Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome to Conversations four and we have a very
Speaker 2: special guest today. Ron Idle's the good Cop Victoria Police
Speaker 2: forty two years thirty six as a detective twenty five
Speaker 2: at the Homicide Squad, famous for the quote, well at
Speaker 2: least I've quoted him a number of times. The answer
Speaker 2: is always in the file.
Speaker 3: Welcome Ron, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: And we have Liam Bartlett here of course, and Tim
Speaker 2: is away this week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good Ael and Ron. Just to reiterate what Ellison
Speaker 1: says there, Thanks very much for coming on board. Your
Speaker 1: experience is absolutely second to none, mate, so we're very
Speaker 1: pleased to have you here. And also obviously we're reminder
Speaker 1: our listeners ol that Ron has been very much a
Speaker 1: part of this case. His report was included in the
Speaker 1: coronial inquest.
Speaker 2: That is correct, so you would have heard about We
Speaker 2: heard a lot about Ron, particularly in episode ten. So
Speaker 2: if you need to have a listen before you listen
Speaker 2: to this conversations, check it out because it's a very
Speaker 2: important aspect of this case. File Ron first question, how
Speaker 2: did you get involved?
Speaker 3: I think it's as a result of the show that
Speaker 3: I did with Good Cop. Amy's family contacted me asked
Speaker 3: would I look at the inquest brief. They felt that
Speaker 3: the investigation was poor, and eventually I agreed to do it,
Speaker 3: and then their legal team had to get permission for
Speaker 3: me to access some material from the current of course.
Speaker 2: What were your thoughts ro when you looked at the file?
Speaker 2: And I guess caught up with everything that had happened.
Speaker 3: So I was sent the part of the Inquestbury and
Speaker 3: some of the reviews that had taken place. So I
Speaker 3: read all the file and then I could see that
Speaker 3: there was a massive mistake made right from the start.
Speaker 3: When you go to an incident where there's a shotgun involved,
Speaker 3: you should treat it as a homicide in other words,
Speaker 3: a murder or a manslaughter, and work back from that
Speaker 3: premise to prove anything else. You don't deem it a
Speaker 3: suicide from day one.
Speaker 1: Yes, so the default position on the bottom line, that
Speaker 1: default position should have been something sinister, not something that
Speaker 1: was innocent.
Speaker 3: That's correct, and then it might prove to be wrong.
Speaker 3: But what you should do is you should call all
Speaker 3: the services out, which would include your crime scene. You
Speaker 3: call the pathologist out, you call a blood splatter expert out,
Speaker 3: you call a ballistics person out, and you do all
Speaker 3: the necessary measurement and that to determine whether the person
Speaker 3: could have shot themselves or whether it's actually a homicide.
Speaker 3: This case was determined in forty two minutes by the
Speaker 3: detectives just saying, well, she's taken her own life.
Speaker 1: Yes, when you put it like that forty two minutes,
Speaker 1: that really brings it home, doesn't it. Ron. I've got
Speaker 1: to say, you know, one of the things I think
Speaker 1: you're and I'm not blowing smoke here, but the Good
Speaker 1: Cop show that you've been involved with and hosted one
Speaker 1: of the best true crime shows on TV because you
Speaker 1: make it simple, even for mugs like me. You know,
Speaker 1: you break it down, break it down, break it down
Speaker 1: all the way through an investigation. And I guess that's
Speaker 1: what good detectives do, right. You know, it's not a
Speaker 1: question of being the smartest person in the room. It's
Speaker 1: a question of being thorough and absolutely looking at stuff.
Speaker 1: Where the common sense alternative doesn't stack up. You know,
Speaker 1: and when I look at this case and I read
Speaker 1: your report to the coroner again, by breaking it down
Speaker 1: like that, none of this makes sense. Would you agree
Speaker 1: with that?
Speaker 3: None of it made sense? And it's a bit like
Speaker 3: ABC Assume nothing, believe nothing, and check everything. Now, before
Speaker 3: the two people that were at the house at the time,
Speaker 3: that's David and Gareth, they had statements, taken him down
Speaker 3: at the front gate, sitting in the back of a
Speaker 3: police car. Now, before those statements were finished, the detective
Speaker 3: that had already said it was a suicide. Now that's
Speaker 3: impossible because you haven't even got a full detailed statement
Speaker 3: from the two people who are present.
Speaker 2: It's disgraceful, really, I mean when you look at it,
Speaker 2: I think though, when they obviously had the major crime
Speaker 2: investigation and then the cold case review, what were your
Speaker 2: thoughts as that transpired? Do you think that that was
Speaker 2: enough or you know, where were you thinking the investigation
Speaker 2: was going from there?
