Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolute shambles, to
Speaker 1: tell you the truth, just absolutely really coming.
Speaker 2: Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged attimp.
Speaker 3: On a shallow mud bank and it fits through river. Basically,
Speaker 3: I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 3: there are good people. I think a really important question
Speaker 3: we need to ask is how many Indigenous prisoners in
Speaker 3: Australia are innocent.
Speaker 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the
Speaker 2: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 2: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Maguire and.
Speaker 3: I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner
Speaker 3: Support Service. Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by Clint
Speaker 3: Curtis and produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous Media
Speaker 3: Association and a warning. This series contains the names of
Speaker 3: deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset listeners.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Episode ten of Curtain. Over the past year,
Speaker 2: Martin and I have been investigating the case of an
Speaker 2: Aboriginal man who was locked up for murder in rock
Speaker 2: Hampton and Central Queensland, all the way back in nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety one. Now we started this podcast series by telling
Speaker 2: you how we began this investigation, and it all started
Speaker 2: with an interview that Martin gave me on the Aboriginal
Speaker 2: radio Current Affashion Let's Talk on ninety eight point nine
Speaker 2: in Brisbane. So we thought for our last episode before
Speaker 2: the Christmas break, we'd go back to the start and
Speaker 2: end to this year with yet another interview looking at
Speaker 2: what we've learned, what this story of Kevin Henry has
Speaker 2: taught us about the justice system in Australia. Martin, You've
Speaker 2: had a long history looking into the justice system, not
Speaker 2: just in Australia but overseas. But has this case changed
Speaker 2: your views on.
Speaker 1: I think, if anything, it's entrenched many of my views,
Speaker 1: particularly around the problems of the way Aboriginal people are treated,
Speaker 1: not just in the justice system, but by the police, politically,
Speaker 1: the media and all those issues. And for me, this
Speaker 1: is the first time where I've been able to examine
Speaker 1: a case, I guess more objectively, not playing so much
Speaker 1: of an active role, but standing back and really being
Speaker 1: able to just look at the history and everything that
Speaker 1: surrounds it so to be able to hear from experts
Speaker 1: as we have to be able to really delve into
Speaker 1: the history of Rockhampton, the people involved, the community involved.
Speaker 1: It's really taught me a lot more than what I
Speaker 1: thought I knew, and unfortunately, I think what I've learned
Speaker 1: is that even though I thought it was bad, really bad,
Speaker 1: it's actually a lot worse, and that even in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: we really haven't changed anything in that whole twenty five
Speaker 1: years since Kevin was first imprisoned and since that awful day.
Speaker 2: Do you remember what your first thoughts were when you
Speaker 2: started to look into this case of Kevin Henry.
Speaker 1: I think firstly, I was always conscious of the possibility
Speaker 1: of Indigenous prisoners in Australia being innocent and serving very
Speaker 1: long sentences. I think it's one thing when someone does
Speaker 1: three or six months for something they didn't do, and
Speaker 1: that obviously is still terrible. Any day in prison for
Speaker 1: a crime you didn't commit is too long. But this
Speaker 1: was one of the first cases where I was able
Speaker 1: to really explore that further, analyze whether Kevin had had
Speaker 1: a fair trial, analyze the evidence forensically and scientifically from
Speaker 1: a legal basis, discuss it with experts, discuss it with colleagues,
Speaker 1: and I think it just meant that my suspicions around
Speaker 1: the issue of just how many innocent Indigenous prisoners there
Speaker 1: could be. I think my fear was realized with just
Speaker 1: how poorly the whole system handled this case and so
Speaker 1: many others that we now know about and have always
Speaker 1: known about.
