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 relationships am bags
Speaker 1: packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2: Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
Speaker 2: to grab something.
Speaker 3: Panic. Amy is dead, Sir Amys dead.
Speaker 4: Eight Confusion World.
Speaker 3: About five minutes they said, NA, it's a suicide. One
Speaker 3: hundred percent.
Speaker 4: This is emmersing.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 2: The Truth about Amy?
Speaker 5: Episode seventeen.
Speaker 4: Well, welcome back. I'm Liam Bartlay.
Speaker 5: And I'm Alison Sandy. This week we returned to the
Speaker 5: Wild West. Well, Liam, I know you're still there, but
Speaker 5: I'm referring to our most recent shoot. So we've touched
Speaker 5: on the places we've gone to before, like Perth and Serpentine.
Speaker 5: But I realize a lot of our listeners may not
Speaker 5: know a terrible lot about Australia's largest at least in
Speaker 5: area state, and I think it's important due to the
Speaker 5: level of detail we're going into for this investigation, particular
Speaker 5: in relation to the police and political culture. So what
Speaker 5: do you say, Liam, do you want to give them
Speaker 5: a bit of background about living in WA and the
Speaker 5: climate here?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Okay, well where do I start? Now? Wild West
Speaker 4: owl I'll take that as a compliment on behalf of
Speaker 4: all the other West Australians.
Speaker 1: Let's let's begin with that. But let's just do a
Speaker 1: broad brush. Okay, start with the geography. As you mentioned,
Speaker 1: Way's Australia's largest state, and we've got something like two
Speaker 1: point six million square kilometers a little under one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand square miles in the old language. So that's about
Speaker 1: a third of the entire nation of Australia, Larger than
Speaker 1: any state in the United States, larger than Texas, can
Speaker 1: you believe that? Bigger in Texas, but a little bit
Speaker 1: smaller than Argentina or a little Trivia or Factotum. We
Speaker 1: only have a population though, of around about three million,
Speaker 1: give or take a couple of dogs. So to give
Speaker 1: you some context, Australia's most populous state, New South Wales,
Speaker 1: is almost three times that, followed by Victoria that comes
Speaker 1: in at about seven million and Queensland, you're joint ol
Speaker 1: five million, five million compared to our three million. Well
Speaker 1: we're a little bit over three now, I think.
Speaker 4: But you know, which just.
Speaker 1: Goes to prove you know, quality is not always on
Speaker 1: the Gold Coast, you know what I'm saying, just for
Speaker 1: ever of Australian for ACUSM. But despite this, WA is
Speaker 1: the richest state in Australia because we produce almost half
Speaker 1: of Australia's goods in exports and obviously through the resource sector,
Speaker 1: we generate billions of dollars.
Speaker 4: Now, last year our GDP.
Speaker 1: Per capita per capita was one hundred and fifty five
Speaker 1: six hundred and forty four dollars.
Speaker 4: It's just to give you.
Speaker 1: Some context, Australia's GDP per capita is sixty eight thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: so well and truly yeah, well and truly twice that.
Speaker 4: Now, now that's still relatively good.
Speaker 1: I mean Australia is ranked thirteenth in the world, thirteenth
Speaker 1: in the world for GDP per capita, so you know,
Speaker 1: pretty good, yong.
Speaker 5: But I guess what it all boils down to is
Speaker 5: the nation's good standing is largely attributable to Western Australia
Speaker 5: because of its mining industry, specifically minerals and petroleum. So
Speaker 5: it's not surprising, then, Liam, that there's been a few
Speaker 5: moves made for Western Australia to become its own country Australia.
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 5: Have you heard of this term? Of course you have.
Speaker 5: Wasn't there a referendum in nineteen thirty three where a
Speaker 5: third of the population voted in favor of this happening?
Speaker 5: Do you reckon that would still happen now? You reckon
Speaker 5: a third of the population wants Westralia.
Speaker 4: No, No, I don't. I don't.
Speaker 1: I think after we put the fluoride in the water,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us got a little a
Speaker 1: lot smarter. No, because it's a very different It's a
Speaker 1: very different makeup now, isn't it. And that was not
Speaker 1: long after federation. Really in historical context, you know, I think, look,
Speaker 1: you know what it's like with remote places, right, Perth's
Speaker 1: the most remote capital city in the world, So it's
Speaker 1: sort of that isolation context, the distance to the east coast.
Speaker 1: It does give people a different sort of mental you know,
Speaker 1: a mental state, if I can put it that way
Speaker 1: in a nice way, in a nice way. So become territorial,
Speaker 1: is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 4: And that's good.
Speaker 1: You know, West Australians are very proud and very you
Speaker 1: know very you say, people can get house proud, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. That's a good way of putting it,
Speaker 1: I think for most West Australians. But I think the
Speaker 1: idea of secession, you know, when people point out you
Speaker 1: have to have your own armed forces and you have
Speaker 1: to pay for this and that and the other thing,
Speaker 1: and I think that starts to.
Speaker 4: Become it's too hard basket. But it's not.
Speaker 1: And especially in sport, in sporting contests, you know, it's
Speaker 1: nice to say, oh we beat the Vicks, so we've
Speaker 1: beat New South Wales or whatever.
Speaker 4: You know, so that's all good, that's all good. But
Speaker 4: apart from that, we're you know, we're all one. We
Speaker 4: are one and three.
Speaker 6: It is.
Speaker 5: It is different, though, I mean, I don't know. It
Speaker 5: seems like because of the large land mass and the
Speaker 5: smaller population that there is, it's a bit tighter, like
Speaker 5: people know people more and there seems to be.
Speaker 4: True. It can be very clique.
Speaker 1: You're right, you're right, but that also comes I think
Speaker 1: from being isolated more, you know, people feel as they
Speaker 1: have to protect their patch and it becomes a smaller
Speaker 1: it's a smaller pool.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Queensland is a little bit like that.
Speaker 5: It is. But I don't think I would know as
Speaker 5: many people in Brisbane, like you know of you know
Speaker 5: what I mean. Like, I don't think it's I think
Speaker 5: it's the population is big enough just in Brisbane that
Speaker 5: you're not you know, it's not a case of everyone
Speaker 5: knows each other's business.
Speaker 4: No, true, you used to be. But I agree with you.
Speaker 1: It's that critical mass in the last sort of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five years you start to get over that.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Also, though, doesn't it have a big English and South
Speaker 5: African migrant base expat population?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does, it does. Yeah, a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of English people early on, sort of more in
Speaker 1: the southern suburbs, southern coastal suburbs, now a little bit
Speaker 1: sort of some of the northern coastal suburbs. But a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of Poms, as we say, quite
Speaker 1: a few South Africans. Yeah, a large, a large South
Speaker 1: African expat population.
Speaker 4: I know.
Speaker 5: We had to get a South African voice actor over
Speaker 5: here to voice the lawyer in the inquest representing Amy's
Speaker 5: family Rain Waite, So yeah we did. But yes, also
Speaker 5: fun fact, it's quicker to fly from Perth to Bali
Speaker 5: than Sydney or Melbourne. So many people do, don't.
Speaker 4: They Well, yeah, because it's cheap.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't know whether i'd invoke Bali
Speaker 1: as being a great thing for Western Australia. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got Fiji over there, that's that's the East Coast barley.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, but I don't think as many of us
Speaker 5: go to Fiji as per people or Western Australians necessarily
Speaker 5: got a balley.
Speaker 4: I don't know, No, that's true.
Speaker 1: Although I did hear an interesting thing yesterday that the
Speaker 1: incidents of Bali belly was up seventy nine percent year
Speaker 1: on year. So yeah, I'd be going somewhere else.
Speaker 5: But anyway, so you're not one of those people.
Speaker 4: I digress.
Speaker 5: No, Also, I had and again tell me if this
Speaker 5: has any truth in it, but one top businessman from
Speaker 5: here told me recently how success here can really be
Speaker 5: about not upsetting Perth's power brokers, this tight knit as
Speaker 5: you talked about this click and you know, I know
Speaker 5: the police have probably seen as an arm of that.
