Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old
Speaker 1: devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom,
Speaker 1: bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2: Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
Speaker 2: to grab something.
Speaker 3: Panic.
Speaker 4: Amy is dead, Sir Amy his dead?
Speaker 1: Eight confusion.
Speaker 5: Well about five minutes they sit n' to suicide.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent.
Speaker 6: This is emersing.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 2: The truth about Amy?
Speaker 7: SA Episode thirteen.
Speaker 1: I'm Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 7: And I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 8: Let mess you dam Please forgive me for interrupting the
Speaker 8: cocktail hour. But there are two questions of great importance
Speaker 8: which I must put to you. First of all, did
Speaker 8: anybody here throw a bottle into the sea this morning?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 8: Secondly, did any of you take a bath at twelve
Speaker 8: fifteen today? An odd time for ablutions? Remarkable a bath
Speaker 8: which nobody admits having taken, and a bottle which flies
Speaker 8: by itself.
Speaker 7: You are listening to Peter Eustinov as the famous detective
Speaker 7: Hercule Pio in the nineteen eighty one classic Agatha Christie
Speaker 7: movie Evil under the Sun. Here he poses questions which
Speaker 7: prove critical in him solving the mystery. We'll have some
Speaker 7: questions like this later in this episode.
Speaker 8: I can't say I blame them.
Speaker 7: This movie resonates with me as we unpicked the various
Speaker 7: clues which hold the key to the truth about Amy.
Speaker 5: All.
Speaker 7: Here Paro points out his pertinent points.
Speaker 8: I wish you to consider very carefully, a bathing cap,
Speaker 8: a bath, a bottle, a wristwatch, the diamond, the noonday gun,
Speaker 8: the breath of the sea, and the hate of the cliff.
Speaker 8: From that, you should be able to solve it yourselves.
Speaker 7: We can compile a similar list, although not so glamorous
Speaker 7: and a bit more comprehensive. A passport, a selfie, a
Speaker 7: khaki jacket, a pink foone, the packed are, a missing
Speaker 7: door handle, the gun in the wardrobe, the position of
Speaker 7: the body, and the clothes David and Gareth provided to police.
Speaker 7: Of course, there's also the taking out of the wheelibins
Speaker 7: and all the phone calls that occurred just after Amy died.
Speaker 7: There are so many anomalies which need addressing.
Speaker 1: And yes, fortunately police can't just gloss over things that
Speaker 1: don't make sense, and they need to verify Josh Bryden's
Speaker 1: movements around the time Amy died. Now that means speaking
Speaker 1: to all of those other witnesses who didn't want to
Speaker 1: be involved last time. We'll discuss more about this later,
Speaker 1: but for now, let's revisit our recent interview with Australia's
Speaker 1: own great detective, the good Cop, Ron Iddalls.
Speaker 9: Welcome, Ron, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: When we caught up with Ron on conversations, he discussed
Speaker 1: the steps to take when investigating an unexplained sudden death,
Speaker 1: most importantly treating it as suspicious until you can prove
Speaker 1: it isn't.
Speaker 9: It's a bit like ABC. Assume nothing, believe nothing, and
Speaker 9: check everything. The three classic things that you always look
Speaker 9: for motive, opportunity and capability. The truth is always in
Speaker 9: an an investigation, you've actually got to go out and
Speaker 9: find it, and at the moment, I don't think that's
Speaker 9: being done now.
Speaker 1: Ron makes it very clear that while he believes Amy's
Speaker 1: death was mishandled by the investigating detectives who determined its
Speaker 1: suicide on the night she died. It is solvable, and
Speaker 1: that's the important point.
Speaker 9: It is so the two people that were at the
Speaker 9: house at the time, that's David and Gareth, they had
Speaker 9: statements taken them down at the front gate, sitting in
Speaker 9: the back of a police car. Now, before those statements
Speaker 9: were finished, the detective that had already said it was
Speaker 9: a suicide. Now that's impossible because you haven't even got
Speaker 9: a full detailed statement from the two people who are present.
Speaker 9: I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still
Speaker 9: be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly
Speaker 9: what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people.
Speaker 9: Carl Williams, who was an underworld figure in Melbourne who
Speaker 9: elderly died and was involved in four or five murders,
Speaker 9: had this thing and he said those who know don't talk,
Speaker 9: and those who talk don't know. But in the end
Speaker 9: that was all proved wrong. Those who knew always told someone.
Speaker 9: I don't know what they've done since the inquest, but
Speaker 9: what I'd be doing is who is David's assaysiate, who
Speaker 9: are his friends who he's been in contact with over
Speaker 9: the last three or four years. And I know it's ONNUS,
Speaker 9: but you would go around and speak to every one
Speaker 9: of those. You would go and speak to all Garris
Speaker 9: friends again, because sometimes with the passage of time, people's
Speaker 9: relationship change. And I think if you did that, you
Speaker 9: might actually find someone who says, this is what he
Speaker 9: told me, which is inconsistent to what the account that
Speaker 9: he gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And
Speaker 9: then you couple that with all your evidence that you've
Speaker 9: found and you put it to the Office of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 1: Now. Last month, WA Police announced a cold case review
Speaker 1: was underway.
Speaker 10: The WA Police Force are currently investigating the death of
Speaker 10: Amy Wensley. The team are committed to investigating this matter
Speaker 10: professionally and doing their utmost to uncover new evidence. As
Speaker 10: this matter is currently under investigation, it would be premature
Speaker 10: to refer it to the ODPP at this stage. Once
Speaker 10: this investigation is complete, WA Police will present all findings
Speaker 10: of the task force to the Office of the Director
Speaker 10: of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. The investigation team are
Speaker 10: making progress, however, no further details will be provided at
Speaker 10: this time. Operational details of the investigation team will not
Speaker 10: be revealed.
Speaker 1: So after WA Police provide an updated copy of the
Speaker 1: brief of evidence, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Owen,
Speaker 1: decides whether Amy's case is strong enough to take to court.
Speaker 1: Amy's aunt, Anna Davy, recently reached out to mister Owen
Speaker 1: to see if he'd meet with her to discuss Amy's
Speaker 1: case and the way it's been handled. Dear Miss Davy,
Speaker 1: this is his reply, dated first of October.
Speaker 4: Thank you for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four.
Speaker 4: I acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my
Speaker 4: office is likely to be for you and your family.
Speaker 4: I understand you are seeking justice for Amy, and that
Speaker 4: this reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However,
Speaker 4: I am unable to provide a materially different response from
Speaker 4: the one you received from the ODPP on the first
Speaker 4: of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you
Speaker 4: that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we
Speaker 4: do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints.
Speaker 4: The odpp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable criminal offenses.
Speaker 4: Once charges have been laid by investigative agencies such as
Speaker 4: WA Police. That function includes the assessment of the evidence gathered.
Speaker 4: If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP isn't able to proceed.
Speaker 4: The ODP VP has no power to investigate the conduct
Speaker 4: of other agencies or to assess whether an investigation by
Speaker 4: WA Police was insufficient. In our letter to you, dated
Speaker 4: first of November twenty nineteen, we indicated that an inquest
Speaker 4: into your niece's death may be the appropriate forum to
Speaker 4: ventilate the matters you have raised. An inquest into the
Speaker 4: death of your niece has now been completed and the
Speaker 4: findings were delivered by the Deputy State Coroner on ninth
Speaker 4: of September twenty twenty one. The inquest followed a cold
Speaker 4: case review by WA Police in which further investigative strategies
Speaker 4: were used to determine whether any evidence could be obtained
Speaker 4: to establish criminality in relation to Amy's death. The review
Speaker 4: concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the involvement
Speaker 4: of another person in Amy's death, and the matter was
Speaker 4: referred back to the State Coroner to continue the coronial proceedings.
Speaker 4: The ODPP received and assessed the evidence, which was obtained
Speaker 4: by WA Police in its cold case homicide review. At
Speaker 4: the time, the former Director did not con seated there
Speaker 4: to be sufficient evidence to prosecute a person in relation
Speaker 4: to Amy's death.
Speaker 3: As you are no.
Speaker 4: Doubt aware, the Deputy State Coroner concluded that there was
Speaker 4: not enough evidence to make a formal finding about how
Speaker 4: Amy died. Accordingly, her honor made the open finding as
Speaker 4: to the manner of death. Although the state Coroner has
Speaker 4: the power to refer the matter to the ODPP, because
Speaker 4: the Deputy State Coroner found there was insufficient evidence that
Speaker 4: an indubtable offense had been committed, she did not refer
Speaker 4: the matter to the ODPP. The Deputy State Coroner did
Speaker 4: make some adverse comments about the standard of the initial
Speaker 4: police investigation and the limitations placed on the Coroner's ability
Speaker 4: to consider all relevant evidence. I've outlined this information only
Speaker 4: to ensure that you are informed about the evidence to date.
Speaker 4: I understand you are likely to be very familiar with
Speaker 4: what has occurred, and I mean no disrespect in doing so.
