Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old
Speaker 1: devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a
Speaker 1: mom bags packed car, running her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2: Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
Speaker 2: to grab something.
Speaker 1: Panic.
Speaker 3: Amy is dead, sir By Amy's Dead?
Speaker 1: Eight Confusion World.
Speaker 4: About five minutes they sit N's a suicide.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent.
Speaker 2: This is immersing.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 4: The Truth About Amy?
Speaker 2: Episode sixteen. I'm Liam Bartlington and I'm Alison Sandy. So
Speaker 2: before we get started, I just wanted to provide listeners
Speaker 2: with the latest on David Simmons. Since we last spoke Liam,
Speaker 2: Yet another warrant was issued for his arrest after he
Speaker 2: failed to turn up to Armadale court, this time on
Speaker 2: driving offenses. The following day, wa police picked him up
Speaker 2: and brought him to the courthouse. So it's no longer
Speaker 2: a case of him turning up a few hours later.
Speaker 2: Police are now giving him a lift, which I guess
Speaker 2: is better than nothing. When he gets there, he's again
Speaker 2: granted bail and scheduled to reappear three weeks later. Sound familiar, limb.
Speaker 1: Wel, I'm sorry, but it's laughable, isn't it. It's absolutely laughable.
Speaker 1: As you say, he's got the best uber in town, right,
Speaker 1: the police are taking him straight there, not charging him
Speaker 1: a cent. He's obviously got an account, but it's for free.
Speaker 1: I mean, when is the justice system going to catch
Speaker 1: up with David Simmons? How many times do you breach bail? See? Look,
Speaker 1: I'm a bit old fashioned. I always thought that breaching
Speaker 1: bail is a really really serious charge, that's a really
Speaker 1: serious thing to do. But clearly I'm wrong because they
Speaker 1: just sort of give him chances like lollies to a
Speaker 1: little kid. And that's how they're treating him, and that's
Speaker 1: how they're treating the breaching of the bail. I mean once, twice,
Speaker 1: three or four times. Now. The other thing, when you
Speaker 1: say driving offenses, let's pause for a minute because that
Speaker 1: sounds fairly innocuous. But it's worth mentioning here that these
Speaker 1: driving offenses comprise reckless driving using an unlicensed vehicle on
Speaker 1: the road, no authority to drive that means you haven't
Speaker 1: got a license out, and driving with a prescribed illicit
Speaker 1: drug in either oral fluid or your blood. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a nice grab bag, isn't it. And these aren't
Speaker 1: isolated incidents. He's been a numerous traffic accidents, one of
Speaker 1: which was mentioned in court the other week, a motorcycle
Speaker 1: accident where, of course he lost his spleen. We spoke
Speaker 1: about that at length in the first season. Then of
Speaker 1: course the one that nearly killed Amy. Also remembering that
Speaker 1: car accidents are the nation's biggest killer. So regardless of
Speaker 1: what level of threat to society, the WA police or
Speaker 1: the court system deem David Simmons to be or make
Speaker 1: their mind up that he is or he isn't. He is,
Speaker 1: at the very least safe to say, a serial dangerous
Speaker 1: driver who can con tinuously flouts the law that we
Speaker 1: know to be a fact. Now, bearing that in mind,
Speaker 1: I just want to put it to the magistrate and
Speaker 1: the lawyers, the police and the police prosecutors who collectively
Speaker 1: enable him to continue just to walk free and do
Speaker 1: seemingly whatever he likes. Of course, remember remember what they
Speaker 1: said in court his family would keep him out of
Speaker 1: trouble and he would apparently get the help that he
Speaker 1: quote so desperately needs. Well, if in the future, if
Speaker 1: there is a fatal car crash involving David Simmons, and
Speaker 1: when I say fatal, not fatal for David, but fatal
Speaker 1: for the poor blighters who are in the other car,
Speaker 1: whoever they may be, however many they may be, whoever
Speaker 1: gets caught in the crossfire. Let's face it, how many
Speaker 1: times can you run the gauntlet on this? Then I
Speaker 1: say to the magistrate and his lawyers and the police
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors, that is on you. It's as simple
Speaker 1: as that, precisely, Lamb. Yeah, and look, I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm being too harsh in saying that. I mean, how
Speaker 1: many chances does a person like that get out? It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a cliche these days, but it is
Speaker 1: a truism. They will have blood on their hands. It's
Speaker 1: as simple as that. And it's not difficult. It's not
Speaker 1: difficult to foresee, you know, we're not trying to do
Speaker 1: a nostrodamis. And anybody with half a brain can work
Speaker 1: out that that is a very, very possible scenario given
Speaker 1: what's happened in the past and his level of behavior
Speaker 1: and the continuous level of behavior. Anyway, let's get back
Speaker 1: to the death of Amy Wensley. Now. When we've started
Speaker 1: this investigation, we discussed how the uniformed officers and the
Speaker 1: detectives seemed very much to be pitted against each other
Speaker 1: in their opinions of what really happened to Amy.
Speaker 2: Yes, Liam, simply put. The Rockingham detectives, led by Detective
Speaker 2: Sergeant Tony Kirkman, believed Amy killed herself, and the uniform detectives,
Speaker 2: led by Senior Constable Ian Roberts did not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you couldn't get more polarizing, could you. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's one side of the fence the detectives, the other
Speaker 1: side of the fence of the uniformed officers. And as
Speaker 1: we delved deeper, we discovered there were also other detectives
Speaker 1: and authorities behind the scenes who didn't just fall in
Speaker 1: behind their particular colleagues. And it was their courage, I think,
Speaker 1: to probe further that helped get Amy's case to where
Speaker 1: it is today.
Speaker 2: This episode details how that came about.
Speaker 1: By way of background, in Western Australia, the rule is
Speaker 1: that all deaths are reported to the coroner or the
Speaker 1: coroner's clerk. If it's a reportable death as defined by
Speaker 1: the Coroner's Act nineteen ninety six, then the coroner must
Speaker 1: be notified. A reportable death, as defined by the Coroner's
Speaker 1: Act is unexpected, unnatural, or violent, or to have resulted
Speaker 1: directly or indirectly from some sort of injury. Now, this
Speaker 1: generally includes a review of the person's medical history and
Speaker 1: circumstances of death, a post mortem examination, and medical testing,
Speaker 1: alongside the witness statements. Sometimes it also includes reports from
Speaker 1: forensic experts, engineering and crime scene analysis.
Speaker 2: The coroner assigned to this case was Deputy State Coroner
Speaker 2: Evil and Vicker. Ms. Vicker, who would be the first
Speaker 2: of several who would ultimately take carriage of Amy's case,
Speaker 2: made it clear from the start that she wasn't satisfied
Speaker 2: by wa police's conclusion that Amy took her own life.
Speaker 2: But before we get into all that, let's revisit the
Speaker 2: crime scene through the eyes of one of the uniform officers.
Speaker 5: First on scene, I entered the property, had a quick look.
Speaker 5: I saw what looked to be a female in black top,
Speaker 5: black jeans, black beats, slumped behind the door. It was
Speaker 5: a bit tight to enter as her left foot was
Speaker 5: against the door.
Speaker 2: This is a statement made by Senior Constable Ian Roberts,
Speaker 2: dated July fourth, twenty fourteen. He made several over the
Speaker 2: course of a decade, one of which you've heard already,
Speaker 2: but this one you haven't. Unlike the statements from Joshua Brydon,
Speaker 2: Gareth Price, David Simmons, and his father Robert, Senior Constable
Speaker 2: Roberts is consistent in his recollection.
Speaker 5: The body had a blue towel over the head, covering
Speaker 5: the wounds. At this time the towel was left in
Speaker 5: place and untouched. I could see a large amount of
Speaker 5: blood spatter, bone fragments, and brain matter on the rear
Speaker 5: wall to the side of the head, and the large
Speaker 5: amount of blood had pooled under the bottom of the
Speaker 5: body as it sat there. I could see that her
Speaker 5: right hand was under her bottom and her left resting
Speaker 5: in her lap. There was a queen sized bed in
Speaker 5: the center of the room, with wooden bedside cabinets either side.
Speaker 5: On the bedside cabinet to the left were two fourteen
Speaker 5: gaged shotgun cartridges. One was live and the other spent.
Speaker 5: I also saw there was a side by side double
Speaker 5: barrel shotgun lying by the side of the bed and
Speaker 5: it was pointing barrel towards the deceased. It was about
Speaker 5: two meters away from the deceased. I could see that
Speaker 5: it had blood spatterings around the front of both barrels.
