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: This is Part two of my chat with Christy Charles,
Speaker 1: who's the sister of Rachelle Charles, the twenty three year
Speaker 1: old woman who has murdered in two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: a murder which remains unsolved to this day, along with
Speaker 1: investigative journalists Ashley Hand, who's been working with Christie on
Speaker 1: a podcast called Dear Rochelle. In Part one, we've got
Speaker 1: an overview of the murder. In Part two, we speak
Speaker 1: about some of the things uncovered whilst looking at Rochelle's murder,
Speaker 1: which I hope, like Christy and Ashley, will put pressure
Speaker 1: on people to ensure justice is finally done. Murders like
Speaker 1: Rochelle's should not go unsolved. The podcast has been out
Speaker 1: for a little bit. Now are you happy with the
Speaker 1: impact that Dear Rochelle is having the getting your sister's
Speaker 1: murder out into the public.
Speaker 2: I couldn't be happier. It's bigger than I ever thought
Speaker 2: was possible, and the coverage has been incredible. The marketing team,
Speaker 2: the whole team Rochelle, the team behind ash and just
Speaker 2: the reach that it's getting and has gotten is incredible.
Speaker 1: And that is what you hope to achieve with getting
Speaker 1: involved in the project, like the podcast.
Speaker 2: Yep, it's fitting for her. Just yeah she always you
Speaker 2: just so go hard to go home. I think they've
Speaker 2: definitely done that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, it's been And what about you, Ashley? It
Speaker 1: certainly had an impact, it looked at all the media
Speaker 1: coverage of it, and people who are people are literally
Speaker 1: asking me questions on the street about it, So it's
Speaker 1: got people's attention.
Speaker 3: That's great to hear.
Speaker 4: I know, when you're working on a story like this,
Speaker 4: it feels like you're carrying this secret for so long.
Speaker 4: Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, you couldn't
Speaker 4: really tell that many friends or family because we were
Speaker 4: trying to keep it under wraps. And so when it
Speaker 4: was finally out there, it was a bit overwhelming. I've
Speaker 4: got to say, just to see it in print and
Speaker 4: everywhere and finally know it's out there. But I just
Speaker 4: mainly felt really proud and finally, this is it.
Speaker 3: This is what we've been working for. Let's go. So
Speaker 3: maybe more hard work starts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll get getting the impact. And quite frankly, I
Speaker 1: think it puts pressure on the person responsible for this,
Speaker 1: and I say, to that person now talking to you guys,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't like to be that person. Because there's one
Speaker 1: thing I'm very sure of, having worked homicide as long
Speaker 1: as long as I did. If an investigation gets a
Speaker 1: lot of media attention, there's a too fold benefit the
Speaker 1: way I see it, that you get the public interested
Speaker 1: in it. Public are interested, politicians are interested, and police
Speaker 1: properly resource the investigation. And if it's been sitting in
Speaker 1: a cardboard box or sitting in brief boxes, on the
Speaker 1: desk somewhere. They tend to get open when there's some
Speaker 1: public public interest in a case. So I'm sure the
Speaker 1: type of exposure that dear Rachelle is getting across the
Speaker 1: police will be looking at it. The other thing that
Speaker 1: I think important, Christy, you might understand this, but it
Speaker 1: makes that Rachelle's life is not forgotten, and she's not forgotten.
Speaker 1: Here we are over twenty years down the track and
Speaker 1: we're still talking about the type of person she is.
Speaker 1: Does that help you?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's pretty empowering. I feel really good about it.
Speaker 2: I feel like, oh, you know, we're giving her a voice,
Speaker 2: and I think that that's really important because we've been
Speaker 2: quite for so long. And yeah, there's someone out there
Speaker 2: listening to this who's feeling very uncomfortable about all this.
Speaker 2: I think that's incredible.
Speaker 1: One percent. I like to think the pressure that person's feeling.
Speaker 1: And there's no statute of limitations on murder investigations, and
Speaker 1: you hear about it all the time, the unsolved homicide
Speaker 1: locking people up twenty years, thirty years down the track,
Speaker 1: and yeah, it's not going to be forgotten. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure they don't like the fact that it's back in
Speaker 1: the attention of the media.
Speaker 4: Yeah, can I ask you a question about that, just
Speaker 4: as your experience as a homicide to active for so long,
Speaker 4: what happens to a person when something like this drops
Speaker 4: as someone that is guilty, that thinks that they've got
Speaker 4: away with murder something so serious for so many years
Speaker 4: and they think they're undetected. What happens when it starts
Speaker 4: exploding in the media Again, have you ever seen that
Speaker 4: from behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: I've seen it, and I've spoken to people that we've
Speaker 1: done that too. And I was going to say it,
Speaker 1: if people are now listening to this podcast and Dear
Speaker 1: Rochelle podcast and all the interest in the media, have
Speaker 1: a look at the person that you might be watching
Speaker 1: or listening or talking about this, because a person responsible
Speaker 1: for this will act strange. Now, that person might, if
Speaker 1: it comes on TV or it comes up on radio
Speaker 1: or whatever, might want to disengage from the conversation not
Speaker 1: talk about it, or they might talk about it incessantly.
Speaker 1: But whatever's going on, the person responsible with all this
Speaker 1: exposure is going to act a little bit strange, and
Speaker 1: people that are close to that person will look at
Speaker 1: the person think why are we getting a reaction from
Speaker 1: that person because we're talking about this crime, because they
Speaker 1: will carry the guilt, will that will sit with them
Speaker 1: and they'll be thinking, well, I've got away with it,
Speaker 1: and now the pressures on. So I think it creates
Speaker 1: a good opportunity for something to break and then the public,
Speaker 1: the public should if someone then forgot suspicion about someone,
Speaker 1: just someone that's ACKed in a little bit differently, when
Speaker 1: all this talk is about, dear Rochelle, okay, pass that
Speaker 1: onto the police. And I point this out that if
Speaker 1: you know someone's committed an offense and you don't come forward,
Speaker 1: there's a strong likelihood that you're committing in a serious
Speaker 1: offense too. And these cases don't get forgotten. You can
Speaker 1: see Christy's here and I've got a sense of you
Speaker 1: enough to know you're not going to forget this, forget
Speaker 1: this case. So the pressure, pressure is going to be on.
Speaker 1: There's a reward out there, there's a whole range of things.