Speaker 4: At this time, the ODPP cannot undertake further steps or
Speaker 4: offer any other resolution in this case. Yours sincerely, Robert,
Speaker 4: Director of Public Prosecutions, dear.
Speaker 1: Mister Owen, Anna writes back, thank.
Speaker 2: You for replying to my recent letter and for confirming
Speaker 2: your office hasn't seen Amy's case file for at least
Speaker 2: five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's case was still being
Speaker 2: wrongly treated as a suicide by WA Police. Now in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to as
Speaker 2: a homicide and there is a considerable amount of new
Speaker 2: evidence now available as per my previous letter, would you
Speaker 2: be willing to meet with me to discuss or is
Speaker 2: it a case that you won't seek any information from
Speaker 2: WA Police unless they raise it with you. Given my
Speaker 2: family seems to be at the complete mercy of WA Police,
Speaker 2: I just wanted to find out from you what it
Speaker 2: would take for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If,
Speaker 2: as a family we don't believe Amy's case is being
Speaker 2: handled properly, what avenues do we have do we go
Speaker 2: back to the WA Corption and Crime Commission. I'm sure
Speaker 2: you can understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's
Speaker 2: come to light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast
Speaker 2: The Truth About Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've
Speaker 2: had to fight the system for more than ten years
Speaker 2: now because of the catastrophic mistake made by members of
Speaker 2: the WA Police Force. I don't think it's asking too
Speaker 2: much to seek help from people like you who are
Speaker 2: in the position to provide some but for whatever reason,
Speaker 2: don't seem to want to offer any assistance at all.
Speaker 2: Regards Anna Davy.
Speaker 7: It's unclear how mister Owen will react when he receives
Speaker 7: an updated brief into Amy's death, how thorough WA Police's
Speaker 7: reinvestigation will be, or whether they even recommend any action.
Speaker 7: But what's most troubling is a lack of accountability associated
Speaker 7: with decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are
Speaker 7: determines whether the case is strong enough to proceed with
Speaker 7: a criminal trial.
Speaker 5: I think the problem is that they have TANGI.
Speaker 7: This came up when we caught up with New South
Speaker 7: Wales Crime Commissioner and former State Coroner for both Queensland
Speaker 7: and New South Wales, Michael Barnes, who discussed what was
Speaker 7: at stake.
Speaker 5: Putting someone before the court is a serious impact on
Speaker 5: that individual. Being wrongly accused and then publicly tried, even
Speaker 5: if you are acquitted at the end of the day,
Speaker 5: is a very serious impact. So it's appropriate that the
Speaker 5: people making that decision do so cautiously. I think the
Speaker 5: problem is that they have intangible, almost unknowable assessments they
Speaker 5: must make. Is it in the public interest, is it
Speaker 5: likely to result in a conviction? Well, sitting in the office,
Speaker 5: reading your papers, looking at what the records of interview
Speaker 5: show seems to me to be a fairly difficult way
Speaker 5: to make an assessment of how a witness is going
Speaker 5: to perform in front of front of a jury, what
Speaker 5: they will say to questions that haven't yet been asked
Speaker 5: of them, how the expert witnesses will impact upon a
Speaker 5: jury's assessment. All of those things are very difficult to
Speaker 5: know with certainty. So if, as you say, there's a
Speaker 5: fifty to fifty chance, well, how do you decide which
Speaker 5: way it goes? You'd be aware of William Blackstone, a
Speaker 5: famous English jurist who is credited with saying that under
Speaker 5: the English legal system, it's better that ten guilty men
Speaker 5: go free than one innocent person is convicted. And I
Speaker 5: stand bothside that. I think that's extremely important. We can't
Speaker 5: have innocent people being locked up, but nor can we
Speaker 5: have people who are actually guilty of crimes not being
Speaker 5: brought to account. And the problem we've gotten the current
Speaker 5: system is if you were accused, there are multiple opportunities
Speaker 5: for you to vindicate yourself, for you to negate the
Speaker 5: proceedings brought against you. You usually have a committal proceeding
Speaker 5: in which you can seek to persuade the magistrate that
Speaker 5: the matter shouldn't go further forward. Even if you are
Speaker 5: committed for trial, you can make written submissions to the DPP,
Speaker 5: who will regularly listen to those submissions and decide that
Speaker 5: the matter shouldn't go to trial. If it goes to trial,
Speaker 5: you can make no case submission to the trial judge,
Speaker 5: saying there's no case for me to answer here. I
Speaker 5: shouldn't even have to go into evidence. And if you
Speaker 5: are convicted, of course you have all the appeal processes
Speaker 5: available to you. But people in the position of Amy's
Speaker 5: mother have no mechanism or process to contest the decision
Speaker 5: of the DPP and the police not to bring charges.
Speaker 5: That's quite surprising when you think about our commitment to
Speaker 5: transparency and accountability. Think of any other public official whose
Speaker 5: decisions aren't reviewable in any other circumstance. There's no mechanism
Speaker 5: that you can review the decision of a DPP even
Speaker 5: though they're making an assessment that isn't an objective, concrete
Speaker 5: decision that you can calibrate. It's not how many bricks
Speaker 5: were laid in a day, it's what will a jury
Speaker 5: think about these persons explanation for what happened.
Speaker 7: Mister Barnes goes on to say that should the WA
Speaker 7: Director of Public Prosecutions decide there's not enough evidence for
Speaker 7: him to take the matter further, he doesn't even have
Speaker 7: to justify it.
Speaker 5: The difficulty though, in the current circumstance, the DPP will
Speaker 5: look at it and you'll get a two line letter
Speaker 5: saying I don't consider there's a sufficient prospects of a conviction.
Speaker 5: If that's the course, they take, no reasons, no analysis
Speaker 5: of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory letter saying no,
Speaker 5: I know better than everybody else, it's not going to happen.
Speaker 7: Mister Barnes cites several examples where he's recommended charges be
Speaker 7: laid following an inquest, but the DPP refused.
Speaker 5: I've never seen a perfect investigation, and in most of
Speaker 5: those cases, though there are problems, they can be remedied
Speaker 5: and the investigation brought back on track. But you're right
Speaker 5: to highlight that in a certain number of cases there
Speaker 5: are crucial errors made that cause the resolution of the
Speaker 5: matters to be very protracted and in some cases never resolved.
Speaker 5: I mean, everyone knows about the Chris Dawson case here
Speaker 5: in Sydney, now got a conviction but decades after the event. Similarly,
Speaker 5: there was a tragic case here involving a young American mathematician,
Speaker 5: Scott Johnson, who it took three inquests before we got
Speaker 5: a really strong police investigation that only last year resulted
Speaker 5: in someone pleading guilty and serving a lengthy term of imprisonment.
Speaker 5: So yes, there are these cases. As I say, most
Speaker 5: of the time police do a great job, but from
Speaker 5: time to time mistakes are made. Either someone's not charged
Speaker 5: or they are charged, and the system falls down somewhere
Speaker 5: else along the way, as you'd appreciate. Even when a
Speaker 5: charge is laid because police have got but they think
Speaker 5: is sufficient evidence, all of the other parts of the
Speaker 5: criminal justice system have to work appropriately. I was involved
Speaker 5: in another very sad case in New South Wales, but
Speaker 5: they had some unfortunate similarities and that the victim was
Speaker 5: a young Aboriginal woman with young children and a devoted
Speaker 5: family who died as a result of horrific internal injuries,
Speaker 5: that the two miscreants who were with a claim were
Speaker 5: the result of consensual sexual activity. The cops didn't go
Speaker 5: for that she had a blood alcohol reading way beyond
Speaker 5: which anyone could make any sorts of reasonable decisions, and
Speaker 5: the circumstances in which she was found dead on the beach,
Speaker 5: with the two individuals involved burning all her clothing and
Speaker 5: the mattress from the back of the car made it
Speaker 5: very obvious that there was more to the story the
Speaker 5: cops charged with causing the death. The DPP discontinued the charge.
Speaker 5: We run in quested, to my mind, made it abundantly
Speaker 5: clear that the version given by the two people who
Speaker 5: were with Lynnette on the day that she died weren't acceptable,
Speaker 5: couldn't have possibly been true, and therefore strongly recommended that
Speaker 5: the charges again be preferred. Despite those detailed findings, the
Speaker 5: DPP declined to do that, and only when a couple
Speaker 5: of media outlets got involved and drue attention to the
Speaker 5: case was the DPP persuaded the brief and outside External
Speaker 5: Council to give advice about whether or not charges could
Speaker 5: or should be laid. That council indicated that a conviction
Speaker 5: was likely. He was correct. He was brief to then
Speaker 5: run the trial, and guilty verdicts were return by a
Speaker 5: jury after a five day trial. They're only out for
Speaker 5: thirty two minutes before they found the men guilty, and
Speaker 5: they're now thankfully serving lengthy sentences. But that's just an
Speaker 5: example of how everything at every step along the way,
Speaker 5: problems can arise that frustrate the pursuit of justice.