Speaker 5: Next to this bedside cabinet there was a pink rifle
Speaker 5: leaned up against the wall in the corner. In the
Speaker 5: far corner of the room, next to the other bedside
Speaker 5: cabinet was another shotgun leaning against the wall. In the wardrobe,
Speaker 5: another rifle was leaning against the inner wall, and several
Speaker 5: boxes of ammunition, both shotgun and twenty two could be
Speaker 5: seen on the upper shelf. It was about seventeen fifty
Speaker 5: five hours that the paramedics arrived and I asked that
Speaker 5: everything be untouched as much as possible, and simply ascertained
Speaker 5: that the body was actually deceased so that the relevant
Speaker 5: paperwork could be completed. The paramedics were in the scene
Speaker 5: for no more than a few seconds. They signed and
Speaker 5: completed the life extinct form and left the scene. At
Speaker 5: eighteen o five a PFA was de declared and a
Speaker 5: running sheet commenced At nineteen o five hours, Weedman and
Speaker 5: Kirkman and Povar from Rockingham Detectives attended the scene. We
Speaker 5: explained where the body lay and what we had so
Speaker 5: far done. They viewed the photographs that I had taken,
Speaker 5: and Kirkman and Povar took our camera and went into
Speaker 5: the property to assess the scene for themselves. They returned
Speaker 5: about fifteen minutes later. We all stood in the large shed,
Speaker 5: as it was raining quite heavily by this time, and
Speaker 5: we discussed the incident. Sergeant Kirkman explained that he and
Speaker 5: his partner had come to the conclusion that it was
Speaker 5: a non suspicious suicide, stating that they thought the deceased
Speaker 5: had pulled the trigger herself using her left hand, by
Speaker 5: pressing the butt of the gun against the bed and
Speaker 5: leaning over with her left arm. I then tried to
Speaker 5: tell Sergeant Kirkman that I did not agree with him,
Speaker 5: and stated that it would be almost, if not impossible,
Speaker 5: for a slight girl of her size to be able
Speaker 5: to reach over her body and pull the trigger with
Speaker 5: her left hand, and demonstrated that even my arm was
Speaker 5: not longer enough to reach the trigger. I also mentioned
Speaker 5: that her natural trigger finger would have been her right hand,
Speaker 5: which was situated under the bottom so could not have
Speaker 5: been used. Sergeant Kirkman dismissed these facts, and his partner
Speaker 5: Povar agreed with him. First Constable Blandford again tried to
Speaker 5: explain that for a person to shoot themselves, they would
Speaker 5: have to be seated with the butt of the weapon
Speaker 5: against the ground and the barrel in their face. Sergeant
Speaker 5: Kirkman replied that she was shot from the side of
Speaker 5: the head. First Constable Blamford stated that there is no
Speaker 5: female capable of holding the shotgun to the side of
Speaker 5: their own head and pulling the trigger, certainly not with
Speaker 5: their right hand trapped under their buttocks. Sergeant Kirkman answered
Speaker 5: by saying she must have lent sidewards into the barrel.
Speaker 5: I then stated that if the sergeant was happy to
Speaker 5: call it a suicide, and there were not suspicious circumstances,
Speaker 5: then we would continue with this as a sudden death
Speaker 5: and complete the paperwork accordingly. Sergeant Kirkman stated that he
Speaker 5: and his colleagues would first read the statements that were
Speaker 5: taken to see if they confirmed the conclusions they had determined.
Speaker 5: I asked that they call us once that decision had
Speaker 5: been made. A short time later, Constable Dixon received a
Speaker 5: call from Rockingham detectives that stated this incident was non suspicious.
Speaker 1: Now, according to the Major Crime Division decision Log, on
Speaker 1: the twenty seventh of June, a decision was made to
Speaker 1: arrest David Simmons and Gareth Price because of the following points.
Speaker 1: Simmons history of violence, evidence of an argument between person
Speaker 1: of interest Simmons and Amy prior to her death, the
Speaker 1: inconsistency of the accounts they had provided thus far. However,
Speaker 1: they were released the following day because and old quote,
Speaker 1: forensic examination doesn't provide evidence of criminality. Their accounts were
Speaker 1: more detailed and clarified earlier. And lastly, the police at
Speaker 1: that stage were unable to establish that an offense had
Speaker 1: been committed. And that's a bit of a save all,
Speaker 1: isn't it now. That was signed by Detective Senior Sergeant
Speaker 1: Gregory MacDonald of the Major Crime Division, who was the
Speaker 1: officer in charge of Operation Juhnde. We'll come back to
Speaker 1: him later this episode, but first a statement. Here's what
Speaker 1: Serpentine Roadhouse owner Robert Ibbotson, who ironically is also a
Speaker 1: former police officer, here's what he recalled.
Speaker 6: I am sixty eight years old and the owner of
Speaker 6: the Serpentine Falls Roadhouse, located on the corner of Fools
Speaker 6: Road in Southwestern Highway in Serpentine. On Thursday, the twenty
Speaker 6: sixth of June, I was at work. I was working alone.
Speaker 6: I was standing behind the counter when I saw a
Speaker 6: white sedan pulled up close to Bowser five and two
Speaker 6: males came inside in a hurry. I later checked the
Speaker 6: cc TV footage and saw they arrived at five twenty
Speaker 6: two pm. The clock on the CCTV footage is about
Speaker 6: two minutes fast.
Speaker 2: That would make it five twenty four pm, but it's
Speaker 2: worth noting that according to the Major Crime Report, the
Speaker 2: CCTV clock was five minutes fast.
Speaker 6: I don't recall seeing either of them before. They both
Speaker 6: looked to be in their late twenties or early thirties
Speaker 6: and Caucasians. Male number one was wearing a black hooter
Speaker 6: jump up with a green mother logo with a bright
Speaker 6: green capital M. I can't recall what else he was wearing.
Speaker 6: He was the only one who spoke to me. He said,
Speaker 6: I got to use the phone. I got to call
Speaker 6: Triple zero. I was about to point to the public
Speaker 6: phone outside, but I let him use the roadhouse landline
Speaker 6: because he spoke the submergency in the voice. The phone
Speaker 6: number for the roadhouse is nine to five to two.
Speaker 6: It is the only line I have and is the
Speaker 6: cordless phone. I stood two to three meters away from
Speaker 6: him when he called triple zero, and I heard him
Speaker 6: say wanted an ambulance and gave an address of lot
Speaker 6: number on the Southwestern Highway Serpentine. But I can't recall
Speaker 6: the lot number.
Speaker 1: He said.
Speaker 6: There was a name on the gate, but I can't
Speaker 6: recall the name. He said someone shot themselves in the head.
Speaker 6: He gave the mobile number and said it didn't work
Speaker 6: because he got wet. The entire time, he was calm,
Speaker 6: just a little bit edgy and nervous, but he wasn't crying.
Speaker 6: He asked if he could make another call, and I
Speaker 6: said he could help himself. He took the cordless phone
Speaker 6: just outside the door and made another call. I could
Speaker 6: not hear him as the door was closed, but the
Speaker 6: conversation was a minute or two long, at the longest.
Speaker 6: The whole time, the second male stayed close behind him
Speaker 6: and said words to the effect you're right mate, you're right, mate.
Speaker 6: The second male wore a black beanie and a white
Speaker 6: logo of some sort on the front, and a black
Speaker 6: horter jumper with white logo on the front too. I
Speaker 6: can't describe the logo as any further than that they
Speaker 6: clearly visible on the CCTV and they are very distinct.
Speaker 6: He brought the cordless phone back inside to me, handed
Speaker 6: it to me, and walked out without another word. The
Speaker 6: second mile, wearing the black beanie, didn't say anything either.
Speaker 6: They got in the car and left. The first mile
Speaker 6: without the beanie got in the driver's seat and drove
Speaker 6: south on the Southwestern Highway. I did not notice anyone
Speaker 6: else in the car, but I did have a good
Speaker 6: view and it was just starting to get dark outside.
Speaker 6: There was one other male customer in the store at
Speaker 6: the time, and he heard the first mile without the
Speaker 6: beanie say someone had shot themselves in the head. I
Speaker 6: don't know his name, but he is a regular if
Speaker 6: the police need to follow up with him too. On Friday,
Speaker 6: the twenty seventh of June twenty fourteen, I downloaded a
Speaker 6: copy of the CCTV footage of the two miles coming
Speaker 6: into the store around five point twenty two on the disc.
Speaker 6: I provided the disc a detective Senior Constable Danderly at
Speaker 6: the same time, I provided the statement on the Saturday
Speaker 6: of the twenty eighth of June twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: So we know from this that the clothes they were
Speaker 1: wearing at the roadhouse were the same clothes police confiscated
Speaker 1: shortly after. You'll recall that these clothes didn't have any
Speaker 1: blood or any gun residue on them whatsoever, despite Simmons
Speaker 1: admitting to firing his gun not long before Amy died.
Speaker 1: Remember he said he was firing his gun outside at
Speaker 1: some parrots or whatever. The story was, oh fish, it was. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a couple of different conflicting stories depending on
Speaker 1: who you believed. And also Gareth Price, in his own words,
Speaker 1: gave evidence that he patted down Amy's dead body looking
Speaker 1: for her phone. Can you imagine patting down anybody in
Speaker 1: that position that had been on the receiving end of
Speaker 1: that sort of gunshot wound? And still, because let's go
Speaker 1: back to the evidence, the police found, their clothes had
Speaker 1: no blood residue, no gun residue, not one bit, not
Speaker 1: one spot, not one spot. To believe, isn't it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Or woodchips from chopping wood all afternoon, or.
Speaker 1: Any sort of fiber from all that wood shopping. That
Speaker 1: is amazing.
Speaker 2: Look, it doesn't make any sense. The evidence is contrary
Speaker 2: to what they've been saying. They obviously change their clothes.
Speaker 2: There is no other reason that that would be the case.
Speaker 2: They would have blood, they would have woodchips, they would
Speaker 2: have gun residue, and even if they talk about gun
Speaker 2: residue being you know, not reliable, they would at least
Speaker 2: have Gareth having padded down a body. There's no way
Speaker 2: you could do that without having some transfer of blood.
Speaker 2: And there's no way that David Simmons wouldn't have wood
Speaker 2: chips on his body from having chopped wood all that afternoon.
Speaker 1: So if we were to believe, let me just give
Speaker 1: you a scenario. So let's assume that the clothes they
Speaker 1: had on at the roadhouse, which were the ones police
Speaker 1: then confiscated, finding no residue anywhere. Let's just say if
Speaker 1: they were fresh clothes, they would have had to find
Speaker 1: the time before they went to the roadhouse to phone
Speaker 1: for the ambulance to both change their.
