a murder troll is a victim's impact statement that you
Speaker 1: get up and you explain to the court what the
Speaker 1: person's actions has caused in regards to your life and
Speaker 1: the paint. What would you say that James Church now
Speaker 1: if he was still alive.
Speaker 4: What I said in ConA is when I was allowed
Speaker 4: to speak. You know, throughout the whole process, we had
Speaker 4: no input into any of the decisions that were made,
Speaker 4: and you know, yet we suffered the consequences. I didn't
Speaker 4: decide to murder my sister because of a supposed event
Speaker 4: that you know, and there was some conjecture about whether
Speaker 4: Lisa was pregnant or not. I think she was, but
Speaker 4: that's a separate thing. You know, I didn't ask for
Speaker 4: any of this. You know, he had no right to
Speaker 4: do what he did. And you know the ways that
Speaker 4: that has impacted me and my family.
Speaker 2: Some we've worked out, others.
Speaker 4: You know, I might never understand how it's affected me
Speaker 4: or my perspective.
Speaker 2: You know, she had her life ahead of us, and to.
Speaker 4: Think that someone felt that they had the right to
Speaker 4: do that makes me so angry and upset.
Speaker 2: You know, who did he think he was to do that?
Speaker 4: You know, what gave him the right to abuse his partners,
Speaker 4: you know, or commit violence against them? Like I don't
Speaker 4: know whether I talk to him, I probably would just
Speaker 4: refuse to acknowledge his existence in all honesty, Gary, because
Speaker 4: I think acknowledge his existence in some ways legitimizes his behavior,
Speaker 4: especially with what he did to my sister. And I
Speaker 4: will never ever condone violence against another person, as much
Speaker 4: as you might want to do something because you're frustrated,
Speaker 4: thinking about it and carrying it out are too completely
Speaker 4: opposite opposite things. You know, there's that no I know
Speaker 4: what's wrong, and therefore I won't do it.
Speaker 2: But it's just.
Speaker 4: Just he did something he didn't have the right to do,
Speaker 4: and I will never understand why he thought he did.
Speaker 4: And you know, the stress and the angst and the
Speaker 4: pain and the impact that that has had on my family,
Speaker 4: so my husband and my kids as well as you know,
Speaker 4: my siblings and whatnot.
Speaker 2: I don't think that will ever be able to be quantified.
Speaker 4: And I don't think something like that can be for
Speaker 4: any family where a member or a.
Speaker 2: Lot ofd ones gone missing, to be found murdered. I
Speaker 2: just think it's something that's so.
Speaker 4: Intangible and can't be measured or correlated or put in
Speaker 4: put in a way that can be measured objectively. That's
Speaker 4: what makes it so difficult to rest with while you're
Speaker 4: going through the system. It's not like you can say
Speaker 4: I had five of these and now I've got team
Speaker 4: and now I've lost a lot sort of things. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it's just it's hard to verbilize it. But I just
Speaker 4: think that, you know, we're expected to pay for something
Speaker 4: that we didn't necessarily want.
Speaker 2: Or have any input in, and.
Speaker 1: I just yeah, yeah, it's hard to put into words.
Speaker 1: What would you say the families face with the battle
Speaker 1: that you've had has been a battle for you to
Speaker 1: get it to this point about your shame, resilience and
Speaker 1: tenacity to continue and fight for Liesel's memory. What would
Speaker 1: you advise families that might find themselves in similar situations
Speaker 1: where they're battling the system, so to speak.
Speaker 2: You can only do what you can only do, you know,
Speaker 2: I guess you know.
Speaker 4: I always hate it when people said, you know, time
Speaker 4: heals time, doesn't you.
Speaker 1: Know?
Speaker 2: And it is only one day at a time.
Speaker 4: You can't control other people's reactions or decisions. You can
Speaker 4: only do your own. And if that's all that you
Speaker 4: can manage, that's okay. And it doesn't matters whether you know,
Speaker 4: I liken it to a marathon.
