WEBVTT - 12: Beyond Reasonable Doubt 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:06.480 This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We 0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:11.840 urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on 0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:19.079 thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at 0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:29.440 lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old 0:00:29.720 --> 0:00:37.000 devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom, 0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:45.280 bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat. 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:49.120 Mom told me that she needed to go back inside 0:00:49.159 --> 0:00:49.920 to grab something. 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:50.720 Panic. 0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:53.320 Amy is dead? Sir Aimy his dead? 0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:57.120 Eight confusion than about five minutes say sit n to suicide. 0:00:56.720 --> 0:00:59.360 One hundred percent. This is emersing. 0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:05.399 What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy? 0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:16.959 The Truth about Amy? Episode twelve. 0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:21.480 I'm Liam Bartlett and. 0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:24.839 I'm Alison Sandy. 0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:30.080 Love yourself first, continue to strive for loving oneself. You 0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:33.319 have nothing to hide. Lack of self esteem can often 0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:37.679 cause doubt. Always think confidently, let yourself out. We all 0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:41.319 have something to give. By loving oneself, You're beginning to 0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:45.479 live when you feel good, loyal and true. Only then 0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:48.680 can we really help you. When you see a negative 0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:53.000 or experience the pain, find yourself the positive, enjoy the 0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:57.400 game for when we smile and glow within, we cancel 0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:02.320 out the problem forever herein so you see, by loving oneself, 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:04.880 you then have the opportunity to love me. 0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:14.160 Feeling positive, Amy posted this poem on Facebook on the 0:02:14.160 --> 0:02:20.959 twentieth of September twenty thirteen. Now, as we've been investigating 0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:26.000 this case, we've been exploring what is necessary for WA Police, 0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:32.200 or indeed the WA Attorney General John Quigley, to take 0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:37.800 it seriously. The highest standard of proof in our judicial 0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:42.840 system is beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does that 0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:47.200 really mean? OL caught up with WA barrister Tom Percy 0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:48.920 case to discuss it. 0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:55.000 What sort of evidence is required for a criminal case 0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:56.360 to get to court? 0:02:56.520 --> 0:03:00.320 Well, I think if it's a case that's top let's 0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:03.840 say the police need to be satisfied that there's some elements, 0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:07.760 some evidence of each of the elements that constitute. 0:03:07.680 --> 0:03:11.280 The offense, and then they would charge the person. 0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:14.320 If it's a simple matter it goes to the magistrates court, 0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:15.840 well it would just stay there. But if it one 0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:20.520 ultimately astigated the Director of Public Prosecutions once it had 0:03:20.560 --> 0:03:23.000 been committed for trial, the Director would have to be 0:03:23.080 --> 0:03:26.320 satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success. 0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:28.040 And that it was in the public interest to proceed 0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:28.400 with it. 0:03:29.240 --> 0:03:30.960 Now, no one has to make a decision as to 0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:33.639 whether there is enough of evidence to convince someone beyond 0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:34.560 reasonable doubt. 0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:39.880 At that preliminary stage. But the director would have to 0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.320 come to a conclusion that there was a reasonable. 