Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returns guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolutely shambles, to
Speaker 1: tell you the truth, just absolutely really color blood on
Speaker 1: his clothing the day after the alleged a top.
Speaker 2: On a shallow mud bank and it fits Roy River. Basically,
Speaker 2: I think most of the people are used to me.
Speaker 1: Where are good people?
Speaker 2: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 2: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 1: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 1: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 1: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 1: Amy Maguire and.
Speaker 2: I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner
Speaker 2: Support Service. And a warning. This series contains the names
Speaker 2: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 2: some listeners.
Speaker 3: This week a special warning This episode will contain distressing
Speaker 3: content and maybe particularly upsetting for those who know the
Speaker 3: case and are familiar with what happened back twenty five
Speaker 3: years ago.
Speaker 1: Now. Earlier last week we were planning on telling you
Speaker 1: more about Kevin Henry's parole and the Independent expert report
Speaker 1: we have received which shows the forensic analysis in this
Speaker 1: case was overly simplistic. But before we turned off the
Speaker 1: recorder last week, this happened.
Speaker 3: Sorry to cut you off before we go. I have
Speaker 3: just got a message and it's gotten attachment what and
Speaker 3: it's oh man, we've got them.
Speaker 1: What does it say?
Speaker 3: Amy? As soon as we go off air, I'll tell
Speaker 3: you what I've received, and listeners next week you will
Speaker 3: hear what I've just received in an email and it's explosive.
Speaker 1: Now, when we went off air and Martin told me
Speaker 1: the details of that, I knew he was an exaggerating.
Speaker 1: This was explosive.
Speaker 3: But first we need to provide you with a bit
Speaker 3: of background. Late last year, I became aware of a
Speaker 3: piece of evidence that could prove absolutely essential to Kevin
Speaker 3: Henry's case. I've spent months searching for that piece of evidence.
Speaker 3: The evidence had come to light more than a decade ago.
Speaker 3: But despite it being sent to a number of different people,
Speaker 3: those who are actually funded to help prisoners like Kevin,
Speaker 3: it had been buried. In some cases, it had been destroyed.
Speaker 1: And what does this piece of evidence refer to? Well,
Speaker 1: it's the question that many people have asked ever since
Speaker 1: we began telling you the details of this case, back
Speaker 1: from the very first episode, remember when we started by
Speaker 1: telling you about the tides.
Speaker 3: An analysis of historic tide record woods from that night,
Speaker 3: as well as a long one hundred and fifty meter
Speaker 3: line in the mud parallel to the river bank, means
Speaker 3: we can be very certain that Linda, the beautiful mother
Speaker 3: of four who tragically lost her life, had been placed
Speaker 3: in the river on the racecourse side that is opposite
Speaker 3: to the Tanuba House side where police say Kevin Henry
Speaker 3: had placed her body.
Speaker 1: Now, if you've ever been to rock Hamden, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what Kevin would have had to do to make
Speaker 1: this story applausebore. Sometime in the fifteen minute window, when
Speaker 1: he was alone, he would have had to have found
Speaker 1: a car, would have had to place Linda in it
Speaker 1: at a time when no mode at Tanuba House could
Speaker 1: have seen him. He would have had to have driven
Speaker 1: through the main center of rock Hampden and over one
Speaker 1: of the town's two bridges. We have the old and
Speaker 1: the new bridge, to the opposite side of the river
Speaker 1: where there's a racecourse, and then up further soccer and
Speaker 1: touch football fields.
Speaker 3: Now, when we launched our first episode, we told you
Speaker 3: all of this, and immediately you began to ask questions.
Speaker 3: The main question is if Kevin didn't do it, who
Speaker 3: did and how did they do it? Did they do
Speaker 3: it by boat or did they have a car.
Speaker 1: This evidence helps answer that question. It provides another story
Speaker 1: about what happened that night from a young woman who
Speaker 1: was there and who came forward to give her statement
Speaker 1: more than a decade ago. She has since passed away,
Speaker 1: but we will protect her identity. Today we will refer
Speaker 1: to her as Witness X.
Speaker 3: Now. Witness X is an Aboriginal woman who was a
Speaker 3: teenager the night of Linda's murder. After Linda was found,
Speaker 3: she says she was intimidated by two men who threatened
Speaker 3: her her and told her to leave town. Out of
Speaker 3: fear for her safety and the safety of her family,
Speaker 3: she left Rockhampton, but roughly ten years ago she decided
Speaker 3: to come forward. She gave a detailed statement about what
Speaker 3: happened that night to a lawyer. The statement tells us
Speaker 3: what really happened that night.
