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 colored.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged attemp.
Speaker 1: On a shallow mud bank and the fitz Roy River.
Speaker 3: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 3: there 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 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull 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.
Speaker 4: And I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign
Speaker 4: Prisoner Support Service. Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by
Speaker 4: Clint Curtis and produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous
Speaker 4: Media Association and a warning. This series contains the names
Speaker 4: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 4: some listeners.
Speaker 2: For the better part of the year, we've been trying
Speaker 2: to piece together what happened on a Saturday night a
Speaker 2: quarter of a century ago in Rockhampton Central Queensland. That
Speaker 2: night was August thirty, first, ninety nine one. It was
Speaker 2: the last tragic hours of an Aboriginal woman named Linda's life,
Speaker 2: a beautiful, accomplished mother of four who we have reason
Speaker 2: to believe never received justice. Of course, there are several
Speaker 2: reasons why it's hard to piece together the events of
Speaker 2: that night.
Speaker 4: If you've been listening for the past nine weeks you
Speaker 4: would know a few of them. One, there was a
Speaker 4: great deal of alcohol consumed the night Linda died at
Speaker 4: a place called Tenuba House, which literally sits on the
Speaker 4: banks of the Fitzroy River. Two key witnesses who gave
Speaker 4: statements to police changed the details of their statements. Many
Speaker 4: were intoxicated when they gave those statements, and some gave
Speaker 4: multiple statements. Three. The trial over Linda's death occurred one
Speaker 4: year after, and many of the witnesses on the stand
Speaker 4: not only had hazy memories but gave totally contradictory statements.
Speaker 4: All of these reasons make it hard for us to
Speaker 4: ascertain what really happened on that night.
Speaker 2: But as we have told you over the past few months,
Speaker 2: there are ways we can start to establish who may
Speaker 2: be lying and who may be telling the truth. We've
Speaker 2: been trying to piece together as semblance of fact in
Speaker 2: the witness statements. In this episode, we're going to go
Speaker 2: back again to the night of Linda's death.
Speaker 4: Now, we've told you that Linda was briefly assaulted by
Speaker 4: three women that night, but a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 4: we began to look into what happened directly after her assault.
Speaker 4: We know that most of the people drinking it tone
Speaker 4: but that night left Linda lying near the steps of
Speaker 4: the house and went to my alcohol at the Crown Hotel,
Speaker 4: a short five minute walk away. Only two people stayed behind.
Speaker 2: Now, we told you in episode eight that Kevin had
Speaker 2: a very small window of opportunity to have done what
Speaker 2: police alleged him to have done that night. It was
Speaker 2: as small as fifteen to thirty minutes. In that timeframe,
Speaker 2: Kevin was alleged to have dragged Linted to an area
Speaker 2: called Root Valley, where he was then convicted of raping her,
Speaker 2: then dragging her into the water where he got the
Speaker 2: murder charge. But here is the thing. None of the
Speaker 2: witnesses that night, even the two who stayed behind at
Speaker 2: Tanuba the whole night, ever saw Kevin near Linda's body.
Speaker 2: In fact, according to several witnesses, he went to the
Speaker 2: Crown that night with all the.
Speaker 4: Others Now, we did tell you there was only one
Speaker 4: witness who said Kevin wasn't at the Crown. We will
Speaker 4: call her s Now. Let me give you some background
Speaker 4: on there. She was only young at the time, about eighteen.
Speaker 4: This makes her particularly vulnerable. She was around adults, she
Speaker 4: was around a lot of drinking and violence. She was
Speaker 4: largely on her own at certain points, and it also
Speaker 4: makes her vulnerable when it comes to dealing with the police.
Speaker 4: A person at that age had not yet had a
Speaker 4: great deal of exposure with these sort of events. She'd
Speaker 4: witnessed something terribly tragic, but what would happen next would
Speaker 4: lead to a lot of problems. She'd become highly unreliable.