Speaker 2: It's obviously such a stiph's case, I guess, and there's
Speaker 2: so many barriers against us, particularly you know the time
Speaker 2: that has passed since this tragic murder actually happened. But
Speaker 2: how when did you have any hesitation about taking it
Speaker 2: on because it's such a horrendous case that we could
Speaker 2: find out ultimately that what we're what we're looking into,
Speaker 2: there was nothing there. I guess when did you start
Speaker 2: to realize that there was actually something there or what
Speaker 2: you thought there was something there. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's really important in any of these issues,
Speaker 1: that just because somebody claims they're innocent doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: they are. So I always start from looking at the facts,
Speaker 1: and first you want to analyze did a person have
Speaker 1: a fair trial? Then if you can be sure that
Speaker 1: the trial was at least suspecting some way or there
Speaker 1: were problems with the trial. Then you can also look
Speaker 1: at the facts that were presented at trial and the
Speaker 1: facts that you know to be true that you can
Speaker 1: find out forensic evidence, statements that were never tended to
Speaker 1: the court that might paint a different picture. So I
Speaker 1: think it was really more a process rather being convinced
Speaker 1: at one moment. Is that more and more as I investigated,
Speaker 1: the more I learned about the case, once I'd finished
Speaker 1: reading all the transcripts of the trial, I think it
Speaker 1: was just a gradual process of so many flaws that
Speaker 1: eventually you can't come to any other conclusion that Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry did not have a fair trial.
Speaker 2: We were recapping for our listeners just to refresh their
Speaker 2: memory as we go into the new year. But here
Speaker 2: describe what were the biggest flaws do you think that
Speaker 2: came out of your investigation back into the trial.
Speaker 1: I think they're probably threefold. The first flow is that
Speaker 1: there is no scientific or forensic evidence that links Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry to the murder in any way, and straight away
Speaker 1: that's problematic, I think for any one listening who either
Speaker 1: works in the law or is familiar with these sort
Speaker 1: of cases, or perhaps has even just seen them on TV.
Speaker 1: We are used to being told of forensic evidence, at
Speaker 1: least something that links that person directly and physically to
Speaker 1: the crime scene and to the events that took place,
Speaker 1: and that's totally missing. So that was the first thing,
Speaker 1: and I was actually deeply surprised that that didn't exist.
Speaker 1: I thought that would be a hurdle that would perhaps
Speaker 1: have to be crossed, and the fact that that evidence
Speaker 1: just didn't exist is perhaps the most troubling piece of
Speaker 1: evidence of all. And that leads to the police investigation,
Speaker 1: which is the second issue that I have with all
Speaker 1: of this. It's the way the police handled things from
Speaker 1: the start, and I think very early on, a deep
Speaker 1: concern I had was that an Aboriginal woman had been murdered.
Speaker 1: We know she'd been assaulted in a brutal fashion, and
Speaker 1: yet the police were completely cavalier in their approach to
Speaker 1: their investigation. There seemed to be no concern on their
Speaker 1: behalf of handling this matter in a sensitive way, of
Speaker 1: following procedure and protocol to ensure that she and her
Speaker 1: family would get justice and that the right person would
Speaker 1: be eventually found guilty and that everyone who knew Linda
Speaker 1: would have some closure at least in terms of knowing
Speaker 1: what had happened. And finally, I think the third thing
Speaker 1: was the failure of the justice system, and that's a
Speaker 1: failure that I think is perpetrated against all Aboriginal people
Speaker 1: in Australia, and in this case, it was perpetrated against
Speaker 1: the Aboriginal community of Rockhampton in that people who had
Speaker 1: no involvement at all were rounded up and harassed by police,
Speaker 1: often for months and months. I think the way the
Speaker 1: justice system handled this, with multiple people being charged in
Speaker 1: different circumstances, with people being brought to court and their
Speaker 1: lawyers not being briefed, with lawyers chopping and changing, with
Speaker 1: barristers arriving on the day, with judges having to rule
Speaker 1: pieces of evidence inadmissible because of police behavior, with judges
Speaker 1: having to give special instructions to the jury that should
Speaker 1: not have needed to be given, and all of this
Speaker 1: relates to the fact that all involved were Aboriginal. I
Speaker 1: think those three issues, the lack of forensic evidence, the
Speaker 1: way the police behaved, and the way the justice system operates.
Speaker 1: So the three most troubling issues and the things the
Speaker 1: three things I think people should really keep in mind,
Speaker 1: and all of which go to show that from the
Speaker 1: moment Linda was first armed, nobody in that system ever
Speaker 1: took seriously getting justice for her. And that's where we
Speaker 1: are today, and that's why we're here today.