Speaker 11: Julianne's husband, Allan, said the women had gone out on
Speaker 11: a late night fishing trip near Atherton. They never came home.
Speaker 7: One of those cases was a supposed murder suicide of
Speaker 7: Vicky Arnold and Julianne Lay.
Speaker 11: Police ruled VICKI had killed Julianne and then turned the
Speaker 11: gun on herself.
Speaker 5: I did the third in quest and said it was
Speaker 5: a homicide, and the DPP refused to charge.
Speaker 7: The third inquest. Remember, Amy's case has only had one
Speaker 7: and the new evidence is expected to be enough to
Speaker 7: trigger another. But they're expensive and time consuming, and the
Speaker 7: family has been fighting for the case to be tested
Speaker 7: in court for more than a decade now. So why
Speaker 7: can't that be done?
Speaker 5: Undoubtedly the work you've done has contributed to a softening
Speaker 5: of that position the difficulty, though in the current circumstance,
Speaker 5: the EPP will look at it and you'll get a
Speaker 5: two line letter saying I don't consider there's sufficient prospects
Speaker 5: of a conviction. If that's the course, they take, no reasons,
Speaker 5: no analysis of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory
Speaker 5: letter saying, no, I know better than everybody else, it's
Speaker 5: not going to happen.
Speaker 7: Meanwhile, this begs the question, why are multiple inquests necessary
Speaker 7: when it will presumably lead to the same place.
Speaker 5: You've heard of the term therapeutic jurist rudens and coroners
Speaker 5: have been beaten around their head a bit on that
Speaker 5: score in the last decord or so that you've got
Speaker 5: research that suggests, in some cases unfortunately significant number of cases,
Speaker 5: the inquest have made things worse for the bereaved, and
Speaker 5: of course that's not what croners are inclined to do.
Speaker 5: There's also lack of consistent practice among coroners as to
Speaker 5: their role in suspected homicides. Some will say, we are
Speaker 5: not there to investigate crimes, We're only there to find
Speaker 5: the manner and cause of death, and that's the police
Speaker 5: and the DPP who've got to do crime. Therefore, we
Speaker 5: don't want to get involved in that. There are very
Speaker 5: significant differences in views about what the role of the
Speaker 5: coroner in suspected homicide is. Under the modern coronial system.
Speaker 5: It used to be a major part of their role
Speaker 5: and no one could go to trial in New South
Speaker 5: Wales unless they'd been committed for trial by the coroner.
Speaker 5: The eighties and nineties there's a big move away from that.
Speaker 5: Coroners are seen to have focus more on prevention. Was
Speaker 5: suggested that coron is unfairly damaging people's reputation and a
Speaker 5: lot of coroners, a significant proportion of coroners are not
Speaker 5: interested in reviewing their role in that regard. They see
Speaker 5: themselves as something different from the criminal justice.
Speaker 1: We contacted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Speaker 1: about this, which replied swiftly with the following.
Speaker 4: The ODPP receives indictable prosecutions after the charges have been
Speaker 4: laid in the Summary Court by the Investigative Agency WA.
Speaker 4: Police prosecutions are assigned to suitable, experienced and qualified prosecutors.
Speaker 4: According to the complexity and seriousness of the matter. Any
Speaker 4: decision to commence or discontinue a prosecution is reviewed and
Speaker 4: authorized by a more senior prosecutor. Where the matter is
Speaker 4: proceeding to trial, a further pre trial review is conducted
Speaker 4: by a consultant state prosecutor, who are our most senior prosecutors.
Speaker 4: Where there are no reasonable prospects of conviction, a prosecution
Speaker 4: cannot proceed. Additionally, victims have the power to request a
Speaker 4: further review of the prosecutorial decisions which recommend discontinuance, in
Speaker 4: accordance with the Policy and Guidelines for Victims of Crime
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two. Of course, all prosecutions are critically reviewed
Speaker 4: by an accused counsel, overseen by a judicial officer through
Speaker 4: the court proceedings, and are ultimately reviewable by the Court
Speaker 4: of Appeal. The ODPP also provides a formal charge advice
Speaker 4: function at the request of an investigative agency, predominantly wa police.
Speaker 4: The ODPP and investigative agencies have an independent function within
Speaker 4: the criminal justice system, and it is a matter for
Speaker 4: the investigative agency as to whether they accept that advice
Speaker 4: and decide whether to lay charges or not. A setout
Speaker 4: in Paragraphs sixteen to seventeen of the ODPP Media Policy
Speaker 4: at Appendix three of the Guidelines. It is the odpp's
Speaker 4: policy to provide reasons to a court for the discontinuance
Speaker 4: of a prosecution unless the discontinuance is for administrative purposes only,
Speaker 4: or to do so would prejudice the administration of justice
Speaker 4: or cause heart to a victim, witness, or accused. It
Speaker 4: is proper to publicly explain the odpp's approach to the
Speaker 4: question of whether a prosecution is to continue or be
Speaker 4: terminated by reference to the factors in the DPP Statement
Speaker 4: of Prosecution Policy and guidelines, for example, by reference to
Speaker 4: the lack of a prima facie case, lack of reasonable
Speaker 4: prospects of conviction, or that there is no public interest
Speaker 4: in proceeding.
Speaker 3: Where appropriate brief.
Speaker 4: Additional information by way of explanation can be provided, we
Speaker 4: refer you to the odpp's Media Policy, in particular a
Speaker 4: paragraph elevan in relation to further guidelines regarding the provision
Speaker 4: of information when additional information is sought by media organizations.
Speaker 4: These factors include that paramount need to ensure the integrity
Speaker 4: of the criminal trial process, including any potential future trial,
Speaker 4: the sensitivity of the information sought and the interests of
Speaker 4: victims and witnesses.
Speaker 1: That response was provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions
Speaker 1: Executive Assistant Margaret Ferry, and also reference the officer's Deputy Director,
Speaker 1: Justin Waley SC and Director of Legal Services Matt Bug.
Speaker 1: What they seem to be saying is that victims, not
Speaker 1: victims families can only apply for review if they wish
Speaker 1: to discontinue the case, and it's still up to WA
Speaker 1: Police whether they wish to proceed with charges. But back
Speaker 1: to Michael Barnes who also suggested WA Police seek the
Speaker 1: advice of a suicidologist.
Speaker 5: I'm not intimately familiar with a with Australian legislation, but
Speaker 5: generally currents need to be persuaded. There's fresh evidence that
Speaker 5: wasn't considered at the previous inquest. It's not appropriate simply
Speaker 5: to have another inquest because someone doesn't like the outcome
Speaker 5: of the first inquest, so they would need to be
Speaker 5: able to persuade the current There was fresh evidence that
Speaker 5: hadn't been considered at the inquest that's already been pleaded,
Speaker 5: that could lead to a different outcome and something that
Speaker 5: strikes me in this case. It's and I said, I'm
Speaker 5: not familiar with all of the evidence. I haven't read
Speaker 5: all of the exhibits, but I haven't seen any reference
Speaker 5: to expert suicide ology. One. It is very well renowned
Speaker 5: homicide detective and I know you've interviewed, mentioned how he
Speaker 5: was surprised by the circumstances, alleged that he'd never seen
Speaker 5: a suicide where a young woman had shot herself in
Speaker 5: such an awkward position and such a difficult circumstance. When
Speaker 5: had she been inclined to do that? There were other
Speaker 5: more convenient ways that should have been done. And Ronz
Speaker 5: White as he said, he's looked at a thousand cases.
Speaker 5: There are experts have looked at tens and hundreds of
Speaker 5: thousands of suicides. They undertake what they call psychological autopsy,
Speaker 5: so look at the victimology of the person and not
Speaker 5: the circumstances of the death, and can offer expert advice
Speaker 5: about whether people do ever kill themselves in this way.
Speaker 5: The Scott Johnson matter I mentioned before, the police rated
Speaker 5: off as a suicide in I think about two weeks
Speaker 5: He was found naked at the bottom of a cliff.
Speaker 5: His clothes neatly folded at the top of the cliff.
Speaker 5: It was easy for our suicidologists to say that people
Speaker 5: don't like themselves to be found in an undignified manner,
Speaker 5: even though they know they're going to be dead, so
Speaker 5: you don't take your clothes off before you jump to
Speaker 5: your death. That sort of expert evidence doesn't seem to
Speaker 5: have been brought to bear in this case.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: While a suicideologist wasn't consulted prior to the inquest, WA
Speaker 1: police sought analysis from Major crime clinical psychologist Dr Chris
Speaker 1: Geeson on whether David Simmons was telling the truth in
Speaker 1: his interviews with police and if Amy was suicidal.
Speaker 12: I'm inclined to believe David Woman's version of events and
Speaker 12: that Amy shot herself. I did not observe any seminal
Speaker 12: inconsistencies in his account, even with the retelling of it
Speaker 12: in parts, nor did I see any obvious behavior that
Speaker 12: suggested he was censoring his disclosures or constructing a story.
