WEBVTT - Conversations 7: Cold Case Expert 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:06.480 This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We 0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:12.000 urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm 0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:19.040 thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at 0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:22.279 lifeline dot org dot AU. 0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:32.520 Welcome to the seventh installment of the Truth About Amy Conversations. 0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:36.000 I'm Alison Sandy. I hope you're enjoying this as much 0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:40.120 as wa Police is. I'm joined by Liam Bartlett Mourning. 0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:41.680 Liam, hi el, how are you? 0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:45.320 I'm very well. I'm afraid Tim Clark is still stuck 0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:47.879 in his trial. So is an apology this week. But 0:00:48.040 --> 0:00:51.560 today we are joined by our very special guest, doctor 0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:56.440 Zanthe Mallet. Xanthe Mallett is an Associate professor at Newcastle 0:00:56.560 --> 0:01:01.680 University School of Law and Justice. A criminologist and forensic anthropologist, 0:01:02.160 --> 0:01:08.080 Zanthy is devoted defining the truth. Welcome to our conversations. Hello, 0:01:08.440 --> 0:01:11.400 thank you so much for joining us, Anthy. Now, according 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:12.520 to Wikipedia, for. 0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:14.760 Such a little bit of research on you, that's dangerous. 0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:17.240 I would be telling my students off with those very well, 0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:20.080 let's see what Wikipedia got right today. 0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:23.720 All right, I've only taken a little excerpt, Okay, but 0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:26.880 as part of your relentless quest for justice, your research 0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:31.240 interest extends to the efficacy of expert witness evidence and 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:34.960 the impact of external influences that may result in bias 0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:38.319 or prejudice in decision making. Is that right and if so, 0:01:38.480 --> 0:01:39.880 can you tell us more about this? 0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:42.040 Yeah, I would say that is right, And that started 0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:45.760 way back with my PhD actually though I was studying 0:01:45.800 --> 0:01:48.320 at the University of Sheffield and the UK. My PhD 0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:52.560 focused on forensic facial recognition. That's where the forensic aspect 0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:55.680 comes in in terms of measuring the human face comparing 0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:58.720 them to determine if we can see what an average 0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:00.720 face is. And this was a project that looked to 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:05.120 improve methods of identification in a mass screening scenario, so 0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:09.600 at train stations or whatever by measuring faces. But I 0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:14.160 also looked at when evidence is presented in court, especially 0:02:14.200 --> 0:02:18.679 highly technical or scientific evidence, when that can be misrepresented 0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:23.919 or when an expert can basically overstep their bounds or 0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:27.560 in other words, lead the jury erroneously potentially partly to 0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:30.880 a conclusion. So the impacts of expert evidence and when 0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:32.480 ultimately that can go wrong. 0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:35.720 Haven't you got an example of this that you can 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.320 cite to give us an idea of what exactly you're 0:02:38.320 --> 0:02:38.880 talking about. 0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:41.800 Oh well, the example that I looked at heavily in 0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:45.600 my PhD was Professor Soro Meadows, who was an eminent 0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:49.359 pediatrician in the UK, and he gave evidence in a 0:02:49.440 --> 0:02:53.600 number of child death cases where the mothers were accused 0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:55.880 of murdering their child, and he came up with this 0:02:55.919 --> 0:02:58.520 ethos that became known as Meadows Law that one child 0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.640 death was sad within a family, two were suspicious, and 0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:04.240 three was murder unless proven otherwise. And he put some 0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:08.079 stats around this which had no basis in reality at all, 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:12.440 but is very significantly