WEBVTT - 13: Basic Instinct 0:00:00.680 --> 0:00:06.440 This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We 0:00:06.600 --> 0:00:11.799 urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on 0:00:12.000 --> 0:00:19.040 thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at 0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:29.400 lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old 0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:36.919 devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom, 0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:45.240 bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat. 0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:49.080 Mom told me that she needed to go back inside 0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:49.880 to grab something. 0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:50.680 Panic. 0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:53.280 Amy is dead, Sir Amy his dead? 0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:54.240 Eight confusion. 0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:57.080 Well about five minutes they sit n' to suicide. 0:00:56.680 --> 0:00:57.880 One hundred percent. 0:00:58.240 --> 0:00:59.280 This is emersing. 0:01:01.120 --> 0:01:05.360 What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy? 0:01:06.400 --> 0:01:07.479 The truth about Amy? 0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:17.320 SA Episode thirteen. 0:01:19.440 --> 0:01:20.880 I'm Liam Bartlett. 0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:27.040 And I'm Alison Sandy. 0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:31.840 Let mess you dam Please forgive me for interrupting the 0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:35.240 cocktail hour. But there are two questions of great importance 0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:37.840 which I must put to you. First of all, did 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:40.480 anybody here throw a bottle into the sea this morning? 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:42.399 No? 0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:46.400 Secondly, did any of you take a bath at twelve 0:01:46.560 --> 0:01:53.440 fifteen today? An odd time for ablutions? Remarkable a bath 0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:57.960 which nobody admits having taken, and a bottle which flies 0:01:58.000 --> 0:01:58.680 by itself. 0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:02.760 You are listening to Peter Eustinov as the famous detective 0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:06.680 Hercule Pio in the nineteen eighty one classic Agatha Christie 0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:12.520 movie Evil under the Sun. Here he poses questions which 0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:16.760 prove critical in him solving the mystery. We'll have some 0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:19.000 questions like this later in this episode. 0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:20.520 I can't say I blame them. 0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:23.799 This movie resonates with me as we unpicked the various 0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:27.640 clues which hold the key to the truth about Amy. 0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:28.040 All. 0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:33.000 Here Paro points out his pertinent points. 0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:35.880 I wish you to consider very carefully, a bathing cap, 0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:39.880 a bath, a bottle, a wristwatch, the diamond, the noonday gun, 0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:42.680 the breath of the sea, and the hate of the cliff. 0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:45.960 From that, you should be able to solve it yourselves. 0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:49.880 We can compile a similar list, although not so glamorous 0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:56.640 and a bit more comprehensive. A passport, a selfie, a 0:02:56.720 --> 0:03:01.160 khaki jacket, a pink foone, the packed are, a missing 0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:04.880 door handle, the gun in the wardrobe, the position of 0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:10.040 the body, and the clothes David and Gareth provided to police. 0:03:11.080 --> 0:03:14.000 Of course, there's also the taking out of the wheelibins 0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:17.840 and all the phone calls that occurred just after Amy died. 0:03:18.919 --> 0:03:22.000 There are so many anomalies which need addressing. 0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:33.760 And yes, fortunately police can't just gloss over things that 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:37.480 don't make sense, and they need to verify Josh Bryden's 0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:42.760 movements around the time Amy died. Now that means speaking 0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:46.440 to all of those other witnesses who didn't want to 0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:50.400 be involved last time. We'll discuss more about this later, 0:03:50.640 --> 0:03:55.040 but for now, let's revisit our recent interview with Australia's 0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:59.000 own great detective, the good Cop, Ron Iddalls. 0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:01.520 Welcome, Ron, thank you, thank you for having me. 0:04:01.640 --> 0:04:04.680 When we caught up with Ron on conversations, he discussed 0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:09.560 the steps to take when investigating an unexplained sudden death, 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:15.600 most importantly treating it as suspicious until you can prove 0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:16.520 it isn't. 0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:25.000 It's a bit like ABC. Assume nothing, believe nothing, and 0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.560 check everything. The three classic things that you always look 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:34.960 for motive, opportunity and capability. The truth is always in 0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:38.520 an an investigation, you've actually got to go out and 0:04:38.640 --> 0:04:41.479 find it, and at the moment, I don't think that's 0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:42.800 being done now. 0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:46.320 Ron makes it very clear that while he believes Amy's 0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:51.800 death was mishandled by the investigating detectives who determined its 0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:57.040 suicide on the night she died. It is solvable, and 0:04:57.080 --> 0:04:58.320 that's the important point. 0:04:58.680 --> 0:05:02.200 It is so the two people that were at the 0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:06.000 house at the time, that's David and Gareth, they had 0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:09.159 statements taken them down at the front gate, sitting in 0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.839 the back of a police car. Now, before those statements 0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:16.359 were finished, the detective that had already said it was 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:21.040 a suicide. Now that's impossible because you haven't even got 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:23.880 a full detailed statement from the two people who are present. 0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:28.919 I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still 0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:33.320 be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly 0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:36.800 what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people. 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:40.280 Carl Williams, who was an underworld figure in Melbourne who 0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:44.160 elderly died and was involved in four or five murders, 0:05:44.200 --> 0:05:48.480 had this thing and he said those who know don't talk, 0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.400 and those who talk don't know. But in the end 0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:56.920 that was all proved wrong. Those who knew always told someone. 0:05:57.960 --> 0:06:00.960 I don't know what they've done since the inquest, but 0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:06.640 what I'd be doing is who is David's assaysiate, who 0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:09.159 are his friends who he's been in contact with over 0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:12.799 the last three or four years. And I know it's ONNUS, 0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:15.640 but you would go around and speak to every one 0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.799 of those. You would go and speak to all Garris 0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:23.200 friends again, because sometimes with the passage of time, people's 0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:26.640 relationship change. And I think if you did that, you 0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:29.760 might actually find someone who says, this is what he 0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:33.120 told me, which is inconsistent to what the account that 0:06:33.160 --> 0:06:36.880 he gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And 0:06:36.920 --> 0:06:39.599 then you couple that with all your evidence that you've 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:43.760 found and you put it to the Office of Public Prosecutions. 0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:48.000 Now. Last month, WA Police announced a cold case review 0:06:48.600 --> 0:06:49.440 was underway. 0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:53.640 The WA Police Force are currently investigating the death of 0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:58.320 Amy Wensley. The team are committed to investigating this matter 0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:03.599 professionally and doing their utmost to uncover new evidence. As 0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.760 this matter is currently under investigation, it would be premature 0:07:07.920 --> 0:07:12.119 to refer it to the ODPP at this stage. Once 0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:17.440 this investigation is complete, WA Police will present all findings 0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.320 of the task force to the Office of the Director 0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:25.840 of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. The investigation team are 0:07:26.000 --> 0:07:30.440 making progress, however, no further details will be provided at 0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:35.120 this time. Operational details of the investigation team will not 0:07:35.280 --> 0:07:36.560 be revealed. 0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:41.400 So after WA Police provide an updated copy of the 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:45.840 brief of evidence, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Owen, 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:50.040 decides whether Amy's case is strong enough to take to court. 0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:55.240 Amy's aunt, Anna Davy, recently reached out to mister Owen 0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.440 to see if he'd meet with her to discuss Amy's 0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:02.280 case and the way it's been handled. Dear Miss Davy, 0:08:02.680 --> 0:08:05.880 this is his reply, dated first of October. 0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:09.400 Thank you for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four. 0:08:10.040 --> 0:08:12.840 I acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my 0:08:12.920 --> 0:08:15.240 office is likely to be for you and your family. 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.840 I understand you are seeking justice for Amy, and that 0:08:18.880 --> 0:08:23.400 this reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However, 0:08:23.680 --> 0:08:26.680 I am unable to provide a materially different response from 0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:29.520 the one you received from the ODPP on the first 0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:33.040 of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you 0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:36.760 that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we 0:08:36.840 --> 0:08:41.040 do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints. 0:08:41.840 --> 0:08:45.800 The odpp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable criminal offenses. 