Speaker 2: Clothes, yep, or they had thirteen minutes.
Speaker 1: Thirteen minutes well at.
Speaker 2: Least that we know of. That's their official time frame that.
Speaker 1: Had Okay, I mean, do you think police have fully
Speaker 1: investigated that aspect?
Speaker 6: Oh?
Speaker 1: No way, Amy doesn't look like it doesn't.
Speaker 2: No, no, And that's just been brushed over, right, you
Speaker 2: know it hasn't. There's been no No one's really talked
Speaker 2: about it, No one's pushed them about it. At the inquest,
Speaker 2: it just wasn't. It was just glossed over. Really one
Speaker 2: of the many things that was glossed over. And then
Speaker 2: even looking for Amy's phone, patting down her body. I
Speaker 2: mean that that whole thing of David Simmons not being
Speaker 2: able to go up to the house because his dad
Speaker 2: apparently wasn't there even though he worked at home all
Speaker 2: the time, and then him also afterwards when they came
Speaker 2: back to the property trying to get in there to
Speaker 2: get Amy's phone again where he said, de Larry Blain,
Speaker 2: you know I need to go get my phone. Wasn't
Speaker 2: his phone because when he said it was my phone,
Speaker 2: they said what color is it? And he said pink.
Speaker 1: He was claiming Amy's pink phone was his phone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he wanted it, but Constable Blandford refused to give
Speaker 1: it to him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, refused to let him back, and he denies it obviously,
Speaker 2: But I mean, who are you going to believe a.
Speaker 1: Swan police officer. I believe the police officer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, Well what benefit would he get from making
Speaker 2: that up?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 1: Exactly, that was part of his official signed statement as
Speaker 1: a police officer. I mean, I've got no doubt that
Speaker 1: what he said was exactly what happened.
Speaker 2: This same day, the forensic Field Operations team, led by
Speaker 2: Sergeant Brad Nind, went back to the house where Amy died.
Speaker 2: In his report, Nind noted that the bedroom had been
Speaker 2: professionally cleaned, and even a section of carpet and underlay
Speaker 2: in the doorway to the bedroom had been removed. Now
Speaker 2: that's the first time I've read this, but this carpet
Speaker 2: had been removed.
Speaker 1: Well, who made the decision to remove that carpet? Unsafe
Speaker 1: to assume anything in this case, But do we assume
Speaker 1: that was the professional cleaners who said, look, this is
Speaker 1: beyond cleaning, and either David Simmons or his father were
Speaker 1: present to supervise the cleaning and agreed that the carpet
Speaker 1: should be removed. I mean, how do you how do
Speaker 1: you do that?
Speaker 2: Another unanswered question, liamb something that the police, the new
Speaker 2: investigation team should be going back to.
Speaker 7: The premises was clean and tidy. Very small amounts of
Speaker 7: blood evidence were present on the rear of the door
Speaker 7: and adjacent walls. These stains were recorded and collected by
Speaker 7: BPA officers.
Speaker 1: Well BPA is what they referred to in forensic circles
Speaker 1: as blood pattern analysis.
Speaker 7: Upon completion of the scene examination in Serpentine, FFO officers
Speaker 7: attended the location of a vehicle subject to this incident
Speaker 7: in company of Detective Dan Drilly.
Speaker 1: And FFO refers to forensic field operations.
Speaker 7: Photographs were obtained of the interior and exterior of the
Speaker 7: vehicle and the presumptive test for blood was conducted on
Speaker 7: the steering wheel, interior and exterior driver's door handle which
Speaker 7: gave a negative reaction. Due to this, no swabs were
Speaker 7: obtained from the vehicle.
Speaker 2: Back to Detective Senior Sergeant McDonald at the inquest, he
Speaker 2: was questioned about how Operation Dundee came under his jurisdiction.
Speaker 8: There's a team structure within the Major Crime Squad which
Speaker 8: is now the Homicide Squad, same principal, different name. So
Speaker 8: the on call which was the process of provision of
Speaker 8: a telephone so that anyone required assistance or advice they
Speaker 8: would contact the on call phone.
Speaker 3: My team was on call that week.
Speaker 8: We were advised in the morning of the twenty seventh
Speaker 8: by Rockingham detectives that there were some concerns.
Speaker 2: This is what they were advised.
Speaker 8: My understanding is the initial investigations were conducted under the
Speaker 8: powers of the Coroner's Act Section thirty three. It was
Speaker 8: dealt with as a coronial matter and not a criminal matter.
Speaker 2: The coronial investigation in it referred the matter to Major Crime.
Speaker 2: Detective McDonald said he wasn't advised about it until after lunch,
Speaker 2: too late to stop the professional cleaners who arrived at
Speaker 2: ten am. He was then asked about Simmons and Price's arrest.
Speaker 8: My view of the interviews was that they were conducted
Speaker 8: competently and both men appeared truthful. Price curainly appeared to
Speaker 8: my recollection quite truthful, which is not always the case
Speaker 8: with people we interview. My recollection is the actually I
Speaker 8: thought at the time that his interview as quite good
Speaker 8: and that he came across he presented as truthful and honest.
Speaker 8: There were still inconsistencies between the interviews of the two men,
Speaker 8: which is not surprising given that they are two different
Speaker 8: people who have entered a room at two different times
Speaker 8: on their explanation, and people under stress and in circumstances
Speaker 8: that they are not used to and that will often
Speaker 8: have a different view of the same event.
Speaker 2: Detective McDonald is then asked what he looked for when
Speaker 2: determining whether a witness is honest or not.
Speaker 8: Well, principally, we look for lies, and lies are not
Speaker 8: always obvious. We're seeking an account from them as to
Speaker 8: what their actions were if that provides us with the opportunity.
Speaker 1: So, just to clarify here, Detective McDonald says they were
Speaker 1: looking for lies, which, of course they both couldn't have
Speaker 1: been telling the truth, could they. I mean, if the
Speaker 1: story is different at all, they're not both telling the
Speaker 1: truth on the same issue or the same subject. But
Speaker 1: Detective McDonald justifies that by explaining.
Speaker 8: There were some slight variations between them, but in the
Speaker 8: large part, predominantly the accounts were well very similar.
Speaker 2: Simmons and Price were intoxicated, so police had to wait
Speaker 2: until they sobered up before interviewing them.
Speaker 1: Detective McDonald was asked if, after reviewing those interviews, he
Speaker 1: suspected Simmons and Price colluded.
Speaker 3: No, I don't. I don't believe so.
Speaker 1: He also defended the detective's decision to rule Amy's death
Speaker 1: a suicide so early, saying that Amy's body could have
Speaker 1: been moved, despite of course, the blood spatter experts, as
Speaker 1: we know, having ruled that out.
Speaker 8: I don't recall anything specific about the position of her
Speaker 8: body in viewing those photographs. Certainly, I don't find that.
Speaker 8: I don't recall anything from those photographs that suggested to
Speaker 8: me that it was clearly not a suicide.
Speaker 1: But upon being pushed on this point, he clarified.
Speaker 8: There were concerns about the position of the body. Yes,
Speaker 8: I can't recall without further reference specifically that they were.
Speaker 8: But having said that, my understanding is that there was
Speaker 8: some force required to move to get into the room.
Speaker 8: There are a number of explanations for how her hand
Speaker 8: may have wound up in that position.
Speaker 1: And when about Naya's evidence about Simmons putting the gun
Speaker 1: in the cupboard, detective McDonald said he couldn't recall that,
Speaker 1: but he told the inquest in his view, as a
Speaker 1: general rule, children are honest. Similarly, when asked if he
Speaker 1: remembered Naya saying that Price, Gareth Price, had put something
Speaker 1: in the bin after Amy's death.
Speaker 3: I don't recall, sorry, the.
Speaker 1: Couple's history of domestic violence.
Speaker 3: So we examined it.
Speaker 8: I would point out that there are many family violence
Speaker 8: incidents in this state every day that don't result in murder.
Speaker 1: It's worth noting too that in the Operation Jundee report,
Speaker 1: reference was made to the violent argument just before Amy's death,
Speaker 1: but it stipulated that Amy was the aggressor and Simmons
Speaker 1: the vicar. I'm still trying to get my head around that.
Speaker 1: It also states there was no evidence to suggest this
Speaker 1: account is unreliable and no apparent motive for Simmons to
Speaker 1: want to kill Amy. Well put, simply, how the hell
Speaker 1: do they come up with that opinion?
Speaker 2: Well, because they weren't looking for one. Basically, the motive
Speaker 2: came later. They only done a very perfunctory investigation at
Speaker 2: this stage.
Speaker 1: But there's no background at all on all the domestic
Speaker 1: violent stuff. We know that we've been through that in
Speaker 1: the last fifteen episodes up. Yeah, there's no real investigation
Speaker 1: about their background. How can there be a decision made
Speaker 1: about motive if you haven't done proper research into background
Speaker 1: for anybody. If you've done no research into history of
Speaker 1: a relationship full stop, not just domestic violence, but a
Speaker 1: whole stake of other issues, how can you say there's
Speaker 1: no motive for anything? Is if you don't if you
Speaker 1: don't know what you know, If you don't know what
Speaker 1: makes people tick within that relationship, whether it be between
Speaker 1: them or wider family, extended family, close friends, If you
Speaker 1: haven't done any of that background and any of that
Speaker 1: historical research, how the hell can anybody say that there's
Speaker 1: no motive, no apparent motive. Surely they teach that in
Speaker 1: police training academy. Surely.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, I don't know, Liam, I mean, well, one
Speaker 2: thing I do know that they checked was whether there
Speaker 2: being a reported domestic violence, and of course they hadn't.