influential in a number of high 0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:15.560 profile child death cases where the women were found guilty 0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:19.560 and subsequently those cases were overturned. When I got to Australia, 0:03:19.720 --> 0:03:22.560 I was disturbed, to say the least, to find that 0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:26.040 Meadow's Law, as it became known, was still influential in 0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:30.640 cath Folbigg's conviction, not only the original conviction but even 0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:33.839 the most recent inquiry. And obviously we all know her 0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:36.800 convictions for three murders and one man's laughter have been overturned. 0:03:36.800 --> 0:03:39.680 She's been acquitted, she's now an innocent woman in the 0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.960 eyes of law, correctly so, but he was still being 0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:47.160 quoted in the most recent inquiry. So his evidence was 0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:53.279 incredibly misleading and did untold damage to women across the globe. 0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:57.000 And I'm sure that there are still permeations of that 0:03:57.480 --> 0:03:59.960 in place today. And the way we view women who 0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:01.840 accused of harming their children. 0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:05.520 It's so incredibly general, isn't it, Santhia. I mean, it's 0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:08.480 amazing that you can just for anyone in any scenario, 0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:14.160 lay a template across such a serious incident, in any 0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:16.359 circumstance and think that that's going to fit, you know, 0:04:16.440 --> 0:04:19.200 one size fits all. It does my hitting. 0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:22.240 Actually yeah, And actually, at the time when Cerromeadow's actually 0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:27.039 was giving this evidence, it was clear from research available, 0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:29.240 but losing child to sudden infant death, which is just 0:04:29.279 --> 0:04:31.800 an umbrella category meaning we don't know why a child 0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:34.080 has died, there was evidence to suggest that if you 0:04:34.120 --> 0:04:36.640 lose one, you're actually predisposed to lose more than one. 0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:39.279 So that could be environmental, it could be genetic. It's 0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:43.480 genetic in Cathpolbig's case, and so this evidence was never reliable, 0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:45.440 but it made it to court and he was the 0:04:45.480 --> 0:04:49.719 way he presented. He was so well respected and he 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.240 presented in a very authoritative way and it had a 0:04:52.320 --> 0:04:55.920 huge impact on the jury both in the UK and 0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:57.320 in Australia. 0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:00.720 ZAMPI, there's a few parallels here in relation to our 0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:06.000 case about Ami Wensley in the suicide, because there are 0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:08.240 so many and I know in Britain, I know that's 0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:13.479 where you originally from. The whole hidden homicide issue has 0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:17.000 come to light a lot more than it has in Australia. 0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:20.640 Have you delved into or come across or has it 0:05:20.680 --> 0:05:23.360 been an area of research for you in relation to 0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:29.279 these hidden homicides and women's deaths, often in domestic violence 0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.640 situations written not for suicide or accident rather than looked 0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:35.080 at suspiciously. Yeah. 0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:37.599 So I actually run at the University of Newcastle the 0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:40.880 Justice Clinic, and I established that in twenty nineteen. It 0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:44.400 was initially called an Innocence Initiative, but we changed the 0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:48.920 name because we do look at cases of miscarriages of 0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:52.240 justice from full conviction. But then when we established it, 0:05:52.279 --> 0:05:54.719 people started coming to us with all sorts of different cases, 0:05:55.120 --> 0:05:58.440 cold cases, long term cold cases for example, but also 0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:02.719 what we've now classed as misclassification of death cases or 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:07.240 those hidden homicides, and we've worked through with a number 0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:10.200 of families in the Justice Clinic and we still have 0:06:10.279 --> 0:06:14.359 a number of ongoing cases of exactly that hidden homicide. 