Speaker 1: But if they've got if the public have got information,
Speaker 1: they need to come forward, is no excuse not to
Speaker 1: come forward, and that could just be that little piece.
Speaker 1: But for the person responsible, yeah, I hope you're feeling
Speaker 1: pretty nervous at the moment. You should feel nervous at
Speaker 1: the moment because at any time there could be a
Speaker 1: knock at the door, and that could be the police,
Speaker 1: and there goes your life. You're locked away for the
Speaker 1: rest of your life. So long answer to a short question.
Speaker 1: But I'm passionate about this. I think this is the
Speaker 1: type of pressure that should be applied to people. You
Speaker 1: should not be able to get away with murder.
Speaker 3: So couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's my little pitch, and let's hope the person
Speaker 1: is listening to it. And in answer further to your question,
Speaker 1: do the people involved in these crimes listen to the
Speaker 1: media one hundred percent seen it and time and time again,
Speaker 1: and they can say I know, I'm not interested. They'll
Speaker 1: be listening and they'll be panicking, and they might make
Speaker 1: a stupid move. So this is the type of pressure that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and should their family and friends be asking them questions?
Speaker 3: What should they do?
Speaker 1: I think? So, if I was sitting beside someone that
Speaker 1: I suspect of a murder, why are you reacting that way?
Speaker 1: What's triggering? Why don't you want to talk about this case?
Speaker 1: Or why do you overreact every time it gets mentioned
Speaker 1: and it will get mentioned like the public or interest
Speaker 1: in it now, so it will get mentioned, so you
Speaker 1: don't have to have to front the person. But if
Speaker 1: you've got concerns, pass the information on the police. And
Speaker 1: it can be done discreetly too. It can be passed
Speaker 1: on so the person doesn't know where the where the
Speaker 1: information is coming from. There's so many different ways that
Speaker 1: this information can be passed on. So I get excited
Speaker 1: sitting down with people like yourselves so they're doing something
Speaker 1: like this like I did with Headley, because that is
Speaker 1: making the difference. That is the way these difficult crimes
Speaker 1: get solved by putting the pressure on. So I'm a
Speaker 1: big believer in using the media. If we want to
Speaker 1: call podcast media, which is a form of it, now
Speaker 1: we can use it in a positive way. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's great, Like you could have gone on
Speaker 1: it could have been an article in the paper or whatever,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't get that sort of in, that buy
Speaker 1: in that the public get when they're listening to a
Speaker 1: podcast and listening to it unfold and they're all coming up.
Speaker 1: Everyone thinks they're a detective. So everyone's coming up going
Speaker 1: I think it's this person, that person but it just
Speaker 1: creates that environment. And when it's all said and done,
Speaker 1: what are we doing it four is to get justice
Speaker 1: for Rachelle and so the pressure. So, yeah, have a
Speaker 1: look at the person that's acting strange and start to
Speaker 1: question why they're acting.
Speaker 4: Strange and what would you say, Gary to someone that
Speaker 4: may be close to this person, either back then or
Speaker 4: now that might feel afraid.
Speaker 1: Well, there's protections that can be put in place, and
Speaker 1: I can understand the concerns and being afraid, but you
Speaker 1: could approach the police in the strictness of confidence and
Speaker 1: the information wouldn't get out and the protections would be
Speaker 1: put in place. So I do understand the fear that
Speaker 1: people might might have in pointing the finger at someone
Speaker 1: or a concerning but there are measures that can be
Speaker 1: put in in place to protect that person, so you
Speaker 1: don't need to be fearful and it can be treated
Speaker 1: with the strictness of confidence. So anyway, Chrissy, sorry, Ashley
Speaker 1: and I are falling back into our old rolls. Actually
Speaker 1: has been a journalist and we've completely lost track. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right, this is a this is a podcast. Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll get back to it. But yeah, I think they're
Speaker 1: important important messages. So, yeah, what and there's so much
Speaker 1: that's been uncovered in the investigation that's been done on
Speaker 1: the podcast. What are the things that you guys think
Speaker 1: are interesting? And we don't know, we haven't got time
Speaker 1: to go through the full details, but just a couple
Speaker 1: of things that have uncovered that excite you ll have
Speaker 1: got you curious, that have flowed out from what's been
Speaker 1: done on the podcast.
Speaker 2: I think that the warping shaw and the significance of
Speaker 2: the warping shaw is incredibly important. You want to add, Yeah, well.
Speaker 4: I'm I'm really curious and about the key pieces of
Speaker 4: evidence and one of them, just for example, the tank.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the.
Speaker 4: Reason because so many experts, former detectives have given us
Speaker 4: insights into the mind of a killer and the mind
Speaker 4: of someone who disposes of a body and what the
Speaker 4: process they go through. And so when we look at
Speaker 4: the tank, which was the initial possibly the initial place
Speaker 4: where the killer had intended to hide Rochelle's body, but
Speaker 4: that didn't work out for one of many reasons, which
Speaker 4: may have been that the concrete lid was too heavy
Speaker 4: for one person potentially or they couldn't slide it off
Speaker 4: for whatever reason, or there wasn't enough room in the
Speaker 4: tank to fit Rachelle, so they've resorted to the fire.
Speaker 4: So I'm interested to ask you if you think the
Speaker 4: significant of the tank or if you think that the
Speaker 4: tank is significant, because you when we went down there,
Speaker 4: that's when it really had an impact on.
Speaker 3: Me, thinking it's nighttime.
Speaker 4: You wouldn't be able to see the tank at nighttime,
Speaker 4: and who what are the chances that someone would just
Speaker 4: stumble upon this tank? So the thinking is that somebody
Speaker 4: knew that the tank was there, so they had to
Speaker 4: have been familiar with the area.
Speaker 3: And you said that to.
Speaker 4: Me in one of our first interviews when we were
Speaker 4: down there as well, that why are you so confident
Speaker 4: that the killer you.
Speaker 2: That area find And I remember it's well, I mean,
Speaker 2: we couldn't find it when we went down there, but
Speaker 2: it's it's cleared a lot more than it was back
Speaker 2: then and when because I used to go in there
Speaker 2: and sit in there, which some people.
Speaker 1: So it's a concrete tank in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, concrete tank.
Speaker 4: So it had at the time a concrete thick, concrete lid,
Speaker 4: and but that lid has now been replaced with a
Speaker 4: plastic lid and the ground kind of So it's not
Speaker 4: obvious now, but at the time, from what I understand,
Speaker 4: you describe it because you've seen it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you had to duck in under a branch and
Speaker 2: it was a lot of room to.
