Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really conant.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged.
Speaker 4: Attapshell a mud bank and it fits Roy River. Basically,
Speaker 4: I think most of the people are used to me.
Speaker 5: Where are good people?
Speaker 4: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 4: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 3: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 3: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 3: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 3: Amy Maguire and I'm.
Speaker 4: Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.
Speaker 4: And a warning, this series contains the names of deceased
Speaker 4: peoples and has distressing content that might upset some listeners.
Speaker 6: Welcome to Curtain the podcast.
Speaker 3: Today, we've had major developments in the media's coverage of
Speaker 3: Kevin Henry's case. We'll discuss this later in the program,
Speaker 3: but first we're up to episode eighteen in this podcast series.
Speaker 3: And if you've just caught up with us, but you
Speaker 3: don't want to go back and listen to all of
Speaker 3: the episodes. This episode is going to be a handy recap,
Speaker 3: but if you're a regular listener, it's always good to
Speaker 3: go back and rehash the case. There might be something
Speaker 3: you've forgotten or something that slipped past you. We'll also
Speaker 3: discussed a few major developments following our brief recap. Min
Speaker 3: We've talked a lot about this case, but a big
Speaker 3: part of understanding it means going back in time to
Speaker 3: around nineteen ninety one. What was life like for Aboriginal
Speaker 3: people back in nine ninety one, particularly in Queensland.
Speaker 1: Well, it was a very rough time. One of the
Speaker 1: things that had recently wrapped up in nineteen eighty nine
Speaker 1: was the Fitzgerald Inquiry, which examined corruption right across Queensland,
Speaker 1: both in the sphere of politics and in particular policing.
Speaker 1: Now so bad was the police service that the Police
Speaker 1: Commissioner at the time was charged with corruption and ended
Speaker 1: up in prison himself. And there was also major issues
Speaker 1: to do with policing right around Queensland, and the police
Speaker 1: culture of the state was heavily criticized. It was alleged
Speaker 1: and also found that police officers largely had loyalty to
Speaker 1: each other and no one else, that they weren't enforcing
Speaker 1: the law against other police officers, that there was a
Speaker 1: great deal of misconduct, inefficiency, and contempt for the justice system.
Speaker 1: So it was this background of police corruption, shocking treatment
Speaker 1: of Aboriginal people right across the state, of crackdowns on
Speaker 1: any dissent and protest, and that a lot of people
Speaker 1: who didn't have access to really good legal assistance were
Speaker 1: slipping through the cracks on a weekly basis. And I
Speaker 1: think it's very important that people understand that as it
Speaker 1: relates to Kevin Henry, because it's fair to say these
Speaker 1: recommendations were nowhere near in place those that would see
Speaker 1: a change to corrupt police culture in Rockhampton in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one when the tragic events took place.
Speaker 3: And Linda, when we talk about her as a victim,
Speaker 3: she actually had a family history involving another really important
Speaker 3: event around that time, and that was the Royal Commission
Speaker 3: into Aboriginal Deaths and Custody, which would have just concluded.
Speaker 6: In the year of her death.
Speaker 3: Does that come into play when we talk about Kevin
Speaker 3: Henry's case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's particularly important and doubly tragic for
Speaker 1: Linda's family. This was a brilliant Aboriginal woman and mother
Speaker 1: who'd lost one of their own family members in custody
Speaker 1: at the hands of police and correctional services. And this
Speaker 1: was such an issue the way people were treated by
Speaker 1: police and corrective services in custody, that it prompted this
Speaker 1: nationwide royal commission that's had wide reaching findings that sadly
Speaker 1: is still not implemented to this day. And many of
Speaker 1: the issues raised in that Royal commission relate to the
Speaker 1: way people were treated by the police upon their arrest,
Speaker 1: and sadly, Kevin would fall victim to exactly the issues
Speaker 1: that were raised at that Royal commission.
Speaker 5: So in recapping what was the crime, well, basically what
Speaker 5: was established at the time was that Linda had been
Speaker 5: in Rockhampton for a short period of time.