0:06:14.440 --> 0:06:16.520 So it's something we've been looking at at the University 0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:20.280 of Newcastle since I would think around twenty twenty, and 0:06:20.720 --> 0:06:24.039 sadly it's a lot more prevalent than I ever imagined 0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:27.560 until those families started contacting us and saying, can you 0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:31.000 please help my loved one's death was ruled a suicide 0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:34.320 or misadventure. And sometimes you look at these cases and 0:06:34.360 --> 0:06:37.200 I can't detail them because they're obviously classified. We're working 0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.039 through them legally, but yeah, you know, you look at 0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:42.760 it and go, how on earth was that classified as 0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:45.679 a suicide? When you look at the facts of the case. 0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:48.039 All right, Well, I guess then that brings us to 0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:52.719 Amy's case and what your impressions general impressions are of 0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:54.840 this case since you've had a look at it. 0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:58.680 So this falls into that very much that category, doesn't it? 0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:02.120 Of suspicious deaths? I guess one of the biggest questions 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:04.919 for me looking at this as a forensic scientist and 0:07:05.000 --> 0:07:10.320 behavioral expert, is how on earth the detectives arrived at 0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:15.160 that scene and classified this so quickly as not suspicious 0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:20.960 as a suicide. Obviously, the uniform officers believed that this 0:07:21.120 --> 0:07:25.680 was suspicious, but the detective seemed so keen to dismiss 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.880 this very very quickly. And that's a pattern that I've 0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:32.680 seen in hidden homicides. It's that initial response, that lack 0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:37.000 of interest in capturing the scene forensically, lack of interest 0:07:37.040 --> 0:07:43.000 in interviewing those key witnesses, and so sadly, it was 0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:46.920 all too familiar when I read those initial stages of 0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:50.360 the investigation and what had gone so obviously horribly wrong. 0:07:50.840 --> 0:07:53.120 That's just the start of at Zanthea, isn't it. I mean, 0:07:53.320 --> 0:07:55.560 that's the sort of the organic beginning of the whole 0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:59.960 Amy Wensley case, where people only have to read a 0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:02.880 summary of what happened from the start and they get 0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:06.280 six or seven lines down, and I think that's weird, 0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:10.240 you know, that's I mean, just that you don't consider 0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:16.000 those circumstances suspicious is weird in itself. But then where 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:17.720 does it go from that? There? Do you think? I mean? 0:08:18.320 --> 0:08:22.440 From because you, in your position and all the positions 0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:25.280 you've held, you're a lover of detail, right, because that's 0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:27.240 the key to a lot of these things. The devil's 0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:31.080 in the detail. So for you, well, what detail in 0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:34.319 this case sort of troubles you most or you think 0:08:34.360 --> 0:08:36.880 needs the biggest question mark beside it? 0:08:37.000 --> 0:08:41.439 Well, looking at the biomechanical evidence. Obviously, I'm a forensic scientist, anthropologist, 0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:45.600 so that was where my interest was really tweaked in terms, 0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:49.040 I would love to see those biomechanical reports because for me, 0:08:49.120 --> 0:08:52.160 I was listening to this in the car and hearing 0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.520 about these biomechanical experts, and for me, I was trying 0:08:55.559 --> 0:09:00.400 to imagine a small woman literally physically being able to 0:09:00.480 --> 0:09:03.440 do what the detectives said that she did. 0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:05.200 Apart from the fact that. 0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:08.360 My experience has been that when people commit a crime 0:09:08.559 --> 0:09:12.440 or in fact suicide, it's usually path of least resistance, Okay, 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:15.800 so they're not going to set up a scenario that 0:09:15.920 --> 0:09:18.760 makes it incredibly difficult for them to achieve their aim. 0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:23.800 So suicides, when they're in the situation as described in 0:09:23.880 --> 0:09:28.600 Amy's case, it would have been so difficult and for 0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:31.400 her to get physically into that position if it was 0:09:31.480 --> 0:09:33.520 even possible, And that's what I would love to have 0:09:33.600 --> 0:09:35.280 known I would have liked to see, you know, the 0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:38.440 size of the weapon, the length of her arm, the 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:41.959 body position, all of that information that the biomechanic experts had, 0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:44.480 and that would have been That was my big question. 