0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:45.840 Prospect that a jury might come to the appropriate conclusion 0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:49.840 beyond reasonable doubt. No one can define what reasonable doubt is. 0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:52.880 Jury has often asked that question in the course of 0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:56.920 their deliberations. I think I've been involved in probably one 0:03:57.000 --> 0:04:00.960 hundred trials where a jury is asked that question, and 0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:03.280 the answer is from the judge is always the same. 0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:06.680 I'm not at law allowed to explain that to you. 0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:10.040 I can't explain it to you. The words are self explanatory. 0:04:10.840 --> 0:04:14.280 But sometimes you can say to a jury, look, it's 0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:15.280 not the civil standard. 0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:16.480 It's not the standard that we imply. 0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:21.239 It's a defamation case, or a motor vehicle accident. 0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:24.920 Cases of civil damages, or a case over a contract 0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:25.800 regarding money. 0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:28.839 In that case or a civil case, the judge would 0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:33.440 only have to be satisfied that, on balance of probabilities. 0:04:32.800 --> 0:04:34.479 One side was more likely than not. 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:36.839 Now judge may. 0:04:36.720 --> 0:04:38.280 Be entitled to tell a jury. 0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:41.720 That it's not the civil standard, it's a much higher standard, 0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:43.440 and it's the highest standard known to law. 0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:45.440 But in order to get. 0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:50.400 A case back before a coroner where there's already been 0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:54.600 a coroner's inquest, the Currents Act in Western Australia provides 0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:58.440 that you can, in the event that there is new evidence, 0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:03.080 take that to were the Supreme Court at Western Australia 0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:06.640 and asked the matter be remitted back to the coroner, 0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:10.039 either to reopen the hold in quest or to hold 0:05:10.080 --> 0:05:10.599 a new one. 0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:12.279 So that's the starting point there. 0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:14.680 The way that that would happen would be that you 0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:17.840 would compile the scientific or other evidence that you have 0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:20.160 put that in the form of an APPI dated by 0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:23.520 an appropriately qualified person and bring an application of the 0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:26.640 Supreme Court seeking either a new inquest or to reopen 0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:30.400 the old inquest. And if that was sufficient of sufficient moment, 0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:34.240 and the Court was of the view that that was. 0:05:34.200 --> 0:05:36.080 Appropriate, then it would be referred back. 0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:38.280 And then once it was back with the coroner, if 0:05:38.279 --> 0:05:41.000 the evidence of pe is compelling enough, the coroner has. 0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:42.960 The power to refer to the DPP. 0:05:43.400 --> 0:05:46.159 Now that seems a bit cumbersome. Another way it could 0:05:46.160 --> 0:05:53.320 be done is for the people involved to petition the 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:56.200 DPP and put that sort of evidence in front of 0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.159 the BPP, and he would have the power to that 0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:03.159 issue charge as himself or refer to the police. The 0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:06.159 third one which it could be referred as to is 0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:09.680 if the police were pursuing their investigations and came to 0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.720 the conclusion that there was an arguable case, or a 0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:16.279 prime facing case as we say, of murder against a 0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:19.320 person thought to be responsible in relation to the death 0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:24.120 of the deceased, and the police could then charge the 0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:27.760 person or refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:30.640 What primate facing mean facing. 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:33.760 Means the evidence of each of the elements of the offense. 