Speaker 5: I mean as they are in many capital cities, obviously
Speaker 5: the media and the mining industry. So anyway, I guess
Speaker 5: the only reason I say that is because it makes
Speaker 5: it much more impressive, given how careful people are not
Speaker 5: too upset other people, because of the repercussions that we
Speaker 5: have so many people speaking out on Amy's case.
Speaker 4: I think that's right. I think that's right.
Speaker 1: And also can I just add though, that there has
Speaker 1: been that thing in Perth in the past, especially back
Speaker 1: in the alum Bond days especially you know you have
Speaker 1: because you had a very tight click between businessmen, developers
Speaker 1: and government and people in the mining industry obviously played
Speaker 1: a big part of that. But I think that's largely
Speaker 1: that's that's very different these days, very different. But I
Speaker 1: think the legal community, not just in Perth, Australia wide
Speaker 1: every capital city. I think that it's a very tight club.
Speaker 1: And I think that's combined with the connections with police
Speaker 1: and prosecutors, and I think I think that makes a
Speaker 1: big difference. Yes I do, Yes, I do. And the
Speaker 1: legal grape vine is so much smaller in Perth, which
Speaker 1: I think makes a big difference. So that traditional, if
Speaker 1: I can put it this way, boys club, but I
Speaker 1: don't mean that in a gender way, because I think
Speaker 1: there's plenty of women involved these days in those top
Speaker 1: echelons of the legal circle. But I think that very
Speaker 1: much exists, and I think they a lot of them
Speaker 1: protect each other. When I say protect each other, a
Speaker 1: lot of them just won't speak out because they don't
Speaker 1: want to get involved, because they don't want to be
Speaker 1: seen to be critical of their fellow legal brethren, even
Speaker 1: though they might be on the other side of the bench,
Speaker 1: if you know what I mean. And I think that
Speaker 1: that very much happens in Perth. It happens in Sydney
Speaker 1: and Melbourne as well, but you notice it more in Perth.
Speaker 1: And it comes back to what you're talking about. I
Speaker 1: think sort of that sort of power base. And I
Speaker 1: think that's why it's so impressive that a lot of
Speaker 1: people have been prepared on a legal footing, or people
Speaker 1: who continue to deal with people high up in the
Speaker 1: legal circles, have been prepared to speak out on behalf
Speaker 1: of Amy Wensley. I think that's been terrific.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it really is. And I think what we're finding
Speaker 5: in this season lamb Is and later in this episode
Speaker 5: is the fact that those people who are in the
Speaker 5: know involved, credible people with good reputations may be not
Speaker 5: necessarily a member of the cool club. There is always
Speaker 5: a bit of a cool club in every city, but
Speaker 5: they're willing to keep going at it because they believe
Speaker 5: in it too, And I think that's been really heartening.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Yeah, No, I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 5: Also, though I have worked in Adelaide, I don't have
Speaker 5: this issue so much in Brison, but there's probably a
Speaker 5: bit of it. But where if you you know, particularly
Speaker 5: if you're in the part of the local news cycle, right,
Speaker 5: you can get punished for suing a story like this, right, Yeah,
Speaker 5: And I think it's worth telling or letting our listeners
Speaker 5: know that we're both national reporters, and I think that
Speaker 5: gives us a little bit of protection.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I absolutely get where you're coming from. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a lot easier for us because we can
Speaker 1: move on to other stories at the end of the day.
Speaker 1: We don't have to be dependent upon any you know,
Speaker 1: one particular area to feed us information or to release
Speaker 1: information to us. And that's right, all of the circle
Speaker 1: is Adelaide's a good example. Then the harder it is
Speaker 1: for those reporters to push back and do their job properly,
Speaker 1: because remember, cases like Amy's are a great example of this.
Speaker 1: The truism is you're not in journalism to make friends.
Speaker 1: And if you are a journalist who wants to make friends,
Speaker 1: find something else to do. It's not your job. It's
Speaker 1: not your job. You're there to find the truth and
Speaker 1: you're there to disseminate as much of that truth as
Speaker 1: you possibly can to your listeners, readers, viewers, whatever that is.
Speaker 1: So in that context, yeah, I take your point, you know,
Speaker 1: because we do a national role call, if I can
Speaker 1: put it that way, you know, because we don't have
Speaker 1: to go back to the same old pot on the
Speaker 1: same old stove, do we.
Speaker 4: So it makes it, it makes it a little bit easier.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm just glad that I don't have to ring
Speaker 5: Waypole every day asking what happened last night, you know.
Speaker 1: Or following up on and they're probably glad you don't rememberies.
Speaker 5: Don't do it up to the presses anyway. So let's
Speaker 5: discuss it again. The reason we've once again assembled in.
Speaker 4: Perth apart from it being a great city.
Speaker 5: Oh absolutely, and obviously Amy's death being at Serpentine near Perth.
Speaker 5: But now Obviously it's a lot of work involved with
Speaker 5: these trips.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of planning, isn't there with trips like this,
Speaker 1: and logistics trying to get people to not only talk
Speaker 1: but be in the right place at the right time,
Speaker 1: and as you say, our both of us to be
Speaker 1: here and then organize other people to support us.
Speaker 5: Yes, including the brilliant producer Dwayne Heavily. So it was
Speaker 5: great to have him along because obviously he's been with
Speaker 5: us on a few projects. Now were you more so
Speaker 5: than me? But I love having Dwayne along, So that's
Speaker 5: been good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Dwayne does some great work with Spotlight and as
Speaker 1: well as the engagement of an experience camera operator of course,
Speaker 1: which makes a big difference, but that can vary depending
Speaker 1: on who's available and again the logistics of it. This
Speaker 1: time it was one of WA's best wellow called Simon Heidzik.
Speaker 5: Simon was fantastic, absolutely, and of course the talent the
Speaker 5: actual reason for us coming here, whose insight is integral
Speaker 5: to helping us realize the truth about amy. So those
Speaker 5: of you who've traveled from the East Coast, no, going
Speaker 5: to Perth is treated like an international flight. It takes
Speaker 5: almost six hours. These flights are almost always full, mostly
Speaker 5: of FIFO workers. That's fly in, fly out, which isn't
Speaker 5: surprising giving the mining industry employs hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 5: And I don't mind telling you, Liam, I'm always pretty
Speaker 5: disgruntled if I get stuck in a middle seat for
Speaker 5: six hours.
Speaker 7: I do take care, may have moved and could form out.
Speaker 5: But this time, this time I was by the window
Speaker 5: over the wing and it was a smooth landing and
Speaker 5: the peanuts.
Speaker 1: Were all right, yeah, well look and you're laying it
Speaker 1: on there. I mean, it can be less than that
Speaker 1: if there's depending on where you're coming from, of course,
Speaker 1: but it's a tough one. From Brisbane, I must have
Speaker 1: known it is a tough one. It's a long way.
Speaker 1: It's a long way, but ol, you did make it.
Speaker 1: And I'm really excited about this and letting our listeners
Speaker 1: hear some of these people. The first person we caught
Speaker 1: up with is somebody whose appearance I think was well overdue.
Speaker 5: Well we've certainly heard a lot from him, but yes,
Speaker 5: this is the first time was spoken with him directly.
Speaker 5: But he was worth the weight lamb.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, And just by way of background, Professor Tim
Speaker 1: Ackland did his PhD at the University of Western Australia
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen eighties as a tutor working his
Speaker 1: way up to professor. Now his career spanned something like
Speaker 1: forty five years and at the time he was recruited
Speaker 1: to assist with Amy's case. This is important he was
Speaker 1: being called upon regularly by WA police and other authorities
Speaker 1: to provide expert advice in the area of biomechanics. So
Speaker 1: I began the interview by asking Tim more about that.
Speaker 1: Can you outline the extent and the depth of your
Speaker 1: experience in sharing forensic cases details with authorities around Australia.