0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:49.720 Once charges have been laid by investigative agencies such as 0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:54.240 WA Police. That function includes the assessment of the evidence gathered. 0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:58.640 If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP isn't able to proceed. 0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:02.480 The ODP VP has no power to investigate the conduct 0:09:02.520 --> 0:09:06.079 of other agencies or to assess whether an investigation by 0:09:06.280 --> 0:09:09.960 WA Police was insufficient. In our letter to you, dated 0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:13.560 first of November twenty nineteen, we indicated that an inquest 0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:16.559 into your niece's death may be the appropriate forum to 0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:19.800 ventilate the matters you have raised. An inquest into the 0:09:19.840 --> 0:09:22.400 death of your niece has now been completed and the 0:09:22.440 --> 0:09:25.360 findings were delivered by the Deputy State Coroner on ninth 0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:29.160 of September twenty twenty one. The inquest followed a cold 0:09:29.200 --> 0:09:33.160 case review by WA Police in which further investigative strategies 0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:36.160 were used to determine whether any evidence could be obtained 0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:40.000 to establish criminality in relation to Amy's death. The review 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:43.520 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the involvement 0:09:43.600 --> 0:09:46.520 of another person in Amy's death, and the matter was 0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:50.280 referred back to the State Coroner to continue the coronial proceedings. 0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:54.320 The ODPP received and assessed the evidence, which was obtained 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:57.439 by WA Police in its cold case homicide review. At 0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:00.440 the time, the former Director did not con seated there 0:10:00.520 --> 0:10:03.720 to be sufficient evidence to prosecute a person in relation 0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:04.520 to Amy's death. 0:10:05.320 --> 0:10:05.920 As you are no. 0:10:05.920 --> 0:10:08.840 Doubt aware, the Deputy State Coroner concluded that there was 0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:11.960 not enough evidence to make a formal finding about how 0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:15.720 Amy died. Accordingly, her honor made the open finding as 0:10:15.720 --> 0:10:18.679 to the manner of death. Although the state Coroner has 0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:21.720 the power to refer the matter to the ODPP, because 0:10:21.760 --> 0:10:24.880 the Deputy State Coroner found there was insufficient evidence that 0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:28.160 an indubtable offense had been committed, she did not refer 0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.640 the matter to the ODPP. The Deputy State Coroner did 0:10:31.679 --> 0:10:34.319 make some adverse comments about the standard of the initial 0:10:34.360 --> 0:10:38.160 police investigation and the limitations placed on the Coroner's ability 0:10:38.280 --> 0:10:42.480 to consider all relevant evidence. I've outlined this information only 0:10:42.520 --> 0:10:45.240 to ensure that you are informed about the evidence to date. 0:10:45.960 --> 0:10:48.280 I understand you are likely to be very familiar with 0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:51.280 what has occurred, and I mean no disrespect in doing so. 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:55.400 At this time, the ODPP cannot undertake further steps or 0:10:55.520 --> 0:10:59.840 offer any other resolution in this case. Yours sincerely, Robert, 0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:05.520 Director of Public Prosecutions, dear. 0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:08.160 Mister Owen, Anna writes back, thank. 0:11:08.000 --> 0:11:10.720 You for replying to my recent letter and for confirming 0:11:10.760 --> 0:11:13.920 your office hasn't seen Amy's case file for at least 0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:18.440 five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's case was still being 0:11:18.520 --> 0:11:22.880 wrongly treated as a suicide by WA Police. Now in 0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:26.200 twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to as 0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:29.520 a homicide and there is a considerable amount of new 0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:33.640 evidence now available as per my previous letter, would you 0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.599 be willing to meet with me to discuss or is 0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:39.200 it a case that you won't seek any information from 0:11:39.320 --> 0:11:42.760 WA Police unless they raise it with you. Given my 0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:45.959 family seems to be at the complete mercy of WA Police, 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:48.080 I just wanted to find out from you what it 0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:52.280 would take for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If, 0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:54.640 as a family we don't believe Amy's case is being 0:11:54.679 --> 0:11:58.600 handled properly, what avenues do we have do we go 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:02.079 back to the WA Corption and Crime Commission. I'm sure 0:12:02.120 --> 0:12:06.440 you can understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's 0:12:06.480 --> 0:12:09.679 come to light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast 0:12:10.040 --> 0:12:15.440 The Truth About Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:17.800 had to fight the system for more than ten years 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:21.400 now because of the catastrophic mistake made by members of 0:12:21.440 --> 0:12:24.679 the WA Police Force. I don't think it's asking too 0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:27.560 much to seek help from people like you who are 0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:31.840 in the position to provide some but for whatever reason, 0:12:32.200 --> 0:12:34.959 don't seem to want to offer any assistance at all. 0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:40.000 Regards Anna Davy. 0:12:39.200 --> 0:12:42.360 It's unclear how mister Owen will react when he receives 0:12:42.400 --> 0:12:46.880 an updated brief into Amy's death, how thorough WA Police's 0:12:46.920 --> 0:12:51.320 reinvestigation will be, or whether they even recommend any action. 0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:56.080 But what's most troubling is a lack of accountability associated 0:12:56.120 --> 0:12:59.800 with decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are 0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:03.720 determines whether the case is strong enough to proceed with 0:13:03.800 --> 0:13:04.800 a criminal trial. 0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:07.560 I think the problem is that they have TANGI. 0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:09.640 This came up when we caught up with New South 0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:13.520 Wales Crime Commissioner and former State Coroner for both Queensland 0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:17.720 and New South Wales, Michael Barnes, who discussed what was 0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:18.320 at stake. 0:13:18.600 --> 0:13:22.200 Putting someone before the court is a serious impact on 0:13:22.559 --> 0:13:26.960 that individual. Being wrongly accused and then publicly tried, even 0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:28.800 if you are acquitted at the end of the day, 0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:33.600 is a very serious impact. So it's appropriate that the 0:13:33.640 --> 0:13:37.960 people making that decision do so cautiously. I think the 0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:43.320 problem is that they have intangible, almost unknowable assessments they 0:13:43.400 --> 0:13:46.079 must make. Is it in the public interest, is it 0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:49.760 likely to result in a conviction? Well, sitting in the office, 0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:54.280 reading your papers, looking at what the records of interview 0:13:54.320 --> 0:13:57.360 show seems to me to be a fairly difficult way 0:13:57.360 --> 0:14:00.160 to make an assessment of how a witness is going 0:14:00.240 --> 0:14:02.680 to perform in front of front of a jury, what 0:14:02.840 --> 0:14:05.840 they will say to questions that haven't yet been asked 0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:09.880 of them, how the expert witnesses will impact upon a 0:14:09.960 --> 0:14:13.880 jury's assessment. All of those things are very difficult to 0:14:13.920 --> 0:14:17.800 know with certainty. So if, as you say, there's a 0:14:17.840 --> 0:14:21.280 fifty to fifty chance, well, how do you decide which 0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:25.480 way it goes? You'd be aware of William Blackstone, a 0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:29.440 famous English jurist who is credited with saying that under 0:14:29.440 --> 0:14:32.800 the English legal system, it's better that ten guilty men 0:14:32.840 --> 0:14:37.720 go free than one innocent person is convicted. And I 0:14:37.840 --> 0:14:41.120 stand bothside that. I think that's extremely important. We can't 0:14:41.120 --> 0:14:43.920 have innocent people being locked up, but nor can we 0:14:44.040 --> 0:14:49.160 have people who are actually guilty of crimes not being 0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:53.320 brought to account. And the problem we've gotten the current 0:14:53.320 --> 0:14:56.920 system is if you were accused, there are multiple opportunities 0:14:56.960 --> 0:15:00.160 for you to vindicate yourself, for you to negate the 0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:04.200 proceedings brought against you. You usually have a committal proceeding 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:06.840 in which you can seek to persuade the magistrate that 0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:09.920 the matter shouldn't go further forward. Even if you are 0:15:09.920 --> 0:15:13.080 committed for trial, you can make written submissions to the DPP, 0:15:13.560 --> 0:15:17.480 who will regularly listen to those submissions and decide that 0:15:17.520 --> 0:15:20.600 the matter shouldn't go to trial. If it goes to trial, 0:15:20.640 --> 0:15:23.720 you can make no case submission to the trial judge, 0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:26.000 saying there's no case for me to answer here. I 0:15:26.040 --> 0:15:28.520 shouldn't even have to go into evidence. And if you 0:15:28.560 --> 0:15:31.880 are convicted, of course you have all the appeal processes 0:15:31.920 --> 0:15:35.720 available to you. But people in the position of Amy's 0:15:35.760 --> 0:15:40.640 mother have no mechanism or process to contest the decision 0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:45.040 of the DPP and the police not to bring charges. 0:15:45.760 --> 0:15:49.160 That's quite surprising when you think about our commitment to 0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:54.120 transparency and accountability. Think of any other public official whose 0:15:54.160 --> 0:15:58.560 decisions aren't reviewable in any other circumstance. There's no mechanism 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:02.080 that you can review the decision of a DPP even 0:16:02.160 --> 0:16:06.800 though they're making an assessment that isn't an objective, concrete 0:16:06.800 --> 0:16:09.440 decision that you can calibrate. It's not how many bricks 0:16:09.520 --> 0:16:12.320 were laid in a day, it's what will a jury 0:16:12.360 --> 0:16:15.720 think about these persons explanation for what happened. 0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:18.720 Mister Barnes goes on to say that should the WA 0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:22.440 Director of Public Prosecutions decide there's not enough evidence for 0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:25.400 him to take the matter further, he doesn't even have 0:16:25.440 --> 0:16:26.200 to justify it. 0:16:26.480 --> 0:16:30.240 The difficulty though, in the current circumstance, the DPP will 0:16:30.240 --> 0:16:32.320 look at it and you'll get a two line letter 0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:36.040 saying I don't consider there's a sufficient prospects of a conviction. 