Speaker 1: Be in there. And it's a public bush land.
Speaker 2: It's pretty close to the road the National Park. It's
Speaker 2: behind the tree line and you'd have to sort of
Speaker 2: duck in. And I didn't realize that you could get
Speaker 2: to it from the back. And I think that's what
Speaker 2: the killer did, that they have taken her behind.
Speaker 1: And then is it on the beach side the road?
Speaker 4: Okay, so it's on the eastern side of GIRoA Road
Speaker 4: or the Crooked River Road seven mile Beach GIRoA.
Speaker 1: That runs all the way down, Okay.
Speaker 3: The back road to Naura.
Speaker 1: I know the road. I a couple of things and
Speaker 1: we'll talk about the experts you've you've got working on
Speaker 1: the on the podcast. A couple of things that jump
Speaker 1: out to me with this, the circumstances surrounding because quite
Speaker 1: often you can work out a lot by the manner
Speaker 1: and the way in which the the victim's body has
Speaker 1: been disposed of. This to me doesn't look like a
Speaker 1: planned crime. It looks like such a situation that's escalated.
Speaker 1: That's the sense I get at it, A get of it.
Speaker 1: I'm also a starting point with when you're looking at
Speaker 1: why has a body been disposed in this location? I
Speaker 1: agree with what you touched on where other people have
Speaker 1: said it's an area that familiar with Quite often when
Speaker 1: people are disposing bodies, they go there and dispose it
Speaker 1: because they're familiar with the are. If someone knew about
Speaker 1: the tank and discreet tank, it would be a good
Speaker 1: place to locate the body. To me, it seems strange
Speaker 1: because we're talking one hundred kilometers from the location to Giraa.
Speaker 1: There's a risk associated with driving a car if you
Speaker 1: have someone that's a body in the car, so there's
Speaker 1: obvious risk there to go all that way out and
Speaker 1: then dispose of a body in the manner To me,
Speaker 1: it strikes as panic. You've set the body alight. Well,
Speaker 1: there's more likelihood that someone's going to discover the body.
Speaker 1: If you light a fire, you're destroying potentially forensic evidence.
Speaker 1: But there seems to be a panic about it. So
Speaker 1: it's someone that didn't plan it and escalate, just escalated.
Speaker 1: I think it's a reasonable case theory that if it's
Speaker 1: right near the tank, that that was the intended intended location.
Speaker 1: And then the car. Is there any suggestion that the
Speaker 1: Rochelle's car was used to convey what basis was?
Speaker 4: There were three there were sightings or separate sighting four people,
Speaker 4: three cars, so a couple in one car. There were
Speaker 4: four four witnesses had cited a car similar to Rochelle's,
Speaker 4: if not one witness who knew his Holden's described basically
Speaker 4: Rachelle's car so.
Speaker 2: Pretty much said it was it was a VB commodoel
Speaker 2: but it looked like a v H which is exactly
Speaker 2: what it is, because it's a VB Commodore. But it's
Speaker 2: got the VH lights and grill.
Speaker 1: You're the expert here.
Speaker 5: He described it on the on the vehicle.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, okay, Well that's interesting, isn't it. And that
Speaker 1: if her car was there taken to dispose of Rachelle's
Speaker 1: body there and then driven all the way back to
Speaker 1: hopefully just the hotel, all the way back there, okay.
Speaker 4: And the thinking is as well that perhaps they were
Speaker 4: already down there.
Speaker 2: So that's when it escalated.
Speaker 4: Chris Illingsworth, who is a criminal profiler, that has given
Speaker 4: us insights into what she believes happened. Her thinking is
Speaker 4: that she was probably killed and the incident has had
Speaker 4: and closer to Jiroa as opposed to back in Bargo.
Speaker 4: But because there are those missing nine hours and there
Speaker 4: are no independent witnesses or any forensic evidence to show
Speaker 4: where Rochelle was killed, that's one of the biggest mysteries
Speaker 4: of this case. We don't know where she was killed,
Speaker 4: so we only know where she was found.
Speaker 1: It's a reasonable and I know Chris and she's very
Speaker 1: experienced a reasonable assumption that escalated down there because it's
Speaker 1: a long way to go to dispose of a.
Speaker 5: Body where expanse of bush land, between.
Speaker 1: So many other locations where a body could be disposed of.
Speaker 1: So again that sound sounds reasonable.
Speaker 4: But then still you would wouldn't You still expect though,
Speaker 4: that they go to a place like Mick Ashwood says
Speaker 4: that they're familiar with. So again, what takes this person
Speaker 4: to find that tank or to go looking for that tank.
Speaker 4: I think you're right though, and I definitely do believe
Speaker 4: that it's more likely that the murder wasn't planned, perhaps
Speaker 4: something else was planned. That's my feeling on it that
Speaker 4: it's probably more likely that whoever took Rochelle that night,
Speaker 4: whoever met up with her, probably planned something, maybe some
Speaker 4: sort of sexual encounter, and had hoped that it would
Speaker 4: go it would be consensual, or maybe that already planned
Speaker 4: to Yeah, something so sinister. Maybe they'd planned something sinister already,
Speaker 4: but it wasn't as bad as murder. I'm not really sure.
Speaker 4: We're never going to really know that, are we.
Speaker 1: Well, hopefully we will, Hopefully we'll, But I suppose it's
Speaker 1: speculation if went there with an intent, that that intent
Speaker 1: didn't play out. Twenty three year old girl like Rachelle,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking that's yeah. Is there a suggestion that it
Speaker 1: was sexually motivated the crime?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: What brings people to that conclusion?
Speaker 2: Well, she was she didn't have any clothes on from
Speaker 2: the waist down right, And yeah, we've had every detective
Speaker 2: that's worked on it said that they believe it was
Speaker 2: sexually motivated. Yeah, we don't have any evidence of rape
Speaker 2: or sexual assault, but that could be as a result
Speaker 2: of the fire.
Speaker 1: What about the forensic examination of the car? Did that
Speaker 1: reveal anything? You've indicated in part one that your assessment,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a very sound assessment that she
Speaker 1: wasn't the person that parked the car there.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the police have bits of the car, they
Speaker 2: have the steering wheel, they have a bit of carpet,
Speaker 2: They've got bits and pieces that they took off the car,
Speaker 2: but they weren't able to lift any DNA off any
Speaker 2: of that. The sheet that they found nearby, they believe
Speaker 2: that was used, however, that was contaminated by a police officer.