Speaker 2: I think it's so important to stress the aboriginality of
Speaker 2: the victims and the alleged perpetrator as well, because I
Speaker 2: think for maybe listeners who aren't familiar with the Aboriginal community,
Speaker 2: I just feel this is a story that never would
Speaker 2: have happened in a non Indigenous community, something that's something
Speaker 2: that you feel that it's not the screw ups to
Speaker 2: you know, monumental screw ups would never have happened in
Speaker 2: a non Indigenous community or would have been very unlikely
Speaker 2: to have happened.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, And I think that's uncomfortable perhaps for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, and maybe it's most uncomfortable for those
Speaker 1: involved in policing and in the justice system themselves. But
Speaker 1: I think it's something we have to accept, is that
Speaker 1: Australia has a very poor job when it comes to
Speaker 1: these types of cases and issues. I think had the
Speaker 1: victim been white, we would have had a very different
Speaker 1: police investigation and a very different trial. And I think
Speaker 1: had the perpetrator been white, we would have seen things
Speaker 1: done very differently too, And again that was one of
Speaker 1: the very early lessons that the sloppiness and the way
Speaker 1: the people, all the people from the accused to the victim,
Speaker 1: to the bystanders to those totally innocent and caught out
Speaker 1: by the process, we're all treated in a different manner
Speaker 1: purely because they were aboriginal.
Speaker 2: I think one of the most interesting episodes for me
Speaker 2: recording it you've also listening back, was the episode's visit
Speaker 2: on the forced confessions. Can you tell me recap a
Speaker 2: little bit for our listeners about about Kevin's confession and
Speaker 2: what we now know that we might not have known
Speaker 2: other started this investigation.
Speaker 1: Well, the first thing I learned, or one of the
Speaker 1: first things I had learned, is that Kevin had confessed,
Speaker 1: and that's always worrying, of course, that someone's confessed to
Speaker 1: a crime and perhaps now they're trying to change their
Speaker 1: mind about all that. So immediately you go to that
Speaker 1: confession and you want to look at it. But of
Speaker 1: course what we didn't know when we first looked into
Speaker 1: this was that the way Kevin's interviews were conducted, the
Speaker 1: way the statements were taken from him were not done
Speaker 1: in a professional manner at all. His first statement was
Speaker 1: taken the following day, and it appears that not much
Speaker 1: in that statement matches the second statement, which is the
Speaker 1: alleged confession. And what's interesting about the alleged confession is
Speaker 1: Kevin never confesses to murder. Now, the other things we
Speaker 1: have to remember about that statement, that second statement, the
Speaker 1: alleged confession, is that he asked for legal counsel and
Speaker 1: he didn't get it. That he protested many times and
Speaker 1: didn't want to continue answering questions, and that was ignored. Now,
Speaker 1: these two issues alone led the judge to strike much
Speaker 1: of that statement from the record, not allow the jury
Speaker 1: to hear it. But there were other issues. There's issues
Speaker 1: of Kevin's literacy and the fact that he really couldn't
Speaker 1: read or write, so the paperwork that was presented in
Speaker 1: front of him that was supposed to be words from
Speaker 1: his own mouth or that he was supposed to have
Speaker 1: written himself, were not his. There's also the factors like
Speaker 1: police introducing evidence that just wasn't true. So were they
Speaker 1: trying to lead Kevin to make a claim or a
Speaker 1: statement that would implicate himself and of course Kevin didn't understand,
Speaker 1: as most of us in the public don't, the fact
Speaker 1: that we can implicate ourselves in a crime, and when
Speaker 1: you've been denied legal counsel, that's even more likely to occur.
Speaker 1: And I think what really brings this home is that
Speaker 1: it wasn't just Kevin that was treated in this way,
Speaker 1: every witness in the case. And we have to remember
Speaker 1: this is very important that even those who played no
Speaker 1: role in the assault, some who weren't even present when
Speaker 1: it took place and who weren't there that night, were
Speaker 1: treated in the same way by police. And so we
Speaker 1: have people like Wayne Saunders, who was hounded and hounded
Speaker 1: for months to give a statement, and by his own admission,
Speaker 1: not only was he illiterate, he was constantly intoxicated, and
Speaker 1: he said himself he couldn't remember what happened, what he
Speaker 1: saw or what he didn't see, and he just couldn't
Speaker 1: give a proper statement, and yet he was pursued by
Speaker 1: the police and harassed until he was willing to just
Speaker 1: initial a document. So I think this whole issue of
Speaker 1: there being a confession was something that changed drastically from
Speaker 1: when we first heard of the case and when we
Speaker 1: first began to look into it until where we are today,
Speaker 1: which is that there really is no confession, and that
Speaker 1: the statement that does exist is extremely problematic, and that
Speaker 1: all the witness statements are tainted by the issues of literacy,
Speaker 1: the issues of intoxication, the issues of threats, the issues
Speaker 1: of coercion, and the fact that the crime scene and
Speaker 1: those witnesses weren't secured in a manner that they should have.