Speaker 2: You just keep plugging at it. If you take a
Speaker 2: week off because that's what.
Speaker 4: You need to do for your mental health, and you
Speaker 4: need to step away, that's okay.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: It's you're not going to You're not going to forget them.
Speaker 4: It's not going to fall apart. Whatever you're trying to achieve,
Speaker 4: it's not going to go away. It will still be there.
Speaker 4: If you need to take a step away, you know,
Speaker 4: spend time with families that are there, and you know
Speaker 4: your mental health is important, you know, because without that
Speaker 4: you can't just you can't function.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and sadly, I've seen too many families fighting for
Speaker 1: justice in a whole range of different different forms. And
Speaker 1: part of the advice I give them is if you've
Speaker 1: got to step away, a step away, and you articulated
Speaker 1: that very well, that you can step away and take
Speaker 1: a break, and then when you rebuilt yourself, go for
Speaker 1: it again. I also got advice from Mark and Fay Levison,
Speaker 1: who had a battle with a system and had to
Speaker 1: try something a little bit different.
Speaker 3: Out of left field to recover their son.
Speaker 1: And Mark's words and I pass these words on to
Speaker 1: a lot of people, just don't take no for an answer,
Speaker 1: because I would imagine if if you just accepted what
Speaker 1: the system told you, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Speaker 2: Probably not. I mean, no is not the worst thing
Speaker 2: that people can say. I've had no a number of
Speaker 2: time and it's like, well, okay, you said no.
Speaker 4: That just means that I need to work out how
Speaker 4: it can happen in a different way.
Speaker 3: There are ways to achieve results.
Speaker 1: Let's I'll just take you briefly through the findings, because
Speaker 1: it is good to hear it said publicly and the
Speaker 1: findings to be published, and this is the findings from
Speaker 1: the coroner in regards to Liesl's death. The person who
Speaker 1: died was Liesel Smith. The date to death Liesel died
Speaker 1: on the nine eighth of August twenty twelve, at some
Speaker 1: time after two point two pm. Place of death. Liesel
Speaker 1: died at or somewhere in the vicinity of the Central
Speaker 1: Coast or Upper Hut regions of New South Wales. The
Speaker 1: cause of death. Liesel's cause of death remains unknown. Manner
Speaker 1: of death. Liesel's death was a homicide. She was killed
Speaker 1: by James Scott Church. So you've got someone in the
Speaker 1: judicial system actually saying he's responsible. So I would imagine
Speaker 1: that it gives you some comfort, not closure, not timehells
Speaker 1: or wounds, but it gives you some acknowledgment that at
Speaker 1: least the person responsible has been held accountable in some way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does, because I was thinking about this the
Speaker 2: other day.
Speaker 4: Funny enough, we've got someone named you know, I know personally,
Speaker 4: I know who did it and it was him. And
Speaker 4: I think about families where it's fifteen, twenty, twenty five,
Speaker 4: thirty plus years and they're no closer to having an
Speaker 4: answer in terms of what happened or who did it,
Speaker 4: or you know, any sort of indication that things are
Speaker 4: going to be they're.
Speaker 2: Going to get some sort of answer.
Speaker 4: And I think in terms of that, compared to other people,
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 2: Think we're incredibly lucky.
Speaker 4: I think the police did a fabulous job with what
Speaker 4: they had to contend with. And I I just I
Speaker 4: can't imagine being thirty years down the track and still
Speaker 4: not knowing what the hell.
Speaker 2: Happened to her like that. That would just be worst
Speaker 2: nightmare sort of stuff.
Speaker 4: So I think we are incredibly fortunate that, yes, she
Speaker 4: was missing, but there was circumstances that pointed to who
Speaker 4: who did it based.
Speaker 2: On his own actions, amongst other things.
Speaker 4: And I always think of those that you know, didn't
Speaker 4: have the opportunity that we did, I really just feel
Speaker 4: for them.
