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: bags pack 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 aim his dead?
Speaker 1: Eight confusion about five minutes they sit not to suicide.
Speaker 4: One hundred percent. This is emergency.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 5: The Truth about Amy?
Speaker 6: Episode fourteen.
Speaker 1: I'm Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 6: And I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 7: Female fifteen, jud female Bustleton female thirty eight.
Speaker 1: This is the place, gender, and age of people who
Speaker 1: have died in Western Australia this year as a result
Speaker 1: of domestic violence. As their details are called out, loved
Speaker 1: ones place a flour on a cardboard cutout, representing them
Speaker 1: to be precise right where their heart would be.
Speaker 6: Every year in Perth, the Western Australian Center for Women's
Speaker 6: Safety and well Being holds a Silent March.
Speaker 4: Stop Them, Silence, Stop.
Speaker 6: The violence, not only to honor those whose lives have
Speaker 6: been lost at the hands of abuses, but to raise
Speaker 6: awareness about how prevalent this is silence. So far this year,
Speaker 6: there have been sixteen deaths in Wa alone, including Jennifer
Speaker 6: and Gretel Patelchek Floris.
Speaker 7: Eighteen Florians.
Speaker 1: Fifteen as their details are called. Twenty seven year old
Speaker 1: Ariel Bombara tearfully puts flowers to each of her friend's hearts.
Speaker 1: Jennifer was her mum's best friend, Gretel her daughter. They
Speaker 1: were shot to death by Ariel's father, Mark Bombara at
Speaker 1: the end of his search for them. Live from Perth
Speaker 1: seven Yews with Rick Garden and Susannika Good Evening.
Speaker 8: For the first time we've heard what life was really
Speaker 8: like under the roof of double murderer Mark Bombara. His
Speaker 8: daughter Today detailed the reign of terror he inflicted on
Speaker 8: their family before he tried to hunt down his ex wife.
Speaker 1: Sadly, Ariel can't help but blame herself for what happened, knowing.
Speaker 9: Two lives were taken instead of my own and my
Speaker 9: mom's because I was too good at hiding from him.
Speaker 9: And hating myself for never considering that he would kill
Speaker 9: other people if he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2: In front of a crowd of hundreds, Ariel Bombara describes
Speaker 2: the actions of a monster, a monster that was her father.
Speaker 4: My father was a.
Speaker 9: Dictator, and his coercive and controlling behaviors were constant. I
Speaker 9: remember being whipped with belts, tied to my chair until
Speaker 9: I ate every piece of food on my plane. He
Speaker 9: thought women were less than dogshit, and he made it
Speaker 9: clear in front of his daughters.
Speaker 2: Aril knew her father was dangerous, and she and her
Speaker 2: mother told police they feared that he would kill.
Speaker 9: After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police to take any
Speaker 9: action to protect.
Speaker 4: Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9: I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
Speaker 9: kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2: Speaking at Today's March against Domestic and Family Violence, Bombara
Speaker 2: recounted that horrific night in May when her father shot
Speaker 2: dead her mother's best friend, Jennifer Ptelchek, and her eighteen
Speaker 2: year old daughter in their flory at home before turning
Speaker 2: the gun on himself. Police did not intervene sooner because
Speaker 2: the insidious abuse that he inflicted leading up to the incident,
Speaker 2: known as coercive control, is not illegal, and while the
Speaker 2: government now agrees that it should be, it won't commit
Speaker 2: to pushing through legislation.
Speaker 9: Knowing that Jenny and Grettel lost their lives in our
Speaker 9: places filled me with both devastation and an overwhelming sense
Speaker 9: of duty to do everything.
Speaker 4: In my power to prevent this from ever happening again.
Speaker 9: Last year, after a state of murders, the government developed
Speaker 9: the WA Family and Domestic Violence System Reform.
Speaker 4: Plan, So now I'm asking what is being done to
Speaker 4: implement it.
Speaker 9: I believe in the reform of our systems so long
Speaker 9: as there is a commitment to adequately fund it. I
Speaker 9: believe that we as a collective have the power to
Speaker 9: make a real difference. But to do so, we need
Speaker 9: to believe in victims, survivors and their right.
Speaker 4: To be heard and supported.
Speaker 9: We need to believe in the services and systems that
Speaker 9: can help victims, and in the capacity for change in perpetrators.
Speaker 4: I hope you'll join me in this fight, not just
Speaker 4: for me, but for all of us.
Speaker 9: Because violence against women and children is everyone's problem.
Speaker 6: Coerce of control. Laws protecting domestic violence victims have been
Speaker 6: introduced in New South Wales and Queensland, but not w
Speaker 6: Way except here. The Seven Years Journalist pushes Prevention of
Speaker 6: Family and Domestic Violence Minister Sabine Winton to commit to
Speaker 6: a date to roll out a similar legislation.
Speaker 10: Coursive control.
Speaker 11: Legislation could have saved these two people that were killed
Speaker 11: by this man. And you know that how I don't
Speaker 11: know that, but I know that it's a real, tangible,
Speaker 11: actual consequence for people like this man. And why then
Speaker 11: will you not commit to a date when these laws
Speaker 11: will be introduced.
Speaker 12: Our government has permitted to criminalizing coersim control.
Speaker 13: We will do it in a staged way. We will
Speaker 13: do it in a way where we will.
Speaker 11: Know, we will get results, asking why you commit to
Speaker 11: a date and will also make sure that when we
Speaker 11: introduce it that we don't further put at risk victims survivors.
Speaker 9: The system doesn't protect us and puts the owners on
Speaker 9: women to managements that behavior rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
Speaker 4: Natcy, can I ask your proper question?
Speaker 6: Amy's mom, Nancy and her best friend Aaron Gower, were
Speaker 6: also at this event and understand how frustrating it was
Speaker 6: for arial bombards, and despite a new investigation into Amy's
Speaker 6: death by Wa police, they remain fearful that police will
Speaker 6: continue to ignore key evidence supporting homicide.
Speaker 14: I know there were previous investigations, but more information has
Speaker 14: come out now since the podcast has aired, that you know,
Speaker 14: should have been found out while those other two investigations
Speaker 14: were happening.
Speaker 13: The investigation being mishandled by police.
Speaker 4: How does that evenpact your family?
Speaker 14: It's so hard, you know, we haven't been able to
Speaker 14: grieve properly because we're fighting constantly. So it's just it's exhausting.
Speaker 10: Really, I would love to hear the police commissioner apologize.
Speaker 10: I don't want no letter of regret. I want an
Speaker 10: apology aim.
Speaker 15: His daughters, apology.
Speaker 10: They disserve an apology for the big mess up then
Speaker 10: I happened that night. We wouldn't be standing here if
Speaker 10: it was conducted properly, but it wasn't.
Speaker 16: With respect to coercive control, one single piece of legislation
Speaker 16: will not solve this.
Speaker 1: Police Minister Paul Papalia responds to a scrum of journalists
Speaker 1: asking if enough is being done to address domestic violence.
Speaker 11: I know that your officers know that they do all
Speaker 11: this hard work and then it gets handed over to
Speaker 11: the courts and then the magistrates slap these violent very signs. Right,
Speaker 11: So we can do a community education campaign, But what.
Speaker 16: Of the magistrates When I've seen the training that's delivered
Speaker 16: to officers in the academy and how significantly that has changed.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure that the courts.
Speaker 16: Are aware or have been provided the similar sort of training.
Speaker 16: And I'll be encouraging the Attorney General to speak with
Speaker 16: the heads of the different courts.
Speaker 6: And the Chief Justice wasn't even here today.
Speaker 16: Chief Justice is dedicated to dealing with family and domestic guidance,
Speaker 16: so there's probably a reason for him.
Speaker 3: Not Then we will talk to the town generally have
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 16: I have taken before, but I would like to see
Speaker 16: magistrates and judges be forwarded the opportunity to witness what
Speaker 16: I witnessed at the academy, so they understand that police training,
Speaker 16: police capability has moved and has changed, and then the
Speaker 16: courts can reflect that knowledge. At the moment, I'm not
Speaker 16: sure that they are aware of what is provided to
Speaker 16: the police and then what is then presented to them
Speaker 16: in the courts.
Speaker 1: We'll have more on the WA Attorney General later in
Speaker 1: this episode.