Speaker 1: She'd gone missing for a period around eight days and
Speaker 1: was last seen wearing black pants, a black top, a
Speaker 1: red coat, and a white and black scarf. And on Saturday,
Speaker 1: the thirty first of August nineteen ninety one, Linda was
Speaker 1: brutally assaulted by three women. And what we believe is
Speaker 1: that that assault took place in two locations, but the
Speaker 1: primary one established by the court at the time, and
Speaker 1: all the evidence is that that assault took place at
Speaker 1: a place called Tanuba House on the banks of the
Speaker 1: Fitzroy River, and that it left Linda with life threatening
Speaker 1: injuries enough to have the women charged and convicted with
Speaker 1: grievous bodily harm. In addition, Kevin Henry was charged with
Speaker 1: the rape and murder of Linda, and he was accused
Speaker 1: of placing Linda's body in the river the following day,
Speaker 1: on the Sunday, Linda's body was found by a fisherman
Speaker 1: early in the morning, and that's the basics of the
Speaker 1: crime and what took place. Who were the witnesses, So,
Speaker 1: as we've explained throughout the podcast, there were a large
Speaker 1: number of people who used to attend t n Uber House,
Speaker 1: who would sleep there, who would gather there. It was
Speaker 1: essentially their second home. For some it was their home
Speaker 1: on the river bank, and so we had many Aboriginal
Speaker 1: people who were witnesses to the assault. We don't have
Speaker 1: any witnesses to Kevin Henry ever placing Linda's body in
Speaker 1: the river, but there was a large number of witnesses
Speaker 1: who saw what went on during that day and It's
Speaker 1: important to remember that they were all watching a football game,
Speaker 1: and there had been heavy alcohol consumption on that day,
Speaker 1: and so basically all our witnesses to the event itself
Speaker 1: were heavily intoxicated.
Speaker 6: Was Kevin Henry a witness to the assault.
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry did witness the beginning of the assault. But
Speaker 1: there's two issues that are supported by the evidence and
Speaker 1: by statements of both Kevin and witnesses, which are that
Speaker 1: Kevin was heavily intoxicated, and he actually went to sleep.
Speaker 1: And it appears he went to sleep either during the
Speaker 1: assault or very shortly after. It was quite prolonged and
Speaker 1: as we said, took place in a number of locations,
Speaker 1: so he saw a little bit, but he really didn't
Speaker 1: see a lot. And because he was heavily intoxicated, he
Speaker 1: did spend most of the day and certainly most of
Speaker 1: that night asleep.
Speaker 3: So who were the women who committed the assault and
Speaker 3: why do we think they might have had motive to
Speaker 3: commit that assault?
Speaker 1: So the three women were convicted of grievous bodily harm
Speaker 1: against Linda. Their names are Susan Aubrey, Margaret Bob and
Speaker 1: Amy Saunders. Now it's believed these women took issue with
Speaker 1: Linda and they accused her of stealing their men. They
Speaker 1: used language that is highly inappropriate, highly sexualized, that I
Speaker 1: won't repeat. And there was an event that day that
Speaker 1: if you want to know more about, you can listen
Speaker 1: to the podcast that led to these women beginning to
Speaker 1: verbally abuse Linda and then violently attacking her. Now, it's
Speaker 1: important to remember these women were feared by many people.
Speaker 1: They were known to commit many assaults. Many of the
Speaker 1: witnesses who gave statement spoke of their fear of these women.
Speaker 1: The assault these women committed was horrific. It left Linda
Speaker 1: with life threatening injuries. It left Linda bleeding profusely. And
Speaker 1: there's the very real possibility that the forensic expert at
Speaker 1: the initial trial couldn't rule in or out, which is
Speaker 1: that Linda died of the injuries suffered at the hands
Speaker 1: of these women. And still to this day, there are
Speaker 1: people who speak of their fear of the women who
Speaker 1: committed this violent assault.
Speaker 3: So what where does Kevin Henry come into it? What
Speaker 3: do police allege he did after the assault?