0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:37.239 That is, that the identity of the person is arguable, 0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:41.400 that it was the person required, that there was a 0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:44.880 death by which a person died, that that person was 0:06:44.880 --> 0:06:45.560 the person in. 0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:48.680 Question, and that there was some evidence that that was. 0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:52.520 Not accidental or by natural causes. So on what I 0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:56.279 know of this case watching the public domain, that I 0:06:56.279 --> 0:07:00.960 would have thought there was ample evidence for the prosecution 0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:04.400 to investigate this had possibly come to the conclusion that 0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:05.719 there was a primer facing case. 0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:09.280 So what sort of burden of proof would be required 0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:12.240 for them to take it to a trial. 0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:15.080 Well, if it does, the trial as a question exclusively 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:18.280 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and essentially there are 0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:20.480 two criteria. One that has to be in the public 0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:24.720 interest and secondly, the director would have to form the 0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:27.160 view that there were reasonable prospects of conviction. 0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:31.520 Okay, And so what do you look for when you 0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:35.760 decide or you accept a case where you think there's 0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:37.800 reasonable prospects of conviction. 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:40.520 Well, I don't do much prosecuting these days. In fact, 0:07:40.520 --> 0:07:42.760 they haven't done anything about twenty five years. But I 0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:45.800 would think that a prosecutor would look for a case. 0:07:45.600 --> 0:07:49.240 Where there's really really no question about the identity the 0:07:49.280 --> 0:07:57.400 presence of the potential accused person at the time, that is, opportunity, motive, 0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:00.800 and some scientific basis which linked the. 0:08:00.840 --> 0:08:03.679 Two together with the cause of death. 0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:07.600 They were the sort of things and I mean sometimes 0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:11.280 that is drawing a long bow, that that's a fanciful proposition. 0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:15.160 But if the director was of the view that having 0:08:15.400 --> 0:08:19.280 examined the police investigation and the evidence they came up with, 0:08:19.760 --> 0:08:23.840 that there was ample material to go to a jury, 0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:27.400 then they would normally proceed with the prosecution. 0:08:27.920 --> 0:08:30.640 What happens if a kroener has done an in quest 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.280 and hasn't recommended that it be referred to the ODPP. 0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:38.000 I mean, given that there obviously that's very subjective. 0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:41.000 Well, I'm sure any director of public Prosecutions does. 0:08:41.040 --> 0:08:43.480 It doesn't matter what status, would look at a coroner's 0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:45.640 inquest and see that there'd. 0:08:45.480 --> 0:08:49.720 Been an open finding, that that wouldn't preclude him or her. 0:08:49.640 --> 0:08:53.520 From coming to the proposition that, in life of fresh evidence, 0:08:54.040 --> 0:08:56.359 particularly fresh scientific evidence. 0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:59.160 That the matter warranted be reopened. So it's no bar 0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:00.840 to a prosecute that. 0:09:01.000 --> 0:09:04.760 A coroner's made an oven finding and decline to refer. 0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:05.640 The matter to the TPP. 0:09:06.120 --> 0:09:09.120 I would have thought going back to an inquest that 0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:12.199 would just be expensive and as you say, cumbersome. 0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:15.920 I think right, that's securitous and unwieldy. 0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:17.320 For it to go back there. If there is a 0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:21.520 body of fresh scientific evidence from reputable sources that. 0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.000 The police could have a look at, and it may 0:09:24.040 --> 0:09:28.120 well be that the police want to exercise their own 0:09:28.160 --> 0:09:31.280 discretion afresh and in the light of the fresh. 