Speaker 3: I think the Major Crime did a half reasonable job,
Speaker 3: But the problem was you're already three or four days
Speaker 3: behind because at that stage David and Gareth have been out. Joshua,
Speaker 3: who was there earlier on it has been about you
Speaker 3: don't know what they're doing in those three days leading
Speaker 3: up to it. And the sad part is the crime
Speaker 3: says planed up and no matter what you do, you
Speaker 3: can never recreate that exactly.
Speaker 2: That's true, but that seems to be something that that
Speaker 2: resolved themselves too. Sorry it was watched at the beginning.
Speaker 2: There's nothing we can do. We just have to leave
Speaker 2: it as an open finding. Is that good enough or
Speaker 2: is there still a way to redeem the situation? Do
Speaker 2: you think?
Speaker 3: I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still
Speaker 3: be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly
Speaker 3: what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people.
Speaker 3: I don't think I've ever been involved in a homicide
Speaker 3: investigation where the person responsible has not told someone, So
Speaker 3: it's about finding that person. Carl Williams, who was an
Speaker 3: underworld figure in Melbourne who elderly died and was involved
Speaker 3: in four or five murders, had this thing and he
Speaker 3: said those who know don't talk, and those who talk
Speaker 3: don't know. But in the end that was all proved wrong.
Speaker 3: Those who knew always told someone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, human nature isn't it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a rufic thing to cover up, and they
Speaker 3: all always go ahead and tell someone.
Speaker 1: But Ron, let's put aside people's sense of loyalty, misguided loyalty.
Speaker 1: Let's put that aside for a second. Just coming back
Speaker 1: to that point about what evidence is available now, and
Speaker 1: we know we've been through a whole stake of episodes
Speaker 1: in this podcast trying to find the truth about Amy.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of and not just circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1: To me as a layperson, there is a lot of
Speaker 1: evidence in that room and around that room at the time,
Speaker 1: regardless of the fact that it wasn't forensically protected, that
Speaker 1: could still make a strong brief. Do you agree with
Speaker 1: that point? Because I'm asking you because because you must
Speaker 1: have had cases over the years where you've assembled what
Speaker 1: you thought was a very strong brief and yet still
Speaker 1: the DPP or the equivalent has knocked it back.
Speaker 3: I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred.
Speaker 3: I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to
Speaker 3: the Director of probably Prosecutions and it's come back in
Speaker 3: sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer,
Speaker 3: and more so the reconstruction that you have done with
Speaker 3: the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a
Speaker 3: detective and I looked at the photos, and the right
Speaker 3: hand is under the right leg, So the only way
Speaker 3: that she could have pulled the trigger was with her
Speaker 3: left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen
Speaker 3: shotgun in the position that she was and get a
Speaker 3: ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, Well, that's the thing, right. They decided she'd
Speaker 2: used that to shield the barrel, so then they pretty
Speaker 2: much dispensed with that theory and then went to the
Speaker 2: right hand being used, and then they were trying to
Speaker 2: find a way that the gun could have fallen in
Speaker 2: that position and her hand could have gone under a buttock,
Speaker 2: But of course in the end they couldn't prove that either.
Speaker 2: So then it was the whole idea of the body
Speaker 2: being moved. But there's still that attachment to the suicide
Speaker 2: theory as opposed to just looking forward and saying, look,
Speaker 2: what are the balance of probabilities. This is the brief.
Speaker 2: Let's just put it to the DPP and let them decide.
Speaker 3: Look, I think that I don't know what they've done
Speaker 3: since the inquest. But what I'd be doing is who
Speaker 3: is David's assay siate who are his friends who he's
Speaker 3: been in contact with over the last three or four years.
Speaker 3: You would go and speak to all Gareth's friends again,
Speaker 3: because sometimes with the passage of time, people's relationship change,
Speaker 3: and I think if you did that, you might actually
Speaker 3: find someone who says, this is what he told me,
Speaker 3: which is incant distant to what the account that he
Speaker 3: gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And then
Speaker 3: you couple that with all your evidence that you've found
Speaker 3: and you put it to the Officer Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 1: Ron here is there anything from a police level that
Speaker 1: allows or doesn't allow the police to go to back
Speaker 1: to David Simmons, back to the Gareth Price Joshua Brydon
Speaker 1: and pull them in again for a formal interview separately.
Speaker 3: At this stage you would have to have new evidence.
Speaker 3: You can't just go and arrest a person that you've
Speaker 3: already interviewed for the sake of another interview unless you've
Speaker 3: got new material to put to them.
Speaker 1: Can you ask them to do that voluntarily?
Speaker 3: Yes, you could go to any one of those three
Speaker 3: who were there on the day with David especially, you
Speaker 3: could go back and put the matters that you're uncovered
Speaker 3: as a result of your expert from America.