Speaker 1: So what the police would allege is that when everybody
Speaker 1: left to nuber House where this assault took place and
Speaker 1: went to a place nearby called the Crown Hotel. Is
Speaker 1: that Kevin dragged Linda's body away, had sex with Linda,
Speaker 1: and then placed her body in the water. Now it's
Speaker 1: important to point out that nobody witnessed this, Kevin Henry's
Speaker 1: denied this for twenty five years, and that there was
Speaker 1: no physical or forensic evidence that linked Kevin Henry to
Speaker 1: those alleged events. But for now in the podcast, this
Speaker 1: is what the police would allege when they charged Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry with murder.
Speaker 3: So when did the police investigation begin? And I guess
Speaker 3: how did the police again in conducting that investigation.
Speaker 1: So the following day, when Linda's body was found early
Speaker 1: on the Sunday morning, the police slowly, and it needs
Speaker 1: to be emphasized very slowly, made their way to Tanuba House.
Speaker 1: There was a long delay in roping off the area
Speaker 1: and securing the crime scene. There was a long delay
Speaker 1: in arresting people, or at least questioning those around and
Speaker 1: those who saw or may have seen what went on.
Speaker 1: In fact, despite Kevin Henry having been there that night,
Speaker 1: he was not spoken to that day. It wasn't until
Speaker 1: the Monday when Kevin Henry was walking in Rockhampton that
Speaker 1: he was picked up. And so we have over a
Speaker 1: period of a number of days, most of the people
Speaker 1: who were there but certainly not all spoken to by police,
Speaker 1: and the police going about collecting the forensic evidence, although
Speaker 1: this was problematic to given that the crime scene had
Speaker 1: not been properly secured.
Speaker 3: When were the women charged?
Speaker 1: So the women were charged on the fifth of September,
Speaker 1: that was the Thursday after the crime, and they were
Speaker 1: charged around about twelve pm. Now it's important to understand
Speaker 1: the women at that time were charged with the murder
Speaker 1: of Linda. It wasn't until later in the day that
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry was interrogated for a second time and he
Speaker 1: was charged with murder later in the afternoon. Now what's
Speaker 1: concerning about this is that he was charged with murdering
Speaker 1: Linda in a completely separate fashion to the women who'd
Speaker 1: been charged with Linda's murder. And so at this point
Speaker 1: you can understand it's quite confusing and very difficult to
Speaker 1: understand how this is good police practice to charge two
Speaker 1: separate lots of people with the murder of the same person,
Speaker 1: but that that murder somehow took place in two different
Speaker 1: sets of circumstances, and in two different ways.
Speaker 3: Imagine that Kevin was picked up by police. What happened
Speaker 3: when he was picked up.
Speaker 1: We won't ever know exactly what happened, because the judge
Speaker 1: at the trial was very critical of what happened when
Speaker 1: Kevin was picked up, the way he was interrogated and
Speaker 1: spoken to, and the way the police conducted themselves. But
Speaker 1: the very bare bones, and again people can go back
Speaker 1: to hear more, is that the police interrogated Kevin Henry,
Speaker 1: he asked for a lawyer. The tape recording which was
Speaker 1: taping his interview was turned off. A few minutes later,
Speaker 1: it came back on and suddenly it seems as if,
Speaker 1: but it's not clear that he's agreed to proceed without
Speaker 1: a lawyer. The interview goes on for a little while longer,
Speaker 1: about twenty minutes to half an hour, and then Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry advises the police he has nothing more to say,
Speaker 1: and at no point in what was recorded up until then,
Speaker 1: had Kevin Henry ever admitted to rape or ever admitted
Speaker 1: to murder. And it's at this point that the rest
Speaker 1: of the interrogation of Kevin Henry was ruled unlawful by
Speaker 1: the judge. So all we do know is that the
Speaker 1: police continued to speak to Kevin for the rest of
Speaker 1: that day. They put him in the car and they
Speaker 1: drove him around. We know they drove him to the
Speaker 1: crime scene, but they may have also driven him elsewhere.
