Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really coming.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing.
Speaker 2: The day after the alleged at top.
Speaker 3: On a show a mud bank and it fits through
Speaker 3: a river.
Speaker 1: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 1: there are good people.
Speaker 3: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 3: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 2: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 2: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Maguire and I'm.
Speaker 3: Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.
Speaker 3: And a warning. This series contains the names of deceased
Speaker 3: peoples and has distressing content that might upset some listeners.
Speaker 1: Last week we discussed with you the statement given by
Speaker 1: a Witness X. Remember this sty was given some ten
Speaker 1: years after events took place at Tenuber House, and so
Speaker 1: that's in two thousand and two that that statement was
Speaker 1: given by Witness X. We mentioned that Witness X saw
Speaker 1: people who we have named that is a Willie West
Speaker 1: in a green car and drove over the bridge, under
Speaker 1: another bridge and parked near the river where Witness X
Speaker 1: believed garbage was being dumped, but would later conclude that
Speaker 1: that was not the case. And the inference is that
Speaker 1: there's a high possibility that that was Linda's body. Now
Speaker 1: we're going to continue with more of that witness statement,
Speaker 1: and we'll go back to the very start of that
Speaker 1: witness statement of Witness X, who explains the events from
Speaker 1: when they arrived that day in Rockhampton, and the first
Speaker 1: place they talk about is a place called the Road Thunder.
Speaker 1: So Amy, for our listeners, can you explain to everyone
Speaker 1: where in rock Hampton the Road Thunder is and where
Speaker 1: it is in relation to the Crown Hotel and in
Speaker 1: particular Tanuba House.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I think what our listeners have to understand is
Speaker 2: a lot of the geographical locations in this case, they're
Speaker 2: all very close to each other, and at the time,
Speaker 2: a lot of Oriiginal people who lived on the riverbank,
Speaker 2: they actually walked everywhere. Very few people had cars. In fact,
Speaker 2: I don't think any of them would have had cars.
Speaker 2: They either took taxis or they walked around. But The
Speaker 2: Road Thunder is actually in one of the main streets
Speaker 2: of Rockhampton, and it's the street that cuts through the mall,
Speaker 2: and it's a prominent landmark within the actual center of
Speaker 2: the mall in Rockampton. And it's about if you walked
Speaker 2: another five or ten minutes to your right up towards,
Speaker 2: you'd reached Chenerba House, and just shortly across another street
Speaker 2: you only have to walk about five more minutes to
Speaker 2: get to the Crown Hotel. So they were all in
Speaker 2: walking distance of each other and likely would have been
Speaker 2: visited by a lot of people on the riverbank around
Speaker 2: that time.
Speaker 1: Last week we read to you the section of Witness
Speaker 1: x's statement that related to the green car, the moving
Speaker 1: and dumping of Linda's body in the river, and an
Speaker 1: individual named Willie West. Now I'm going to go to
Speaker 1: another section of Witness x's statement, and it starts this way.
Speaker 1: I was at the Mall in Rockhampton on the thirty
Speaker 1: first day of August nineteen ninety one when I asked
Speaker 1: friends where did all the Rribinda people drink? They told
Speaker 1: me at the Road Thunder. They showed me the directions
Speaker 1: and I made my way down there. It was about
Speaker 1: mid day when I got to the road under on
Speaker 1: Key Street, I saw. Now I'm not going to name
Speaker 1: all of those individuals because it's unfair to witnesses who
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the case to name them,
Speaker 1: but I will say that it does include the women
Speaker 1: who committed the assault, and Witness X goes on to
Speaker 1: say they were all drinking and I sat down with
Speaker 1: them drinking on the grass under the shady gum tree.
Speaker 1: A woman came along. I didn't know her at all.
Speaker 1: She sang out, come here, you West Australia and see
Speaker 1: this woman walked down to where someone else was sitting
Speaker 1: in a group of people drinking. Then we all seen
Speaker 1: her run away from that group. A person named then
Speaker 1: ran after to her and got hold of her and
Speaker 1: hit her. Then the others ran towards her and beat
Speaker 1: her too. Now again I'm going to leave out a
Speaker 1: number of people's names who were not involved. But once
Speaker 1: again Witness X names the three women that were in
Speaker 1: fact convicted of the assault, and Witness X says, I
Speaker 1: didn't know why they were hitting her. Then I asked
Speaker 1: other people who was coming to the road tunder to
Speaker 1: stop them from hitting her, but no one done anything
Speaker 1: and said it was none of their business. Then Witness
Speaker 1: X moves to a separate part of their statement. This
Speaker 1: is when they explain where Kevin Henry was at that time.