Speaker 2: Do you think the confession played a big part in
Speaker 2: the trial, even though going through it it seems amazing
Speaker 2: that it was even extensive. A big chunk of it
Speaker 2: was actually thrown out by the judge. But even though
Speaker 2: he never actually confesses to killing Linda, do you think
Speaker 2: the confession did play a major part in the trial,
Speaker 2: that the jury did take it take it to heart.
Speaker 1: I think it did. And I think this is where
Speaker 1: we have to examine the media role, and that is
Speaker 1: something we'll do more next year, which is that the
Speaker 1: jury were free to go home every night. We have
Speaker 1: to remember that in a regional town you tend to
Speaker 1: have one newspaper, one local news station on the television,
Speaker 1: and a small number of radio stations. And while the
Speaker 1: judge might have struck much of this from the record.
Speaker 1: The media took it upon themselves to report things that
Speaker 1: just weren't true, and I think that certainly influenced the jury,
Speaker 1: and we know that because of the questions they would
Speaker 1: later ask the judge. Again, that's something we'll explore next year.
Speaker 1: But I have no doubt that the belief on the
Speaker 1: jury's behalf that there was some confession, even if they
Speaker 1: didn't get to see it, that it had been made
Speaker 1: and therefore that was enough.
Speaker 2: Now, in this series, we actually had two quite well
Speaker 2: known interviewees, didn't we Pat McGuinness over in America and
Speaker 2: Phil Dickey, who is very well known in Australia. How
Speaker 2: much did you learn from being able to speak to
Speaker 2: those two guys in relation to Kevin Henry's case.
Speaker 1: Well, for me, I think it was enormously influential and
Speaker 1: also very helpful. I think in talking to Pat McGuinness,
Speaker 1: the defense lawyer from the United States, he's one of
Speaker 1: the leading authorities on forced confessions and also on the
Speaker 1: way race plays a role in murder trials, the role
Speaker 1: that illiteracy plays. And he's an expert not because he
Speaker 1: sits in a university, but because he's tried these cases
Speaker 1: as a defense lawyer for more than three decades, and
Speaker 1: he's seen the result of what happens when police don't
Speaker 1: do their job, and when police may threaten people, when
Speaker 1: police may interview those who are illiterate, intoxicated, mentally or
Speaker 1: physically impaired. So I think he gave great insight into
Speaker 1: not just one case that is highlighted in the movie
Speaker 1: Murder on a Sunday Morning that won the Oscar that
Speaker 1: features his work, but on his entire body of work.
Speaker 1: That what we're explaining about Kevin's confession and the statement
Speaker 1: that leads to be an alleged confession, is not at
Speaker 1: all unusual. We're not trying to launch a rocket to
Speaker 1: the moon. In fact, what we're exposing is something that
Speaker 1: he's known and his colleagues in the United States and
Speaker 1: in many other countries around the world have known for decades,
Speaker 1: which is that some racial minorities, and in Australia that's
Speaker 1: Aboriginal Australians are targeted in this way and so that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be surprised that this is what occurred. And
Speaker 1: so to give further context to that, I think Phil
Speaker 1: Dickie was very helpful because he is a journalist who
Speaker 1: was at the Courier Mail and exposed the level of
Speaker 1: police corruption in Queensland that went all the way to
Speaker 1: the top, and his work led to the Fitzgerald inquiry.
Speaker 1: Gives us the background of an environment in Queensland that
Speaker 1: would lead police to act in this manner that would
Speaker 1: lead to the sort of problems we've described in terms
Speaker 1: of police conduct, the way the entire high judicial system operated.
Speaker 1: He also spoke about the way the media operated as well.
Speaker 1: So I think to have that content context given to
Speaker 1: us by outside parties who know nothing of the particular case,
Speaker 1: but can give great insight and expert insight into both
Speaker 1: key aspects to the case and also what was happening
Speaker 1: in Queensland at the time, is vitally important both for
Speaker 1: us in investigating this entire matter and for the listeners
Speaker 1: to be able to transport themselves back to nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 2: And speaking of Pat McGinnis and America America's example, I
Speaker 2: mean a lot of Australians I think still think that
Speaker 2: we in a way have a fairer justice system. How
Speaker 2: would you say this case, Kevin Hanrickets, has it changed
Speaker 2: anything to you about how these strange justice system works
Speaker 2: that we on par with America.