0:09:44.559 --> 0:09:48.840 It's like, this doesn't feel like this was ever possible, 0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:50.960 And how could you look at that scene as a 0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:55.920 detective and not realize that it just made no sense? 0:09:56.320 --> 0:09:58.640 And it's fascinating that you should phrase it like that, 0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:02.720 because indeed, as it turned out, the police used that 0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:07.600 to then argue against the biomechanical experts. Yes, in the 0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:09.360 sense that they said, well, well, you know now that 0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:15.240 obviously Amy's not here and there's no body to experiment with, 0:10:16.000 --> 0:10:18.520 and we couldn't do it anyway at the scene. Even 0:10:18.520 --> 0:10:22.800 if that was possible. There are inherent limitations. But I 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:25.439 couldn't agree more. I mean, I thought that just from 0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:30.320 a physical point of view, pushing aside all the science, 0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:32.040 can we call it science? I mean the body of 0:10:32.080 --> 0:10:37.199 evidence that tells us that when women's suicide, they rarely 0:10:37.559 --> 0:10:40.560 use a gun, you know, because of the I don't 0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:44.040 know human nature aspect. I suppose they don't want to 0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:47.040 disfigure themselves, if I can put it that way. I mean, 0:10:47.520 --> 0:10:50.040 as I say, it's not completely unusual, not out of 0:10:50.080 --> 0:10:53.280 the question, but it is, but it is still very 0:10:53.360 --> 0:10:57.439 much a rarity. So combining all that, it's don't you 0:10:57.480 --> 0:10:59.360 think you know where I'm getting at? I do. 0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:02.880 It is unusual for women to choose that method of suicide. 0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:07.520 I would agree with that, but that is subjective at 0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:09.400 the end of the day, because it's not impossibility as 0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:11.640 you as you state, It's possible that somebody could have 0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:14.200 made that choice to use a gun, and occasionally women do, 0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:17.000 although they have less access to firearms, less comfort with 0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:21.439 firearms generally speaking than men. However, I haven't seen those 0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:23.280 biomechanical experts reports. 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:24.319 What I would like to have. 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:29.600 Seen is somebody of a similar stature, with similar arm length, etc. 0:11:30.520 --> 0:11:34.280 To Amy to be sat in that specific scenario with 0:11:34.360 --> 0:11:38.040 a weapon of the same dimensions to see whether it 0:11:38.200 --> 0:11:40.640 is literally possible to do that. 0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:43.680 We did that, and we did exactly that, didn't we all? Yes, 0:11:43.760 --> 0:11:46.480 for Spotlight, we had Scott rodercount I didn't. 0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:48.520 See Yeah, yeah, I didn't see that episode. 0:11:48.800 --> 0:11:51.000 People can still see that. Any of our our listeners 0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:55.080 can go to YouTube and dial up that Spotlight episode. 0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.720 So what we did we reconstructed that room, send them 0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:01.760 made it perfect. With apology to Dennis committee, everything was 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:06.520 to scale, including the lady that we used as a 0:12:06.559 --> 0:12:11.240 stand in as an actor. And Scott Rhoda came to 0:12:11.400 --> 0:12:13.719 exactly the same decision, didn't he l In fact, his 0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:18.880 decision was if I could say hardened compared to the 0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:23.440 other biomechanical experts at the inquest, he was left in 0:12:23.520 --> 0:12:27.040 no doubt whatsoever that that was as you say, zanthe 0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:28.319 that was an impossibility. 