Speaker 2: So the DNA found on that.
Speaker 1: Was it is? Has there been a recent forensic review?
Speaker 1: Do you know if there's no?
Speaker 5: But I've asked for it because.
Speaker 1: That's I know with old homicides that I've had because
Speaker 1: of the improvements and the changes in forensic science, at
Speaker 1: a forensic review and gave for all the exhibits that
Speaker 1: are still still retained.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've asked for it. They weren't keen on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Who are you speaking to in REGARDSS that was
Speaker 1: Nigel or own it?
Speaker 5: Unsolved homicide?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and more recently Matthew Russell, right, and what was
Speaker 2: the restinale behind that? Well? It like their arguments are
Speaker 2: that's a strong argument. You can't there's a finite amount
Speaker 2: of times that you can test something, so it's not
Speaker 2: something that they routinely go back and test. If there's
Speaker 2: some reason for it, they will, but they won't just
Speaker 2: go back over everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you mentioned the names, and it's difficult for
Speaker 1: me because I know both both those people and I
Speaker 1: respect both those people. Yeah, and so do I and Nigel.
Speaker 1: I actually worked with him. I supervised him in his
Speaker 1: early early days in homicide, and he's a very consciouest
Speaker 1: just good operator. So I think you've got a good
Speaker 1: person there. But yeah, I can understand your frustration.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we had when we were looking at the car.
Speaker 2: We were looking at the petrol cap and we weren't
Speaker 2: convinced that that was ever tested. I've asked Matthew Russell
Speaker 2: and he can't find any evidence of if it was tested.
Speaker 2: He can't find what happened with it, so he's not
Speaker 2: sure whether it was or not. So he said he's
Speaker 2: put in put that in the hands of a squad
Speaker 2: near where I live, and they're going to come out
Speaker 2: and seize the petrol cap and they are going to test,
Speaker 2: which is great.
Speaker 1: Well, I think to me, and I do listen to names,
Speaker 1: and you form your own views, but I think with
Speaker 1: Nigel and Matt. That's the point in a good direction
Speaker 1: that gives me.
Speaker 2: And they've always been really willing to talk to me.
Speaker 2: I've had meetings with them and they put up with
Speaker 2: me digging my heels in and having, you know, selling
Speaker 2: them exactly what I think. They're very good. They're good
Speaker 2: towards me.
Speaker 1: They're they're both nice people too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's and Matt's a car Holden Fank as well,
Speaker 2: so we.
Speaker 1: Went I think Nigel is too. He's a bit of
Speaker 1: a bit of a redhead. So you've been able to
Speaker 1: talk on that level. Yeah, but yeah, these are the
Speaker 1: things that it's so hard, hard for the family. And
Speaker 1: what I take away from that, the fact that they're
Speaker 1: talking to is such a positive, positive situation because it's
Speaker 1: when families get stonewalled. I think half the time that
Speaker 1: police might be working on the case, but they're not
Speaker 1: keeping the families informed and that creates that pain. There
Speaker 1: was in one of the episodes I heard on the
Speaker 1: podcast that there was I think he was a boss
Speaker 1: of homicide at the time, Scott Cooked talking about CCTV
Speaker 1: footage that was couldn't be found. What was that in
Speaker 1: relation until we touched on it and in part one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they see CCTV footage from petrol stations between
Speaker 2: Vargo and now On. And the reason for that is one,
Speaker 2: if you're driving a V eight commodore, you know, pass
Speaker 2: everything on the road except for a petrol station. And
Speaker 2: because an accelerant was used, right and because Rochelle was
Speaker 2: so broke, she would only put you know, five ten
Speaker 2: dollars worth of fuel in the car at the time
Speaker 2: because she just never had any money. So if her
Speaker 2: car was used and it traveled one hundred kilometers each way,
Speaker 2: they would have needed to put fuel in it. So
Speaker 2: that's why there's a tension on the field cap because
Speaker 2: the field cap is one of those key locked silver
Speaker 2: caps behind like a flat that you can open with
Speaker 2: your hand. But there's no fingerprint, dust or anything on
Speaker 2: the cap. So that's why we questioned. We had Chris
Speaker 2: Darcy from Search Dogs looking at it and he questioned
Speaker 2: whether that had ever been tested, and that's a.
Speaker 1: Really good question. Well, it makes sense if they're coming
Speaker 1: back and the petrol person driving the car back. But
Speaker 1: the cc TV for the job had a lot of
Speaker 1: success with investigations getting there at service stations where people
Speaker 1: are up to no good heading along the highways, so
Speaker 1: is there any hope that that might be found.
Speaker 2: They lost it really early on, and I think Christian
Speaker 2: Olivari's and his team went right through wherever it was
Speaker 2: supposedly stored and they couldn't find it either at the
Speaker 2: time of the inquest, ye, so they have had a
Speaker 2: lot of people looking for it.
Speaker 4: There are two segments of CCTV that, according to the
Speaker 4: brief that we have, is still in police possessions. So
Speaker 4: Christy has asked Unsolved if they'll let her look at it,
Speaker 4: at least just Christie, just so that she could rule
Speaker 4: it in or out. Because there is a woman on
Speaker 4: one of the segments of CCTV within close proximity of
Speaker 4: where Rochelle's body was found, but also just a few
Speaker 4: hours before she was found. So there's one piece of
Speaker 4: CCTV that has a woman and an unknown man. Both
Speaker 4: of them are unknown, so a woman and a man.
Speaker 4: And then the second piece of CCTV was about an
Speaker 4: hour later, I think, and that had just two men
Speaker 4: on it and a commodore, but the number.
Speaker 3: Plate was obscured because of the hype.
Speaker 4: They had their lights on and they didn't turn their
Speaker 4: lights off when they filled up right, So my feeling
Speaker 4: on that was was that intentional? Did they leave the
Speaker 4: lights on by mistake or was that a deliberate attempt
Speaker 4: to disguise the number plate and obscure the number plate?
Speaker 4: So that's why Christy wants to see that CCTV.
Speaker 5: Is there a.
Speaker 1: Suggestion that could have the female could have been rachelle Is?
Speaker 3: We just don't know.
Speaker 4: So at the very least, you would think that Christy
Speaker 4: would have been shown that CCTV to say absolutely not
Speaker 4: that is not.