0:16:36.240 --> 0:16:39.640 If that's the course, they take, no reasons, no analysis 0:16:39.640 --> 0:16:43.240 of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory letter saying no, 0:16:43.320 --> 0:16:45.640 I know better than everybody else, it's not going to happen. 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:49.800 Mister Barnes cites several examples where he's recommended charges be 0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:53.560 laid following an inquest, but the DPP refused. 0:16:54.200 --> 0:16:58.320 I've never seen a perfect investigation, and in most of 0:16:58.360 --> 0:17:01.760 those cases, though there are problems, they can be remedied 0:17:01.920 --> 0:17:08.600 and the investigation brought back on track. But you're right 0:17:08.640 --> 0:17:12.240 to highlight that in a certain number of cases there 0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:17.080 are crucial errors made that cause the resolution of the 0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:20.840 matters to be very protracted and in some cases never resolved. 0:17:20.840 --> 0:17:23.960 I mean, everyone knows about the Chris Dawson case here 0:17:24.000 --> 0:17:29.680 in Sydney, now got a conviction but decades after the event. Similarly, 0:17:29.760 --> 0:17:34.439 there was a tragic case here involving a young American mathematician, 0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:38.800 Scott Johnson, who it took three inquests before we got 0:17:38.800 --> 0:17:43.640 a really strong police investigation that only last year resulted 0:17:43.680 --> 0:17:48.640 in someone pleading guilty and serving a lengthy term of imprisonment. 0:17:48.720 --> 0:17:52.720 So yes, there are these cases. As I say, most 0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:56.160 of the time police do a great job, but from 0:17:56.200 --> 0:18:01.800 time to time mistakes are made. Either someone's not charged 0:18:02.200 --> 0:18:05.440 or they are charged, and the system falls down somewhere 0:18:05.520 --> 0:18:10.200 else along the way, as you'd appreciate. Even when a 0:18:10.359 --> 0:18:13.520 charge is laid because police have got but they think 0:18:13.520 --> 0:18:15.919 is sufficient evidence, all of the other parts of the 0:18:15.920 --> 0:18:20.719 criminal justice system have to work appropriately. I was involved 0:18:20.760 --> 0:18:24.200 in another very sad case in New South Wales, but 0:18:24.280 --> 0:18:27.119 they had some unfortunate similarities and that the victim was 0:18:27.520 --> 0:18:30.960 a young Aboriginal woman with young children and a devoted 0:18:31.000 --> 0:18:36.639 family who died as a result of horrific internal injuries, 0:18:36.680 --> 0:18:40.040 that the two miscreants who were with a claim were 0:18:40.080 --> 0:18:43.919 the result of consensual sexual activity. The cops didn't go 0:18:44.040 --> 0:18:46.800 for that she had a blood alcohol reading way beyond 0:18:46.880 --> 0:18:50.960 which anyone could make any sorts of reasonable decisions, and 0:18:51.040 --> 0:18:54.280 the circumstances in which she was found dead on the beach, 0:18:54.359 --> 0:18:59.199 with the two individuals involved burning all her clothing and 0:18:59.240 --> 0:19:02.120 the mattress from the back of the car made it 0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:04.840 very obvious that there was more to the story the 0:19:04.880 --> 0:19:12.040 cops charged with causing the death. The DPP discontinued the charge. 0:19:12.359 --> 0:19:16.560 We run in quested, to my mind, made it abundantly 0:19:16.600 --> 0:19:19.960 clear that the version given by the two people who 0:19:19.960 --> 0:19:24.080 were with Lynnette on the day that she died weren't acceptable, 0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:28.200 couldn't have possibly been true, and therefore strongly recommended that 0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:34.320 the charges again be preferred. Despite those detailed findings, the 0:19:34.400 --> 0:19:38.760 DPP declined to do that, and only when a couple 0:19:38.840 --> 0:19:41.639 of media outlets got involved and drue attention to the 0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:45.960 case was the DPP persuaded the brief and outside External 0:19:46.000 --> 0:19:50.280 Council to give advice about whether or not charges could 0:19:50.359 --> 0:19:53.800 or should be laid. That council indicated that a conviction 0:19:54.240 --> 0:19:56.919 was likely. He was correct. He was brief to then 0:19:57.040 --> 0:20:00.280 run the trial, and guilty verdicts were return by a 0:20:00.359 --> 0:20:03.080 jury after a five day trial. They're only out for 0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:05.920 thirty two minutes before they found the men guilty, and 0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:09.320 they're now thankfully serving lengthy sentences. But that's just an 0:20:09.320 --> 0:20:13.159 example of how everything at every step along the way, 0:20:13.560 --> 0:20:18.160 problems can arise that frustrate the pursuit of justice. 0:20:18.280 --> 0:20:21.080 Julianne's husband, Allan, said the women had gone out on 0:20:21.119 --> 0:20:24.919 a late night fishing trip near Atherton. They never came home. 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:28.280 One of those cases was a supposed murder suicide of 0:20:28.359 --> 0:20:30.360 Vicky Arnold and Julianne Lay. 0:20:30.600 --> 0:20:34.199 Police ruled VICKI had killed Julianne and then turned the 0:20:34.240 --> 0:20:35.120 gun on herself. 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:36.879 I did the third in quest and said it was 0:20:36.880 --> 0:20:40.480 a homicide, and the DPP refused to charge. 0:20:40.440 --> 0:20:45.080 The third inquest. Remember, Amy's case has only had one 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:48.600 and the new evidence is expected to be enough to 0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:53.119 trigger another. But they're expensive and time consuming, and the 0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:55.840 family has been fighting for the case to be tested 0:20:55.880 --> 0:20:59.000 in court for more than a decade now. So why 0:20:59.080 --> 0:20:59.920 can't that be done? 0:21:01.200 --> 0:21:04.280 Undoubtedly the work you've done has contributed to a softening 0:21:04.359 --> 0:21:08.200 of that position the difficulty, though in the current circumstance, 0:21:08.480 --> 0:21:10.240 the EPP will look at it and you'll get a 0:21:10.240 --> 0:21:14.240 two line letter saying I don't consider there's sufficient prospects 0:21:14.280 --> 0:21:17.640 of a conviction. If that's the course, they take, no reasons, 0:21:17.640 --> 0:21:21.080 no analysis of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory 0:21:21.160 --> 0:21:23.600 letter saying, no, I know better than everybody else, it's 0:21:23.640 --> 0:21:24.359 not going to happen. 0:21:24.680 --> 0:21:28.840 Meanwhile, this begs the question, why are multiple inquests necessary 0:21:29.040 --> 0:21:31.840 when it will presumably lead to the same place. 0:21:31.840 --> 0:21:35.840 You've heard of the term therapeutic jurist rudens and coroners 0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:38.919 have been beaten around their head a bit on that 0:21:39.040 --> 0:21:41.840 score in the last decord or so that you've got 0:21:41.960 --> 0:21:48.480 research that suggests, in some cases unfortunately significant number of cases, 0:21:48.480 --> 0:21:51.560 the inquest have made things worse for the bereaved, and 0:21:51.760 --> 0:21:55.400 of course that's not what croners are inclined to do. 0:21:55.920 --> 0:22:01.840 There's also lack of consistent practice among coroners as to 0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:05.920 their role in suspected homicides. Some will say, we are 0:22:05.960 --> 0:22:09.120 not there to investigate crimes, We're only there to find 0:22:09.160 --> 0:22:12.040 the manner and cause of death, and that's the police 0:22:12.080 --> 0:22:15.040 and the DPP who've got to do crime. Therefore, we 0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:18.040 don't want to get involved in that. There are very 0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:21.800 significant differences in views about what the role of the 0:22:22.119 --> 0:22:25.960 coroner in suspected homicide is. Under the modern coronial system. 0:22:26.000 --> 0:22:28.320 It used to be a major part of their role 0:22:28.400 --> 0:22:30.760 and no one could go to trial in New South 0:22:30.800 --> 0:22:33.920 Wales unless they'd been committed for trial by the coroner. 0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:38.920 The eighties and nineties there's a big move away from that. 0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:42.000 Coroners are seen to have focus more on prevention. Was 0:22:42.040 --> 0:22:46.919 suggested that coron is unfairly damaging people's reputation and a 0:22:46.960 --> 0:22:51.879 lot of coroners, a significant proportion of coroners are not 0:22:52.200 --> 0:22:57.000 interested in reviewing their role in that regard. They see 0:22:57.040 --> 0:23:00.520 themselves as something different from the criminal justice. 0:23:08.640 --> 0:23:12.119 We contacted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 0:23:12.520 --> 0:23:16.240 about this, which replied swiftly with the following. 0:23:16.840 --> 0:23:20.719 The ODPP receives indictable prosecutions after the charges have been 0:23:20.800 --> 0:23:24.520 laid in the Summary Court by the Investigative Agency WA. 0:23:24.560 --> 0:23:29.960 Police prosecutions are assigned to suitable, experienced and qualified prosecutors. 0:23:30.200 --> 0:23:34.520 According to the complexity and seriousness of the matter. Any 0:23:34.560 --> 0:23:38.679 decision to commence or discontinue a prosecution is reviewed and 0:23:38.840 --> 0:23:42.439 authorized by a more senior prosecutor. Where the matter is 0:23:42.480 --> 0:23:46.160 proceeding to trial, a further pre trial review is conducted 0:23:46.240 --> 0:23:50.160 by a consultant state prosecutor, who are our most senior prosecutors. 0:23:50.840 --> 0:23:54.359 Where there are no reasonable prospects of conviction, a prosecution 0:23:54.560 --> 0:23:58.840 cannot proceed. Additionally, victims have the power to request a 0:23:58.920 --> 0:24:03.200 further review of the prosecutorial decisions which recommend discontinuance, in 0:24:03.240 --> 0:24:06.240 accordance with the Policy and Guidelines for Victims of Crime 0:24:06.600 --> 0:24:10.520 twenty twenty two. Of course, all prosecutions are critically reviewed 0:24:10.520 --> 0:24:14.080 by an accused counsel, overseen by a judicial officer through 0:24:14.119 --> 0:24:17.520 the court proceedings, and are ultimately reviewable by the Court 0:24:17.560 --> 0:24:21.320 of Appeal. The ODPP also provides a formal charge advice 0:24:21.359 --> 0:24:25.920 function at the request of an investigative agency, predominantly wa police. 0:24:26.520 --> 0:24:30.560 The ODPP and investigative agencies have an independent function within 0:24:30.640 --> 0:24:33.480 the criminal justice system, and it is a matter for 0:24:33.520 --> 0:24:36.439 the investigative agency as to whether they accept that advice 0:24:36.480 --> 0:24:39.600 and decide whether to lay charges or not. A setout 0:24:39.600 --> 0:24:43.320 in Paragraphs sixteen to seventeen of the ODPP Media Policy 0:24:43.880 --> 0:24:47.360 at Appendix three of the Guidelines. It is the odpp's 0:24:47.440 --> 0:24:51.000 policy to provide reasons to a court for the discontinuance 0:24:51.080 --> 0:24:55.960 of a prosecution unless the discontinuance is for administrative purposes only, 0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:59.320 or to do so would prejudice the administration of justice 0:24:59.440 --> 0:25:03.199 or cause heart to a victim, witness, or accused. It 0:25:03.280 --> 0:25:06.520 is proper to publicly explain the odpp's approach to the 0:25:06.600 --> 0:25:10.480 question of whether a prosecution is to continue or be 0:25:10.600 --> 0:25:13.879 terminated by reference to the factors in the DPP Statement 0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:18.000 of Prosecution Policy and guidelines, for example, by reference to 0:25:18.040 --> 0:25:21.040 the lack of a prima facie case, lack of reasonable 0:25:21.080 --> 0:25:24.399 prospects of conviction, or that there is no public interest 0:25:24.440 --> 0:25:25.040 in proceeding. 0:25:25.640 --> 0:25:27.159 Where appropriate brief. 0:25:26.920 --> 0:25:31.119 Additional information by way of explanation can be provided, we 0:25:31.200 --> 0:25:34.520 refer you to the odpp's Media Policy, in particular a 0:25:34.640 --> 0:25:38.520 paragraph elevan in relation to further guidelines regarding the provision 0:25:38.560 --> 0:25:42.680 of information when additional information is sought by media organizations. 0:25:43.160 --> 0:25:46.240 These factors include that paramount need to ensure the integrity 0:25:46.280 --> 0:25:50.280 of the criminal trial process, including any potential future trial, 0:25:50.840 --> 0:25:54.040 the sensitivity of the information sought and the interests of 0:25:54.119 --> 0:25:55.399 victims and witnesses. 