Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolutely shamblesh, to
Speaker 1: tell you the truth, just absolutely really. Heamous blood on
Speaker 1: his clothing the day after the alleged.
Speaker 2: Attap on a shallow mud bank and it fits through
Speaker 2: a river.
Speaker 3: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 3: there are good people.
Speaker 2: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 2: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 1: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the
Speaker 1: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 1: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 1: Amy Maguire and.
Speaker 2: I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner
Speaker 2: Support Service. And a warning, this series contains the names
Speaker 2: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 2: some listeners.
Speaker 1: So last week we let you know a little bit
Speaker 1: more about Kevin Henry's parole process and the sad fact
Speaker 1: that he was yet again knocked back for parole after
Speaker 1: twenty six years spent incarcerated in our Campden jail. This
Speaker 1: week we received further detail about why he was actually
Speaker 1: knocked back for parole. Mardin, Can you give us a
Speaker 1: little overview of the reasons why the parole Board has
Speaker 1: knocked him back. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So, first I'll actually go through both the reason they've
Speaker 3: knocked Kevin back, but also the letter we received from
Speaker 3: the Parole Board. And one of the very frustrating facts
Speaker 3: of it is it's a four page letter and it
Speaker 3: highlights many of the things that are in Kevin's favor,
Speaker 3: that are that he's undertaken and completed a number of programs.
Speaker 3: One they name is the Positive Futures program. They also
Speaker 3: identify that there was a place of reds that was
Speaker 3: acceptable to the Parole Board where Kevin could live on release,
Speaker 3: and this is often a difficult barrier for people to overcome.
Speaker 3: They also accepted the petition from the residents of Warabinda
Speaker 3: and also the elders of Warabinda and again stated that
Speaker 3: this was in Kevin's favor. They also took into account
Speaker 3: all the information that we provided to support Kevin's application,
Speaker 3: again in their own words, stated that all of this
Speaker 3: was in his favor. They looked at some further submissions
Speaker 3: that we made that are sort of above and beyond
Speaker 3: what you would normally do in a parole application, and
Speaker 3: that included the level of community support that was there
Speaker 3: for Kevin, the sheer number of accommodation options, to support
Speaker 3: options from Indigenous run organizations, and that everything we'd done
Speaker 3: had been planned out, including outreach worker support from the
Speaker 3: New Endings Men's Program. And again in their own words,
Speaker 3: they say that this was in Kevin's favor. But then
Speaker 3: we get to the part where Kevin is knocked back
Speaker 3: and in four pages, that's right down the bottom. Now,
Speaker 3: Kevin maintains his innocence and has done for twenty six years.
Speaker 3: But as we've discussed previously on the podcast, Queensland does
Speaker 3: not have what they call a denier's program. Now, that's
Speaker 3: a program that would allow a person who's imprisoned to
Speaker 3: exit prison to the satisfaction of the parole board without
Speaker 3: admitting their guilt. In Queensland, a person incarcerated is required
Speaker 3: under the programs that they run, to admit their guilt
Speaker 3: and explain their motivations behind why they committed the particular crime. Now,
Speaker 3: of course Kevin didn't commit the crime, so he's not
Speaker 3: going to say he did it, and nor can he
Speaker 3: explain his motivations or how he went about committing the crime,
Speaker 3: because he'd have to lie to do that. Now, the
Speaker 3: board agreed that Kevin was unable to participate in these
Speaker 3: programs because he maintained this stance of innocence. But what
Speaker 3: the board then said was, and I quote, the Board
Speaker 3: does not accept a proposition that people it believes to
Speaker 3: present too high a risk level should be released from
Speaker 3: custody simply because of the unavailability of a treatment program,
Speaker 3: because to do so would be to abridge gate its
Speaker 3: primary obligation to community safety. So the Parole Board is
Speaker 3: accepting there is not a program available to Kevin that's
Speaker 3: acceptable or suitable. But because of the nature of the
Speaker 3: crime and the fact that the Parole Board can only
Speaker 3: consider the verdict of the initial trial and none of
Speaker 3: the evidence we've presented in relation to Kevin's innocence, they
Speaker 3: have to maintain that he is guilty. And so we
Speaker 3: have this absurd situation whereby the board's own admission, there
Speaker 3: is no availability of a program for Kevin to complete,
Speaker 3: and therefore he has to stay in prison. So I
Speaker 3: would argue, what is Kevin left to do? What can
Speaker 3: he possibly do to satisfy their desire to see him
Speaker 3: not be, as they say, a high level risk. And
Speaker 3: the only basis they say that he is a high
Speaker 3: level risk on is the fact of his conviction of
Speaker 3: this crime twenty six years ago that I think we
Speaker 3: have thoroughly shown he is innocent of that he maintains
Speaker 3: his innocence of and in this episode we will detail
Speaker 3: some vital new information that points to that innocence. So
Speaker 3: it's a terribly disappointing result. And last week I said
Speaker 3: we would have an opportunity to appeal this result, but
Speaker 3: the Board declined to give us that option and we
Speaker 3: cannot lodge a new application with the Board for Kevin's
Speaker 3: parole for a further six months.