Speaker 2: Despite this, s was obviously seen as a key witness,
Speaker 2: and we know this because she was one of the
Speaker 2: few witnesses extensively covered by the local media at the time.
Speaker 2: In fact, this is how Channel nine sensationally reported her statement.
Speaker 3: A trial has heard that a man accused of raping
Speaker 3: and murdering a Rockhampton woman had blood on his clothing
Speaker 3: the day after the alleged attack.
Speaker 1: Day witnessed and recounted a conversation with the accused at
Speaker 1: the hostel the damous body was found. He said he
Speaker 1: raped her and stuck an iron bar in her throat,
Speaker 1: and she told how Henry had blood on his shirt.
Speaker 4: If you were listening to that news clip, it would
Speaker 4: sound very, very bad for Kevin. But the reality is
Speaker 4: those short news clips were completely unethical because s statement
Speaker 4: completely fell apart in cross examination. In fact, this is
Speaker 4: what she said during cross examination. I will read out
Speaker 4: the part of David Murray, Kevin's barrister, and Amy will
Speaker 4: respond as there you don't know are there any other
Speaker 4: things you know about this s that you are not
Speaker 4: telling it? No? Pardon No, Kevin never said to you
Speaker 4: that day, or to Susan while you were present with Susan,
Speaker 4: that he had thrown her in the river or done
Speaker 4: anything like that. Did he He never said that. No,
Speaker 4: never said he killed her, did he? No, You say
Speaker 4: Susan asked him if he killed her, and he said nothing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he said nothing.
Speaker 4: So this conversation that you remember about him saying that
Speaker 4: he raped her too, was one that you made about
Speaker 4: eight months after the incident on the morning when you
Speaker 4: say you were full of drink when you heard it?
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 2: I don't understand that.
Speaker 4: Perhaps I did make that. You made the statement on
Speaker 4: Sunday last week, which is about eight months after the incident.
Speaker 4: A bit more, Yeah, and you remember it eight months later? Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's all. Now. That means S made her statement that
Speaker 4: Kevin had told her it raped Linda eight months after
Speaker 4: the event. In fact, it was the Sunday before the
Speaker 4: trial began. Not only that, S was proven to be
Speaker 4: lying at several points during her cross examination. And those
Speaker 4: lies are crucial because S made multiple statements. In her
Speaker 4: first statement, like everyone else, she agrees largely to the
Speaker 4: events as we've described them. It's not until her second statement,
Speaker 4: which may actually be her third but the records are unclear,
Speaker 4: that she begins to implicate Kevin, and she does that
Speaker 4: very heavily. Now, remember this statement that implicates Kevin is
Speaker 4: made on the Sunday before the trial starts. This is
Speaker 4: eight months after the incident. Now there's some crucial elements
Speaker 4: you have to remember about this. Why would a person
Speaker 4: change their statement completely just days before a trial starts.
Speaker 4: Why would the police take that statement on the Sunday
Speaker 4: just before the trial begins, from a person who is
Speaker 4: heavily intoxicated. Again, by her own admission, she gave that
Speaker 4: statement heavily intoxicated eight months after the event and the
Speaker 4: Sunday before the trial began, and it was only now
Speaker 4: that she was implicating Kevin Henry. This raises a lot
Speaker 4: of concerns about much of her evidence, and that's largely
Speaker 4: exposed on the stand because on the day the events
Speaker 4: took place, she first tells prosecutors she hadn't drunk anything
Speaker 4: at all and she had a very clear recollection of
Speaker 4: what occurred. But immediately under cross examination, and I do
Speaker 4: mean immediately, she admitted that not only had she been
Speaker 4: drinking that day too, she was heavily intoxicated. She'd also
Speaker 4: fabricated much of the details of what she said in
Speaker 4: that crucial statement. She admits this. She also concedes that
Speaker 4: after the events she'd spoken to most of the people
Speaker 4: who were there that night. Now, in her initial statement
Speaker 4: and when she first appears on the stand, she claims
Speaker 4: that everything is coming from her crystal clear memory, but
Speaker 4: again this is just not true, and she admits that
Speaker 4: under cross examination she'd sat around with everyone at Tanuba
Speaker 4: House there'd been a great deal of talk. She was
Speaker 4: heavily influenced by what was being told to her, both
Speaker 4: by those at Tanuba and more importantly by the police,
Speaker 4: and this is what led to her statement just days
Speaker 4: before the trial began, where she would finally and be
Speaker 4: the only person to directly implicate Kevin in this way.