Speaker 1: Do you think, well, I think I've been lucky. I
Speaker 1: guess I can say to work on cases in the
Speaker 1: United States, including murder cases and death penalty cases, their
Speaker 1: system is no doubt worse I think as a whole.
Speaker 1: But I think where Australia's system tops theirs in its
Speaker 1: lack of quality, in its unfairness, in its cruelness, in
Speaker 1: the pure lack of justice, is dealing with Indigenous Australians.
Speaker 1: I always held that belief from personal observation as well
Speaker 1: as from my profession, but if anything, this is just
Speaker 1: further enforced that. And speaking to Pat McGuinness both off
Speaker 1: air and on and being able to discuss cases we've
Speaker 1: both worked on, I think it's easy to come to
Speaker 1: that conclusion. And I would really say that while it's
Speaker 1: easy to look at the US system while we are
Speaker 1: constantly bombarded with cases from America, and that's always been
Speaker 1: the way, whether it was back to oj Simpson all
Speaker 1: the way through to modern times with cases like Travon Martin,
Speaker 1: the Australian public pays very little attention to their own
Speaker 1: justice system, and this is one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: these injustices occur is because while our eyes are fixed
Speaker 1: on America and the grave injustices that are committed there,
Speaker 1: they're also happening to our Indigenous population right under our noses.
Speaker 3: And so if.
Speaker 1: Anything, this has galvanized my own beliefs and my own
Speaker 1: efforts in trying to highlight this particular issue further, and
Speaker 1: that is that Australians need to wake up to the
Speaker 1: disgraceful way Indigenous Australians are treated by the police and
Speaker 1: the justice system.
Speaker 2: And there's only been just this week we saw one
Speaker 2: of our young Aboriginal youth up in the Northern Territory.
Speaker 2: Dylan Volla was actually giving evidence towards for the Royal
Speaker 2: Commission into juvenile's attention in the Northern Territory. So there's
Speaker 2: a lot of things that haven't changed in Australia in
Speaker 2: the twenty five years since Kevin Henry has been incarcerated.
Speaker 2: Has there like we haven't had much change given even
Speaker 2: just the current week's events with Dylan Voller testifying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's right, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: sad reminder that twenty five years after Linda passed away
Speaker 1: and her family, Sandy has a very real and harri
Speaker 1: fit connection to the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in
Speaker 1: custody that those deaths, some four hundred, have continued in
Speaker 1: the last twenty five years, and now we're really seeing
Speaker 1: exposed the treatment of not just Aboriginal men and women
Speaker 1: in the justice system, but Aboriginal children. I think one
Speaker 1: thing we have to remember about Dylan Vola, who spoke
Speaker 1: this week in the Northern Territory Royal Commission, is that
Speaker 1: he was just ten years old when the justice system
Speaker 1: first began to abuse him. Now I've watched this week
Speaker 1: as people climb on their high horse and make all
Speaker 1: sorts of statements about young villain Vola. But I think
Speaker 1: it's very dangerous to condemn a person who was first
Speaker 1: subjected to what I consider to be torture at just
Speaker 1: ten years To expect a child to endure sleep deprivation,
Speaker 1: constant light and dark as a method of intimidating him,
Speaker 1: as a way of showing him that he is being controlled,
Speaker 1: the way physical aggression and violence was used against him,
Speaker 1: the way food and water was withheld from him. People
Speaker 1: may have seen the spit hood and the giitmo like
Speaker 1: treatment that occurred when he was perhaps sixteen years old.