Speaker 1: It's really strange, Madam, because obviously this has been a
Speaker 1: continual problem in relation to Kevin's applications for par all
Speaker 1: it seems that it's back to square one yet again,
Speaker 1: that it's based around his inability to come this program.
Speaker 1: So where to from now? What options are actually available?
Speaker 1: And how much do the Parole Board have their own
Speaker 1: hands tis? How much hands tight? How much does this
Speaker 1: have to do with the existing parole system in Queensland.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a really good question and I think the
Speaker 3: Parole Board absolutely has their hands tied in a certain
Speaker 3: sense in that while they are continued to be instructed
Speaker 3: that they must take into consideration only the verdict handed
Speaker 3: down at the time. It's very difficult because it means
Speaker 3: they can't consider any new information and this is clearly
Speaker 3: an absurd situation. The problem is that this is a
Speaker 3: statewide issue. That's why there has been a full review
Speaker 3: into the parole system in Queensland. This is a system,
Speaker 3: as we've previously discussed, that has not been updated for
Speaker 3: eighty years. And while there were eighty two recommendations, eighty
Speaker 3: of which the Queensland Government has agreed to adopt, they
Speaker 3: haven't yet been adopted, and so we will have more
Speaker 3: options once the Parliament passes these recommendations and the new
Speaker 3: Professional Parole Board are impaneled. But I still think even
Speaker 3: with the caveat of having to take into consideration the
Speaker 3: final verdict, Kevin is absolutely a person who should be
Speaker 3: eligible for parole and granted parole. He doesn't pose a
Speaker 3: risk to the community. He hasn't drunk or used drugs
Speaker 3: for twenty six years, he hasn't committed this violent crime,
Speaker 3: and we've clearly shown that throughout the podcast, both with
Speaker 3: no forensic evidence, no DNA evidence, no witness testimony, nothing
Speaker 3: that points to Kevin involved in this, and he's essentially
Speaker 3: being punished for maintaining his innocence. And I think clearly
Speaker 3: that has to change, and hopefully with the new Parole
Speaker 3: Board being impaneled in the next week or so, we
Speaker 3: will see that change.
Speaker 1: So what's next now? In a lesson to Kevin's parole process.
Speaker 3: So right now, as a legal team, we need to
Speaker 3: consider what our options are and I can't give too
Speaker 3: many further details other than we are considering all options
Speaker 3: and we're not going to simply just wait six months
Speaker 3: and sit around and twiddle our thumbs. We'll look at
Speaker 3: all available options to us and continue to make representations
Speaker 3: to the board on Kevin's behalf, particularly as a new
Speaker 3: board is being impaneled and it'll be an entirely professional
Speaker 3: board for the first time in Queensland history. There will
Speaker 3: definitely be an aboriginal member of the Parole Board now
Speaker 3: and we're hoping that some of these old rules that
Speaker 3: have existed since the nineteen thirties will be done away
Speaker 3: with and a more reasonable outcome will be possible for Kevin.
Speaker 1: So moving on, we told you last week that we
Speaker 1: do uncovered a series of new witness statements that have
Speaker 1: been previously buried in relation to Kevin Henry's case. This week,
Speaker 1: we're going to tell you the content of those witness statements.
Speaker 1: And the first one starts with one of the women
Speaker 1: who was actually convicted in relation to the assault Onlander. Martin,
Speaker 1: can you explain to me a little bit about this
Speaker 1: witness statement and who it was from.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So this witness statement was provided by Margaret Bob.
Speaker 3: She was one of the women at Tanuba House that
Speaker 3: night and she was, as we know, convicted of the
Speaker 3: us bodily harm. But Margaret Bob gave this statement in
Speaker 3: two thousand and two. She came forward and volunteered this statement.
