Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old
Speaker 1: devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom,
Speaker 1: bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2: Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
Speaker 2: to grab something.
Speaker 1: Panic.
Speaker 3: Amy is dead? Sir Aimy his dead?
Speaker 1: Eight confusion than about five minutes say sit n to suicide.
Speaker 4: One hundred percent. This is emersing.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 5: The Truth about Amy? Episode twelve.
Speaker 1: I'm Liam Bartlett and.
Speaker 5: I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 6: Love yourself first, continue to strive for loving oneself. You
Speaker 6: have nothing to hide. Lack of self esteem can often
Speaker 6: cause doubt. Always think confidently, let yourself out. We all
Speaker 6: have something to give. By loving oneself, You're beginning to
Speaker 6: live when you feel good, loyal and true. Only then
Speaker 6: can we really help you. When you see a negative
Speaker 6: or experience the pain, find yourself the positive, enjoy the
Speaker 6: game for when we smile and glow within, we cancel
Speaker 6: out the problem forever herein so you see, by loving oneself,
Speaker 6: you then have the opportunity to love me.
Speaker 1: Feeling positive, Amy posted this poem on Facebook on the
Speaker 1: twentieth of September twenty thirteen. Now, as we've been investigating
Speaker 1: this case, we've been exploring what is necessary for WA Police,
Speaker 1: or indeed the WA Attorney General John Quigley, to take
Speaker 1: it seriously. The highest standard of proof in our judicial
Speaker 1: system is beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does that
Speaker 1: really mean? OL caught up with WA barrister Tom Percy
Speaker 1: case to discuss it.
Speaker 5: What sort of evidence is required for a criminal case
Speaker 5: to get to court?
Speaker 7: Well, I think if it's a case that's top let's
Speaker 7: say the police need to be satisfied that there's some elements,
Speaker 7: some evidence of each of the elements that constitute.
Speaker 4: The offense, and then they would charge the person.
Speaker 7: If it's a simple matter it goes to the magistrates court,
Speaker 7: well it would just stay there. But if it one
Speaker 7: ultimately astigated the Director of Public Prosecutions once it had
Speaker 7: been committed for trial, the Director would have to be
Speaker 7: satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success.
Speaker 4: And that it was in the public interest to proceed
Speaker 4: with it.
Speaker 7: Now, no one has to make a decision as to
Speaker 7: whether there is enough of evidence to convince someone beyond
Speaker 7: reasonable doubt.
Speaker 4: At that preliminary stage. But the director would have to
Speaker 4: come to a conclusion that there was a reasonable.
Speaker 7: Prospect that a jury might come to the appropriate conclusion
Speaker 7: beyond reasonable doubt. No one can define what reasonable doubt is.
Speaker 7: Jury has often asked that question in the course of
Speaker 7: their deliberations. I think I've been involved in probably one
Speaker 7: hundred trials where a jury is asked that question, and
Speaker 7: the answer is from the judge is always the same.
Speaker 4: I'm not at law allowed to explain that to you.
Speaker 4: I can't explain it to you. The words are self explanatory.
Speaker 7: But sometimes you can say to a jury, look, it's
Speaker 7: not the civil standard.
Speaker 4: It's not the standard that we imply.
Speaker 7: It's a defamation case, or a motor vehicle accident.
Speaker 4: Cases of civil damages, or a case over a contract
Speaker 4: regarding money.
Speaker 7: In that case or a civil case, the judge would
Speaker 7: only have to be satisfied that, on balance of probabilities.
Speaker 4: One side was more likely than not.
Speaker 8: Now judge may.
Speaker 4: Be entitled to tell a jury.
Speaker 7: That it's not the civil standard, it's a much higher standard,
Speaker 7: and it's the highest standard known to law.
Speaker 4: But in order to get.
Speaker 7: A case back before a coroner where there's already been
Speaker 7: a coroner's inquest, the Currents Act in Western Australia provides
Speaker 7: that you can, in the event that there is new evidence,
Speaker 7: take that to were the Supreme Court at Western Australia
Speaker 7: and asked the matter be remitted back to the coroner,
Speaker 7: either to reopen the hold in quest or to hold
Speaker 7: a new one.
Speaker 4: So that's the starting point there.
Speaker 7: The way that that would happen would be that you
Speaker 7: would compile the scientific or other evidence that you have
Speaker 7: put that in the form of an APPI dated by
Speaker 7: an appropriately qualified person and bring an application of the
Speaker 7: Supreme Court seeking either a new inquest or to reopen
Speaker 7: the old inquest. And if that was sufficient of sufficient moment,
Speaker 7: and the Court was of the view that that was.
Speaker 4: Appropriate, then it would be referred back.
Speaker 7: And then once it was back with the coroner, if
Speaker 7: the evidence of pe is compelling enough, the coroner has.
Speaker 4: The power to refer to the DPP.
Speaker 7: Now that seems a bit cumbersome. Another way it could
Speaker 7: be done is for the people involved to petition the
Speaker 7: DPP and put that sort of evidence in front of
Speaker 7: the BPP, and he would have the power to that
Speaker 7: issue charge as himself or refer to the police. The
Speaker 7: third one which it could be referred as to is
Speaker 7: if the police were pursuing their investigations and came to
Speaker 7: the conclusion that there was an arguable case, or a
Speaker 7: prime facing case as we say, of murder against a
Speaker 7: person thought to be responsible in relation to the death
Speaker 7: of the deceased, and the police could then charge the
Speaker 7: person or refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 5: What primate facing mean facing.
Speaker 4: Means the evidence of each of the elements of the offense.
Speaker 7: That is, that the identity of the person is arguable,
Speaker 7: that it was the person required, that there was a
Speaker 7: death by which a person died, that that person was
Speaker 7: the person in.
Speaker 4: Question, and that there was some evidence that that was.
Speaker 7: Not accidental or by natural causes. So on what I
Speaker 7: know of this case watching the public domain, that I
Speaker 7: would have thought there was ample evidence for the prosecution
Speaker 7: to investigate this had possibly come to the conclusion that
Speaker 7: there was a primer facing case.
Speaker 5: So what sort of burden of proof would be required
Speaker 5: for them to take it to a trial.
Speaker 7: Well, if it does, the trial as a question exclusively
Speaker 7: for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and essentially there are
Speaker 7: two criteria. One that has to be in the public
Speaker 7: interest and secondly, the director would have to form the
Speaker 7: view that there were reasonable prospects of conviction.
Speaker 5: Okay, And so what do you look for when you
Speaker 5: decide or you accept a case where you think there's
Speaker 5: reasonable prospects of conviction.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't do much prosecuting these days. In fact,
Speaker 4: they haven't done anything about twenty five years. But I
Speaker 4: would think that a prosecutor would look for a case.
Speaker 7: Where there's really really no question about the identity the
Speaker 7: presence of the potential accused person at the time, that is, opportunity, motive,
Speaker 7: and some scientific basis which linked the.
Speaker 4: Two together with the cause of death.
Speaker 7: They were the sort of things and I mean sometimes
Speaker 7: that is drawing a long bow, that that's a fanciful proposition.
Speaker 7: But if the director was of the view that having
Speaker 7: examined the police investigation and the evidence they came up with,
Speaker 7: that there was ample material to go to a jury,
Speaker 7: then they would normally proceed with the prosecution.
Speaker 5: What happens if a kroener has done an in quest
Speaker 5: and hasn't recommended that it be referred to the ODPP.
Speaker 5: I mean, given that there obviously that's very subjective.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm sure any director of public Prosecutions does.
Speaker 7: It doesn't matter what status, would look at a coroner's
Speaker 7: inquest and see that there'd.
Speaker 4: Been an open finding, that that wouldn't preclude him or her.
Speaker 7: From coming to the proposition that, in life of fresh evidence,
Speaker 7: particularly fresh scientific evidence.
Speaker 4: That the matter warranted be reopened. So it's no bar
Speaker 4: to a prosecute that.
Speaker 7: A coroner's made an oven finding and decline to refer.
Speaker 4: The matter to the TPP.
Speaker 5: I would have thought going back to an inquest that
Speaker 5: would just be expensive and as you say, cumbersome.
Speaker 7: I think right, that's securitous and unwieldy.
Speaker 4: For it to go back there. If there is a
Speaker 4: body of fresh scientific evidence from reputable sources that.
Speaker 7: The police could have a look at, and it may
Speaker 7: well be that the police want to exercise their own
Speaker 7: discretion afresh and in the light of the fresh.
Speaker 4: Evidence, which or means the material.
Speaker 7: Already went before the coroner, come to a decision to
Speaker 7: change someone.
Speaker 5: What about there's a term now called hidden homicides, where
Speaker 5: they're put down a suicide or accidental and in some
Speaker 5: cases the police have mismanaged it in the first place.
Speaker 5: Is it then harder, given that it could draw criticism
Speaker 5: from what you've I guess your extensive career, do you
Speaker 5: find it often difficult to then get those sorts of
Speaker 5: cases across the line.
Speaker 7: I think sometimes there's a degree of pride in the
Speaker 7: police force which stands in the way of them saying.
Speaker 4: Oh, we were wrong when we'd have a good look
Speaker 4: at this game. So yeah, you're right.
Speaker 7: There's certainly normal human frailty which sometimes might say this
Speaker 7: might be an admission that we didn't do our case
Speaker 7: correctly the first time, so we're not going to go
Speaker 7: down that part.
Speaker 4: But there will come a time when they may be.
Speaker 7: Forced into that position where the evidence stares them in
Speaker 7: the face and they say, look, perhaps we're wrong not
Speaker 7: to change this person or to go down this.
Speaker 4: Other line of investigation, and we're about to do it,
Speaker 4: and we may make an arrest.
Speaker 5: Yes, well, certainly, back in twenty twenty one at the inquest,
Speaker 5: it was very much police did make a submission that
Speaker 5: it was suicide. They didn't change for it in this case.
Speaker 5: So if they're looking at it and they do have
Speaker 5: a million dollar reward being an open fire, that they
Speaker 5: have to consider the other options given that they're not
Speaker 5: ruled out.