Speaker 2: Now, we just told you that s was one of
Speaker 2: the only witnesses whose statement made the local media, and
Speaker 2: it was the sensationalistic aspects of that statement that really
Speaker 2: made news in Rockhampton at the time. Her statements were
Speaker 2: covered quite extensively by the television news but also the
Speaker 2: local newspaper at the morning Bulletin. Those statements included the
Speaker 2: fact that she had seen Kevin with blood on his
Speaker 2: shirt and that he had told her that he had
Speaker 2: placed an iron bar in Linda's mouth.
Speaker 4: But this is what the media didn't tell you. The
Speaker 4: claim that she saw blood on Kevin's clothes was totally misreported.
Speaker 4: Kevin had been wearing the same shirt from the night before,
Speaker 4: and it's true it did have blood on it, but
Speaker 4: it was his blood. It had been there since the
Speaker 4: day previously, when he got into a fight with another
Speaker 4: man at Tanuba. The issue of the iron bar should
Speaker 4: have also been easy for the media to rule out.
Speaker 4: Not a single piece of forensic evidence, no other witness,
Speaker 4: in fact, not even the police, tend to anything remotely
Speaker 4: considered evidence that this was true. But the media simply
Speaker 4: led with S's statements, never checked the facts, never checked
Speaker 4: the issue that the two most sensational things she said
Speaker 4: were proven utterly false, and yet this is what they
Speaker 4: ran with. This is what the public and the members
Speaker 4: of the jury heard via the media.
Speaker 2: The other thing that's interesting about this and important to note,
Speaker 2: is that s was also the only witness to claim
Speaker 2: Kevin stayed at Tanuba House that night, and she was
Speaker 2: found to be lying about that fact, So we know
Speaker 2: that her statement simply does not add up.
Speaker 4: So with that in mind, surely if Kevin had stayed
Speaker 4: at Tanuba, other witnesses would have remembered it. But instead
Speaker 4: other witnesses state that Kevin went to the Crown Hotel
Speaker 4: with everybody else. And not only that, they state that
Speaker 4: he was not only at the Crown Hotel, but that
Speaker 4: he returned to Tanuba in a taxi with other people,
Speaker 4: including Susan Aubrey, one of the women convicted over the
Speaker 4: assault on Linda.
Speaker 2: Now this is important because we've already told you that
Speaker 2: there's some confusion about when Kevin would have even had
Speaker 2: the time to do what he was alleged to have done.
Speaker 2: At no point does it look like he was alone.
Speaker 2: In fact, it's very likely simply gone to the Crown
Speaker 2: Hotel and come back, and that's what he originally said
Speaker 2: in his statement to police.
Speaker 4: One of those people who saw Kevin after the women
Speaker 4: had committed the assault was a close relative of Susan's.
Speaker 4: We'll call her ARTI. This is what A said on
Speaker 4: the witness stand, And again I'll play David Murray and
Speaker 4: Amy will answer as a when did you next see Curtin?
Speaker 4: After leaving Tanuba on that afternoon, Just as I.
Speaker 2: Was walking to the Grossfinode, Susan pulled up in a
Speaker 2: cab and asked us where we were going. I told
Speaker 2: her we were going to get a drink. There was Susan,
Speaker 2: Curtin and Bernie Ross in the taxi. She said she
Speaker 2: was going home to see her piccaninnies and then after
Speaker 2: what we got a drink and we went walked back
Speaker 2: down to Tanuba. They turned up there and was drinking.
Speaker 4: All night there when he got back to Tanuba. Which
Speaker 4: way did you go under?