Speaker 3: And I think it's a very brave thing to have done,
Speaker 3: given all of the pressures that were placed by police
Speaker 3: on everyone involved and the intimidation of witnesses. And so
Speaker 3: you have to remember that Margaret Bob was there that night,
Speaker 3: she was an eyewitness to everything that occurred. And I'll
Speaker 3: read what she states and remember this statement is signed
Speaker 3: to be true and correct and not given under any
Speaker 3: kind of duress or persuasion. It's essentially like a witness
Speaker 3: statement or an affidavid and it says, I'm Margaret Joan
Speaker 3: Bob have written this sworn statement on behalf of the accused,
Speaker 3: Kevin Allen Henry. Kevin Henry did not kill the deceased
Speaker 3: woman Linda, and she does give Linda's full name at
Speaker 3: Tanubah Aboriginal Hostel on September fifth, nineteen ninety one. I
Speaker 3: hope this letter finds Kevin Henry not guilty on both
Speaker 3: accounts of murder and rape. I'm writing this sworn statement
Speaker 3: that Kevin Henry didn't kill or rape the deceased Linda.
Speaker 3: Yours sincerely, Margaret Joan Bob. Now that is an eyewitness
Speaker 3: statement from one of the people the court found to
Speaker 3: be involved that night, a person who knew all parties,
Speaker 3: certainly knew what Kevin looked like, and categorically states Kevin
Speaker 3: played no part in the murder or rape of Linda.
Speaker 3: And I would just briefly add that the forensis, as
Speaker 3: we've spoken about in the past, showed no sign of
Speaker 3: a sexual assault on Linda, and I think that's an
Speaker 3: important thing to point out, and the only evidence that
Speaker 3: that ever occurred came from the police, but there was
Speaker 3: no evidence, forensic or witness or otherwise to back up
Speaker 3: what they tried to claim.
Speaker 1: How significant is a witness statement like this, particularly coming
Speaker 1: from obviously one of the women who was convicted in
Speaker 1: relation to the assault.
Speaker 3: Well, I think on its own it only holds so
Speaker 3: much value. It's simply one person's word. But what Margaret
Speaker 3: Bob stated is what we've heard from so many other
Speaker 3: witnesses and is consistent with so many other witnesses, And
Speaker 3: I think that adds a lot more weight because we
Speaker 3: do know, and it is admitted by the police quite clearly,
Speaker 3: that she was there and must have witnessed everything if
Speaker 3: she was somewhat involved in what had gone on. Her
Speaker 3: statement is not only consistent, but it also backs up
Speaker 3: what witness X said, which is that they can't really
Speaker 3: provide any further details about Kevin's involvement in that crime
Speaker 3: other than he didn't do it because he wasn't there
Speaker 3: when it occurred. If he was, they'd maybe be able
Speaker 3: to say he was sitting here, or that forensic evidence
Speaker 3: should have been able to show he did X, Y
Speaker 3: and Z. But Kevin wasn't there and played no role,
Speaker 3: and so all they're left to be able to say
Speaker 3: is exactly that. And everything that Margaret Joam Bob says
Speaker 3: matches with our investigation, with the forensic evidence, with the
Speaker 3: evidence of the other witnesses who were there, and I
Speaker 3: think in that sense it's a very true statement, a
Speaker 3: brave statement to have given, and one that really paints
Speaker 3: a picture as to Kevin's innocence.
Speaker 1: Now, we didn't just find the statement of Margaret Bob.
Speaker 1: We also found another statement from a man who'd actually
Speaker 1: been incarcerated with Kevin Henry. Martin, Can you tell me
Speaker 1: a little bit about this other witness statement.
Speaker 3: Yes, so for now we won't name this witness again.