Speaker 4: That's right. I mean AVLU cases such as Chris Dawson.
Speaker 7: I mean, for many years the police didn't think there
Speaker 7: was enough evidence to charge him with murder, and twenty
Speaker 7: thirty years later they reviewed that in the light of
Speaker 7: all the evidence that they had, they came to a
Speaker 7: subjective conclusion that there were reasonable prospects of a conviction.
Speaker 4: They charged him, and he was ultimately convicted. So they
Speaker 4: can't happen.
Speaker 7: And just because there's been an initial decision made not
Speaker 7: to charge someone, and even though a decade may have passed,
Speaker 7: it's always open to review.
Speaker 4: And it does happen.
Speaker 5: One of the issues that was brought up at the
Speaker 5: time is limitation of I guess the biomechanical evidence, and
Speaker 5: that was a decision made by the currentor not necessarily
Speaker 5: by the biomechanical experts, and certainly not by the new
Speaker 5: one who's done their own analysis. Again, is that ever
Speaker 5: a case, you know, particularly cold cases right where you
Speaker 5: can just put it down to the fact that because
Speaker 5: there wasn't forensics at the time or whatever, it wasn't
Speaker 5: undertaken as a proper investigation at the time, that it
Speaker 5: could be limited and therefore no chance of a criminal conviction.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't have thought that's the case. I wouldn't have
Speaker 4: thought that's going to be a limiting factor any sense.
Speaker 7: If the evidence is credible, if the evidence stands up
Speaker 7: to scrutiny, and on the subjective assessment by either the
Speaker 7: police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is sufficiently compelling,
Speaker 7: And I wouldn't have thought the fact that it wasn't
Speaker 7: used in the first place would be in any way
Speaker 7: impede the matter proceeding on the.
Speaker 4: Basis of that evidence.
Speaker 1: So how is the standard of proof applied? Well, then,
Speaker 1: wa Section one four one of the Evidence Act nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety five provides that in a criminal proceeding, the court
Speaker 1: is not to find the case of the prosecution proved
Speaker 1: unless it's satisfied it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However,
Speaker 1: no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to
Speaker 1: meet this threshold. Basically, it's up to the prosecution to
Speaker 1: convince the court based on the evidence that there's no
Speaker 1: other reasonable explanation other than the accused is guilty. The
Speaker 1: accused need not prove that they didn't commit the crime,
Speaker 1: but show an alternative explanation is reasonable. The jury, of course,
Speaker 1: then decides whether there's reasonable doubt that they committed the
Speaker 1: crime or in the recent case of Chris Dawson, who
Speaker 1: was convicted of killing his wife Lynn Simms, a judge
Speaker 1: only will make that determination. Judge only trials are allowed
Speaker 1: after an application from the defense or prosecution if a
Speaker 1: judge determines its appropriate after considering the circumstances of the case.
Speaker 1: There's a lot to consider, obviously in this case, and
Speaker 1: ultimately it's a determination of the Office of the Director
Speaker 1: of Public Prosecutions in wa as to whether there's a
Speaker 1: reasonable prospect of a conviction if they proceed with a
Speaker 1: criminal trial. Now, before we contemplate all the evidence they
Speaker 1: would need to evaluate, we wanted to share with you
Speaker 1: a message recently sent to us by one of our listeners.
Speaker 8: Living close to the local area of Serpentine and being
Speaker 8: thirty four years old, I found this podcast hitting close
Speaker 8: to home in more ways than one. I found it
Speaker 8: really interesting. In the recent episode where Gareth is retelling
Speaker 8: the story of what happened when he says he pushed
Speaker 8: open the door. I don't know why, but I found
Speaker 8: this really strange. If I myself had just witnessed my
Speaker 8: partner being shot, the last thing I would be doing
Speaker 8: is running out of the room and thinking that I
Speaker 8: needed to consciously close the door on my way out.
Speaker 8: I just found it odd.
Speaker 5: That's right, Gareth Price, as the second person had to
Speaker 5: open the door to see if Amy was dead. It's
Speaker 5: worth noting that while the stories of what happened as
Speaker 5: recalled by David Simmons and his family and friends on
Speaker 5: the night Amy died varied, often wildly, what Amy's friends
Speaker 5: and family said both then and now has not, and
Speaker 5: remember they were also traumatized. The problem is it's not
Speaker 5: one thing, but lots of things and a lot of
Speaker 5: gaping holes in the evidence. Let's discuss them one by one.
Speaker 1: So initially, wa police detectives believed she shot herself with
Speaker 1: her left hand because her right hand was under her buttock.
Speaker 1: This was supported by the fact it was the only
Speaker 1: hand with gun residue on it. But there's a problem
Speaker 1: with that. Amy had a burnmark on her left hand
Speaker 1: caused by the barrel, not the trigger, and they eventually
Speaker 1: discover it's impossible for her to reach across the front
Speaker 1: of her body with her left hand to shoot herself
Speaker 1: in the right temple.
Speaker 5: They then turned to Amy's right hand, after all, she
Speaker 5: was right handed, but as we said earlier, that hand
Speaker 5: was found under her right buttock. So testing gets underway
Speaker 5: to find out if it's possible her right hand could
Speaker 5: have landed in that position after she used it to
Speaker 5: shoot herself.
Speaker 1: In all of the tests undertaken, not one has Amy's
Speaker 1: right hand landing under her right buttock, so the question
Speaker 1: is asked if it could have ended up there after
Speaker 1: being shoved so many times as people entered the room.
Speaker 1: It's impossible to test that, so it's not ruled out.
Speaker 5: But the right hand doesn't have gun residue on it.
Speaker 5: Could the hand that pulled or pushed the trigger not
Speaker 5: have gun residue on it?
Speaker 1: Apparently yes, it's determined that it's possible the gun residue
Speaker 1: could have been lost.
Speaker 5: When Senior Constable James Inskip was asked about this during
Speaker 5: the inquest, he said, the loss of gunshot residue from
Speaker 5: surfaces is quite easy.
Speaker 1: Even though paper bags were placed on Amy's hands.
Speaker 5: He says bags could have been sampled too, though, but
Speaker 5: we can't find any reference to that happening anywhere.
Speaker 1: So suicide is still considered an option, despite the biomechanical
Speaker 1: testing suggesting evidence is quote highly consistent with someone else
Speaker 1: pulling the trigger and quote again not consistent with Amy
Speaker 1: shooting herself due to the limitations of the testing.
Speaker 5: Correct despite evidence to the contrary. Now, let's turn to
Speaker 5: whether Amy was a victim of domestic violence. The curenter
Speaker 5: didn't make a ruling on this at the inquest, and
Speaker 5: there doesn't seem to be any domestic violence lens placed
Speaker 5: across this case at all. At the conclusion of the
Speaker 5: Major Crime Investigation Operation, jundi Wa police determined there was
Speaker 5: no evidence of physical violence from David towards Amy. So
Speaker 5: despite acknowledging the violence an argument Amy had with David
Speaker 5: that afternoon, it still wasn't considered a factor in Amy's death.
Speaker 1: But what about the testimony from Natasha Selzer and Erin Gower.
Speaker 1: Natasha saw her bent backwards over a table, struggling with symmons,
Speaker 1: and Amy sent erin a photo of bruises where she
Speaker 1: says David choked her for some reason.
Speaker 5: Natasha's evidence didn't seem to be given any weight at
Speaker 5: the inquest, and WA police couldn't find that photo of
Speaker 5: Amy from Amy's phone, even though we managed to find
Speaker 5: it within twenty minutes. In its investigation, Major Crime determined
Speaker 5: that the argument between Amy and David before she died
Speaker 5: suggested Amy was the aggressor and David had no motive
Speaker 5: to want to kill Amy.
Speaker 1: Did Amy drink.
Speaker 5: Very infrequently and if she did, friends can't recall a
Speaker 5: time since having kids that she'd drink more than one.
Speaker 1: Did she take illegal drugs?
Speaker 5: Well, no, but David's father, Robert Simmons says he heard
Speaker 5: she used to.
Speaker 1: Be wild, but he barely knew her.
Speaker 5: Yes, but the curenter found him credible.
Speaker 1: Despite Robert Simmons singing the praises of Detective Kirkman, who
Speaker 1: completely botched the investigation at the start.
Speaker 5: I know, but in her findings, the coroner said she
Speaker 5: considered Robert to be an honest, forthright witness. He was
Speaker 5: the only one she afforded such credibility anyway, when it
Speaker 5: was mentioned David Simmons told Gareth his dad wasn't home
Speaker 5: Robert appeared confused as to why he would think that
Speaker 5: when he almost always worked from home.
Speaker 1: Yes, and upon receiving a call from emergency services, Robert
Speaker 1: immediately jumped to the conclusion that David shot Amy. Now
Speaker 1: that is not the typical response you get from a parent,
Speaker 1: but the coroner doesn't seem to give much consideration to
Speaker 1: the fact that Robert thought his son capable of this,
Speaker 1: as he had changed his mind since.
Speaker 5: Yes, and then he asked Gareth when he arrives at
Speaker 5: the gate, who moved the gun.
Speaker 1: Also, it's strange Robert didn't notice her body or the
Speaker 1: blood spatter upon entering the bedroom. After all, he'd already
Speaker 1: spoken to Triple zero, so surely his first priority would
Speaker 1: be to look for a person in trouble. Instead, he
Speaker 1: goes straight for the gun.
Speaker 5: Don't forget there was also a thirteen second phone call
Speaker 5: receipt on his phone from David at the roadhouse, and
Speaker 5: records show it didn't go to voicemail.
Speaker 1: Robert Simmons denies receiving this call. He was upfront about
Speaker 1: his son's drink and drug problem, though.
Speaker 5: Except there seems to be no consideration of that in
Speaker 5: her findings. They were more concerned about Amy being on antidepressants,
Speaker 5: even though David suffers depression and was supposed to be
Speaker 5: taking them as well.
Speaker 1: It's worth mentioning that catelepram in the dosage Amy was
Speaker 1: prescribed is pretty mild.