Speaker 4: Give us an idea of what you've been associated with.
Speaker 3: Yes. So, in addition to my work as a teacher
Speaker 3: and a researcher at University of Western Australia, I also
Speaker 3: undertake consulting work. Most of it's in the sphere of
Speaker 3: people being injured at work and applying the biomechanics knowledge
Speaker 3: that I have to those situations. But on occasions I've
Speaker 3: been asked to undertake consultancies for the police and coroners
Speaker 3: in various jurisdictions around Australia in order to try to
Speaker 3: work out or try to give some indication as to
Speaker 3: whether the scenario that they have seen or come across
Speaker 3: could have been caused in one way or another.
Speaker 4: So mostly workplace insurance claims, Yes, that's right, working out
Speaker 4: who's in the right and who's in the wrong.
Speaker 3: Yes, And could a person have injured themselves in the
Speaker 3: manner that they've said and ended up with the injuries
Speaker 3: that they've eventually got.
Speaker 4: But when it comes to the difference between that and
Speaker 4: cold cases, especially involving homicides around Australia, it must be
Speaker 4: pretty confronting.
Speaker 3: It is confronting. I won't deny that. But my background
Speaker 3: in anatomy and applied anatomy has dealing with deceased persons
Speaker 3: has helped me to work through that evidence, that visual
Speaker 3: evidence in particular, and remain scientific as much as I can.
Speaker 4: How many cases do you think you've looked at criminally
Speaker 4: professor criminal cases?
Speaker 3: Probably about fifteen to twenty criminal cases.
Speaker 1: So you've had a fair breadth of experience in terms
Speaker 1: of knowledge and information shared. Yes, And who approached you
Speaker 1: initial to look at Amy Wensley's case.
Speaker 3: So I was initially approached by some officers from the
Speaker 3: homicide squad. They asked me some questions and showed me
Speaker 3: some photographs and said could I make a determination? And
Speaker 3: I said no, with that information alone, I couldn't do.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 3: Then a little bit of time went by, and then
Speaker 3: I got a call from the State Coroner's office and
Speaker 3: asked if I would be happy to look at some
Speaker 3: of the evidence that they have available and to give
Speaker 3: my preliminary views. They were particularly interested to know if
Speaker 3: I could give a determination from my perspective on the
Speaker 3: basis of that information alone.
Speaker 1: So what was the essential brief? What were they asking
Speaker 1: you to try to ascertain?
Speaker 3: They asked me if I could make a determination of
Speaker 3: whether Amy had committed suicide in the manner in which
Speaker 3: the detectives who were on the scene had suggested, or
Speaker 3: whether this was indeed some other form of homicide.
Speaker 4: So your advice was going direct to the coroner.
Speaker 3: At that point. Yes. At the same time, they asked
Speaker 3: if I would interrogate the various witness statements, the information
Speaker 3: from forensic scientists, and to see if there were any
Speaker 3: inconsistencies in that information, which I was able to write
Speaker 3: a report in twenty eighteen, I believe, and sent that
Speaker 3: report to the state coroner.
Speaker 1: So just to be clear, you were looking at the
Speaker 1: biomechanics of this in Amy's case, yes, whether or not
Speaker 1: she could have potentially shot herself if someone else had
Speaker 1: done it, et cetera, et cetera. But also surrounding that
Speaker 1: crime scene photographs witness statements as rare as they were
Speaker 1: on the ground from that night. And you also, as
Speaker 1: I understand it, you traveled to the location.
Speaker 3: So this occurred later and on the basis of that
Speaker 3: report that I wrote, I believe that you State Coroner
Speaker 3: then asked the Cold Case Squad of the West Australian
Speaker 3: Police to allow me to go and do a reconstruction
Speaker 3: and simulation of the events that supposedly took place on
Speaker 3: that particular day, and that was the basis of my
Speaker 3: second report, which was for the WA Police.
Speaker 1: So essentially you had two cracks at it, didn't you.
Speaker 1: First your role was with the Coroner's court and then
Speaker 1: as you say, with the cold case squad the homicide squad.
Speaker 1: So you really did a deep dive, as it were.
Speaker 3: Yes, as a deeper dive as I could do given
Speaker 3: the circumstances.
Speaker 1: Yes, But in the whole case, you've probably been privy
Speaker 1: to the entire caseload of information as it is available.
Speaker 1: I mean, you would be not an orphan, but you
Speaker 1: would be one of the few.
Speaker 3: I guess. So nothing was withheld from me that I
Speaker 3: know of in making my determinations.
Speaker 4: And in terms of determinations, have you ever had a
Speaker 4: case where you've been in error, even in hindsight, in
Speaker 4: terms of your assessment your determination.
Speaker 3: I only go on the facts that are presented to
Speaker 3: me and using my science background, what is the likelihood
Speaker 3: of the facts being consistent? True? In many cases, I
Speaker 3: may not be privy to all of the facts, but
Speaker 3: I think in this case, nothing was withheld from me
Speaker 3: that I know about. I guess.
Speaker 4: The point I'm getting to, Professor is your track record
Speaker 4: is pretty.
Speaker 3: Good, if you'd like to put it that way.
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean, there has not been a case that
Speaker 4: you've looked at so far, even with a rearview mirror,
Speaker 4: where you've been proven to be wrong with your assessment.
Speaker 3: Liam, with respect, I've not been proven wrong. It's sometimes
Speaker 3: the decision maker, be it the jury or the judge,
Speaker 3: waits my evidence differently to the way I wait it.
Speaker 3: So let's say decisions can go against my recommendations, but
Speaker 3: that doesn't mean that I'm.
Speaker 1: Wrong, understood, But scientifically, your results in your assessment have
Speaker 1: not ever been proven to be inaccurate.
Speaker 3: Not in those cases that I've looked at. Known.
Speaker 1: Okay, So when you first looked at Amy's case, was
Speaker 1: there any particular thing that stood out for you? Was
Speaker 1: there one thing that looked unusual or extraordinary?
Speaker 3: There are about twenty things that looked unusual and extraordinary.
Speaker 3: There was so much inconsistency in the witness statements and
Speaker 3: in what people had said had occurred, and the evidence
Speaker 3: such as it was that I was presented with. So
Speaker 3: the whole thing from the start did not ring true.
Speaker 3: And it's unfortunate that those various witnesses had not been
Speaker 3: interrogated correctly or properly at the time. Not much so
Speaker 3: the witness statements information made sense to me. The only
Speaker 3: thing that made sense was the report of the attending
Speaker 3: uniformed officers who were the first people on the scene,
Speaker 3: apart from those witnesses.
Speaker 1: The first three constables, that's right, Professor. The witness testimonies,
Speaker 1: particularly from Gareth Price and David Simmons, what did you
Speaker 1: make of those?
Speaker 3: They had plenty of time to get their story straight.
Speaker 3: But when it came to what they witnessed when they
Speaker 3: walked into the bedroom, and David Simmons was apparently the
Speaker 3: first person to go into the bedroom, followed sometime later
Speaker 3: by Gareth Price. Those stories did not match up, so
Speaker 3: there were still glaring inconsistencies.
Speaker 4: Is that fair to say? Or am I overdoing it?
Speaker 3: There were inconsistencies. Once they described what they saw when
Speaker 3: they went into the room, they were quite consistent with
Speaker 3: the the story that they were suggesting that they were
Speaker 3: both standing out by the car with the children in
Speaker 3: the car and they both heard a loud bang. That
Speaker 3: part of it was consistent between the two of them.
Speaker 4: Can we drill down a little bit on that room?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Can we talk about the bedroom, because, as I say,
Speaker 1: you had the benefit of being allowed back into that
Speaker 1: room Amy's bedroom at a later date in order to
Speaker 1: do some of your tests and some of your simulations.
Speaker 3: Yes, that particular house was occupied by a third party
Speaker 3: who were very generous in allowing us to go back
Speaker 3: and do our recreations and simulations. As you walk through
Speaker 3: the house, you come to the main bedroom. There is
Speaker 3: a door into that bedroom which opens into an alcove.