0:25:56.119 --> 0:25:59.960 That response was provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions 0:26:00.440 --> 0:26:06.560 Executive Assistant Margaret Ferry, and also reference the officer's Deputy Director, 0:26:07.119 --> 0:26:12.119 Justin Waley SC and Director of Legal Services Matt Bug. 0:26:13.160 --> 0:26:16.879 What they seem to be saying is that victims, not 0:26:17.040 --> 0:26:21.359 victims families can only apply for review if they wish 0:26:21.400 --> 0:26:26.119 to discontinue the case, and it's still up to WA 0:26:26.200 --> 0:26:31.520 Police whether they wish to proceed with charges. But back 0:26:31.560 --> 0:26:35.560 to Michael Barnes who also suggested WA Police seek the 0:26:35.640 --> 0:26:37.879 advice of a suicidologist. 0:26:38.200 --> 0:26:41.679 I'm not intimately familiar with a with Australian legislation, but 0:26:41.800 --> 0:26:44.960 generally currents need to be persuaded. There's fresh evidence that 0:26:45.119 --> 0:26:48.560 wasn't considered at the previous inquest. It's not appropriate simply 0:26:48.560 --> 0:26:51.640 to have another inquest because someone doesn't like the outcome 0:26:51.640 --> 0:26:54.639 of the first inquest, so they would need to be 0:26:54.680 --> 0:26:56.879 able to persuade the current There was fresh evidence that 0:26:56.960 --> 0:27:00.480 hadn't been considered at the inquest that's already been pleaded, 0:27:01.000 --> 0:27:06.000 that could lead to a different outcome and something that 0:27:06.080 --> 0:27:09.240 strikes me in this case. It's and I said, I'm 0:27:09.280 --> 0:27:12.160 not familiar with all of the evidence. I haven't read 0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:14.720 all of the exhibits, but I haven't seen any reference 0:27:14.760 --> 0:27:19.800 to expert suicide ology. One. It is very well renowned 0:27:20.400 --> 0:27:24.200 homicide detective and I know you've interviewed, mentioned how he 0:27:24.320 --> 0:27:28.480 was surprised by the circumstances, alleged that he'd never seen 0:27:28.520 --> 0:27:32.560 a suicide where a young woman had shot herself in 0:27:32.600 --> 0:27:36.280 such an awkward position and such a difficult circumstance. When 0:27:36.520 --> 0:27:38.560 had she been inclined to do that? There were other 0:27:38.920 --> 0:27:42.680 more convenient ways that should have been done. And Ronz 0:27:42.720 --> 0:27:45.200 White as he said, he's looked at a thousand cases. 0:27:45.440 --> 0:27:47.960 There are experts have looked at tens and hundreds of 0:27:48.000 --> 0:27:53.840 thousands of suicides. They undertake what they call psychological autopsy, 0:27:54.040 --> 0:27:57.159 so look at the victimology of the person and not 0:27:57.320 --> 0:28:00.000 the circumstances of the death, and can offer expert advice 0:28:00.560 --> 0:28:03.440 about whether people do ever kill themselves in this way. 0:28:03.760 --> 0:28:07.760 The Scott Johnson matter I mentioned before, the police rated 0:28:07.800 --> 0:28:10.719 off as a suicide in I think about two weeks 0:28:11.680 --> 0:28:14.280 He was found naked at the bottom of a cliff. 0:28:14.600 --> 0:28:18.199 His clothes neatly folded at the top of the cliff. 0:28:18.680 --> 0:28:22.280 It was easy for our suicidologists to say that people 0:28:22.440 --> 0:28:26.320 don't like themselves to be found in an undignified manner, 0:28:26.480 --> 0:28:28.560 even though they know they're going to be dead, so 0:28:28.680 --> 0:28:31.080 you don't take your clothes off before you jump to 0:28:31.160 --> 0:28:34.879 your death. That sort of expert evidence doesn't seem to 0:28:34.880 --> 0:28:37.280 have been brought to bear in this case. 0:28:37.520 --> 0:28:37.680 Now. 0:28:37.720 --> 0:28:42.959 While a suicideologist wasn't consulted prior to the inquest, WA 0:28:43.000 --> 0:28:48.480 police sought analysis from Major crime clinical psychologist Dr Chris 0:28:48.560 --> 0:28:52.959 Geeson on whether David Simmons was telling the truth in 0:28:53.000 --> 0:28:57.640 his interviews with police and if Amy was suicidal. 0:28:58.240 --> 0:29:01.400 I'm inclined to believe David Woman's version of events and 0:29:01.520 --> 0:29:05.400 that Amy shot herself. I did not observe any seminal 0:29:05.440 --> 0:29:08.920 inconsistencies in his account, even with the retelling of it 0:29:09.000 --> 0:29:12.160 in parts, nor did I see any obvious behavior that 0:29:12.200 --> 0:29:16.160 suggested he was censoring his disclosures or constructing a story. 0:29:16.760 --> 0:29:19.920 I also noted that his response to questions were mostly 0:29:19.960 --> 0:29:24.239 spontaneous with minimal lag, suggesting he was not cautious or 0:29:24.280 --> 0:29:28.600 apprehensive about what he was disclosing or considering the implications 0:29:28.680 --> 0:29:32.360 of what he was disclosing. While there were intermittent pauses, 0:29:32.520 --> 0:29:35.600 these appeared to indicate he was trying to recall particular 0:29:35.640 --> 0:29:39.800 events in response to the interviewer's questions. This was indicated 0:29:39.840 --> 0:29:43.680 by his tentative responses I think and I'm not sure. 0:29:44.320 --> 0:29:46.960 I note that he responded this way even when the 0:29:47.040 --> 0:29:51.440 questions weren't critically relevant. I also noted that mister Simmons' 0:29:51.520 --> 0:29:56.440 emotional reactions i e. Expression, effect, and emotion was congruent 0:29:56.560 --> 0:30:00.000 with the content being disclosed at that point in the interview. 0:30:00.480 --> 0:30:02.720 What I mean by this is that when he became 0:30:02.880 --> 0:30:07.000 visually distressed, for example, this was both relevant and proportionate 0:30:07.360 --> 0:30:12.040 to that being disclosed. Further, when he recounted supposedly finding 0:30:12.080 --> 0:30:15.440 Miss Wensley in the bedroom after she had been shot, 0:30:15.640 --> 0:30:20.760 his reaction in the interview was intense distress, disbelief, and horror, 0:30:20.840 --> 0:30:25.320 with his nonverbal behavior supporting this. His behavior, for example, 0:30:25.480 --> 0:30:28.280 running around and dropping to the floor when he found 0:30:28.320 --> 0:30:31.680 Miss Wensley had been shot, is also consistent with these 0:30:31.720 --> 0:30:36.520 observed emotions and proportionate to the event. Mister Price's description 0:30:36.640 --> 0:30:40.080 of Miss Simmons also supports this congruency. Saying that he 0:30:40.080 --> 0:30:45.200 heard mister Simmons repeat fuck, fuck fuck and appearing in shock. 0:30:45.800 --> 0:30:49.160 I also noted that mister simmons reaction to the interviewer's 0:30:49.200 --> 0:30:53.120 reaction was indifferent to his responses. This suggested to me 0:30:53.200 --> 0:30:55.800 that he was not focused on whether or not the 0:30:55.880 --> 0:30:59.920 interviewers were accepting his version of events, i e. Being believed. 0:31:00.560 --> 0:31:03.280 This again suggests to me that Simmons was retelling his 0:31:03.400 --> 0:31:08.160 experiences from memory rather than constructing them. For these reasons, 0:31:08.200 --> 0:31:11.520 I'm inclined to accept David Simmons' version of events. 0:31:11.880 --> 0:31:15.960 Doctor Geson then goes into whether it was likely Simmons 0:31:16.080 --> 0:31:19.480 killed Amy or that she took her own life. 0:31:19.880 --> 0:31:23.400 Homicides can generally be categorized into two types, either being 0:31:23.440 --> 0:31:28.480 emotional and spontaneous or planned unintentional. I'm inclined to consider 0:31:28.520 --> 0:31:32.080 that neither of these scenarios fit the circumstances surrounding Miss 0:31:32.160 --> 0:31:36.920 Wensley's death to any convincing degree. Firstly, if mister Simmons 0:31:36.960 --> 0:31:39.960 had killed miss Wensley and staged the scene to look 0:31:40.040 --> 0:31:42.560 like an apparent suicide, then it would have needed to 0:31:42.600 --> 0:31:46.479 be an emotional reaction and spontaneous decision rather than a 0:31:46.520 --> 0:31:47.200 planned event. 0:31:47.600 --> 0:31:52.680 Here, doctor Geson argues, if planned a suicide, note would 0:31:52.720 --> 0:31:58.480 have been fabricated and better placement of the weapon. Simmons 0:31:58.720 --> 0:32:02.720 would have argued that Amy was depressed and suicidal, so 0:32:03.240 --> 0:32:08.920 she concludes that unlikely. She does concede Simmons is described 0:32:08.920 --> 0:32:14.840 as physically abusive with a propensity for violence when intoxicated, 0:32:15.480 --> 0:32:19.400 but suggests that Price would have needed to be complicit 0:32:19.880 --> 0:32:21.400 in Simmons killing Amy. 0:32:21.840 --> 0:32:25.840 Collusion seems unlikely. I say this because the events described 0:32:25.880 --> 0:32:28.800 and the language used by mister Simmons and mister Price 0:32:29.080 --> 0:32:32.120 are different, suggesting that they had actually observed the events 0:32:32.280 --> 0:32:35.720 and had done so from different fontage points. If they 0:32:35.760 --> 0:32:38.200 had colluded, I would have expected them to use the 0:32:38.240 --> 0:32:41.760 same language and narrative, since this is how information is 0:32:41.840 --> 0:32:46.280 retained when not actually observed. For example, after miss Wensley 0:32:46.320 --> 0:32:50.400 supposedly discharged the firearm, mister Symons said he heard a thud, 0:32:50.600 --> 0:32:54.959 whereas mister Price describes a crack like a thud. Another 0:32:55.000 --> 0:32:58.520 example is when mister Price describes hearing a smashing sound 0:32:58.520 --> 0:33:00.920 and hearing one of the kids saying Miss Wensley had 0:33:01.200 --> 0:33:04.560 flipped the lizard tank, while mister Simmons heard his daughter 0:33:04.600 --> 0:33:08.560 say Miss Wensley had smashed the fish tank if they 0:33:08.600 --> 0:33:11.600 had colluded, I would also not expect mister Price to 0:33:11.600 --> 0:33:15.440 disclose to police that mister Simmons called Miss Wensley a 0:33:15.480 --> 0:33:18.479 gutless piece of shit, or that he heard mister Simmons 0:33:18.520 --> 0:33:21.560 saying to Miss Wensley, pack your bags and fuck off, 0:33:21.880 --> 0:33:26.560 as these commons placed mister Simmons in a poor questioning light. Further, 0:33:26.840 --> 0:33:30.160 if mister Simmons had killed Miss Wensley in an emotional 0:33:30.160 --> 0:33:33.600 and impulsive rage, I would have expected a longer lag 0:33:33.680 --> 0:33:37.480 between Miss Wensley being shot and mister simmons arrival at 0:33:37.520 --> 0:33:40.640 the service station, with this time being needed to create 0:33:40.680 --> 0:33:44.560 a plausible story of Miss Wensley's death. Yet there is 0:33:44.560 --> 0:33:47.360 a lag of just sixteen minutes from the time Amy 0:33:47.440 --> 0:33:50.000 phones her mother and the triple zero call to the 0:33:50.040 --> 0:33:53.320 service station. When including the four minute drive from the 0:33:53.400 --> 0:33:57.280 house to the service station and Miss Wensley's three minute 0:33:57.320 --> 0:34:00.560 call to her mother according to phone records, this means 0:34:00.640 --> 0:34:03.760 there is now only nine minutes for any colluding and 0:34:03.840 --> 0:34:07.280 staging to occur. We also need to consider that a 0:34:07.280 --> 0:34:10.160 proportion of these nine minutes needs to be allocated for 0:34:10.320 --> 0:34:14.200 mister Simmons recovering from the shock of comprehending his actions 0:34:14.600 --> 0:34:17.920 and be sufficiently stable to disclose the events to mister 0:34:18.000 --> 0:34:22.520 Price and construct an alternative story. Another portion of this 0:34:22.600 --> 0:34:25.080 time but also need to be attributed to Miss Wensley 0:34:25.200 --> 0:34:28.480 placing her daughters in the car and making four trips 0:34:28.600 --> 0:34:32.320 from the house to the car to collect belongings. Hence, 0:34:32.400 --> 0:34:35.040 given all of these events that needed to occur within 0:34:35.080 --> 0:34:39.120 the nine minute period, any staging or colluding between mister 0:34:39.200 --> 0:34:44.560 Simmons and mister Price seems unlikely. These challenges make me 0:34:44.600 --> 0:34:49.600 consider that homicide, whether planned and intentional or impulsive and emotional, 0:34:49.840 --> 0:34:50.839 is unlikely. 0:34:51.840 --> 0:34:55.280 So there you have it. If two people have different 0:34:55.400 --> 0:35:00.440 versions of the same event, it's actually more likely that 0:35:00.520 --> 0:35:05.160 they're telling the truth according to the logic of WA Police. 0:35:06.080 --> 0:35:09.680 But just something for WA Police to contemplate here. Is 0:35:09.719 --> 0:35:15.279 there the slightest possibility that Gareth Price just believes his 0:35:15.480 --> 0:35:19.160 best mate when he's told him he didn't shoot Amy. 0:35:19.320 --> 0:35:20.440 No, he didn't fuckynure it. 0:35:20.760 --> 0:35:23.520 He didn't know it. Sorry, this is what Gareth told 0:35:23.560 --> 0:35:25.239 me when I asked him about it. 0:35:25.360 --> 0:35:27.719 Now, Simo is a good buddy man, He is a 0:35:27.719 --> 0:35:28.040 good man. 0:35:28.040 --> 0:35:29.400 He wouldn't have done in the first place. Well, I 0:35:29.400 --> 0:35:31.319 know that FO one hundred percent, he wouldn't have done it. 0:35:31.920 --> 0:35:34.560 Doctor Geeson now discusses Amy. 0:35:34.640 --> 0:35:37.440 Miss Wensley, appears to have been depressed at the time 0:35:37.480 --> 0:35:39.839 of her death. In the week prior to her death, 0:35:40.080 --> 0:35:42.960 she said she felt depressed and apparently said she wanted 0:35:42.960 --> 0:35:47.160 to change to another antidepressant medication because her current medication 0:35:47.760 --> 0:35:48.560 was not working. 