Speaker 12: I also noted that his response to questions were mostly
Speaker 12: spontaneous with minimal lag, suggesting he was not cautious or
Speaker 12: apprehensive about what he was disclosing or considering the implications
Speaker 12: of what he was disclosing. While there were intermittent pauses,
Speaker 12: these appeared to indicate he was trying to recall particular
Speaker 12: events in response to the interviewer's questions. This was indicated
Speaker 12: by his tentative responses I think and I'm not sure.
Speaker 12: I note that he responded this way even when the
Speaker 12: questions weren't critically relevant. I also noted that mister Simmons'
Speaker 12: emotional reactions i e. Expression, effect, and emotion was congruent
Speaker 12: with the content being disclosed at that point in the interview.
Speaker 12: What I mean by this is that when he became
Speaker 12: visually distressed, for example, this was both relevant and proportionate
Speaker 12: to that being disclosed. Further, when he recounted supposedly finding
Speaker 12: Miss Wensley in the bedroom after she had been shot,
Speaker 12: his reaction in the interview was intense distress, disbelief, and horror,
Speaker 12: with his nonverbal behavior supporting this. His behavior, for example,
Speaker 12: running around and dropping to the floor when he found
Speaker 12: Miss Wensley had been shot, is also consistent with these
Speaker 12: observed emotions and proportionate to the event. Mister Price's description
Speaker 12: of Miss Simmons also supports this congruency. Saying that he
Speaker 12: heard mister Simmons repeat fuck, fuck fuck and appearing in shock.
Speaker 12: I also noted that mister simmons reaction to the interviewer's
Speaker 12: reaction was indifferent to his responses. This suggested to me
Speaker 12: that he was not focused on whether or not the
Speaker 12: interviewers were accepting his version of events, i e. Being believed.
Speaker 12: This again suggests to me that Simmons was retelling his
Speaker 12: experiences from memory rather than constructing them. For these reasons,
Speaker 12: I'm inclined to accept David Simmons' version of events.
Speaker 1: Doctor Geson then goes into whether it was likely Simmons
Speaker 1: killed Amy or that she took her own life.
Speaker 12: Homicides can generally be categorized into two types, either being
Speaker 12: emotional and spontaneous or planned unintentional. I'm inclined to consider
Speaker 12: that neither of these scenarios fit the circumstances surrounding Miss
Speaker 12: Wensley's death to any convincing degree. Firstly, if mister Simmons
Speaker 12: had killed miss Wensley and staged the scene to look
Speaker 12: like an apparent suicide, then it would have needed to
Speaker 12: be an emotional reaction and spontaneous decision rather than a
Speaker 12: planned event.
Speaker 1: Here, doctor Geson argues, if planned a suicide, note would
Speaker 1: have been fabricated and better placement of the weapon. Simmons
Speaker 1: would have argued that Amy was depressed and suicidal, so
Speaker 1: she concludes that unlikely. She does concede Simmons is described
Speaker 1: as physically abusive with a propensity for violence when intoxicated,
Speaker 1: but suggests that Price would have needed to be complicit
Speaker 1: in Simmons killing Amy.
Speaker 12: Collusion seems unlikely. I say this because the events described
Speaker 12: and the language used by mister Simmons and mister Price
Speaker 12: are different, suggesting that they had actually observed the events
Speaker 12: and had done so from different fontage points. If they
Speaker 12: had colluded, I would have expected them to use the
Speaker 12: same language and narrative, since this is how information is
Speaker 12: retained when not actually observed. For example, after miss Wensley
Speaker 12: supposedly discharged the firearm, mister Symons said he heard a thud,
Speaker 12: whereas mister Price describes a crack like a thud. Another
Speaker 12: example is when mister Price describes hearing a smashing sound
Speaker 12: and hearing one of the kids saying Miss Wensley had
Speaker 12: flipped the lizard tank, while mister Simmons heard his daughter
Speaker 12: say Miss Wensley had smashed the fish tank if they
Speaker 12: had colluded, I would also not expect mister Price to
Speaker 12: disclose to police that mister Simmons called Miss Wensley a
Speaker 12: gutless piece of shit, or that he heard mister Simmons
Speaker 12: saying to Miss Wensley, pack your bags and fuck off,
Speaker 12: as these commons placed mister Simmons in a poor questioning light. Further,
Speaker 12: if mister Simmons had killed Miss Wensley in an emotional
Speaker 12: and impulsive rage, I would have expected a longer lag
Speaker 12: between Miss Wensley being shot and mister simmons arrival at
Speaker 12: the service station, with this time being needed to create
Speaker 12: a plausible story of Miss Wensley's death. Yet there is
Speaker 12: a lag of just sixteen minutes from the time Amy
Speaker 12: phones her mother and the triple zero call to the
Speaker 12: service station. When including the four minute drive from the
Speaker 12: house to the service station and Miss Wensley's three minute
Speaker 12: call to her mother according to phone records, this means
Speaker 12: there is now only nine minutes for any colluding and
Speaker 12: staging to occur. We also need to consider that a
Speaker 12: proportion of these nine minutes needs to be allocated for
Speaker 12: mister Simmons recovering from the shock of comprehending his actions
Speaker 12: and be sufficiently stable to disclose the events to mister
Speaker 12: Price and construct an alternative story. Another portion of this
Speaker 12: time but also need to be attributed to Miss Wensley
Speaker 12: placing her daughters in the car and making four trips
Speaker 12: from the house to the car to collect belongings. Hence,
Speaker 12: given all of these events that needed to occur within
Speaker 12: the nine minute period, any staging or colluding between mister
Speaker 12: Simmons and mister Price seems unlikely. These challenges make me
Speaker 12: consider that homicide, whether planned and intentional or impulsive and emotional,
Speaker 12: is unlikely.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. If two people have different
Speaker 1: versions of the same event, it's actually more likely that
Speaker 1: they're telling the truth according to the logic of WA Police.
Speaker 1: But just something for WA Police to contemplate here. Is
Speaker 1: there the slightest possibility that Gareth Price just believes his
Speaker 1: best mate when he's told him he didn't shoot Amy.
Speaker 13: No, he didn't fuckynure it.
Speaker 1: He didn't know it. Sorry, this is what Gareth told
Speaker 1: me when I asked him about it.
Speaker 8: Now, Simo is a good buddy man, He is a
Speaker 8: good man.
Speaker 4: He wouldn't have done in the first place. Well, I
Speaker 4: know that FO one hundred percent, he wouldn't have done it.
Speaker 1: Doctor Geeson now discusses Amy.
Speaker 12: Miss Wensley, appears to have been depressed at the time
Speaker 12: of her death. In the week prior to her death,
Speaker 12: she said she felt depressed and apparently said she wanted
Speaker 12: to change to another antidepressant medication because her current medication
Speaker 12: was not working.
Speaker 1: Okay, stopping here. Apparently now none of this is attributed
Speaker 1: and we can't find a record of this being said,
Speaker 1: but it's part of the narrative which leads to doctor
Speaker 1: Geeson concluding Amy took her own life, along with the
Speaker 1: following host natal depression, after having tay four years of
Speaker 1: a controlling, unstable and abusive relationship with mister Symons, social isolation,
Speaker 1: financial stress, a motor vehicle accident in March twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: causing spinal injuries and pain, affecting quality of life, two
Speaker 1: pregnancy terminations in twenty thirteen, poor body image, and self worth.
Speaker 12: This was compounded by further isolation when her partner, mister
Speaker 12: Simmons commenced fi FO around February twenty fourteen, leaving her
Speaker 12: to meet the demands of two young children on her own,
Speaker 12: and then moving to a rural property in Serpentine in
Speaker 12: March or April twenty fourteen. Miss Wensley's medical notes show
Speaker 12: that on twenty six February twenty fourteen, she was prescribed escitalapram,
Speaker 12: an antidepressant medication. This was after she described several months
Speaker 12: of low mood, anxiety, worrying about little things, anedonia or
Speaker 12: loss of joy, poor appetite, and sleep to servants. The
Speaker 12: medical notes say she had no thoughts of self harm
Speaker 12: at the time, although I see in her medical file
Speaker 12: there was a prior report of thoughts of self harm.
Speaker 12: Her follow up GP consult a month later, on thirty
Speaker 12: one March twenty fourteen, noted that Miss Wensley described some
Speaker 12: improvement in her mood, but that her partner had noticed
Speaker 12: it more than her. She also said she was drinking
Speaker 12: alcohol when she normally doesn't and was struggling with insomnia
Speaker 12: and irrational fears. While Miss Wensley did not appear suicidal
Speaker 12: in the weak prior, as she made no disclosures to
Speaker 12: her friends and family, depression is known to be the
Speaker 12: strongest predictor of suicide when this is combined with her
Speaker 12: other risk factors impulsivity, aggression, paranoia, irritability, in irrationality, helplessness
Speaker 12: and hopelessness, loss and rejection, then the possibility of a
Speaker 12: successful suicide attempt, unfortunately becomes more likely.