Speaker 3: This was someone who came forward quite a number of
Speaker 3: years after the event, but has given a very detailed
Speaker 3: witness statement to describe the events that they saw. This
Speaker 3: is not a witness who was at Tinuba House that night,
Speaker 3: as you've just said. This is a person who was
Speaker 3: in prison with Kevin Henry. But this witness was also
Speaker 3: in prison. This is a person we've previously described from
Speaker 3: witness's statement who was in the car that carried Linda's
Speaker 3: body over the bridge and who was involved in dumping
Speaker 3: the body in the water. So the witness who has
Speaker 3: come forward and given this statement on Kevin's behalf, explains
Speaker 3: the time they spent in prison with both Kevin Henry
Speaker 3: and this person, a man who was in that car
Speaker 3: and involved in the disposing of Linda's body, and he
Speaker 3: states that the person and he became quite friendly during
Speaker 3: this time in prison. He also admits that on occasion
Speaker 3: he and this individual got stoned together in prison. He
Speaker 3: goes on to state that this person was talking about
Speaker 3: having murdered someone, and over time he began to realize
Speaker 3: that it was the murder that Kevin Henry had been
Speaker 3: convicted of that this person was talking about. And he
Speaker 3: confronted this individual and he said, and I quote, I
Speaker 3: see you set Kevin Henry up. His reply was, don't
Speaker 3: you ever tell any one about it? He seemed alarmed,
Speaker 3: and I told him to calm down. The witness then
Speaker 3: goes on to say, I can recall that on a
Speaker 3: couple of other occasions I had a conversation with this
Speaker 3: individual where he'd said to me, I hate one little
Speaker 3: black Sea. I assumed he was talking about payback. I
Speaker 3: didn't know what he was talking about at the time,
Speaker 3: but he later told me he was referring to Kevin Henry,
Speaker 3: saying I hate one little black sea, Kevin Henry. I
Speaker 3: asked him why, and he said, I just hate him,
Speaker 3: he continues. I tried to get further information. I said,
Speaker 3: let me have a wild guess you set Kevin up.
Speaker 3: This was in front of a number of other people.
Speaker 3: I also said, you hate Kevin. I put it to
Speaker 3: him that you killed a woman and you set Kevin
Speaker 3: Henry up. The witness then says this individual admitted it
Speaker 3: and asked him to promise never to tell anyone, and
Speaker 3: they sign this statement. It was witnessed by a lawyer,
Speaker 3: and it was dated on the date that this statement
Speaker 3: was given. For now, I don't think there's any reason
Speaker 3: to publicly name either individual in that statement, other than
Speaker 3: to say that here we have a person in prison
Speaker 3: admitting to someone else on multiple occasions that they didn't
Speaker 3: like Evan Henry, they hated him in fact, and that
Speaker 3: they were involved in the murder of Linda, and that
Speaker 3: they did set Kevin up. Now, what's very important with
Speaker 3: this statement is that the person this statement alleges set
Speaker 3: up Kevin Henry and killed Linda is the exact person
Speaker 3: Witness X also claims was involved. Witness X and this person,
Speaker 3: as best to our knowledge, had never met. And yet
Speaker 3: both Witness X, having seen it with her own eyes,
Speaker 3: and this gentleman, having heard the confession of this individual,
Speaker 3: state that this individual was involved and that they set
Speaker 3: up Kevin Henry. I think this is vital information, something
Speaker 3: that should have been given to us long ago, and
Speaker 3: that clearly fits with Kevin's claim of being innocent and
Speaker 3: that other people were in And Kevin has confirmed to
Speaker 3: me that this individual did have it in for him.
Speaker 3: He never knew why, but it's consistent with the statement
Speaker 3: this person has given.
Speaker 1: Now, that was a pretty explosive statement, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: the only witness statement we received recently, mardin what was
Speaker 1: the other witness statement.
Speaker 3: So we have one final witness statement for this week,
Speaker 3: and that is from another person who, at another time,
Speaker 3: a year after the statement I just read out was given,
Speaker 3: wrote this particular statement, and again it was witnessed by
Speaker 3: a lawyer, and it is signed that everything in this
Speaker 3: statement is true and correct and of my own free will.
Speaker 3: I also want to state that again, as far as
Speaker 3: our investigation can tell, this person did not know Kevin
Speaker 3: Henry at the time of the murder and didn't know
Speaker 3: the other witnesses. And what this statement says is that
Speaker 3: it backs up absolutely the statement of Witness X. Now,
Speaker 3: remember Witness X said that not only was Kevin Henry
Speaker 3: not involved, but that Witness X saw the people that
Speaker 3: were involved, that they drove Linda's body over the other
Speaker 3: side of the river from Tanuba House and dumped the
Speaker 3: body in the river. And remember again that what Witness
Speaker 3: X stated is consistent with the forensic details of this
Speaker 3: crime and the forensics both presented at trial and from
Speaker 3: our investigation. Witness X was an eye witness, and so
Speaker 3: is this individual. This individual was in the car before
Speaker 3: it arrived at Tanuba House. When the car arrived at
Speaker 3: to n Uber House, this is what they stated. I
Speaker 3: waited for a while. Then I thought they'd forgot about me,
Speaker 3: so I went down under the house looking for them.