Speaker 5: Thank you for welcoming me. Laura Richards, criminal behavioral analysts
Speaker 5: and expert in domestic violence and coercive control and stalking
Speaker 5: and domestic commicide.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, as promised, we caught up with internationally acclaimed criminal
Speaker 1: behavioral analyst Laura Richards, who had a a lot to
Speaker 1: say about domestic violence and the way it's being handled
Speaker 1: by authorities.
Speaker 5: Well, firstly, I just want to mention, having reviewed and
Speaker 5: analyzed thousands of murders committed by men killing women and children,
Speaker 5: it's not a drugs related issue. And I do want
Speaker 5: to make that very clear because I have heard people
Speaker 5: continuously say, oh, it's this, it's alcohol, it's drugs, and
Speaker 5: actually it's not. That plays a role when it aggravates things.
Speaker 5: It's an aggravating factor, but it's not a causal factor.
Speaker 5: The behavior is the causal factor, and it's things around
Speaker 5: power and control, a male entitlement, and the lack of accountability.
Speaker 5: So when they are abusive and violent, there's no accountability
Speaker 5: through the criminal justice system.
Speaker 6: And what that.
Speaker 5: Basically says to the perpetrator is carry on, carry on,
Speaker 5: because it's not important enough. And what that says to
Speaker 5: the female victim is you're not important enough and you
Speaker 5: don't matter. So you have victims who then don't want
Speaker 5: to report, and you have male perpetrators in the main
Speaker 5: who just feel that they're untouchable and can do what
Speaker 5: they want, set within a culture of misogyny and male entitlement.
Speaker 5: So I do just want to make that clear, because
Speaker 5: it's the same all across the world. There is nothing
Speaker 5: new here other than the lack of accountability which has
Speaker 5: been consistent and the misogynistic elements that create male entitlement
Speaker 5: and green light these offenders. So I think it is
Speaker 5: important that you look at the data and the facts
Speaker 5: and the evidence, and that experts talk about domestic violence
Speaker 5: and domestic homicide and femicide and given very clear indication
Speaker 5: of what we see in these cases, rather than people
Speaker 5: just speculating or quontificating because they had one case and
Speaker 5: there was a drug element to it and therefore they
Speaker 5: think it is drug related. It's an aggravating feature, but
Speaker 5: it's not causal.
Speaker 1: Laura acknowledgers frontline emergency officers often to make snap decisions,
Speaker 1: which is why their training is so integral.
Speaker 5: Well, it's what I used to see when I trained detectives,
Speaker 5: and I'd go up to detective training school and we'd
Speaker 5: have one case, and a detective before me would talk
Speaker 5: to the incoming detectives as if that one case would
Speaker 5: repeat again and again and that was just one case.
Speaker 5: You know, It's like a case of false allegation, where
Speaker 5: you say, false allegations always look like this, and then
Speaker 5: it becomes the norm where that's not the case at all.
Speaker 5: You have to look at lots of cases together, which
Speaker 5: I've spent my career doing looking at thousands of domestic
Speaker 5: violence murders, and that's what I've spent my time at
Speaker 5: New Scotland Yard doing of unraveling the psychological autopsy of
Speaker 5: what's gone on so that we can get into intervention
Speaker 5: and prevention, so that we do it through data, not
Speaker 5: just through the prism of murder, but look at other
Speaker 5: cases as well, so that we understand what the patterns
Speaker 5: look like, so that we can get into early identification,
Speaker 5: assessment and management. And I think sometimes people are just
Speaker 5: overconfident in airing their one case or there are two
Speaker 5: cases or a handful of cases, and thinks that that
Speaker 5: just replicates and therefore you get these generalizations which really
Speaker 5: aren't good. I've much rather the experts were spoken to
Speaker 5: in this niche, and I think in Australia that's been
Speaker 5: one of the problems of not listening to the experts
Speaker 5: who do this day in day out, and they should
Speaker 5: be advising on domestic homicides and so called suicides. They
Speaker 5: should be the one the fatality reviews. And that was
Speaker 5: a process I started at New Scotland Yard and then
Speaker 5: it became a national process of domestic homicide review where
Speaker 5: we made it very clear within the legislation experts should
Speaker 5: be co opted to sit on those groups to give
Speaker 5: that expertise because a lot of people still don't understand
Speaker 5: co werse of control and stalking and it's really important
Speaker 5: that we do have that expert voice that's victim led,
Speaker 5: because obviously we do have it oftentimes the cases where
Speaker 5: we get too focused on the perpetrators where we must
Speaker 5: talk about the victim. And what I really like about
Speaker 5: what you've been doing for Amy is giving her a
Speaker 5: voice and a voice that she hasn't had, although she's
Speaker 5: had relatives trying to bang the drama. Actually it needed
Speaker 5: a much bigger platform to say, we'll hang on a minute,
Speaker 5: are we asking the right questions here? Is there a
Speaker 5: critical thinking process and a critical lens that we need
Speaker 5: to apply, And this is a case which really lends
Speaker 5: itself well to having that critical lens and having experts
Speaker 5: talk about what we see in these types of cases
Speaker 5: and what were the questions that should have been asked
Speaker 5: at the time.
Speaker 6: So I'm glad you've mentioned that because the other issue
Speaker 6: that we have with this case is the feeling from
Speaker 6: the family, and I think they've got a good reason
Speaker 6: to feel this way that WI Police, given what happened
Speaker 6: at the beginning, that they don't feel that they can
Speaker 6: trust them to carry the case further, even to the
Speaker 6: point now they're reinvestigating. I guess is that something that
Speaker 6: you've come across a bit where you know that's distrust
Speaker 6: are suppose of authorities.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, and from everything I've seen in this case, there's
Speaker 5: good reason to distrust the authorities, and it's one of
Speaker 5: the reasons when I was at New Scotland Yard we
Speaker 5: started independent advisory groups in the wake of Stephen Lawrence
Speaker 5: being killed and the Metropolitan Police was found through a
Speaker 5: public inquiry to be institutionally racist, and so the Racial
Speaker 5: and Violent Crime Task Force was set up, and within
Speaker 5: that the Adeputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve had the foresight
Speaker 5: to create critical friends, so people who would critically and
Speaker 5: independently evaluate us and our decisions, both at the local
Speaker 5: level and the strategic level. And I think that that's
Speaker 5: really important to ensure that you don't become myopic and
Speaker 5: you haven't got everybody in the room agreeing with you,
Speaker 5: because ultimately, what I've seen in this case, in Amy's
Speaker 5: case in particular, is you had two detectives who were
Speaker 5: experienced attend the scene, and you had two junior officers
Speaker 5: who were detectives who were in training six months in
Speaker 5: and then you have a lead detective, Detective Kirkman, saying
Speaker 5: one thing and then everyone agreeing with him. And that
Speaker 5: happens a lot, and it's in their career future to agree,
Speaker 5: particularly when we go back in the day, rather than
Speaker 5: having a dissenting voice who might say we need to
Speaker 5: question this, we actually do need to speak to other
Speaker 5: members of the family and get a history here. We
Speaker 5: should really do the toxicology, we should do the forensics,
Speaker 5: we need to know in her bag, there was the passport.
Speaker 5: We need to think about the fact that she was
Speaker 5: actually exiting the relationship with the children, and the bags
Speaker 5: packed and gifts, and that she had future planned. We
Speaker 5: need to question the crime scene. And actually, we can't
Speaker 5: make this determination in fifteen minutes. Let's take our time.
Speaker 1: Laura then refers to the Internal Affairs Unit report relating
Speaker 1: to the conduct of detectives Kirkman and Wiederman in Amy's case.
Speaker 1: You'll recall that investigation found that they both neglected their
Speaker 1: duty in their handling of Amy's case and were referred
Speaker 1: to the Integrity Review Panel for consideration of an Assistant
Speaker 1: Commissioner's warning notes. Doesn't sound like much, does it.
Speaker 5: There was a detective I think it was Detective Pover
Speaker 5: who effectively said when he was interviewed by Internal Affairs
Speaker 5: that he didn't remember anything because he didn't take notes
Speaker 5: and he was six months in I probation. He said
Speaker 5: he didn't speak to witnesses, he didn't go into the house,
Speaker 5: he didn't assess the scene, but he did believe that
Speaker 5: David and Gareth were telling the truth. But he can't
Speaker 5: recall the reasons for the determination that it was a
Speaker 5: non suspicious death. But he disagreed it was a premature
Speaker 5: decision to say it was non suspicious and he had
Speaker 5: very little recall, but he seems to remember vividly driving
Speaker 5: away from the scene, happy the correct decision had been made.