Speaker 5: And pretty common. According to later statistics from the Australian
Speaker 5: Institute of Health and Welfare, one in five Australians fielled
Speaker 5: a mental health related prescription in twenty twenty two twenty three.
Speaker 1: What about the lack of any gun residue on both
Speaker 1: Price and Simmons clothes they were supposedly wearing when Amy died,
Speaker 1: that's an issue.
Speaker 5: Yes, we know that David at least fired the gun
Speaker 5: a couple of times that afternoon.
Speaker 1: Then there's Amy's pink phone and Price patting down her
Speaker 1: body to try to find it so he could call
Speaker 1: Triple zero. Still no blood transfer onto his clothes. Though
Speaker 1: both his and simmons clothes were spotlets when they handed
Speaker 1: them to police, not a trace of blood was found
Speaker 1: on them.
Speaker 5: And remember Simmons going back to the house later to
Speaker 5: try to retrieve Amy's iPhone, telling Larry Blamford it was his.
Speaker 1: But Simmons denies doing that, So it's barely even noted
Speaker 1: in the coroner's findings.
Speaker 5: Unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Then there's the missing door handle. If Amy decided to
Speaker 1: take her own life in the bedroom, wouldn't she have
Speaker 1: taken the door handle off the outside of the door
Speaker 1: so her children couldn't have discovered her body, not the
Speaker 1: inside of the door.
Speaker 5: There's never been any real explanation for that. Also, the wheelibins.
Speaker 5: In his first statement, Joshua Brydon makes a particular note
Speaker 5: about taking them out earlier in the day at Amy's request.
Speaker 1: But then Naa said she saw Price taking the bins
Speaker 1: up the drive after Amy's death. Of course, her testimony
Speaker 1: was inadmissible because she was only six at the time.
Speaker 5: Another red flag is the fact that no fingerprints were
Speaker 5: found on the gun that killed Amy, despite at least
Speaker 5: three people having handled it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that to me says it was wiped down. A
Speaker 1: major red flag. Also, what about what Charondev said about
Speaker 1: major crime not having checked Amy's handbag. Had they done so,
Speaker 1: they would have seen her passport.
Speaker 5: Exactly Again, if you planned to kill yourself, why worry
Speaker 5: about your passport. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's
Speaker 5: look at the timeline, which was compiled as part of
Speaker 5: the Major Crimes Investigation Operation JUNDI.
Speaker 1: David Simmons, Joshua Bridon and Gareth Price returned to the
Speaker 1: small Serpentine home Simmons shared with Amy just before four pm.
Speaker 1: We know this because Simmons used Brydon's phone to send
Speaker 1: Amy a message on Facebook at three point fifty one
Speaker 1: PM asking her where are you, and she replies gone crazy.
Speaker 1: Amy arrives home shortly after and may have a massive
Speaker 1: fight where she throws a beer bottle and mirror at
Speaker 1: him and he puts her in a headlock and wrestles
Speaker 1: her to the ground. After the fight, which they estimate
Speaker 1: last at about fourteen minutes, bringing it to roughly four
Speaker 1: point thirty pm, Amy goes into the shed and accidentally
Speaker 1: smashes the lizard tank. She then heads to the bedroom.
Speaker 1: At four forty eight, Amy takes a selfie in front
Speaker 1: of the mirror in the master bed with the Boito
Speaker 1: four ten, which was used to kill her. In the photo,
Speaker 1: she's sitting on the edge of the bed holding the
Speaker 1: rifle by the muzzle, with the butt of the gun
Speaker 1: on the floor. Joshua Brdon says before leaving, he helps
Speaker 1: Price clean up the smashed lizard tank.
Speaker 9: Simmo came and told the girls that they have to
Speaker 9: go to their NaNs. Simmo put the kids in the car.
Speaker 9: He put them in the car and explained to him
Speaker 9: that they were going with Mummy to stay at grandma's.
Speaker 1: Once I saw things looked a little more.
Speaker 9: Under control, I put my dogs in a cage and
Speaker 9: took him home to have a shower of stuff.
Speaker 1: Brydon says he leaves at four forty seven pm, which
Speaker 1: is just one minute prior to Amy taking her selfie.
Speaker 1: He says he knows this because as he was driving out,
Speaker 1: he receives a text message from his old schoolmate, who
Speaker 1: he was supposed to have picked up from the train station.
Speaker 1: He planned to go Peakcott that night.
Speaker 5: Now I have a problem with this because after the
Speaker 5: fight with David, Amy says I'm moving out and then
Speaker 5: goes to the bedroom. According to the Major Crime timeline,
Speaker 5: Amy only started packing after speaking to her mum at
Speaker 5: five o'clock. The phone call with Nancy last two hundred
Speaker 5: and twelve seconds, according to phone records. Nancy describes Amy
Speaker 5: as hysterical at the beginning, but then says she calms down.
Speaker 6: Oh, I will I'll see you soon.
Speaker 4: I will come.
Speaker 1: Just a reminder. This is a recreation according to Nancy's
Speaker 1: recollection of the phone call. But the point here is
Speaker 1: how did Brydon witness the kids being put in the
Speaker 1: car when he left fifteen minutes earlier.
Speaker 5: It's just another gaping hole in the story and it
Speaker 5: wasn't explored.
Speaker 1: Okay, back to the timeline. So after the lizard tank incident,
Speaker 1: Amy is in the bedroom and takes the selfie at
Speaker 1: four forty eight pm. Nancy then calls her that phone
Speaker 1: call lasts two hundred and twelve seconds.
Speaker 10: Don't hear here a week, a month, a year, I
Speaker 10: don't hear get here now.
Speaker 1: And it's only then that Amy starts packing the car.
Speaker 1: Price estimates she made three to four trips.
Speaker 5: While this is happening. David says he packs the children's
Speaker 5: toys and clothes in the car, turning on the heater
Speaker 5: and music for the girls. He then shouts to Amy,
Speaker 5: hurry off, and we're told Amy replies just a minute.
Speaker 5: Then at five ten pm, Gareth and David say they
Speaker 5: hear a thud.
Speaker 1: Investigators estimate there was twelve minutes between the time Amy
Speaker 1: was shot and Simmons and Price left the premises to
Speaker 1: notify emergency services. The CCTV captures them at the Serpentine
Speaker 1: roadhouse at five twenty two pm. Major Crime ruled out
Speaker 1: foul play because they reckon there wouldn't be enough time
Speaker 1: to formulate a plan to hide what had occurred, and
Speaker 1: if they had staged the scene, surely they would put
Speaker 1: the gun in a position where there was no alternative
Speaker 1: to suicide. The coroner indicates she's inclined to agree with
Speaker 1: this too, but we're not dealing with Rhodes scholars here.
Speaker 5: Simmons says he first inside and knocked on the bedroom
Speaker 5: door while calling out to Amy.
Speaker 11: Amy.
Speaker 5: This time, the door is slightly ajar and David says
Speaker 5: he could see Amy's foot just inside the bedroom. He
Speaker 5: says he rushes out, calling out something like.
Speaker 3: Is she still alive or why.
Speaker 5: Depending which version you believe. But Gareth says David was
Speaker 5: saying fuck fuck.
Speaker 12: Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
Speaker 5: Fuck and starts punching the shed. He then goes in
Speaker 5: and flicks the shotgun out of her lap and places
Speaker 5: a towel over her head. Another version has David and
Speaker 5: Gareth going into the house at the same time, with
Speaker 5: Gareth remaining in the corridor while David goes into the
Speaker 5: bedroom first.
Speaker 1: Yes, when you put it all together, it's hard to
Speaker 1: come to any other conclusion other.
Speaker 5: Than Amy did not shoot herself.
Speaker 1: Amy did not shoot herself. But because of the errors
Speaker 1: made from the beginning, there seems to be a real
Speaker 1: reluctance by anyone who's been given any say over how
Speaker 1: this case is treated to do any more than absolutely necessary.
Speaker 5: And at the inquest there seems to be a real
Speaker 5: push towards suicide and against bowl play. Listen again to
Speaker 5: the questions from the coroner pose to David Simmons at
Speaker 5: the end of the inquest.
Speaker 13: All right, thank you very much, David. I've heard what
Speaker 13: you've had to say. I'm the coroner, so I'm the
Speaker 13: one listening to your evidence and all the other evidence
Speaker 13: and bearing that in mind. Just to go back then,
Speaker 13: my understanding of what you're telling me is that you
Speaker 13: and Gareth had nothing to do with Amy being shot
Speaker 13: in the head that day. Is that right?
Speaker 1: That's right?
Speaker 13: And you were both standing outside the car and you
Speaker 13: heard a sound and you went into the house and
Speaker 13: found Amy behind the door with the shotgun injury. Is
Speaker 13: that right?
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. Yes, the thud was definitely a gunshot,
Speaker 1: and David Simmons definitely wasn't in the room when the
Speaker 1: gun went off.
Speaker 5: There's always been this assumption because Amy had left David
Speaker 5: Simmons before, but.
Speaker 1: This time was different. Simmons drinking and drug taking was
Speaker 1: worse than it had ever been prior. Robert Simmons even
Speaker 1: acknowledges that, blaming himself for letting them live rent free, I'd.
Speaker 7: Given them a whole heat more cash to buy drugs
Speaker 7: and alcohol because they're not paying any rent.
Speaker 5: Gareth too admitted in that interview with you, people do
Speaker 5: dumb things on drugs.
Speaker 1: Drugs, drugs, People who drugged dumb You know that. Obviously,
Speaker 1: because of the way detectives treated Amy's case, neither David
Speaker 1: nor Gareth were tested for drugs or excess alcohol consumption.
Speaker 1: But in the absence of all that, it's about looking
Speaker 1: at the pattern of behavior and other corroborating evidence.
Speaker 5: The subsequent investigations by WA police via major crime and
Speaker 5: cold case did not seem to be concerned with any
Speaker 5: of that, and neither was the inquest. Then, of course,
Speaker 5: there's claims that Brydon allegedly told multiple people they burned
Speaker 5: the clothes they were wearing the Knight Amy died, including
Speaker 5: his favorite shorts. After moving Amy's body.