Speaker 2: But as you know, and as we outlined in the
Speaker 2: last episode, eight out of ten incidents of domestic violence
Speaker 2: aren't reported, you know, twenty percent are reported.
Speaker 1: That's my whole point. But we are dealing with the people.
Speaker 1: The people who are writing the report are the people
Speaker 1: who are dealing with the domestic violence issues. Yeah, all
Speaker 1: these thousands of issues that we've talked about in the States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if.
Speaker 1: Anyone should know anything about background and possible motives, it
Speaker 1: should be them. There's also this sort of crime of passion,
Speaker 1: which which we know can flare in an instant. But
Speaker 1: if people are already sort of predisposed, if you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, because of their their tendency to violence
Speaker 1: in their backgrounds, I mean, there's all that and more so.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just look at that one line, just
Speaker 1: that one line for me to conclude no apparent motive
Speaker 1: for Simmons to want to kill Amy, I mean to me,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but that makes this the whole report on
Speaker 1: Operation jun D is complete and utter joke.
Speaker 2: Not to mention the thing that everyone knows, the most
Speaker 2: dangerous time for a woman is when they're leaving. For
Speaker 2: a woman in a relationship and a domestic violence relationship,
Speaker 2: which of course the fight should have indicated that there
Speaker 2: was domestic violence, just that fight beforehand, regardless of who
Speaker 2: they thought was the aggressor, that's domestic violence. And the
Speaker 2: most dangerous time is when the woman is leaving. So
Speaker 2: that's not rocket science, is it.
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 1: Well, unfortunately, there's a whole body of evidence to back
Speaker 1: that up. There's a whole ton of research nationally and
Speaker 1: internationally to back that up. So you're dead. Right back
Speaker 1: to the inquest, So Senior Sergeant McDonald world is asked
Speaker 1: if he considered the investigation to be thorough. Yes, accepting
Speaker 1: al that an internal assessment of Operation Juhndee observed some criticism,
Speaker 1: including the following here we go. There's four different points
Speaker 1: of critique. Number one, a lack of scrutiny on the
Speaker 1: location of the shotgun according to Simmonson Price when they
Speaker 1: entered the room. Number two, the need for a more
Speaker 1: comprehensive forensic analysis of the clothes and footwear that they wore.
Speaker 1: What a surprise. They came to the same conclusion as
Speaker 1: US three. Failure to undertake covert opportunities like telephone intercepts,
Speaker 1: to which McDonald explained would only happen if he determined
Speaker 1: it to be a homicide. It's interesting, isn't it. I
Speaker 1: thought phone intercepts were used as a form of intelligence gathering,
Speaker 1: not to justify a decision you'd already made.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, The last criticism, this is an internal criticism again
Speaker 1: just to remind people, so it's not ours, it's the
Speaker 1: polices that Detective McDonald, not Detective Sergeant Darryl Evans should
Speaker 1: have compiled the final report. So that's a process thing
Speaker 1: that they thought should have been one step out and
Speaker 1: one step back basically for sort of more of an
Speaker 1: independent look at it.
Speaker 8: I think, Look, I think I can say in my
Speaker 8: experience that I have never yet completed an investigation that
Speaker 8: I couldn't have looked at later with the benefit of
Speaker 8: hindsight and done differently or better.
Speaker 3: And they would certainly be the case here.
Speaker 8: But I don't believe that I'm aware of anything that
Speaker 8: would change my opinion this time. There are other things
Speaker 8: we might have done, but I don't believe that would
Speaker 8: all to my view of what occurred.
Speaker 2: Now you are aware of our listeners, aren't Liam. We
Speaker 2: actually reached out to w Police about Operation Jenny, given
Speaker 2: that they did do a review of Kirkman and Weedman
Speaker 2: areter the inquest, and given this other evidence that has
Speaker 2: come forth, including new evidence that we're about to bring
Speaker 2: to light, they just didn't answer, basically refuse to answer.
Speaker 2: I put them to the Commissioner, ilicted a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of questions Operation Jundi and the handling of Amy's case
Speaker 2: brought about by this new evidence that we've uncovered and
Speaker 2: they just ignored me. So there you go. It shows
Speaker 2: how important it is. They told me that we could
Speaker 2: turn up to one of their doorstops anytime we want.
Speaker 2: But when I asked them whether they could tell me
Speaker 2: when they were or whether they could notify us, they
Speaker 2: didn't get back to me about that either, So there
Speaker 2: you go. That's the way it is.
Speaker 1: But to see their invitation for us to turn up
Speaker 1: at a door stop, which a lot of people would
Speaker 1: recognize as sort of industry jargon, which is basically a
Speaker 1: press conference that is set up by the particular people involved. Say,
Speaker 1: for instance, here the police commissioner to talk about a
Speaker 1: different subject because he's got some news for the assembled media,
Speaker 1: and clearly it's not going to be about Amy Wensley's death.
Speaker 1: So we turn up to the doorstop, and then we
Speaker 1: wait for the assembled media to ask their other questions
Speaker 1: about that particular issue on the day, and then we
Speaker 1: ask the commissioner. And then, according to their communication and
Speaker 1: correspondence with you, they are very very kindly, out of
Speaker 1: the goodness of their heart, they deign to answer the questions.
Speaker 1: But if there's not enough information, or if we are
Speaker 1: asking too many questions. Then, of course it's easy for
Speaker 1: us to look like we're bullying and hectoring the police commissioner.
Speaker 1: So it's an interesting invitation. You know, it's not quite
Speaker 1: what it seems on the surface. I just make that
Speaker 1: point from an industry point of view, so that our
Speaker 1: listeners know where we're coming from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'd be lucky to get one question in it's Yeah.
Speaker 1: To say it's disingenuine, I think is probably again a
Speaker 1: massive understatement, but this case is full of understatements.
Speaker 2: Let's continue. Under Cross's examination by rain Wade, Detective McDonald
Speaker 2: struggled to justify this.
Speaker 9: What consideration did you give to the positioning of the
Speaker 9: firearm and how in the circumstances that was consistent with suicide?
Speaker 8: Well, it is not inconsistent because it's the firearm is
Speaker 8: still based on the evidence of witnesses within arm's reach
Speaker 8: until it's moved. That is not inconsistent with suicide.
Speaker 9: But you're forgetting a very important thing. According to the thesis.
Speaker 9: At the time, Amy used her right hand to push
Speaker 9: the figure back whilst holding the weapon with her left hand. Yes,
Speaker 9: the recoil is away from her. How does the weapon
Speaker 9: move against the recoil and into her lap facing upwards.
Speaker 3: I don't see your point.
Speaker 8: If she's holding it in this way and the recoil
Speaker 8: drives it down, it could conceivably hit the floor and bounce.
Speaker 8: I have no idea to tell you how exactly it
Speaker 8: wound up in this position.
Speaker 3: We don't know that.
Speaker 9: Did you at any point think that possibly there was
Speaker 9: some utility in getting a blis expert just to comment
Speaker 9: on one matter, and that is, if Amy used the
Speaker 9: weapon from her right to kill herself, whether it was
Speaker 9: in any way possible for that weapon to end up
Speaker 9: in a lap.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 9: I didn't consider that necessary with hindsight. Do you accept
Speaker 9: that's a fairly basic inquirity?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 8: I think the decisions I made were based on the
Speaker 8: evidence we had at the time, and I think they
Speaker 8: were reasonable.
Speaker 9: I don't you know you custom McDonald, please answer my question.
Speaker 9: Is that a fairly basic inquirity to ask an expert
Speaker 9: what are the characteristics of a firearm in recoil after
Speaker 9: it's discharged.
Speaker 8: Well, that's why we had forensic ballistics officers involved with
Speaker 8: the job to provide that advice. Now, that doesn't necessarily
Speaker 8: mean I have to pursue independent advice. If I'm satisfied
Speaker 8: of the advice I got from the ballistics officer at
Speaker 8: the time, which I did.
Speaker 9: That question has never been asked or answered by anyone
Speaker 9: from ballistics, and there is no evidence, no decision log,
Speaker 9: nothing to support that occurred.
Speaker 3: Then I can't explain why that is.
Speaker 9: Today and applying common sense, do you understand the difficulty
Speaker 9: that the family has with a construction of suicide where
Speaker 9: the weapon ends up in Amy's lap?
Speaker 8: Well, they may not agree with the findings and they
Speaker 8: may not be that's not up with it.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't agree.
Speaker 8: I think those explanations are not The explanation or the
Speaker 8: lack of an explanation does not make a criminal or
Speaker 8: suggest it is anything else. If you don't have an
Speaker 8: answer to the question, you may not have the answer
Speaker 8: to the question. You may not be able to answer
Speaker 8: those questions. That doesn't make it criminal or anything else.
Speaker 9: But mister McDonald, I'm not suggesting any of that, and
Speaker 9: I know you're not a forensic expert, but her honor
Speaker 9: needs to make those findings in due course with reference
Speaker 9: to who are forensic experts? What I need from you
Speaker 9: with reference to the issue of how Surah this investigation
Speaker 9: was in a very simple answer, as you sit here today,
Speaker 9: do you have even a late person's explanation as to
Speaker 9: how a firearm in the nature of a shotgun would
Speaker 9: move against its own recoil forward into Amy's lap given
Speaker 9: your hypothesis of suicide.
Speaker 3: I have no explanation for that.