Speaker 5: That is confounding to me, because you know, I have
Speaker 5: reviewed many, many cases and for him not to remember
Speaker 5: so many things but remembered that it was the right decision.
Speaker 5: And that's the problem when you've got everyone agreeing, but
Speaker 5: you've got three uniformed officers saying differently and that their
Speaker 5: voices weren't heard. So that's also why you have these
Speaker 5: critical friends the advisory groups that New Scotland Yard started,
Speaker 5: but also on the domestic homicide review panels, we have
Speaker 5: independent advisors and family members who are also there to
Speaker 5: give a very clear understanding of what was going on
Speaker 5: because we know that victims were talked to them before
Speaker 5: they talked to the police, and so it's really important
Speaker 5: if you attend a scene where a young woman, a
Speaker 5: mother as well, has suddenly and unexpectedly died in such
Speaker 5: unusual circumstances, and yet further questions weren't asked of the
Speaker 5: men who were at the scene at the time, and
Speaker 5: a detective who doesn't interview them determines that there witnesses
Speaker 5: are not suspects. That is a very confusing thing to me,
Speaker 5: because you would want to get as much information as
Speaker 5: possible in order to make an informed decision and write
Speaker 5: up your decision log I mean, we're talking about twenty fourteen,
Speaker 5: We're not talking about the nineteen seventies, the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 5: whereas the uniform officers who were first on the scene
Speaker 5: were very uncomfortable with what they saw, given that the
Speaker 5: engine was running, the children were in the car, everything
Speaker 5: was packed up. There were signs of a violent struggle,
Speaker 5: not necessarily in the bedroom, but there was glass smashed.
Speaker 5: One of the men gave an account that Amy tried
Speaker 5: to head butt David Simmons. And you've got a door
Speaker 5: knob missing, and you've got a young mother who, for
Speaker 5: all intense purposes, police are being told, had packed the
Speaker 5: car up but went back into the house and then
Speaker 5: shot herself in the face, which is again highly unusual
Speaker 5: for that to happen. That's not something I always look
Speaker 5: for the one percent of cases, and they are out there.
Speaker 5: But for me, this was all the things that I
Speaker 5: found out initially, which is what led me to post
Speaker 5: on social media was that she died suddenly and unexpectedly,
Speaker 5: and two men's narrative were believed and they were treated
Speaker 5: as witnesses.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it is a standing. And of course the one
Speaker 6: officer who did stand his ground and keep saying to
Speaker 6: this day that he believes that suicide, he's gone. He's
Speaker 6: no longer in the police force. So obviously it's not
Speaker 6: good to go against a grain.
Speaker 5: It's not It can be very career limiting, and I
Speaker 5: know that from having worked in it. The institutionalization is
Speaker 5: profound and severe and if you have a dissenting voice,
Speaker 5: you do tend to be shut down. And that's highly
Speaker 5: problematic when you're talking about people's lives, and more in
Speaker 5: particular women's lives, because I do think that there is
Speaker 5: a huge issue and a poor trap record of responding
Speaker 5: to women, and WA police have that same trap record,
Speaker 5: And anyone can just do a Google search and find
Speaker 5: three cases immediately where Lynn Cannon who was threatened by
Speaker 5: her ex partner threatened by him with a knife, a
Speaker 5: call to police was made, they didn't respond, and now
Speaker 5: it's just been announced that an inquest is underway. Could
Speaker 5: WA police have done more then? Another case, the legal
Speaker 5: reason she hasn't been named, but a domestic violence call
Speaker 5: out and yet the police didn't respond and she was
Speaker 5: killed by Warwick Walker Bear in twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 5: more recently the Ariel Bombara case who alerted police that
Speaker 5: her father was a threat and she had called three times,
Speaker 5: was concerned, and he ended up killing a mother and
Speaker 5: a daughter, Jenny and Gretel who was eighteen, who were
Speaker 5: trying to protect her mother. And the trap record of
Speaker 5: not believing women and not responding everyone sees it. And
Speaker 5: that's the point when people say, well, why didn't she
Speaker 5: call if there was domestic violence, no cause to police?
Speaker 5: Oh okay, no history. So it is complex, but when
Speaker 5: snap decisions are made at a scene within fifteen minutes,
Speaker 5: you're going to catch a cold on that. Ultimately, with
Speaker 5: these cases without a decision log clearly written up, and
Speaker 5: you're missing the very unusual circumstances of a car running
Speaker 5: with children in it, with future plans being laid down
Speaker 5: to exit, separation and finality being high risk factors and
Speaker 5: coerci of control to femicide, and women are much more
Speaker 5: likely to be killed. Six percent of murders happen on separation,
Speaker 5: and yet they made a very quick judgment that this
Speaker 5: was a suicide without knowing any of the history, and
Speaker 5: that is extremely concerning.
Speaker 6: Okay, so how can the situation be redeemed? I mean,
Speaker 6: I guess the point I say here is they're reinvestigating.
Speaker 6: There was evidence that was misterior ignored, which is what
Speaker 6: we've highlighted in the podcast, as well as new evidence.
Speaker 6: But there still seems to be this reluctance to debate
Speaker 6: from the suicide theory. And in this case, it comes
Speaker 6: down to ultimately one man who will determine whether this
Speaker 6: can proceed, and he's the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
Speaker 6: police will, as I say, they'll prefer an update, a brief,
Speaker 6: he will consider it. They have a little coverletter giving
Speaker 6: their thoughts and then yay or nay, and they generally
Speaker 6: give about two sentences saying I don't think this should
Speaker 6: proceed or there's not enough to proceed. Yeah.
Speaker 5: So that shows the lack of transparent and in the UK,
Speaker 5: what was decided in twenty thirteen was that there would
Speaker 5: be a right to review process built in to prosecutors' decisions,
Speaker 5: where the victim or family members could request a right
Speaker 5: to review within a six I think it's a six
Speaker 5: month period if there is a determination not to prosecute,
Speaker 5: and it has to be explained as to why either
Speaker 5: a prosecution has stopped or a decision has been made
Speaker 5: not to prosecute. And I think there should be that
Speaker 5: transparency now because people deserve to understand with such serious
Speaker 5: decisions in every part of I call it the criminal
Speaker 5: legal system rather than the criminal justice system because there
Speaker 5: seems to be an absence of a focus on justice,
Speaker 5: which is why it comes much more down to the
Speaker 5: criminal and legal matters relating to cases. But I think
Speaker 5: that that would lend itself well in US. I mean,
Speaker 5: normally you do tend to adopt things that are brought
Speaker 5: in as good practice, and I think that with a
Speaker 5: case like this, there should be transparency in that decision.
Speaker 5: And also I would want to know what exactly the
Speaker 5: brief look like, because you know, is there a thorough
Speaker 5: reinvestigation or is it just a cursory review.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's a lot to take in its complex.
Speaker 5: It is, but cases have been prosecuted with a lot
Speaker 5: less and therefore, you know, how do you make that decision?
Speaker 5: And I notice within many of the documents that you
Speaker 5: sent me. There was a document written by a clinical
Speaker 5: psychologist that I believe went to the coroner's in quest,
Speaker 5: and I have many questions about Chris Geeson's report. It
Speaker 5: states that they're a clinical psychologist, but I believe that
Speaker 5: they're also a detective senior sergeant within the police working
Speaker 5: in the Detectives Command. So my initial question, as I
Speaker 5: always like to understand, is what exactly is your background?
Speaker 5: Are you a clinical psychologist or a police officer? First
Speaker 5: and foremost are you independent? Because an expert who is
Speaker 5: independent and outside the police would request a very clear
Speaker 5: terms of reference that you would like me to do
Speaker 5: AB and C and I have a very clear scope
Speaker 5: of doing this work, and most independent experts would say,
Speaker 5: actually to make this level of determination, I will need
Speaker 5: other documentation. So it was ostensibly a three page report
Speaker 5: that was written in March twenty nineteen, with no clear
Speaker 5: terms of reference, that stated that they were a behavioral analyst.