Speaker 14: You know, we'd had this conversation with Joshua and he
Speaker 14: said about moving the body and burning the clothes.
Speaker 1: Although if Amy's body was moved, it can't have been
Speaker 1: very far. According to forensic experts. The blood spatter indicates
Speaker 1: she died where she was found, crammed between a door
Speaker 1: so that you can barely open the door, with blood
Speaker 1: on the left side on this wall here. Many people
Speaker 1: weren't aware of this, but council representing the family during
Speaker 1: the inquest, Peter Ward took our Namy's case for free.
Speaker 1: I caught up with Peter in Perth to discuss why
Speaker 1: he got involved and whether he's surprised by the way
Speaker 1: it's been handled. Peter, thank you very much for having
Speaker 1: a chat to us about this. Goes without saying. You've
Speaker 1: got a world of legal experience from a human experience.
Speaker 1: You've known this family for a long time, working this
Speaker 1: case about nine years and going through all the various
Speaker 1: nuances of it. How do you see it as an
Speaker 1: overview Sitting at the moment, what's your opinion of the case?
Speaker 1: In terms of its legal merits.
Speaker 15: The legal merits is something I can't specifically speak to,
Speaker 15: but what I can say is that the impact on
Speaker 15: the family of the way in which the police investigation
Speaker 15: didn't occur initially has been massive. And what I've seen
Speaker 15: is a family that feel hurt. They feel like they
Speaker 15: haven't been given the respect that they deserve. They haven't
Speaker 15: had the decency of a proper investigation, and they haven't
Speaker 15: had an apology for the failure to investigate.
Speaker 1: When you heard the coroner's decision and you read the
Speaker 1: coroner's findings, what did you make of that?
Speaker 15: I wasn't surprised that it was an open verdict. In
Speaker 15: some ways, I was glad it was an open verdict
Speaker 15: because that at least would compel the police to continue investigating.
Speaker 1: When you say that, you mean it gave them some
Speaker 1: elasticity to be able to work with something in the future.
Speaker 15: The police approached the coronial inquest in the same way
Speaker 15: as the first to investigations, which was to say that
Speaker 15: there was no evidence of criminality and that they believed
Speaker 15: it was a suicide. The coroner wasn't satisfied on the
Speaker 15: balance of probabilities that that was the case and having
Speaker 15: a coroner say no, I'm not satisfied essentially leaves the
Speaker 15: case open, requiring the police to continue investigating.
Speaker 1: And really provides some justification for the Famili's point of view.
Speaker 1: Does it not? Well?
Speaker 15: It certainly helped to confirm the family's view that more
Speaker 15: needed to be looked at.
Speaker 1: Why have the police been so stuck on this one channel?
Speaker 1: They said at the inquest, and they kept saying it.
Speaker 1: The Major Crime Squad concluded that the evidence that Amy
Speaker 1: died by suicide was compelling, that's the word they used.
Speaker 15: Well, the coroner didn't accept it was compelling. And I
Speaker 15: don't know why the police have been so focused on suicide.
Speaker 15: There's a lot there to be in investigated. There are
Speaker 15: a lot of indications in her personal circumstances that would
Speaker 15: exclude suicide, and in fact, we tried to point to
Speaker 15: those in the coronial in quest and we asked the
Speaker 15: coroner to it at the very least exclude that on
Speaker 15: the balance of probabilities. But I'm not surprised that the
Speaker 15: coroner in the end couldn't exclude anything.
Speaker 1: But that's the whole point, Peter, is not I mean,
Speaker 1: anybody who reads even that final coroner's report will find
Speaker 1: holes in the police argument. You don't have to be
Speaker 1: a trained lawyer to do that. So why do the
Speaker 1: police keep going on about the suicide. It's got to
Speaker 1: be suicide. I mean that alone allows people and even
Speaker 1: the coroner jumped in at one point and said she
Speaker 1: understood why some people, even the family could think this
Speaker 1: was the result of a police cover up.
Speaker 15: As I've said, I can't talk to the merits of
Speaker 15: the case that the police ran, and really the question
Speaker 15: has to be to them as to why they've focused
Speaker 15: on suicide. Superintendent Scandalbury, he gave evidence that that was
Speaker 15: the opinion he formed, but others may form a different opinion.
Speaker 15: And the coroner in this case didn't adopt his opinion.
Speaker 1: But at one stage that policeman, the head of homicide
Speaker 1: in wa told the coroner that there was no evidence
Speaker 1: to place another person in that room in that bedroom
Speaker 1: at the time of Amy's death.
Speaker 15: Yes, that's his opinion. The coroner didn't agree on the
Speaker 15: balance of probabilities.
Speaker 1: But what can you say about that? I mean, you
Speaker 1: ran basically the other case, didn't you.
Speaker 15: I ran the case for the family to tease out
Speaker 15: the evidence that would be inconsistent with a finding of suicide,
Speaker 15: and I made submissions at the end of the case
Speaker 15: that the coroner should exclude suicide on the balance of probabilities.
Speaker 15: But the coroner, as I say, wasn't satisfied either way.
Speaker 15: And you may recall Justice Lee in the Luhman case
Speaker 15: recently gave a really good explanation about what's required to
Speaker 15: make a finding on the balance of probabilities, and that
Speaker 15: is that the judicial officer in this case of corona
Speaker 15: has to be persuaded toward an outcome.
Speaker 1: They have to.
Speaker 15: Feel that they've positively been persuaded to that finding, and
Speaker 15: the coroner in this case didn't reach that standard of
Speaker 15: satisfaction in respect of any of the options.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of coroners involved in this case.
Speaker 1: A lot of coroner's names have passed over the desk, havevin'
Speaker 1: they it took a long time to get there.
Speaker 15: It did take a long time, so it was first
Speaker 15: listed in twenty eighteen. I think it was then the
Speaker 15: Coroner's office received the biomechanical report of Professor Ackland and
Speaker 15: on that basis vacated the coronial inquest that was scheduled,
Speaker 15: sent it back to police for investigation, it went back
Speaker 15: to the DPP. They were all off concluded that there
Speaker 15: was no prosecution warranted at that stage, so it came
Speaker 15: back to the coroner, came back in twenty twenty, COVID
Speaker 15: hit that and then came back again in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: So what three four coroners until we got to the
Speaker 1: final corner.
Speaker 15: Well, I don't know if it was the same one
Speaker 15: listed to do each one, but certainly it was. There
Speaker 15: were three or four dates in which it was scheduled
Speaker 15: before it finally occurred in February twenty two.
Speaker 1: Just seems like the family's just gone through. You know,
Speaker 1: you pick the worst case scenario, this family's got it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like winning the unlucky lot.
Speaker 15: Of well to go from twenty fourteen Amy's death to
Speaker 15: twenty twenty two investigation and then twenty twenty three reward
Speaker 15: finally being offered nine years down the track. It's it's
Speaker 15: been a long time for them.
Speaker 1: I I just can't get my head around Peter. Can
Speaker 1: you explain to me an in a legal way again?
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to get you hooked on the
Speaker 1: merits of the case, but can you explain to me
Speaker 1: how the two detectives who are in charge of this
Speaker 1: case first day, that night, that tragic night, takes five
Speaker 1: years for the police Internal Affairs Unit to make the
Speaker 1: finding that they neglected their duty. That's big call. They
Speaker 1: neglected their duty as detectives five years and the only
Speaker 1: reason the Internal Affairs Unit did that was because the
Speaker 1: Coroner's office sent a letter back to the commissioner saying
Speaker 1: what the heck? Basically, so those two detectives say, there's
Speaker 1: nothing to see here. Five years later, they are found
Speaker 1: to have neglected their duty, but the police line remains
Speaker 1: the same. It remains the same right up until twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one to the coroner's inquest, and the police are
Speaker 1: still singing the same tune, still determined that it was suicide.
Speaker 1: Are the police just looking after their own.
Speaker 15: Well, there are two ways to look at it. That
Speaker 15: might be one, But the other is to say, well,
Speaker 15: major Crime did an investigation shortly after their attendance, and
Speaker 15: Major Crime reached the same conclusion of suicide, and therefore,
Speaker 15: from the police perspective, while they may not have been
Speaker 15: as diligent as they should have been on the night,
Speaker 15: ultimately it didn't make any difference to their outcome, and.
Speaker 1: Yet the coronial investigation squad say otherwise.
Speaker 15: Well, the cold case investigation that occurred later had the
Speaker 15: benefit of the biomechanical evidence that those guys didn't and
Speaker 15: that came to a slightly different conclusion. And the coroner
Speaker 15: had the benefit of all of that evidence and also
Speaker 15: came to a different conclusion.
Speaker 1: So two independent biomechanical experts say that the evidence showed
Speaker 1: to them, yes, that Amy did not shoot herself.
Speaker 15: What they said was that what they could see was
Speaker 15: not consistent with suicide.
Speaker 1: In fact, they went one step further, didn't they, because
Speaker 1: they actually said that it was consistent with someone else
Speaker 1: shooting her.
Speaker 15: They did, that was their opinion on the basis of
Speaker 15: the evidence that they had. But one of the police
Speaker 15: officers who attended the reconstruction with Professor Ackland, he gave
Speaker 15: evidence also before the coroner, and he expressed his concerns
Speaker 15: about the way in which the experiments were conducted and
Speaker 15: the difficulties in perfectly reconstructing the case. So whilst those
Speaker 15: biomechanical experts had that opinion, it's only the opinion is
Speaker 15: only as good as the evidence on which the opinion
Speaker 15: is based. And the present case. The opinion is based
Speaker 15: on reconstructions that have inherent difficulties given two things, one
Speaker 15: the lack of a clear forensic picture from the night,
Speaker 15: and two the fact that you can never really truly
Speaker 15: test how a body reacts when it's hit with a shotgun.
Speaker 15: You can't reconstruct that.
Speaker 1: No, exactly, But two independent experts, one from Perth, one
Speaker 1: from Sydney, both sides of the country, both come to
Speaker 1: exactly the same conclusions, and they've got no skin in
Speaker 1: the game. I agree as the word is, they're independent.