0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:30.480 And then when you add the behavior or layering over 0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:33.800 the top of that, If it's a physical impossibility for 0:12:33.920 --> 0:12:38.320 somebody of that size and strength to maneuver themselves into 0:12:38.320 --> 0:12:42.160 that position to actually suicide in that fashion, then on 0:12:42.240 --> 0:12:44.680 top of that you have the fact why would you 0:12:45.200 --> 0:12:47.880 why would you wed yourself behind a door, Why would 0:12:47.920 --> 0:12:49.559 you do it with your left hand? Why would you 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:53.160 actively put your right hand out of action by putting 0:12:53.160 --> 0:12:56.800 it underneath your thigh when we all know that a 0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:01.400 shotgun is heavy, So it makes no physical or behavioral 0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:05.400 sense that somebody would suicide in that fashion when it's 0:13:05.520 --> 0:13:07.960 much There are much easier ways to do. 0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:09.800 It, yeah, like lying on the bed. 0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:12.920 Yep, any number of ways, and certainly with both hands. 0:13:13.080 --> 0:13:18.520 Why wasn't there also a discrepancy raised about those visuals? Zanti, 0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:20.240 Can you give us a bit of insight into that, 0:13:20.240 --> 0:13:24.680 because because only minutes before how many minutes was it, roughly, ol, 0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:26.480 I don't know if you've got the exact time at 0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:29.720 your fingertips, but it was between the time that Amy 0:13:29.760 --> 0:13:32.120 took that selfie of her standing in front of the 0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:34.960 mirror with the gun. Because this has been used again, 0:13:35.000 --> 0:13:37.040 this has been used against her in fact, for the 0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:39.880 people who want to promote the idea of suicide. They've 0:13:39.960 --> 0:13:43.080 used that selfie as a way of saying, oh, you know, 0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:46.480 this was her sort of preparing for it, right, That 0:13:47.559 --> 0:13:50.400 was the line used at the inquest. But that was 0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:53.679 about about what forty minutes all was life It's roughly 0:13:53.800 --> 0:13:55.040 roughly forty minutes. 0:13:54.840 --> 0:13:58.120 But this is very very vague, but around about about 0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:00.960 a quarter to five that selfie might have been for oh, 0:14:01.000 --> 0:14:02.839 I think it was forty eight passed or something like that. 0:14:02.920 --> 0:14:04.520 But it was about the time I remember, because it 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:07.440 was about the time that Josh Briden said he left, right, Yeah, 0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:11.520 that's right. And then she had phone call with her mum, 0:14:11.720 --> 0:14:15.599 which was about five o'clock five ish, and it was 0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:19.440 about five twelve when the two boys were making the 0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:22.720 phone call down at Serpentine Rae House, so very tight 0:14:22.840 --> 0:14:23.280 time frame. 0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:26.240 Within half an hour, certainly within the hour, certainly within 0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:29.880 the hour, but maybe half an hour. So my point 0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:32.320 is a very short space of time between her taking 0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:36.000 the selfie, so standing out in the middle of the room, 0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:42.120 loud and proud, taking the selfie, So within thirty forty minutes, 0:14:43.280 --> 0:14:45.880 what her whole mentality changes? I mean, how would you 0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:48.200 possibly start to explain that, Zante? 0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:50.480 I mean, it's very difficult, isn't it, because obviously we 0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:52.840 can't get into the mind of Amy when she took 0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:55.080 that photograph, and that would be kind of a dangerous 0:14:55.080 --> 0:14:55.720 almost thing to do. 0:14:55.840 --> 0:14:59.440 But I agree that there is a juxtaposition between that. 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:02.280 Image, that very bold image in the you know, that 0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:07.160 she obviously wanted to capture, and from the scene descriptions 0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:11.360 hiding in the corner. So those two to me, well, 0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:13.960 I wouldn't want to extrapolate from that that that was 0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:16.320 an image that represented suicide. 0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:18.200 That to me would be problematic. 0:15:18.360 --> 0:15:19.960 Yeah, I mean, it is strange that they did that, 0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:25.760 because the stuff that you would think can't be argued 0:15:25.760 --> 0:15:28.040 about is the science right, I mean I gather that's 0:15:28.120 --> 0:15:30.800 from your point of view, what you'd be looking at 0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:33.680 the most, what you'd give that the most weight, is that, right, 0:15:33.800 --> 0:15:34.600 ZAMPI correct? 