Speaker 1: Now, for legal reasons, we can't give you all of
Speaker 1: the details of her statement, but we can read out
Speaker 1: on air what this witness told a rock Hampden lawyer
Speaker 1: about what happened after Linda was assaulted. Now, Martin is
Speaker 1: going to read the statement to you, and he's going
Speaker 1: to pick up from the point. Witness X walks back
Speaker 1: down to Tanuba House after the assault has taken place.
Speaker 3: Now this is Witness X. I walked down the stairs
Speaker 3: slow because it was dark, not much lighter round Tanuba House.
Speaker 3: I found a door and walked in kicked something on
Speaker 3: the floor. I could not see what it was. This
Speaker 3: thing on the ground was a person, I realized with
Speaker 3: a fright because the person grabbed me on the leg.
Speaker 3: I bent down to see who grabbed my leg, and
Speaker 3: all I could see was the eyes that rolled back.
Speaker 3: I then asked the person if he she was all right,
Speaker 3: and this person tried to talk, but I couldn't hear properly.
Speaker 3: I then immediately walked into the next room, where I
Speaker 3: saw the same crowd that was up at the Crown
Speaker 3: in the room.
Speaker 1: Now, for legal reasons, we can't name everyone that the
Speaker 1: Witness X mentions next, but we can say they include
Speaker 1: all of the three women who were convicted over the assault,
Speaker 1: and also Kevin.
Speaker 3: Henry Curtin, Kevin Henry was asleep on a mattress. I
Speaker 3: asked them if that person in the other room was
Speaker 3: taking a fit. Someone said that she was okay, she'd
Speaker 3: come out of it soon. She does that all the time.
Speaker 3: I asked them if someone was going to ring the
Speaker 3: ambulance or police. No one answered me.
Speaker 1: Now another note, we have to conceal yet another identity.
Speaker 1: We will call her Witness Why.
Speaker 3: I then asked Witness Why for a smoke and asked
Speaker 3: which way to go out. They told me to leave
Speaker 3: through another door. I did and that led me up
Speaker 3: towards a big tree. I then ran into C H
Speaker 3: who was walking towards tenuber house. He asked me where
Speaker 3: Curtain was and I said, he's down there asleep. Just
Speaker 3: kept walking as fast as I could away from that house.
Speaker 3: When a green car came alongside of me, Witness Why
Speaker 3: sang out from the back seat and asked if I
Speaker 3: wanted to go for a ride. I said, where are
Speaker 3: you going? Witness Why said to the other side of
Speaker 3: the river to dump rubbish. I was going to jump
Speaker 3: into the back seat with her, but c jumped out
Speaker 3: of the front and told me to sit in the
Speaker 3: front so he could sit in the back. With Witness why.
Speaker 3: The man driving was Willy West, who then drove over
Speaker 3: the bridge. Then I remember under a bridge. When we
Speaker 3: pulled up, Willie reversed back and there was a very
Speaker 3: bright light in front of us. C and Willie got
Speaker 3: out of the car to dump the rubbish. I asked
Speaker 3: if they wanted any help. Witness why, I tapped me
Speaker 3: on the shoulder and said, let the brothers do it.
Speaker 3: As we were waiting, I asked Witness why where the
Speaker 3: bright light was coming from. She said from the touch
Speaker 3: football grounds. Witness Why. I kept talking about different things,
Speaker 3: but I could hear water behind us. It took a
Speaker 3: fair while for See and Willie to get back into
Speaker 3: the car. When we left, they dropped me off at
Speaker 3: the road thunder and no one was there. A couple
Speaker 3: of days later, C and Willie West came to my
Speaker 3: house in Warabinda and they told me to keep my
Speaker 3: mouth shut because if I tell anyone, they're going to
Speaker 3: rape me and kill me the same way as the
Speaker 3: other woman. I moved away soon after this because I
Speaker 3: was afraid of what would happen to me and my kids.
Speaker 1: Martin, is that how the statement ends?
Speaker 3: Yes, so that's the way the witness's statement ends, and
Speaker 3: then at the bottom I will read for our listeners
Speaker 3: how an official statement that was taken then in Queensland
Speaker 3: finishes Justices Act eighteen eighty six. I acknowledge, by virtue
Speaker 3: of section one hundred and ten A five c two
Speaker 3: of the Justices Act eighteen eighty six that one, this
Speaker 3: written statement by me, dated the thirtieth of the ninth,
Speaker 3: two thousand and two, and contained in the pages numbered,
Speaker 3: is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Speaker 3: And I make this statement knowing that if it were
Speaker 3: admitted as evidence, I may be liable to prosecution for
Speaker 3: stating in it anything I know is false. This was
Speaker 3: signed by the witness, signed in Rockhampton on the thirtieth
Speaker 3: of September two thousand and two, and signed by the
Speaker 3: barrister who took and witnessed the statement.