Speaker 1: But the only person who objects to that is a
Speaker 1: policeman who happens to go back to the same line,
Speaker 1: same theme, same song, as they've always been singing.
Speaker 15: Question you might like to put to the police, speaking.
Speaker 1: Of the police, Peter, as you know, the coroner encouraged
Speaker 1: WA police to make a formal apology to the family.
Speaker 1: Yes now, instead they received a letter of regret. How
Speaker 1: does that sit with you?
Speaker 15: The letter of regret was I think, unfortunately a really
Speaker 15: bad idea. Perhaps it was done with good intent, but
Speaker 15: there are two things wrong with it. The first is
Speaker 15: that it referred only to regret as to a couple
Speaker 15: of particular aspects of the investigation not even being conducted properly.
Speaker 15: It didn't express any regret at all about the fact
Speaker 15: that the family may never know what truly happened on
Speaker 15: the night. And the second was that it just perpetuated
Speaker 15: the family's feeling that the police didn't care. And that
Speaker 15: comes through in the very first line of the Acting
Speaker 15: Commissioner's letter when he expresses condolences for the loss of
Speaker 15: Amy in February twenty twenty one. Couldn't even get the
Speaker 15: date of her death right after an inquest, says it
Speaker 15: all really doesn't I've got a query with the acting
Speaker 15: Commissioner even read the letter before he signed it.
Speaker 1: Did you have any conversation with the police about that?
Speaker 1: Did they run that past you as the lawyer?
Speaker 15: They didn't run the draft letter pass us. They did
Speaker 15: say that they were going to issue a letter of regret,
Speaker 15: and I did caution privately the Commissioner's lawyer that they
Speaker 15: might like to get some input from a grief counselor
Speaker 15: before they did anything like that.
Speaker 1: Jest to them quite plainly that it probably wouldn't be enough.
Speaker 15: I suggested to them it would be a very good
Speaker 15: idea to get some input from a professional grief counselor
Speaker 15: or psychologists before sending a letter of that type, because
Speaker 15: I was worried about the impact that it would have,
Speaker 15: particularly on Nancy.
Speaker 1: Clearly they didn't take your advice.
Speaker 15: Doesn't appear.
Speaker 1: So where can the family go from here? Legally? Is
Speaker 1: there a particular avenue that is available to them or
Speaker 1: do they just literally have to sit around and wait
Speaker 1: for fresh evidence to come forward.
Speaker 15: The only way that the coronial inquest can be reopened
Speaker 15: is if there is fresh evidence. They can conduct their
Speaker 15: own inquiries to some limited extent, and to that end,
Speaker 15: they identified as an expert in the US who may
Speaker 15: be able to help. But unfortunately we're a bit hamstrung
Speaker 15: at the moment because we can't use the coronial brief
Speaker 15: or transcript to brief any experts. Were really are limited
Speaker 15: in what we can do.
Speaker 1: Why can't you do that?
Speaker 15: There are restrictions on the use of the brief that
Speaker 15: have been imposed by order of the coroner's office. Why well,
Speaker 15: the currenter will usually impose limitations on the use of
Speaker 15: the brief in circumstances where criminal charges may result in
Speaker 15: the future, So it's to protect the integrity of the
Speaker 15: investigation and any future prosecution.
Speaker 1: Is that a common thing?
Speaker 15: It's not uncommon if there's potentially criminal proceedings that might
Speaker 15: follow in the future.
Speaker 1: I know the family have tried to access a transcript, yes,
Speaker 1: of the full coronial inquest. It's an open court, it's
Speaker 1: a public court. We all pay for it, Peter, you
Speaker 1: and I. Why haven't they been allowed to do that.
Speaker 15: I don't know why Western Australia limits access to transcript
Speaker 15: in that way. I can understand it, and respect to
Speaker 15: the version we got originally that was provided free of
Speaker 15: charge because the family's lawyers were acting pro bono and
Speaker 15: in circumstances where there was no payment for the transcript
Speaker 15: for a copy of it, I can understand the court
Speaker 15: saying well, no, we want it back at the end,
Speaker 15: when the family or anybody else like the media, want
Speaker 15: to get access to a copy of the transcript later
Speaker 15: and are willing to pay for it, you can do
Speaker 15: that in any court except the coroner's court. It would
Speaker 15: appear even the Triple c put their transcripts online for free,
Speaker 15: apart from their closed sessions. So I don't know why
Speaker 15: evidence given in the open coroner's court should not be
Speaker 15: freely available.
Speaker 1: Do other states do that, as far as.
Speaker 15: I'm aware, Western Australia is unique in that regard.
Speaker 1: And yet they have it on record.
Speaker 15: I mean it's all transcribed, yes, yes, And we were
Speaker 15: given the transcript for the purposes of preparing closing submissions
Speaker 15: and it's a public concondition that we had to give
Speaker 15: it back and we weren't allowed to keep any copies.
Speaker 1: But they're not allowed to have a copy even if
Speaker 1: they pay whatever it is, a dollar a page.
Speaker 15: Applications to the court have been refused without any detailed reasons.
Speaker 1: Just say, every step this family takes it, it's a
Speaker 1: tough It's a tough rode, isn't it.
Speaker 15: Yes, yes, absolutely. At the moment, they're in the hands
Speaker 15: of the police to continue investigating with little confidence that
Speaker 15: the police actually will do anything about it unless something
Speaker 15: comes out that forces the police to investigate.
Speaker 1: But technically there's no limit is there for the police?
Speaker 1: I mean whatever police action needs to be taken or
Speaker 1: they want to take, they can take it. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Am I right in saying that.
Speaker 15: Well, if the police had unlimited resources, they could throw
Speaker 15: a strikeforce team at this case and go off and
Speaker 15: seek to use any of their sophisticated investigation techniques. But
Speaker 15: of course they're balancing their investigative resources against this and
Speaker 15: many other cases.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing to stop them doing it. It's a
Speaker 1: cold case, and they could revive it at any stage.
Speaker 15: They could. I would expect that they won't unless there
Speaker 15: is some new development, maybe that might come out of
Speaker 15: the podcast. Maybe somebody might come forward. Maybe the reward
Speaker 15: might entice somebody to come forward.
Speaker 1: The reward may give somebody the ability to develop a conscience.
Speaker 15: Perhaps if they know something that will assist the police.
Speaker 15: It would be very very good if that came forward.
Speaker 1: Do you think there are people involved in this case
Speaker 1: who do know something, don't you?
Speaker 15: I don't know that for sure, But there are certainly
Speaker 15: some aspects of the evidence that was given before the
Speaker 15: coroner that warrant further investigation. There are some things that
Speaker 15: just didn't quite gel, some contradictions in some ways, and
Speaker 15: some incomplete things.
Speaker 1: Speaking of incomplete, we know from the inquest that the
Speaker 1: two detectives who attended the scene that night between them,
Speaker 1: took less than one page of notes and did not
Speaker 1: formally interview the two men at the scene of the death.
Speaker 15: That's right.
Speaker 1: Do you find that incredible.
Speaker 15: I find the shutting down of the scene on that
Speaker 15: night quite remarkable, particularly given the views of the three
Speaker 15: uniform officers who attended. They themselves described it in their
Speaker 15: evidence that they had a heated discussion with the detectives
Speaker 15: and eventually they were effectively ordered to shut the scene down.
Speaker 1: And yet during the inquest, Peter, as you well know,
Speaker 1: both those detectives couldn't remember that heated argument.
Speaker 15: That's right, there was an inconsistency between their evidence and
Speaker 15: the evidence of the three uniform officers. And the other
Speaker 15: things worth noting on that is that the three uniforms
Speaker 15: who attended gave evidence that they've never had a formal
Speaker 15: statement taken in any of the subsequent investigations.
Speaker 1: Incredible. So the first three police men and women who
Speaker 1: were on the scene have never had a formal statement taken.
Speaker 15: That was their evidence before the coroner.
Speaker 1: That's Constables Dixon, Roberts and Blandford. And they all said
Speaker 1: during the inquest that they thought death was suspicious. Even
Speaker 1: the paramedic said it was a bit strange. Yes, and
Speaker 1: yet we still go back to perhaps suicide, or if
Speaker 1: you believe the police absolutely suicide.
Speaker 15: That's the view that was formed by the officers on
Speaker 15: the night, and it's the view that was formed by
Speaker 15: the Major Crime squad when they came into it shortly afterwards,
Speaker 15: subject of course to the limitations of not having a
Speaker 15: proper forensic scene to investigate.
Speaker 1: And no formal interviews with the two men involved.
Speaker 15: There were formal interviews conducted by Major Crimes.
Speaker 1: But that was days afterwards, not on the night.
Speaker 15: Not on the night. No, and unfortunately also not without
Speaker 15: separating them immediately so that you get a clear account
Speaker 15: from each of them. Well, one would expect that proper
Speaker 15: procedure on the night would have been to interview each
Speaker 15: of them separately, and I and not what you said.
Speaker 15: There's no evidence that there was any collusion, but the
Speaker 15: clearest way to avoid any inferences at all would have
Speaker 15: been for police to investigate it properly on the night.
Speaker 1: So again we just don't know. W Do you think
Speaker 1: the million dollar reward for information will help?
Speaker 15: I hope it will, even if it just brings forward
Speaker 15: somebody to say, well, I think you should look at this.
Speaker 15: A million dollars there's a lot of money, particularly to
Speaker 15: people in that community.
Speaker 1: Did you raise your eyebrows when you saw the million
Speaker 1: dollar reward on the Internet alongside the word homicide.
Speaker 15: I didn't because I think the way it was done
Speaker 15: as being a package of I can't remember how many
Speaker 15: exactly there were then, but I think somewhere around fifty
Speaker 15: cold cases. Yes, I think they were all just lumped
Speaker 15: in together without a lot of consideration given to the
Speaker 15: terminology that was used.
Speaker 1: It seems to be a common theme these days, so
Speaker 1: you think what that was just an oversight or no
Speaker 1: one really gave it much thoughts, They just chucked it in.