Speaker 3: The bed is on the left, hand side as you're
Speaker 3: facing that, and straight ahead is a wardrobe. So the
Speaker 3: little alcove is bordered by the wardrobe on the far
Speaker 3: side of wall, and the door the bed is off
Speaker 3: to the left.
Speaker 1: As I say, can you recall with clarity when you
Speaker 1: went in there to start those tests, what it looked
Speaker 1: like and how you felt about what had happened.
Speaker 3: Yes, we were very fortunate. Even though the detectives shut
Speaker 3: the scene down and declared it a suicide and therefore
Speaker 3: there was no opportunity for proper forensic photographs, etc. We're
Speaker 3: very fortunate that one of the attending uniformed officers took
Speaker 3: photographs at the time, so we were able to set
Speaker 3: the room up pretty much exactly the way it was
Speaker 3: as seen in those photographs.
Speaker 4: There was Constable Roberts, I think, yes, So from his
Speaker 4: photographs you sort of pieced it together. Yes, And what
Speaker 4: conclusion did you come to?
Speaker 3: So my conclusion has always been, from that very first
Speaker 3: report that I did for the coroner, is that Amy
Speaker 3: Wensley did not shoot us, did not did not definitively
Speaker 3: as definitively as I can be as a scientist, there's
Speaker 3: always a small percentage of doubt but as definitively as
Speaker 3: I can be, she did not take a gun and
Speaker 3: shoot herself in the manner that people have described. Is
Speaker 3: there a particular reason which makes you so sure? From
Speaker 3: that bedroom scene? There are probably half a dozen reasons which,
Speaker 3: when taken together, mean that, in my view, it would
Speaker 3: be biomechanically impossible, let's say, for her to have shot
Speaker 3: herself and then the scene to have been left the
Speaker 3: way we saw it in those photographs taken by Constable Roberts.
Speaker 4: What are the most compelling for you, professor?
Speaker 3: So the most compelling is the position that Amy was
Speaker 3: found in the blood and other biological material spatter on
Speaker 3: the wall adjacent to her left side of her head
Speaker 3: and shoulder, the upright position of her head, the almost
Speaker 3: horizontal entry and exit points of the wound, the position
Speaker 3: most importantly of her right hand, and her right hand
Speaker 3: was in the photograph, tucked under her right thigh, right
Speaker 3: up near her buttock and virtually completely covering her right hand.
Speaker 3: The other two important bits of information are that, even
Speaker 3: though there was a limited forensics taken after this, Dr
Speaker 3: Pitts was able to show that there was gunpowder resnue
Speaker 3: on Amy's left hand, but not on her right hand,
Speaker 3: which is tucked underneath her thigh. And there was transfer
Speaker 3: blood on both the barrel of the gun and Amy's
Speaker 3: left hand, but nothing on her right hand. So they're
Speaker 3: the important bits of information that lead me to my conclusion.
Speaker 4: So in terms of a scientific eg saw puzzle, it
Speaker 4: just didn't add up.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 4: The pieces are just in the wrong position.
Speaker 3: They are they are for the various scenarios that were
Speaker 3: put by the detectives to promulgate their notion of suicide. Indeed,
Speaker 3: we had an opportunity go and test other scenarios where
Speaker 3: Amy perhaps could have held begun in a different manner,
Speaker 3: and then both of those I can discard for the
Speaker 3: fact that they don't match up with the other parts
Speaker 3: of the evidence.
Speaker 1: Can we put a figure on it? Because when we're
Speaker 1: talking about using science as you do, you're only dealing
Speaker 1: with the facts as they are, the cold heart clinical facts.
Speaker 1: Is there a hard scientific percentage? I mean when you
Speaker 1: say you concluded Amy did not shoot herself.
Speaker 3: So in science we're always dealing with probabilities. You know,
Speaker 3: we test hypotheses. There are some limitations to our tests
Speaker 3: and those have to be acknowledged and That's why we
Speaker 3: never say with one hundred percent certainty that a equals
Speaker 3: be if you like, so, if you ask me for
Speaker 3: a percentage, I would say that, you know, the ninety
Speaker 3: five percent confidence that I would have is that my
Speaker 3: suggestion that she did not kill herself is true. Ninety
Speaker 3: five percent sure, ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: See, it's fascinating because your conclusion and the results of
Speaker 1: your simulations are almost identical to that of Scott Rhoder's experiments.
Speaker 1: And as you know, Scott Roder is a similar forensic
Speaker 1: biomechanical expert who we brought to Sydney from Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: has dealt with dozens of American police forces and consulted
Speaker 1: to a lot of different homicide units in the States.
Speaker 1: He recreated that bedroom to the centimeter in a studio
Speaker 1: in Sydney and did exactly the same barrage of tests
Speaker 1: in his own way and came to exactly the same
Speaker 1: conclusion that you've come to.
Speaker 3: I would hope, so, Lene, if he's worth his salt,
Speaker 3: Science doesn't lie, does it. I guess that's what you're
Speaker 3: pointing to. The Scientific aspects of this don't lie. The
Speaker 3: human aspects can be manipulated let's say.
Speaker 4: So, then you went ahead and made your final report. Yes,
Speaker 4: and that went to the police. Yes, and in that
Speaker 4: final report.
Speaker 1: And correct me where I'm wrong here, But you basically said,
Speaker 1: the evidence that you found overwhelmingly suggests that Amy did
Speaker 1: not shoot herself.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 4: And what was the police reaction to that?
Speaker 3: I did not get a reaction from the police at
Speaker 3: the time. They simply took that and took it to
Speaker 3: the coroner. And so the next time I encountered the
Speaker 3: police was in the coronial inquest.
Speaker 5: Well, we know what the reaction was from police to
Speaker 5: get another opinion. It's funny because they didn't, but going
Speaker 5: for another opinion when they got say the psychologists report
Speaker 5: from the internal police psychologists back to you, Liam, you
Speaker 5: then asked Professor Acklan what he thought of the coroner's finding.
Speaker 3: Yes, that was the deputy coroner, I believe, and she
Speaker 3: delivered an open finding. But she did give weight to
Speaker 3: the evidence of the various experts, and she was I
Speaker 3: think the words were convinced that there was some doubt
Speaker 3: about the histories that were purported to have happened by
Speaker 3: the various witnesses. So there was doubt, but for reasons
Speaker 3: of her own. She could not deliver anything other than
Speaker 3: an open finding. Were you surprised?
Speaker 4: I was surprised you were, Yes, because again you have
Speaker 4: had access like no one else to all the information,
Speaker 4: the photographs, the witness statements, and then conducted your own
Speaker 4: experiments in situ at the crime scene.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We must remember that simulations and reconstructions come with
Speaker 3: a number of limitations. For example, we used a live
Speaker 3: model similar size, age, weight, etc. As Amy. We used
Speaker 3: a replica gun which was loaded with blank bullets to
Speaker 3: be exactly the same weight. All of those things are limitations.
Speaker 3: They have to be acknowledged as limitations, and it just
Speaker 3: depends on the decision maker as to how much weight
Speaker 3: they put on those limitations compared to the eventual conclusions
Speaker 3: that I came to have.
Speaker 1: You worked on any cases, Professor, where you have made
Speaker 1: such a definitive conclusion and they haven't gone to trial.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Is there anything about Amy's case that troubles you?
Speaker 3: Yes. The longer this goes on, it troubles me more
Speaker 3: and more that I believe an injustice has been done,
Speaker 3: and it's part of the reason why I'm sitting here today.
Speaker 1: You're in a difficult position. I've got to say, because
Speaker 1: police still call upon you as they should for your
Speaker 1: professional opinion in other cases. Yes, and so you walk
Speaker 1: a fine line, don't you. You have to deal in
Speaker 1: fact you're a scientist. But there's also the politics of this.