Speaker 1: Then Curtin staggered across the road to where we were sitting.
Speaker 1: He lay down for a while to sleep under the
Speaker 1: gum tree. The beating was still going on, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't stand it anymore because she made me very sorry
Speaker 1: for her. I told people to meet me at the
Speaker 1: Crown and to wake curtain up before they leave the
Speaker 1: road Under. I couldn't sit here any longer and watch
Speaker 1: this poor woman being bashed. As I got up to walk,
Speaker 1: a green car pulled up at the road Under. Two
Speaker 1: men got out of the car and walked to where
Speaker 1: we were all sitting and drinking under the gum tree.
Speaker 1: I asked who they were, and they said the two
Speaker 1: men from the green car are Willie West, who we
Speaker 1: named last week, and again for fairness, I will not
Speaker 1: name the second person. Witness X continues. I made my
Speaker 1: way to the Crown Hotel, where I stayed there and
Speaker 1: drank everybody who I've seen at the road. Thunder ended
Speaker 1: up at the Crown later that day, so Amy, I've
Speaker 1: just read more of Witness X's statement to the listeners.
Speaker 1: Was there anything in particular that stood out for you.
Speaker 2: Well, it was interesting because we hadn't heard any other
Speaker 2: accounts that Linda had been assaulted prior to the really
Speaker 2: tragic assault in her at Tanuba House later in the
Speaker 2: later in the afternoon. So it's interesting that this witness
Speaker 2: remembers Linda potentially at another location, and so it makes
Speaker 2: you wonder whether her memory is really reliable. But what
Speaker 2: she describes that the rotunda actually makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 2: And when I was thinking about the fact that this
Speaker 2: witness is actually recounting what she saw ten years after,
Speaker 2: and yet a lot of the geography of the rotunda
Speaker 2: at the time actually makes a lot of sense. And
Speaker 2: although the rotunda isn't there in Rockampton, it was actually
Speaker 2: demolished last year. There's actually a big gum tree that
Speaker 2: is still there that you can see straight in a
Speaker 2: horizontal line, right in the eye view of where the
Speaker 2: rotundi used to be. So it makes sense that a
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry might have stumbled over there to go have
Speaker 2: a sleep under that gum tree, and that Linda potentially
Speaker 2: had actually been assaulted maybe even a couple of times
Speaker 2: before she unfortunately died later that night. So that's what
Speaker 2: really stood out to me about that statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's a few things we can draw
Speaker 1: from it.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: One is, as you say, that seems like someone must
Speaker 1: have certainly to know that tree. Someone must have been
Speaker 1: there and seen it. This is not something you would
Speaker 1: just make up ten years later. And it's not a
Speaker 1: big thing, but it does go to explain a lot
Speaker 1: of what we've always said, which is that Curtin Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry was by his own admission, drunk that day and
Speaker 1: slept most of that day, and this witness saw Curtain
Speaker 1: sleeping under the gum tree. So it's not a big thing,
Speaker 1: but again it's just more confirmation of something we already
Speaker 1: thought might have been the case. And I think on
Speaker 1: the other point you raise as to this being a
Speaker 1: potential account of an earlier assault, it could very well
Speaker 1: make perfect sense, which is that it's only that the
Speaker 1: women committed a far more vicious assault later in the
Speaker 1: day that they were charged for that assault and not
Speaker 1: this one earlier. And that's why questions about this earlier
Speaker 1: assault weren't raised. And we do already know from other
Speaker 1: statements that Linda herself as well, was in fact in
Speaker 1: center of rock Hampton during that day too, So it's
Speaker 1: very possible that this witness is absolutely telling the truth,
Speaker 1: in fact being more truthful than anyone else, and did
Speaker 1: see both this assault and the first assault.
Speaker 2: The other interesting thing, Martin, is that the witness saw
Speaker 2: a green car earlier that day, and she actually saw
Speaker 2: Willie Weston another man in that car. What do you
Speaker 2: take from from that that she's seen that green car
Speaker 2: twice and it's obviously stuck a memory.