Speaker 1: Listen, this is where I still go back again and again,
Speaker 1: you know, to that terrible evening. I still can't get
Speaker 1: my head around there. I mean, two detectives turn up
Speaker 1: with three uniforms already there, and between the two experienced
Speaker 1: detectives senior police, they create notes between the two of
Speaker 1: them that don't even fill a page, a single page
Speaker 1: of a four paper. I'm just I just it does
Speaker 1: my head in that statistic ron. How do you feel
Speaker 1: about that as a senior police officer.
Speaker 3: Well, I've got to sadly agree with you. If I
Speaker 3: was at that scene, I think you would find that
Speaker 3: I would probably have twenty a four pages of notes.
Speaker 3: I'm going to talk to the first uniform police there.
Speaker 3: I'm going to take notes to that, You're going to
Speaker 3: do a diagram of the scene. Then I'm going to
Speaker 3: make phone calls because I know I want other services there.
Speaker 3: I just think those two detectives just didn't want to
Speaker 3: be there that night. They might add something else to
Speaker 3: go to. It's as if well, let's just tick this
Speaker 3: box and walk away and sadly, I think they got
Speaker 3: it wrong.
Speaker 2: The Brotherhood of the Police. And you were in the
Speaker 2: police force for half a century, so you know about this.
Speaker 2: And when mistakes are made, when people do muck up,
Speaker 2: is there an issue sometimes with having them taken into account?
Speaker 2: And I mean there was an internal investigation and you
Speaker 2: saw that. Was it enough? And do you think that
Speaker 2: there should have been a bit more of an open
Speaker 2: mind at the inquest as to what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3: I think there was definitely should have been an open mind.
Speaker 3: After I made my statement for the currents court, they
Speaker 3: then got a superintendent to read report and to produce
Speaker 3: a report. Now I listened to his evidence at the
Speaker 3: Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It was
Speaker 3: all done properly, although he can see the mistakes at
Speaker 3: the crime scene, but he said, I can tell you
Speaker 3: now she took her own life. Well, that is just
Speaker 3: a closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in
Speaker 3: forty two years I've had to go up against the
Speaker 3: Brotherhood and not once has anyone ever apologized to me
Speaker 3: order families that we got it wrong.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. You would have seen with Larry Blandford, right,
Speaker 2: he's created like a bit of a leper now because
Speaker 2: he actually stood up and he's no longer an officer.
Speaker 2: How often does it happen that uniform cops might do
Speaker 2: that and is it seen as a bit of an
Speaker 2: army mentality you don't question your superior when it comes
Speaker 2: to the police force as well.
Speaker 3: Look, I think it was difficult for those junior officers
Speaker 3: on the night. They were quite to the point that
Speaker 3: it wasn't a suicide, or she hadn't taken her own life,
Speaker 3: or they wanted a lot of other things done and tested,
Speaker 3: and I think they spoke your mind. But it's like
Speaker 3: a hierarchy. So, Okay, you've got these detectives who are
Speaker 3: they're far more experienced than we are. They're saying she
Speaker 3: took her own life, so they have to accept that,
Speaker 3: even though deep down they don't yes.
Speaker 1: On that level, Ron, If we just get your comments
Speaker 1: on a couple of these things that relate to the
Speaker 1: police directly from your experience from some of our listeners
Speaker 1: that have made queries put comments on the Facebook page
Speaker 1: for the Truth About Amy podcast. If you don't mind out,
Speaker 1: I'll just go through a couple of these for Ron
Speaker 1: on that exact subject. Debra is asking why the uniform
Speaker 1: police who turned up couldn't go over the heads of
Speaker 1: the detectives at the time. Can you explain that, ron.
Speaker 3: If they did, then there'd be consequences down the track.
Speaker 3: They would be seen as not being loyal to a
Speaker 3: senior officer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it would. It'd be very difficult, woudn't it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just like trying to go up against
Speaker 1: your manager if you're in a big organization. It's a
Speaker 1: difficult thing at that level, isn't it.
Speaker 3: It is? And I was asked in twenty twelve to
Speaker 3: review the murder of two policemen Silken Miller in Melbourne,
Speaker 3: and I came to the conclusion that one of the
Speaker 3: persons responsible wasn't there.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: When I finished my report, I took it directly to
Speaker 3: the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now that's caused me no
Speaker 3: end of grief. I've been ostracized. I'm now the evil one,
Speaker 3: even though later on it was proved I was right,
Speaker 3: and the young person charged, Jason Roberts, did twenty one
Speaker 3: years and has been exonerated. You don't buck the system.