Speaker 5: And I have to say I have never in my
Speaker 5: career seen report like that before, where it starts with
Speaker 5: the conclusion that David Simmons is telling the truth, which
Speaker 5: is based on pre prepared testimony with no understanding of
Speaker 5: baseline behind. But the determination is there's no inconsistencies in
Speaker 5: his account and that his emotional reactions were congruent. Well,
Speaker 5: I could interpret the same thing in a very different fashion.
Speaker 5: I Chris Geeson wrote that he showed intense distress and
Speaker 5: disbelief and horror when he came across Amy, and that
Speaker 5: he appeared to be in shock. And Simmons said the same,
Speaker 5: that he appeared to be in shock, and that he
Speaker 5: said fuck, fuck, fuck, and that was indicative of him
Speaker 5: being in shock and telling the truth. Well, I could
Speaker 5: also read that same behavior. Whatever happened unraveled in the moment,
Speaker 5: you can interpret it in different ways. But the last
Speaker 5: part of the document focuses solely on Amy's mental health.
Speaker 5: All the while this report writer is focusing on her
Speaker 5: mental health. The report writer fails to note at any
Speaker 5: point David Simmons' mental health and his problem with alcohol
Speaker 5: and drugs, and that according to other independent witnesses, they
Speaker 5: said that when he drinks and when he does drugs,
Speaker 5: he gets very bad tempered and that's when he devalues
Speaker 5: and name calls it Amy. But yet there's no mention
Speaker 5: of that at all. So you've got this epistemic imbalance
Speaker 5: in this three page document that concludes it's much more
Speaker 5: likely she ended her life. To me, that document is
Speaker 5: not worth the paper it's written on. There's no behavioral analysis,
Speaker 5: nothing about the crime scene assessment that I would expect
Speaker 5: a behavioral analyst to comment on. There's nothing on the
Speaker 5: history of the relationship and what other people said. There's
Speaker 5: nothing about domestic abuse, there's nothing about the high risk factors.
Speaker 5: All of these things are omissions that are problematic in
Speaker 5: my view having written reports to help investigators with their inquiries,
Speaker 5: and I don't know how much weight that document was
Speaker 5: given within the coronial inquest. When you see someone, you know,
Speaker 5: a clinical psychologist, putting a report together like this, and
Speaker 5: you know Simmons did tell the police, as did I
Speaker 5: think Gareth also said the same thing, that she wasn't
Speaker 5: in a happy state of mind, and Kirkman commented on that.
Speaker 5: But yet that is negated in that report. And also
Speaker 5: what's negated as a triple zero call where he says,
Speaker 5: David Simmons, I've got two kids and my wife just
Speaker 5: shot herself, my wife without a name, which is distancing.
Speaker 5: That's what we understand that to be. And can you
Speaker 5: please just come and take her away or do something. Well,
Speaker 5: that is a highly in my view, inappropriate reaction to
Speaker 5: ask on a triple zero call to remove her body
Speaker 5: like she's a piece of garbage, just to remove her
Speaker 5: with no real emotion. That stands out to me. And
Speaker 5: yet this clinical psychologist is saying that his response was
Speaker 5: consistent with it being a suicide and his in shock.
Speaker 5: So I think for me, there's very serious questions about
Speaker 5: that particular report and what purpose was it really looking
Speaker 5: to serve.
Speaker 1: Deputy Coroner Sarah Linton addresses the report by doctor Geson
Speaker 1: in her findings.
Speaker 17: Doctor Chris Geson, senior sergeant in the WA Police, who
Speaker 17: is a practicing psychologist with a PhD in clinical psychology
Speaker 17: and behavioral analyst at Major Crime, viewed the electronic recordings
Speaker 17: of Simmons and Prices interviews and provided a psychological opinion.
Speaker 17: Doctor Geson did not observe any seminal inconsistencies in simmons account,
Speaker 17: even with the retelling parts, and did not detect any
Speaker 17: obvious behavior that suggested he was censoring his disclosures or
Speaker 17: constructing a story. Reports of his actions and behavior at
Speaker 17: the time of the event were also felt to be
Speaker 17: consistent with the account, and Doctor Geson did not believe
Speaker 17: there was sufficient time lag to allow for any staging
Speaker 17: and colluding between David Simmons and Gareth Price. Accordingly, doctor
Speaker 17: Geeson was inclined to believe David Simmons' version of events
Speaker 17: and expressed the opinion that both David and Gareth were
Speaker 17: telling the truth in their interviews and statements. The detective's
Speaker 17: reinvestigating also did not find there was any deliberate action
Speaker 17: on the part of either witness to try and deceive them,
Speaker 17: and inconsistencies between their accounts were felt to be explainable.
Speaker 17: Doctor Geeson also reviewed the evidence of Amy's mental state
Speaker 17: and the external factors preying upon her mind. Doctor Geeson
Speaker 17: found that there were ongoing factors suggesting Amy was depressed
Speaker 17: at the time of her death, with the onset of
Speaker 17: depression appearing to coincide with the birth of her second child,
Speaker 17: and then being exacerbated by her years in an unstable,
Speaker 17: controlling and abusive relationship with David Simmons, social isolation, financial stress,
Speaker 17: and health issues. Doctor Geeson noted that depression is known
Speaker 17: to be the strongest predictor of suicide. While Amy did
Speaker 17: not appear suicidal in the week prior to her death,
Speaker 17: and made no such disclosures to friends and family. She
Speaker 17: did show risk factors such as impulsivity, aggression, helplessness, and hopelessness.
Speaker 17: The immediate circumstances prior to her death, involving the violent
Speaker 17: argument with David and the potential breakdown of their relationship,
Speaker 17: made the possibility of a suicide attempt by Amy more likely.
Speaker 17: Doctor Geeson also speculated that Amy's use of the antidepressants
Speaker 17: a tulepram could have been a factor, so.
Speaker 1: Her report does appear to have been given weight at
Speaker 1: the inquest. Now back to our interview with Laura.
Speaker 6: I guess from your perspective, it's the whole picture, isn't it.
Speaker 6: It's not just singular elements it is.
Speaker 5: It's the totality of the circumstances when you look at everything.
Speaker 5: Also weighed against men being given the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 5: And that's something that I see consistently in cases, and
Speaker 5: there have been many cases that I could quote where
Speaker 5: he says it's one thing and he's believed, but yet
Speaker 5: there's evidence that it's something else, and the female victim
Speaker 5: is not believed. And we've seen it with murders like
Speaker 5: Robert Trigg who killed two women, and the first woman
Speaker 5: who he killed was Susan Nicholson, and he claimed he
Speaker 5: just rolled over on her in the night and she
Speaker 5: died and Sussex police said okay then, and they believed
Speaker 5: his narrative without any real investigation. Were five years later
Speaker 5: he killed another woman, Caroline Devlin. How many passes do
Speaker 5: men get? I have many of these cases where a
Speaker 5: man's narrative is just believed just because he's a man,
Speaker 5: and we have to move away from that. We have
Speaker 5: to start to assess the evidence and analyze in context
Speaker 5: the history of the relationship, because it is highly relevant.
Speaker 5: When you are called to a twenty four year old
Speaker 5: woman's death and the car is running and there were
Speaker 5: two children in the car, and she's called her mother
Speaker 5: to exit, and there's finality that she's going, and then
Speaker 5: she's found allegedly having blown her head off, which I
Speaker 5: can't think of one case where that's happened in my
Speaker 5: almost thirty year career. There are those one percent of cases,
Speaker 5: as I mentioned, but you should question everything, and the
Speaker 5: history of that relationship is incredibly relevant. So if you
Speaker 5: have seen a pattern of when he drinks, there is
Speaker 5: abuse and violence. Well you would look at that relationship.
Speaker 5: What's he like when he doesn't drink. Well, there's coercive control.
Speaker 5: He's controlling and he devalues her. Still okay, so he's
Speaker 5: still abusive with or without drink. But here we have
Speaker 5: a situation where he is in drink. Why is it
Speaker 5: that his narrative is just believed With a friend, two
Speaker 5: of them are treated as witnesses. Often women are just
Speaker 5: devalued and written off as well, they were crazy, Oh,
Speaker 5: they took antidepressants. There's a reason why there are investigative protocols,
Speaker 5: and particularly if for firearms involved, there's a reason why
Speaker 5: those investigative standards are there to ensure that this type
Speaker 5: of thing doesn't happen.