Speaker 1: So, Martin, there's quite a lot in that statement, and
Speaker 1: it was taken down a considerable time amount of time
Speaker 1: after the crime actually took place. How can we be
Speaker 1: certain that Witness X is a reliable witness?
Speaker 3: Okay, So, based on what we've just heard, some of
Speaker 3: our listeners may be a little bit confused because we
Speaker 3: did have to conceal some identities. But the statement is
Speaker 3: from someone who we will continue to refer to as
Speaker 3: Witness X, and the important part of their statement is
Speaker 3: that while some people saw little bits and pieces of
Speaker 3: what happened that night, some were witnesses to the assault.
Speaker 3: Some people saw Kevin Henny throughout the night in different places.
Speaker 3: Other people saw and could place other people that were
Speaker 3: there that night at certain times at perhaps t Enuba
Speaker 3: or the Crown Hotel. This witness was able to see
Speaker 3: absolutely everything from start to finish. And when I say everything,
Speaker 3: I mean all the crucial incidents. So this witness was
Speaker 3: able to see what happened to Linda, as in when
Speaker 3: she was still alive. This witness was able to see
Speaker 3: what happened to Linda as best as possible, as you
Speaker 3: heard at the very end. And really this witness is
Speaker 3: quite unique in that circumstance. Now, how can we be
Speaker 3: know they're telling the truth. Well, this witness gave this statement,
Speaker 3: as you said, quite some time after the event and
Speaker 3: quite some time ago. All the evidence they gave is
Speaker 3: either corroborated by other witnesses, is corroborated by the forensic evidence,
Speaker 3: or is corroborated by our own investigation. It's also important
Speaker 3: to know this witness had no involvement whatsoever in what
Speaker 3: happened that night, and it was never alleged that they did,
Speaker 3: and that this witness had absolutely no need or reason
Speaker 3: to lie. This person came forward because they wanted the
Speaker 3: truth to be known. And basically the two things they
Speaker 3: wanted to be known is they knew where Kevin Henry
Speaker 3: was that night, and they knew who put the body
Speaker 3: in the river, Linda's body, and it was not, as
Speaker 3: you heard, Kevin Henry on the Tanuba House side of
Speaker 3: the river. It was other individuals on the racecourse side
Speaker 3: of the river who did have access to a car.
Speaker 1: Now, this is a completely different version of events we're
Speaker 1: hearing from what the police actually alleged happened. But does
Speaker 1: Witness x's version of events fit with the logistics of
Speaker 1: where Linda's body was found and the timing of what
Speaker 1: was happening that night at Tanuba.
Speaker 3: House, Yes, it does. I think one thing that everybody
Speaker 3: who's looked at the case over the years, and there's
Speaker 3: been quite a number of lawyers who have looked at it,
Speaker 3: is the timeline and the logistics just don't match up.
Speaker 3: There's no sense to be made and it can't be proven,
Speaker 3: and never was that Kevin Henry had access to a car,
Speaker 3: had time to find a car, was able to place
Speaker 3: a body either on the other side of the river,
Speaker 3: which is what the forensic information would show, or on
Speaker 3: the Tanuba House side of the river, which would have
Speaker 3: required him to get completely wet and covered in mud
Speaker 3: and have the blood all over his body. So this
Speaker 3: witness and what they say fits with the much more
Speaker 3: reasonable logical scenario and the scenario that is backed up
Speaker 3: by the forensic evidence, which is that the people needed
Speaker 3: a car, and she gives us that those people had
Speaker 3: a car that they needed to drive to the other
Speaker 3: side of the river. Now, as people will have heard
Speaker 3: in earlier episodes, you re enacted driving to the other
Speaker 3: side of the river and to this day as it
Speaker 3: required back then it meant going over one bridge and
Speaker 3: under another. So this is just a little detail that
Speaker 3: this witness included that had to take place if what
Speaker 3: they said was true, and that witness did include that.
Speaker 3: And so there's a lot of little things in this statement,
Speaker 3: and trust me, I've picked through it like a fine
Speaker 3: tooth comb. That there's little bits of evidence that someone
Speaker 3: who didn't see what happened wouldn't know. But this witness
Speaker 3: clearly knows and clearly saw what they saw, and yes,
Speaker 3: the logistics of what they describe fits absolutely with the
Speaker 3: evidence and absolutely with what I believe took place that night.