Speaker 3: Her or who is this person?
Speaker 4: Because even though it's almost twenty four years old, I
Speaker 4: still think that even if it is just black and white,
Speaker 4: a family member could could make out someone if they're identifiable.
Speaker 2: With the car.
Speaker 5: The car, so oh no, if it's the car, yeah, okay.
Speaker 4: So that's how that's our question to police is why
Speaker 4: has Christy never been shown this CCTV if it does exist?
Speaker 4: Because according to the brief, that was not this CCTV
Speaker 4: that was lost, the other CCTV.
Speaker 3: Other CCTV was lost. Okay, so there is some but
Speaker 3: you've never seen it.
Speaker 2: No, And I've asked to say, and I can't remember
Speaker 2: what the response was. The other CCTV footage that they've
Speaker 2: got is from the Bargo train station. Yeah, apparently that's
Speaker 2: very grainy and very hard to make anything out.
Speaker 5: Matt Russell said that.
Speaker 2: He said, it's really hard to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, certainly improved the CCTV type coverage that you
Speaker 1: get in this day and age, but the old ones
Speaker 1: are hard. But the fact that the car was where
Speaker 1: it was parked, someone who parked it had to leave
Speaker 1: that location too. But I would imagine that that footage
Speaker 1: was grabbed very early in the investigation because otherwise that
Speaker 1: we probably wouldn't have have copies of it because it
Speaker 1: gets disposed of sometimes. To put your mind to these,
Speaker 1: I know there was a lot of time, doesn't really
Speaker 1: put your mind to these, but knowing that these mistakes
Speaker 1: shouldn't happen down the track. Not the impacts on this investigation,
Speaker 1: but the practices are a lot better now on where
Speaker 1: exhibits are stored. It used to be. I won't say
Speaker 1: ad hoc. There was a system in place, but it
Speaker 1: was a system that failed too often and the exhibits
Speaker 1: were misplaced. And you think, well, how can you lose
Speaker 1: an exhibit to a murder investigation? But police stations someone
Speaker 1: retires and boxes left there, it gets moved, someone comes
Speaker 1: in and it's happened too often, but now they've got
Speaker 1: a system in place that that should not happen. Down
Speaker 1: the track with the podcast, you've got some expert opinion
Speaker 1: on the situation or people that were involved in the investigation.
Speaker 1: Can we talk through a couple couple of them? You
Speaker 1: mentioned Chris Illingsworth, What did you run past her? What
Speaker 1: type of things were you looking at? Chris to provide, well.
Speaker 4: Chris was involved in profiling Rochelle's killer, so she has intimate.
Speaker 3: Knowledge about the case.
Speaker 4: She examined a lot of the evidence and wrote a
Speaker 4: report to the New South Wales Police Force about the behavior,
Speaker 4: the type and profile the killer. So for that reason,
Speaker 4: she was someone that I really wanted to speak to
Speaker 4: and she was willing to because she believes, like most
Speaker 4: retired police officers, that getting that information out there could
Speaker 4: help and could take this case a little bit further.
Speaker 4: And she also believes in a podcast too, So she
Speaker 4: was on board and she wanted to help the family
Speaker 4: and was very generous with her time and went back
Speaker 4: over her memory of the case and also met us
Speaker 4: down at GIRoA and gave us some really fascinating insights
Speaker 4: into what she believed happened. Fascinating but also traumatic for
Speaker 4: Christy to hear. And that was a really difficult conversation
Speaker 4: to have to relay to her what Chris had relayed
Speaker 4: to us. So but you know, in true Christie's style,
Speaker 4: she just takes it and just processes it and says,
Speaker 4: I wanted out there. You know, this is what he
Speaker 4: did to her, and it's part of the part of
Speaker 4: the evidence, and we could it could help us.
Speaker 1: The cause of death. What was what was put down
Speaker 1: as the cause of death.
Speaker 2: It was unknown, but either strangulation or suffocation.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, Damien learn and the people that would have
Speaker 1: heard that name from from here and he's been a
Speaker 1: guest on this, but he was also the detective involved
Speaker 1: in the teacher's pet like a dog with a bone
Speaker 1: when he's on the case. So you consulted consulted with him.
Speaker 1: So that's a good choice. What did Damien bring to
Speaker 1: the podcast?
Speaker 4: Well, I shared the brief of evidence with him and
Speaker 4: asked him if he wanted to get on board because
Speaker 4: I needed help and I wanted someone who could independently
Speaker 4: help me pull out the key pieces of evidence that
Speaker 4: we wanted to use in the podcast, and for obvious
Speaker 4: reasons his profile with the Teacher's Pet. He was also retired,
Speaker 4: and I thought he might have the time because it
Speaker 4: is really hard to get people to commit to such
Speaker 4: a big project. But when I reached out to him,
Speaker 4: he said yes, absolutely, And then he tells a different
Speaker 4: story that I just fronted him at the airport basically
Speaker 4: with a brief of evidence and he did agree to
Speaker 4: meet me though, and yeah, he started reading the case
Speaker 4: and then we just had regular contact and I surprised
Speaker 4: Christy with having him on board, and which was really nice,
Speaker 4: just because they have felt forgotten for so many years.
Speaker 4: So to bring someone with a profile like that to
Speaker 4: the case, I just thought it was. Yeah, it just
Speaker 4: shows that there are still many people that are interested
Speaker 4: in Rachelle's case and getting justice for her and your family.
Speaker 4: So I just thought he'd be a great person to
Speaker 4: bring on board and his knowledge and his analysis of
Speaker 4: the case. And he's just a straight shooter as well.
Speaker 4: He's great for a podcast. He's got a great voice.
Speaker 4: He just gets straight to the point and tells it
Speaker 4: like it is.
Speaker 1: He doesn't care about ruffling feathers, which is a good
Speaker 1: trait to have when you're involved in that type of stuff. Chritsie,
Speaker 1: you would have been happy for him to come on board.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's really cool.
Speaker 1: You need those crazy, crazy human beings to sometimes push
Speaker 1: it a long day.
Speaker 2: That's all right. I relate to that side of him
Speaker 2: really well. He's yeah, and we agree on a lot
Speaker 2: of things when it comes to the case. And just
Speaker 2: having his insight was incredible, and he's just so giving
Speaker 2: with his time and he's just such a good guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it must know you've carried this for so
Speaker 1: long and having a team of good people, committed people
Speaker 1: must must give you some contentment knowing that people.