Speaker 1: You know, it's very generous of you, given what yourself
Speaker 1: and your family go through. You mentioned the police. That
Speaker 1: coroner also mentioned the police, and again this is in
Speaker 1: the coroner's conclusions, and I'll just read out what she
Speaker 1: said about the police. I not only extend my gratitude
Speaker 1: to them, but I formally commend the technive Sergeants Jones
Speaker 1: Hayden and Erickson and miss Lawson for their work in
Speaker 1: this enormous, multifaceted investigation which enabled the matter to proceed
Speaker 1: the trial and ultimately which has enabled me to make
Speaker 1: my factual findings in this court. I just from a
Speaker 1: personal point of view, I like it when it's good
Speaker 1: work of police that get results. I've got to say
Speaker 1: when I met the police, when it was back at
Speaker 1: the inquest, I met some of the police there and
Speaker 1: I was impressed by how much they cared, which carries
Speaker 1: a big carries a big thing in the way matters
Speaker 1: are investigated. I until they genuinely cared, soquos to the
Speaker 1: police and you have already acknowledged that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And the annework that they had to do and to
Speaker 4: go back and recheck and you know, consistently go back
Speaker 4: and make sure that you know what they'd found or
Speaker 4: what was said to them was true, was just enormous.
Speaker 4: I mean, he kept changing his alibis, he kept changing
Speaker 4: what he was saying. Everything had to be checked and
Speaker 4: double checked again to make sure that you know, there
Speaker 4: were no inconsistencies or discrepancies.
Speaker 2: As you know, you know, they can end up quite.
Speaker 4: Digging in criminal court it was just it was phenomenal,
Speaker 4: just you know, I have the utmost respect for the
Speaker 4: work that they did.
Speaker 2: And then towards the end with.
Speaker 4: The Coronial, in order to try and find where Lisa is,
Speaker 4: they had a specialist do some geo mapping, but unfortunately
Speaker 4: the area is still you know, based on the information
Speaker 4: that they had, it still remains too large to sort
Speaker 4: of pinpoint where she could be. And the terrain there
Speaker 4: is just really rocky and scrubby and whatnot. But it
Speaker 4: was just that extra effort, like they went back again
Speaker 4: to try and you know, using the various techniques to
Speaker 4: try and find her. And they didn't have to, you know,
Speaker 4: they could have just done we've done that and we
Speaker 4: can't find it. But they went back and tried again
Speaker 4: and tried different ways, and you know, obviously technology has
Speaker 4: improved a little bit.
Speaker 2: I'm still in.
Speaker 4: Touch with one of them and have been told that
Speaker 4: point they were up that way to touch base, which
Speaker 4: I really really appreciate. Unfortunately, one of them has left
Speaker 4: the force in part due to this investigation, and you know,
Speaker 4: I just I take my hat off, you know, given
Speaker 4: the dynamics and a few other things that they would
Speaker 4: have had to deal with that. It would have made
Speaker 4: investigating a lot more difficult, but they kept going, you know,
Speaker 4: and to have a police officer or a detective rather
Speaker 4: apologize for not finding his sister is confronting. And you know,
Speaker 4: to be asked to forgive them for something that they
Speaker 4: didn't do wrong is you know the.
Speaker 1: Fact Gerald then that they say that tells me that
Speaker 1: they care and they're the type of people that you
Speaker 1: want on the case. They should take it personally and
Speaker 1: that you know it can come as a cost, but
Speaker 1: that brings a lot of peace to the families knowing
Speaker 1: you've got people that are genuinely trying to find out
Speaker 1: what happened. Hey guys, it's Gary jubilin here. Want to
Speaker 1: get more out of I Catch Killers, then you should
Speaker 1: head over to our new video feed on Spotify where
Speaker 1: you can watch every episode of I Catch Killers. Just
Speaker 1: search for I Catch Killers video in your Spotify app
Speaker 1: and start watching today. The coroner also made a comment
Speaker 1: about the legal team, and I know the nuances of
Speaker 1: any court matter, whether it be a murder trial or
Speaker 1: a coronial inquest, the standard can be set by the
Speaker 1: team that presents it. So I'll just read what the
Speaker 1: coroner said about the council assisting. Finally, I think my
Speaker 1: counselor assisting team Gabriel Bashir, senior counsel Emma Sullivan and
Speaker 1: Peter ava Jones, and they're instructing solicitors Elisa Wood and
Speaker 1: Alex McShane and Vivian Way before them, who diligently assisted
Speaker 1: me and insured the fair and efficient conduct of these proceedings.