Speaker 3: There is a lot of politics around this. But I
Speaker 3: deal with the facts and my job as an expert
Speaker 3: is to provide the best information I can to the
Speaker 3: decision maker, if that's the coroner or a judge or
Speaker 3: a jury. That's my job and I will do that
Speaker 3: honestly to the best of my ability. And that's what
Speaker 3: I do. If the police wish to use me and
Speaker 3: like what I do, then I'm very happy to work
Speaker 3: with them. I do a lot of work for the
Speaker 3: WA Police at minimal cost, let's say, because I feel
Speaker 3: it's my duty to help.
Speaker 4: Well, you have a very good reputation. Thank you, well,
Speaker 4: you've earned it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's one of the reasons that former Coroner
Speaker 1: Vicar decided upon the receipt of your report to afford
Speaker 1: it to the DPPs because it carries weight. I hope
Speaker 1: something yes, And just a reminder for our listeners here,
Speaker 1: Al evel And Vicker was the first coroner who was
Speaker 1: assigned Amy's case. Now, she was another key person in
Speaker 1: this whole chain who was privy to the details, all
Speaker 1: the details, and did not agree with the WA police's
Speaker 1: conclusion that Amy killed herself. We'll be speaking with her
Speaker 1: in the next episode. Now back to Professor Ackland. I'm
Speaker 1: asking him about any possible connection that he has with
Speaker 1: Amy's case prior to officially getting involved. Now, this is
Speaker 1: important for people living outside Perth because those of us
Speaker 1: who live there know how tight the community is. As
Speaker 1: we've discussed, even if we don't know somebody directly, we
Speaker 1: often know of them, or we know somebody else who's
Speaker 1: had some sort of involvement. Is there any personal connection
Speaker 1: for you, Professor, And I don't mean with the particular
Speaker 1: players in this case, in Amy's story, but being exposed
Speaker 1: to the sort of information and the pictures and all
Speaker 1: the things that go with it in cases like this,
Speaker 1: does it have an impact person.
Speaker 3: I try to remain dispassionate as much as I can,
Speaker 3: and that serves me very well in most of the
Speaker 3: other cases that I'm involved with. But I guess this
Speaker 3: one's a little bit different. It's gone on for some time,
Speaker 3: and I just get the feeling that you know, the
Speaker 3: evidence hasn't been weighted in the best way possible for
Speaker 3: Amy to get justice.
Speaker 1: What has to happen, though scientifically in this case, because
Speaker 1: we can't go back and change any of that, shall
Speaker 1: I say, nightmarish litany of mistakes at the actual crime
Speaker 1: scene on the night So that does leave all that
Speaker 1: potential forensic evidence missing forever.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's true.
Speaker 4: So how does it progress?
Speaker 3: I think it can progress if those various players who
Speaker 3: were witnesses on the scene have an opportunity to present
Speaker 3: themselves in a criminal case and be cross examined and
Speaker 3: interrogated if you like, to find out the veracity of
Speaker 3: their stories and where the holes lie. The holes which
Speaker 3: I saw in my report, but others need to see
Speaker 3: that and hear that for themselves.
Speaker 1: So what you're suggesting, if I may be so bold,
Speaker 1: is the DPP needs to take a leap of faith,
Speaker 1: based on the available evidence that's already there in the
Speaker 1: bottom drawer, go to trial and litigate the whole thing.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't like to tell the DPP what to do.
Speaker 3: They have their whole series of things that they must
Speaker 3: check off. But let me say that I would be
Speaker 3: very pleased to see that happen.
Speaker 1: I don't want to sound morbid about this or gruesome,
Speaker 1: but one thing that's always struck me as highly unusual
Speaker 1: in this case is the position of the wound on
Speaker 1: Amy's head, the entry specifically for person so tiny and
Speaker 1: also be just generally and correct me if I'm wrong here.
Speaker 1: I might be completely off the beaten track. But if
Speaker 1: anyone is going to suicide with a weapon like that,
Speaker 1: I would have thought the last thing you would try
Speaker 1: to do is shoot yourself horizontally. Am I being nice?
Speaker 1: You're right on the mark.
Speaker 3: If I could take you back to the scenario that
Speaker 3: was painted by the detectives who were on the scene,
Speaker 3: who called it very early in my view, a suicide.
Speaker 3: They suggested that Amy had held this shotgun with her
Speaker 3: left hand only out here on her right hand side,
Speaker 3: and shot herself that way. This was because her right
Speaker 3: hand was tucked up underneath her buttocks. There's a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of problems with that. We recreated this scenario with
Speaker 3: the police officer, who, by the way, was naive to
Speaker 3: the story. She had not seen any of the photographs,
Speaker 3: and she acted under my direction. So we supported that
Speaker 3: shotgun with some strings and she was able to reach
Speaker 3: the trigger out here on her right hand side with
Speaker 3: her left hand, but she couldn't support the weight and
Speaker 3: aim the shotgun. It was very you know, it moved
Speaker 3: around a lot. And so the detectives were challenged by
Speaker 3: one of the police officers, Reynolds, I believe, and they said, well,
Speaker 3: obviously she's supported the butt onto the beder, onto the
Speaker 3: floor and still used this very awkward action with her
Speaker 3: left hand and pushed the trigger, not pulled the trigger,
Speaker 3: but pushed the trigger away. Now, all of that does
Speaker 3: not make sense because if she had leant over this
Speaker 3: way towards her right and pushed the trigger, then the
Speaker 3: exit wound would have spattered blood high up on that wall.
Speaker 3: She would probably fallen over as well onto the right side,
Speaker 3: and the gun would have been out to the right
Speaker 3: hand side. This is a nonsense, This is a fiction.
Speaker 3: It cannot have happened that way. And the reason for
Speaker 3: that is because Amy was found sitting upright in the alcove.
Speaker 3: Her head was upright, leaning against the wall. The blood
Speaker 3: spatter and other material was next to her left side
Speaker 3: of her face and down by her shoulder, so almost horizontal. Yes,
Speaker 3: the entry and exit wound. We didn't have good forensics,
Speaker 3: but you know, the physics don't lie. The entry and
Speaker 3: exit wounds were almost horizontal, probably slightly downward, and the
Speaker 3: exit room was near where that blood spatter material was
Speaker 3: there on that so the scenario painted by the detectives
Speaker 3: at the time could not have been possible given the
Speaker 3: other evidence. The other evidence also includes the fact that
Speaker 3: if she was pushing the trigger with her right hand,
Speaker 3: she couldn't have blood materi there and she couldn't have
Speaker 3: gunpowder residue. So clearly, in my view, if she has
Speaker 3: committed suicide, she can't have done it in that way.
Speaker 3: So part of what we tried to do was to
Speaker 3: look for other scenarios where she might have committed suicide
Speaker 3: using a different approach, and the most logical approach one
Speaker 3: would think about it would be to use the gun
Speaker 3: and push the trigger with the right hand and maybe
Speaker 3: hold and support the barrel of the gun with the
Speaker 3: left hand. This means that the gunpowder residue on the
Speaker 3: left hand and the transfer blood on that left hand
Speaker 3: would have been there, as was found no blood residue
Speaker 3: on the right hand and no gunpowder residue. It also
Speaker 3: means she could have probably stayed up right. The trouble
Speaker 3: with all of that is when a person is immediately deceased,
Speaker 3: they can't move and move things around. They fall. The
Speaker 3: limbs will fall in that position, and the gun fall
Speaker 3: and probably go out to the right given the action
Speaker 3: reaction Newton's third law. When we did this simulation, the
Speaker 3: right hand dropped down by her side, nowhere near where
Speaker 3: it was found and photographed underneath her thigh and buttock.
Speaker 4: Who had us her arm managed to be tucked under
Speaker 4: her buttock.
Speaker 3: It can't happen, not by her anyway. So these were
Speaker 3: inconsistencies even with that scenario that I painted, made even
Speaker 3: worse by Gareth Price, who entered second into the room
Speaker 3: and said that the gun was lying with the butt
Speaker 3: by her feet and the barrel by her head. Now,
Speaker 3: David Simmons says he walked into the room and he
Speaker 3: did not move the body. So we've got a second
Speaker 3: witness who says that the gun was lying this way.