0:35:49.040 --> 0:35:54.839 Okay, stopping here. Apparently now none of this is attributed 0:35:55.719 --> 0:35:58.080 and we can't find a record of this being said, 0:35:58.520 --> 0:36:01.960 but it's part of the narrative which leads to doctor 0:36:02.000 --> 0:36:06.840 Geeson concluding Amy took her own life, along with the 0:36:06.920 --> 0:36:12.799 following host natal depression, after having tay four years of 0:36:12.840 --> 0:36:19.040 a controlling, unstable and abusive relationship with mister Symons, social isolation, 0:36:19.840 --> 0:36:24.320 financial stress, a motor vehicle accident in March twenty thirteen 0:36:24.880 --> 0:36:30.040 causing spinal injuries and pain, affecting quality of life, two 0:36:30.440 --> 0:36:36.320 pregnancy terminations in twenty thirteen, poor body image, and self worth. 0:36:37.200 --> 0:36:40.600 This was compounded by further isolation when her partner, mister 0:36:40.640 --> 0:36:45.160 Simmons commenced fi FO around February twenty fourteen, leaving her 0:36:45.239 --> 0:36:47.800 to meet the demands of two young children on her own, 0:36:48.040 --> 0:36:50.840 and then moving to a rural property in Serpentine in 0:36:50.920 --> 0:36:55.120 March or April twenty fourteen. Miss Wensley's medical notes show 0:36:55.160 --> 0:36:59.680 that on twenty six February twenty fourteen, she was prescribed escitalapram, 0:37:00.080 --> 0:37:04.480 an antidepressant medication. This was after she described several months 0:37:04.520 --> 0:37:09.399 of low mood, anxiety, worrying about little things, anedonia or 0:37:09.520 --> 0:37:14.160 loss of joy, poor appetite, and sleep to servants. The 0:37:14.200 --> 0:37:16.959 medical notes say she had no thoughts of self harm 0:37:17.000 --> 0:37:19.720 at the time, although I see in her medical file 0:37:19.760 --> 0:37:22.920 there was a prior report of thoughts of self harm. 0:37:23.480 --> 0:37:26.760 Her follow up GP consult a month later, on thirty 0:37:26.800 --> 0:37:30.920 one March twenty fourteen, noted that Miss Wensley described some 0:37:31.080 --> 0:37:34.120 improvement in her mood, but that her partner had noticed 0:37:34.160 --> 0:37:37.120 it more than her. She also said she was drinking 0:37:37.200 --> 0:37:40.880 alcohol when she normally doesn't and was struggling with insomnia 0:37:41.040 --> 0:37:45.520 and irrational fears. While Miss Wensley did not appear suicidal 0:37:45.560 --> 0:37:47.960 in the weak prior, as she made no disclosures to 0:37:48.000 --> 0:37:51.160 her friends and family, depression is known to be the 0:37:51.280 --> 0:37:55.239 strongest predictor of suicide when this is combined with her 0:37:55.320 --> 0:38:02.279 other risk factors impulsivity, aggression, paranoia, irritability, in irrationality, helplessness 0:38:02.280 --> 0:38:06.480 and hopelessness, loss and rejection, then the possibility of a 0:38:06.520 --> 0:38:10.759 successful suicide attempt, unfortunately becomes more likely. 0:38:12.440 --> 0:38:16.319 Dr Geeson goes on to say that while uncommon, there 0:38:16.360 --> 0:38:21.880 have been links between acetuleopram and increased risk of suicide, 0:38:22.719 --> 0:38:28.799 suggesting Amy suffered a rare adverse reaction to esse telepram, 0:38:29.480 --> 0:38:32.320 or that the taking of the medication, and this is 0:38:32.360 --> 0:38:37.000 a direct quote from her report, alleviated the inertia of 0:38:37.080 --> 0:38:43.520 depression and activated problem solving and action, with suicide being 0:38:43.600 --> 0:38:49.759 considered a viable solution to escaping severe emotional pain and 0:38:49.840 --> 0:38:57.560 distress associated with depression. So, in other words, upon finally 0:38:57.600 --> 0:39:02.080 being able to think clearly and rationally, Amy realized her 0:39:02.160 --> 0:39:06.920 situation was absolutely hopeless and the best option was to 0:39:07.000 --> 0:39:12.760 take her own life. Now, I'm no expert, I certainly 0:39:12.760 --> 0:39:16.000 haven't got a psych degree, but that seems to me 0:39:16.360 --> 0:39:21.080 to be a very, very long bow to draw. It 0:39:21.120 --> 0:39:24.000 would be interesting to see whether that analysis would be 0:39:24.040 --> 0:39:28.839 backed up by other independent psychological analysts. 0:39:29.760 --> 0:39:33.400 Based on these historical and temporal events, my conclusion is 0:39:33.480 --> 0:39:38.160 miss Wensley's death was the result of suicide Chris Geesan 0:39:38.400 --> 0:39:40.640 twenty two March twenty nineteen. 0:39:43.760 --> 0:39:49.360 And something worth noting here. Doctor Geeson never met David Simmons, 0:39:50.360 --> 0:39:55.320 hasn't spoken face to face with him once, nor obviously Amy. 0:39:56.440 --> 0:40:01.200 Her assessment is based on police statements and video interviews. 0:40:02.840 --> 0:40:07.160 We will be revisiting the psychological profiles of Amy and 0:40:07.280 --> 0:40:09.320 David Simmons in coming weeks. 0:40:09.840 --> 0:40:10.640 I actually run. 0:40:10.520 --> 0:40:12.680 At the University of Newcastle, the Justice Clinic, and I 0:40:12.760 --> 0:40:14.680 established that in twenty nineteen. 0:40:14.920 --> 0:40:17.239 In the meantime we caught up with another expert who 0:40:17.280 --> 0:40:18.640 offered other insight. 0:40:18.880 --> 0:40:22.400 It was initially called an Innocence Initiative, but we changed 0:40:22.400 --> 0:40:26.080 the name because we do look at cases of mischaracters 0:40:26.120 --> 0:40:29.520 of justice frong for conviction. But then when we established it, 0:40:29.520 --> 0:40:32.000 people started coming to us with all sorts of different cases, 0:40:32.320 --> 0:40:35.600 long term cold cases for example, but also what we've 0:40:35.640 --> 0:40:40.640 now classed as misclassification of death cases or those hidden homicides. 0:40:41.200 --> 0:40:44.719 And we've worked through with a number of families in 0:40:44.760 --> 0:40:47.319 the Justice Clinic, and we still have a number of 0:40:47.360 --> 0:40:51.479 ongoing cases of exactly that hidden homicide. So it's something 0:40:51.520 --> 0:40:53.879 we've been looking at at the University of Newcastle since 0:40:53.920 --> 0:40:58.000 I would think around twenty twenty, and sadly it's a 0:40:58.000 --> 0:41:01.800 lot more prevalent than I ever imagined until those families 0:41:01.840 --> 0:41:05.360 started contacting us and saying, can you please help my 0:41:05.440 --> 0:41:09.319 loved one's death was ruled a suicide or misadventure. And 0:41:09.400 --> 0:41:11.600 sometimes you look at these cases and I can't detail 0:41:11.600 --> 0:41:14.520 them because they're obviously classified. We're working through them legally. 0:41:15.120 --> 0:41:16.880 But yeah, you know, you look at it and go, 0:41:17.000 --> 0:41:20.799 how on earth was that classified as a suicide when 0:41:20.840 --> 0:41:22.200 you look at the facts of the case. 0:41:22.600 --> 0:41:26.040 Doctor Mallet is a forensic anthropologist and criminologist at the 0:41:26.160 --> 0:41:29.920 University of Newcastle who was also explored in detail the 0:41:30.000 --> 0:41:34.560 efficacy of expert witness evidence and the impact of external 0:41:34.600 --> 0:41:38.279 influences that may result in bias or prejudice in the 0:41:38.320 --> 0:41:40.760 decision making processes of duras. 0:41:41.400 --> 0:41:44.680 So this falls into that very much, that category, doesn't it? 0:41:44.760 --> 0:41:47.200 Of suspicious deaths? I mean, I guess one of the 0:41:47.239 --> 0:41:50.200 biggest questions for me looking at this as a forensic 0:41:50.280 --> 0:41:55.560 scientist and behavioral expert, is how on earth the detectives 0:41:55.800 --> 0:42:00.319 arrived at that scene and classified this so quickly is 0:42:00.400 --> 0:42:04.920 not suspicious as a suicide? Obviously the uniform officers believed 0:42:04.920 --> 0:42:08.759 that this was suspicious, but the detective seemed so keen 0:42:09.000 --> 0:42:12.760 to dismiss this very, very quickly. And that's a pattern 0:42:12.800 --> 0:42:16.000 that I've seen in hidden homicides. It's that initial response, 0:42:16.440 --> 0:42:20.600 that lack of interest in capturing the scene forensically, lack 0:42:20.640 --> 0:42:25.880 of interest in interviewing those key witnesses, and so sadly, 0:42:26.560 --> 0:42:30.280 it was all too familiar when I read those initial 0:42:30.320 --> 0:42:33.520 stages of the investigation and what had gone so obviously 0:42:33.560 --> 0:42:34.600 horribly wrong. 0:42:36.480 --> 0:42:37.200 Madam. 0:42:38.160 --> 0:42:41.400 Obviously everyone would like a water tight case, but this 0:42:41.480 --> 0:42:44.440 isn't an Agatha Christie murder mystery where everything is tied 0:42:44.480 --> 0:42:45.640 up with a bow at the end. 0:42:48.440 --> 0:42:51.800 I have discovered the identity of the murder of Madame Martha. 0:42:52.280 --> 0:42:56.160 Very seldom does the culprit confess to a complicated, convoluted 0:42:56.320 --> 0:42:59.200 execution of a crime after the detective has pointed out 0:42:59.200 --> 0:43:03.719 the inconsistence. But if proper time and resources are spent 0:43:03.800 --> 0:43:07.080 on it now, maybe they'll save a considerable amount of 0:43:07.160 --> 0:43:09.960 money in the long term. And there are plenty of 0:43:10.040 --> 0:43:13.319 other cost effective ways to reach a conclusion which won't 0:43:13.360 --> 0:43:16.480 be tainted by fears of organizational bias. 0:43:16.920 --> 0:43:20.120 I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred. 0:43:20.960 --> 0:43:22.759 I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to 0:43:22.800 --> 0:43:26.279 the Director of Public Prosecutions and it's come back in 0:43:26.280 --> 0:43:32.600 sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer, 0:43:33.719 --> 0:43:36.080 and more so the reconstruction that you have done with 0:43:36.160 --> 0:43:40.360 the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a 0:43:40.400 --> 0:43:44.439 detective and I looked at the photos and the right 0:43:44.440 --> 0:43:48.120 hand is under the right leg, so the only way 0:43:48.160 --> 0:43:50.480 that she could have pulled the trigger was with her 0:43:50.600 --> 0:43:54.400 left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen 0:43:54.440 --> 0:43:57.840 shotgun in the position that she was and get a 0:43:57.960 --> 0:44:02.160 ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible. 0:44:02.760 --> 0:44:07.719 It's recommends officers tasked with reinvestigating Amy's case need to 0:44:07.719 --> 0:44:11.319 do so with an open mind and distance themselves from 0:44:11.360 --> 0:44:15.640 those who remain convinced Amy killed herself and no amount 0:44:15.640 --> 0:44:17.920 of new evidence will be strong enough to lead to 0:44:17.960 --> 0:44:18.520 a conviction. 0:44:18.800 --> 0:44:20.920 I think there definitely should have been an open mind. 0:44:21.200 --> 0:44:24.560 After I made my statement for the Currner's court, they 0:44:24.640 --> 0:44:28.400 then got a superintendent to read my report and to 0:44:28.440 --> 0:44:32.719 produce a report. Now I listened to his evidence at 0:44:32.760 --> 0:44:36.839 the Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It 0:44:36.880 --> 0:44:40.000 was all done properly, although he conceded mistakes at the 0:44:40.040 --> 0:44:44.799 crime scene, but he said, I can tell you now 0:44:45.040 --> 0:44:47.719 she took her own life. Well, that is just a 0:44:47.800 --> 0:44:51.640 closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in forty 0:44:51.640 --> 0:44:55.000 two years, I've had to go up against the brotherhood 0:44:55.480 --> 0:45:00.200 and not once has anyone ever apologized to me of 0:45:00.239 --> 0:45:02.479 families that we got it wrong. 0:45:11.280 --> 0:45:14.160 The most senior ranking officer who appeared at Amy's inquest 0:45:14.560 --> 0:45:19.719 was Detective Superintendent Rob Scantalberry, and he was adamant that 0:45:19.800 --> 0:45:21.279 Amy's death was suicide. 0:45:21.800 --> 0:45:26.320 Detective Superintendent, my name is miss Tyler. I'm counsel assisting 0:45:26.360 --> 0:45:28.800 the coroner. Could you state your full name. 0:45:28.880 --> 0:45:30.319 Robert Anthony Scantlebury. 0:45:30.520 --> 0:45:34.480 And you're currently a detective superintendent with WA Police. 0:45:34.680 --> 0:45:36.160 Yes, I am Major Crime Division. 0:45:36.239 --> 0:45:39.080 You've been a police officer for thirty one years. Is 0:45:39.120 --> 0:45:39.560 that right? 0:45:39.880 --> 0:45:40.520 That's correct? 0:45:40.800 --> 0:45:41.239 All right? 0:45:41.520 --> 0:45:45.239 Were you personally involved in any of the investigations into 0:45:45.320 --> 0:45:46.080 Amy's death. 0:45:46.400 --> 0:45:46.600 No. 0:45:46.960 --> 0:45:50.400 I understand that you also obtained some coronial information to 0:45:50.440 --> 0:45:53.920 assist the coroner in relation to firearms deaths from twenty 0:45:53.960 --> 0:45:57.839 fourteen to twenty twenty. That's correct, Is it your understanding 0:45:57.920 --> 0:46:01.359 that firearm related deaths in where in Australia. 0:46:00.920 --> 0:46:02.879 Generally are rare. Yes. 0:46:03.080 --> 0:46:05.840 Do you have a view as to why that is. 0:46:05.480 --> 0:46:09.280 Not really apart from the gun licensing laws in Western Australia. 0:46:08.680 --> 0:46:13.120 A question of accessibility, Yes, all right. You also provided 0:46:13.160 --> 0:46:17.000 a copy of an extract from the WA Police manual 0:46:17.040 --> 0:46:18.720 that relates to firearm deaths. 