Speaker 3: So that's good in itself.
Speaker 1: It sounds like you got the a team for the
Speaker 1: inquest with the police and the council assisting, and it
Speaker 1: does make a difference.
Speaker 3: So your experiences from.
Speaker 2: That they were fabulous.
Speaker 4: They kept in touch, whether it was by email, we
Speaker 4: had casion, we had a few meetings. They explained sort
Speaker 4: of what they were going to do, what they wanted
Speaker 4: to include, what they would go through in presenting the
Speaker 4: case to the coroner, explain why you know they wouldn't
Speaker 4: do X, but they would.
Speaker 2: Do why you know. They were just they were really lovely.
Speaker 4: They were very considerate of how this may be re
Speaker 4: traumatizing for us, especially after what had happened.
Speaker 2: So was the coroner. I just I couldn't fault them.
Speaker 2: It was very much an experience that I don't.
Speaker 4: Want to repeat, but was made a lot easier by
Speaker 4: by the way that they handled it, and you know
Speaker 4: they have my gratitude for that.
Speaker 1: Again, it pleases me to hear that, because that can
Speaker 1: make a horrendous situation that little bit more bearable having
Speaker 1: people like that. On the issue of changing the law.
Speaker 1: This is from the Coroner's recommendation, so we'll just put
Speaker 1: this out there too, that the Attorney General of New
Speaker 1: South Wales refer to the New South Wales Law Reform
Speaker 1: Commission arising from the facts in this case, the question
Speaker 1: of whether the doctrine of abatement operating in the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system should be reformed, for example, to consider whether
Speaker 1: there may be proceedings in which verdicts can be delivered
Speaker 1: in circumstances wherein accused dies during the currency of their trial,
Speaker 1: and to consider in particular the operation of the doctrine
Speaker 1: in circumstances where deliberations of a judge alone or jury
Speaker 1: have concluded. A copy of these finders is to be
Speaker 1: included with the referral. So again cudos to the Coroner,
Speaker 1: Harriet Graham for making those recommendations, because clearly she saw
Speaker 1: something that needed to be fixed. And hopefully those recommendations
Speaker 1: will be put in the place I hope.
Speaker 4: So she did not sound very happy with the fact
Speaker 4: that they had not been implemented, So hopefully they do
Speaker 4: what they're supposed to. My understanding is that the curenter
Speaker 4: does not make recommendations lightly, especially in a case like
Speaker 4: this where there are potential and substantial, far reaching legal
Speaker 4: ramifications and whatnot.
Speaker 2: And she sounded.
Speaker 4: Extremely frustrated that the recommendations of the review had not
Speaker 4: been implemented either. So I would assume, and I don't
Speaker 4: use that word lightly, that if a similar case ever
Speaker 4: came before her and nothing had been done, she would
Speaker 4: have a lot more to say about the fact that
Speaker 4: the recommendations that she had made had not been taken seriously.
Speaker 2: And I would not like to be the person in
Speaker 2: the hot seat at that pointing to me.
Speaker 1: Well, that's good, and that's why it's important to talk
Speaker 1: about it, because sometimes the squeaky wheel is the one
Speaker 1: that gets fixed, and if you keep it in people's faces,
Speaker 1: keep the attention there. Just finishing off for and I
Speaker 1: think you know what you've been through, but it tells
Speaker 1: me that Lisa hasn't been forgotten. How would you like her,
Speaker 1: your sister, to be remembered as what type of person
Speaker 1: was she.