Speaker 6: How are we doing with this case? Is their progress
Speaker 6: being made that you can see?
Speaker 5: Well, I think there have been some in roads, but
Speaker 5: it hasn't been quick enough and it hasn't been urgent enough.
Speaker 5: And when we look at the epistemic imbalance of one
Speaker 5: of the Australian cities where a man was killed a
Speaker 5: one punch kill and the city was shut down and
Speaker 5: new laws come in when things like that happen and
Speaker 5: yet we don't have urgent change happening. So the short
Speaker 5: answer is, yes, we've made some inroads New South Wales
Speaker 5: criminalizing coercive control and it takes time for that to
Speaker 5: take effect. Queensland doing the same. Really, it should be
Speaker 5: a federal law. So it's all across Australia, and I
Speaker 5: think the general consensus is that it's just not quick enough.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of glossy documents being written. But when
Speaker 5: you've still got people saying, oh, this is a drugs problem,
Speaker 5: or this is an unemployment problem, rather than actually it's
Speaker 5: a male problem, and we need men to solve that problem,
Speaker 5: rather than saying it's violence against women. It's a women's
Speaker 5: safety issue and therefore the owner's falls to women. It's
Speaker 5: not our burden to create this change. We actually need
Speaker 5: male leaders and within the community to create change, to
Speaker 5: help young boys to break those patterns and to break
Speaker 5: the cycle of misogyny and sexism and chauvinism. And that's
Speaker 5: where it begins. We've got to start young with young
Speaker 5: boys changing that cycle and doing it at every level.
Speaker 5: And really, Alison, it takes men to do it, not women.
Speaker 1: Laura reiterates the need for independent expert analysis in cold
Speaker 1: cases such as Amy's, and.
Speaker 5: If you've been part of making decisions that are under
Speaker 5: review and being criticized, it's hard for the most evolved
Speaker 5: person amongst us to not be conflicted and not be biased.
Speaker 5: And that's what it takes. It's not about finger pointing.
Speaker 5: When we brought in the domestic homicide review process, when
Speaker 5: I work with Harriet Harmon, the Solicitor General, it wasn't
Speaker 5: about pointing the finger to blame. It was about really
Speaker 5: understanding intervention and prevention and getting upstream of things, and
Speaker 5: that's always been the onus. It's not been about litigation.
Speaker 5: So it's that changing that culture that we really do
Speaker 5: want to get better at what we do. And when
Speaker 5: I ran the homicide prevention unit, you know, some people
Speaker 5: really loved it, but a lot of people didn't because
Speaker 5: it meant my team and I were going to be
Speaker 5: reviewing a lot of decisions that were made. So, you know,
Speaker 5: I have the head wounds from banging my head against
Speaker 5: the proverbial brick wall trying to create change. But it
Speaker 5: does take leaders to agree that this is what we
Speaker 5: need to do and have independent experts sat there who
Speaker 5: really understand this area. Far better than other people around
Speaker 5: the table and family members. You know, we hear so
Speaker 5: much more. We learned so much more about victimology and
Speaker 5: what was really going on. Rather than saying, oh, do
Speaker 5: we have any history of domestic violence? Callouts to the address.
Speaker 5: You know, that does not give a good indication of
Speaker 5: whether there is a domestic violence history between two people.
Speaker 5: You must talk to others to get a real sense
Speaker 5: of what's going on, and you know it's not always easy.
Speaker 5: You have to leave your ego at the door. And
Speaker 5: what I saw in the police when I was in it,
Speaker 5: and equally with Amy's case, is bro culture. The detectives arrive,
Speaker 5: they're the bro culture together. One says one thing and
Speaker 5: everyone just follows suit. But you've also got the bro
Speaker 5: culture of David Simmons and two of his good friends
Speaker 5: who are around at the house at the time where
Speaker 5: all of this unfolded, and yet they're being given the
Speaker 5: benefit of the doubt. Well, where's Amy's benefit of the doubt?
Speaker 5: Where's the critical questioning for her? Where's her group saying well,
Speaker 5: hang on? And that's been her sister and her mother
Speaker 5: and others, But it's fallen on death is for far
Speaker 5: too long, and it really shouldn't be this hard when
Speaker 5: you're up against that brick wall. It shouldn't be this
Speaker 5: hard in the day of transparency and openness, and people
Speaker 5: should be wanting to get better at what they do.
Speaker 5: We've got some learning to do here, and we want
Speaker 5: to engage rather than being defensive and circling the wagons.
Speaker 6: One mass thing. They'll argue that you've got to have
Speaker 6: a resumption of innocence and that they need a primer
Speaker 6: facy case, which they say, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Well, you never get a primer facy case without investigating it.
Speaker 5: I've never seen one yet. It doesn't land on your
Speaker 5: lap with a nice big pink bow on it. You
Speaker 5: have to ask questions irrespective of what case it is.
Speaker 5: That's why you're an investigator, and you have to look
Speaker 5: at everything at that scene the way that people behave
Speaker 5: the history. You have to go through the forensic process
Speaker 5: because there are certain areas that are not in your wheelhouse.
Speaker 5: You have to have the results of the toxicology, the clothing,
Speaker 5: the gunshot residue. You have to do all of these
Speaker 5: things to be sure that your determination is the right one.
Speaker 5: And that's about being having a critical mind and an
Speaker 5: open mind at the outset of investigation, and you have
Speaker 5: to look at building the case rather than looking to
Speaker 5: confirm your initial assumption. And I believe it was the
Speaker 5: latter here that there's confirmation bias of just the quick easy, Okay,
Speaker 5: it looks to be this, and I'll read the statements
Speaker 5: just to check it's this, rather than having professional curiosity.
Speaker 5: And you have to have that professional curiosity an inquiring mind.
Speaker 6: But it's a balance of probabilities right as well.
Speaker 5: You have to look at the micro and the macro,
Speaker 5: and timelines are very important and sequence of events. And
Speaker 5: I have to say, I can't think of one case
Speaker 5: that I've advised on where you get the timeline and
Speaker 5: sequence of events within an hour. It just doesn't happen.
Speaker 5: You have a starburst of at least seventy two hours
Speaker 5: where all of that activity takes place. So even if
Speaker 5: it's seventy two hours that you give it to, actually
Speaker 5: have lines of investigation to be sure within your decision log.
Speaker 5: You know, these are very serious decisions. A woman's life
Speaker 5: with two young children. She mattered, She mattered enough to
Speaker 5: give it longer than fifteen minutes or an hour.
Speaker 6: Well, we had the emails from place only from as
Speaker 6: late as last year where they say they were foy
Speaker 6: and they say that, you know, when they announced the
Speaker 6: a million dollar reward treating it as a homicide walk
Speaker 6: because also opened finding they said it was a saucer.
Speaker 6: So they have seen your officers still in the so
Speaker 6: Wa Police saying it was a surce.
Speaker 5: I would imagine that that is still very much in
Speaker 5: the crime report, the decision log, that that's still very
Speaker 5: much in there, and that's why they're still saying those things.
Speaker 5: But that again fights itself and having someone you know,
Speaker 5: who's small and of a slight build. But even where
Speaker 5: she was found tucked into that area behind the door,
Speaker 5: that's highly unusual for someone to end their life and
Speaker 5: be wedged into that tiny area, and the way that
Speaker 5: she did it, I can't think of any case where
Speaker 5: that's happened with the children that are outside, with the
Speaker 5: mother saying the children were her life, and everything that
Speaker 5: she said to friends and everything that her mindset was
Speaker 5: about was resilience. And I can tell you I know
Speaker 5: no one stronger than single mothers. Single mothers who raise
Speaker 5: children are the strongest kind, and certainly when you add
Speaker 5: in domestic violence. They tend to be very resilient, and
Speaker 5: it's their children that keep them resilient. So knowing that,
Speaker 5: it's incredibly bizarre, puzzling, unfathomable of why she would end
Speaker 5: her life. But I wouldn't expect any e mail detective
Speaker 5: to think like that. I wouldn't expect them to go
Speaker 5: to that scene and think, well, hang on a minute,
Speaker 5: let's check the history. Oh, look, she survived a car accident.