0:46:19.000 --> 0:46:19.280 Yes. 0:46:19.719 --> 0:46:22.759 This is effectively a step by step account of what 0:46:22.840 --> 0:46:26.239 should occur when a firearm related death is being investigated 0:46:26.280 --> 0:46:26.960 by police. 0:46:27.080 --> 0:46:27.600 Is that right? 0:46:27.800 --> 0:46:30.560 That's yes, it's under review, so that's the current one. 0:46:30.760 --> 0:46:33.880 Was that policy or aspect of the manual in place 0:46:33.960 --> 0:46:37.960 in twenty fourteen, yes, alright in your view, then was 0:46:38.000 --> 0:46:41.320 that policy followed by the responding police when they. 0:46:41.239 --> 0:46:42.239 First No, no, it wasn't. 0:46:42.480 --> 0:46:44.359 What emissions do you note if. 0:46:44.280 --> 0:46:46.760 I go to the policy? Yes, so verifying the scene, 0:46:46.880 --> 0:46:49.120 the position of the body. If further and I will 0:46:49.120 --> 0:46:52.520 go on weapon locations are consistent with the method in 0:46:52.600 --> 0:46:56.320 which the death has occurred, and further advice or specialist 0:46:56.320 --> 0:47:00.000 assistance is required to make this determination contact forensic or 0:47:00.080 --> 0:47:03.520 ballistics or forensic field operations. There's a number of other 0:47:03.880 --> 0:47:05.440 but that's the fundamental. 0:47:05.719 --> 0:47:08.799 So that's the major emission that you've noticed that I 0:47:08.840 --> 0:47:11.040 see in terms of the responding detectives. 0:47:11.320 --> 0:47:13.040 Yes, the only problem. 0:47:12.800 --> 0:47:18.239 Is it says if further advice or specialist assistance is required, 0:47:18.360 --> 0:47:21.279 which to some degree leaves it to the discretion of 0:47:21.320 --> 0:47:26.280 the person. So they thought they didn't need further specialist assistance. 0:47:26.480 --> 0:47:29.480 Absolutely that they should have at the time as it 0:47:29.520 --> 0:47:32.360 comes to knowledge and experience, And if I listened to 0:47:32.640 --> 0:47:35.839 the two police officers that gave evidence here, they both 0:47:35.840 --> 0:47:39.200 admitted their knowledge and experience wasn't where it should have been. 0:47:39.719 --> 0:47:42.839 They could have should have called for more assistance. So 0:47:43.000 --> 0:47:46.240 that's a fundamental change to that is that on every 0:47:46.280 --> 0:47:48.960 occasion of a firearm that's used in a death, then 0:47:49.120 --> 0:47:53.120 homicide are to be consulted. So that's the fundamental change 0:47:53.120 --> 0:47:53.600 going forward. 0:47:53.840 --> 0:47:57.040 I appreciate em asking you this in hindsight, but in 0:47:57.080 --> 0:48:01.080 your view, had homicide been contacted then that Amy died, 0:48:01.680 --> 0:48:04.040 what steps do you think would have been taken by 0:48:04.120 --> 0:48:06.560 homicide that weren't taken in this case. 0:48:06.680 --> 0:48:10.880 So homicide attended these matters, these instances or all instances 0:48:10.920 --> 0:48:14.799 in conjunction with forensic field operations, so immediately there would 0:48:14.840 --> 0:48:18.480 have been a joint investigation between homicide and forensics. They 0:48:18.520 --> 0:48:22.120 did that in the twenty tens and before I was 0:48:22.160 --> 0:48:24.759 there on the floor, and they would make a determination 0:48:24.840 --> 0:48:26.440 together and that's still how it's done. 0:48:26.560 --> 0:48:29.680 So you would have at least the expertise of the 0:48:29.719 --> 0:48:33.760 forensic officers there to say what they could or couldn't 0:48:33.800 --> 0:48:36.759 do based on the scene before a decision is made 0:48:36.760 --> 0:48:39.320 whether to actually do all those other things. 0:48:39.800 --> 0:48:43.200 Yes, it comes again, whether your experience is it comes 0:48:43.200 --> 0:48:46.680 with consistency. So if it's reported to be in this instance, 0:48:46.719 --> 0:48:49.720 it was reported that Amy shot herself, is the scene 0:48:49.760 --> 0:48:53.400 consistent with that the firearm being moved. Obviously, for Roberts, 0:48:53.480 --> 0:48:56.440 Blandford and Dixon early in the piece, the firearm being 0:48:56.480 --> 0:48:59.040 away from the body was not consistent with someone having 0:48:59.080 --> 0:49:02.120 taken their own life, so immediately they had those suspicions. 0:49:02.280 --> 0:49:06.359 So they're the That's the circumstances you look at when 0:49:06.440 --> 0:49:09.200 you're attending, and forensics can give you a lot more 0:49:09.239 --> 0:49:12.680 because of their expertise with BPA, blood pattern analysis, and 0:49:12.800 --> 0:49:13.760 a whole lot more. 0:49:13.920 --> 0:49:18.040 In your view, Even that one outstanding question, that question 0:49:18.120 --> 0:49:21.160 of the gun having clearly been moved, yes, should have 0:49:21.200 --> 0:49:24.319 been a trigger to a call to the Homicide. 0:49:23.800 --> 0:49:26.359 Squad, Yes, even though it was later explained it should 0:49:26.400 --> 0:49:29.040 have generated a conversation or generated that thought and a 0:49:29.120 --> 0:49:31.560 call to the Homicide Squad and Homicide to attend. 0:49:31.640 --> 0:49:35.080 I understand that you also review the Internal Affairs Unit 0:49:35.120 --> 0:49:38.160 report that was completed in respect of this matter. 0:49:38.320 --> 0:49:38.480 Yes. 0:49:38.680 --> 0:49:42.000 My understanding is that you agree with the majority of 0:49:42.040 --> 0:49:45.320 the criticisms that are made of the detectives in that report. 0:49:45.480 --> 0:49:48.080 But there are some areas where you disagree. 0:49:48.160 --> 0:49:48.719 Is that right? 0:49:48.840 --> 0:49:49.239 There is? 0:49:49.360 --> 0:49:52.080 Can you take me through those areas of disagreement? 0:49:52.600 --> 0:49:52.680 So? 0:49:52.760 --> 0:49:54.920 I think point two was in relation to the interview 0:49:55.040 --> 0:49:56.840 of Price and Simmons's witnesses. 0:49:57.040 --> 0:50:00.720 Point two refers to classifying David Simmons and Arth Price 0:50:00.840 --> 0:50:05.160 as witnesses and requesting statements be obtained from them by 0:50:05.280 --> 0:50:09.960 junior inexperienced staff prior to making any assessment of their criminality. 0:50:10.400 --> 0:50:12.799 When a PFA had been declared, it was basically a 0:50:12.840 --> 0:50:17.880 contradiction of the Criminal Investigation Act. However, neither Kirkman or 0:50:18.040 --> 0:50:21.239 Wiederman declared the PFA, and at no stage had their 0:50:21.280 --> 0:50:25.680 suspicions raised to the reasonable suspicion of criminality, and so 0:50:25.840 --> 0:50:28.640 in their mind, these two worst witnesses, and it was 0:50:28.680 --> 0:50:31.960 being investigated under the auspices of the Coroners Act, not 0:50:32.080 --> 0:50:33.600 under the Criminal Investigations Act. 0:50:33.760 --> 0:50:36.560 Before we move on, can I query whether you have 0:50:37.080 --> 0:50:41.000 any concerns, having reviewed the matter, that the statements as 0:50:41.080 --> 0:50:44.719 witnesses as opposed to suspects were taken from each of 0:50:44.760 --> 0:50:48.440 those persons by relatively junior staff at the scene. 0:50:48.560 --> 0:50:53.080 Look absolutely in What should have happened is that they 0:50:53.120 --> 0:50:55.800 should have been taken back to the local police station 0:50:56.239 --> 0:50:59.720 and thoroughly interviewed, so an electronic record of interviews should 0:50:59.719 --> 0:51:01.920 have been taken. They don't have to speak to you 0:51:02.000 --> 0:51:04.759 unless they wish to do so, even though they're not 0:51:04.880 --> 0:51:08.719 under suspicion or there's no reasonable suspicion of criminality. That's 0:51:08.760 --> 0:51:09.960 what should have occurred. 0:51:10.120 --> 0:51:12.960 Get Biddy, State Coronor Sarah Linton interjects. 0:51:13.440 --> 0:51:15.319 It occurred to me at the time as well. There 0:51:15.320 --> 0:51:18.600 were two other detectives floating around who didn't seem to 0:51:18.640 --> 0:51:21.480 be doing the pivotal stuff. Yes, and they could have 0:51:21.560 --> 0:51:25.160 assisted the uniformed officers to take statements. Even if they 0:51:25.160 --> 0:51:28.279 were going to do statements, they could have applied their expertise. 0:51:28.440 --> 0:51:29.760 Given the circumstances. 0:51:29.880 --> 0:51:31.640 I think one was a detective. The other one was 0:51:31.640 --> 0:51:35.000 a uniform sirconment to Rockingham detectives. That said, if you 0:51:35.040 --> 0:51:38.520 look at the seniority, Roberts, Blandford and Dixon were realistically 0:51:38.560 --> 0:51:39.920 senior people at that I. 0:51:39.880 --> 0:51:42.719 Don't think Dixon was. Wasn't she a police. 0:51:42.360 --> 0:51:44.000 Constable constable first class? 0:51:44.120 --> 0:51:46.960 No, I think she was just police constable. I think 0:51:47.000 --> 0:51:48.920 she had only just come out of the accademy. 0:51:49.000 --> 0:51:49.399 Any event. 0:51:49.400 --> 0:51:51.560 The other two that they weren't taking statements, they were 0:51:51.640 --> 0:51:53.640 up at the scene, So you've got I think it 0:51:53.719 --> 0:51:56.759 was just some local police right from somewhere else that 0:51:56.840 --> 0:51:57.239 turned out. 0:51:57.280 --> 0:52:01.239 As I reiterate, the witness statements should have been taken there. 0:52:01.280 --> 0:52:04.319 They should have been taken back and interviewed properly. There 0:52:04.360 --> 0:52:05.480 was just too many questions. 0:52:05.640 --> 0:52:08.120 And also then they could have been separate. I think 0:52:08.280 --> 0:52:10.879 one was moved to a car and one was doing 0:52:10.920 --> 0:52:11.479 something else. 0:52:11.560 --> 0:52:14.560 Yes, look, if we're in regional wa very difficult and 0:52:14.640 --> 0:52:18.279 so we will make those calls as we go. And 0:52:18.360 --> 0:52:22.600 there's times times have changed and we've got electronic means 0:52:22.600 --> 0:52:25.239 to be able to do portable electronic means to be 0:52:25.280 --> 0:52:28.440 able to record conversations. That has evolved, but there is 0:52:28.560 --> 0:52:31.880 plenty of occasions when you will still do your handwritten 0:52:31.920 --> 0:52:35.719 statements and even interviewing of offenders if required, if there's 0:52:35.760 --> 0:52:38.920 no electronic means available and it has to be and 0:52:39.239 --> 0:52:42.800 I said, he said written, then that's still allowable. Yes. 0:52:43.239 --> 0:52:46.480 Scandal berry Is then questioned about the missing door handle 0:52:46.560 --> 0:52:49.719 inside the bedroom and whether it should have been considered 0:52:49.760 --> 0:52:51.400 as evidence of a struggle. 0:52:51.760 --> 0:52:54.200 Yes, so I questioned that one, I don't know the 0:52:54.239 --> 0:52:56.560 relevance of the door handle, and again looking at the 0:52:56.600 --> 0:52:59.520 internal investigation report, they've not touched on it in any 0:52:59.520 --> 0:53:01.800 other place. And then when I listened to the evidence 0:53:01.840 --> 0:53:04.399 in court, hey today, well this week and last week, 0:53:04.520 --> 0:53:07.719 mister Robert Simmons said the door handle was always falling off, 0:53:07.719 --> 0:53:10.120 and others have given evidence the door handle wasn't there. 0:53:10.239 --> 0:53:13.680 So I don't see the relevance in relation to a 0:53:13.719 --> 0:53:17.239 sanction on the officers were not following up on the 0:53:17.280 --> 0:53:21.240 door handle when there's plenty of other things they should 0:53:21.239 --> 0:53:21.880 have followed up on. 0:53:22.200 --> 0:53:25.040 I suppose, I mean, it is one thing I thought 0:53:25.040 --> 0:53:27.640 that was strange that no one really thought about, only 0:53:27.800 --> 0:53:30.319 because you've got her sitting behind the door with her 0:53:30.360 --> 0:53:33.719 feet up and like she's blocking it, and there's no 0:53:33.800 --> 0:53:36.520 way of locking that door other than putting something up 0:53:36.520 --> 0:53:39.600 against it, because you can't lock the door handle because 0:53:39.640 --> 0:53:41.799 there isn't one. Yes, so it seems to me it 0:53:41.920 --> 0:53:44.960 had some significance, But I don't know if you necessarily 0:53:45.000 --> 0:53:46.359 need to pick that out of. 0:53:46.360 --> 0:53:50.120 Everything within an internal report. Yes, yes, yes, when their 0:53:50.160 --> 0:53:51.880 overall actions were incorrect. 0:53:51.680 --> 0:53:54.279 Yes, so it's a relevant piece of evidence, but not 0:53:54.320 --> 0:53:57.879 necessarily the smoking gun, if we use that unfortunate term 0:53:57.960 --> 0:53:58.880 in this case exactly. 0:53:58.960 --> 0:54:01.360 And the last one was in relation to the gunshot 0:54:01.400 --> 0:54:05.520 residue fingernail scrapings as well. We've already heard from McDonald 0:54:05.640 --> 0:54:08.239 and others last week in relation to the unreliability of 0:54:08.320 --> 0:54:11.359 gunshot residue, and especially when they've all conceded they've been 0:54:11.360 --> 0:54:14.840 handling firearms. When I say all, I mean Price and Simmons. 0:54:14.920 --> 0:54:18.680 Yes, this relates to Kirtman and Wiedeman's failure to consider 0:54:18.880 --> 0:54:23.160 necessary forensic procedures such as gunshot residue on Simmons and 0:54:23.200 --> 0:54:26.600 Price and all the other core material which would normally 0:54:26.640 --> 0:54:30.040 be collected if they were attending a suspicious death. 0:54:30.520 --> 0:54:34.080 So your view is that a criticism for not considering 0:54:34.200 --> 0:54:38.040 or not having gunshot residue testing done was not particularly 0:54:38.120 --> 0:54:41.840 fair giving the evidence about its reliabilities. 