Speaker 1: But the point remains that the judge ruled this was
Speaker 1: inadmissible because all of this was done unlawfully. Kevin had
Speaker 1: asked for a lawyer and had said he had nothing
Speaker 1: more to add and nothing more to say, but that
Speaker 1: didn't stop the police from trying to continue for hours.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 3: Was this why they charged Kevin with rape and murder?
Speaker 6: Was it based on this confession?
Speaker 1: Yes, so it is believed that based on this confession,
Speaker 1: because they discovered no other evidence linking Kevin to the crime,
Speaker 1: that this is why the police charged Kevin with murder.
Speaker 1: But again, Kevin was charged on the same day as
Speaker 1: the women with the murder of Linda, but said to
Speaker 1: have done so in a completely different way to the women.
Speaker 3: So when did the women's charges get downgraded to grow
Speaker 3: this bowly harm?
Speaker 1: So from that September, just a few days after Linda
Speaker 1: had been killed, all the way until February the next year,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two. It wasn't till the day that the
Speaker 1: three women turned up at court to face charges of murder.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't until all their lawyers were in place,
Speaker 1: the judge and prosecutor were in place, that the charge
Speaker 1: of murder was dropped against the women and those charges
Speaker 1: were downgraded to grievous bodily harm. So for five months,
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry and the three women were all charged with murder,
Speaker 1: and yet the police were somehow alleging this had taken
Speaker 1: place in two separate ways.
Speaker 6: So how did the trial begin?
Speaker 1: So there was two starts to the trial. Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: and two of the women would go on trial in
Speaker 1: the April, two months after the charges of murder against
Speaker 1: the women had been dropped. The third woman pleaded guilty
Speaker 1: to grieve us bodily harm and was sentenced. Then the
Speaker 1: trial opened officially and immediately the confession, and I do
Speaker 1: say that in inverted commas, a confession was immediately contested
Speaker 1: by Kevin's lawyer, and this was when the judge chose
Speaker 1: to rule such a huge amount of the confession out.
Speaker 1: And this was a vital piece of evidence against Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry because there was no other evidence, And so the
Speaker 1: trial begins with the judge ruling the vast bulk of
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry's statement inadmissible because he'd been denied a lawyer,
Speaker 1: he'd been denied his right to end the interview, and
Speaker 1: the police had conducted the interview in an unlawful manner.
Speaker 6: So what were the main points that came out of
Speaker 6: the trial.
Speaker 1: So largely we had a number of forensic experts that
Speaker 1: were called, the two arresting police officers, and the witnesses
Speaker 1: who either saw the crime att tenuber House or a
Speaker 1: number of people who had seen goings on earlier that day,
Speaker 1: and the fishermen who'd found the body. Now the basics
Speaker 1: of the crime are this that in terms of the witnesses,
Speaker 1: they'd all given multiple statements and none of those statements
Speaker 1: were consistent with their other statements. This is for a
Speaker 1: number of reasons. The three women who had been previously
Speaker 1: charged with murder changed their statements once they'd been charged
Speaker 1: with murder, and one of whom had tried to implicate
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry, but her statement was inconsistent. A number of
Speaker 1: the other witnesses simply didn't see anything that would link
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry to the crime in any way, and so
Speaker 1: the police, by their own admission, had tried to interview
Speaker 1: these witnesses on multiple occasions, had one witness who said
Speaker 1: the police followed him for months, and some of the
Speaker 1: witnesses didn't give their final version of events, their final
Speaker 1: statement until just days before the trial commenced. And again,
Speaker 1: all these statements contradicted each other. And the last thing
Speaker 1: that's important to know about the witnesses is virtually all
Speaker 1: of them were heavily intoxicated, both when the crime was
Speaker 1: committed and when they were interrogated by police, and all
Speaker 1: the witnesses basically admit to this. Some of them are
Speaker 1: very open about that, and others it takes a little
Speaker 1: bit of questioning. But again, the police should not have
Speaker 1: interviewed these people when they were intoxicated, and yet they did.
Speaker 1: The forensic evidence that was presented at trial was basically
Speaker 1: to do with Linda's injuries, the forensic material that was
Speaker 1: collected that matched Linda and matched some of the women,
Speaker 1: and whether any of that forensic material connected Kevin Henry.