Speaker 15: I think there was a sort of sweep up of
Speaker 15: open cases within police and given to the government as
Speaker 15: here here are all the ones that you might like
Speaker 15: to announce a reward in respect of. And I'm aware
Speaker 15: that some police internally have expressed concern about this being
Speaker 15: called a homicide.
Speaker 1: Really so they're still worried.
Speaker 15: Well, I've seen some documents obtained under Freedom of Information
Speaker 15: in which they've expressed concern about about it.
Speaker 5: Peter Ward is referring to the FI application we made
Speaker 5: to WA about the internal correspondence relating to Amy's case.
Speaker 5: The documents captured include emails by senior police officers, including
Speaker 5: a detective acting inspector from the homicide squad, seemingly criticizing
Speaker 5: the fact that a million dollar reward was introduced for
Speaker 5: information into Amy's death. Referring to the article about this
Speaker 5: in the West Australian, he says in an email, I was.
Speaker 11: Wondering if the claim that this matter is now being
Speaker 11: listed as a homicide bringing a million dollar reward is correct.
Speaker 11: The scudder gun approach to offering rewards is just ridiculous,
Speaker 11: particularly if it leads to commentaries such as this.
Speaker 5: He seems to be referring to the criticism of WA
Speaker 5: Police for the initial quote botched investigation. In reply, the
Speaker 5: Detective Superintendent and Major Crime Squad emails back.
Speaker 3: I saw this in today's paper. Interestingly, it wasn't homicide.
Speaker 5: Another officer, this time an examiner from the ballistics unit,
Speaker 5: was also disgruntled, saying.
Speaker 12: What the fuck?
Speaker 11: Who has admitted this or is it poetic license by
Speaker 11: the West? If so, any idea what is being done
Speaker 11: about it?
Speaker 5: So high ranking offices in WA Police still don't even
Speaker 5: acknowledge that Amy Wensley's investigation was stuffed up. These emails
Speaker 5: were dated the seventeenth and nineteenth of May twenty twenty three, respectively.
Speaker 5: Fortunately not everyone feels the same way. On the sixteenth
Speaker 5: of May, a crime Stoppers media officer following up on
Speaker 5: the new one million dollar reward says he's leaving out
Speaker 5: the part about the coroner making an open finding, instead saying.
Speaker 11: The circumstances surrounding the death of Amy are suspicious and
Speaker 11: the matter is being investigated as a suspected homicide.
Speaker 5: Unfortunately, he's not the one who'd be tasked to investigate it.
Speaker 1: You probably can't answer this, but do you think police
Speaker 1: are more worried about their own reputations than the outcome
Speaker 1: for Amy's family?
Speaker 15: I can't answer that specifically, and I really hesitate to
Speaker 15: answer it in respect of individual officers, because I think
Speaker 15: there are some officers who attended on the date, and
Speaker 15: there are some officers who were involved in the cold
Speaker 15: case investigation who really seem to have done a good
Speaker 15: job with the limitations they faced, but demonstrated good support
Speaker 15: for the family and discharged their duties to the best
Speaker 15: of their abilities. Where I'm more concerned is at an
Speaker 15: institutional level. The police institutionally don't appear to have shown
Speaker 15: the family that they care.
Speaker 1: Peter, You've done a lot of work over the years
Speaker 1: in the service of the public at times when you
Speaker 1: probably could have made more money in private practice. Yes,
Speaker 1: so you do have a conscience in that regard. I mean,
Speaker 1: how do you see this for Amy's family, for those
Speaker 1: behind it still having to feel as though they have
Speaker 1: to keep fighting it metaphorically headbutting those institutions to try
Speaker 1: and get some answers for a young woman who was
Speaker 1: found dead in horrific circumstances in very suspicious way. I mean,
Speaker 1: how do you view that.
Speaker 15: So I've done quite a bit of domestic violence related
Speaker 15: work pro bono as a sideline to my regular commercial practice,
Speaker 15: and I've done that throughout Western Australia, the NT and
Speaker 15: I've seen a lot of instances where police and corrections
Speaker 15: authorities have not kept tabs on offenders or have not
Speaker 15: properly investigated things. I think that sometimes families in the
Speaker 15: position of Amy's family need somebody to stand up for them,
Speaker 15: and within the legal profession, there's a long history of
Speaker 15: people doing that. I'm not the only one. John Quickly
Speaker 15: is the classic example, with the work that he did
Speaker 15: to free Andrew Mallett.
Speaker 1: Many years ago when he was a humble attorney.
Speaker 15: He's demonstrated that he's got a heart to stand up
Speaker 15: for victims.
Speaker 1: Well, he's now that his Attorney General, who see he's
Speaker 1: in the ultimate position of power, is the law maker,
Speaker 1: and he won't sit down and take any questions on
Speaker 1: this subject. It all becomes too hard politically, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: That's all right for John's political future, but what does
Speaker 1: it say for Amy's family.
Speaker 15: I'm sure that Amy's family would like to hear from
Speaker 15: him or the police minister or the commissioner, but of
Speaker 15: course they can't be forced and there is still an
Speaker 15: ongoing police investigation at least in name.
Speaker 1: That's why lawyers like yourself are so badly needed, especially
Speaker 1: in pro by no situations where people from poorer backgrounds
Speaker 1: need that help. As you rightly point out, they need
Speaker 1: people to stand up for them. They are public leaders
Speaker 1: standing up for people when they need them. And isn't
Speaker 1: this the argument we're having right now around Australia about
Speaker 1: domestic violence.
Speaker 15: The domestic violence aspect certainly gets raised in this. There
Speaker 15: was a huge amount of evidence given before the coroner
Speaker 15: about the previous history of controlling behavior and domestic violence
Speaker 15: incidents well before the night in question. And you can't
Speaker 15: just reason that because there was a history of violence,
Speaker 15: that there must have been something that occurred on the night.
Speaker 15: But if that violence in the past had been addressed,
Speaker 15: if as a society we had systems in place to
Speaker 15: deal with domestic violence more generally to provide refuge to women,
Speaker 15: then we've been a lot better place than Maybe Amy
Speaker 15: wouldn't have been shot, Maybe things never would have escalated
Speaker 15: to the point of homicide, suicide or accident, whichever it was.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree more with you. But again, you know,
Speaker 1: Amy's family and friends told the coroner repeatedly, as you've
Speaker 1: just pointed out, that there was a history there of
Speaker 1: violent acts and actions. And yet the police get up
Speaker 1: and they say, well, we check the police database. Nothing
Speaker 1: in the police data base, nothing to see here, Move away, folks,
Speaker 1: go home. Yep, there's a gulf between the reality and
Speaker 1: the officialdom, isn't there?
Speaker 15: There is, And there is a lot more to be
Speaker 15: done on the ground level to address the causes and
Speaker 15: instances of domestic violence, not just for Amy.
Speaker 1: Not just for Amy. As I understand it, We're not
Speaker 1: talking any sort of double jeopardy moment here. David Simmons
Speaker 1: has been formally arrested on suspicion of murder in this
Speaker 1: case twice yes, on two separate occasions. Discharged every time.
Speaker 1: So if there is any evidence that he should be
Speaker 1: charged again in that way, there's no impediment, is there none? Whatsoever?
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be shall we say, fresh evidence
Speaker 1: in terms of what the police already have. It can
Speaker 1: be what they already have plus plus Yes, So it's
Speaker 1: an open playing field.
Speaker 15: Really, what you're talking about is whether the police would
Speaker 15: arrest him a third time. And the only reason why
Speaker 15: they would arrest him a third time would be because
Speaker 15: they've got something new that supplements the evidence they previously
Speaker 15: had that cast doubt on the suicide theory and it
Speaker 15: implicates David in Amy's.
Speaker 1: Death, something that the DPP would consider would provide a
Speaker 1: complete brief in order to justify the charges.
Speaker 15: Yes, it would provide a reasonable prospect of a jury
Speaker 15: reaching a verdict of.
Speaker 1: Guilty, which is the beginning point for any charge.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 15: Yes, there has to be a reasonable prospect of a
Speaker 15: conviction before charges are proceeded with.
Speaker 5: This is how coroner Sarah Linton concluded her findings.
Speaker 13: I have considered all the available evidence that has been
Speaker 13: obtained in all of the police investigations and obtained through
Speaker 13: the inquest process itself, and I have concluded that there
Speaker 13: is not enough evidence for me to make a formal
Speaker 13: finding as to how Amy died. I regret that I
Speaker 13: am unable to provide all of the answers that Amy's
Speaker 13: family is seeking, but I am required to base my
Speaker 13: findings on the evidence, and there are too many unknowns
Speaker 13: in this case. I extend my deepest condolence to Amy's
Speaker 13: family and friends who have followed this matter all the
Speaker 13: way through and put their energy and efforts into seeking
Speaker 13: the truth. They have demonstrated in their commitment to the
Speaker 13: process their love for Amy and her daughters. I understand
Speaker 13: that this finding is unlikely to ring them closure, but
Speaker 13: I hope at least they will take some satisfaction from
Speaker 13: having brought to the light the failings of the initial
Speaker 13: investigation and ensured that all proper measures were taken to
Speaker 13: investigate Amy's death in the way it should have been
Speaker 13: from the very start. Sh Linton Coroner, nine September twenty
Speaker 13: twenty one.
Speaker 1: Now we acknowledge not all of the evidence we've presented
Speaker 1: in this podcast was available at the time, but a
Speaker 1: lot of it was, and it's not just us who
Speaker 1: feel it was all dealt with haphazardly. Someone who is
Speaker 1: deeply concerned about the lack of action on Amy's case
Speaker 1: is wa opposition leader in the Legislative Council, Peter Collier.
Speaker 1: He's asked a lot of questions in Parliament recently. Peter,
Speaker 1: thanks very much for being part of this. My pleasure
Speaker 1: having a chat to us, trying like we are to
Speaker 1: find the truth about Amy. I think it's incredibly important
Speaker 1: in the interest of public justice.