Speaker 2: We went down the stairs.
Speaker 4: Are they the same stairs where Linda was lying when
Speaker 4: you left? Yeah? Was Linda there when you went back?
Speaker 2: No, not that I know of.
Speaker 4: The next day someday. Were you still at Tanuba?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Was Curtin there as well?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Now A was not the only person to claim she
Speaker 4: saw Kevin in a cab with these two people returning
Speaker 4: to Tanuba that night. Another witness, who will call Jay,
Speaker 4: also had a similar story and just a reminder that
Speaker 4: Tanuba House was rock Hampton's old morgue and so I
Speaker 4: was referred to as the morgue in this testimony. Again,
Speaker 4: I'll play David Murray and Amy will answer as Jay.
Speaker 4: I'm just unsure of this, but I thought you said
Speaker 4: to the learned prosecutor that you didn't see Kurtin again
Speaker 4: after you saw him outside the Crown until he got
Speaker 4: back to the morgue. Is that what you said, Yes,
Speaker 4: that's what you said in your evidence in chief. Yes,
Speaker 4: in your statement to the police you said this. A. Colin,
Speaker 4: Margie s Frank and me then walked to the gross Venner.
Speaker 4: When we got to the grosvender. A taxi pulled up
Speaker 4: and I saw Susan, Bernie and Curtin in it. So
Speaker 4: you did see.
Speaker 2: Him again, Yeah, in the taxi.
Speaker 4: Did you speak to anyone in the cab?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: You didn't. No, you just saw them pull up somewhere,
Speaker 4: did you.
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: In your statement you said this to police. Susan then
Speaker 4: said she was going to Kent Street first and then
Speaker 4: she was going home. Then they drove.
Speaker 2: Off, she said, told they.
Speaker 4: So you did hear something said? They didn't just pull
Speaker 4: up and go again.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Perhaps you can save us a lot of time. Tell
Speaker 4: us which parts of this are true and which parts
Speaker 4: are wrong of the statement? Can you do that mine?
Speaker 2: And we just had two other witness statements, and both
Speaker 2: of them talk about seeing Curtain that day returning from
Speaker 2: the Crown in a taxi with one passenger included Susan Aubrey.
Speaker 2: Can you put us a timeline of what happened? Can
Speaker 2: we establish that sort of timeline?
Speaker 4: Yes, we can if you can look at all the
Speaker 4: witness statements here involved, and particularly these two. As we
Speaker 4: discussed last week, the window of opportunity was very narrow,
Speaker 4: and this actually narrows it even further so after the
Speaker 4: assault on Winda, we know that everyone except for two
Speaker 4: individuals stay behind at Tanuba House. Everyone else goes to
Speaker 4: the Crown. Here they all chip in and Susan Aubrey
Speaker 4: buys the alcohol. From there, some people walk back to Tanuba. Clearly, Kevin,
Speaker 4: Susan and Bernie get into a taxi. Others had already
Speaker 4: started to walk to the Gross Venner where they then
Speaker 4: saw Susan, Bernie and Kurtin in the taxi. Therefore, at
Speaker 4: no point is Kevin alone because one thing we do
Speaker 4: know that f S claimed on the stand is that she
Speaker 4: was actually the first person back to Tanuba House before
Speaker 4: Kevin Henry, and by then the body was already gone.
Speaker 4: So the narrow window of opportunity it's about ten to
Speaker 4: fifteen minutes when the police alleged Kevin dumped the body
Speaker 4: in the river, is a time when he was a
Speaker 4: at the Crown Hotel and then b in a taxi.
Speaker 4: When did he possibly commit this crime?
Speaker 2: So, Martin, it seems like a pretty solid alibi. Shouldn't
Speaker 2: that have come up in trial? The facts that two
Speaker 2: witnesses actually saw him in a taxi with Susan Aubrey.
Speaker 4: Well clearly the defense was trying to make this very clear.