Speaker 1: And none of that forensic material connected Kevin Henry in
Speaker 1: any way. So not the blood, not the clothes, not hair, nothing,
Speaker 1: of a forensic nature linked Kevin. And finally we had
Speaker 1: the testimony of the two police officers who had investigated
Speaker 1: the crime, and, by one of them's own admission, from
Speaker 1: the moment they charged Kevin Henry, they stopped investigating the crime.
Speaker 1: They did not look at who else could be involved,
Speaker 1: they didn't look for any further evidence. They simply believed
Speaker 1: they had their man. And so other names and other
Speaker 1: possibilities of what happened that night were raised, But the
Speaker 1: police couldn't answer any of this because they'd simply stopped
Speaker 1: investigating the very day they charged Kevin Henry. Now, as
Speaker 1: much as it might sound like, it's difficult to believe
Speaker 1: that was the totality. In summary of the evidence presented
Speaker 1: against Kevin Henry, there was not a single witness called
Speaker 1: who saw Kevin Henry with Linda's body, either when Linda
Speaker 1: was alive or dead, neither having sex with Linda or
Speaker 1: placing her in the river. When the jury retired, they
Speaker 1: came back and returned guilty verdicts against the women, where
Speaker 1: there were many many witnesses to what they'd done, and
Speaker 1: a great deal of forensic evidence linking them to what
Speaker 1: they'd done, and also finding Kevin Henry guilty of the
Speaker 1: rape and murder of Linda, despite there being no witnesses
Speaker 1: that saw him involved in the crime in any way,
Speaker 1: no forensic evidence of Kevin ever having sex with Linda,
Speaker 1: let alone committing rape, and no evidence of murder. And
Speaker 1: so for twenty five years Kevin Henry has been in
Speaker 1: prison in Queensland based on the verdict of that jury
Speaker 1: and based on the sentence handed down by the judge
Speaker 1: on that day.
Speaker 6: In that time, did he ever appeal his sentence.
Speaker 1: Kevin did have a very brief appeal. It was done
Speaker 1: in a way that only challenged the Privacy Act which
Speaker 1: sought to it sought to throw out the entirety of
Speaker 1: the statement given by Kevin to police. But what it
Speaker 1: didn't do. It never challenged the fact that no forensic
Speaker 1: evidence was ever presented that implicated Kevin, and it didn't
Speaker 1: challenge the fact that no witnesses ever saw Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: involved in the crime itself. And so for twenty five years,
Speaker 1: and this is important to stress, Kevin Henry has always
Speaker 1: maintained his innocence. He pleaded not guilty at the trial.
Speaker 1: He denied anything that he was accused of. He pleaded
Speaker 1: not guilty at trial. He maintained that innocence leading up
Speaker 1: to the trial, all the way up to his appeals,
Speaker 1: and for twenty five years, Kevin Henry has told everyone
Speaker 1: who will listen, he did not commit that crime.
Speaker 3: So what is the investigations uncovered today?
Speaker 1: So, after all this has taken place twenty five years later,
Speaker 1: those who are following the podcast will know that a
Speaker 1: year ago Amy and I launched our own investigation and
Speaker 1: I didn't need more than five minutes looking at this
Speaker 1: case to know that something was wrong. The first issue
Speaker 1: we looked at was whether it was possible Linda's body
Speaker 1: had been placed in a different location to where police
Speaker 1: would claim, and a location that was simply impossible for
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry to access. And all our investigation, including consulting
Speaker 1: with forensic experts, has led us to believe that Linda's
Speaker 1: body was placed on the racecourse side of the Fitzroy
Speaker 1: River that is on the opposite side of the river
Speaker 1: to Tenuba House, the crime scene, and would have required
Speaker 1: a car to drive the body around to that spot.