0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:33.600 Evidence, which or means the material. 0:09:33.600 --> 0:09:38.000 Already went before the coroner, come to a decision to 0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:39.040 change someone. 0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:42.400 What about there's a term now called hidden homicides, where 0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:46.480 they're put down a suicide or accidental and in some 0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:50.200 cases the police have mismanaged it in the first place. 0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:55.480 Is it then harder, given that it could draw criticism 0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:00.440 from what you've I guess your extensive career, do you 0:10:00.520 --> 0:10:04.760 find it often difficult to then get those sorts of 0:10:04.800 --> 0:10:06.000 cases across the line. 0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.240 I think sometimes there's a degree of pride in the 0:10:09.280 --> 0:10:13.360 police force which stands in the way of them saying. 0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:15.480 Oh, we were wrong when we'd have a good look 0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.280 at this game. So yeah, you're right. 0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:23.160 There's certainly normal human frailty which sometimes might say this 0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:25.439 might be an admission that we didn't do our case 0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:27.960 correctly the first time, so we're not going to go 0:10:28.000 --> 0:10:28.840 down that part. 0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:32.079 But there will come a time when they may be. 0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:34.560 Forced into that position where the evidence stares them in 0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:37.600 the face and they say, look, perhaps we're wrong not 0:10:37.640 --> 0:10:39.559 to change this person or to go down this. 0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:42.920 Other line of investigation, and we're about to do it, 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:44.160 and we may make an arrest. 0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:47.359 Yes, well, certainly, back in twenty twenty one at the inquest, 0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:50.600 it was very much police did make a submission that 0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:54.120 it was suicide. They didn't change for it in this case. 0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:57.160 So if they're looking at it and they do have 0:10:57.200 --> 0:11:01.280 a million dollar reward being an open fire, that they 0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:04.160 have to consider the other options given that they're not 0:11:04.240 --> 0:11:04.840 ruled out. 0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:09.760 That's right. I mean AVLU cases such as Chris Dawson. 0:11:09.880 --> 0:11:13.120 I mean, for many years the police didn't think there 0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:18.520 was enough evidence to charge him with murder, and twenty 0:11:18.679 --> 0:11:21.640 thirty years later they reviewed that in the light of 0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:23.960 all the evidence that they had, they came to a 0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:27.960 subjective conclusion that there were reasonable prospects of a conviction. 0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:31.719 They charged him, and he was ultimately convicted. So they 0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:32.400 can't happen. 0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:37.079 And just because there's been an initial decision made not 0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:40.280 to charge someone, and even though a decade may have passed, 0:11:41.160 --> 0:11:42.920 it's always open to review. 0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:43.600 And it does happen. 0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:46.080 One of the issues that was brought up at the 0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:50.480 time is limitation of I guess the biomechanical evidence, and 0:11:50.880 --> 0:11:53.760 that was a decision made by the currentor not necessarily 0:11:53.800 --> 0:11:58.160 by the biomechanical experts, and certainly not by the new 0:11:58.160 --> 0:12:02.760 one who's done their own analysis. Again, is that ever 0:12:02.840 --> 0:12:06.680 a case, you know, particularly cold cases right where you 0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:10.440 can just put it down to the fact that because 0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:13.120 there wasn't forensics at the time or whatever, it wasn't 0:12:13.280 --> 0:12:16.520 undertaken as a proper investigation at the time, that it 0:12:16.520 --> 0:12:22.720 could be limited and therefore no chance of a criminal conviction. 0:12:22.960 --> 0:12:24.559 I wouldn't have thought that's the case. I wouldn't have 0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:26.720 thought that's going to be a limiting factor any sense. 