Speaker 3: If you buck the system, you'll be offstra basically left
Speaker 3: to your stone devices.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even though, as you say, you've been proved to
Speaker 1: be one hundred percent right in fact, to the point
Speaker 1: where that particular person has now launched a multimillion dollar
Speaker 1: lawsuit against the government. So yeah, maybe more people should
Speaker 1: have listened to you earlier.
Speaker 3: Well, it's just one of those things that if you
Speaker 3: go against the hierarchy, you're considered basically as a black shirt.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's sad, right for doing the right thing. Shouldn't
Speaker 2: that be respected?
Speaker 3: Or it should be it should be respected, But I
Speaker 3: haven't seen it change much over the last twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five years.
Speaker 1: Agreed. Well, here's another one on that level. This is
Speaker 1: from Judy on the Facebook page. Judy wants to know
Speaker 1: how the Premier in Wa, Roger Cook, and the state's
Speaker 1: Attorney General John Quigley sleep at night and how they
Speaker 1: would feel if it happened to one of their children,
Speaker 1: And she goes on to say the Police Commissioner Cole
Speaker 1: Blanche needs to step up. That's a fairly straightforward and
Speaker 1: fair comment, don't you think, Ron It is?
Speaker 3: But I think the Premier wouldn't know the exact details.
Speaker 3: The police minister would have an overall briefing. But I
Speaker 3: think it's time the Chief Commissioner stood up and said, well, look,
Speaker 3: let's put this to bed once and for all, let's
Speaker 3: get all the available evidence, put it back before the
Speaker 3: Director of Public Prosecutions, and let's get a decision made.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, very good point. I mean, I'd love to
Speaker 1: see some of this stuff, things that we've been shaking
Speaker 1: our head over, ol, I'd love to see. I'd love
Speaker 1: to see a jury hear the same stuff in the
Speaker 1: same order. But here's another one from Facebook. Ron Trisha
Speaker 1: wants to know more about the missing door handle. Now
Speaker 1: I'm intrigued by that as well. What did you think
Speaker 1: of that? Ron?
Speaker 3: I can't explain that, Like, the door handle's missing, was
Speaker 3: it missing prior to that day? And then I've got
Speaker 3: a vague recollection that could have been on the dressing table.
Speaker 2: Yes, well it was replaced. That's the funny thing, right,
Speaker 2: the door handled turned back up afterwards, but at the
Speaker 2: time it was missing on the inside. And that's just
Speaker 2: so strange. I've always thought that was strange because if
Speaker 2: Amy had taken it, she would have taken it from
Speaker 2: the outside, because she wouldn't have wanted her daughters to
Speaker 2: walk in on her if she had killed herself.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's right. But where she's located behind the door,
Speaker 3: to me, it's like she's gone down there and she's
Speaker 3: cowering like gotta rum up, as if something's going to
Speaker 3: take place.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, there was another guy. Actually, I don't know.
Speaker 2: And Liam's going through this too, and it's great. I
Speaker 2: love that we've had so many people get back to
Speaker 2: us on this. This is Paul. We kind of addressed
Speaker 2: this a little bit, but it'd be good to get
Speaker 2: a little bit more detail. And he's basically said he's
Speaker 2: enjoying the listening to the podcast since the terrible injustice
Speaker 2: has occurred, but he can't help but wonder about one
Speaker 2: piece of evidence that doesn't make sense to him. If
Speaker 2: Amy was right handed and someone was holding a shotgun
Speaker 2: on or near her right temple, why was she not
Speaker 2: trying to push the hourl away with her dominant hand.
Speaker 2: Surely she uses her strongest arm in trying to save herself. Now,
Speaker 2: my understanding, as I remember seeing in the room, and
Speaker 2: you saw the pictures right that the door is on
Speaker 2: her left, so it's coming in from there and her
Speaker 2: left hand is closest. But yeah, it's just another thing
Speaker 2: that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think any of that stuff makes sense.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense after the fact either, with the
Speaker 1: way the gun was handled by at least three people,
Speaker 1: the way the ammunition was handled in it, taken out
Speaker 1: of it all before police arrived. I mean, it just
Speaker 1: all that stuff just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Speaker 3: No, and then when they were told to clean up,
Speaker 3: I think I think there's been shells were thrown out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well they weren't found again.
Speaker 1: No, that's yeah. Look, here's another one on that subject. Guys.
Speaker 1: There's an email here from Mirian. Mirian says this probably
Speaker 1: has been covered. But if Amy was going to use
Speaker 1: a gun to kill herself, as she would use the
Speaker 1: pink one she bought, as it was hers and she
Speaker 1: knew how to use it. But apparently it was over
Speaker 1: in the wardrobe or against another wall. That's correct, that's right,
Speaker 1: she said. Marian said, I heard on the podcast she
Speaker 1: was slumped against the wall by the door with another
Speaker 1: gun with her right hand underneath her bum, which absolutely
Speaker 1: doesn't add up, correct, Marion, Yep, we just discussed that.