Speaker 1: The way we were able to work that out is
Speaker 1: to do with where Linda's body was found when it
Speaker 1: was found and the movement of the tides, a parallel
Speaker 1: line that her body had left in the mud, and
Speaker 1: also the variations in the two river banks, one being
Speaker 1: accessible by foot without getting wet or muddy, and the
Speaker 1: Tanuba house side where it was alleged Kevin placed Linda
Speaker 1: in the river, requiring at the time someone waded out
Speaker 1: into the mud and water to place a body in
Speaker 1: the river. And Kevin Henry's clothing, his shoes, and his
Speaker 1: body was entirely clean of any river water, any mud,
Speaker 1: any salt, any trace of having ever gone near the river.
Speaker 1: So that was the first issue. We've also been able
Speaker 1: to clarify the forensic evidence. Now, at the initial trial,
Speaker 1: no evidence was ever tendered that would link Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: to the crime itself, but we were able to go further.
Speaker 1: We were able to show that had Kevin Henry been involved,
Speaker 1: there would have been forensic evidence, and so it's not
Speaker 1: a matter of evidence simply being lost at the time
Speaker 1: or things like that. The forensic conclusion of the new
Speaker 1: report we commissioned is that so there was no forensic
Speaker 1: evidence linking Kevin to Linda's body or the crime scene
Speaker 1: post the assault committed by the women that is the
Speaker 1: forensic report found had Kevin been involved, he would have
Speaker 1: had Linda's blood on his clothes, There wasn't any he
Speaker 1: would have had Linda's blood on his skin and hands,
Speaker 1: There wasn't any that he would have had mud and
Speaker 1: remnants of the river water on his body, and there
Speaker 1: wasn't any. So not only did we show that the
Speaker 1: initial forensics while failing to implicate Kevin Henry in the crime,
Speaker 1: the new forensics show he couldn't have been involved in
Speaker 1: the crime. And this was very important.
Speaker 3: So if Kevin Henry didn't do it, who are the
Speaker 3: other suspects?
Speaker 1: So, as listeners to our podcast will remember, in the
Speaker 1: last few episodes, we finally received a statement by someone
Speaker 1: we call Witness X. They were an eye witness to
Speaker 1: basically everything that went on that day and that night.
Speaker 1: Witness X is very clear in what they saw. Witness
Speaker 1: x's statement matches the forensics, it matches the other witnesses
Speaker 1: statements that are believed and thought to be consistent, and
Speaker 1: it matches with our thorough investigation. And that is firstly,
Speaker 1: that Kevin Henry was asleep under a gum tree and
Speaker 1: that he did not have anything to do with the crime,
Speaker 1: and secondly that those involved in the crime did have
Speaker 1: a car, did drive Linda's body to the other side
Speaker 1: of the river, and did place Linda's body on the
Speaker 1: racecourse side of the river into the water, as we'd
Speaker 1: initially predicted with our own forensic examination, and we'd never
Speaker 1: seen this witness statement until just a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: So that Willy West was the primary person in the
Speaker 1: transportation and dumping of Linda's body along with another man,
Speaker 1: and Witness X was also in the car with another
Speaker 1: individual in the back seat. And this is how they
Speaker 1: were able to establish who they saw and believed committed
Speaker 1: the crime. And again they ruled out Kevin Henry completely
Speaker 1: and they placed another individual, Willie West, and another unnamed
Speaker 1: individual at the crime scene and in possession of Linda's body.
Speaker 7: And that brings us to today where after twenty five years,
Speaker 7: rock Hamden's local paper, the Morning bullet And finally covered
Speaker 7: Kevin Henry's case, and they covered it on its front page,
Speaker 7: and not only did they cover it, but it led to.
Speaker 6: Other stories in the ABC.
Speaker 3: Finally, after a quarter of a century, Kevin Henry's name
Speaker 3: is back in the press. Martin, what did the one
Speaker 3: billion story say today.
Speaker 1: The very first sentence of the article on Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: says this, The rumor mill has churned the same message
Speaker 1: in Rockhampton for twenty five years. Kevin Henry didn't do it,
Speaker 1: So immediately, that backs up what we've always said in
Speaker 1: our investigation, really what I think you could take from
Speaker 1: the initial trial and what witness X said. So for
Speaker 1: twenty five years, Kevin Henry has been waiting for the
Speaker 1: world to acknowledge what he always knew and maintained in
Speaker 1: this crime. He simply didn't do it and had no involvement.