Speaker 2: Are looking at it's incredible.
Speaker 1: Mick Ash would Okay, Mick took and off, Michael. We're
Speaker 1: discussing it because I know Mick well and we worked
Speaker 1: together in homicide, and I was thinking he might have
Speaker 1: reviewed it in Unsolved homicide. When you said I think Chrissy,
Speaker 1: that Mick ashwould became involved twelve months after either was
Speaker 1: running the investigation. I think Mick would have been on
Speaker 1: the floor as in one of the working teams at
Speaker 1: that point in time. And I think the processes that
Speaker 1: we had in place here that if an investigation like
Speaker 1: this one had got to a certain point, homicide would
Speaker 1: come down and act as a consultant or taken. So
Speaker 1: I think that was the capacity. I thought it might
Speaker 1: have been unsolved, but he probably was on the floor.
Speaker 1: Giving the time.
Speaker 5: Frame, that's likely.
Speaker 2: As I said, my memory of that's shaky.
Speaker 1: And how have you found Mick Ashwood's input. He's out
Speaker 1: of the cops now, so he's not he doesn't have
Speaker 1: to do the corporate spin. How has Mick?
Speaker 2: I haven't spoken to Mick. I've spoken to a couple
Speaker 2: of others, but I's just spoken to Mick a few times.
Speaker 1: How'd you find Mick?
Speaker 4: He's incredible And again his insights and his expertise on
Speaker 4: looking at the case and pointing me in the right
Speaker 4: direction as to what I should focus on and why
Speaker 4: he thinks it's important. And just again his time is
Speaker 4: always available when I ring him up because I've got
Speaker 4: a query about something and he just has intimate knowledge
Speaker 4: of the case and what he believes may have happened.
Speaker 4: And yeah, and who we should be focusing on as well,
Speaker 4: he has some insights about that from my perspective as
Speaker 4: a journalist.
Speaker 3: Great, So happy to have him on board.
Speaker 1: Well, you you're putting together a good team and all
Speaker 1: the different skill sets and expertise that you've bought brought
Speaker 1: together the inquest. When when the inquest was finalized, what
Speaker 1: did the coroner come back with? What?
Speaker 2: Finding persons unknown?
Speaker 1: How did that make you feel?
Speaker 5: I wasn't surprised by that point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, did you go to the inquest with expectations.
Speaker 5: That this one?
Speaker 2: I was hopeful, but you know, we'd been not let
Speaker 2: down by anyone in particular. We've been let down a
Speaker 2: lot over the years, So we were hopeful, but not confident.
Speaker 1: Now and correct me if if I'm wrong, And if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong here will probably have to delete this. But
Speaker 1: I think I read in the media that there were
Speaker 1: nine persons of interest identified at the inquest, that two
Speaker 1: were not required to give evidence. I think at too,
Speaker 1: it might have been more were not required to give
Speaker 1: evidence because the coroner thought that's not going to take
Speaker 1: the matter any further. The others got in some in
Speaker 1: the evidence that they provided, it was clear that they
Speaker 1: had alibis or it was exculplatory. There was one person
Speaker 1: of interest that couldn't be eliminated. Are we touching on
Speaker 1: dangerous grounds here or is that where we're that's where
Speaker 1: we're up to. Okay. And that person, and my understanding,
Speaker 1: was someone that Rachelle worked with. We want to talk
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was her boss. His name is Kevin Carrell.
Speaker 2: And yeah, he sort of took her under his wing
Speaker 2: and showed at the ropes of selling his cars. And
Speaker 2: he was the one that allowed her to take cars home.
Speaker 2: They had a really good relationship. It was a bit
Speaker 2: of a mentor mentee relationship ship from Rochelle's perspective. Yep,
Speaker 2: she really looked up to him. Yeah, they got along
Speaker 2: really well. But she got along with everyone though.
Speaker 1: What she was twenty three? How how old was he?
Speaker 4: He would have been in his forties Yeah, early forties,
Speaker 4: maybe forty three from memory.
Speaker 1: Okay, So he was her boss. And does that bring
Speaker 1: it back to the car that she was excited about
Speaker 1: on the day. Forget the what's the talkie or what's well?
Speaker 1: Not well, sorry, no walkie talking? Okay, walky? You think
Speaker 1: that was that he had said that she could have
Speaker 1: that car that weekend. Okay. And this was all heard
Speaker 1: at the inquest. It was did I again correct me
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong. But one of the part of the
Speaker 1: podcasts I listened to that one of Rochelle's friends said
Speaker 1: that she couldn't talk in front of him about going
Speaker 1: out on a girl's weekend.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she didn't want to, didn't want to annoy him.
Speaker 4: More secretive about her private life. Yeah, And Damien Luhne
Speaker 4: has some insights about that. He says, well, that's a
Speaker 4: red flag because why would someone why would a twenty
Speaker 4: three year old woman be so afraid to share her
Speaker 4: personal life with someone that she trusted and someone that.
Speaker 3: She worked with.
Speaker 4: So there's another person that works there as well, Fiona,
Speaker 4: her friend, and she gives insights as well about that
Speaker 4: time in Michelle's life and her relationship with her, and
Speaker 4: she just sort of calls it.
Speaker 3: Out that it was a little bit odd, bit strange.
Speaker 2: Odd that he wanted to know about her.
Speaker 4: He was very obsessed with her life and knowing about
Speaker 4: her personal life. But then at the same time, this
Speaker 4: particular trip to Queensland, he wasn't happy about that. And
Speaker 4: she was going to meet a young man in Queensland
Speaker 4: that she'd met over the internet, and the internet was
Speaker 4: only just emerging in two thousand and one, so it
Speaker 4: was a bit of a new thing. So Fiona and
Speaker 4: her went to Queensland on this girl's trip, but it
Speaker 4: didn't go down well with Kevin and Fiona. And the
Speaker 4: feelings around that are that he possibly fancied her and
Speaker 4: he had a bit of a thing for her. He
Speaker 4: played favorites with her, gave her lots of benefits in
Speaker 4: terms of cars and her access to the cars, and
Speaker 4: that's how you describe it.