Speaker 1: Well, I think a that she saw that car and
Speaker 1: the occupants in the daylight is very important. So I
Speaker 1: think it makes her identification of those individuals and the
Speaker 1: car later that night much more plausible because she'd already
Speaker 1: had a good look at it, and she'd already been
Speaker 1: told who these individuals were. And it also tends to
Speaker 1: suggest that these men were hanging around, That these men
Speaker 1: didn't just turn up by a chance that night later
Speaker 1: after the more vicious assault. These men had been hanging
Speaker 1: around all day. And we can actually take that as
Speaker 1: well from another statement that was given, which is a
Speaker 1: witness that we identified in episode one as LB, and
Speaker 1: this witness says that they saw this individual, Willy West,
Speaker 1: both at the Crown that day in Rockhampton and at
Speaker 1: a number of times at Tanuba House. Now, again it's
Speaker 1: very important to stress, as we did last week, that
Speaker 1: the police never took a statement from Willy West, they
Speaker 1: never sought to investigate Willie West, and they appear to
Speaker 1: make no attempt to ask any of the other witnesses
Speaker 1: who Willie West was. And this is despite the fact
Speaker 1: that his name came up in multiple statements, that his
Speaker 1: name is clearly linked to aspects of this crime, and
Speaker 1: that his name was raised throughout the trial by Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry's defense attorney and the other defense attorneys. But the
Speaker 1: police simply deny any knowledge of this individual. And again
Speaker 1: I personally find that very hard to believe.
Speaker 2: So what else do we know about this LB from
Speaker 2: the trial?
Speaker 1: Well, LB is someone we mentioned in the very first
Speaker 1: episode of Curtin because LB was in the watchhouse with
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry at the time he was supposed to have
Speaker 1: confessed to this crime. And if you haven't listened to
Speaker 1: the episode about the confession, and it's very important you
Speaker 1: go back and do that to understand why that confession
Speaker 1: is so flawed. But LB was also asked about Willy West,
Speaker 1: and so we have this LB who is arrested with
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry, and he too had seen Willy West. But
Speaker 1: there were some problems with LB's statements. Firstly, LB was
Speaker 1: heavily intoxicated when they were first arrested and made statements
Speaker 1: to police that never implicated Kevin Henry and really didn't
Speaker 1: make any sense at all. Later on, LB would implicate
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry, and we discussed this in episode one of
Speaker 1: the podcast. But here's the important thing to know about
Speaker 1: LB's statement that implicates Kevin Henry. That statement is dated
Speaker 1: the thirtieth of August. Now, remember Linda was assaulted on
Speaker 1: the thirty first of August, and those who were at
Speaker 1: Tanuba House were not picked up, including Kevin Henry, until
Speaker 1: the first of September. So how could LB's statement taken
Speaker 1: on the thirtieth of August possibly contain any information about
Speaker 1: the assault on Linda or Kevin Henry's involvement when it
Speaker 1: was yet to take place, unless that statement was changed
Speaker 1: at a later date and that was put to LB
Speaker 1: at the trial. LB did deny this, but whether you
Speaker 1: believe that or not is up to you. Now, there's
Speaker 1: one more thing that's very important to mention about LB.
Speaker 1: Remembering that LB has made a statement that implicates Kevin Henry.
Speaker 1: But this statement is dated the thirtieth of August, before
Speaker 1: Linda was assaulted, and that is that LB was related
Speaker 1: to two of Kevin Henry's co accused, two of the
Speaker 1: women who were convicted of the grievous bodily harm against Linda.
Speaker 1: This was not an impartial witness, so from that you
Speaker 1: can draw your own conclusions. But personally, I think it
Speaker 1: suggests serious problems with the credibility of a witness whose
Speaker 1: first statement is not accurate, whose second statement is somehow
Speaker 1: dated before the crime ever took place, and who, thirdly
Speaker 1: is a direct relative a cousin of two of the
Speaker 1: women who committed the vicious assault against Linda.