Speaker 3: If she'd shot herself, then the blood spatter would be
Speaker 3: behind and the gun may have ended up there. But
Speaker 3: all of the other information is incorrect.
Speaker 4: It made no sense.
Speaker 3: It made no sense, so on the basis of those things,
Speaker 3: I was able to discount the suggestion that Amy had
Speaker 3: killed herself, either in the scenario purported by the detectives
Speaker 3: and in the one that sort of made more logical
Speaker 3: sense if you were going to take a gun and
Speaker 3: shoot yourself. Yes, So the only thing that then made sense,
Speaker 3: And partly because this trajectory of the entry and exit
Speaker 3: were in the trajectory of the pellets was horizontal but
Speaker 3: slightly downward. The fact that Price said that the gun
Speaker 3: was placed here led me to conclude that Amy was
Speaker 3: shot by a third party and the gun was placed there. Now,
Speaker 3: if we believe what Price says, he took that gun
Speaker 3: from that position and threw it on the floor, she
Speaker 3: couldn't have put that gun there. She couldn't have shot
Speaker 3: herself from that position. The gun would have been out
Speaker 3: to the right hand side.
Speaker 1: So, based on every scenario that you've looked at, there
Speaker 1: has to be a third party involved. The only thing
Speaker 1: that makes sense is a third party shot Amy Wensley.
Speaker 3: It's the only thing that's consistent with all the other
Speaker 3: bits of evidence, Lamb. And the question remains, who is
Speaker 3: that third party? That's the question.
Speaker 1: It beggars belief for me that police detectives who trained
Speaker 1: these sorts of things, or even minus the training, just
Speaker 1: with their common sense, can't come even half way to
Speaker 1: the same conclusion.
Speaker 3: It was a very strange for me to hear that
Speaker 3: they were sticking with their story through that coronial inquest
Speaker 3: and wouldn't budge from that.
Speaker 4: But these are the same police detectives who didn't even
Speaker 4: want to enter the room, who were told by uniform
Speaker 4: officers when they turned up on the scene that there
Speaker 4: was a dead mum in that bedroom, and they didn't
Speaker 4: even want to go in and have a look themselves
Speaker 4: with their own eyes.
Speaker 3: I can't recall that as being the case, But I
Speaker 3: will take your point.
Speaker 5: Now, stopping there for a minute, Liam, and you make
Speaker 5: this point. Of course, this was never about WA police
Speaker 5: as a whole, because there were so many officers there
Speaker 5: wanting to do the right thing. The thing that surprises
Speaker 5: me most though, is how those ones were punished while
Speaker 5: the two detectives got a rap over the knuckles, a
Speaker 5: token gesture. Talk about lack of justice. That's it right there.
Speaker 5: How can an organization whose primary purpose is to instill
Speaker 5: justice have any credibility when they continue to deny it
Speaker 5: for Amy and her family.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a hard one, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I've got to say, though, I don't think we're the
Speaker 1: only ones who see it this way. In fact, I
Speaker 1: know we're not the only ones who see it this
Speaker 1: way because of the enormous feedback that we've had to
Speaker 1: this podcast, although many of the other feedback streams might
Speaker 1: be a bit more diplomatic the way they put things.
Speaker 1: But look towards the end of our interview, I couldn't
Speaker 1: help lamenting the attitude of authorities ongoing treatment of Amy's
Speaker 1: case to Professor Ackland Now, who of course was pretty
Speaker 1: good about that. He completely understood our frustration. Do you
Speaker 1: think that this case is now held up because people
Speaker 1: who made perhaps erroneous decisions in the first instance ten
Speaker 1: years ago don't want to be embarrassed.
Speaker 3: I suspect that that is the case. People will hold
Speaker 3: a position and defend that position. That's the way of
Speaker 3: human nature. I think that there are people who were
Speaker 3: witnessed to the events and they won't be changing their story.
Speaker 3: So it'll be very interesting to see what the DBP does.
Speaker 5: It will, indeed, But before we go on, as WA
Speaker 5: police are no longer answering any more questions from US,
Speaker 5: I decided to put those questions to WA's new Police Minister,
Speaker 5: Rees Whitby, similar to what we put to Police Commissioner
Speaker 5: Cole Blanche. They were directed at WA Police's credibility among
Speaker 5: new evidence of senior officers pushing for a suicide finding.
Speaker 5: No matter what. Here's what his spokesman said in a statement.
Speaker 8: WA Police Special Crime Squad has carriage of the ongoing
Speaker 8: investigation into Amy's death, and there is a million dollar
Speaker 8: reward for information leading to a conviction of the person
Speaker 8: or persons responsible. WA Police have been pursuing a number
Speaker 8: of investigative leads and have committed to presenting any findings
Speaker 8: to the DPP for consideration. I encourage anyone who can
Speaker 8: assist and has information in relation to her death to
Speaker 8: contact crime Stoppers on one eight hundred triple three, triple
Speaker 8: zero or online at www dot crime stoppers, WA dot
Speaker 8: com dot au.
Speaker 5: SI liam I politely replied to his media advisor, first
Speaker 5: by thanking him, but of course also pointing out that
Speaker 5: this didn't answer my questions or even address the issue
Speaker 5: of WA Police's integrity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, it's clearly it's a popcorn reply designed to
Speaker 4: make you feel better about the fact that they've read
Speaker 4: it and actually sent something back. I just wish politicians
Speaker 4: and the way they run their offices, including media, would
Speaker 4: just be honest. You know. If they don't want to
Speaker 4: buy into it, they don't want to make a public
Speaker 4: comment about it, just say nothing. I mean, that's really
Speaker 4: quite insulting if the police minister doesn't think there's public
Speaker 4: interest in a case that is so heavily tarnished with
Speaker 4: the dv lens and everyone's trying to well, everyone that
Speaker 4: I know who's responsible is trying to do something to
Speaker 4: make an impact against domestic violence and the rising numbers.
Speaker 4: You know, if a police minister can't find the time
Speaker 4: to do that, just say, just send you back a
Speaker 4: proper message in English. Look, we don't want to be
Speaker 4: part of this particular podcast because we don't want the
Speaker 4: public to hear exactly what we've got to say, because
Speaker 4: you know, for some reason it's the minister is embarrassed,
Speaker 4: or the minister can't do anything, or the minister's not interested.
Speaker 5: Yeah, isn't the lad up? I mean one of those
Speaker 5: operational things that they've got to leave in w a
Speaker 5: police's corner. So I understand that, but when it comes
Speaker 5: to the reputation, the integrity, the perception public confidence in
Speaker 5: WA police, which is severely undermined by the information that's
Speaker 5: come out from our investigation recently where you have a
Speaker 5: former police officer another one saying that they were told
Speaker 5: to treat this as non suspicious and when they didn't,
Speaker 5: they were reprimanded verbally. But you know it was a
Speaker 5: yelled at, which would be I would have thought be
Speaker 5: a misconduct issue at the very least.
Speaker 4: Well, I think again. You know, you use the word integrity,
Speaker 4: but it starts at the top. And I've said this before,
Speaker 4: but what we need and WA is not an orphan
Speaker 4: in this case. If there's a new minister on the
Speaker 4: block in which mister Whitby is, it's about time that
Speaker 4: somebody took a stand and became a minister of the
Speaker 4: Crown for the crown, which is the people, and that's
Speaker 4: who's paying his wages. Sometimes they need to be reminded
Speaker 4: of that. So we want a Minister of Police, not
Speaker 4: a minister for police. We want a minister who's going
Speaker 4: to keep the police on the right track and keep
Speaker 4: the integrity implicit in the running of that police service.