Speaker 1: I mean, even when independent advice is sought and the
Speaker 1: finding three independent experts all rule out suicide and basically
Speaker 1: conclude homicide. They conclude that a third party is involved,
Speaker 1: that Amy could not have shot herself major crime. Now,
Speaker 1: the homicide unit refused to give it any weight, so
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, oh, no wonder. Amy Wensley's family is
Speaker 1: very cynical about WA Police acting with integrity in this
Speaker 1: new investigation.
Speaker 2: So WA Police has a running sheet on Amy's death
Speaker 2: which is constantly updated. In the early stages, the only
Speaker 2: documents listed were witness statements from David Simmons and Gareth
Speaker 2: Price and a report from the Mandura Family Protection Unit
Speaker 2: following a meeting with Amy's mum c Kirk. The officer
Speaker 2: initially in charge of the coronial investigation was Detective Senior
Speaker 2: Constable An Lahane.
Speaker 11: Good afternoon, I've been assigned to the Amy Wensley file,
Speaker 11: and I'm just going through all the documentation that has
Speaker 11: been sent to CiU.
Speaker 2: This is an email from Detective Lahane on the twentieth
Speaker 2: of August twenty fourteen. CiU is the Coronial Investigation Unit.
Speaker 11: I'm chasing the biomechanics report and or any forensic documentation
Speaker 11: by the relative forensics personnel. Regards Ann.
Speaker 2: She receives this response.
Speaker 12: Hi, Ann, everything we have would be in the case
Speaker 12: files you have been provided. Forensics keep and compile all
Speaker 12: of their own notes.
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 12: To my knowledge, no report was ever generated by forensics
Speaker 12: regarding the biomechanics. Detective Deandrilly from this office attended and
Speaker 12: performed the biomechanics part of the examination. They provided their
Speaker 12: opinion on site that deceased was easily capable of inflicting
Speaker 12: the injury with the subject firearm herself. You could ask
Speaker 12: them for a report if required. Regards Cameron Blaine.
Speaker 1: Now there's an interesting name. You might remember the name,
Speaker 1: Cameron Blaine. You certainly would if you're a West Australian,
Speaker 1: because Cameron Blaine was the officer filmed rescuing missing four
Speaker 1: year old Cleo Smith up in Carnarvon in Remote Wa
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, but then he lost his job
Speaker 1: after being a hero. He got the boot after allegedly
Speaker 1: leaking information about the case to a journalist that he
Speaker 1: was seeing or trying to see emotionally. Now, Detective Lahaine
Speaker 1: was told in no uncertain terms by the homicide squad
Speaker 1: that Amy Wensley's death was non suspicious, and there was
Speaker 1: a clear expectation from that squad from her superiors that
Speaker 1: she would come to the same conclusion as them in
Speaker 1: her investigation. She followed up with the key experts already involved,
Speaker 1: like pathologist doctor Amy Spark. Doctor Spark performed the autopsy
Speaker 1: on Amy Wensley.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon, doctor Spark.
Speaker 11: I have previously sent an email in relation to the
Speaker 11: post mortem report for the deceased Amy Wensley, although at
Speaker 11: the time I replied that it didn't need to be prioritized.
Speaker 11: Could this now be bumped up the list? I know
Speaker 11: you are extremely busy, but any assistants expediting the report
Speaker 11: would be greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: Kind regards and Detective Lahine also met with Amy's mum,
Speaker 2: Nancy kirk She liaised with detectives Kirkman and Weedman sought
Speaker 2: second opinions and chased up forensic reports she thought had
Speaker 2: been undertaken. That seems like an actual investigation.
Speaker 1: Lamb exactly, asking questions, delving a bit further, digging a
Speaker 1: little bit further, trying to get behind the veneer. It
Speaker 1: sounds like she did did a great job.
Speaker 11: Queried the availability of a biomechanics report. Senior Constable Meeks
Speaker 11: and Senior Constable Inskip attended the post mortem with a
Speaker 11: firearm that was the same type, shape and size as
Speaker 11: the firearm used in the incident. Meeks and Inskip conducted
Speaker 11: an analysis and deducted that the deceased was capable of
Speaker 11: using the firearm with either hand and inflicting the wound sustained.
Speaker 11: There is no biomechanics report. The analysis was conducted during
Speaker 11: the post mortem. Senior Constable Meeks believes the analysis slush
Speaker 11: examination should be detailed in the post mortem by the pathologist.
Speaker 11: If not detailed by the pathologist, Senior Constable Meeks willing
Speaker 11: to provide a report as to the examination conducted.
Speaker 2: Despite directions to treat Amy's death as non suspicious, Detective
Speaker 2: Lahyne wasn't buying it, and on twentieth of March twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: she alerted her boss, Detective Sergeant Alex West, that the
Speaker 2: evidence just didn't add up.
Speaker 11: Ballistics have stated they took a number of measurements and
Speaker 11: utilized a similar firearm to show that at the time
Speaker 11: of the post mortem that both arms could be maneuvered
Speaker 11: to utilize the firearm, but this does not determine that
Speaker 11: at the time of the incident the decease was able
Speaker 11: to use either arm, as the body reacts differently prior slush.
Speaker 11: Post death forensics have stated that the measurements obtained would
Speaker 11: have to be forwarded to a physiologist to make a
Speaker 11: qualified determination that the deceased could have used either arm
Speaker 11: to utilize the firearm.
Speaker 2: And so a meeting with the forensics division was held
Speaker 2: on the fourteenth of April twenty fifteen, which determined that
Speaker 2: Detective Anne Lahane create a matrix outlining any inconsistencies highlighted
Speaker 2: during the investigation, starting with an undertaking of a biomechanics examination.
Speaker 11: Eighth of July twenty fifteen a review. Hello, Brad and Michelle.
Speaker 11: I've received the report in relation to the blood analysis
Speaker 11: conducted on the lower clothing. I have conducted inquiries with
Speaker 11: Royal Perth Hospital in relation to whether the deceased experienced
Speaker 11: any mobility issues due to the car accident and subsequent
Speaker 11: C two fracture she suffered in January twenty thirteen. R
Speaker 11: p H letter attached the last paragraph states that the
Speaker 11: decease reported no ongoing symptomology and no physical such movement
Speaker 11: restrictions noted as per discussions held on thirtieth of April
Speaker 11: twenty fifteen with the Forensic Division and Detective Inspector George Macintosh,
Speaker 11: are you able to progress with the appropriate testing in
Speaker 11: order to determine the viability of the deceased having an
Speaker 11: ability to inflict the wound I e. Biomechanics kind regards Ann.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, Detective Lahane also contacted Stephen Brown Lawyers,
Speaker 1: which confirmed Amy as a client. Now. In May twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: not long before her death, Amy attended an appraisal with
Speaker 1: doctor Peter Watson from Sin John of gott Hospit. Amy
Speaker 1: told them she was unable to undertake an employment position
Speaker 1: that she had applied for prior to the accident. That's
Speaker 1: the car accident with Simmons Now. Around the same time,
Speaker 1: the state government insurance Commissioner SGIC, which is no longer
Speaker 1: known as the SGIC, It's now known as the Insurance
Speaker 1: Business Australia sent David Simmons a crash report to complete,
Speaker 1: but it was never completed, so they appointed an investigator,
Speaker 1: a guy called Stephen Carozzi now mister Carozzi obtained a
Speaker 1: statement from David Simmons, who had lodged a motor vehicle
Speaker 1: claim with Amy Wensley sustaining injuries as a result of
Speaker 1: that crash. Simmons did have third party insurance, but the
Speaker 1: SGIC did not have any other details relating to the claim. Now.
Speaker 1: In June twenty fourteen, Stephen Brown Lawyers received a call
Speaker 1: from a former client who knew the deceased Amy and
Speaker 1: advised that she had been quote killed by her partner.
Speaker 1: Stephen Brown Lawyers told Detective Lahyne they'd never had any
Speaker 1: contact with David Simmons and advised the claim entitlement had
Speaker 1: ceased when Amy died. However, experts trying to ascertain whether
Speaker 1: Amy's injury would have also impeded her ability to shoot
Speaker 1: herself were concerned that WA police did not take that
Speaker 1: into consideration, which is quite astounding, isn't it. Here's an
Speaker 1: email to Detective L. Hayne from forensic consultant and the
Speaker 1: manager of Quality Assurance, Mark Reynolds, dated fifth of August
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen.
Speaker 13: And Kylie, thanks to the report and whilst I appreciate
Speaker 13: on the surf as it appears to indicate that following
Speaker 13: the C two spinal injury there was apparently no mobility restrictions.
Speaker 13: Can you please tell exactly what was asked of doctor
Speaker 13: Weeks when they did testing. I assume they did some
Speaker 13: that resulted in the comment no physical movement restrictions were noted?
Speaker 13: Did the test indicate holding a shotgun horizontally to one's head?
Speaker 13: Was Weeks told of the specific questions we wanted answered?
Speaker 13: Sorry to bug you, but the hair on the back
Speaker 13: of my neck read this one won't go down, Mark Reynolds.
Speaker 2: About a month prior to this, Doctor Reynolds sent this
Speaker 2: email to Detective Sergeants Brad Nind and Garith Waits see
Speaker 2: seeing in Detective Senior Sergeant John Robertson, gents.
Speaker 13: I reviewed the BPA on this matter, but and yet
Speaker 13: to complete the formal report. I've had to reprioritize this
Speaker 13: matter behind the BPA report for Operation Marino trial August
Speaker 13: sixteen and the trial of four police officers commencing in
Speaker 13: Sydney twenty six to the fourth twenty sixteen, for which
Speaker 13: I am prosecution witness. I will complete the report asap
Speaker 13: following my evidence in New South Wales. What I can
Speaker 13: say is that the BPA evidence supports the deceased as
Speaker 13: being shot in the position found with little or no
Speaker 13: movement of her following the injury infliction. Regards Mark Reynolds,
Speaker 13: APM PhD.