Speaker 1: Dr Geeson goes on to say that while uncommon, there
Speaker 1: have been links between acetuleopram and increased risk of suicide,
Speaker 1: suggesting Amy suffered a rare adverse reaction to esse telepram,
Speaker 1: or that the taking of the medication, and this is
Speaker 1: a direct quote from her report, alleviated the inertia of
Speaker 1: depression and activated problem solving and action, with suicide being
Speaker 1: considered a viable solution to escaping severe emotional pain and
Speaker 1: distress associated with depression. So, in other words, upon finally
Speaker 1: being able to think clearly and rationally, Amy realized her
Speaker 1: situation was absolutely hopeless and the best option was to
Speaker 1: take her own life. Now, I'm no expert, I certainly
Speaker 1: haven't got a psych degree, but that seems to me
Speaker 1: to be a very, very long bow to draw. It
Speaker 1: would be interesting to see whether that analysis would be
Speaker 1: backed up by other independent psychological analysts.
Speaker 12: Based on these historical and temporal events, my conclusion is
Speaker 12: miss Wensley's death was the result of suicide Chris Geesan
Speaker 12: twenty two March twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: And something worth noting here. Doctor Geeson never met David Simmons,
Speaker 1: hasn't spoken face to face with him once, nor obviously Amy.
Speaker 1: Her assessment is based on police statements and video interviews.
Speaker 1: We will be revisiting the psychological profiles of Amy and
Speaker 1: David Simmons in coming weeks.
Speaker 2: I actually run.
Speaker 14: At the University of Newcastle, the Justice Clinic, and I
Speaker 14: established that in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: In the meantime we caught up with another expert who
Speaker 1: offered other insight.
Speaker 14: It was initially called an Innocence Initiative, but we changed
Speaker 14: the name because we do look at cases of mischaracters
Speaker 14: of justice frong for conviction. But then when we established it,
Speaker 14: people started coming to us with all sorts of different cases,
Speaker 14: long term cold cases for example, but also what we've
Speaker 14: now classed as misclassification of death cases or those hidden homicides.
Speaker 14: And we've worked through with a number of families in
Speaker 14: the Justice Clinic, and we still have a number of
Speaker 14: ongoing cases of exactly that hidden homicide. So it's something
Speaker 14: we've been looking at at the University of Newcastle since
Speaker 14: I would think around twenty twenty, and sadly it's a
Speaker 14: lot more prevalent than I ever imagined until those families
Speaker 14: started contacting us and saying, can you please help my
Speaker 14: loved one's death was ruled a suicide or misadventure. And
Speaker 14: sometimes you look at these cases and I can't detail
Speaker 14: them because they're obviously classified. We're working through them legally.
Speaker 14: But yeah, you know, you look at it and go,
Speaker 14: how on earth was that classified as a suicide when
Speaker 14: you look at the facts of the case.
Speaker 7: Doctor Mallet is a forensic anthropologist and criminologist at the
Speaker 7: University of Newcastle who was also explored in detail the
Speaker 7: efficacy of expert witness evidence and the impact of external
Speaker 7: influences that may result in bias or prejudice in the
Speaker 7: decision making processes of duras.
Speaker 14: So this falls into that very much, that category, doesn't it?
Speaker 14: Of suspicious deaths? I mean, I guess one of the
Speaker 14: biggest questions for me looking at this as a forensic
Speaker 14: scientist and behavioral expert, is how on earth the detectives
Speaker 14: arrived at that scene and classified this so quickly is
Speaker 14: not suspicious as a suicide? Obviously the uniform officers believed
Speaker 14: that this was suspicious, but the detective seemed so keen
Speaker 14: to dismiss this very, very quickly. And that's a pattern
Speaker 14: that I've seen in hidden homicides. It's that initial response,
Speaker 14: that lack of interest in capturing the scene forensically, lack
Speaker 14: of interest in interviewing those key witnesses, and so sadly,
Speaker 14: it was all too familiar when I read those initial
Speaker 14: stages of the investigation and what had gone so obviously
Speaker 14: horribly wrong.
Speaker 6: Madam.
Speaker 7: Obviously everyone would like a water tight case, but this
Speaker 7: isn't an Agatha Christie murder mystery where everything is tied
Speaker 7: up with a bow at the end.
Speaker 8: I have discovered the identity of the murder of Madame Martha.
Speaker 7: Very seldom does the culprit confess to a complicated, convoluted
Speaker 7: execution of a crime after the detective has pointed out
Speaker 7: the inconsistence. But if proper time and resources are spent
Speaker 7: on it now, maybe they'll save a considerable amount of
Speaker 7: money in the long term. And there are plenty of
Speaker 7: other cost effective ways to reach a conclusion which won't
Speaker 7: be tainted by fears of organizational bias.
Speaker 9: I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred.
Speaker 9: I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to
Speaker 9: the Director of Public Prosecutions and it's come back in
Speaker 9: sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer,
Speaker 9: and more so the reconstruction that you have done with
Speaker 9: the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a
Speaker 9: detective and I looked at the photos and the right
Speaker 9: hand is under the right leg, so the only way
Speaker 9: that she could have pulled the trigger was with her
Speaker 9: left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen
Speaker 9: shotgun in the position that she was and get a
Speaker 9: ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible.
Speaker 7: It's recommends officers tasked with reinvestigating Amy's case need to
Speaker 7: do so with an open mind and distance themselves from
Speaker 7: those who remain convinced Amy killed herself and no amount
Speaker 7: of new evidence will be strong enough to lead to
Speaker 7: a conviction.
Speaker 9: I think there definitely should have been an open mind.
Speaker 9: After I made my statement for the Currner's court, they
Speaker 9: then got a superintendent to read my report and to
Speaker 9: produce a report. Now I listened to his evidence at
Speaker 9: the Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It
Speaker 9: was all done properly, although he conceded mistakes at the
Speaker 9: crime scene, but he said, I can tell you now
Speaker 9: she took her own life. Well, that is just a
Speaker 9: closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in forty
Speaker 9: two years, I've had to go up against the brotherhood
Speaker 9: and not once has anyone ever apologized to me of
Speaker 9: families that we got it wrong.
Speaker 7: The most senior ranking officer who appeared at Amy's inquest
Speaker 7: was Detective Superintendent Rob Scantalberry, and he was adamant that
Speaker 7: Amy's death was suicide.
Speaker 15: Detective Superintendent, my name is miss Tyler. I'm counsel assisting
Speaker 15: the coroner. Could you state your full name.
Speaker 3: Robert Anthony Scantlebury.
Speaker 15: And you're currently a detective superintendent with WA Police.
Speaker 3: Yes, I am Major Crime Division.
Speaker 15: You've been a police officer for thirty one years. Is
Speaker 15: that right?
Speaker 3: That's correct?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 15: Were you personally involved in any of the investigations into
Speaker 15: Amy's death.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 15: I understand that you also obtained some coronial information to
Speaker 15: assist the coroner in relation to firearms deaths from twenty
Speaker 15: fourteen to twenty twenty. That's correct, Is it your understanding
Speaker 15: that firearm related deaths in where in Australia.
Speaker 3: Generally are rare. Yes.
Speaker 15: Do you have a view as to why that is.
Speaker 3: Not really apart from the gun licensing laws in Western Australia.
Speaker 15: A question of accessibility, Yes, all right. You also provided
Speaker 15: a copy of an extract from the WA Police manual
Speaker 15: that relates to firearm deaths.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 15: This is effectively a step by step account of what
Speaker 15: should occur when a firearm related death is being investigated
Speaker 15: by police.
Speaker 7: Is that right?
Speaker 3: That's yes, it's under review, so that's the current one.
Speaker 15: Was that policy or aspect of the manual in place
Speaker 15: in twenty fourteen, yes, alright in your view, then was
Speaker 15: that policy followed by the responding police when they.
Speaker 3: First No, no, it wasn't.
Speaker 15: What emissions do you note if.
Speaker 3: I go to the policy? Yes, so verifying the scene,
Speaker 3: the position of the body. If further and I will
Speaker 3: go on weapon locations are consistent with the method in
Speaker 3: which the death has occurred, and further advice or specialist
Speaker 3: assistance is required to make this determination contact forensic or
Speaker 3: ballistics or forensic field operations. There's a number of other
Speaker 3: but that's the fundamental.
Speaker 15: So that's the major emission that you've noticed that I
Speaker 15: see in terms of the responding detectives.
Speaker 3: Yes, the only problem.
Speaker 15: Is it says if further advice or specialist assistance is required,
Speaker 15: which to some degree leaves it to the discretion of
Speaker 15: the person. So they thought they didn't need further specialist assistance.
Speaker 3: Absolutely that they should have at the time as it
Speaker 3: comes to knowledge and experience, And if I listened to
Speaker 3: the two police officers that gave evidence here, they both
Speaker 3: admitted their knowledge and experience wasn't where it should have been.
Speaker 3: They could have should have called for more assistance. So
Speaker 3: that's a fundamental change to that is that on every
Speaker 3: occasion of a firearm that's used in a death, then
Speaker 3: homicide are to be consulted. So that's the fundamental change
Speaker 3: going forward.