Speaker 2: Now, when we talk about the people who would go
Speaker 2: to Tanuba House, I mean a lot of them were
Speaker 2: related to each other, sogus. How does this come into place? Surely,
Speaker 2: when it came to a trial like this, a lot
Speaker 2: of people would have been accustomed to testifying for or
Speaker 2: against their relatives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's certainly a fair point to raise,
Speaker 1: And there's no doubt that. I think it's fair to
Speaker 1: say most, if not everyone, who was there at Tanuba
Speaker 1: House would have had relatives there as well. However, I
Speaker 1: do think in a criminal trial, particularly when a man
Speaker 1: is on trial for his life, it should have been
Speaker 1: more accurately pointed out that the only witnesses who testify
Speaker 1: against Kevin Henry had direct relatives who were the three
Speaker 1: women who committed the violent assault. And I think it
Speaker 1: should have been made very clear to the jury that
Speaker 1: although there was a lot of family members there that
Speaker 1: day and there that night, and that was quite a
Speaker 1: regular thing, that the people who testified against Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: were direct relatives of the three women who committed the assault.
Speaker 1: So I think we can at least had that been
Speaker 1: put to the jury more clearly, they could have been
Speaker 1: left to decide the truthfulness of those testimonies on their own.
Speaker 1: And I also think it goes to the issue of
Speaker 1: the fact that that Kevin had a joint trial, as
Speaker 1: we discussed earlier in this series, with the three women
Speaker 1: who committed the assault, and I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the evidence, a lot of the witness statements have become
Speaker 1: very confused in all of that, and I think it's
Speaker 1: probably been glossed over that people who were pointing the
Speaker 1: finger at Kevin with no actual evidence at all. These
Speaker 1: were all statements that were changed at a later date,
Speaker 1: were in fact direct relatives of the three women who
Speaker 1: committed the assault, and that judge and jury should have
Speaker 1: been more aware of that issue.
Speaker 2: Now, there was another vital piece of information contained in
Speaker 2: this statement, Mardin, Can you provide some of the contexts
Speaker 2: behind that before we tell the listeners.
Speaker 1: Yes, So, something that was placed into evidence at the
Speaker 1: trial and accepted by both the prosecutor and the defense
Speaker 1: was some information that related to Linda, and where it
Speaker 1: relates to what we're about to reveal is that the
Speaker 1: last thing Linda was seen wearing was as she was
Speaker 1: walking from North Rockhampton towards the city, and she was
Speaker 1: said to be wearing a red coat, black slacks, and
Speaker 1: a headband or scarf. Now we've already revealed in this
Speaker 1: podcast that the black slacks and the scarf were recovered
Speaker 1: and multiple witnesses saw those black slacks, the scarf which
Speaker 1: was white and black, and a red top on Linda
Speaker 1: that day. So the one piece of clothing that was
Speaker 1: not recovered by the police that Linda was wearing when
Speaker 1: she was last seen when she first went missing. Is
Speaker 1: that red coat. And I'll read to you from Witness
Speaker 1: X's statement. This is what Witness x's statement says in
Speaker 1: relation to that red coat, and they will mention Witness Why,
Speaker 1: who remember from last week, was in the back of
Speaker 1: the green car when it went over to the other
Speaker 1: side of the river and something was dumped from the
Speaker 1: boot of that car. Witness Ex's statement. Witness Why came
Speaker 1: over to me and sat down. They had a red
Speaker 1: long coat on with buttons down the front with two
Speaker 1: big pockets. I noticed water dripping from the coat and
Speaker 1: I asked, why is the coat wet and where did
Speaker 1: it come from? Witness Why told me that it came
Speaker 1: from the river bank.
Speaker 3: Mardin.
Speaker 2: How often did this red coat, in fact Linda was
Speaker 2: laughing wearing a red coat come up during the trial
Speaker 2: or in the witness statements.
Speaker 3: Is it sort of called.
Speaker 2: A common knowledge?