Speaker 1: So Amy, perhaps you can explain to our listeners as
Speaker 1: a rock Hampton local yourself, what happened in the media
Speaker 1: in Rockampton today.
Speaker 3: So, after a quarter of a century, it was really
Speaker 3: amazing to see Kevin Henry's case back in the newspaper.
Speaker 3: It hasn't been back in the press since he was
Speaker 3: originally convicted back.
Speaker 6: In nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 3: And we know from looking back into the archives that
Speaker 3: it was reported really badly in it. It really made
Speaker 3: kenn Henry look guilty because of them miss the inaccuracies
Speaker 3: in the trial reporting. So Rockhampton is a single paper
Speaker 3: town and the fact that they've put this story on
Speaker 3: the front page and given it the prominence that it
Speaker 3: deserves means quite a lot. It also means that a
Speaker 3: lot of the other media in the town, like the
Speaker 3: ABC and WIN News, have actually finally followed up the story.
Speaker 3: And not only that, the AC the ran Kevin Henro's
Speaker 3: story at the top of their local bulletin, there were
Speaker 3: stories in the statewide bulletins and Kevin Henro's story also
Speaker 3: made ABC online. So following on from this front page
Speaker 3: in the morning bulletin, the story has actually gone further
Speaker 3: and further, and I'm sure that a lot more people
Speaker 3: are going to pay attention to this enduring injustice.
Speaker 1: One thing I think that's important to add is that
Speaker 1: the reason the media picked up on this, the reason
Speaker 1: it made the paper, the reason it made the radio,
Speaker 1: and the reason it made the TV news was because
Speaker 1: of this podcast curtain and because of people supporting and
Speaker 1: sharing this podcast, both in Australia and around the world.
Speaker 1: What we've been able to uncover and show to those
Speaker 1: of you who have listened and shared this podcast with
Speaker 1: your friend's family and those who are interested in justice,
Speaker 1: is that Kevin Henry is quite clearly an innocent man,
Speaker 1: and no longer could the media remained silent on that issue.
Speaker 3: And one of the advantages of finally having Kevin Henry's
Speaker 3: case on the front page of the local paper is
Speaker 3: the potential for other witnesses to come forward, and by
Speaker 3: the end of the day a new witness did come
Speaker 3: forward with crucial information. So Martin, who was this key witness.
Speaker 1: This witness wants to remain anonymous at this stage. But
Speaker 1: the witness is a taxi driver from Rockhampton who says
Speaker 1: that he dropped Linda at Tanuba that day and it
Speaker 1: certainly seems as if he knew who Linda was. And
Speaker 1: this is what he describes about when Linda walked from
Speaker 1: his cab down to Tanuba House where immediately the women
Speaker 1: assaulted her, as was detailed twenty five years ago. He says,
Speaker 1: I could hear yelling and screaming and here they are
Speaker 1: getting stuck right into her. Event Actually I drove away,
Speaker 1: he went on. They were the rulers of the river bank.
Speaker 1: Them women used to shiver when and he says, Margaret
Speaker 1: Bob came up. She was rarely on her own and
Speaker 1: when she got in the cab, you thought oh Jesus, No,
Speaker 1: Kevin would never mix with them. The only time he
Speaker 1: ever mixed with them was when he had no money.
Speaker 1: He also made other comments about Kevin Henry. He said
Speaker 1: he was tall and so frail looking. I'd say to
Speaker 1: my wife, my grandmother would have been able to give
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry a touch up. It brought back a few
Speaker 1: memories when I read it in the paper and what
Speaker 1: I should have done.
Speaker 6: So why didn't this taxi driver come forward?