Speaker 15: I appreciate em asking you this in hindsight, but in
Speaker 15: your view, had homicide been contacted then that Amy died,
Speaker 15: what steps do you think would have been taken by
Speaker 15: homicide that weren't taken in this case.
Speaker 3: So homicide attended these matters, these instances or all instances
Speaker 3: in conjunction with forensic field operations, so immediately there would
Speaker 3: have been a joint investigation between homicide and forensics. They
Speaker 3: did that in the twenty tens and before I was
Speaker 3: there on the floor, and they would make a determination
Speaker 3: together and that's still how it's done.
Speaker 15: So you would have at least the expertise of the
Speaker 15: forensic officers there to say what they could or couldn't
Speaker 15: do based on the scene before a decision is made
Speaker 15: whether to actually do all those other things.
Speaker 3: Yes, it comes again, whether your experience is it comes
Speaker 3: with consistency. So if it's reported to be in this instance,
Speaker 3: it was reported that Amy shot herself, is the scene
Speaker 3: consistent with that the firearm being moved. Obviously, for Roberts,
Speaker 3: Blandford and Dixon early in the piece, the firearm being
Speaker 3: away from the body was not consistent with someone having
Speaker 3: taken their own life, so immediately they had those suspicions.
Speaker 3: So they're the That's the circumstances you look at when
Speaker 3: you're attending, and forensics can give you a lot more
Speaker 3: because of their expertise with BPA, blood pattern analysis, and
Speaker 3: a whole lot more.
Speaker 15: In your view, Even that one outstanding question, that question
Speaker 15: of the gun having clearly been moved, yes, should have
Speaker 15: been a trigger to a call to the Homicide.
Speaker 3: Squad, Yes, even though it was later explained it should
Speaker 3: have generated a conversation or generated that thought and a
Speaker 3: call to the Homicide Squad and Homicide to attend.
Speaker 15: I understand that you also review the Internal Affairs Unit
Speaker 15: report that was completed in respect of this matter.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 15: My understanding is that you agree with the majority of
Speaker 15: the criticisms that are made of the detectives in that report.
Speaker 15: But there are some areas where you disagree.
Speaker 7: Is that right?
Speaker 3: There is?
Speaker 15: Can you take me through those areas of disagreement?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 3: I think point two was in relation to the interview
Speaker 3: of Price and Simmons's witnesses.
Speaker 7: Point two refers to classifying David Simmons and Arth Price
Speaker 7: as witnesses and requesting statements be obtained from them by
Speaker 7: junior inexperienced staff prior to making any assessment of their criminality.
Speaker 3: When a PFA had been declared, it was basically a
Speaker 3: contradiction of the Criminal Investigation Act. However, neither Kirkman or
Speaker 3: Wiederman declared the PFA, and at no stage had their
Speaker 3: suspicions raised to the reasonable suspicion of criminality, and so
Speaker 3: in their mind, these two worst witnesses, and it was
Speaker 3: being investigated under the auspices of the Coroners Act, not
Speaker 3: under the Criminal Investigations Act.
Speaker 15: Before we move on, can I query whether you have
Speaker 15: any concerns, having reviewed the matter, that the statements as
Speaker 15: witnesses as opposed to suspects were taken from each of
Speaker 15: those persons by relatively junior staff at the scene.
Speaker 3: Look absolutely in What should have happened is that they
Speaker 3: should have been taken back to the local police station
Speaker 3: and thoroughly interviewed, so an electronic record of interviews should
Speaker 3: have been taken. They don't have to speak to you
Speaker 3: unless they wish to do so, even though they're not
Speaker 3: under suspicion or there's no reasonable suspicion of criminality. That's
Speaker 3: what should have occurred.
Speaker 7: Get Biddy, State Coronor Sarah Linton interjects.
Speaker 16: It occurred to me at the time as well. There
Speaker 16: were two other detectives floating around who didn't seem to
Speaker 16: be doing the pivotal stuff. Yes, and they could have
Speaker 16: assisted the uniformed officers to take statements. Even if they
Speaker 16: were going to do statements, they could have applied their expertise.
Speaker 16: Given the circumstances.
Speaker 3: I think one was a detective. The other one was
Speaker 3: a uniform sirconment to Rockingham detectives. That said, if you
Speaker 3: look at the seniority, Roberts, Blandford and Dixon were realistically
Speaker 3: senior people at that I.
Speaker 2: Don't think Dixon was. Wasn't she a police.
Speaker 3: Constable constable first class?
Speaker 16: No, I think she was just police constable. I think
Speaker 16: she had only just come out of the accademy.
Speaker 3: Any event.
Speaker 16: The other two that they weren't taking statements, they were
Speaker 16: up at the scene, So you've got I think it
Speaker 16: was just some local police right from somewhere else that
Speaker 16: turned out.
Speaker 3: As I reiterate, the witness statements should have been taken there.
Speaker 3: They should have been taken back and interviewed properly. There
Speaker 3: was just too many questions.
Speaker 16: And also then they could have been separate. I think
Speaker 16: one was moved to a car and one was doing
Speaker 16: something else.
Speaker 3: Yes, look, if we're in regional wa very difficult and
Speaker 3: so we will make those calls as we go. And
Speaker 3: there's times times have changed and we've got electronic means
Speaker 3: to be able to do portable electronic means to be
Speaker 3: able to record conversations. That has evolved, but there is
Speaker 3: plenty of occasions when you will still do your handwritten
Speaker 3: statements and even interviewing of offenders if required, if there's
Speaker 3: no electronic means available and it has to be and
Speaker 3: I said, he said written, then that's still allowable. Yes.
Speaker 7: Scandal berry Is then questioned about the missing door handle
Speaker 7: inside the bedroom and whether it should have been considered
Speaker 7: as evidence of a struggle.
Speaker 3: Yes, so I questioned that one, I don't know the
Speaker 3: relevance of the door handle, and again looking at the
Speaker 3: internal investigation report, they've not touched on it in any
Speaker 3: other place. And then when I listened to the evidence
Speaker 3: in court, hey today, well this week and last week,
Speaker 3: mister Robert Simmons said the door handle was always falling off,
Speaker 3: and others have given evidence the door handle wasn't there.
Speaker 3: So I don't see the relevance in relation to a
Speaker 3: sanction on the officers were not following up on the
Speaker 3: door handle when there's plenty of other things they should
Speaker 3: have followed up on.
Speaker 16: I suppose, I mean, it is one thing I thought
Speaker 16: that was strange that no one really thought about, only
Speaker 16: because you've got her sitting behind the door with her
Speaker 16: feet up and like she's blocking it, and there's no
Speaker 16: way of locking that door other than putting something up
Speaker 16: against it, because you can't lock the door handle because
Speaker 16: there isn't one. Yes, so it seems to me it
Speaker 16: had some significance, But I don't know if you necessarily
Speaker 16: need to pick that out of.
Speaker 3: Everything within an internal report. Yes, yes, yes, when their
Speaker 3: overall actions were incorrect.
Speaker 16: Yes, so it's a relevant piece of evidence, but not
Speaker 16: necessarily the smoking gun, if we use that unfortunate term
Speaker 16: in this case exactly.
Speaker 3: And the last one was in relation to the gunshot
Speaker 3: residue fingernail scrapings as well. We've already heard from McDonald
Speaker 3: and others last week in relation to the unreliability of
Speaker 3: gunshot residue, and especially when they've all conceded they've been
Speaker 3: handling firearms. When I say all, I mean Price and Simmons.
Speaker 7: Yes, this relates to Kirtman and Wiedeman's failure to consider
Speaker 7: necessary forensic procedures such as gunshot residue on Simmons and
Speaker 7: Price and all the other core material which would normally
Speaker 7: be collected if they were attending a suspicious death.
Speaker 15: So your view is that a criticism for not considering
Speaker 15: or not having gunshot residue testing done was not particularly
Speaker 15: fair giving the evidence about its reliabilities.
Speaker 16: Okay, although even though you might not expect it to
Speaker 16: be that significant, if forensics had come out and everyone
Speaker 16: had thought to do it as a suspicious death, you
Speaker 16: would have done they would have done those GSR tests.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Yes, I look, I truly believe if we go
Speaker 3: back to the basics, the basics are that if homicide
Speaker 3: had been called or the major crime squad had been called,
Speaker 3: and forensics had attended, then all those sorts of actions
Speaker 3: would have been completed. However they weren't, and so to
Speaker 3: pick small things, their fundamental mistake was not calling for assistance.
Speaker 3: So to as you say, to nitpick or go through
Speaker 3: the small points, I don't think it was relevant.
Speaker 15: Yes, you mentioned in our earlier evidence that a lack
Speaker 15: of experience on the part of the responding detectives was
Speaker 15: certainly a factor. Yes, As a relative lay person, a
Speaker 15: detective is a detective. To me, I assume there's a
Speaker 15: distinction between homicide detectives and detectives that might be the
Speaker 15: on call response car.