Speaker 2: Here's an excerpt from doctor Reynolds Bloodstained Patent Analyst report
Speaker 2: he prepared for the coroner, dated eighteenth of May twenty sixteen.
Speaker 13: Blood flows can be seen originating from the ear, nose, mouth,
Speaker 13: and injury of Wensley. The path of the flows from
Speaker 13: those areas are downwards and essentially parallel to each other,
Speaker 13: indicating that their direction has been driven by gravity. Furthermore,
Speaker 13: little apparent deviation from the vertical and parallel configuration is
Speaker 13: seen in any of these blood flows, indicating that at
Speaker 13: the time of flow, there has been little or no
Speaker 13: movement of Wensley's head from its position as seen in
Speaker 13: the photographic record. Saturation blood stains are seen on the
Speaker 13: clothing of Wensley, and a pooled accumulation of blood is
Speaker 13: present on the carpet adjacent to her body. Conclusions one,
Speaker 13: at the time of the injury infliction, Wensley's body was
Speaker 13: in the position and configuration or near position and configuration
Speaker 13: as seen in the photographic record. Two, at the time
Speaker 13: of injury infliction, Wensley's head was in the position or
Speaker 13: near position as seen in the photographic record. And three,
Speaker 13: Whilst the specific configuration of the contacting surface responsible for
Speaker 13: the deposition of some of the transferred blunt stains seen
Speaker 13: on the curved surfaces of the barrels cannot be determined,
Speaker 13: the color, shape, and positioning of the blood stains is
Speaker 13: suggestive of a surface that was flexible and or yielding.
Speaker 2: Three years later, on the thirty first of March twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: forensic Field Operation Sergeant Brett mccantz made a similar finding.
Speaker 13: Weinsley has not moved or been moved from this location
Speaker 13: post injury infliction.
Speaker 1: So al When Professor Timothy Ackland reconstructed a simulation to
Speaker 1: test whether or not it was possible that Amy could
Speaker 1: have killed herself, he observed that the model representing Amy
Speaker 1: couldn't quote hold up the gun even with both hands.
Speaker 1: He noted that the model found it difficult to place
Speaker 1: the gun in a position with the slightwood downward trajectory
Speaker 1: in which the bullet entered Amy's right temple.
Speaker 10: Detectives at the scene on the evening of the incident
Speaker 10: suggested that the deceased could have held and fired the
Speaker 10: gun with her left hand, either with or without the
Speaker 10: assistance of her right hand. As seen in Figures twenty
Speaker 10: and twenty one. The model struggles to hold the gun
Speaker 10: and her head in an orientation that matches the post
Speaker 10: has shown in figure one and consistent with the orientation
Speaker 10: of the deceased. Injuries to her head and to face,
Speaker 10: as well as blood spatter marks on the wall to
Speaker 10: the left side of her head, even with the assistance
Speaker 10: of her right hand. When one views the video footage,
Speaker 10: the model is heard to report how awkward the position
Speaker 10: is and how difficult it was to hold the gun,
Speaker 10: let alone pull The trigger. Weight or mass of the
Speaker 10: gun is six point three nine one pounds or two
Speaker 10: point eight nine kilograms free recall energy. Considering the weights
Speaker 10: of the shot, what and powder in the cartridge equals
Speaker 10: eight point seven pounds.
Speaker 1: And Professor Acklin concludes, if what Price says about the
Speaker 1: location of the gun is correct, then.
Speaker 10: My conclusion remains that the gun was placed there by
Speaker 10: a person other than the deceased.
Speaker 1: So the left hand couldn't have been used, neither could
Speaker 1: the right hand.
Speaker 10: Given a scenario whereby the decease shot herself by holding
Speaker 10: the barrel against her right temple using her left hand,
Speaker 10: then orientating the gun horizontally and near perpendicularly to the
Speaker 10: side of her head, and finally pushing the trigger with
Speaker 10: her right hand, where would the gun end up after discharge?
Speaker 10: According to my calculations above, and with the assumptions as stated,
Speaker 10: I estimate the gun would have come to rest some
Speaker 10: twenty one centimeters away from the deceased hand, landing on
Speaker 10: the carpet, with the barrel pointing toward the victim. In
Speaker 10: no way does this position relate to the photographs or
Speaker 10: our attempt to recreate elements of the witness statement by
Speaker 10: mister Price.
Speaker 1: Now at the inquest, Major Crime Division Detective Superintendent Rob
Speaker 1: Scantlebury backed Detective McDonald's conclusion that they could not place
Speaker 1: anyone else in the room with Amy. However, that's only
Speaker 1: if they ignore Neya's evidence and the gun's location, because
Speaker 1: it had to have been placed where it was found,
Speaker 1: not that it was possible for her to shoot herself.
Speaker 10: Anyway, If mister Price, as the first person who have
Speaker 10: entered the room after mister d. Simmons, has stated the
Speaker 10: location of the gun truthfully, then my conclusion remains that
Speaker 10: the gun was placed there by a person other than
Speaker 10: the deceased. Dr Timothy Ackland, PhD, Professor of Applied Anatomy
Speaker 10: and Biomechanics, the University of Wa, fourteen August twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: So we'll be speaking to Professor Acklin next episode, and
Speaker 1: that's a fascinating interview with Professor Acklin. He's very confident
Speaker 1: with his conclusion, even today, with the limitations of what
Speaker 1: a reconstructed crime scene brings, he is very very confident.
Speaker 1: Of course, by the time his evidence came through, Detective
Speaker 1: Senior Constable and Lahane had left the coronial investigation unit.
Speaker 2: It's understood her relocation had nothing to do with the
Speaker 2: way she conducted her investigation, but the fact she refused
Speaker 2: to treat Amy's death as non suspicious certainly ruffled some feathers.
Speaker 2: At one stage, she was severely reprimanded by a higher
Speaker 2: ranking detective Lamb in major crime. He was so angry
Speaker 2: and stood so close to her that she remembered feeling
Speaker 2: he spit on her face. She says her decision killed
Speaker 2: her career at w A police. Are you surprised by that?
Speaker 1: Incredible, isn't it?
Speaker 11: Well?
Speaker 1: Well, I actually am surprised because you've got a person
Speaker 1: here who's who's very committed, very professional in her approach
Speaker 1: to everything, successful because of it to a certain point,
Speaker 1: as she says, you know she's intimating she obviously didn't
Speaker 1: go past that point because she stood her ground based
Speaker 1: on professional analysis, which just goes to prove it's very sad. Actually,
Speaker 1: I think it's just goes to prove again the layers
Speaker 1: of politics involved in this. I mean, if someone came
Speaker 1: to you and said the sort of stuff we've heard
Speaker 1: from from Detective Lahayne, you know, you know, to form
Speaker 1: a view that police are willing to throw these tier
Speaker 1: one crimes under the carpet for the sake of political
Speaker 1: expediency within their own ranks, you know, just to protect
Speaker 1: other people's reputation. You'd laugh at it, wouldn't you think
Speaker 1: it's a stupid conspiracy theory. But Detective Lahyne is just
Speaker 1: another another person with integrity in a line of people
Speaker 1: that had integrity that weren't listened to or were sidelined
Speaker 1: or were treated like that. I mean, the spit in
Speaker 1: the face is just in the Can you imagine it?
Speaker 1: I mean, that would make life incredibly uncomfortable, wouldn't it
Speaker 1: to work within ranks like that? But it's so disappointing
Speaker 1: to hear that stuff from a public point of view,
Speaker 1: and it just goes to the heart of what Amy
Speaker 1: Wensley's family are still going through.
Speaker 2: And it was only ten years ago, lamp, so we're
Speaker 2: not talking you know, like you can kind of imagine that.
Speaker 1: Sort of sow this look I don't. Yeah, absolutely, this
Speaker 1: is not a cold case for me. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is you know, there's someone still walking around who's responsible.
Speaker 1: So this is not a cold case. This is very
Speaker 1: much alive, very much alive.
Speaker 2: I obviously went to police, I mean, because that's the
Speaker 2: impression I get as well, right, that they're protecting the
Speaker 2: cool kids or whatever, or you know, for whatever reason
Speaker 2: and anyone, you know, because this isn't a police bashing exercise.
Speaker 2: There are so many police who are doing the right
Speaker 2: things in this investigation, and they're terrific, But this talks
Speaker 2: to the organization, the system itself, right, and that's what
Speaker 2: really disturbs me. And I went back to a w
Speaker 2: Police as you know again that was you know, one
Speaker 2: of my questions and that you know, it was about
Speaker 2: six questions all up. They're not answering it. They don't
Speaker 2: there you know, write a reply obviously, I mean, because
Speaker 2: that's the impression that everyone will get. And I guess
Speaker 2: they just don't think it's warrants any justification. I don't know.
Speaker 2: So I also went to the new Police Minister, Reese Whitby,
Speaker 2: to find out if he had any concerns given the
Speaker 2: respective damage this was doing to Wave Pole's reputation and
Speaker 2: it's apparent failure to protect and serve the people of
Speaker 2: Western Australia. You've said it numerous times, Slam. At the
Speaker 2: time of this area, we hadn't received a response. But
Speaker 2: let's give it one more week to see if the
Speaker 2: minister is worth his salt or just another powerful person
Speaker 2: who puts politics before justice. If that is the case,
Speaker 2: we'll go to Premier Cook.