Speaker 16: Is that the way you see it one hundred percent.
Speaker 16: I've spoken with Amy's family at length. The inconsistencies, the
Speaker 16: contradictions that exist around this case are profound.
Speaker 3: Now, I don't take these things unlikely. I've been in this.
Speaker 16: Game for twenty years and you hear a lot of innuendo,
Speaker 16: a lot of rumors, a lot of emotion from families affected,
Speaker 16: et cetera.
Speaker 3: This one is compelling.
Speaker 16: Having spoken with Amy's family, I don't think you need
Speaker 16: a PhD in criminology to understand that there is something
Speaker 16: within this case without a shadow of it out.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the way the death of
Speaker 1: Amy Wensley has been treated.
Speaker 16: I understand why the family are so aggrieved with the process,
Speaker 16: the inconsistencies from day one from the attending officers when
Speaker 16: Amy's was first found to then the attending detectivesance on
Speaker 16: the part of the authority to do anything about it.
Speaker 16: The open finding from the coroner show that there is
Speaker 16: there are many more questions and answers, a lot of
Speaker 16: questions and.
Speaker 1: A lot more questions that we've raised through the course
Speaker 1: of this podcast so far. So one could argue, do
Speaker 1: you think that you could put together a pretty strong
Speaker 1: brief now if you really wanted.
Speaker 16: To, if there was there the will to do so
Speaker 16: without a shadow of it out.
Speaker 1: So if that's the case, then why is the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Wa so reluctant to refer this case off
Speaker 1: to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 16: Well that's the do I say, the million dollar question?
Speaker 16: Because the government have offered a million dollars for information
Speaker 16: into Amy's death. Quite frankly, in addition to that, on
Speaker 16: the Minister for Police's website it is listed Amy step
Speaker 16: There's listed as a homicide. Yet the Attorney General in
Speaker 16: the same government is reluctant to report it to the DPP. Now,
Speaker 16: how can you have those contradictions Okay, this is not
Speaker 16: a speeding fine. This is something that is profoundly significant.
Speaker 16: A young woman lost her life. The government knows that
Speaker 16: we as a community owe it not just to her daughters,
Speaker 16: not just to her family, not just to justice, but
Speaker 16: to Amy. We owe it to Amy to get to
Speaker 16: the bottom of this. And I specifically asked in the
Speaker 16: Parliament as to why he wouldn't forward it off to
Speaker 16: the DPP, the Public prosecutor. I've pretty much got, in
Speaker 16: political terms, a single finger solute that is it's under investigation.
Speaker 3: Well, we don't know whether it is or it isn't.
Speaker 3: Quite frankly, there is an easy avenue for this.
Speaker 16: I know that the Attorney General is using the guys
Speaker 16: that there's no statutory requirement or no statutory avenue for
Speaker 16: him to send it to the DPP. At the same time,
Speaker 16: there is no statutory impediment to him sending it to
Speaker 16: the DPP. Quite frankly, for a government that has got
Speaker 16: on one minister's website that it's a homicide to not
Speaker 16: have the other minister responsible to actually send it off
Speaker 16: to the DPP is gob smackingly unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Let me drill down on that. Peter so you're saying
Speaker 1: the Attorney General is using the excuse there's nothing in
Speaker 1: the Act that says he should send it to the DPP.
Speaker 1: That's correct, but you're saying, in effect, there's also nothing
Speaker 1: in the Act that prevents him from sending it to
Speaker 1: the DPP.
Speaker 3: Without a shadow of it out, without a shadow of
Speaker 3: it out.
Speaker 16: I mean, anyone that's got raised eyebrows with regard to
Speaker 16: Amy's death is going to have them even higher at
Speaker 16: this stage.
Speaker 1: And also it's straightforward along the lines the Attorney General
Speaker 1: has already used to give himself a better image in
Speaker 1: the public. He has said in recent weeks and months
Speaker 1: he wants to help the victims of domestic violence. If
Speaker 1: that is true, isn't this the perfect opportunity to show
Speaker 1: that he wants to help them.
Speaker 16: One hundred percent? You know, domestic violence is a scourge
Speaker 16: on our community. Has escalated forty four percent over the
Speaker 16: last quarter compared to the last.
Speaker 3: Five years average.
Speaker 16: It's a very very sad testament of whether or not
Speaker 16: we're sincere about overcoming domestic violence issues. Let's not forget
Speaker 16: Liam Amy lost her life over ten years ago. On
Speaker 16: the twenty sixth of June two thousand and forty Amy
Speaker 16: lost her life and ten years down the track it
Speaker 16: has been, in some instances a slow moving train wreck.
Speaker 16: You know, if you want to have some solace for
Speaker 16: Amy's family, but also for Amy herself, for goodness sake,
Speaker 16: have the courage of your convictions to the government. It
Speaker 16: turn your General sends it off to the DPP and
Speaker 16: then you'll find that'll give a lot more comfort to
Speaker 16: the family.
Speaker 1: Where is the blockage here?
Speaker 10: Is it?
Speaker 1: Dare I say? Is it embarrassment? Somewhere at the top?
Speaker 16: You know, we can only speculate on that limb which
Speaker 16: cases similar cases move along. This one has really captured
Speaker 16: my imagination, captured my conviction, and that is because I
Speaker 16: don't think Amy took her own life. I've had multiple
Speaker 16: occasions in the last twenty years, particularly over the last
Speaker 16: four years as Shadow Police Minister, to lay the boots
Speaker 16: in to the government from multiple people that have come
Speaker 16: to me with concerns over actions of the police, erections
Speaker 16: of the Attorney General or justice that's been denied.
Speaker 3: Almost exclusively.
Speaker 16: I have listened to them, tried to assist them, but
Speaker 16: directed them to the Triple C or to another authority.
Speaker 16: Not in this instance. I think I think it has
Speaker 16: been an injustice. I think the government quite frankly, is
Speaker 16: dragging its heels and their motives are.
Speaker 3: Hard to fathom.
Speaker 5: Attorney General John Quigley last week wrote to Amy's aunt,
Speaker 5: Anna Davy, claiming he couldn't help her.
Speaker 12: Dear Miss Davy, I write to you with regards to
Speaker 12: the ongoing matter of the death of your niece, Miss
Speaker 12: Amy Wensley in twenty fourteen. I would again like to
Speaker 12: express my sincere condolences for your loss and for the
Speaker 12: difficult times you and your fair have endured. Since I
Speaker 12: understand that Miss Amy Wensley's family, including yourself, are advocating
Speaker 12: for the matter to be referred to the Office of
Speaker 12: the Director of Public Prosecutions for the matter to be
Speaker 12: raised in court. I advise that as Attorney General, there
Speaker 12: is nothing in Part four of the Director of Public
Speaker 12: Prosecutions Act under the heading Relationship with Attorney General, which
Speaker 12: provides for the Attorney to refer matters to the DPP,
Speaker 12: and it specifically prohibits me, as the Attorney, from issuing
Speaker 12: directions to the DPP. In respect of a particular case.
Speaker 12: The coroner has the authority to report a matter to
Speaker 12: the DPP if the coroner believes an indictable offense has
Speaker 12: been committed in connection with the death which the coroner investigates.
Speaker 12: WA Police can also refer a matter to the DPP
Speaker 12: for assessment and advise as to whether the available evidence
Speaker 12: establishes a prima facie case with reasonable prospects, but as
Speaker 12: Attorney General I have no role in that. I can, however,
Speaker 12: confirm that the following has taken place in relation to
Speaker 12: Miss Wensley's death. Point one. A hearing was set down
Speaker 12: for a discretionary coronial inquest to be held in relation
Speaker 12: to Miss Wensley's death in twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest,
Speaker 12: the former Deputy State Coroner Vicar referred the matter to
Speaker 12: the DPP. This was based on the opinion of an
Speaker 12: expert biomechanical report, which former Deputy State Coroner Vicer considered
Speaker 12: contained information to suggest an indictable offense had been committed
Speaker 12: in relation to Miss Wensley's death. That referral to the
Speaker 12: DPP resulted in the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad
Speaker 12: conducting a review of the earlier police investigations into Miss
Speaker 12: Wensley's death. WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt
Speaker 12: to obtain evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death.
Speaker 12: Zero point four. The review concluded that there was insufficient
Speaker 12: evidence to establish the involvement of another person in Miss
Speaker 12: Wensley's death. Point five. The DPP reviewed the materials and
Speaker 12: agreed with the determination made by WA Police and referred
Speaker 12: the matter back to the coroner's court. Point six. An
Speaker 12: inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with Deputy
Speaker 12: State Coroner Linton conducting the inquest with a focus on
Speaker 12: whether there was any additional evidence that could be obtained
Speaker 12: that might assist in determining how Miss Wensley came to
Speaker 12: suffer the injury that caused her death. Point seven. The
Speaker 12: current Deputy State Coroner, Linton declined to refer the matter
Speaker 12: to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was
Speaker 12: insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had
Speaker 12: been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. I want
Speaker 12: to commend you for your advocacy on behalf of your
Speaker 12: niece during a difficult time. I understand that it would
Speaker 12: have been a difficult process and as a result you
Speaker 12: may wish to make contact with the offers of the
Speaker 12: Commissioner for Victims of Crime. Yours, sincerely, John Quiggly.
Speaker 5: To say Anna was livid with this letter from mister
Speaker 5: Quiggley is an understatement. We've received legal advice which confirmed
Speaker 5: there is nothing preventing the ag from asking the DPP
Speaker 5: to review the brief again in light of the evidence
Speaker 5: that has arisen through this podcast, and to consider exercising
Speaker 5: the Director's power under Section twenty two of the DPP
Speaker 5: Act to request police to undertake specific investigations into the
Speaker 5: new evidence. This podcast should never have been made. When
Speaker 5: I started writing it, I hadn't read all the documents,
Speaker 5: and when I spoke with Anna, she spoke like someone
Speaker 5: who had witnessed a great injustice. Passionate, angry, outraged. I
Speaker 5: came to the end I felt the exact same emotions,
Speaker 5: but also absolutely astonished that this could happen in this
Speaker 5: day and age. It's only been ten years. We reached
Speaker 5: out to Premier Roger Cook. He referred us to the
Speaker 5: Attorney General. We'd already emailed the Attorney General asking if
Speaker 5: he'd do an interview with us and meet with Amy's family.