Speaker 1: Being a woman myself and a mum, i'd never leave
Speaker 1: my children in a running car and go inside to
Speaker 1: kill myself. Great point. You would hate to think your
Speaker 1: child may find you if they got out of the
Speaker 1: still running car and she had presents in the car
Speaker 1: ready to leave, So it does not stack up seeing
Speaker 1: how slight she was. Marian also suggests she wouldn't smash
Speaker 1: the tank in the shed. She may have run past
Speaker 1: angry and brushed against it, which made it tip and smash,
Speaker 1: depending on what kind of stand it was. Look another
Speaker 1: good set of comments from some of our listeners, and
Speaker 1: they do pick up for obvious reusons. They pick up
Speaker 1: on the important points. And again, surely a jury of
Speaker 1: peers would also have many many questions wrong.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, But I think the thing that the DPP
Speaker 3: if they get, if they get the brief, is that
Speaker 3: the new reconstruction and even the previous biomechanic, it's impossible
Speaker 3: to shot herself. And to a lay person in the
Speaker 3: jury twelve good people drawn from the community, trying to
Speaker 3: picture themselves holding a four ten shotgun with one hand
Speaker 3: and pulling the trigger doesn't make sense. Well, there's three
Speaker 3: three classic things that you always look for, motive, opportunity,
Speaker 3: and capability.
Speaker 1: Well, Here's an email from Mandy. She says, I can't
Speaker 1: stop thinking about the motive I heard in a few
Speaker 1: episodes ago, the comment that the coroner said there was
Speaker 1: a lack of motive for murder. Unfortunately, he says, Mandy,
Speaker 1: this was glossed over. I feel you could have focused
Speaker 1: on this statement more. Amy had applied for compensation for
Speaker 1: her neck injury following the accident, when Simmons was driving
Speaker 1: the vehicle. How was that going to directly impact Simmons? Then,
Speaker 1: Mandy points to the clear evidence Amy was clearly in
Speaker 1: the process of leaving with the car engine running. Or
Speaker 1: domestic abuse victims, This is the most dangerous time to leave.
Speaker 1: Mandy goes on, but she makes some great points there.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, Ron, you know, if you want to
Speaker 1: find the evidence disregarding the fact that, as we've been
Speaker 1: saying time and time again, the detectives made a terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible mistake and the place was cleaned up, but there
Speaker 1: is all this suggestion of associated evidence around the actual
Speaker 1: scene that could be well and truly explored.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, is there.
Speaker 2: Many homicides that you've had to deal with, Ron that
Speaker 2: involved or had a background of domestic violence?
Speaker 3: Oh? Absolutely, I think if you went back to the
Speaker 3: nineteen eighties, the homicide squad was called the heavy Domestics.
Speaker 3: In other words, the majority of murders that we went
Speaker 3: to were domestic related. The truth is always in an
Speaker 3: an investigation, you've actually got to go out and find it.
Speaker 3: And at the moment, I don't think that's being done.
Speaker 2: There's another one from Leslie who says keep at it,
Speaker 2: justice will come. Has anyone investigated other cases around the
Speaker 2: time the two detectives attended. I mean, one of the
Speaker 2: detectives is no longer in the police force and we're
Speaker 2: not there to necessarily bring them down. But it is
Speaker 2: one of those things, right that some people in the
Speaker 2: police force don't have the motivation. Do you find that
Speaker 2: with people that you've worked with that there would be
Speaker 2: ones that you you know, there's good and bad in
Speaker 2: every profession, right.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think there's more good in the police force
Speaker 3: than I won't say they're bad. I think they're lazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sort of morale and the driver for motivation that
Speaker 1: comes from the top, doesn't it wrong? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is not you know, this is not a witch hunt
Speaker 1: to pile in on those particular police officers who did
Speaker 1: the wrong thing. We know, it's very clear cut. They
Speaker 1: did the wrong thing. They were terrible. But let's move on,
Speaker 1: you know's let's get justice for amy, for a family.
Speaker 1: You know, let's just do the police work. Now. Let's
Speaker 1: have somebody at the top say, look that that was wrong,
Speaker 1: but this is now. Let's plant the flag and say
Speaker 1: from today, from here, we're going to do some excellent
Speaker 1: police work and we're going to right a few wrongs
Speaker 1: and we're going to score a blow literally for justice.
Speaker 1: As much as that sounds like a cliche, but that
Speaker 1: has to come right from the top so that we
Speaker 1: you know, we just we set the agenda that way.