Speaker 5: She was resilient. Then hang on. Other people are saying
Speaker 5: about strangulation, life to the throat, all these things that
Speaker 5: have happened. She's been resilient, then being pregnant and being assaulted,
Speaker 5: she's resilient then. So now she's saying, I'm leaving. She's
Speaker 5: going to come into some money. She's finally said I'm going.
Speaker 5: She's got her mother a place to stay, she's got
Speaker 5: her passport, she's packed everything in future planned, even with
Speaker 5: gifts for her daughter, and they're about to go. Why
Speaker 5: would she end her life then? That just makes no
Speaker 5: sense to me. When she had been earlier getting a
Speaker 5: recipe for pe and ham soup, seeing friends, her mindset
Speaker 5: wasn't of suicidal ideation. Her mindset was of leaving him,
Speaker 5: and it was exacerbated in alcohol because she saw the
Speaker 5: same thing from him again of the alcohol and putting
Speaker 5: alcohol before the family. They have another huge argument and
Speaker 5: she's assaulted and she's upset, but she is going to leave.
Speaker 5: She did all of those things to exit that relationship.
Speaker 5: I think you have got the perfect storm here of
Speaker 5: all of these things happening together. I don't believe it
Speaker 5: was any one thing as to why they made these decisions.
Speaker 5: I think it's a culmination of all of those things.
Speaker 5: But not to thoroughly interview the people at the scene
Speaker 5: who were there in twenty fourteen, that's unfathomable.
Speaker 6: Laura, I just want to thank you so much. I
Speaker 6: really really appreciate everything that you do. You're so important
Speaker 6: in the world, So thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you well. I appreciate you giving Amy and her
Speaker 5: family a voice. And we need more victim advocates who
Speaker 5: come at things for the right reasons of asking questions,
Speaker 5: even though it might rattle cages and upset people, but
Speaker 5: Amy deserves it, and her two children do as well,
Speaker 5: her daughters. They deserve to establish what really went on,
Speaker 5: rather than be met with a wall of silence or
Speaker 5: what's more, a decision that is based on a house
Speaker 5: of cards. Really that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Speaker 5: It's opinion. At the end of the day. Neither do
Speaker 5: they have clear facts that point to suicide, but there
Speaker 5: are many more questions that point to when we put
Speaker 5: it in the wider context of male violence to women,
Speaker 5: that women suddenly dying and unexpectedly dying in circumstances like this,
Speaker 5: we owe it to women to do more, and we
Speaker 5: owe it to them when they call for help that
Speaker 5: we actually take action. So thank you for doing what
Speaker 5: you do, and I really hope that there will be
Speaker 5: justice for Amy and the right decisions are made well.
Speaker 1: We did ask WA Police, among other things, whether their
Speaker 1: focus was still on proving suicide rather than homicide, the
Speaker 1: weight being afforded to doctor Geson's report, and if external
Speaker 1: experts would be consulted about Amy's case. We received this response.
Speaker 18: The investigation into Amy's death remains ongoing. WA Police continue
Speaker 18: to explore a number of investigative leads, some of which
Speaker 18: involve external experts. Upon the completion of the investigation, we
Speaker 18: will present the findings the Office of the Director of
Speaker 18: Public Prosecutions for their consideration and assessment. The death of
Speaker 18: Amy Wensley is considered suspicious and the focus of the
Speaker 18: investigation is to ensure all available evidence is captured and
Speaker 18: presented to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Speaker 18: for his assessment. With regards to whether legal decisions made
Speaker 18: by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should
Speaker 18: be reviewable, that is a question for the Attorney General,
Speaker 18: not the Western Australia Police Force. The information in the
Speaker 18: coroner's findings referencing doctor Geeson is not material we presented
Speaker 18: in criminal proceedings.
Speaker 1: Now that's a bit confusing because it's unclear what he's
Speaker 1: referring to. As far as we're aware, there haven't been
Speaker 1: any criminal proceedings in relation to Amy Wensley. We also
Speaker 1: queried Attorney General John Quigley's office about the concerns raised
Speaker 1: by a new South Wales Crime Commissioner, Michael Barnes. Our
Speaker 1: questions included should decisions by Directors of Public Prosecutions in
Speaker 1: relation to suspicious debts be reviewable? Why or why not,
Speaker 1: to which he replied.
Speaker 19: They are by the coroner.
Speaker 1: Now we know that even if the coroner does recommend
Speaker 1: charges be laid, the DPP doesn't have to comply, which
Speaker 1: is what Michael Barnes recalled happening in Queensland following his
Speaker 1: decision on the Vicky Arnold, Julie and Lay capse.
Speaker 17: I did the third in question and said it was
Speaker 17: a homicide and the DPP refused to charge.
Speaker 1: The situation is not different here in WA. We then asked.
Speaker 6: Would your government consider an appeal system being implemented.
Speaker 19: Mister Quigley replied the High Court has ruled there can't
Speaker 19: be a judicial review of a DPP's decision. However, there
Speaker 19: can be a judicial review of a coroner's decision, which
Speaker 19: an aggrieved party can seek.
Speaker 6: Should Directors of Public Prosecutions be made to provide comprehensive
Speaker 6: explanations of their decisions.
Speaker 19: A comprehensive except given by the DPP as to why
Speaker 19: not to commence a prosecution at that point in time
Speaker 19: made prejudice any further prosecution or further police investigation.
Speaker 6: Not satisfied with this response, I wrote back to the
Speaker 6: Attorney General's Chiefest Staff when Dy Pryor, thanking her, but
Speaker 6: pointing out the criticism related to the issues raised by
Speaker 6: mister Barnes following his experience as State Coroner of both
Speaker 6: New South Wales and Queensland, citing cases such as Lynn Simms,
Speaker 6: Julianne Leih and Vicky Arnold and Laney Carwell, and pointing
Speaker 6: out that sometimes directors of public prosecution get it right,
Speaker 6: but other times it's many more years before justice is realized.
Speaker 6: I urged her to take a listen to our podcast,
Speaker 6: and then c c the Premier's Chief of Staff, David Cooper,
Speaker 6: asking if the AG's answer was reflective of the entire
Speaker 6: government or just his office. I didn't hear back from
Speaker 6: mister Cooper, but I did get this response from Miss Pryor.
Speaker 15: Hi Allison. Thanks for educating me. I also appreciate that
Speaker 15: other people in other states may have various views on matters.
Speaker 15: I am reiterating below the information we have provided on
Speaker 15: the Wensley matter. The information was in a letter to
Speaker 15: Miss Davy, which I understand you were provided. I'm not
Speaker 15: sure if you have published all of it. The Attorney
Speaker 15: General will not be making any further comment in relation
Speaker 15: to your request for comment this week. I'm sorry that
Speaker 15: you don't like his response, which explained what review mechanisms
Speaker 15: are already in place. The letter outlined the following one
Speaker 15: a hearing was set down for a discretionary coronial inquest
Speaker 15: to be held in relation to Miss Wensley's death in
Speaker 15: twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest, the former Deputy State
Speaker 15: Coroner Vicker referred the matter to the DPP. This was
Speaker 15: based on the opinion of an expert biomechanical report, which
Speaker 15: former Deputy State Coroner Vicker considered contained information to suggest
Speaker 15: an indebtable offense had been committed in relation to Miss
Speaker 15: Wensley's death. Two. That referral to the DPP resulted in
Speaker 15: the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad conducting a review
Speaker 15: of the earlier police investigations into Miss Wensley's death. Three.
Speaker 15: WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt to obtain
Speaker 15: evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death.
Speaker 6: Four.
Speaker 15: The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish
Speaker 15: the involvement of another person in Miss Wensley's death. Five
Speaker 15: The DPP reviewed the materials and agreed with the determination
Speaker 15: made by the WA Police and referred the matter back
Speaker 15: to the Coroner's court.
Speaker 18: Six.
Speaker 15: An inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with
Speaker 15: Deputy State Coroner Linton conducting the inquest with a focus
Speaker 15: on whether there was any additional evidence that could be
Speaker 15: obtained that might assist in determining how Miss Wensley came
Speaker 15: to suffer the injury that caused her death. Seven the
Speaker 15: current deputies ste Coroner Linton declined to refer the matter
Speaker 15: to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was
Speaker 15: insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had
Speaker 15: been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. Kind regards, Wendy.