0:15:34.640 --> 0:15:37.160 I mean I'm a forensic scientist, so you know, I'm 0:15:37.240 --> 0:15:40.680 very fact driven, very detailed driven, and so that is 0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:43.920 what I rely on, and the circumstantial evidence and the 0:15:44.000 --> 0:15:47.440 witness statements that all builds a picture, right, But it's 0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:51.800 not solid. It's not something that's testable, repeatable, And those 0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:54.840 are the things that give me comfort when a conclusion 0:15:55.000 --> 0:15:57.680 is reached, things that can be tested by other people 0:15:57.840 --> 0:15:58.400 and checked. 0:15:58.720 --> 0:16:01.840 Yeah. So, as Lam pointed out one of the things 0:16:01.880 --> 0:16:06.120 that seemed to be the I guess objective of the 0:16:06.280 --> 0:16:09.840 coroner for this case was not being able to rule 0:16:09.880 --> 0:16:13.280 it out. So to her, she couldn't rule out suicide 0:16:13.560 --> 0:16:18.320 because there was limitations on the biomechanic testing. Is it 0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:20.960 a case of what the probability is? How do you 0:16:21.040 --> 0:16:26.040 get that full picture? Yeah, I mean three biomechanic experts now, 0:16:27.160 --> 0:16:30.480 but then there's all these other issues, I suppose, So 0:16:31.040 --> 0:16:33.560 how do you approach it in those sorts of instances 0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:36.440 when the forensic scene has been cleaned up. 0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:39.200 Well, not only is the forensic scene being cleaned up, 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:42.320 but the images, well, the necessary information wasn't even captured 0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:44.600 in the first place, was it. So you know, a 0:16:44.680 --> 0:16:48.600 blood spatter expert should have come in to interpret the evidence, 0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:51.600 to look at really what angle the shot was taken at. 0:16:51.800 --> 0:16:54.680 Was the victim standing or sitting or crouching or whatever 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:57.680 was you know, was it possible to achieve that with 0:16:57.800 --> 0:16:58.800 her height and the way she. 0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:01.400 Would have held the gun. Of these things needed. 0:17:01.160 --> 0:17:05.160 To be captured in those those minutes, those hours after 0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:08.520 this event happened. And so it's really difficult to put 0:17:08.640 --> 0:17:12.000 to really quantify how likely something is to have happened. 0:17:12.359 --> 0:17:16.600 But if you can demonstrate that it's physically impossible via 0:17:16.920 --> 0:17:19.680 the science, I think that goes a really long way 0:17:19.800 --> 0:17:22.720 to excluding that as a possibility. And I think once 0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:27.080 that has been excluded, ultimately the police will surely be 0:17:28.000 --> 0:17:30.480 you know, encouraged, is a kind of way of putting it, 0:17:30.640 --> 0:17:33.840 to look at the alternatives. And if suicide is ruled 0:17:33.880 --> 0:17:36.800 out by the science, surely they have to look very 0:17:36.880 --> 0:17:38.640 closely at the alternatives at that point. 0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:41.640 Isn't it fair to say, Anthea that sometimes science can't 0:17:41.680 --> 0:17:44.159 completely rule something in or out. There still has to 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:46.800 be at the conclusion level. There still has to be 0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:50.320 a modicum of what shall we say the ingredient is 0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:54.400 common sense? Well, yes, you know, because some things are possible, right, 0:17:54.440 --> 0:17:58.080 I mean things are possible. I find a body in 0:17:58.200 --> 0:18:01.600 a lane way with a knife in the back or 0:18:01.640 --> 0:18:04.240 in the stomach, I can say, well, man, there's no 0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:06.800 one else here. It may not be murdered. The person 0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:09.040 may have been playing with the knife and it's been 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:11.399 a wet night, and that's got to you know, this 0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:13.920 water on the pavement. They might have slipped and the 0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:17.240 knife's gone into their stomach. You know, I mean, yeah, 0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:21.280 is it possible. Yeah, it's possible, But is it likely exactly? 0:18:21.359 --> 0:18:24.000 And I've seen through my years of being a forensic scientist, 0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:26.240 you know, I finished my PhD in two thousand and seven. 0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:28.760 I don't know how many cases have looked at since then, 0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:32.240 A number of which have been suicide cases, which, on 0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:36.080 the first looking at it, you go, no, that cannot 0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:38.359 be suicide. But when you delve into it in detail, 0:18:38.440 --> 0:18:42.639 you go, Okay, fact truly is stranger than fiction, and 0:18:42.800 --> 0:18:45.720 there will always be that. You know, what's the percentage 0:18:45.800 --> 0:18:49.840 chance of it being being a not suspicious death, well, 0:18:49.880 --> 0:18:52.800 there is still a chance, and ultimately, any recreation of 0:18:52.880 --> 0:18:56.920 that scene using a stand in as Amy with everything 0:18:57.440 --> 0:19:00.399 you know exact is possible in terms of the size 0:19:00.440 --> 0:19:01.800 of the room and the weight of the gun and 0:19:01.840 --> 0:19:05.480 all of that, it cannot actually recreate what was happening. 