Speaker 1: Remember too, that Reese Whitby, the new Police Minister, used
Speaker 1: to be a journalist. Oh really, yeah, for Channel seven
Speaker 1: at one stage. So he knows very well the power
Speaker 1: of public perception and the power of messaging and communication.
Speaker 1: So if anyone can appreciate the fact that somebody should
Speaker 1: say something, it is the new police minister fingers crossed.
Speaker 2: But had Detective Lahyane not followed her gut concerns Amy's
Speaker 2: death being anything other than a suicide may have never
Speaker 2: seen the light of gay.
Speaker 1: Yep. That's absolutely right. She has been and to an
Speaker 1: extent still is a very very integral piece of this
Speaker 1: jigsaw puzzle, isn't she. And I've got to say again,
Speaker 1: you know, by standing up and taking the position she took,
Speaker 1: you've got to give her full credit. I hate here
Speaker 1: about people experiencing that sort of stuff in the end,
Speaker 1: but I love hearing about that sort of integrity. That's
Speaker 1: the sort of thing we need in the police. Detective
Speaker 1: la Hayne also our identified numerous issues which weren't considered
Speaker 1: during that operation Juhndee or jun D, depending on which
Speaker 1: school he went to, including evidence provided by Rick kirk Now.
Speaker 1: Rick is Amy's stepfather that Amy told him the Sunday
Speaker 1: before her death. The Sunday before her death, she told
Speaker 1: her stepdad that Simmons held a knife to her throat.
Speaker 1: Now I've met Rick Kirk, so of you and I
Speaker 1: reckon he's a pretty straight up sort of guy. For
Speaker 1: him to give that evidence, I think is quite compelling.
Speaker 1: She also Detective La Hayne that is had issues with
Speaker 1: the way detectives handled the interviews with Gareth Price and
Speaker 1: David Simmons when he was arrested a few days after
Speaker 1: Amy's death. They had a list of questions which they
Speaker 1: ticked off as they went through with no probing. It
Speaker 1: was literally a tick and click exercise. That was Detective
Speaker 1: Leahynes's criticism, not ours. Now we've sent questions to Wa
Speaker 1: police about this, You've sent them plenty l In an email,
Speaker 1: she also pointed out Detective la Haynes, this is that
Speaker 1: David Simmons only disclosed that he'd retrieved his other firearm,
Speaker 1: his twenty two rifle, from the front seat of his Subaru,
Speaker 1: and shot at a bird which was attempting to remove
Speaker 1: fish from the pond. After Amy's six year old daughter
Speaker 1: was interviewed by a specialist child investigator.
Speaker 11: This fact had not been mentioned in any previous statement
Speaker 11: or conversations, and was corroborated by nad who mentioned it
Speaker 11: during the course of her interview with the child Assessment team.
Speaker 1: I find that fascinating to it, and it's worth mentioning
Speaker 1: here that Simmons' story changed from shooting at a bird,
Speaker 1: which it was attempting to remove fish from the pond,
Speaker 1: according to him, to shooting at parrots trying to take
Speaker 1: fruit from the tree. That was the other story that
Speaker 1: was given that. I'm not sure about you, but I
Speaker 1: think that if you're talking about conflict, shooting at a
Speaker 1: bird in a tree compared to shooting at bird on
Speaker 1: a pond is quite different. Now quite different. Are you
Speaker 1: trying to remove fish or you're trying to remove parrots?
Speaker 1: What are you trying to do? Hello? Now here's what
Speaker 1: Detective Lahayne concluded in her report, which was completed incidentally
Speaker 1: by Detective Sergeant Gary Thwaites.
Speaker 11: Amy Lee Wensley was a twenty four year old female
Speaker 11: who was in a tumultuous relationship with her partner, David
Speaker 11: Robert Simmons, which had a major impact on her confidence
Speaker 11: and self worth. Family and friends of the deceased believe
Speaker 11: Simmons displayed a high degree of domination and control over
Speaker 11: the deceased. The dominance, combined with the isolation of rural
Speaker 11: living and financial stress, appeared to heighten the deceased anxiety,
Speaker 11: albeit outwardly she she appeared to be a happy and
Speaker 11: outgoing person. The deceased sought assistance from her general practitioner
Speaker 11: for her declining mental health and was subsequently prescribed antidepressant medication.
Speaker 11: On the strength of the evidence gathered by the MCS
Speaker 11: Major Crime Squad, both Simmons and Price were interviewed and
Speaker 11: cleared of any criminal involvement in the death of the deceased.
Speaker 11: As a result of my investigations and review of the
Speaker 11: circumstances in this matter, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate
Speaker 11: the unlawful involvement of another person in the death of
Speaker 11: the deceased. This concludes my investigation into the death of
Speaker 11: Amy Lee Wensley, subject of further direction from the coroner.
Speaker 11: Forwarded for your information and attention, Detective Senior Constable and
Speaker 11: Lehane Coronial Investigation Squad.
Speaker 2: This is Detective Lahne at the twenty twenty one coronial inquest.
Speaker 2: She's speaking with counsel assisting the coroner, Sarah Tyler.
Speaker 14: When this case came to you, did you have any
Speaker 14: initial concerns upon receiving and reviewing the material from the
Speaker 14: Major Crime Squad?
Speaker 4: Yes? I did.
Speaker 14: What concerns did you have when the file.
Speaker 4: Originally came to me?
Speaker 11: Actually, Major Crime hadn't had the file at that stage,
Speaker 11: and I reviewed it at that point and then it
Speaker 11: went to Major Crime and then it came back to me.
Speaker 14: Was this the day after Amy died? Yes, it came
Speaker 14: to you first. Were you the person it.
Speaker 11: Came to the Coronial Unit? Then I actually reviewed it
Speaker 11: with some other.
Speaker 14: Officers, okay. And what concerns did you immediately identify that
Speaker 14: caused it to be referred to Major Crime?
Speaker 11: It was the inconsistencies in the statements that were taken
Speaker 11: at the time.
Speaker 14: Between David Simmons and Gareth Price Price. Yes, and as
Speaker 14: a result of those inconsistencies, you felt that a more
Speaker 14: fulsome investigation should occur. That's correct, Yes, all right. Were
Speaker 14: you involved in briefing the Major Crime Squad in any way?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 11: I was, and I was also involved in the arrest
Speaker 11: of David Simmons and Gareth Price.
Speaker 14: And I understand that you've been in the back of
Speaker 14: the court throughout the inquest thus far, is that correct?
Speaker 4: That's correct?
Speaker 14: Yes, after you were involved in the initial discuss and
Speaker 14: the case was referred back to the Major Crime squad.
Speaker 14: Were you involved in any other point during that initial
Speaker 14: referral stage or through the Major Crime investigation.
Speaker 11: When it was Operation jund No, not until it came
Speaker 11: back to the coronials.
Speaker 14: So when it was referred back to the Coronial Service,
Speaker 14: was it allocated to you?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 14: What steps did you take upon receiving that file?
Speaker 11: So I reviewed all the information and intelligence they gave
Speaker 11: me which was in the file, and also reviewed some
Speaker 11: of the viper actions. I then started to put the
Speaker 11: coronial file together and I identified what outstanding lines of
Speaker 11: inquiry should be followed, for instance a forensic So I
Speaker 11: started looking at that and then I asked Major Crime
Speaker 11: for a memo giving their critical decisions on what actually
Speaker 11: how they deemed it non suspicious.
Speaker 14: So your initial concern were the inconsistencies between the witness statements.
Speaker 4: That's correct. On the first day.
Speaker 14: Upon receiving the file from Operation Junde. Were your concerns addressed?
Speaker 4: They the majority of them were.
Speaker 11: When I received the memo from Major Crime, I did
Speaker 11: identify that they had actually specified there was a biomechanics report,
Speaker 11: and I queried that biomechanics report and asked for a
Speaker 11: copy because I couldn't find it, and was advised there
Speaker 11: actually wasn't a biomechanics report. I then contacted forensic and
Speaker 11: asked them were they going to provide a biomechanics report?
Speaker 11: And they said no, they would not provide one.
Speaker 14: Did they explain why?
Speaker 4: They said, it's only done on homicides?
Speaker 14: Okay, do you know where the information came that there
Speaker 14: had been a biomechanics report? Was it a case of
Speaker 14: the measurements being done by the officers at the post
Speaker 14: mortem had been confused for a biomechanical report.
Speaker 4: I don't recall if they told me that.
Speaker 11: They basically said that they could only give me the
Speaker 11: verbal or that dimensions they had taken or the measurement,
Speaker 11: but and if I required anything further from that, I
Speaker 11: would have to go to the physiologist.
Speaker 15: Did they basically say that was kind of outside their
Speaker 15: area of expertise, like they did the measurements and whether
Speaker 15: there was a possible or impossibility of arms reaching certain
Speaker 15: length of shotguns, but they weren't prepared to go down
Speaker 15: on paper and do a full report saying you really
Speaker 15: need to go to a more expert person in that area.
Speaker 4: Is that right? That's correct? Yes?
Speaker 14: Is that how you ended up consulting Professor Ackland?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 14: Do you remember when that occurred? Was that in November
Speaker 14: of twenty fourteen?
Speaker 11: That was a few months into my investigation. I actually
Speaker 11: can't recall because I had actually gone through the forensic
Speaker 11: at that stage and actually spoke to forensic and asked them.
Speaker 15: So a bit of tooing and throwing there wasn't there?
Speaker 11: There was, Yes, it was a bit of back and forth.