Speaker 1: That's leadership, isn't it wrong?
Speaker 3: Oh? Absolutely? Or it comes from the head of the
Speaker 3: colcase innit that says, okay, Swan's a priority. It's been
Speaker 3: raised in parliament. It's been going on now since twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: The only reason they got an in quest is they
Speaker 3: went to the equivalent to iback, such time, we did
Speaker 3: the right thing. Yes, we've made mistakes. Let's finish it
Speaker 3: off completely, do as much as we can and if
Speaker 3: we get there, we get there, and if we don't,
Speaker 3: we don't. But we've done the best we can for
Speaker 3: the family.
Speaker 1: Exactly. I know some fantastic police officers over the years
Speaker 1: who've done some brilliant work and they're motivated by all
Speaker 1: the right things, yourself included, Ron, And I mean that's
Speaker 1: what you know, that's what the public should be supporting
Speaker 1: because we really need those people in the service generally.
Speaker 1: I mean, but you know, we can take any industry.
Speaker 1: You know, I know some shocking journalists. Fortunately none of
Speaker 1: them are on this podcast. But that's just life, isn't it.
Speaker 1: But but you just need some strong leadership to say, okay,
Speaker 1: let's make this work. Let's get some.
Speaker 3: Action, and you get everyone involved and each detective have
Speaker 3: some ownership, and where you go it can't happen. I've
Speaker 3: sold the case that was thirty two years old by
Speaker 3: going back over so the answer is always there. You
Speaker 3: just got to go and get the evidence.
Speaker 2: Tell us about that one, Ryan, that was a great one.
Speaker 3: So that was a young sixteen year old girl in
Speaker 3: Shepperton who went missing. She was found in a table
Speaker 3: drain stabbed sixteen to eighteen times in nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 3: Now again investigated in that made a mistake earlier on
Speaker 3: and they believed it was a person, Paul Greg Bledhill.
Speaker 3: They even actually charged him with the murder, and back
Speaker 3: then it went to an inquest, which was the same
Speaker 3: as a committal. The coroner found that there was insufficient
Speaker 3: evidence and he was released. Now, young Johnas wanted to
Speaker 3: do a story about it, and she wrote a story,
Speaker 3: and I actually went to Shepherd and after I read
Speaker 3: the file and publicly I said Greg Gladill could not
Speaker 3: have done this. So there were mistakes earlier on, but
Speaker 3: as a result of that being honest upfront, the information
Speaker 3: came in and eventually I charged Stephen Bradley, who's now
Speaker 3: doing thirty six years.
Speaker 2: Did you get any flack for that, ron No.
Speaker 3: One of the things with that case is that the
Speaker 3: original exhibits for some reason, had been destroyed, so I
Speaker 3: didn't have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst
Speaker 3: there had been someone that was already charged and released
Speaker 3: and the exhibits were missing, we were still able to
Speaker 3: build a case and get sufficient evidence for him to
Speaker 3: stand his trial.
Speaker 2: That's a benefit of being treated like a homicide in
Speaker 2: the first instance. I'm so glad though, that you are
Speaker 2: willing to stand up and you are willing to do
Speaker 2: what's right, no matter the repercussions. I think that's so important.
Speaker 2: I think it should be applauded. I mean people like
Speaker 2: you who stand up to the brotherhood. I mean you
Speaker 2: wouldn't listen to the episode where we went through the
Speaker 2: internal fois from senior police. Were you surprised by that?
Speaker 3: I was especially the comments of the ballistics man using
Speaker 3: for our language. Now he in this matter. It had
Speaker 3: completed his report before all the testing was done, and
Speaker 3: he says there's no criminality because there's no fingerprints on
Speaker 3: the gun. Well, that doesn't mean there's no criminality. So
Speaker 3: it's sad with that attitude because you are getting senior
Speaker 3: members of the police force basically saying we're going to
Speaker 3: do nothing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was in twenty twenty three as well, it's
Speaker 2: only a year ago. So just for listeners, they were
Speaker 2: arguing about getting that one million dollar reward and being
Speaker 2: treated as a homicide and having you go with the
Speaker 2: West saying that are they taking poetic license by calling
Speaker 2: it a homicide and saying it was a botched investigation.
Speaker 2: So there are still people in the police force they
Speaker 2: don't even accept it was a botched investigation.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: And seen people.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be very smart to figure out
Speaker 1: it was a botched investigation, notwithstanding the fact that that's
Speaker 1: already been decided at a higher level than our Yeah,
Speaker 1: the inquest. But again it shows you the mentality, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like the old adage about you know,
Speaker 1: whether you win or lose, isn't it ron? You know,
Speaker 1: it's like a grandmother's homily. You know, if you lose,
Speaker 1: that's fine, but it's the way you lose. And again,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to all be in this to have a win,
Speaker 1: So let's forget about the losses and just make sure
Speaker 1: we try and have the victory in other people's interests.