0:54:42.440 --> 0:54:45.520 Okay, although even though you might not expect it to 0:54:45.680 --> 0:54:49.760 be that significant, if forensics had come out and everyone 0:54:49.800 --> 0:54:52.040 had thought to do it as a suspicious death, you 0:54:52.080 --> 0:54:55.399 would have done they would have done those GSR tests. 0:54:55.080 --> 0:54:57.560 Anyway, Yes, I look, I truly believe if we go 0:54:57.640 --> 0:55:00.560 back to the basics, the basics are that if homicide 0:55:00.560 --> 0:55:03.359 had been called or the major crime squad had been called, 0:55:03.360 --> 0:55:06.360 and forensics had attended, then all those sorts of actions 0:55:06.480 --> 0:55:09.920 would have been completed. However they weren't, and so to 0:55:10.120 --> 0:55:13.680 pick small things, their fundamental mistake was not calling for assistance. 0:55:14.080 --> 0:55:17.960 So to as you say, to nitpick or go through 0:55:18.040 --> 0:55:20.600 the small points, I don't think it was relevant. 0:55:20.640 --> 0:55:23.560 Yes, you mentioned in our earlier evidence that a lack 0:55:23.600 --> 0:55:26.600 of experience on the part of the responding detectives was 0:55:26.760 --> 0:55:30.960 certainly a factor. Yes, As a relative lay person, a 0:55:31.040 --> 0:55:34.360 detective is a detective. To me, I assume there's a 0:55:34.400 --> 0:55:38.640 distinction between homicide detectives and detectives that might be the 0:55:38.680 --> 0:55:40.040 on call response car. 0:55:40.239 --> 0:55:42.520 Is that right? Yes, there is, there is, and it 0:55:42.600 --> 0:55:45.960 goes to the supervision and accountability So within the WA 0:55:46.040 --> 0:55:49.879 Police the structure of detectives, you start as an I four. 0:55:50.719 --> 0:55:52.360 So when you've done a certain amount of years with 0:55:52.400 --> 0:55:55.080 the WA Police, you apply for a detective training school 0:55:55.280 --> 0:55:57.360 and then you go to that school. When you successfully 0:55:57.360 --> 0:56:00.399 complete that four week training block, you become an EYE four. 0:56:00.840 --> 0:56:03.680 So you're on probation and your on probation for two 0:56:03.760 --> 0:56:07.040 years and during that time you do three eight months 0:56:07.120 --> 0:56:09.600 to conoments in different areas to gain experiences and a 0:56:09.680 --> 0:56:12.560 variety of experiences. You also complete a book in relation 0:56:12.719 --> 0:56:16.640 to the number of investigations you've conducted, media statements, court appearances, 0:56:16.680 --> 0:56:20.480 hand up briefs, etc. Following that, there's another course and 0:56:20.520 --> 0:56:23.040 then you become a permanent detective, which is an I five. 0:56:23.560 --> 0:56:27.160 And what we find that in the Metro at the moment, 0:56:27.640 --> 0:56:31.839 and it has been for some time, is that the 0:56:31.880 --> 0:56:35.640 majority of detectives that are on crime car I fours 0:56:35.719 --> 0:56:38.120 or I fives or an I five with an I four, 0:56:38.280 --> 0:56:40.839 so they don't have a lot of experience. And in 0:56:41.000 --> 0:56:44.319 this instance, whilst Kirkman was an I five and he 0:56:44.400 --> 0:56:46.480 was a detective sergeant, he didn't have a lot of 0:56:46.560 --> 0:56:49.879 experience in relation to these matters. And Tom Wiederman had 0:56:49.920 --> 0:56:50.799 even less. 0:56:50.800 --> 0:56:53.840 Because detectives, I mean, they're dealing with serious matters, but 0:56:53.920 --> 0:56:56.680 it's not always homicide. A lot of the time it's 0:56:56.800 --> 0:57:00.399 armed robberies and other kinds of violence, assaults and drug 0:57:00.440 --> 0:57:02.000 matters and things of that nature. 0:57:02.080 --> 0:57:05.080 There is there is, but with the specialist squads within 0:57:05.320 --> 0:57:08.920 the state's crime portfolio, the investigations they do in relation 0:57:09.120 --> 0:57:13.080 to homicides and drug and firearms, organized crime, gang crime, 0:57:13.160 --> 0:57:18.840 Sex Crime Division, Financial Crime Division, those are specialists, so 0:57:19.320 --> 0:57:22.360 a lot of the officers within the districts don't necessarily 0:57:22.360 --> 0:57:23.959 get to experience those investigations. 0:57:24.200 --> 0:57:27.840 We heard evidence from detective Kirkman earlier this week. I 0:57:27.880 --> 0:57:30.400 think you were in court when he gave evidence to 0:57:30.440 --> 0:57:32.400 say that he felt that he was the one that 0:57:32.480 --> 0:57:35.520 had to make a decision and he made the wrong decision. 0:57:35.640 --> 0:57:39.120 He appreciates about is there an issue with respect to 0:57:39.640 --> 0:57:42.120 was there an issue in twenty fourteen in terms of 0:57:42.160 --> 0:57:45.040 a detective's ability to call for that backup from the 0:57:45.080 --> 0:57:49.240 homicide squad or was there a culture against doing such 0:57:49.280 --> 0:57:49.600 a thing. 0:57:49.920 --> 0:57:52.280 There was no issue making the call. However, the reception 0:57:52.400 --> 0:57:55.200 on making the call varies on who received it. Within 0:57:55.240 --> 0:57:58.560 the homicide squad. So it was very much and even 0:57:58.600 --> 0:58:01.280 earlier when I was on the floor. Earlier it was 0:58:01.800 --> 0:58:05.000 if the person hadn't died, don't ring us till they do, 0:58:05.480 --> 0:58:07.840 And if a person had died, don't ring us until 0:58:07.880 --> 0:58:11.920 you've got reasonable suspicion of criminality. Ruled out everything else first, 0:58:12.200 --> 0:58:13.160 and that's the case now. 0:58:13.400 --> 0:58:16.160 It's worth noting that this goes against what Ron Das 0:58:16.280 --> 0:58:19.520 had said that in an unexplained sudden death, you should 0:58:19.560 --> 0:58:22.400 start from the basis of being a homicide. And on 0:58:22.440 --> 0:58:25.840 that basis, despite the two detectives on scene saying it 0:58:26.000 --> 0:58:29.320 was suicide, they wouldn't have been able to rule that out. 0:58:29.880 --> 0:58:31.080 What is the case now. 0:58:31.120 --> 0:58:33.920 The case now is that any death where there is 0:58:34.040 --> 0:58:37.400 questions asked, it's to contact homicide. 0:58:37.600 --> 0:58:41.600 So it's changing that culture to encourage people to access 0:58:41.640 --> 0:58:44.960 the expertise in the homicide squad. Yes, rather than saying 0:58:45.120 --> 0:58:48.240 unless you're sure it's a homicide, don't call us, it's like, 0:58:48.840 --> 0:58:50.840 we will help you decide if it is. 0:58:50.920 --> 0:58:53.520 And I also think the not just the availability to 0:58:53.560 --> 0:58:55.840 be contacted on the phone and consult, but the willingness 0:58:55.840 --> 0:58:58.640 to attend is another thing that the homicide squad now 0:58:58.680 --> 0:59:00.959 for the past twelve months or more have been willing 0:59:00.960 --> 0:59:03.360 to attend anything and case. In point two nights ago, 0:59:03.400 --> 0:59:05.840 there was a death in Hamilton Hill where the State 0:59:05.880 --> 0:59:10.200 Operations Center contacted homicide before they contacted the local detectives. Normally, 0:59:10.360 --> 0:59:13.720 the local detectives would go first so they can update 0:59:13.800 --> 0:59:16.920 and provide what the circumstances are. But that's how it 0:59:17.000 --> 0:59:18.240 is at the moment, and I think it's a pretty 0:59:18.240 --> 0:59:18.600 good state. 0:59:18.720 --> 0:59:22.160 Yes, just some final questions in terms of the Internal 0:59:22.200 --> 0:59:26.760 Affairs Unit report. Now, I appreciate that's not your area. No, 0:59:27.120 --> 0:59:29.840 you weren't involved in the decision to refer it to 0:59:29.880 --> 0:59:33.400 the Internal Affairs Unit and or any of the outcomes 0:59:33.400 --> 0:59:34.000 that occurred. 0:59:34.120 --> 0:59:36.680 Can I ask you that? Though, just pause for a second. 0:59:37.160 --> 0:59:40.320 My understanding and I could be wrong, but it actually 0:59:40.360 --> 0:59:43.880 seems that Internal Affairs Unit review is coming quite late 0:59:43.920 --> 0:59:47.880 in the day. My understanding is that it was potentially 0:59:48.000 --> 0:59:50.800 prompted by the former Deputy State Coroner, mister King. 0:59:50.920 --> 0:59:51.040 Yes. 0:59:51.360 --> 0:59:53.840 Is there a reason why that wouldn't have arisen earlier 0:59:54.040 --> 0:59:56.440 given what was going on in terms of referrals of 0:59:56.440 --> 0:59:59.160 the matter from the Coroner's court or the fact that 0:59:59.200 --> 1:00:03.400 Operation Jundie kicked off because things hadn't been properly investigated 1:00:03.480 --> 1:00:06.360 at the first stage, Like who prompts that sort of 1:00:06.360 --> 1:00:08.880 referral if it's not coming from the coroner's court, I. 1:00:08.840 --> 1:00:12.360 Would say anyone can prompt that referral for an internal investigation. 1:00:12.560 --> 1:00:15.320 So it's a conduct report, a police conduct report, very 1:00:15.320 --> 1:00:18.040 simple to enter, and it's either an email or a 1:00:18.040 --> 1:00:21.280 phone call. I think the difference is now is we've 1:00:21.320 --> 1:00:24.480 got a real desire for supervision and accountability, so quite 1:00:24.480 --> 1:00:27.640 often detectives and this one I pushed quite hard and 1:00:27.720 --> 1:00:30.280 have done a number of years, is if you attend 1:00:30.320 --> 1:00:33.040 an investigation and the local police have made the wrong call, 1:00:33.160 --> 1:00:35.440 or have made a call it's inconsistent with the legislation 1:00:35.520 --> 1:00:39.400 or policy, then you not just correct it, but educate. 1:00:39.720 --> 1:00:42.440 And I think then that's one of these things that 1:00:42.520 --> 1:00:45.440 happened back then, was that they could see there was 1:00:45.720 --> 1:00:48.760 the non contacting of homicide squad in forensics, the non 1:00:48.800 --> 1:00:53.440 consultation with specialist areas was identified, but it wasn't addressed. 1:00:53.920 --> 1:00:56.400 I think the drive for supervision and accountability, to make 1:00:56.400 --> 1:00:59.280 the sergeants accountable, to make senior sergeants accountable for the 1:00:59.320 --> 1:01:02.400 sergeant's decision, is going a long way to rectify those 1:01:02.760 --> 1:01:05.440 Otherwise they would keep making the same mistakes. And I 1:01:05.480 --> 1:01:08.320 don't know how many times between this matter and when 1:01:08.440 --> 1:01:11.439 it was addressed with Kirkman and Wiederman that they would 1:01:11.440 --> 1:01:13.520 have made the same call, made the same mistake in 1:01:13.560 --> 1:01:14.240 a flow. 1:01:14.040 --> 1:01:16.600 On consequence of the delay in terms of there being 1:01:16.600 --> 1:01:20.640 an internal affairs investigation, I imagine that the family have a 1:01:20.680 --> 1:01:25.480 perspective that the investigation of those detectives was relatively begrudging, 1:01:25.680 --> 1:01:29.520 and at a late stage, would you accept that would 1:01:29.600 --> 1:01:30.440 be their perception? 1:01:30.560 --> 1:01:30.720 I do. 1:01:30.760 --> 1:01:32.600 I think that some of the failing we did in 1:01:32.760 --> 1:01:36.200 twenty fourteen in relationshis matter have affected a lot of people, 1:01:36.240 --> 1:01:38.959 including the family, especially the family, And. 1:01:38.880 --> 1:01:43.440 So your evidence really is that best practice those failures 1:01:43.440 --> 1:01:46.920 of those first responding detectives should have been addressed in 1:01:46.960 --> 1:01:49.480 an internal investigation in twenty fourteen. 1:01:49.760 --> 1:01:52.920 Yes, And even if not an internal investigation, they within 1:01:53.000 --> 1:01:55.760 the police district, the Rocking and police district, So in 1:01:55.760 --> 1:01:58.520 those districts you have a crime inspector. The crime inspector 1:01:58.920 --> 1:02:00.840 should have been aware of this and would have been 1:02:00.840 --> 1:02:03.680 aware of this because of the fact it was raised 1:02:03.680 --> 1:02:06.680 within the major crime division through coronials who spoke to 1:02:06.680 --> 1:02:10.440 homicide and the senior sergeants within the Rockingham Detectives. It 1:02:10.480 --> 1:02:13.080 should have been raised and investigated then, so it could 1:02:13.120 --> 1:02:14.640 have been investigated at the local level. 1:02:15.120 --> 1:02:19.160 Detective Superintendent Scantalbury goes on for much of his testimony 1:02:19.320 --> 1:02:22.680 to discuss all the changes WA Police has made to 1:02:22.760 --> 1:02:26.400 try to ensure an investigation like that of Amy Wensley's 1:02:26.720 --> 1:02:30.800 isn't bungled in the same way. Again. Counsel assisting Amy 1:02:30.800 --> 1:02:34.520 Wensley's family, Rayne Wade, went on to push for answers 1:02:34.600 --> 1:02:38.000 about what more Professor Ackland would need to produce an 1:02:38.040 --> 1:02:43.040 accurate biomechanical report, which he considers would not be limited. 1:02:42.920 --> 1:02:46.360 Our electronic record of interviews of Price of Simmons, especially 1:02:46.400 --> 1:02:48.600 for Price in relation to the location of where the 1:02:48.640 --> 1:02:52.200 firearm was that was never never given to him the 1:02:52.240 --> 1:02:56.120 information from Kirkman, so Professor Ackland was relying upon Robert's 1:02:56.120 --> 1:02:58.960 statement where Roberts said that he was informed by Kirkman 1:02:59.280 --> 1:03:02.040 that the left hand was used, and so his experiments 1:03:02.080 --> 1:03:04.520 concentrated on the left hand, so he had to press 1:03:04.560 --> 1:03:07.440 the button. There was a whole range of evidence, statements 1:03:07.480 --> 1:03:09.280 and reports that should have been provided. 