Speaker 5: His spokesman said this in reply.
Speaker 14: Hello Allison, the attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family.
Speaker 14: As stated in my earlier email, this matter is or
Speaker 14: may be the subject of a police investigation now or
Speaker 14: in the future, and as such it would not be
Speaker 14: appropriate for the attorney to comment. I also repeat what
Speaker 14: I provided earlier, being that police can refer a brief
Speaker 14: of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public
Speaker 14: Prosecutions for advice and to assess whether the available evidence
Speaker 14: establishes a primer facy case with reasonable prospects, but the
Speaker 14: attorney has no role in that process. There is nothing
Speaker 14: in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for
Speaker 14: the attorney to refer matters to the ODPP, and it
Speaker 14: specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to the DPP
Speaker 14: in respect of a particular case. It should also be
Speaker 14: noted that the ODPP has no investigative function regards Jordan.
Speaker 1: Prima facie as described by Jordan here is based on
Speaker 1: the first impression. Accept it is correct until proved otherwise. Now,
Speaker 1: this case has already been referred to the ODPP due
Speaker 1: to the findings of the unbiased biomechanical experts Tim Ackland
Speaker 1: and Tom Gibson, both of whom concluded the evidence was
Speaker 1: highly consistent with Amy having been shot by so someone else,
Speaker 1: not having taken her own life. That's what triggered the
Speaker 1: cold case investigation and of course the subsequent inquest. What
Speaker 1: we can ascertain from Jordan's email is that there's nothing
Speaker 1: stopping Attorney General John Quigley from referring it back to
Speaker 1: the ODPP, but he won't because he doesn't have to.
Speaker 1: We sought clarification as to whether this means he won't
Speaker 1: even meet with Amy's family, and we've heard nothing back.
Speaker 1: He's just leaving it in the hands of WA police, who,
Speaker 1: after bungling Amy's investigation at the start, appear to now
Speaker 1: have absolutely no desire to rectify the situation.
Speaker 5: Apparently so because, as you know, we spoke to Chris,
Speaker 5: who provided a significant tip to crime Stoppers about how
Speaker 5: apparently Joshua Brydon told her and others that he helped
Speaker 5: move Amy's body and they had to burn their clothes.
Speaker 5: To clarify here, he was apparently still maintaining Amy shot
Speaker 5: herself and the blood was actually as a result of
Speaker 5: going pigging but that he lost his favorite shorts as
Speaker 5: a result, which again begs the question among others, did
Speaker 5: they always burn their clothes after pigging.
Speaker 1: Now we heard from Chris again last week. She's been
Speaker 1: scrolling through her past messages with Brydon and found one
Speaker 1: from twenty eighteen of him recalling, wait for it, finding
Speaker 1: his best mate's wife, who was like a sister to him,
Speaker 1: with her head blown off his words, which certainly adds
Speaker 1: weight to what Chris is saying. Now. Brighton has denied
Speaker 1: ever having such a conversation and maintains to this day
Speaker 1: he was not there when Amy died, but the evidence
Speaker 1: he was is quite overwhelming, and as we've said before,
Speaker 1: his story was never verified by police. That should be
Speaker 1: one of the first things this new team, which has
Speaker 1: been formed to follow up all the tips sent to
Speaker 1: crime stoppers, should do that and to properly interrogate all
Speaker 1: the key people, both Simmons father and son, Gareth Price,
Speaker 1: Joshua Brydon and Rachel mckinne. To date, there has never
Speaker 1: been a thorough investigation to the standard you'd expect for
Speaker 1: a possible homicide.
Speaker 5: The truth about Amy is that it's a hidden homicide
Speaker 5: and as such much more difficult to address. This termsents
Speaker 5: all those cases that are written off a suicide or accident,
Speaker 5: usually as a result of a shoddy police investigation from
Speaker 5: the start, but sadly, once the initial decision is made,
Speaker 5: it's incredibly difficult to have it overturned, regardless of how
Speaker 5: much evidence there is to the contrary. Thus reflected in
Speaker 5: this email response we had from Police Commissioner Cole Blanche's
Speaker 5: media officer.
Speaker 2: WA Police Special Crime Squad has carriage of the investigation
Speaker 2: into Amy's death and there is a million dollar reward
Speaker 2: for information leading to the conviction of the person or
Speaker 2: persons responsible. Anyone who has information in relation to her
Speaker 2: death is encouraged to contact crime Stoppers on one eight hundred,
Speaker 2: triple three, triple zero or online at www dot Crimestopperswa
Speaker 2: dot com dot au. WA Police will never give up
Speaker 2: and is committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death.
Speaker 1: While it appears pretty much a cut and paste from
Speaker 1: previous media releases, they do at least say that they're
Speaker 1: committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death. Contrast that
Speaker 1: with the position they put to the coroner in closing
Speaker 1: submissions in twenty twenty one that there was no one
Speaker 1: responsible other than Amy. It's a remarkable turnaround that they
Speaker 1: now publicly accept someone else is responsible. Although disappointing, the
Speaker 1: old school establishment still seemed to be fighting this. According
Speaker 1: to the emails that we got under FOI.
Speaker 5: The problem is WA Police hasn't been proactive about this
Speaker 5: case from the start. It just appears to be a
Speaker 5: tick and flick exercise. So I'm not sure how optimistic
Speaker 5: I can be from this response given their record to date.
Speaker 5: Initially I thought we wouldn't even reach this episode because
Speaker 5: surely if anyone from WA Police was listening, they'd looked
Speaker 5: to make the most of the publicity and turn the screws,
Speaker 5: so to speak. But looking at that comment from the
Speaker 5: Office of the Police Commissioner, it just seems they're waiting
Speaker 5: for the heat to die down so they don't have
Speaker 5: to deal with it. If you are listening, please be
Speaker 5: aware it doesn't end here.
Speaker 1: Yep, that's right. How we are just getting started soon soon?
Speaker 3: You again, so soon.
Speaker 1: This was about revealing the truth about Amy by presenting facts,
Speaker 1: showing how they were handled, and bringing to their attention
Speaker 1: new evidence that provides the foundation for this case to progress.
Speaker 1: From next week myself, Al and Tim Clark from the
Speaker 1: West Australian will engage in a weekly conversations podcast, engaging
Speaker 1: various experts to provide their opinions. Amy's family has now
Speaker 1: also launched a petition via change dot org calling for
Speaker 1: her case to be referred to the Office of the
Speaker 1: Director of Public Prosecutions. You can find the details in
Speaker 1: the show's notes, but will also post a link on
Speaker 1: our Facebook and Instagram accounts. We'll also continue to seek
Speaker 1: answers from the WA Police Commissioner Cole Blanche, Attorney General
Speaker 1: John Quigley, and Premier Roger Cook about why this case
Speaker 1: continues to be ignored when there is a clear need
Speaker 1: for action. Their ongoing refusal to address the issues is
Speaker 1: a disgrace. Last question before we shall finish. I don't
Speaker 1: know whether you're aware of this. So there's evidence from
Speaker 1: one of the women who've gone to crime stoppers, the
Speaker 1: friend of Joshua Bryden's ex partner, and she's saying that
Speaker 1: she was at his house a couple of months afterwards.
Speaker 1: He was crying and saying he remembers Amy's you know,
Speaker 1: he helped move Amy's body with Gareth christ the other
Speaker 1: his body of evidence is that he was never there.
Speaker 3: That was ad weight, without a doubt.
Speaker 16: And as again, just that to those constant inconsistencies that exist,
Speaker 16: and can I say it should not, with all respect
Speaker 16: to yourself and to your media colleagues, be up to.
Speaker 3: The media to actually solve this case and get to
Speaker 3: the bottom of it. Gets the truth for the peace
Speaker 3: of mind.
Speaker 16: Of everyone involved, including Amy's family, but also for Amy herself.
Speaker 16: Don't just rely on the police. There is absolutely no
Speaker 16: reason whatsoever that the Attorney General should not be referring
Speaker 16: this to the deep and that provides solace for everybody.
Speaker 5: We'll leave you with a message from Amy's mum, Nancy,
Speaker 5: who is so grateful for all the support she's received
Speaker 5: since the podcast started and hopes you can continue to
Speaker 5: help our plight to see the truth about Amy realized
Speaker 5: by signing the petition.
Speaker 10: To all the people around the world who have been
Speaker 10: listening and following the truth about Amy, I would like
Speaker 10: to say thank you for all the lovely messages and support.
Speaker 10: My sister Anna has been the driving force for the
Speaker 10: last ten years. She has given up life to fight
Speaker 10: for justice for Amy, and I cannot thank her enough.
Speaker 10: Amy's daughters are well loved and cared for and have
Speaker 10: grown into the most beautiful, caring and loving teenage girls.
Speaker 17: They are doing great at school. Amy would be prayer
Speaker 17: as I am lisser.
Speaker 10: You s so des.
Speaker 1: Re.
Speaker 4: Both know they jell me.
Speaker 1: Hunt. If you knew Amy and have information, any information
Speaker 1: about her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just
Speaker 1: email us at The Truth about Amy at seven dot
Speaker 1: com dot a U that's s e V E N
Speaker 1: The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au,
Speaker 1: or visit our website sevenews dot com dot au forward
Speaker 1: slash the Truth about Amy. You can also send us
Speaker 1: an anonymous tip at www dot the Truth about Amy
Speaker 1: dot com. If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can
Speaker 1: follow us to see photos and updates relevant to the case,
Speaker 1: but for legal reasons, unfortunately you won't be able to
Speaker 1: make any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,
Speaker 1: don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
Speaker 1: because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
Speaker 1: and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,
Speaker 1: Sound design Mark Wright and producer Cassie Woodward. Graphics Jason
Speaker 1: Blandford and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour.
Speaker 1: This is a seven News production.