Speaker 3: You know, an investigation is a search for the truth
Speaker 3: in accordance with the specifications of the law. So get
Speaker 3: out there, try and find out what the truth is
Speaker 3: and presented.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And on that level, the correspond we've had
Speaker 1: with the police, the recent correspondence, how back me up
Speaker 1: on this because my interpretation, I think yours is the same,
Speaker 1: is that this is certainly the way the WA police
Speaker 1: have put it out there. This is the sort of
Speaker 1: public perception that they want to create. So I'm hoping
Speaker 1: this is the honest reaction, and this is true, but
Speaker 1: it seems like there is a new team. In other words,
Speaker 1: there is a new investigation into Amy's death. Is that
Speaker 1: your interpretation as well?
Speaker 3: My understanding is that the cold case will relook at
Speaker 3: it again and start from more basically scratched, but go
Speaker 3: over it all and bring it to a conclusion.
Speaker 1: I hope.
Speaker 2: So, I hope that's what it is, because this is
Speaker 2: what we ask the police when they got back to it.
Speaker 2: Once investigated, will the brief of evidence be updated and
Speaker 2: passed on to the Office of the Director of Public
Speaker 2: Prosecutions to consider. If not, why not? The answer is,
Speaker 2: if new evidence relating to the death of Amy Wentz
Speaker 2: is obtained during this investigation, it will be assessed by
Speaker 2: the investigation team under the direction of the senior investigating officer.
Speaker 2: If any new evidence indicates criminality or involvement by another
Speaker 2: personal persons, it will be provided to the Officer of
Speaker 2: the Director of Public Prosecutions for their review. So it's
Speaker 2: very noncommittal to.
Speaker 3: Me, that's a motherhood statement without saying what you're going
Speaker 3: to do, but it's something and hopefully they can be
Speaker 3: asked continually well where you're at, and they should be
Speaker 3: in regular contact with the family.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the thing, right, that's not happening. I mean Nancy,
Speaker 2: I don't know when Nancy was last contacted. It's just
Speaker 2: kind of crazy. And Anna has a family liaison officer
Speaker 2: who sometimes gets back or does answer her questions, but
Speaker 2: it just seems I don't know, it just doesn't seem
Speaker 2: like enough, because I mean, it's obvious from our podcast
Speaker 2: and the information that has been uncoveted to any line Freddie,
Speaker 2: that there is information that should be considered by the ODPP,
Speaker 2: particularly since as I know it, they haven't seen the
Speaker 2: file since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: So the information and the reconstruction that you people have
Speaker 3: done has that been passed on to the police.
Speaker 2: The name of Scott Rohada has been passed on to
Speaker 2: the police, so hopefully they've made contact with him and
Speaker 2: would consider him as part of that. Also, every single
Speaker 2: person we've spoken to, a lot of people haven't appeared
Speaker 2: on the podcast. All that information, all those people their
Speaker 2: details have been invited to police with their permission, and
Speaker 2: there's a lot of information there that would help the case.
Speaker 1: Let's put that on the record again. In the case
Speaker 1: of Scott Rhoda because obviously we went to a lot
Speaker 1: of trouble to get him to be able to set
Speaker 1: that up as a sendime to perfect scene Ron. So
Speaker 1: it was a scale model of everything so he could
Speaker 1: do an absolutely accurate analysis. I've said it before, but
Speaker 1: I'll say it again. The police can have all our
Speaker 1: camera tapes of all Scott's work. We filmed a whole lot.
Speaker 1: They can study it back and forth to their heart's content.
Speaker 1: You know, we're more than happy to muck in whatever
Speaker 1: it takes. They can ring Scott personally, can have a
Speaker 1: chat to him about it. But you know there's the trifecta.
Speaker 1: You've now got not one independent expert, You've got three
Speaker 1: separate independent biomechanical experts all saying not only does the
Speaker 1: evidence not point to Amy Wensley shooting herself, but actually
Speaker 1: the evidence points to someone else shooting her. How many
Speaker 1: more people ron do you need? How many more independent
Speaker 1: experts do you know?
Speaker 3: You can produce those three experts, and the defense are
Speaker 3: then entitled to rebut it and call their own experts.
Speaker 2: When you went through the process of getting a referral
Speaker 2: to the ODPP or providing a case, did you decide
Speaker 2: that or did you have to send it up the
Speaker 2: line ron to get permission. No.
Speaker 3: So when I the Michelle Buckingham case, I believed I
Speaker 3: had sufficient evidence based on my experience, and I charged him.