Speaker 4: That's what we need. You know, when's the last time
Speaker 4: you heard a minister who had police as their remit
Speaker 4: be critical at all of what police did. I'm telling you,
Speaker 4: it's like a football club. They become the card carrying
Speaker 4: number one member and it's not right. It's the minister
Speaker 4: is there as the old overseer, he is the boss.
Speaker 4: But they become, as I say, they become the biggest,
Speaker 4: most important part of the fan club.
Speaker 5: At the very least, I would have just said, look,
Speaker 5: I'm going to catch up with the police commissioner about this,
Speaker 5: because obviously I want to make sure that but you know,
Speaker 5: it is a matter for investigation. The kind of a
Speaker 5: way of dealing with this in a more frank and
Speaker 5: honest and you know, at least looking like you care,
Speaker 5: because I don't know if the police commissioner cares because
Speaker 5: he hasn't gotten back to us on it, and he's
Speaker 5: not elected, and I guess they kind of just had
Speaker 5: an election, so they probably don't care too much. But
Speaker 5: you know, I mean, this is this is your reputation,
Speaker 5: and I mean I think that's why people just become
Speaker 5: so yeah, cynical, cynical.
Speaker 1: Yes about politics. Yeah, so you know, there's the BS
Speaker 1: for you. But anyway, we'll move on and hopefully we
Speaker 1: will try and keep magnifying issues that force the judicial
Speaker 1: system to do something about Amy Wensley for her family.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, I see also where Amy's aunt,
Speaker 1: Anna Davy, has also written to the Triple C Commissioner.
Speaker 1: That's the Corruption and Crime Commissioner John mckeckney. See seeing
Speaker 1: the Police minister into that letter.
Speaker 2: Dear Commissioner mckeckney, my name is Anna Davy, and I'm
Speaker 2: writing in regard to the Western Australian police handling of
Speaker 2: the investigation into the death of my niece Amy Wensley,
Speaker 2: who died in June twenty fourteen. As a family, we
Speaker 2: still have concerns over the adequacy of the police investigations
Speaker 2: into Amy's death since twenty fourteen. By way of background,
Speaker 2: in November twenty nineteen, I wrote to the Corruption and
Speaker 2: Crime Commission about Western Australia's police mishandling of Amy's death
Speaker 2: on the night she died and the subsequent investigation by
Speaker 2: Major Crime that followed Operation Johnde. At the time, the
Speaker 2: Corruption and Crime Commission concluded there was reasonable suspicion of
Speaker 2: serious misconduct by Detective Kirkman and Detective Weedman and referred
Speaker 2: the matter back to Western Australian Police Internal affairs. It
Speaker 2: was only after a twenty twenty one coronial inquest determined
Speaker 2: there wasn't enough evidence to conclude Amy killed herself that
Speaker 2: Western Australian Police acknowledged the detectives made mistakes, but not
Speaker 2: that they wrongly concluded Amy took her own life. The
Speaker 2: two detectives each received a warning but no further punishment,
Speaker 2: and our family has never received an apology. At the inquest,
Speaker 2: it was revealed that the officer heading the coronial investigation
Speaker 2: was instructed by the homicide squad to treat Amy's death
Speaker 2: as non suspicious and was then severely reprimanded when she didn't.
Speaker 2: This is yet more evidence of the extensive mishandling of
Speaker 2: Amy's case and their bias applied to investigations to try
Speaker 2: to manipulate a suicide finding. A transcript of the inquest
Speaker 2: is not available to our family, and we have tried
Speaker 2: on a number of occasions to obtain a copy, but
Speaker 2: to know of it. However, I urged the Corruption and
Speaker 2: Crime Commission to obtain a copy to read the extraordinary
Speaker 2: bias applied by the police hierarchy for yourselves. It's clear
Speaker 2: Western Australian police attempted to cover up mismanagement of Amy's case,
Speaker 2: which is at best police misconduct. This has never been investigated.
Speaker 2: We're repeatedly being told now that there's a lot more
Speaker 2: awareness in Western Australian police of the sometimes hidden nature
Speaker 2: of domestic violence than at the time of Amy's death.
Speaker 2: Police Commissioner Cole Blanche even stated that a case like
Speaker 2: Amy's was less likely to happen again after the introduction
Speaker 2: of a two day domestic violence course for police to
Speaker 2: attend and a helpline for more junior police officers to
Speaker 2: call if they feel their concerns were not being heard
Speaker 2: by more senior police. However, earlier this year, a police
Speaker 2: internal investigation found eight Western Australian Police officers did not
Speaker 2: perform their duty in their lead up to the Floreate
Speaker 2: murders the Bombard case. It does not seem like much
Speaker 2: has changed since Amy's death. Feeling helpless against an organization
Speaker 2: such as Western Australian Police, I sought help from investigative
Speaker 2: journalists to help uncover all the material required to see
Speaker 2: Amy's case finally be heard in a criminal court. Their
Speaker 2: work has been published on Spotlight and the podcast The
Speaker 2: Truth About Amy Is This what policing has come down to.
Speaker 2: Late last year, the Western Australian Police relented following negative
Speaker 2: publicity about their failure to investigate Amy's case properly and
Speaker 2: formed a task force to review Amy's case and prepare
Speaker 2: a report for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution.
Speaker 2: We are pleased about this, but given their approach to
Speaker 2: Operation Johnde and what they told the coronial inquest, our
Speaker 2: family is concerned Western Australian Police will continue to perpetuate
Speaker 2: the very inaccurate theory of suicide, which has now been
Speaker 2: debunked by three biomechanical experts, or find excuses not to
Speaker 2: support a prosecution. I note with interest that the Corruption
Speaker 2: and Crime Commission website states that during October twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four to December twenty twenty four you assessed five hundred
Speaker 2: and seventy three allegations of alleged minor and serious misconduct
Speaker 2: by Western Australian Police. That's an average six complaints a day.
Speaker 2: There is clearly a serious issue within Western Australian Police
Speaker 2: and it has been frustrating and negatively impacting my family
Speaker 2: now for more than a decade. I urge you to
Speaker 2: please undertake a new investigation into Western Australian Police's handling
Speaker 2: of the case of Amy Wensley relating to Operation Johndee,
Speaker 2: the Homicide Squad's attempt to have an officer in charge
Speaker 2: of the coronial investigation treat Amy's case as non suspicious,
Speaker 2: and the obvious bias by senior police officers displayed at
Speaker 2: the coronial inquest. I request you also oversee the current
Speaker 2: investigation being undertaken and receive a copy of the brief
Speaker 2: of evidence when it's provided to the Director of Public
Speaker 2: Prosecution at its conclusion, to ensure Amy's case doesn't continue
Speaker 2: to be mishandled. Please don't hesitate to contact me to
Speaker 2: discuss this matter further, kind regards, Anna Davy.
Speaker 1: The Triple C replied that the matter would be assessed
Speaker 1: and they would contact Anna when the process was complete. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: as I finished up my interview with Professor Ackland, I
Speaker 1: couldn't help but marvel at the expertise of someone of
Speaker 1: his caliber and his credibility had not managed to convince
Speaker 1: WA Police even before the inquest that Amy could not
Speaker 1: possibly have shot herself. He did well though, to try
Speaker 1: to give them the benefit of the doubt. But once again,
Speaker 1: of course, he emphasized his findings were based on a reconstruction,
Speaker 1: and fair enough, that's the margin of erar, isn't it.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying. Look, you know it can't be
Speaker 1: perfect because it's a reconstruction. But still it obviously does
Speaker 1: bother him that they're not being taken more seriously, particularly
Speaker 1: when taken into consideration with the other evidence.
Speaker 5: Ninety five percent lamb, he said, ninety five percent.
Speaker 6: He was sure.
Speaker 4: Ninety five percent. Yeah, amazing in that.
Speaker 1: I mean from bloke has been around this stuff his
Speaker 1: whole life, you know, forty five years, all that experience,
Speaker 1: all that expertise. I mean he's seen this guy's seen
Speaker 1: stuff that you know, would keep people awake at night,
Speaker 1: and he says ninety five percent. It's good enough for me.