Speaker 2: Personally?
Speaker 4: I'd like her to be remembered as just she could
Speaker 4: have been anyone's sister, she could have been anyone's daughter,
Speaker 4: anyone's cousin. She could have been basically the girl next
Speaker 4: door that.
Speaker 2: You grew up with.
Speaker 4: And as I said in Cornus Court, you know, I
Speaker 4: didn't agree with all of her decisions. I don't have to,
Speaker 4: but they were hers to make, and any one of
Speaker 4: us have made any number of the same decisions and
Speaker 4: not had the consequences that she did, you know, and unfortunately.
Speaker 2: For her, she paid with her life.
Speaker 4: But you always think that it's not gonna you know,
Speaker 4: it's not going to happen to you or one of
Speaker 4: your siblings. I think, you know, a lot was said
Speaker 4: about Lesaline Court. A lot of it was pretty horrendous
Speaker 4: to hear and wasn't.
Speaker 2: Very nice at all.
Speaker 4: But you know, she had away with animals, she loved animals.
Speaker 4: She you know, was kind, she was sensitive, She was
Speaker 4: someone who was trying to work out who she was,
Speaker 4: you know, like any one of us. I guess the
Speaker 4: biggest thing for me for her to be remembered as
Speaker 4: is that. You know, she could have been any as
Speaker 4: I said, anybody's daughter. You know, she could have been
Speaker 4: your daughter or your sister. Don't forget that she's she
Speaker 4: could have been any one of us. It was just
Speaker 4: she happened to be my sister. You know, she happened
Speaker 4: to be my kids, aren't I will always remember her
Speaker 4: as a mischievous kid that got up to things that
Speaker 4: she shouldn't. And you know that I got the brunt
Speaker 4: over sometimes just you know, being a kid, and I
Speaker 4: will treasure those, I really will. I wish I had
Speaker 4: gotten to know her as an adult. Unfortunately that was
Speaker 4: taken away. I don't know what she would have been like.
Speaker 4: I speculate on that and I like to think that
Speaker 4: she would have ended up being really lovely and you know,
Speaker 4: gotten things together. But I'll never know, So you know,
Speaker 4: I've only got what I've got to think of.
Speaker 2: She was who she was.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you've demonstrated the love and your family
Speaker 1: that you had for Lisel and the way that you
Speaker 1: have fought as hard as you can appropriately to get
Speaker 1: some form of justice, and like fol C thus too,
Speaker 1: We've spoken a lot of times and over a long time,
Speaker 1: and I know the battles in the emotional roller coaster
Speaker 1: you've been on, and you should be very proud of
Speaker 1: yourself on what you've done. And taking on the system
Speaker 1: is not easy, and you took on the system. You
Speaker 1: had to change the thinking and you got results and
Speaker 1: you've paved the way for other people if they find
Speaker 1: themselves in this situation. So full full credit to you,
Speaker 1: and you can know that you've done everything you possibly
Speaker 1: could do in memory of your sister.
Speaker 2: Thanks go Well. It certainly didn't happen without your help,
Speaker 2: that's for sure.
Speaker 3: Oh I appreciate that now.
Speaker 1: I was honored to help in any way I could,
Speaker 1: or any little way that I could. So thanks for
Speaker 1: reaching out to me, and you should be proud of yourself.
Speaker 3: And yeah, well done.
Speaker 2: Thanks going well.
Speaker 1: I'm happy for Geraldine and the family that they've been
Speaker 1: given some answers for what happened to Lisa. It's good
Speaker 1: when the legal system accept that laws are not always
Speaker 1: perfect and acknowledged that sometimes they might need to be changed.
Speaker 1: Geraldine is an example for all families battling a rigid
Speaker 1: justice system, and sometimes you just got to keep fighting
Speaker 1: to get the justice you're seeking. And as for James
Speaker 1: church Well, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. His
Speaker 1: actions destroyed live and he didn't even have the carriage
Speaker 1: to be held accountable
Speaker 4: Mm hm