Speaker 4: They painted a clear picture to the jury that Kevin
Speaker 4: was both at the Crown and then in a taxi
Speaker 4: at the time he was supposed to have committed this crime.
Speaker 4: But for whatever reason, the jury either were confused or
Speaker 4: ignored these pieces of evidence. And I think one of
Speaker 4: the reasons we can assume this happened is because of
Speaker 4: the very confusing nature of the witness statements. And that's
Speaker 4: because police took multiple statements from these witnesses. They took
Speaker 4: them when they were intoxicated, and they took S's statement
Speaker 4: just on the Sunday before the trial began. So the
Speaker 4: jury have heard s first claim to be sober, to
Speaker 4: have seen everything that occurred, to have known who was
Speaker 4: where and at what time. And then they've heard her
Speaker 4: admit know she was intoxicated, she didn't know what was
Speaker 4: going on, she'd been told events by others, not she
Speaker 4: seen anything with her own eyes that she could remember.
Speaker 4: And that that statement that implicated Kevin was given just
Speaker 4: days before the trial began. Whether the jury was able
Speaker 4: to piece this together clearly is perhaps why they don't
Speaker 4: understand that Kevin had an alibi such.
Speaker 2: That Obviously, we have two witnesses, A and Jay, and
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, f it seems that all of them
Speaker 2: were found to be quite unreliable. So can we say
Speaker 2: that in the sense that alibi might be unreliable as well?
Speaker 4: Well? It could be unreliable given that so much of
Speaker 4: what they say is simply just not true. But here's
Speaker 4: why I believe it is reliable. These are statements that
Speaker 4: they gave early on. These are statements they gave before
Speaker 4: for Kevin was implicated in Linda's murder. These are the
Speaker 4: statements that match after Kevin was charged with murder. It's
Speaker 4: the following statements, some like Essa's, made just days before
Speaker 4: the trial, are the ones where the facts change. The
Speaker 4: facts that relate to Kevin's alibi are a statements taken
Speaker 4: immediately after the assault on Linda took place, when the
Speaker 4: police began their initial investigation. They all match up. They
Speaker 4: all say the same thing. They agreed that Susan Bernie
Speaker 4: and Curtin, Kevin Henry were in the taxi. It's not
Speaker 4: till much later on, after the police had decided to
Speaker 4: charge Kevin, that these witness statements suddenly change. They no
Speaker 4: longer match up. They admit, at least some of them
Speaker 4: that they are intoxicated when they gave those statements, and
Speaker 4: only now does some of them begin to include Kevin Henry.
Speaker 4: But even those details are either totally false, as proven
Speaker 4: by the forensic evidence, or simply made up, as admitted
Speaker 4: by those very witnesses on the stand under cross examination.
Speaker 2: I thought it was very interesting as well, because in
Speaker 2: Jay's statement, we sort of had have that almost a
Speaker 2: marker to show that when she got back, Linda's body
Speaker 2: was no longer there. So how long can is there
Speaker 2: a way to establish from that how long they might
Speaker 2: have been at the Crown, because it seems they've come
Speaker 2: back and obviously Linda's body has gone, And I think
Speaker 2: that's a really important part of her statement.
Speaker 4: Yes, so she is one witness who went to the Crown,
Speaker 4: walked to the gross Swinner, and then went back to
Speaker 4: Tanuba along with s She was one of the along
Speaker 4: with s She was one of the people who were
Speaker 4: gone for the least amount of time, and we know
Speaker 4: she did very little while she was away. She chipped
Speaker 4: in to buy alcohol with Susan at the Crown. They
Speaker 4: did not drink there. They left immediately after and then
Speaker 4: after seeing Kevin in the taxi, they went back to Tanuba.
Speaker 4: So again, based on the other facts we touched on
Speaker 4: in previous episodes, that window appears to still be around
Speaker 4: ten to fifteen minutes. Kevin is away from Kevin is
Speaker 4: away from Tanuba this whole time. In fact, virtually everyone
Speaker 4: who was at Tanuba is away from the house at
Speaker 4: this time, and the first person to return and all
Speaker 4: those following state the Winder's body was now gone.