Speaker 5: Well, that's a maximum because he's always got to account
Speaker 5: for the margin of era.
Speaker 4: You've always got a margin of ra Yeah.
Speaker 5: As you know, I spoke to Professor Ackland about this too,
Speaker 5: and this is what he told me.
Speaker 6: My original thoughts were that there was so much in
Speaker 6: the evidence trail that was inconsistent, even down to the
Speaker 6: witness statements by the people who were there at the time,
Speaker 6: David Simmans, his friend, Gareth Price, David's father, as well
Speaker 6: Robert Simmons.
Speaker 3: There was a veneer of consistency. But when I looked
Speaker 3: with my forensic head hat on, it didn't hang together
Speaker 3: very well. In there were aspects of those witness statements
Speaker 3: which were contradictory that weren't picked up by other parties,
Speaker 3: and that was the basis of my report. It was
Speaker 3: simply to say these things don't hang together from a
Speaker 3: logic perspective.
Speaker 5: I then asked him about the ongoing reluctance of WA
Speaker 5: police to change their mind from suicide. I mean, even
Speaker 5: at the inquest after your evidence, they just didn't seem
Speaker 5: to want to contemplate anything other than suicide.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that astounded me actually.
Speaker 5: So the other thing, of course, is about her hand
Speaker 5: being tucked under. There seemed to be some talk about
Speaker 5: how possibly maybe going in in that the door right,
Speaker 5: pushing her body, that sort of thing, But then there
Speaker 5: seems to be contradicting it evidence saying well, her body
Speaker 5: can't have been moved much because of the blood spatter
Speaker 5: and all the other forensic evidence. So is it feasible
Speaker 5: that somehow her body could have been pushed Do you
Speaker 5: think so that her hand ended up under her thigh
Speaker 5: after the fact.
Speaker 3: Yeah, This was a question put to me by the
Speaker 3: cold case detectives. So in order to look at that scenario,
Speaker 3: we had our model seated with both feet up against
Speaker 3: the door as you would imagine someone trying to stop
Speaker 3: someone coming in the door. After ten pushes, each time
Speaker 3: the right knee, which was bent at the time because
Speaker 3: her feet were up against the door, it flopped down
Speaker 3: to the right hand side once that occurred. Once you
Speaker 3: tried to open the door, the knee stopped the door
Speaker 3: from opening more than about halfway. So after ten trials
Speaker 3: of that we were fairly convinced. I was fairly convinced
Speaker 3: that the right leg would have gone from a vertical
Speaker 3: position to a horizontal onto the ground still bent, but
Speaker 3: that the door could not be opened more than about halfway.
Speaker 3: So we marked that position on the floor. We then
Speaker 3: position the hand. So again, if we go back to
Speaker 3: the first set of tests, the right hand did not
Speaker 3: fall anywhere near her thigh. It was out to the side,
Speaker 3: but in order to test this hypothesis, we positioned the
Speaker 3: right hand where it was found to have been or
Speaker 3: to finish up in those photographs. So again I need
Speaker 3: to need to say that this is not where the
Speaker 3: right hand would have finished. We put it there, and
Speaker 3: we had one of the detectives open the door with
Speaker 3: a fair amount of force up to that marked position
Speaker 3: that we had on the ground. And indeed, each time
Speaker 3: the door was stopped by the model's knee on the ground,
Speaker 3: so it really would have taken a lot more force
Speaker 3: to push it even further. After ten trials, we could
Speaker 3: not get that thigh to cover the right hand in
Speaker 3: any way, as shown in that photograph taken by the
Speaker 3: uniformed officers who attended site.
Speaker 5: Okay, so it's safe to say then that that positioning
Speaker 5: of the hand was in that position when she died
Speaker 5: like that, that didn't move into that position.
Speaker 3: That was my conclusion.
Speaker 5: Yes, I know that we can't really say where the
Speaker 5: gun fell, particularly because I mean the presumption is potentially
Speaker 5: it was moved, so that doesn't help us. But just
Speaker 5: with that position of her hand under the thigh, you
Speaker 5: would think that that would have been enough. Am I
Speaker 5: just looking to basically at this that would be enough
Speaker 5: to say that there's no way she could have, I mean,
Speaker 5: highly unlikely, as you say, to have been up to
Speaker 5: kill us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a whole bunch of things that go along
Speaker 3: with that, Allison. She kind of moved after her gun
Speaker 3: was discharged, so she kind of put her hand there.
Speaker 3: Our simulations show that the thigh could not have been
Speaker 3: pushed over the hand. The lack of biological material and
Speaker 3: residue on the right hand shows that that was nowhere
Speaker 3: near the barrel at the time. If she had used
Speaker 3: the right hand to push the trigger, then it would
Speaker 3: not have finished up in the position that it ended
Speaker 3: up in. And so all of those things combined tell
Speaker 3: me that I'm fairly convinced that Amy did not discharge
Speaker 3: that weapon by herself using her right hand on the trigger,
Speaker 3: nor could she have done so using her left hand
Speaker 3: on the trigger. The various reasons for that is you've
Speaker 3: got to also take into account the horizontal orientation of
Speaker 3: the gun, which has helped the spatter on the wall,
Speaker 3: the location of that, as well as the entry and
Speaker 3: exit rooumds. So all of those things inspire to say
Speaker 3: that she could not have done it. Herself. I do
Speaker 3: go back to the evidence of the witness statements and
Speaker 3: run my ruler over them to see if there's consistency
Speaker 3: and does it match with the evidence that we see
Speaker 3: after the fact. And a lot of things don't match
Speaker 3: up in this case, and I'd just like to go
Speaker 3: through what those people who entered the room said. So
Speaker 3: David Simmons said that when he entered the room after
Speaker 3: they'd heard this shot apparently outside, he said that Amy
Speaker 3: was lying on the floor and the gun was out
Speaker 3: to her right hand side. He then exited the room
Speaker 3: and his mate Gareth Price, said he came straight into
Speaker 3: the room. It was difficult to open the door. Amy
Speaker 3: was seated in that position, and he said that the
Speaker 3: gun was lying on top of her, with the butt
Speaker 3: down by her feet and the barrel resting on her shoulder,
Speaker 3: so in other words, not out to the right hand side,
Speaker 3: but in fact facing her propped up there. So somebody
Speaker 3: is not telling the truth. Clearly, the gun could not
Speaker 3: have been discharged in that position, and the biological material, etc.
Speaker 3: And the entry and exit worns being in the way
Speaker 3: they were in the photographic evidence, so someone has put
Speaker 3: that gun there. Mister Price says that he then took
Speaker 3: the gun and threw it to his left side, which
Speaker 3: is Amy's right side, and that's where David's father, Robert,
Speaker 3: says he found that gun out to the right hand side.
Speaker 3: So I guess what I'm saying is she could not
Speaker 3: have killed herself holding the gun in front of her
Speaker 3: with all those other pieces of evidence.
Speaker 5: One of their issues that has been raised is that
Speaker 5: because forensics was called off, we can't rely upon this.
Speaker 5: But when I listen to you and doctor Gibson and
Speaker 5: Scott Rohta, I mean, there's no way she could have
Speaker 5: killed herself. Sure, it would have been great to have
Speaker 5: all the other forensics, but it seems like you've got enough. Right,
Speaker 5: Am I wrong in that?
Speaker 3: In my view, we've got enough.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Next week, Al the first coroner to see Amy's case,
Speaker 1: really looking forward to letting our listeners hear what she
Speaker 1: has to say.
Speaker 4: What we've got is evidence she didn't pull the trigger herself.
Speaker 4: Some people don't agree with that, but that was probably
Speaker 4: enough for me.
Speaker 5: And how Amy's family is coping As WA Police's latest
Speaker 5: investigation draws to a close.
Speaker 7: We wouldn't be doing not reliving every single time, So de.
Speaker 4: ReBs.
Speaker 6: Now do you.
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 Brian Seymour. This is a seven
Speaker 1: News production.