Speaker 3: I didn't have to send it to the Director of
Speaker 3: Public Prosecutions. So you could get to the point in
Speaker 3: this case. If the cold case believe that they had
Speaker 3: a primer facy case, in other words, that all the
Speaker 3: points for a homicide or a murder were covered, they
Speaker 3: could make the decision themselves to charge and present.
Speaker 2: Here's the problem, though, we saw that FOI and senior
Speaker 2: people who weren't supportive of there being any other resolution
Speaker 2: other than suicide. What happens if they don't do it?
Speaker 2: I mean, is it like we just reliant on them
Speaker 2: and their subjective opinion.
Speaker 3: Well, you reliant solely on the police either to charge
Speaker 3: or put the brief together and send it to the
Speaker 3: Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 2: Does the Director ever ask for briefs to be sent
Speaker 2: to them.
Speaker 3: Not that I'm aware of now, which.
Speaker 2: Is why we went back to the whole thing with
Speaker 2: the Attorney General. I mean the Attorney General We've asked
Speaker 2: obviously in a petitioner and is asked on behalf of
Speaker 2: the family in a petition to have it referred because
Speaker 2: of this, I guess opposition from the police in the
Speaker 2: past and currently according to the fied emails that we have,
Speaker 2: and there is this whole idea that he wouldn't be
Speaker 2: able to do that now. This is actually his comment
Speaker 2: that brings me back to the correspondence that we got
Speaker 2: from his office again who outlined to me it is
Speaker 2: a matter of a subject of a police investigation and
Speaker 2: it would not be appropriate for the attorney to comment.
Speaker 2: The attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family. Police
Speaker 2: can refer a brief of evidence for the Office of
Speaker 2: the ODPP to assess whether the available evidence establishes a
Speaker 2: prima facing case with reasonable prospects, but the attorney has
Speaker 2: no role in that process. There is nothing in the
Speaker 2: Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the attorney
Speaker 2: to refer matters the ODBP. Of course, this is just
Speaker 2: me saying this. There's nothing that that also which prevents
Speaker 2: them from doing it. And then she goes under say
Speaker 2: and it specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to
Speaker 2: the DPP in respect of that of a particular case.
Speaker 1: But issuing directions is completely separate to referring matters.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, but they're clinging to that, as
Speaker 2: Ron put it beautifully, a motherhood statement.
Speaker 1: Well, that's just basically telling us and all our listeners
Speaker 1: how to suck eggs in a very very bureaucratic way
Speaker 1: and tying it up with a bow. Are you serious
Speaker 1: that they don't have meetings at that level and discuss
Speaker 1: various things.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, I understand there has to be
Speaker 3: a separation of powers. But the Attorney General in Victoria
Speaker 3: at the time of the Jason Robertson incident became involved.
Speaker 3: The Victoria police put a submission in. The defense put
Speaker 3: a submission in on behalf of Jason roberts and initially
Speaker 3: Martin Biller. The Attorney General made a decision that there
Speaker 3: should be a retrial.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 3: Then he backed away from that and change the legislation
Speaker 3: which meant that you had to have new and compelling evidence,
Speaker 3: and eventually that was done. So they do have official meetings,
Speaker 3: but most of the time there's that separation.
Speaker 1: Well that's the point, Ron. The attorney general sets the
Speaker 1: legislation right, So, for instance, go back a few months
Speaker 1: to where John Quigley was rapping on about domestic violence
Speaker 1: and this is sweet irony and they're helping victims of
Speaker 1: domestic violence. Allison, guess what. He sets up the legislation
Speaker 1: for his government to then put to Parliament. Well, where
Speaker 1: do you reckon? You get some of those ideas on
Speaker 1: what can work and what can't. There's a news flash.
Speaker 1: He talks to his police commissioner. That's correct.
Speaker 3: They would have a meeting at the Department of Justice exactly.
Speaker 3: But I've got to go because I've got to go
Speaker 3: and volunteer and was close.
Speaker 2: I know. Well, Ron, we want to thank you so
Speaker 2: much for being part of this. This is invaluable and
Speaker 2: I do believe that we keep pushing it and with
Speaker 2: people like you on our side that I guess justice
Speaker 2: will prevail hopefully or at least common sense.
Speaker 1: Yes, Ron, thanks, thanks very much for being part of
Speaker 1: the podcast and and and look the case overall. Really
Speaker 1: appreciate your input. It's very valuable, as Allison says, thanks mate.
Speaker 2: No, thank you. All our listeners are also just a
Speaker 2: reminder please sign our petition. It's in the show notes
Speaker 2: or Google Amy Wensley and petition or change dot org
Speaker 2: and you will find it. Thank you so much,