Speaker 6: We also heard from a listener this week who was
Speaker 6: concerned WA police had not made enough of the thirteen
Speaker 6: second phone call to Robert Simmons by David at the
Speaker 6: Serpentine roadhouse.
Speaker 20: Hi, Alian Liam, I find it strange that the coroner
Speaker 20: ruled an open verdict, which includes the possibility of homicide.
Speaker 20: Under one million dollar reward has been offered for information
Speaker 20: leading to the identification of the perpetrator or perpetrators. There
Speaker 20: were only two or possibly three of us present when
Speaker 20: Amy died. Another point is regarding the phone call David
Speaker 20: mead to Robert from the servo. It doesn't seem much
Speaker 20: attention has been paid to this his word has just
Speaker 20: been accepted. I'm enjoying listening to the podcast and I
Speaker 20: hope Am and her family will finally get the justice
Speaker 20: they deserve. Thanks.
Speaker 6: And we touched on this thirteen second phone call last
Speaker 6: week and in episode seven when Robert Simmons was questioned
Speaker 6: by council assisting the coroner, Sarah Tyler.
Speaker 21: On your mobile phone, there's a record at five twenty
Speaker 21: pm of an incoming phone call from Serpentine Falls Roadhouse
Speaker 21: that lasted for thirteen seconds. We know that David and
Speaker 21: Gareth went to the roadhouse to call the emergency services.
Speaker 13: That was going to my landline, that was to your
Speaker 13: mobile phone.
Speaker 22: I don't think I never answer it.
Speaker 6: Then, here's what Robert Simmons said when questioned at the
Speaker 6: inquest by counsel for Amy Wensley's family, Peter Ward.
Speaker 23: Phone records indicate that there was a call from the
Speaker 23: Serpentine Falls Roadhouse number to your mobile yes, at five
Speaker 23: twenty one, two minutes before you got the call from St.
Speaker 23: John Ambulance.
Speaker 22: I never received it.
Speaker 23: You don't recall receiving that no?
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 23: One of the police officers who attended that night has
Speaker 23: recorded in his nose that when he went up to
Speaker 23: see you at the end of the night and give
Speaker 23: you the receipt for the firearms. That you spoke to
Speaker 23: him then and you said you'd received a phone call
Speaker 23: from the service station. Do you remember telling him that? No,
Speaker 23: And he says that what you told him was that
Speaker 23: you had received a call from Bob Ibbotson, the service
Speaker 23: station owner, to say that he was worried about Garett,
Speaker 23: worried about David. No, not at it was the police
Speaker 23: officer was mistaken when he made that note in his notes.
Speaker 22: My phone had an answering service on it, but I
Speaker 22: never had the message on there or anything like that.
Speaker 22: And the only call I got that day was from
Speaker 22: the Saint the emergency services. They asked me if I
Speaker 22: was David Simmons. Someone from there has called an ambulance
Speaker 22: and that's when I said, I will go and investigate.
Speaker 6: So there's a police record that Robert Simmons said who
Speaker 6: received that call. This is extremely important, particularly as with
Speaker 6: much of this case, there are varying witness accounts which
Speaker 6: will ultimately require investigators to weigh up the balance of probability.
Speaker 6: It's pretty clear where the weight lies here, and when
Speaker 6: looking at the evidence in its entirety back to mister Ward,
Speaker 6: who continues questioning Robert Simmons about his phone conversation with
Speaker 6: the Saint John's ambulance operator and what the transcript of
Speaker 6: the call indicates. He said, upon answering.
Speaker 23: You responded, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 3: Yes, go on.
Speaker 23: Who's Lloyd?
Speaker 22: There was no one with me at all.
Speaker 3: There was no one with you.
Speaker 22: No, I don't know where they got that from.
Speaker 23: Well, this is your voice recorded on the phone call.
Speaker 23: You say, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 22: Well was I no? I know I was speaking. I
Speaker 22: was talking to someone on my mobile. That's what it was. Yes,
Speaker 22: I've got to go. I had two I wasn't speaking
Speaker 22: to anyone.
Speaker 23: You were talking to somebody on your mobile.
Speaker 22: Unless it was someone who wrung me about a job
Speaker 22: or something like that. I run a business. Could have
Speaker 22: been someone who said Lloyd and were looking to do
Speaker 22: some clearing work.
Speaker 6: And here's what David Simmons said on the last day
Speaker 6: of the inquest.
Speaker 21: We have it in evidence that you made that call
Speaker 21: to the ambulance services and then you asked if you
Speaker 21: could make his second phone call, and you took the
Speaker 21: phone out the front and dialed another number.
Speaker 13: Do you remember making that second call?
Speaker 3: Maybe? Yeah, Well I can't.
Speaker 13: Who are you calling? What do you remember?
Speaker 3: I think? I don't know?
Speaker 13: You're not sure, nah?
Speaker 21: If I said the second phone call was made to
Speaker 21: your dad from the Serpentine roadhouse around that time with
Speaker 21: that jog your.
Speaker 24: Memory, maybe I can't remember exactly.
Speaker 23: No.
Speaker 13: Do you remember talking to your dad before from the
Speaker 13: roadhouse or talking to your dad about what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Vaguely maybe I can. Yeah.
Speaker 13: What do you remember about that.
Speaker 3: I was seeing? If he was at home? I think?
Speaker 3: And that what had happened?
Speaker 13: And what did he say?
Speaker 3: I can't remember.
Speaker 13: But you're sure you called him? You've got a memory
Speaker 13: of that?
Speaker 3: I do now, yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 17: And did you definitely talk to him?
Speaker 13: Sorry, that's the coroner.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm pretty sure I talked to him.
Speaker 21: Yeah, but you don't remember the details other than what
Speaker 21: had happened.
Speaker 24: Nah. To tell you the truth, I've just turned my
Speaker 24: whole memory and everything off for the last so many years,
Speaker 24: you know, and I've just tried to forget things, and
Speaker 24: now I'm still dealing with it and got to go
Speaker 24: through it again.
Speaker 21: So I understand that It's difficult to talk about these things,
Speaker 21: and I know I'm asking you to remember things that
Speaker 21: happened a long time ago, but it's important to tell
Speaker 21: me what you do remember, and if you don't remember,
Speaker 21: just tell me that you don't remember. Is there anything
Speaker 21: else that you remember about the phone call to your
Speaker 21: dad from the roadhouse.
Speaker 1: No, so like the bins, the lack of gun residue
Speaker 1: or blood on David and Gareth's clothing, David going back
Speaker 1: for the pink phone, or entering the room within ten
Speaker 1: minutes before Amy died, the missing door handle, and so
Speaker 1: much more. In this case, no real clarity was provided
Speaker 1: surrounding that thirteen second phone call, and the contradictions appear
Speaker 1: to have just been glossed over, like so much in
Speaker 1: Amy's case. What we do know for certain, though, is
Speaker 1: the call occurred, because the phone records prove it did. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: David was questioned after his father Robert, so there was
Speaker 1: no opportunity to requestion him, and nothing about it was
Speaker 1: even mentioned in Deputy coroner Sarah Linton's findings. But she
Speaker 1: did have this to say about Robert simmons testimony.
Speaker 17: I considered Robert Simmons to be an honest, forthright witness.
Speaker 17: He certainly had not tried to hide his concerns about
Speaker 17: what David might have done when he sat spoke to
Speaker 17: the emergency services operator after going into the house at
Speaker 17: their request. Mister Simmons also gave evidence that he said
Speaker 17: to David at a later time, I'm going to ask
Speaker 17: you once, and then asked David to talk him through
Speaker 17: exactly what happened when Amy died and to tell him
Speaker 17: if he had any involvement.
Speaker 6: In her death.
Speaker 17: Mister Simmons gave evidence that David has never been the
Speaker 17: same since that day. At the time of the inquest,
Speaker 17: mister Simmons gave evidence that David's drug and alcohol problems
Speaker 17: have spiraled out of control and is now homeless and
Speaker 17: his mental and physical health is compromised. Mister Simmons said
Speaker 17: he had tried to help him at various times, but ultimately,
Speaker 17: for his own health and to protect other family members,
Speaker 17: he has to stay away from David.
Speaker 1: So the coroner acknowledges Robert's comments that he needs to
Speaker 1: protect other family members from David, but she doesn't mention
Speaker 1: his comments about the thirteen second phone calls.