Speaker 2: The other thing that Jay said I thought was interesting
Speaker 2: is she talked about she was at Tanuba the next
Speaker 2: day and so was Curtin, So I think she even
Speaker 2: puts it as until at midday, I mean everyone was
Speaker 2: still there. So that was before the police accorded of
Speaker 2: the crime scene. That seems very important as well. I
Speaker 2: mean it seems that there were quite a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are at t Nubah the whole next day
Speaker 2: before police declared it a crime scene.
Speaker 4: That's right, and that is very important for a number
Speaker 4: of reasons. Firstly, you've got a crime scene where many
Speaker 4: many people are coming and going. You've got items being disturbed,
Speaker 4: for prints being made, the possibility for someone or multiple
Speaker 4: people to begin to remove evidence, and cover things up.
Speaker 4: But you've also just got this basic issue of witnesses
Speaker 4: being able to collaborate to get their story straight before
Speaker 4: police arrive. And that's clear that that happened. The prosecutor
Speaker 4: tried to insinuate. In fact, he asked for witnesses to
Speaker 4: state that they did not discuss what happened the night before,
Speaker 4: So we were led to believe, and this was partly
Speaker 4: reported that those sitting around did not discuss the events
Speaker 4: of the night before, including the brutal assault on Winder,
Speaker 4: But under cross examination, all those witnesses admit they did
Speaker 4: that there was a great deal of talk around to
Speaker 4: Nuber House about what had happened the night before. There
Speaker 4: was clearly concern that soon the police would arrive, and some,
Speaker 4: particularly those who had committed the assault, were keen to
Speaker 4: get their story straight.
Speaker 2: So might and if Kevin had a solid alibi, Were
Speaker 2: there other people that had an opportunity that night?
Speaker 4: There were many, and we can start to detail those people. Now,
Speaker 4: I'm not suggesting any of these particular people were involved,
Speaker 4: but they were certainly around the area, had been seen
Speaker 4: at to nuber House and don't have an alibi. The
Speaker 4: first of those people is the fisherman. He's the man
Speaker 4: that alleges that Kevin Henry admitted to the crime the
Speaker 4: following day. This is the man who says he saw
Speaker 4: it in the newspaper that he was illiterate. This is
Speaker 4: a man who said Kevin Henry then came back the
Speaker 4: next day and again admitted to a crime. This was
Speaker 4: a man, however, who, as we told you, had multiple names,
Speaker 4: had been convicted of fraud, who was facing charges at
Speaker 4: the time, was in fact wanted and had outstanding warrants.
Speaker 4: One woman in particular says that he used to come
Speaker 4: and go from Tanuba and he took an interest in
Speaker 4: the girls there and mardin.
Speaker 2: It wasn't just a fisherman. There was also the man
Speaker 2: who allegedly confessed to his lawyer that he had murdered Linda.
Speaker 4: So this is the gentleman who goes to his lawyer
Speaker 4: and claims he'd committed the murder. That lawyer then approaches
Speaker 4: the police and tells the police that a client of
Speaker 4: his has admitted to what's happened, but he's told by
Speaker 4: the police to go away. Now, witness saw this individual
Speaker 4: hanging around that night, whether he was there at the
Speaker 4: time when the body was moved. We cannot be sure,
Speaker 4: but that's because the police did not investigate this. This
Speaker 4: is despite the fact a lawyer came to them saying
Speaker 4: a client of that lawyer had confessed to the crime.
Speaker 4: Maybe this individual was lying, maybe they had an alibi,
Speaker 4: or just maybe they were telling the truth, because they
Speaker 4: were certainly there that night, and they were possibly there
Speaker 4: when everyone else, including Kevin Henry, was gone.
Speaker 2: Martin. This man, I mean, we've talked mostly about the
Speaker 2: Aboriginal community who hung around to Nuba, but this man,
Speaker 2: he was non Aboriginal, wasn't he.