0:12:26.760 --> 0:12:32.400 If the evidence is credible, if the evidence stands up 0:12:32.440 --> 0:12:37.080 to scrutiny, and on the subjective assessment by either the 0:12:37.080 --> 0:12:42.880 police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is sufficiently compelling, 0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:45.000 And I wouldn't have thought the fact that it wasn't 0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:48.200 used in the first place would be in any way 0:12:48.440 --> 0:12:50.080 impede the matter proceeding on the. 0:12:50.080 --> 0:12:51.120 Basis of that evidence. 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:59.400 So how is the standard of proof applied? Well, then, 0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:03.080 wa Section one four one of the Evidence Act nineteen 0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:07.880 ninety five provides that in a criminal proceeding, the court 0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:11.440 is not to find the case of the prosecution proved 0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:18.920 unless it's satisfied it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, 0:13:19.240 --> 0:13:23.200 no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to 0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:28.560 meet this threshold. Basically, it's up to the prosecution to 0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:32.000 convince the court based on the evidence that there's no 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:40.840 other reasonable explanation other than the accused is guilty. The 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:45.120 accused need not prove that they didn't commit the crime, 0:13:45.800 --> 0:13:51.440 but show an alternative explanation is reasonable. The jury, of course, 0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:55.560 then decides whether there's reasonable doubt that they committed the 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.360 crime or in the recent case of Chris Dawson, who 0:13:59.440 --> 0:14:03.680 was convicted of killing his wife Lynn Simms, a judge 0:14:03.679 --> 0:14:09.520 only will make that determination. Judge only trials are allowed 0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:14.920 after an application from the defense or prosecution if a 0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:19.800 judge determines its appropriate after considering the circumstances of the case. 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:26.000 There's a lot to consider, obviously in this case, and 0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:30.400 ultimately it's a determination of the Office of the Director 0:14:30.440 --> 0:14:35.320 of Public Prosecutions in wa as to whether there's a 0:14:35.360 --> 0:14:39.800 reasonable prospect of a conviction if they proceed with a 0:14:39.800 --> 0:14:44.800 criminal trial. Now, before we contemplate all the evidence they 0:14:44.840 --> 0:14:48.280 would need to evaluate, we wanted to share with you 0:14:48.320 --> 0:14:52.200 a message recently sent to us by one of our listeners. 0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:59.000 Living close to the local area of Serpentine and being 0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:02.360 thirty four years old, I found this podcast hitting close 0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:05.160 to home in more ways than one. I found it 0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:08.040 really interesting. In the recent episode where Gareth is retelling 0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:10.720 the story of what happened when he says he pushed 0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:13.160 open the door. I don't know why, but I found 0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:16.000 this really strange. If I myself had just witnessed my 0:15:16.040 --> 0:15:18.400 partner being shot, the last thing I would be doing 0:15:18.520 --> 0:15:20.320 is running out of the room and thinking that I 0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:22.800 needed to consciously close the door on my way out. 0:15:23.320 --> 0:15:24.240 I just found it odd. 0:15:28.440 --> 0:15:31.680 That's right, Gareth Price, as the second person had to 0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:36.160 open the door to see if Amy was dead. It's 0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:38.920 worth noting that while the stories of what happened as 0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:41.640 recalled by David Simmons and his family and friends on 0:15:41.720 --> 0:15:46.480 the night Amy died varied, often wildly, what Amy's friends 0:15:46.480 --> 0:15:51.920 and family said both then and now has not, and 0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:58.080 remember they were also traumatized. The problem is it's not 0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:01.400 one thing, but lots of things and a lot of 0:16:01.480 --> 0:16:05.640 gaping holes in the evidence. Let's discuss them one by one. 0:16:08.440 --> 0:16:14.000 So initially, wa police detectives believed she shot herself with 0:16:14.120 --> 0:16:18.000 her left hand because her right hand was under her buttock. 