Speaker 3: Is that right? Yes, there is, there is, and it
Speaker 3: goes to the supervision and accountability So within the WA
Speaker 3: Police the structure of detectives, you start as an I four.
Speaker 3: So when you've done a certain amount of years with
Speaker 3: the WA Police, you apply for a detective training school
Speaker 3: and then you go to that school. When you successfully
Speaker 3: complete that four week training block, you become an EYE four.
Speaker 3: So you're on probation and your on probation for two
Speaker 3: years and during that time you do three eight months
Speaker 3: to conoments in different areas to gain experiences and a
Speaker 3: variety of experiences. You also complete a book in relation
Speaker 3: to the number of investigations you've conducted, media statements, court appearances,
Speaker 3: hand up briefs, etc. Following that, there's another course and
Speaker 3: then you become a permanent detective, which is an I five.
Speaker 3: And what we find that in the Metro at the moment,
Speaker 3: and it has been for some time, is that the
Speaker 3: majority of detectives that are on crime car I fours
Speaker 3: or I fives or an I five with an I four,
Speaker 3: so they don't have a lot of experience. And in
Speaker 3: this instance, whilst Kirkman was an I five and he
Speaker 3: was a detective sergeant, he didn't have a lot of
Speaker 3: experience in relation to these matters. And Tom Wiederman had
Speaker 3: even less.
Speaker 16: Because detectives, I mean, they're dealing with serious matters, but
Speaker 16: it's not always homicide. A lot of the time it's
Speaker 16: armed robberies and other kinds of violence, assaults and drug
Speaker 16: matters and things of that nature.
Speaker 3: There is there is, but with the specialist squads within
Speaker 3: the state's crime portfolio, the investigations they do in relation
Speaker 3: to homicides and drug and firearms, organized crime, gang crime,
Speaker 3: Sex Crime Division, Financial Crime Division, those are specialists, so
Speaker 3: a lot of the officers within the districts don't necessarily
Speaker 3: get to experience those investigations.
Speaker 15: We heard evidence from detective Kirkman earlier this week. I
Speaker 15: think you were in court when he gave evidence to
Speaker 15: say that he felt that he was the one that
Speaker 15: had to make a decision and he made the wrong decision.
Speaker 15: He appreciates about is there an issue with respect to
Speaker 15: was there an issue in twenty fourteen in terms of
Speaker 15: a detective's ability to call for that backup from the
Speaker 15: homicide squad or was there a culture against doing such
Speaker 15: a thing.
Speaker 3: There was no issue making the call. However, the reception
Speaker 3: on making the call varies on who received it. Within
Speaker 3: the homicide squad. So it was very much and even
Speaker 3: earlier when I was on the floor. Earlier it was
Speaker 3: if the person hadn't died, don't ring us till they do,
Speaker 3: And if a person had died, don't ring us until
Speaker 3: you've got reasonable suspicion of criminality. Ruled out everything else first,
Speaker 3: and that's the case now.
Speaker 7: It's worth noting that this goes against what Ron Das
Speaker 7: had said that in an unexplained sudden death, you should
Speaker 7: start from the basis of being a homicide. And on
Speaker 7: that basis, despite the two detectives on scene saying it
Speaker 7: was suicide, they wouldn't have been able to rule that out.
Speaker 15: What is the case now.
Speaker 3: The case now is that any death where there is
Speaker 3: questions asked, it's to contact homicide.
Speaker 16: So it's changing that culture to encourage people to access
Speaker 16: the expertise in the homicide squad. Yes, rather than saying
Speaker 16: unless you're sure it's a homicide, don't call us, it's like,
Speaker 16: we will help you decide if it is.
Speaker 3: And I also think the not just the availability to
Speaker 3: be contacted on the phone and consult, but the willingness
Speaker 3: to attend is another thing that the homicide squad now
Speaker 3: for the past twelve months or more have been willing
Speaker 3: to attend anything and case. In point two nights ago,
Speaker 3: there was a death in Hamilton Hill where the State
Speaker 3: Operations Center contacted homicide before they contacted the local detectives. Normally,
Speaker 3: the local detectives would go first so they can update
Speaker 3: and provide what the circumstances are. But that's how it
Speaker 3: is at the moment, and I think it's a pretty
Speaker 3: good state.
Speaker 15: Yes, just some final questions in terms of the Internal
Speaker 15: Affairs Unit report. Now, I appreciate that's not your area. No,
Speaker 15: you weren't involved in the decision to refer it to
Speaker 15: the Internal Affairs Unit and or any of the outcomes
Speaker 15: that occurred.
Speaker 16: Can I ask you that? Though, just pause for a second.
Speaker 16: My understanding and I could be wrong, but it actually
Speaker 16: seems that Internal Affairs Unit review is coming quite late
Speaker 16: in the day. My understanding is that it was potentially
Speaker 16: prompted by the former Deputy State Coroner, mister King.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 16: Is there a reason why that wouldn't have arisen earlier
Speaker 16: given what was going on in terms of referrals of
Speaker 16: the matter from the Coroner's court or the fact that
Speaker 16: Operation Jundie kicked off because things hadn't been properly investigated
Speaker 16: at the first stage, Like who prompts that sort of
Speaker 16: referral if it's not coming from the coroner's court, I.
Speaker 3: Would say anyone can prompt that referral for an internal investigation.
Speaker 3: So it's a conduct report, a police conduct report, very
Speaker 3: simple to enter, and it's either an email or a
Speaker 3: phone call. I think the difference is now is we've
Speaker 3: got a real desire for supervision and accountability, so quite
Speaker 3: often detectives and this one I pushed quite hard and
Speaker 3: have done a number of years, is if you attend
Speaker 3: an investigation and the local police have made the wrong call,
Speaker 3: or have made a call it's inconsistent with the legislation
Speaker 3: or policy, then you not just correct it, but educate.
Speaker 3: And I think then that's one of these things that
Speaker 3: happened back then, was that they could see there was
Speaker 3: the non contacting of homicide squad in forensics, the non
Speaker 3: consultation with specialist areas was identified, but it wasn't addressed.
Speaker 3: I think the drive for supervision and accountability, to make
Speaker 3: the sergeants accountable, to make senior sergeants accountable for the
Speaker 3: sergeant's decision, is going a long way to rectify those
Speaker 3: Otherwise they would keep making the same mistakes. And I
Speaker 3: don't know how many times between this matter and when
Speaker 3: it was addressed with Kirkman and Wiederman that they would
Speaker 3: have made the same call, made the same mistake in
Speaker 3: a flow.
Speaker 15: On consequence of the delay in terms of there being
Speaker 15: an internal affairs investigation, I imagine that the family have a
Speaker 15: perspective that the investigation of those detectives was relatively begrudging,
Speaker 15: and at a late stage, would you accept that would
Speaker 15: be their perception?
Speaker 17: I do.
Speaker 3: I think that some of the failing we did in
Speaker 3: twenty fourteen in relationshis matter have affected a lot of people,
Speaker 3: including the family, especially the family, And.
Speaker 15: So your evidence really is that best practice those failures
Speaker 15: of those first responding detectives should have been addressed in
Speaker 15: an internal investigation in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: Yes, And even if not an internal investigation, they within
Speaker 3: the police district, the Rocking and police district, So in
Speaker 3: those districts you have a crime inspector. The crime inspector
Speaker 3: should have been aware of this and would have been
Speaker 3: aware of this because of the fact it was raised
Speaker 3: within the major crime division through coronials who spoke to
Speaker 3: homicide and the senior sergeants within the Rockingham Detectives. It
Speaker 3: should have been raised and investigated then, so it could
Speaker 3: have been investigated at the local level.
Speaker 7: Detective Superintendent Scantalbury goes on for much of his testimony
Speaker 7: to discuss all the changes WA Police has made to
Speaker 7: try to ensure an investigation like that of Amy Wensley's
Speaker 7: isn't bungled in the same way. Again. Counsel assisting Amy
Speaker 7: Wensley's family, Rayne Wade, went on to push for answers
Speaker 7: about what more Professor Ackland would need to produce an
Speaker 7: accurate biomechanical report, which he considers would not be limited.
Speaker 3: Our electronic record of interviews of Price of Simmons, especially
Speaker 3: for Price in relation to the location of where the
Speaker 3: firearm was that was never never given to him the
Speaker 3: information from Kirkman, so Professor Ackland was relying upon Robert's
Speaker 3: statement where Roberts said that he was informed by Kirkman
Speaker 3: that the left hand was used, and so his experiments
Speaker 3: concentrated on the left hand, so he had to press
Speaker 3: the button. There was a whole range of evidence, statements
Speaker 3: and reports that should have been provided.
Speaker 7: Mister Way then asks.
Speaker 13: But do you accept that all these potential shortcomings have
Speaker 13: been corrected before her honor in the sense that those
Speaker 13: propositions have been put and we have the benefit of
Speaker 13: whatever responses Professor Ackland gave to those issues and the shortcoming.
Speaker 3: I think Professor Ackland acknowledged that he was provided with
Speaker 3: a lot more information. His findings may have been different.