Speaker 3: When I got there, I saw two people laying down
Speaker 3: in front of the TV. Then I saw one of
Speaker 3: the girls standing there with Willie. Now remember the person
Speaker 3: Willie is someone Witness X also mentioned, and this was
Speaker 3: the man that was driving the car. So he says,
Speaker 3: and I'll just start again. Then I saw one of
Speaker 3: the girls standing there with Willie dragging this body around.
Speaker 3: I didn't know what to do. I was feeling sick
Speaker 3: and scared, so I ran back to town. I just
Speaker 3: wanted to get away, and so I hitchhiked to Cannes.
Speaker 3: Now the reason this person wanted to get away was
Speaker 3: they weren't actually from Rockhampton. They'd come from another part
Speaker 3: of Queensland to Rockhampton. These were not people they knew
Speaker 3: particularly well and clearly when they've seen something like this
Speaker 3: a man dragging a body around. Remember, this body was
Speaker 3: in front of a TV under Tanuba House, whereas we've
Speaker 3: previously explained, everyone there that day had been watching the
Speaker 3: semi final of the Rugby League. So once again, this
Speaker 3: statement comes from a witness who has no reason to lie,
Speaker 3: and remember that they've signed the statement to be true
Speaker 3: and correct and have their own free will. This is
Speaker 3: a witness who does not know Witness X. This is
Speaker 3: a witness who really doesn't know many of the other
Speaker 3: parties involved. All they do know is what they saw,
Speaker 3: and it is absolutely consistent with the other witness statements
Speaker 3: that we have. It's absolutely consistent with the forensic evidence
Speaker 3: both collected at the time and investigated more recently by
Speaker 3: US and the experts from overseas who have assisted us.
Speaker 3: And once again it does not place Kevin Henry at
Speaker 3: the crime scene. It places the same individual at the
Speaker 3: crime It locates the car that was used. Remember, again
Speaker 3: we previously discussed before we even had this information, that
Speaker 3: the person who committed the crime would have needed a car.
Speaker 3: Kevin didn't have one and he didn't have access to one.
Speaker 3: This witness statement, like Witness XES, confirms that the person
Speaker 3: they both name, had a car, was there, was dragging
Speaker 3: the body and put it in a car, where Witness
Speaker 3: X confirms they took it to the other side of
Speaker 3: the river and placed the body in the water, exactly
Speaker 3: where the forensics show Linda's body would have been. This
Speaker 3: is yet another statement from another independent person who does
Speaker 3: not name Kevin Henry because Kevin Henry was not there,
Speaker 3: but whose witness statement is consistent with all of the
Speaker 3: information we have presented, and we have only received this
Speaker 3: statement in the last ten days. So given that this
Speaker 3: statement is consistent with a year's worth of investigation, given
Speaker 3: the previous statement that we read before that was consistent
Speaker 3: with all the forensic information and other eyewitnesses. Given the
Speaker 3: statement of Margaret Joan Bob is consistent with all the
Speaker 3: forensic information, all the eyewitnesses, and everyone who has spoken
Speaker 3: about this case for the last twenty six years. How
Speaker 3: is Kevin Henry in prison today?
Speaker 1: Marda. The interesting thing I was thinking just as you
Speaker 1: were talking and read out the substance of particularly the
Speaker 1: last two witness statements. It's just really interesting that they
Speaker 1: come from two people who are in no way connected
Speaker 1: really to Tanuba House, and each one names a separate
Speaker 1: person that we know from previous witness statements who was
Speaker 1: actually in the car that night. And these are two
Speaker 1: people who didn't really come up in the trial. One
Speaker 1: came up in relation to the defense Kevin's defense team.
Speaker 1: They mentioned his name a couple of times, but other
Speaker 1: than that, these two men have largely gone unscathed. They
Speaker 1: haven't been talked about in relation to this case. So
Speaker 1: to me, it seems very significant that two men no
Speaker 1: way connected with the roal campeding community, no way connected
Speaker 1: with the people down at Tanuba actually named these two men.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like really almost a huge breakthrough
Speaker 1: in the case, would you, I mean, how significant would
Speaker 1: you say, there's two witness statements.