0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:21.280 This was supported by the fact it was the only 0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:25.000 hand with gun residue on it. But there's a problem 0:16:25.040 --> 0:16:30.080 with that. Amy had a burnmark on her left hand 0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:34.840 caused by the barrel, not the trigger, and they eventually 0:16:34.880 --> 0:16:38.120 discover it's impossible for her to reach across the front 0:16:38.120 --> 0:16:41.640 of her body with her left hand to shoot herself 0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:43.320 in the right temple. 0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:49.360 They then turned to Amy's right hand, after all, she 0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:52.160 was right handed, but as we said earlier, that hand 0:16:52.280 --> 0:16:56.400 was found under her right buttock. So testing gets underway 0:16:56.440 --> 0:16:59.160 to find out if it's possible her right hand could 0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:01.720 have landed in that position after she used it to 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:02.480 shoot herself. 0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:10.680 In all of the tests undertaken, not one has Amy's 0:17:10.760 --> 0:17:16.040 right hand landing under her right buttock, so the question 0:17:16.160 --> 0:17:19.160 is asked if it could have ended up there after 0:17:19.200 --> 0:17:23.320 being shoved so many times as people entered the room. 0:17:23.800 --> 0:17:27.880 It's impossible to test that, so it's not ruled out. 0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:31.159 But the right hand doesn't have gun residue on it. 0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:34.000 Could the hand that pulled or pushed the trigger not 0:17:34.119 --> 0:17:35.239 have gun residue on it? 0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:41.440 Apparently yes, it's determined that it's possible the gun residue 0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:43.520 could have been lost. 0:17:44.000 --> 0:17:47.240 When Senior Constable James Inskip was asked about this during 0:17:47.240 --> 0:17:50.640 the inquest, he said, the loss of gunshot residue from 0:17:50.680 --> 0:17:53.440 surfaces is quite easy. 0:17:53.600 --> 0:17:57.640 Even though paper bags were placed on Amy's hands. 0:17:58.080 --> 0:18:00.720 He says bags could have been sampled too, though, but 0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:03.840 we can't find any reference to that happening anywhere. 0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:11.080 So suicide is still considered an option, despite the biomechanical 0:18:11.160 --> 0:18:17.200 testing suggesting evidence is quote highly consistent with someone else 0:18:17.240 --> 0:18:23.439 pulling the trigger and quote again not consistent with Amy 0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:27.639 shooting herself due to the limitations of the testing. 0:18:28.400 --> 0:18:34.359 Correct despite evidence to the contrary. Now, let's turn to 0:18:34.359 --> 0:18:39.680 whether Amy was a victim of domestic violence. The curenter 0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:41.960 didn't make a ruling on this at the inquest, and 0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:45.240 there doesn't seem to be any domestic violence lens placed 0:18:45.240 --> 0:18:48.800 across this case at all. At the conclusion of the 0:18:48.840 --> 0:18:54.159 Major Crime Investigation Operation, jundi Wa police determined there was 0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:58.000 no evidence of physical violence from David towards Amy. So 0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:01.879 despite acknowledging the violence an argument Amy had with David 0:19:01.920 --> 0:19:06.639 that afternoon, it still wasn't considered a factor in Amy's death. 0:19:09.640 --> 0:19:13.600 But what about the testimony from Natasha Selzer and Erin Gower. 0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:19.440 Natasha saw her bent backwards over a table, struggling with symmons, 0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:24.520 and Amy sent erin a photo of bruises where she 0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:28.960 says David choked her for some reason. 0:19:29.160 --> 0:19:32.280 Natasha's evidence didn't seem to be given any weight at 0:19:32.280 --> 0:19:35.639 the inquest, and WA police couldn't find that photo of 0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.880 Amy from Amy's phone, even though we managed to find 0:19:38.880 --> 0:19:45.040 it within twenty minutes. In its investigation, Major Crime determined 0:19:45.080 --> 0:19:48.240 that the argument between Amy and David before she died 0:19:48.359 --> 0:19:52.639 suggested Amy was the aggressor and David had no motive 0:19:52.760 --> 0:19:53.760 to want to kill Amy. 0:19:55.960 --> 0:19:57.240 Did Amy drink. 0:19:57.640 --> 0:20:00.520 Very infrequently and if she did, friends can't recall a 0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:03.160 time since having kids that she'd drink more than one. 0:20:03.480 --> 0:20:05.440 Did she take illegal drugs? 0:20:05.760 --> 0:20:09.040 Well, no, but David's father, Robert Simmons says he heard 0:20:09.160 --> 0:20:09.920 she used to. 0:20:09.880 --> 0:20:12.920 Be wild, but he barely knew her. 0:20:13.400 --> 0:20:15.879 Yes, but the curenter found him credible. 0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:21.400 Despite Robert Simmons singing the praises of Detective Kirkman, who 0:20:21.440 --> 0:20:24.439 completely botched the investigation at the start. 