Speaker 2: He remember her telling me, oh, Kevin used to be
Speaker 2: a detective, that they were. That was the sort of
Speaker 2: the stories that he would tell her. And he wasn't
Speaker 2: a detective. It was Yeah, he was talking himself up
Speaker 2: to this young pretty girl and she believed him because
Speaker 2: she respected him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, somewhere the twenty three year old working in
Speaker 1: an environment, you shouldn't be concerned about what her personal
Speaker 1: life is, and that is a concern.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there were reports from his girlfriend at the
Speaker 2: time that he would make comments about about Rachelle and
Speaker 2: he'd be disappointed in her behavior, like her personal behavior
Speaker 2: and things that were uncharacteristic of a boss.
Speaker 1: And this all came out at the inquest.
Speaker 4: Yes, he made comments about her wearing makeup, described her
Speaker 4: as a tart on one occasion, so spoke really negatively
Speaker 4: about her, and there was almost like this marked shift
Speaker 4: in his behavior and his thoughts and feelings towards her.
Speaker 4: So it makes me wonder as a journalist, did she
Speaker 4: reject him?
Speaker 3: Was there any kind of.
Speaker 4: You suggestion that they were going to he wanted more
Speaker 4: from her and she rejected him, And maybe then that
Speaker 4: has escalated over time.
Speaker 1: Well, these are all the questions ideally that would be
Speaker 1: asked and answered at the inquest. Was he called to
Speaker 1: give evidence at the inquest? And how did that play out?
Speaker 4: He did give evidence at the inquest, but there were
Speaker 4: many questions he didn't answer because he executed his right
Speaker 4: to silence, executed his right to refuse to answer questions
Speaker 4: on the grounds that it may incriminate him, which is
Speaker 4: his legal right. And he was legally represented at the inquest,
Speaker 4: so there was a lot of legal arguments about what
Speaker 4: was asked of him, what he was prepared to answer.
Speaker 1: You're quite right, that is his legal right that he
Speaker 1: doesn't have to answer a question on the grounds that
Speaker 1: may incriminate him. And I've seen people time and time
Speaker 1: again getting the witness box and take that protection. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it's for something that's not related to what the inquest
Speaker 1: is about. Sometimes it could be that was making a
Speaker 1: joint that night.
Speaker 2: And that could be that could have been the case
Speaker 2: because there were other issues happening at Camden Holden at
Speaker 2: the time, that that could be the reason why he
Speaker 2: didn't want to incriminate himself.
Speaker 1: Okay, I always look opportunity madeive capability and opportunity falls
Speaker 1: in the factor of alibi evidence. Was there any alibi
Speaker 1: evidence that he presented that I was at home or
Speaker 1: I was in the state on the day she disappeared?
Speaker 1: Was any alibi evidence presented?
Speaker 2: Yes, but it was you know, no one saw him, right,
Speaker 2: so he presented and actually see anyone in his alibi,
Speaker 2: so there was no one to corporate what he were saying.
Speaker 4: He presented a very involved alibi that involved going shopping,
Speaker 4: going to a service station, go into a pub, briefly
Speaker 4: going to a takeaway food store, even mentioned going to
Speaker 4: his girlfriend's house, but she wasn't home.
Speaker 3: At one stage.
Speaker 4: He said he's driven past Campden Holden and has seen
Speaker 4: the cleaner and has had a really brief conversation with
Speaker 4: the cleaner and all the people that he came into
Speaker 4: contact with that night that he says, police can't verify it,
Speaker 4: and the cleaner even gave evidence at the inquest and said,
Speaker 4: I have no memory of anyone pulling me up that night,
Speaker 4: and he was interviewed pretty soon after Kevin was interviewed
Speaker 4: about his movements on the seventh of June two.
Speaker 3: Thousand and one.
Speaker 4: So his alibi can't be proven and it can't be disproven.
Speaker 4: So that's always been the difficulty about this investigation as well,
Speaker 4: because there were so many persons of interest and so
Speaker 4: many people in her Rochelle's life that had to be
Speaker 4: looked at, and for whatever reason, they didn't manage to
Speaker 4: prove or disprove Kevin's alibi.
Speaker 3: We don't know whether so that's what he did that.
Speaker 1: Night, left hanging. I think I should point out at
Speaker 1: this stage that Kevin Carrell has strenuously denied any involvement
Speaker 1: in the murder of Rachelle Childs. Yes, that's true, and
Speaker 1: he's consistently maintained that position.
Speaker 4: He has and he's always cooperated with police as well,
Speaker 4: and has volunteered his time to participate in interviews with detectives
Speaker 4: about Rochelle's murder.
Speaker 3: And he's always denied any involvement.
Speaker 1: There was a couple of other lines of lines of inquiry.
Speaker 1: I think that was there was someone that Rachelle saw
Speaker 1: the night before and his petrol can was found in
Speaker 1: the Oh.
Speaker 2: That's the next door name, right, Yeah, yeah, they did
Speaker 2: clear him, I understand.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So okay, we've had the had the inquest and
Speaker 1: what you was adding again to two thousand and eight? Eight?
Speaker 3: Okay, two thousand and eight, the findings were handed down.
Speaker 1: All right, so you're the family, there's been an investigation,
Speaker 1: You've got no result. There's been a change of teams
Speaker 1: running the investigation. It's gone to inquest. Looks like it's
Speaker 1: been prepared and the police have done their best currying
Speaker 1: the hands down their findings, and still none the wiser.
Speaker 1: What's the next time you were contacted by police or
Speaker 1: what's the next thing, because if we're talking two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, this is a long time ago.
Speaker 2: What they doubled the reward in twenty eleven, okay, from
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: Was that your initiation or no?
Speaker 2: I can't remember why they did that. Yeah, and then nothing.
Speaker 4: So probably difficult as well, just to be fair because
Speaker 4: as you say, your dad was.
Speaker 5: The main point of contact.
Speaker 4: Yeah, point of contact, So yeah, they could have been.
Speaker 4: There could have been. It's it's hard to say whether
Speaker 4: there was, you know, unless because I know that you
Speaker 4: say that you don't have a good memory of it.
Speaker 4: So it's it's sort of hard to say whether or
Speaker 4: not Graham was speaking to how often Graham was speaking
Speaker 4: to police, and what was what was happening between them,
Speaker 4: such with Christian Olivris.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he would have been unsolved homicide Christian, Yeah.
Speaker 2: But nothing substantial happened.
Speaker 1: Right right, Okay, so looking at this way, but that.
Speaker 3: Was twenty and eleven when that.
Speaker 1: Reward reward increased.