Speaker 12: Hi, Allison, I've been listening to the truth about any
Speaker 12: podcast and have to say that you are all doing
Speaker 12: such a great job. There is one point that keeps
Speaker 12: coming up, and it's a missing door handle.
Speaker 1: This is Jane, a DV survivor who, like many other listeners,
Speaker 1: wants to share her story.
Speaker 12: I found myself in an abusive relationship twenty years ago.
Speaker 12: I was lucky enough and managed to escape it within
Speaker 12: four years. I was in my mid forties when it happened.
Speaker 12: What I wanted to say is that sometimes he would
Speaker 12: take off the door handle inside the bedroom, leave the room,
Speaker 12: and of course I could not get out. I hope
Speaker 12: this helps keep up the good work guys, Jane.
Speaker 6: Thanks Jane for turning your pain into purpose. We know
Speaker 6: it can't be easy. We're truly grateful to people like
Speaker 6: you and Ann earlier who want to help. It hasn't
Speaker 6: been easy for any of us involved in fighting for
Speaker 6: the truth about Amy, and we honestly couldn't do it
Speaker 6: without the support of our listeners.
Speaker 10: So soon you see, this.
Speaker 1: Is our final episode for the year, but we will
Speaker 1: be back next year with season two. From all of
Speaker 1: us here, thank you all for caring about Amy's story
Speaker 1: and supporting her family's continuing fight for justice. We wish
Speaker 1: you all a very safe festive season. We'll leave you
Speaker 1: with more from Ariel Bombara, whose story reminds us not
Speaker 1: to take safety for granted. Also how far as a
Speaker 1: society we still need to go to protect domestic violence victims.
Speaker 1: Please note some listeners might find this distressing.
Speaker 9: Six months ago, I picked up the keys to our
Speaker 9: new rental apartment. It was a breath of fresh air,
Speaker 9: a sigh of intense release. We'd been on the run
Speaker 9: for eight weeks, and during that time we were gas lit,
Speaker 9: told we were overreacting crazy, but my father would never
Speaker 9: physically hurt us. We were stressed, malnourished, and living on
Speaker 9: top of each other and various accommodations, dragging our belongings
Speaker 9: around in suitcases and garbage bags, just trying to make
Speaker 9: it through each day. We often questioned our sanity, but
Speaker 9: I remained adamant that my father was dangerous and I
Speaker 9: would do anything to keep him.
Speaker 4: Away from us.
Speaker 9: So when we stepped into that new rental, it felt
Speaker 9: like the first glimpse of light at the end of
Speaker 9: a very dark tunnel we'd been navigating. We were giddy
Speaker 9: and excited as we unpacked the same clothes we'd been
Speaker 9: wearing for eight weeks, this time with the knowledge that
Speaker 9: we finally had a home again and could start to
Speaker 9: rebuild our lives.
Speaker 4: While unpacking, my received from her best green Jenny. We
Speaker 4: heard Jenny telling her eighteen year old daughter, Gretel to
Speaker 4: go hide.
Speaker 9: My father had turned up looking for Mum and he
Speaker 9: didn't believe her when she said Mum wasn't there, so
Speaker 9: he forced his way into their home. We heard Jenny say,
Speaker 9: Mark put the gun away, and I remember the ice
Speaker 9: cold shot of adrenaline and the sound that escaped my mouth,
Speaker 9: akin to that of someone who's been kicked in the girl.
Speaker 9: It was the knowledge that after eight weeks of meticulous
Speaker 9: safety planning, eight weeks of predicting and staying ahead of
Speaker 9: his behavior in the most terrifying game of cat and mouse,
Speaker 9: he was about to do everything we thought he was
Speaker 9: going to do to us, to somebody else. Those were
Speaker 9: the last words I heard Jenny say as I frantic
Speaker 9: the cul triple zero while Mum continued to listen to
Speaker 9: what was going on in Jenny's house. While speaking to
Speaker 9: the police, I heard Mum scream and then she was wailing.
Speaker 9: The last thing Mum heard was two gunshots before the
Speaker 9: phone went dead. I stood there, powerless, watching her in
Speaker 9: shock as her whales filled our empty apartment, laden with
Speaker 9: the pain of someone who's just heard their abusive husband
Speaker 9: murdered their best friend. My father murdered Jenny and Gretel
Speaker 9: while Jenny's other daughter, Liesl and her boyfriend Blair were
Speaker 9: down the road at the shops.
Speaker 4: They returned after Gretel texted.
Speaker 9: Liesl to call the police and heard my father's final
Speaker 9: gun shot as he ended his life.
Speaker 4: What people don't realize is that the true impact of.
Speaker 9: Domestic violence homicides isn't just the loss of life. It's
Speaker 9: the devastation that ripples through the families, the quiet aftermath,
Speaker 9: the survivors guild. For the rest of my life, I'll
Speaker 9: question every decision I made, from the point of convincing
Speaker 9: Mom to leave because it wasn't safe, wondering what more
Speaker 9: I could have done to stop him, knowing two lives
Speaker 9: were taken instead of my own and my mom's because
Speaker 9: I was too good at hiding from him, and hating
Speaker 9: my for never considering that he would kill other people
Speaker 9: if he.
Speaker 4: Couldn't find us. It's a heavy burden women carry, blaming themselves.
Speaker 9: For men's violence, an utterly unfair, twisted weight we feel
Speaker 9: because the system doesn't protect us and puts the onus
Speaker 9: on women to manage men's behavior, rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
Speaker 9: We weren't the ones to pick up that gun, yet
Speaker 9: we must live the rest of our lives paying.
Speaker 4: For his crimes.
Speaker 9: My father was a dictator and his coercive and controlling
Speaker 9: behaviors were constant. He constantly humiliated Mum in front of us,
Speaker 9: tore her down and made her feel small. He was
Speaker 9: a master manipulator who would twist her words and gaslight
Speaker 9: her until.
Speaker 4: She couldn't trust her own mind. He kept her isolated
Speaker 4: from friends and family. He controlled the money.
Speaker 9: He'd make degrading comments about her appearance, call her names,
Speaker 9: criticize every little pressure her to wear clothes she didn't
Speaker 9: want to wear, constant unwanted sexual advances, and I could
Speaker 9: see the dead look behind her eyes. That new compliance
Speaker 9: wasn't as bad as the alternative, because she knew that
Speaker 9: when she resists, he takes it out on her children.
Speaker 4: He knows this is the most effective way to hurt her.
Speaker 4: It was the persistent.
Speaker 9: Gut wrenching dread, waiting for when and how he was
Speaker 9: going to shame you. That had everyone walking on eggshells,
Speaker 9: constantly on edge and exhausted from playing his mind games.
Speaker 9: Oh but he's not a violent man, people would tell me. Hm,
Speaker 9: So how did this non violent, gun wielding, law abiding
Speaker 9: citizen end up committing murder? Because he believed my mother
Speaker 9: was his property and if he couldn't have her, then
Speaker 9: no one could. After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police
Speaker 9: to take any action to protect.
Speaker 4: Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9: I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
Speaker 9: kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us,
Speaker 9: and still managed to inflict maximum damage.
Speaker 4: Utter devastation.
Speaker 9: I thought for eight weeks against every person that tried
Speaker 9: to convince us we were overreacting, the police who dismissed us,
Speaker 9: the people who said, oh, but he doesn't rape.
Speaker 4: You or hit you, so it can't be that bad.
Speaker 4: All I can ask is do you believe me?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 12: Lisser c.
Speaker 23: So deation.
Speaker 9: We both know the now set you mek.
Speaker 4: S.
Speaker 1: If you knew Amy and have information, any information about
Speaker 1: her death, we'd love to hear from you, just email
Speaker 1: us at The Truth about Amy at seven dot com
Speaker 1: dot au. That's s E V E N The Truth
Speaker 1: about Amy at seven dot com dot Au, or visit
Speaker 1: our website sevenews dot com dot Au forward slash the
Speaker 1: Truth about Amy. You can also send us an anonymous
Speaker 1: tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com.
Speaker 1: If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us
Speaker 1: to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but
Speaker 1: for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make
Speaker 1: any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,
Speaker 1: don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
Speaker 1: because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
Speaker 1: and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,
Speaker 1: Sound design Mark Wright, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford,
Speaker 1: and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian's Emo. This
Speaker 1: is a seven News production.