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:27.760 I know, but in her findings, the coroner said she 0:20:27.840 --> 0:20:32.000 considered Robert to be an honest, forthright witness. He was 0:20:32.040 --> 0:20:36.879 the only one she afforded such credibility anyway, when it 0:20:36.960 --> 0:20:40.160 was mentioned David Simmons told Gareth his dad wasn't home 0:20:40.560 --> 0:20:43.080 Robert appeared confused as to why he would think that 0:20:43.400 --> 0:20:45.480 when he almost always worked from home. 0:20:46.640 --> 0:20:51.920 Yes, and upon receiving a call from emergency services, Robert 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:57.480 immediately jumped to the conclusion that David shot Amy. Now 0:20:57.720 --> 0:21:01.240 that is not the typical response you get from a parent, 0:21:02.320 --> 0:21:05.199 but the coroner doesn't seem to give much consideration to 0:21:05.240 --> 0:21:09.440 the fact that Robert thought his son capable of this, 0:21:10.280 --> 0:21:12.960 as he had changed his mind since. 0:21:15.200 --> 0:21:17.320 Yes, and then he asked Gareth when he arrives at 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:19.000 the gate, who moved the gun. 0:21:20.440 --> 0:21:24.919 Also, it's strange Robert didn't notice her body or the 0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:30.040 blood spatter upon entering the bedroom. After all, he'd already 0:21:30.080 --> 0:21:35.280 spoken to Triple zero, so surely his first priority would 0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:39.320 be to look for a person in trouble. Instead, he 0:21:39.359 --> 0:21:41.040 goes straight for the gun. 0:21:43.720 --> 0:21:46.920 Don't forget there was also a thirteen second phone call 0:21:46.960 --> 0:21:50.280 receipt on his phone from David at the roadhouse, and 0:21:50.400 --> 0:21:52.840 records show it didn't go to voicemail. 0:21:54.359 --> 0:22:00.399 Robert Simmons denies receiving this call. He was upfront about 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:03.000 his son's drink and drug problem, though. 0:22:03.720 --> 0:22:06.199 Except there seems to be no consideration of that in 0:22:06.240 --> 0:22:10.920 her findings. They were more concerned about Amy being on antidepressants, 0:22:11.080 --> 0:22:13.840 even though David suffers depression and was supposed to be 0:22:13.880 --> 0:22:15.240 taking them as well. 0:22:15.480 --> 0:22:19.320 It's worth mentioning that catelepram in the dosage Amy was 0:22:19.359 --> 0:22:22.280 prescribed is pretty mild. 0:22:22.560 --> 0:22:26.320 And pretty common. According to later statistics from the Australian 0:22:26.400 --> 0:22:30.159 Institute of Health and Welfare, one in five Australians fielled 0:22:30.160 --> 0:22:36.400 a mental health related prescription in twenty twenty two twenty three. 0:22:37.000 --> 0:22:40.840 What about the lack of any gun residue on both 0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:45.399 Price and Simmons clothes they were supposedly wearing when Amy died, 0:22:46.280 --> 0:22:47.399 that's an issue. 0:22:47.640 --> 0:22:50.240 Yes, we know that David at least fired the gun 0:22:50.280 --> 0:22:51.760 a couple of times that afternoon. 0:22:53.320 --> 0:22:58.080 Then there's Amy's pink phone and Price patting down her 0:22:58.119 --> 0:23:00.800 body to try to find it so he could call 0:23:00.880 --> 0:23:06.520 Triple zero. Still no blood transfer onto his clothes. Though 0:23:07.119 --> 0:23:11.879 both his and simmons clothes were spotlets when they handed 0:23:11.920 --> 0:23:15.639 them to police, not a trace of blood was found 0:23:15.640 --> 0:23:17.560 on them. 0:23:18.000 --> 0:23:20.760 And remember Simmons going back to the house later to 0:23:20.800 --> 0:23:24.720 try to retrieve Amy's iPhone, telling Larry Blamford it was his. 0:23:25.400 --> 0:23:29.640 But Simmons denies doing that, So it's barely even noted 0:23:30.040 --> 0:23:31.320 in the coroner's findings. 0:23:32.240 --> 0:23:33.040 Unbelievable. 0:23:33.600 --> 0:23:36.760 Then there's the missing door handle. If Amy decided to 0:23:36.760 --> 0:23:39.719 take her own life in the bedroom, wouldn't she have 0:23:39.720 --> 0:23:42.760 taken the door handle off the outside of the door 0:23:43.440 --> 0:23:47.960 so her children couldn't have discovered her body, not the 0:23:48.000 --> 0:23:49.000 inside of the door. 0:23:49.920 --> 0:23:54.960 There's never been any real explanation for that. Also, the wheelibins. 0:23:55.160 --> 0:23:58.560 In his first statement, Joshua Brydon makes a particular note 0:23:58.560 --> 0:24:02.160 about taking them out earlier in the day at Amy's request. 0:24:03.040 --> 0:24:07.240 But then Naa said she saw Price taking the bins 0:24:07.320 --> 0:24:12.080 up the drive after Amy's death. Of course, her testimony 0:24:12.480 --> 0:24:15.760 was inadmissible because she was only six at the time. 0:24:16.920 --> 0:24:20.120 Another red flag is the fact that no fingerprints were 0:24:20.119 --> 0:24:23.160 found on the gun that killed Amy, despite at least 0:24:23.160 --> 0:24:24.840 three people having handled it. 0:24:26.119 --> 0:24:29.960 Yeah, that to me says it was wiped down. A 0:24:30.119 --> 0:24:34.639 major red flag. Also, what about what Charondev said about 0:24:34.920 --> 0:24:40.040 major crime not having checked Amy's handbag. Had they done so, 0:24:40.880 --> 0:24:43.159 they would have seen her passport. 0:24:42.840 --> 0:24:46.719 Exactly Again, if you planned to kill yourself, why worry 0:24:46.720 --> 0:24:51.440