Speaker 1: Yes, so I think it was fairly well except did
Speaker 1: by the witnesses that at some point at least they'd
Speaker 1: all seen Linda wearing the red coat, and that's why
Speaker 1: it was introduced as evidence and accepted without contest by
Speaker 1: both the prosecutor and defense, so there was no contest
Speaker 1: over what Linda was wearing that day, which is that
Speaker 1: she went missing wearing the red coat, the black slacks,
Speaker 1: and the black and white scarf, and she would be
Speaker 1: seen eight days later, the day of the assault, wearing
Speaker 1: those same clothes.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 1: Now, what's important about what Witness X is just revealed
Speaker 1: in their statement is that the red coat is the
Speaker 1: one piece of clothing that Linda was wearing that was
Speaker 1: not recovered by police. So the black slacks, the shirt
Speaker 1: that Linda was wearing, and the scarf were recovered the
Speaker 1: next day, and it was duck Hart, and we've spoken
Speaker 1: about this on an earlier podcast, who led police to
Speaker 1: this evidence, and it was down by the riverbank near
Speaker 1: to an uber house. But this red coat has always
Speaker 1: been elusive. We didn't know what happened to it. But
Speaker 1: now we know a where the red coat was, that
Speaker 1: it was being worn by a person who was in
Speaker 1: the car, that green car that drove to the other
Speaker 1: side of the river, that that coat was not destroyed,
Speaker 1: that it did still exist, and that very small piece
Speaker 1: of information that Witness X probably never realized was so important,
Speaker 1: which is that that coat that red coat of Linders,
Speaker 1: now being worn by another individual, was wet at the bottom. Again,
Speaker 1: this suggests that whoever was wearing that red coat, and
Speaker 1: particularly the coat itself, had been in or near the river,
Speaker 1: And there is no suggestion at all that Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: was ever in possession of that red coat, or that
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry had ever been near the river itself.
Speaker 2: So it was this further evidence of the theory that
Speaker 2: Linda was probably put in on the other side of
Speaker 2: the racecourse side of the river.
Speaker 1: The fact that the red coat was still being worn
Speaker 1: by someone, and particularly that it was wet and had
Speaker 1: water dripping from the coat itself, and this was very
Speaker 1: observable and obvious immediately to Witness X. I think does
Speaker 1: go more to the theory that I've proposed that Linda's
Speaker 1: body was placed on the racecourse side of the river,
Speaker 1: because that's a part of the river where you could
Speaker 1: access the water without getting in the mud. Now, there
Speaker 1: is something else that we can add from Witness x's statement,
Speaker 1: and that is that Amy Saunders, this is one of
Speaker 1: the women who committed and was convicted of the assault
Speaker 1: against Linda, was seen by Witness X to have genes
Speaker 1: on and that they were wet up to the knees.
Speaker 1: What we know from both visiting Tenuba House now and
Speaker 1: from expert testimony given for the prosecution at Kevin Henry's
Speaker 1: trial is that to access the river on the Tanuba
Speaker 1: House side, anybody who did that would have needed to
Speaker 1: get in the mud. And there was no suggestion that
Speaker 1: Amy Saunders jeans had mud on them. There is no
Speaker 1: suggestion that this red coat had any mud on them,
Speaker 1: but they did have water on them. And I think
Speaker 1: it's safe to assume that given Linda's body was placed
Speaker 1: in the water, and we know that for a fact
Speaker 1: that this is further evidence that it was done on
Speaker 1: the racecourse side of the river where somebody could access
Speaker 1: the water, could place a body in the river, would
Speaker 1: get their clothes wet, but wouldn't get muddy. And we
Speaker 1: know that Kevin Henry didn't have any water on him,
Speaker 1: didn't have any mud, and didn't have any forensic whether
Speaker 1: that be DNA, biological material, or any other kind of
Speaker 1: Linda's or Linda's clothing anywhere on him or on his clothing.
Speaker 1: And now we have people in possession of Linda's coat
Speaker 1: that's wet and also wearing jeans that are wet. Whether
Speaker 1: people want to take this evidence to the full extent
Speaker 1: that these individuals were involved or not. For now, we'll
Speaker 1: leave our listeners to determine that, but it's quite clear
Speaker 1: this punches another huge hole in the evidence against Kevin Henry.
Speaker 1: Once again, we've discovered new evidence, and once again it
Speaker 1: does not point to Kevin Henry. It points directly to others.
Speaker 1: And this is evidence that could have very easily been
Speaker 1: obtained by the police had they simply done their job.
Speaker 1: That was episode seventeen of Curtin the Podcast. Until next week.
Speaker 1: You can join us on Twitter at Curtain Podcast, on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Curtin the Podcast, and on our website at
Speaker 1: www dot curtinthepodcast dot com. Please feel free to leave feedback,
Speaker 1: ask questions, and get involved because it's becoming clear that
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry should never have been found guilty based on
Speaker 1: the evidence we've entered to you throughout this series. You
Speaker 1: need to ask yourself, would you have found Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer is no,
Speaker 1: please join us in spreading the word about this podcast
Speaker 1: so we can ensure justice is finally done.