Speaker 1: At the time, He says he was fearful of Bob
Speaker 1: and Aubrey, there're two of the women convicted of the
Speaker 1: grievous bodily harm against Linda. But he had trouble believing
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry was still behind bars all these years later,
Speaker 1: some twenty five years later, he said Henry was unbelievably harmless,
Speaker 1: and was also hopeful that any information he could provide
Speaker 1: might in the end lead to Henry's release. This is
Speaker 1: what he said. He is as innocent as the day
Speaker 1: is long, poor old Kevin. He was just so docile
Speaker 1: and innocent. There wouldn't even be a grain of aggression
Speaker 1: in him. But they threw it all at him. You
Speaker 1: know why, because he'd be down there and that drunk,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't know what had happened. I'm very sorry that
Speaker 1: I've never come forward. So what this witness has just
Speaker 1: told us is that he believes that the assault was
Speaker 1: committed against Linda by the women because that's what he
Speaker 1: heard and what he believes he saw. That he never
Speaker 1: believed Kevin Henry was guilty, and primarily for the same
Speaker 1: reasons pointed out because on that day Kevin was heavily
Speaker 1: intoxicated and asleep under the gum tree. And this is
Speaker 1: coming from someone who has quite clearly worked as a
Speaker 1: taxi driver in Rockhampton, and it's important to remember that
Speaker 1: the Aboriginal people, particularly those who spend a good deal
Speaker 1: of time down at the River, would use the taxis
Speaker 1: very regularly. In fact, part of Kevin Henry's alibi for
Speaker 1: those who have listened to all the podcast, is that
Speaker 1: he was in a taxi cab at around the time
Speaker 1: the murder would have taken place. So it's very believable
Speaker 1: that a taxi driver would be someone who would have
Speaker 1: known and seen about what had happened. This individual clearly
Speaker 1: remembers Linda, remembers Kevin, and very clearly remembers the women
Speaker 1: involved in the vicious assault against Linda and says the
Speaker 1: reason he'd never forward was his fear of those women.
Speaker 1: But it's quite clear this is a new witness who
Speaker 1: has been prompted by today's media attention, who has not
Speaker 1: heard the podcast, who's not heard it on the radio,
Speaker 1: because he was under the impression Kevin Henry was no
Speaker 1: longer in jail, but is quite sorry that he hadn't
Speaker 1: come forward earlier, and he's quite sorry that Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: is in prison twenty five years later.
Speaker 6: So mart In, the media today also mentioned that you're
Speaker 6: working on something.
Speaker 1: What is it so right at the present, I'm working
Speaker 1: with a lawyer in Brisbane to push forward for Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry to have a new parole date where much of
Speaker 1: this may at least be considered. But while we're not
Speaker 1: sure if they will consider new information because that can
Speaker 1: be deemed outside their charter of operation, we certainly want
Speaker 1: to put to the parole board once again, and this
Speaker 1: has been done many times, that Kevin Henry maintains his innocence,
Speaker 1: that he's served his sentence, and that his behavior is
Speaker 1: certainly that of an innocent man desperate to return back
Speaker 1: to a community that has shown huge support in him
Speaker 1: by signing a petition by the elders of his community
Speaker 1: in Warabinda calling on the Parole Board to release Kevin
Speaker 1: back to them, and by many of the Indigenous services
Speaker 1: in Rockhampton and Warabinda offering their services and accommodations from
Speaker 1: his family to welcome Kevin back to the community. Now,
Speaker 1: given that we believe Kevin Henry is innocent, given that
Speaker 1: I believe I have the evidence to prove Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: is innocent, we can tell our listeners I'm in the
Speaker 1: process of filing a petition to the Governor of Queensland
Speaker 1: to grant a pardon to Kevin Henry for a crime
Speaker 1: he did not commit. And you'll hear more about that
Speaker 1: next week on Curtin.
Speaker 2: That was episode eighteen of Curtain the Podcast. Like us
Speaker 2: on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or go to our
Speaker 2: website www. Dot Curtin Thepodcast dot com. Just a reminder
Speaker 2: that Kevin Henry needs.
Speaker 3: All the support he can get, so please share the
Speaker 3: information with your friends and do your little bit to
Speaker 3: help Kevin Henry and help reverse this endearing injustice.