1:03:09.680 --> 1:03:11.440 Mister Way then asks. 1:03:11.200 --> 1:03:14.320 But do you accept that all these potential shortcomings have 1:03:14.360 --> 1:03:17.640 been corrected before her honor in the sense that those 1:03:17.680 --> 1:03:20.720 propositions have been put and we have the benefit of 1:03:20.760 --> 1:03:25.240 whatever responses Professor Ackland gave to those issues and the shortcoming. 1:03:25.320 --> 1:03:27.680 I think Professor Ackland acknowledged that he was provided with 1:03:27.720 --> 1:03:31.240 a lot more information. His findings may have been different. 1:03:31.080 --> 1:03:34.200 Just stopping here. You'll remember from a previous episode when 1:03:34.240 --> 1:03:36.960 Professor Ackland was questioned during the inquest about this. 1:03:37.440 --> 1:03:40.520 There are always limitations in preparing scenarios. One tries to 1:03:40.560 --> 1:03:42.919 mitigate against any potential bias on behalf of a model 1:03:42.960 --> 1:03:45.400 that we employ to come and represent the deceased, and 1:03:45.440 --> 1:03:47.520 try to put together the various parts of the evidence 1:03:47.560 --> 1:03:50.240 in order to set up the scenario as accurately as possible. 1:03:50.640 --> 1:03:52.520 So no one could ever say that the person would 1:03:52.560 --> 1:03:55.000 react in exactly the same way as someone who suffered 1:03:55.000 --> 1:03:57.760 a catastrophic injury. So I was a great pains to 1:03:57.800 --> 1:04:00.440 say to the model, just let everything go loose drop, 1:04:00.520 --> 1:04:03.440 but one cannot say it's going to be an exact replication. 1:04:03.760 --> 1:04:07.040 Professor Acklan ended up ruling out Amy being able to 1:04:07.160 --> 1:04:09.840 use either hand to kill herself and end up in 1:04:09.840 --> 1:04:12.680 the position she was in, which was consistent with the 1:04:12.720 --> 1:04:15.440 surrounding evidence such as the blood spatter. 1:04:15.640 --> 1:04:18.360 The only possibility was borne out in scenario too, that 1:04:18.400 --> 1:04:21.560 the right leg did indeed abduct to the floor, and 1:04:21.560 --> 1:04:24.600 then the subsequent openings might have then pushed the thigh 1:04:25.040 --> 1:04:27.360 over the top of her hand. That's what we were 1:04:27.360 --> 1:04:30.040 trying to work out and convince myself whether that was 1:04:30.080 --> 1:04:32.880 still possible. I've said in my report that I don't 1:04:32.920 --> 1:04:33.720 think it's possible. 1:04:33.960 --> 1:04:36.280 This was backed up by the testing of US crime 1:04:36.320 --> 1:04:40.720 reconstruction expert Scott Rhoder, who went one step further and 1:04:40.760 --> 1:04:44.040 concluded Amy could not have taken her own life. 1:04:44.120 --> 1:04:48.080 Now one hundred percent this is a homicide. 1:04:49.320 --> 1:04:52.120 Back to Scannerbury at the inquest, who defends the decision 1:04:52.200 --> 1:04:54.640 to not treat Amy's death as a suicide. 1:04:54.680 --> 1:04:57.360 There is no criminality identified in relation to this matter. 1:04:57.600 --> 1:05:00.080 I cannot put any other person in that room and 1:05:00.120 --> 1:05:03.280 so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this. 1:05:03.600 --> 1:05:06.920 Now bear in mind this is before David Simmons gave 1:05:07.000 --> 1:05:11.920 evidence before the inquest. Simmons denied having entered the bedroom 1:05:11.960 --> 1:05:15.000 he shared with Amy just prior to her death, but 1:05:15.400 --> 1:05:18.720 when questioned about it by the coroner, he replied. 1:05:18.400 --> 1:05:19.120 I can't remember. 1:05:19.680 --> 1:05:22.880 It's worth noting Simmons said I can't remember at least 1:05:23.000 --> 1:05:25.480 thirty times when questioned at the inquest. 1:05:25.680 --> 1:05:27.520 My memory is not real good from that. 1:05:27.520 --> 1:05:31.600 Day, notwithstanding evidence provided by Amy's six year old daughter 1:05:31.920 --> 1:05:34.880 who said she saw Simmons go into that room, which 1:05:35.000 --> 1:05:37.680 wasn't heard at the inquest because of her age at 1:05:37.720 --> 1:05:44.000 the time. Moving on, Scanderburry is questioned about the prospect 1:05:44.040 --> 1:05:46.960 of a cash reward for information about Amy's death. 1:05:47.480 --> 1:05:49.600 Her honor has the ability to refer it back to 1:05:49.640 --> 1:05:52.400 the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if it's then sent 1:05:52.440 --> 1:05:55.440 back to the WA Police for further investigation, and it 1:05:55.520 --> 1:05:58.640 is seen as an investigative avenue to apply for a reward, 1:05:58.680 --> 1:06:00.000 then that can be done. 1:06:00.880 --> 1:06:03.760 And now it has. But as we mentioned in an 1:06:03.800 --> 1:06:08.520 earlier episode, not as a result of a WA Police proposal, 1:06:09.160 --> 1:06:13.560 but a state government won announced last year to try 1:06:13.560 --> 1:06:16.880 to address the high rate of unsolved cold cases. 1:06:17.160 --> 1:06:20.160 Now sixty other cases of missing and murdered people from 1:06:20.200 --> 1:06:23.720 across the state will also attract a million dollar reward. 1:06:23.840 --> 1:06:26.800 It can happen. I've solved the case that was thirty 1:06:26.800 --> 1:06:30.640 two years old by going back over, So that was 1:06:31.280 --> 1:06:35.760 a young sixteen year old girl in Shepperton who went missing, 1:06:36.040 --> 1:06:39.320 was found in a table drain, stabed sixteen to eighteen 1:06:39.400 --> 1:06:44.440 times in nineteen eighty two. Now again investigated in that 1:06:45.320 --> 1:06:47.760 made a mistake earlier on and they believed it was 1:06:47.800 --> 1:06:52.440 a person Paul Greg Bledhill. They even actually charged him 1:06:52.440 --> 1:06:55.000 with the murder. And back then it went to an 1:06:55.040 --> 1:06:58.640 inquest which was the same as at the middle. The 1:06:58.840 --> 1:07:02.240 coroner found that there was insufficient evidence and it was released. 1:07:03.080 --> 1:07:05.960 Now young Joernals wanted to do a story about it, 1:07:06.440 --> 1:07:09.280 and she wrote a story and I actually went to 1:07:09.360 --> 1:07:12.280 Shepherd and after I read the file and publicly I 1:07:12.360 --> 1:07:16.520 said Greg Gladill could not have done this. So there 1:07:16.520 --> 1:07:19.040 were mistakes earlier on. But as a result of that 1:07:19.200 --> 1:07:23.680 being honest upfront, the information came in and eventually I 1:07:23.800 --> 1:07:27.160 charged Stephen Bradley, who's now doing thirty six years. One 1:07:27.200 --> 1:07:29.920 of the things with that case is that the original 1:07:30.000 --> 1:07:33.600 exhibits for some reason had been destroyed, so I didn't 1:07:33.600 --> 1:07:38.120 have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst there 1:07:38.160 --> 1:07:41.720 had been someone that was already charged and released and 1:07:41.760 --> 1:07:44.840 the exhibits were missing, we were still able to build 1:07:44.880 --> 1:07:47.800 a case and get sufficient evidence for him to stand 1:07:47.880 --> 1:07:48.360 his trial. 1:07:51.520 --> 1:07:54.520 Now one of the issues here is there seems to 1:07:54.520 --> 1:07:59.880 be this obsession by some members of WA Police thinking 1:08:00.360 --> 1:08:03.200 that somehow this can no longer be solved because the 1:08:03.240 --> 1:08:04.240 scene was whited. 1:08:05.920 --> 1:08:09.000 We have reached out again to WA Police and the 1:08:09.040 --> 1:08:12.560 Attorney General about some of their concerns raised by Ron 1:08:12.600 --> 1:08:17.880 Iddles and Michael Barnes. You'll hear their responses next week. 1:08:18.760 --> 1:08:20.800 But back to the clues we mentioned at the start 1:08:20.840 --> 1:08:24.599 of the episode, which are necessary to realizing the full 1:08:24.840 --> 1:08:27.880 truth about Amy Well. 1:08:28.439 --> 1:08:32.640 Number one, how about checking out Joshua Brydon's alibi and 1:08:32.720 --> 1:08:36.240 the discrepancies with the timeline of when he left the 1:08:36.280 --> 1:08:41.320 property set out in episode twelve. You'll remember in episode 1:08:41.400 --> 1:08:45.400 six where at the inquest, when counsel assisting the family, 1:08:45.680 --> 1:08:49.840 Peter Ward, tried to delve deeper into this, he was 1:08:49.880 --> 1:08:51.320 shut down by the coroner. 1:08:52.120 --> 1:08:55.280 The witness's account of his movements versus the messages that 1:08:55.320 --> 1:08:58.559 were being sent or received is inaccurate. The account he 1:08:58.600 --> 1:09:00.720 gave to police at the time is in accurate when 1:09:00.760 --> 1:09:01.960 it was fresh in his mind. 1:09:02.160 --> 1:09:05.440 There's nothing to suggest josh Bryden is in some conspiracy 1:09:05.479 --> 1:09:07.960 where he's actually been at the house during all these events. 1:09:08.360 --> 1:09:11.320 And I just can't see how questioning this witness unless 1:09:11.320 --> 1:09:14.559 he suddenly completely changes his story and announces that he 1:09:14.640 --> 1:09:16.920 was there when he wasn't, and you can put that 1:09:17.000 --> 1:09:19.559 to him, but I can't see any evidence to suggest 1:09:19.600 --> 1:09:22.479 that at this stage, and I'm unlikely to be hearing 1:09:22.479 --> 1:09:24.960 evidence of that however long I give you. I would 1:09:24.960 --> 1:09:28.240 have thought, I accept that his evidence is not reliable 1:09:28.360 --> 1:09:31.120 in some parts, and I mean, he kind of almost 1:09:31.200 --> 1:09:34.479 concedes that throughout, but by all means put a little 1:09:34.520 --> 1:09:36.559 bit more to him. But I just think we have 1:09:36.640 --> 1:09:38.880 time pressures here in the sense of getting through the 1:09:38.920 --> 1:09:41.920 witnesses today. And also I don't want people to come 1:09:42.040 --> 1:09:44.879 to an inquest and feel like they're being cross examined 1:09:44.920 --> 1:09:47.760 in a criminal trial when they're not. That's not the 1:09:47.800 --> 1:09:50.880 purpose of it. You're not being aggressive or anything. I'm 1:09:50.880 --> 1:09:53.960 not suggesting your manner as inappropriate, but I just think 1:09:53.960 --> 1:09:56.720 that kind of pinning down for all the inconsistencies in 1:09:56.800 --> 1:10:00.640 prior statements is probably not perfectly suited to this jurisdiction. 1:10:03.280 --> 1:10:07.040 And why the clothes supposedly worn by David Simmons and 1:10:07.080 --> 1:10:10.479 Gareth Price didn't have gun residue or blood on them 1:10:10.640 --> 1:10:14.040 when Simmons admits to shooting guns that afternoon and Price 1:10:14.160 --> 1:10:17.919 patted down Amy's body looking for her phone. 1:10:18.240 --> 1:10:22.880 Also why Simmons allegedly told Larry Blandford he wanted to 1:10:22.880 --> 1:10:26.920 go back into the house to get his pink phone, 1:10:27.280 --> 1:10:31.360 and why his father Robert denies receiving a thirteen second 1:10:31.400 --> 1:10:35.280 phone call made by David from the Serpentine roadhouse. 1:10:36.600 --> 1:10:40.400 And like Ronidle says, all key witnesses need to be 1:10:40.600 --> 1:10:46.360 exhaustively requestioned and external independent expert insight, such as that 1:10:46.400 --> 1:10:49.880 from a suicideologist and criminal behavioral analyst. 1:10:50.160 --> 1:10:50.559 Soorked. 1:10:55.640 --> 1:10:58.360 Well, it's funny you should say that, Al, because next 1:10:58.400 --> 1:11:03.720 week we'll be hearing from internationally acclaimed criminal behavioral analyst 1:11:04.200 --> 1:11:08.599 Laura Richards providing her expertise on Amy's coats. 1:11:09.040 --> 1:11:11.400 From everything I've seen in this case, there's good reason 1:11:12.080 --> 1:11:13.840 to distrust the authorities. 1:11:15.600 --> 1:11:18.360 And we go back to where it all started. 1:11:20.640 --> 1:11:40.040 Yeah, it was just toxic. It was so toxic, sous. 1:11:40.120 --> 1:11:41.000 So de. 1:11:45.040 --> 1:11:54.759 We know the nasty until unt. 1:12:01.800 --> 1:12:06.240 If you knew Amy and have information, any information about 1:12:06.280 --> 1:12:11.040 her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just email 1:12:11.160 --> 1:12:16.519 us at the Truth about Amy at seven dot com 1:12:16.600 --> 1:12:20.880 dot Au. That's s e v e N The Truth 1:12:20.920 --> 1:12:27.479 about Amy at seven dot com dot Au, or visit 1:12:27.560 --> 1:12:32.040 our website sevenews dot com dot Au forward slash the 1:12:32.120 --> 1:12:35.920 Truth about Amy. You can also send us an anonymous 1:12:35.960 --> 1:12:43.400 tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com. 1:12:43.520 --> 1:12:46.720 If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us 1:12:46.760 --> 1:12:50.720 to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but 1:12:50.800 --> 1:12:53.880 for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make 1:12:54.000 --> 1:13:00.320 any comments. And remember, if you like what you hearing, 1:13:00.680 --> 1:13:04.879 don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series 1:13:05.240 --> 1:13:13.200 because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter 1:13:13.280 --> 1:13:20.280 and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett, 1:13:22.360 --> 1:13:29.879 Sound design Mark Wright, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford, 1:13:30.920 --> 1:13:46.479 and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour. This 1:13:47.040 --> 1:13:48.679 is a seven News production.