Speaker 1: But we have to really think about a ten year
Speaker 1: old that you know and consider being put them being
Speaker 1: put as Dylan was naked in a cell, denied water,
Speaker 1: in boiling hot conditions, denied food, beaten. To expect that
Speaker 1: this child would come out and be a perfect citizen
Speaker 1: is absurd. And I think the other thing we have
Speaker 1: to remember too, is that Dylan, as a young Aboriginal Australian,
Speaker 1: asked while he was in custody to complete his high
Speaker 1: school certificate. He asked to stay in Alice Springs, both
Speaker 1: where his family and culture is, but also where his
Speaker 1: psychiatrist is located, and his psychiatrists wanted that as well,
Speaker 1: because Dylan suffers adhd IT. And upon that request, he
Speaker 1: was moved the next day to Darwen and he was
Speaker 1: never allowed to complete his education. So again I would
Speaker 1: say to those who are demonizing this young man, think
Speaker 1: about a ten year old you know asked that they
Speaker 1: be subjected to all of that, and then tell me
Speaker 1: the shape they would look in today. And if you
Speaker 1: can honestly say that person would be a perfect individual,
Speaker 1: then fine. Judge mister Vola, and all the children of
Speaker 1: don Dale and judge people like myself who stand up
Speaker 1: for them. But I don't think any reasonable person could
Speaker 1: make that argument. And I think watching that this week
Speaker 1: has taught people a lesson, and I think it leads
Speaker 1: to something that we haven't discussed before, which is that
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry himself was placed in juvenile attention and that
Speaker 1: was at the age of twelve or thirteen, and his
Speaker 1: crime then was stealing a couple of lollies. Now, how
Speaker 1: many twelve or thirteen year olds have done exactly that?
Speaker 1: And then ask yourself how many of them then went
Speaker 1: on to serve six months in custody, spending some of
Speaker 1: that time with adult prisoners. So I think this week
Speaker 1: brings full circle everything we know about the case of
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry, but also everything we know about the way
Speaker 1: Indigenous children are criminalized from such a young age. And
Speaker 1: I think this should worry any Australian that cares about
Speaker 1: not just Aboriginal people, but their society as a whole,
Speaker 1: and whether the way we conduct justice in inverted commas
Speaker 1: is sustainable or justice at all vis a vis the
Speaker 1: Indigenous population.
Speaker 2: So I guess a lot of our listeners, if they've
Speaker 2: been listening throughout the top past ten episodes and have
Speaker 2: been following. I bet you a lot of them are
Speaker 2: wondering what they might be able to do or where
Speaker 2: to next. So Kevin Henry, is there anything that they
Speaker 2: could possibly do to get involved as they were interested?
Speaker 1: Yes, So one thing we're going to and they'll be
Speaker 1: available on Friday when you hear this episode is there'll
Speaker 1: be a petition. And that's a petition you can sign
Speaker 1: if you believe that Kevin Henry deserves the justice system
Speaker 1: take another look at this case and whether you think
Speaker 1: that politicians, particularly the Attorney General and Premier of Queensland,
Speaker 1: need to have this case re examined. And we require
Speaker 1: that for two reasons. One is, if Kevin Henry is innocent,
Speaker 1: he has served twenty five years in prison for a
Speaker 1: crime he did not do. Now, I would put it
Speaker 1: to all listeners that, based on the evidence they've heard
Speaker 1: so far, and remembering there is still a lot more
Speaker 1: to come, that it would be very hard, if not impossible,
Speaker 1: to convict any man beyond a reasonable doubt of murder
Speaker 1: in this case. Also say this, if you have doubts
Speaker 1: about Kevin Henry's guilt, then you must also have doubts
Speaker 1: that Linda Ever got justice, and I think she and
Speaker 1: her family deserve that. I think given what Australia has
Speaker 1: done to her family, and that's documented from the Royal
Speaker 1: Commission into Black Debts in Custody, I think they as
Speaker 1: much as Kevin Henry and his family deserve justice. And
Speaker 1: I think that's the first step, is for people to
Speaker 1: be willing to put their names to a petition and
Speaker 1: say that this is unacceptable and that we need to
Speaker 1: get to the truth.
Speaker 2: Now. If you want a copy of that position, we'll
Speaker 2: put it up on www dot kurtinthepodcast dot com and
Speaker 2: we'll also share it on our Facebook and Twitter accounts,
Speaker 2: so if you look up kurtin the podcast, you'll be
Speaker 2: able to find them there. And the other thing we
Speaker 2: need as well is to raise as much much public
Speaker 2: awareness about this case as possible. So if you've been
Speaker 2: listening to Curtain for the past ten episodes and you
Speaker 2: have reasons about Kevin Henry's guilt and would like to
Speaker 2: do something, send the podcast around, ask your friends to
Speaker 2: listen to it, raise it on iTunes, and just tell
Speaker 2: everyone you can join us again in the new year
Speaker 2: for more of Curtain