Speaker 11: So I asked them who I would speak to or
Speaker 11: what I and I think doctor Mark Reynold's advised to
Speaker 11: speak to you wa.
Speaker 2: You wa is University of Western Australia.
Speaker 14: He made the referral to Professor Ackland. He did, yes, Okay,
Speaker 14: did you speak directly to Professor Ackland?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 14: Did you email him or brief him in some way?
Speaker 4: I don't recall actually whether it was me that had
Speaker 4: done it or.
Speaker 14: Doctor rh Okay, what was your understanding of the response
Speaker 14: by Professor Acklin to the initial request that he provide
Speaker 14: or biomechanical opinion? Did he agree to do that?
Speaker 11: I think I had left coronial by that stage, but
Speaker 11: I think he basically said that he.
Speaker 4: Could not give determination.
Speaker 14: My understanding was that he told officers that there were
Speaker 14: too many unknowns to make a formal determination.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 14: I understand you also made some further inquiries of forensics
Speaker 14: in relation to the bloodstained pattern analysis and the forensic
Speaker 14: analysis undertaken of the clothing. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That's correct?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 14: Can you talk me a little bit through those inquiries.
Speaker 11: Well, originally I contacted forensic to get any information from
Speaker 11: them and any reports that were available. I ended up
Speaker 11: having a meeting with Forensic and with my officer in charge,
Speaker 11: and we discussed what they could offer and what we required,
Speaker 11: and brad Mind turned around and said that he would
Speaker 11: provide the forensic report because he was the case manager.
Speaker 14: Okay.
Speaker 4: I also requested a BP report.
Speaker 2: As well, Detective Lahayne, he's referring to blood pattern analysis.
Speaker 14: Did you ultimately receive those reports?
Speaker 11: I think I received the BPA. Again, I think that
Speaker 11: was after I left the investigation.
Speaker 14: Did you review any other materials? For example, Triple O calls,
Speaker 14: the Serpentine Roadhouse CCTV footage. Was that all part of
Speaker 14: Operation Junde's brief, Yes, okay. Did you speak independently to
Speaker 14: any witnesses or is that did you reply upon the
Speaker 14: Operation jun De records.
Speaker 11: The witnesses I spoke to as part of the coronial report.
Speaker 11: You actually have to speak to the family. So I
Speaker 11: spoke to Nancy Kirk, and I spoke to the three
Speaker 11: friends of Amy's and that was near the end of
Speaker 11: my investigation that I spoke to them and obtained a
Speaker 11: statement from them.
Speaker 14: Was the purpose of that to explore the type of
Speaker 14: relationship that Amy and David had.
Speaker 4: That's correct?
Speaker 14: Yes, okay, based on your conversations with Amy's friends, did
Speaker 14: you have concerns about the conclusions reached by Operation Juhnde.
Speaker 11: I had concerns all the way through the investigation. But
Speaker 11: whether for all of the lines of inquiries I followed,
Speaker 11: I didn't actually achieve any I didn't get any further
Speaker 11: information to suggest that someone else was involved.
Speaker 14: Is that because that information simply wasn't available or were
Speaker 14: there any problems?
Speaker 11: That's correct? And also the original attendance. I think we
Speaker 11: lost some information at the original attendance.
Speaker 14: The premature decision that it was suicide, yes, and the
Speaker 14: failure to investigate that night. Yes, okay, are you satisfied?
Speaker 14: And I appreciate you left the Coronial Investigation Service before
Speaker 14: this report was finalized, But to the extent that you
Speaker 14: were involved in this case, are you satisfied that every
Speaker 14: line of inquiry that you could think of was appropriately
Speaker 14: pursued with respect to Amy's death?
Speaker 4: Every line I identified?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 14: What was the ultimate conclusion with respect to your involvement
Speaker 14: in this investigation?
Speaker 11: There was insufficient evidence to make any form of determination.
Speaker 14: Did you have a view one way or the other?
Speaker 14: How Amy died?
Speaker 11: I try to follow the evidence rule, and I, as
Speaker 11: I said, I didn't find anything that gave me an
Speaker 11: indicator that someone else had been involved. But whether that's
Speaker 11: because we lost the evidence at the start, I'm not sure.
Speaker 14: I appreciate you have no specific qualifications in this area,
Speaker 14: but as an experienced police officer, the coroner is going
Speaker 14: to have to grapple with how Amy's right hand came
Speaker 14: to be resting under her buttocks when there's a suggestion
Speaker 14: that she used that hand to pull the trigger to
Speaker 14: shoot herself. Is there a scenario that you can think
Speaker 14: of that would allow that to occur and allow that
Speaker 14: finding to be suicide or do you think there's simply
Speaker 14: too many questions.
Speaker 4: I think there's too many questions.
Speaker 14: Do you have a definitive view one way or the other?
Speaker 16: No?
Speaker 14: Is there anything further you'd like to say about the
Speaker 14: investigations into Amy's death or your conclusions?
Speaker 16: No?
Speaker 14: Thank you, Detective, seen your constable. I have no further questions.
Speaker 15: Detective, Just before you go to council, if I can
Speaker 15: just clarify with you, and as I say, I have
Speaker 15: read through a lot of your running sheet which kind
Speaker 15: of indicated all of the steps you were taking. But
Speaker 15: from my understanding from your evidence today and from that
Speaker 15: running sheet, is that you received the file very early
Speaker 15: on after the initial detectives who attended the scene had
Speaker 15: determined it non suspicious.
Speaker 4: But when you.
Speaker 15: Received that you didn't receive it with a closed mind.
Speaker 15: You looked at it and immediately had some concerns about
Speaker 15: that decision.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 4: That's correct? All right?
Speaker 15: So, as a coronial investigator, if you've got some concerns
Speaker 15: that there is some suspicion in relation to the death
Speaker 15: or potential criminality, you have the option of referring it
Speaker 15: somewhere else, such as major Crime Squad at that time.
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 11: You have to go through your train of command. Sure,
Speaker 11: so you would speak to like I did spoke to
Speaker 11: my sergeant. But on the initial day when we initially
Speaker 11: got the file there was it wasn't handed to me
Speaker 11: on that day. I was just that we were There
Speaker 11: was a few colleagues reviewing it and we between us
Speaker 11: we kind of went, well, there's some inconsistencies in the statement,
Speaker 11: and then it was given to one of the sergeants
Speaker 11: who brought it over to Major Crime. I'm unsure who
Speaker 11: actually brought it over, So it wasn't your decision, That's correct.
Speaker 15: With your colleagues in Coronial Investigation Unit, you had some
Speaker 15: concerns about it being considered a non suspicious death at
Speaker 15: that stage, so it was referred through the line of
Speaker 15: the hierarchy back through to Major Crime, and you were
Speaker 15: aware that an investigation then took place.
Speaker 4: Is that right? That's correct.
Speaker 15: But when it came back to you, it came back
Speaker 15: with in effect the same conclusion, in the sense that
Speaker 15: it had been ruled that there was no obvious criminality
Speaker 15: and it was to be investigated as a non suspicious
Speaker 15: with moving towards a potential suicide.
Speaker 2: Is that right, that's correct.
Speaker 11: I was advised to actually investigate it as a coronial file,
Speaker 11: which is.
Speaker 15: A sudden and unexpected but not less non suspicious, right.
Speaker 15: But the impression from your running sheet is that you
Speaker 15: still have some unanswered questions as to how that conclusion
Speaker 15: had been reached.
Speaker 4: Is that right? That's correct?
Speaker 2: Yes, just a clarification here. Detective Senior Constable Anne Lahane
Speaker 2: was still under the employee of WA Police when she
Speaker 2: appeared before the inquest. However, she no longer had carriage
Speaker 2: of the inquest investigation, and while the Coronial Investigation Unit
Speaker 2: maintained her position, they weren't prepared to push any harder
Speaker 2: than that.
Speaker 1: Next week through the eyes of an expert, Tim Ackland.
Speaker 16: What I'm saying is she could not have killed herself
Speaker 16: holding the gun in front of her, with all those
Speaker 16: other pieces of evidence.
Speaker 1: Professor Tim Mackland will explain his report, and that is
Speaker 1: certainly worth listening to.
Speaker 16: So the only thing that then made sense, and partly
Speaker 16: because this trajectory of the entry and exit were in
Speaker 16: the trajectory of the pellets was horizontal but slightly down.
Speaker 16: The fact that Price said that the gun was placed
Speaker 16: here led me to conclude that Amy was shot by
Speaker 16: a third party and.
Speaker 1: The gun was placed there.
Speaker 2: So so de.
Speaker 1: Re uti.
Speaker 6: Unt.
Speaker 1: If you knew Amy and have information, any information about
Speaker 1: her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just at
Speaker 1: The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au.
Speaker 1: That's s E V E N The Truth about Amy
Speaker 1: at seven dot com dot Au, or visit our website
Speaker 1: sevenews dot com dot au forward slash the Truth about Amy.
Speaker 1: You can also send us an anonymous tip at www
Speaker 1: dot the Truth about Amy dot com. If you're on
Speaker 1: Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us to see photos
Speaker 1: and updates relevant to the case, but for legal reasons,
Speaker 1: unfortunately you won't be able to make any comments. And remember,
Speaker 1: if you like what you're hearing, don't forget to subscribe.
Speaker 1: Please rate and review our series because it really helps
Speaker 1: new listeners to find us. Presenter and executive producer Alison Sandy,
Speaker 1: Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett, Sound design Mark Wright,
Speaker 1: Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford, and special thanks
Speaker 1: to Brian Seymour. This is a seven News production