0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:06.280 In that moment. 0:19:06.840 --> 0:19:09.439 You do not have Amy anymore. So the stature may 0:19:09.480 --> 0:19:13.000 be slightly off. And also people can do all sorts 0:19:13.000 --> 0:19:16.679 of extreme things under extreme circumstances that you cannot predict 0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:20.440 for in a controlled environment. So there's always that doubt. 0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:23.720 But ultimately, if the science is saying it is highly 0:19:23.840 --> 0:19:29.360 unlikely that that situation is the correct one, it's much 0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:32.320 more likely that it's something else, then that is something 0:19:32.359 --> 0:19:34.159 that needs to be interrogated very closely. 0:19:34.480 --> 0:19:37.520 And that's exactly what the two original biomechanical experts said. 0:19:37.680 --> 0:19:41.160 Ol that's exactly the language that they used at the inquest, 0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:44.480 that it was highly unlikely and that it was more 0:19:44.760 --> 0:19:49.440 likely that someone else had pulled the trigger. And I 0:19:49.560 --> 0:19:51.720 got to tell you, I mean, one hundred and ninety 0:19:51.720 --> 0:19:56.040 three centimeters I've held exactly the same gun in our reconstruction. 0:19:56.280 --> 0:19:58.680 There is no way in the wide world. There's no 0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:01.000 way I could have held that up and pull the trigger. 0:20:01.160 --> 0:20:02.920 And again I would come back to why would you? 0:20:03.520 --> 0:20:06.280 Why would you do it in that fashion with your 0:20:06.359 --> 0:20:08.680 left arm twisted around your body to shoot yourself in 0:20:08.720 --> 0:20:10.480 the right temper It makes no. 0:20:10.600 --> 0:20:14.480 Sense, absolutely plus plus. On top of that, the coroner 0:20:14.560 --> 0:20:17.320 has the evidence that on her left hand she has 0:20:17.359 --> 0:20:20.359 a muzzle burn, so she can't pull the trigger with 0:20:20.400 --> 0:20:22.399 her left hand because it's got a muzzle burn on it. 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.280 But surely the coroner was also encouraging the police to 0:20:26.480 --> 0:20:28.479 go back and reinvestigate at that stage of it's an 0:20:28.480 --> 0:20:31.760 open finding. Clearly the answers couldn't be achieved the coroner's 0:20:31.800 --> 0:20:35.879 satisfaction during that inquest. Therefore they are actually saying to 0:20:35.960 --> 0:20:40.040 the police, go back and reinvestigate, have open minds, collect 0:20:40.119 --> 0:20:42.760 all of the available evidence, talk to all of your witnesses, 0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:46.159 do due diligence to get to the correct answer. 0:20:46.680 --> 0:20:48.840 Well, you're being very kind, and you're much more generous 0:20:48.840 --> 0:20:49.600 of spirit than I am. 0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:50.320 Not always. 0:20:59.080 --> 0:21:02.360 It's just like the Lady Banishes case. The currently does 0:21:02.440 --> 0:21:05.320 recommend the police do that, but they don't have to 0:21:05.600 --> 0:21:09.840 now and often don't. So the investigation is still open, 0:21:10.320 --> 0:21:13.520 yet we're not actually doing anything. How often do you 0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:17.680 come across that where there's been an error at the 0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:22.040 beginning and there seems to be a reluctance to change 0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:23.280 their mind. Yeah. 0:21:23.560 --> 0:21:28.720 In all of the hidden homicide cases or miscastification of 0:21:28.760 --> 0:21:30.600 death cases that I've come across that have come in 0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:34.240 to work into the Justice Clinic at the University of Newcastle, 0:21:35.040 --> 0:21:39.800 there has inevitably, I'm thinking all of them, maybe bar one, 0:21:40.480 --> 0:21:44.840 there has been a reluctance by the investigating force to 0:21:44.960 --> 0:21:48.119 really reopen that case. And that's generally why the family 0:21:48.160 --> 0:21:50.320 has come to us. Similar with here, it is out 0:21:50.359 --> 0:21:53.080 of desperation. You know, they're not feeling they're getting the 0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:57.239 answers from the investigators. Often families will report to us 0:21:57.280 --> 0:21:59.600 that they're treated like they're the problem that they just 0:21:59.760 --> 0:22:02.119 you know, the police want them to go away, they 0:22:02.160 --> 0:22:05.119 want them to stop asking questions. And I'm talking some 0:22:05.240 --> 0:22:08.320 of the cases we've looked at go back over fifty years, 0:22:08.800 --> 0:22:12.119 you know, where cases are either cold or hidden homicides, 0:22:12.200 --> 0:22:17.080 we believe potentially and so that has been a core problem. However, 0:22:17.119 --> 0:22:18.639 I have worked on a couple of cases where the 0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:21.760