Speaker 4: We're in twenty twenty five and it's still at two
Speaker 4: hundred thousand dollars, which isn't a huge amount of money
Speaker 4: if it's going to change somebody's life to come forward
Speaker 4: with critical information, and.
Speaker 1: Rewards don't get paid a lot of the time, So
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, and quite often families would come to
Speaker 1: me because I was involved in the first million dollar
Speaker 1: award with Willim Tyrrel and that was after a discussion
Speaker 1: with a politician and then the me and dollar award
Speaker 1: came out and then I got in not inundated, but
Speaker 1: contacted by other families saying, well, if why is that
Speaker 1: case worth a million dollars and why he is ours
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty thousand, and that I think there
Speaker 1: could be rewards a tactical thing. You've got to use
Speaker 1: them at the right time for the right reason. But yeah,
Speaker 1: when we're looking at two hundred thousand dollars, it's not
Speaker 1: life changing now, but a million dollars perhaps, you know,
Speaker 1: that might might push push someone to come forward. That
Speaker 1: if they did know the person that was going to
Speaker 1: change their life or their life was going to be disrupted,
Speaker 1: that might motivate them. But the point I'm trying to
Speaker 1: get to here is two thousand and eight inquests, Okay,
Speaker 1: well we've got no answers. Twenty eleven, Okay, the reward
Speaker 1: has been an increase. That's good. There's a bit of attention.
Speaker 1: We're now two thousand and twenty five, we're talking about this,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure the police are looking at this because
Speaker 1: of the podcast. What do you think would have happened
Speaker 1: if you didn't do the podcast?
Speaker 2: Can't swear, but nothing. I contacted the police in twenty
Speaker 2: unsolved in twenty twenty one and I was emailing a
Speaker 2: man named Stuart at the time, and he said that
Speaker 2: they were assessing Rochelle's case to see if they'll do
Speaker 2: a review, and so I gave him. He said, give
Speaker 2: me a month. I gave him three months and emailed
Speaker 2: him and I just never heard back from him. Then
Speaker 2: when I spoke to Nigel Warren last year, he said, well,
Speaker 2: at that point in time, Stuart actually retired. So then
Speaker 2: I said, okay, well what happened with it? And he said, well,
Speaker 2: we can't find an assessment. We don't know what happened.
Speaker 2: So I said to him, are you telling me that
Speaker 2: I was lied to? And he said no, I don't
Speaker 2: know if you were lied to or not. You said,
Speaker 2: I don't think so, So I said, okay, well, when
Speaker 2: when's the next assessment of her case? And he said
Speaker 2: it'll be this year, which was last year. And then
Speaker 2: when I spoke to Matthew Russell, they were focusing their
Speaker 2: efforts on older cases at the time, so they weren't
Speaker 2: actually doing an assessment of Rochelle's case and they said,
Speaker 2: you know, and I said, so, don't hold my breath
Speaker 2: and he said.
Speaker 5: No, don't want to breath right, right, So.
Speaker 2: But but then now they are so miracle squeak you will.
Speaker 1: This is a squeaky will.
Speaker 2: But I'm happy about that. I'm thrilled that they're doing that,
Speaker 2: and I'm not. I know I sound critical, but it's
Speaker 2: I know that they've only got, as I said, a
Speaker 2: finite number of resources, and they've got to make those
Speaker 2: decisions which are really hard. And I'm the family, so
Speaker 2: I obviously want it for Rochelle. But there's eight hundred
Speaker 2: unsolved cases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, but also you have the right to, yeah,
Speaker 1: ask and I'm confident for you. And I'm saying this,
Speaker 1: I'm looking you in the eye here that the fact
Speaker 1: that you got Nigel you're talking to. No, he wouldn't
Speaker 1: bullshit to you, like I'd say it up front. I
Speaker 1: know the way he operates and I know the person
Speaker 1: he is, so it's a good person looking at it.
Speaker 1: I think it's sad that you need to do that
Speaker 1: squeaky will to get people to look at it. People
Speaker 1: put faith in the fact that their brief is that
Speaker 1: unsolved homicide, and for years I cringe when I heard
Speaker 1: coroners say, look, we don't know what's happened, but rest assured.
Speaker 1: We're referring this matter to unsolved homicide, and there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of coverage in the media about the failings
Speaker 1: of the unsolved homicide where cases weren't being reviewed and
Speaker 1: cases weren't being followed up. So, yeah, you're doing all
Speaker 1: that you can to get attention on your sister's murder.
Speaker 2: I think it's a reflection of how underresource they are too. Yeah,
Speaker 2: can't expect them to work miracles.
Speaker 1: No, no, but it's someone's life's been taken. You expect
Speaker 1: things to be done properly. Where to from there?
Speaker 2: We need people to come forward. We're hoping that, as
Speaker 2: Damien Luhn has said in his interviews, we're hoping that
Speaker 2: the relationships that existed back then that may have prevented
Speaker 2: people from coming forward now don't exist. And now that
Speaker 2: people are you know, have another twenty years on them,
Speaker 2: and they're more mature and they understand the gravity of
Speaker 2: keeping silent, that they will come forward. And we want
Speaker 2: them to know that we're not going to whacky with
Speaker 2: a stick for not coming forward earlier. We're going to
Speaker 2: welcome you with open arms and we want you to
Speaker 2: come and talk to us.
Speaker 1: That's good, good message. To put out. Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: think quite quite reasonable. But just congratulations on the podcast
Speaker 1: and I've enjoyed the listen. It really takes you deep
Speaker 1: inside what happened. If people want to listen to the podcast,
Speaker 1: how do they listen to Dear Rochelle.
Speaker 4: Well, they can go to the website www dot Dear
Speaker 4: Rochelle dot com dot au and if you subscribe to
Speaker 4: News Corp Australia Mastheads, you get early access to episodes,
Speaker 4: so we encourage people to do that if they want
Speaker 4: to listen, and you can follow all the news and
Speaker 4: the breaking news through that website and also through your
Speaker 4: News Corp mastheads.
Speaker 1: I wish you guys all the best in getting the
Speaker 1: result to this. For this it deserves a result and
Speaker 1: my instinct from a homicide to take this point of view,
Speaker 1: it is solvable. It's definitely definitely solvable. So hopefully the
Speaker 1: podcast you're doing, the attention that you're getting that will
Speaker 1: encourage people to people to come forward.
Speaker 3: Thanks Gary,