Speaker 4: That's right. He was a white gentleman from the town
Speaker 4: and was known to many of the witnesses not as
Speaker 4: a friend, but as someone who hung around. He predominantly
Speaker 4: stayed at a camp further up the river.
Speaker 2: Now, our listeners might remember that at the start of
Speaker 2: this series we had an interview with a local Aboriginal
Speaker 2: elder in your Campden, Annie Judy Taddeo, who helped run
Speaker 2: to house at that time. She told me this, It
Speaker 2: wasn't always to say baseball them niggau sometimes u gangs.
Speaker 4: Ally suppose if you want to call them gang, they'd
Speaker 4: come down sometimes within the nighttime and might have.
Speaker 2: Some sticks or baseball back. Now that's important because there
Speaker 2: were other people known to hang around Tanuba that night. Martin,
Speaker 2: What do we know about these people?
Speaker 4: We know they stayed in a camp just further up
Speaker 4: the bank of the Fitzroy River from Tanuba House. We
Speaker 4: also know that they would regularly come down to Tanuba
Speaker 4: and harass the Aboriginal people who called Tanuba home. They'd
Speaker 4: start fights, they'd intimidate people, they'd steal things, and many
Speaker 4: would particularly target the young girls that would come and go.
Speaker 4: In fact, they'd come down the very night before Linda
Speaker 4: was assaulted. Multiple witnesses testify to this fact. We don't
Speaker 4: know exactly who these gentlemen are, but we do know
Speaker 4: they were non indigenous, at least according to the local
Speaker 4: indigenous people. We do know that they were causing a
Speaker 4: great deal of trouble, and we know they were targeting
Speaker 4: the youngest girls. And what happened next is quite important.
Speaker 4: As these non indigenous men were targeting the vulnerable Aboriginal
Speaker 4: women at Tanuba House, one person got up to chase
Speaker 4: them away. That person was Kevin Henry. Now he was
Speaker 4: followed by others who would assist. Kevin took the lead
Speaker 4: in protecting the people at Tanouba that evening. This is
Speaker 4: important because Kevin was not a regular at Tanuba. He
Speaker 4: was from the Aboriginal community of Warabinda. He was simply
Speaker 4: staying in Tanouba while he was at Rockhampton. But clearly
Speaker 4: his actions show that he was protective of those there
Speaker 4: and as others had made a statement, Curtain was not
Speaker 4: one to get into this sort of trouble. Now, these
Speaker 4: people that Kurtin Kevin Henry chased off, these nonindigenous people,
Speaker 4: got into a car near a local night spot called
Speaker 4: Flamingos and fled.
Speaker 2: But despite this, and despite knowing that the Aboriginal people
Speaker 2: at Tanuba House were often the target of a white
Speaker 2: vigilantic mob, the police failed to follow this up.
Speaker 4: And we just told you that Kevin tas these people
Speaker 4: to a car. Now, Remember, we believe, based on the
Speaker 4: forensic evidence, the tidal movements, the parallel line left in
Speaker 4: the mud, the fact that Kevin had no mud on
Speaker 4: his clothes, and all the information we've given you, that
Speaker 4: Linda's body had to be dumped on the other side
Speaker 4: of the river. This would have required a car. None
Speaker 4: of the people at Tanuba House involved in the assault
Speaker 4: or those who simply stayed there, had access to a
Speaker 4: car that night, but only the night before Kevin Henry
Speaker 4: had chased these white vigilantes back to their car. Why
Speaker 4: did the police never investigate this vital fact?
Speaker 2: That was episode nine of Curtain, a podcast delving into
Speaker 2: the nineteen ninety one murder of an Aboriginal woman named
Speaker 2: on the banks of Tanuba or the Fitzroy River in Rockampton,
Speaker 2: Central Queensland. For now, you can catch up on iTunes
Speaker 2: by typing in Curtain the Podcast, or go to our
Speaker 2: website www dot Curtain the Podcast dot com.
Speaker 4: Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter at Curtain the Podcast.