Speaker 7: Just stopping here. You'll remember from a previous episode when
Speaker 7: Professor Ackland was questioned during the inquest about this.
Speaker 17: There are always limitations in preparing scenarios. One tries to
Speaker 17: mitigate against any potential bias on behalf of a model
Speaker 17: that we employ to come and represent the deceased, and
Speaker 17: try to put together the various parts of the evidence
Speaker 17: in order to set up the scenario as accurately as possible.
Speaker 17: So no one could ever say that the person would
Speaker 17: react in exactly the same way as someone who suffered
Speaker 17: a catastrophic injury. So I was a great pains to
Speaker 17: say to the model, just let everything go loose drop,
Speaker 17: but one cannot say it's going to be an exact replication.
Speaker 7: Professor Acklan ended up ruling out Amy being able to
Speaker 7: use either hand to kill herself and end up in
Speaker 7: the position she was in, which was consistent with the
Speaker 7: surrounding evidence such as the blood spatter.
Speaker 17: The only possibility was borne out in scenario too, that
Speaker 17: the right leg did indeed abduct to the floor, and
Speaker 17: then the subsequent openings might have then pushed the thigh
Speaker 17: over the top of her hand. That's what we were
Speaker 17: trying to work out and convince myself whether that was
Speaker 17: still possible. I've said in my report that I don't
Speaker 17: think it's possible.
Speaker 7: This was backed up by the testing of US crime
Speaker 7: reconstruction expert Scott Rhoder, who went one step further and
Speaker 7: concluded Amy could not have taken her own life.
Speaker 1: Now one hundred percent this is a homicide.
Speaker 7: Back to Scannerbury at the inquest, who defends the decision
Speaker 7: to not treat Amy's death as a suicide.
Speaker 3: There is no criminality identified in relation to this matter.
Speaker 3: I cannot put any other person in that room and
Speaker 3: so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this.
Speaker 7: Now bear in mind this is before David Simmons gave
Speaker 7: evidence before the inquest. Simmons denied having entered the bedroom
Speaker 7: he shared with Amy just prior to her death, but
Speaker 7: when questioned about it by the coroner, he replied.
Speaker 3: I can't remember.
Speaker 7: It's worth noting Simmons said I can't remember at least
Speaker 7: thirty times when questioned at the inquest.
Speaker 3: My memory is not real good from that.
Speaker 7: Day, notwithstanding evidence provided by Amy's six year old daughter
Speaker 7: who said she saw Simmons go into that room, which
Speaker 7: wasn't heard at the inquest because of her age at
Speaker 7: the time. Moving on, Scanderburry is questioned about the prospect
Speaker 7: of a cash reward for information about Amy's death.
Speaker 3: Her honor has the ability to refer it back to
Speaker 3: the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if it's then sent
Speaker 3: back to the WA Police for further investigation, and it
Speaker 3: is seen as an investigative avenue to apply for a reward,
Speaker 3: then that can be done.
Speaker 1: And now it has. But as we mentioned in an
Speaker 1: earlier episode, not as a result of a WA Police proposal,
Speaker 1: but a state government won announced last year to try
Speaker 1: to address the high rate of unsolved cold cases.
Speaker 10: Now sixty other cases of missing and murdered people from
Speaker 10: across the state will also attract a million dollar reward.
Speaker 9: It can happen. I've solved the case that was thirty
Speaker 9: two years old by going back over, So that was
Speaker 9: a young sixteen year old girl in Shepperton who went missing,
Speaker 9: was found in a table drain, stabed sixteen to eighteen
Speaker 9: times in nineteen eighty two. Now again investigated in that
Speaker 9: made a mistake earlier on and they believed it was
Speaker 9: a person Paul Greg Bledhill. They even actually charged him
Speaker 9: with the murder. And back then it went to an
Speaker 9: inquest which was the same as at the middle. The
Speaker 9: coroner found that there was insufficient evidence and it was released.
Speaker 9: Now young Joernals wanted to do a story about it,
Speaker 9: and she wrote a story and I actually went to
Speaker 9: Shepherd and after I read the file and publicly I
Speaker 9: said Greg Gladill could not have done this. So there
Speaker 9: were mistakes earlier on. But as a result of that
Speaker 9: being honest upfront, the information came in and eventually I
Speaker 9: charged Stephen Bradley, who's now doing thirty six years. One
Speaker 9: of the things with that case is that the original
Speaker 9: exhibits for some reason had been destroyed, so I didn't
Speaker 9: have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst there
Speaker 9: had been someone that was already charged and released and
Speaker 9: the exhibits were missing, we were still able to build
Speaker 9: a case and get sufficient evidence for him to stand
Speaker 9: his trial.
Speaker 1: Now one of the issues here is there seems to
Speaker 1: be this obsession by some members of WA Police thinking
Speaker 1: that somehow this can no longer be solved because the
Speaker 1: scene was whited.
Speaker 7: We have reached out again to WA Police and the
Speaker 7: Attorney General about some of their concerns raised by Ron
Speaker 7: Iddles and Michael Barnes. You'll hear their responses next week.
Speaker 7: But back to the clues we mentioned at the start
Speaker 7: of the episode, which are necessary to realizing the full
Speaker 7: truth about Amy Well.
Speaker 1: Number one, how about checking out Joshua Brydon's alibi and
Speaker 1: the discrepancies with the timeline of when he left the
Speaker 1: property set out in episode twelve. You'll remember in episode
Speaker 1: six where at the inquest, when counsel assisting the family,
Speaker 1: Peter Ward, tried to delve deeper into this, he was
Speaker 1: shut down by the coroner.
Speaker 9: The witness's account of his movements versus the messages that
Speaker 9: were being sent or received is inaccurate. The account he
Speaker 9: gave to police at the time is in accurate when
Speaker 9: it was fresh in his mind.
Speaker 16: There's nothing to suggest josh Bryden is in some conspiracy
Speaker 16: where he's actually been at the house during all these events.
Speaker 16: And I just can't see how questioning this witness unless
Speaker 16: he suddenly completely changes his story and announces that he
Speaker 16: was there when he wasn't, and you can put that
Speaker 16: to him, but I can't see any evidence to suggest
Speaker 16: that at this stage, and I'm unlikely to be hearing
Speaker 16: evidence of that however long I give you. I would
Speaker 16: have thought, I accept that his evidence is not reliable
Speaker 16: in some parts, and I mean, he kind of almost
Speaker 16: concedes that throughout, but by all means put a little
Speaker 16: bit more to him. But I just think we have
Speaker 16: time pressures here in the sense of getting through the
Speaker 16: witnesses today. And also I don't want people to come
Speaker 16: to an inquest and feel like they're being cross examined
Speaker 16: in a criminal trial when they're not. That's not the
Speaker 16: purpose of it. You're not being aggressive or anything. I'm
Speaker 16: not suggesting your manner as inappropriate, but I just think
Speaker 16: that kind of pinning down for all the inconsistencies in
Speaker 16: prior statements is probably not perfectly suited to this jurisdiction.
Speaker 7: And why the clothes supposedly worn by David Simmons and
Speaker 7: Gareth Price didn't have gun residue or blood on them
Speaker 7: when Simmons admits to shooting guns that afternoon and Price
Speaker 7: patted down Amy's body looking for her phone.
Speaker 1: Also why Simmons allegedly told Larry Blandford he wanted to
Speaker 1: go back into the house to get his pink phone,
Speaker 1: and why his father Robert denies receiving a thirteen second
Speaker 1: phone call made by David from the Serpentine roadhouse.
Speaker 7: And like Ronidle says, all key witnesses need to be
Speaker 7: exhaustively requestioned and external independent expert insight, such as that
Speaker 7: from a suicideologist and criminal behavioral analyst.
Speaker 13: Soorked.
Speaker 1: Well, it's funny you should say that, Al, because next
Speaker 1: week we'll be hearing from internationally acclaimed criminal behavioral analyst
Speaker 1: Laura Richards providing her expertise on Amy's coats.
Speaker 14: From everything I've seen in this case, there's good reason
Speaker 14: to distrust the authorities.
Speaker 1: And we go back to where it all started.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it was just toxic. It was so toxic, sous.
Speaker 7: So de.
Speaker 6: We know the nasty until unt.
Speaker 1: If you knew Amy and have information, any information about
Speaker 1: her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just email
Speaker 1: us at the Truth about Amy at seven dot com
Speaker 1: dot Au. That's s e v e N The Truth
Speaker 1: about Amy at seven dot com dot Au, or visit
Speaker 1: our website sevenews dot com dot Au forward slash the
Speaker 1: Truth about Amy. You can also send us an anonymous
Speaker 1: tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com.
Speaker 1: If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us
Speaker 1: to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but
Speaker 1: for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make
Speaker 1: any comments. And remember, if you like what you hearing,
Speaker 1: don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
Speaker 1: because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
Speaker 1: and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,
Speaker 1: Sound design Mark Wright, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford,
Speaker 1: and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour. This
Speaker 1: is a seven News production.