Speaker 3: Are I think the point you raise about them not
Speaker 3: being connected to the case in particular is very significant
Speaker 3: because there's no reason for them to involve themselves. If
Speaker 3: anyone just thinks for themselves right now, would you want
Speaker 3: to insert yourself into a controversial murder trial and ongoing
Speaker 3: issue that's been so controversial and such a horrific incident.
Speaker 3: I don't think many people would. But what we also
Speaker 3: know is that these statements are quite clearly and absolutely
Speaker 3: consistent with those who were there and were eyewitnesses, and
Speaker 3: I would say, more importantly, with the forensic evidence, because
Speaker 3: eyewitness statements are not always one hundred percent accurate. But
Speaker 3: when you start to get multiple people and just we've
Speaker 3: read three statements that are all consistent with each other,
Speaker 3: and that adds weight to all of them. They're also consistent,
Speaker 3: as I said, with the forensic information. There's nothing in
Speaker 3: any of these statements you can point to and say, well,
Speaker 3: we know this to be untrue. There's simply nothing there
Speaker 3: that would lead us to believe that these were offered
Speaker 3: up for any other reason than just like us, these
Speaker 3: people know Kevin Henry didn't do it. How do they
Speaker 3: know it? One was there, another one had someone we
Speaker 3: had previously believed to be involved admit to them on
Speaker 3: multiple occasions that not only did they do it, that
Speaker 3: they set Kevin up. And the third person saw the
Speaker 3: other person in the front of that car with their
Speaker 3: own eyes dragging around Linda's body. And I think the
Speaker 3: reason these people have come forward is because they couldn't
Speaker 3: and didn't want to keep that a secret any longer.
Speaker 3: I think it's an enormous burden to carry around with you.
Speaker 3: It's not something you would wish on anyone. As we've
Speaker 3: previously stated, the police were able to show the grievous
Speaker 3: bodily harm that took place, but the women were not
Speaker 3: involved in the murder, and the police never provided any
Speaker 3: forensic evidence that they were. But nor did they provide
Speaker 3: any forensic evidence that Kevin was so to any half
Speaker 3: thinking individual, surely the police needed to find a person
Speaker 3: or two other people that were involved in the actual
Speaker 3: murder and the placing of Linda's body in the river.
Speaker 3: And here we have witnesses who heard from and saw
Speaker 3: these two people who did exactly that, and the forensic
Speaker 3: evidence matches up with it, and so the significance of
Speaker 3: these new witness statements is huge and we implore the
Speaker 3: Attorney General of Queensland to take them very seriously, given
Speaker 3: that her department oversees the imprisonment of Kevin Henry, an
Speaker 3: innocent man who spent twenty six years in prison despite
Speaker 3: no evidence being presented against him, and now quite clearly
Speaker 3: this new evidence that shows he was no way involved
Speaker 3: and we do know who was involved.
Speaker 1: Now over the past few months you've listened to a
Speaker 1: number of new witness statements that we've uncovered. Another case
Speaker 1: that both Martin and I have had a close association
Speaker 1: with is the case of the Bauerville children who were
Speaker 1: murdered on Bauerville Michelin from nineteen ninety to nine ninety
Speaker 1: one down in New South Wales. Now, in relation to
Speaker 1: the bower All case, the breakthrough is in that case
Speaker 1: has come after sustained media pressure that forced the state
Speaker 1: Attorney General to actually intervene in that case. In the
Speaker 1: case of Kevin Henry, we're calling on Queensland Attorney General
Speaker 1: to do exactly the same thing. We've uncovered so much
Speaker 1: new evidence. We've uncovered multiple witness statements, some of them
Speaker 1: you've heard in this podcast tonight, we're calling on the
Speaker 1: State Attorney General Evett Dave to finally make it right.
Speaker 3: And just like the Barerville case, this is an opportunity
Speaker 3: for the mainstream media to for once do something positive
Speaker 3: for the Aboriginal community. To put the pressure on the
Speaker 3: Attorney General of Queensland like they did the Attorney General
Speaker 3: of New South Wales, to ask the questions that need answers,
Speaker 3: to understand how, just like in the Bear case, more
Speaker 3: than a quarter of a century can pass without there
Speaker 3: being justice for Aboriginal people and their communities. This requires
Speaker 3: that attention from the media, and given we've done all
Speaker 3: this work, they have no excuse but to write the stories,
Speaker 3: present it on radio, and do the TV programs that
Speaker 3: this case warrants. That's Curtin for this week. Join us
Speaker 3: next week for a new episode of Curtin the Podcast.