Speaker 1: The interesting thing to me is how you began the
Speaker 1: statement when you recited it, and it was the event
Speaker 1: where she's actually tripped over almost a body that's obviously
Speaker 1: in a very bad state. We don't know who that
Speaker 1: body is, but it does sound a lot like Linda.
Speaker 1: What does that say about the potential of Linda being
Speaker 1: alive before she was put in the water, or whether
Speaker 1: she may have died before she was put in the water.
Speaker 3: I think that it's a really hard thing to know
Speaker 3: from that statement alone. But obviously, again we can go
Speaker 3: back to the forensics. We have one thing we never
Speaker 3: really had, was a witness who could tell us what
Speaker 3: really happened to Linda after the assault. There's always been
Speaker 3: this huge gap, and even the police never really attempted
Speaker 3: to fill that gap. They purely just said, at some point,
Speaker 3: Kevin has dragged Linda down to the water. Now, there's
Speaker 3: no forensic evidence for that, and nobody saw that. But
Speaker 3: what this witness says is that there was somebody under
Speaker 3: Tanuba who was in a very bad way, and this
Speaker 3: would match obviously with the fact we know that an
Speaker 3: assault had occurred, and this witness was clearly concerned about
Speaker 3: this individual because they inquired if anyone had called the police,
Speaker 3: had anyone called an ambulance. So we can't be one
Speaker 3: hundred percent sure that this person was Linda who they saw,
Speaker 3: but I think it's a fair guess that that's who
Speaker 3: they saw, and it does suggest to us that while
Speaker 3: Linda was still alive at that point, she was in
Speaker 3: a very bad way, and that would have been following
Speaker 3: the assault. And we do know from the forensic evidence
Speaker 3: both presented at trial and that we have now that
Speaker 3: the assault committed by the three women was horrific and
Speaker 3: would have left Linda in this sort of state where
Speaker 3: she may have appeared to be having a fit or
Speaker 3: be slipping in and out of consciousness as it appeared
Speaker 3: this person discovered.
Speaker 1: The other interesting thing I thought was Witness X describes
Speaker 1: the lights from the Touch Football grounds and she also
Speaker 1: describes hearing water behind us as witness why is talking?
Speaker 1: Does that sort of give us any indication of where
Speaker 1: this drop off point could have been in relation to
Speaker 1: Linda's body.
Speaker 3: Yes, and I think, as we pointed out very early
Speaker 3: in this series, that the forensic evidence always suggested that
Speaker 3: Linda's body was placed on the racecourse side of the river. Now,
Speaker 3: police never explored that scenario and never countenanced it as
Speaker 3: a possibility, but we certainly did because we looked at
Speaker 3: the forensic evidence. And so what those lights from the
Speaker 3: touch football ground shows and the water that was behind
Speaker 3: the car would place the car in the exact position,
Speaker 3: with the back of the car to the river and
Speaker 3: the front of the car facing towards those fields, is
Speaker 3: the exact position where we months ago believe believed Linda's
Speaker 3: body was placed in the water. Now, at that time,
Speaker 3: we did not have access to this statement and we
Speaker 3: did not know its contents. What we were using was
Speaker 3: absolute forensic data. And so what we have here now
Speaker 3: is an eyewitness whose statement backs up what that data
Speaker 3: showed us, and it does so in an incredibly accurate manner.
Speaker 3: And it's quite disturbing to read it for the first time,
Speaker 3: for the first few times to realize that so much
Speaker 3: of this could have been solved by the police in
Speaker 3: those very early days, had they done the basic work
Speaker 3: that we did when we first examined this case.
Speaker 1: What does the whole statement say about Kevin. You've mentioned
Speaker 1: a few places where the witness has talked about Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry being asleep. Is that the only mention she makes
Speaker 1: of Kevin Henry in this statement.
Speaker 3: No, So, for the purpose of protecting people's identity who
Speaker 3: have no involvement in the crime whatsoever, we did leave
Speaker 3: out some sections of the statement that were really just
Speaker 3: background information. But the witness does describe where Kevin was
Speaker 3: throughout that day, and it matches up very much with
Speaker 3: what we know happened to Kevin that day, which is
Speaker 3: that he consumed a large amount of alcohol and then
Speaker 3: he spent most of the afternoon and the evening asleep.
Speaker 3: So this witness saw Kevin come across the road and
Speaker 3: sleep next to a gum tree. This witness saw Kevin
Speaker 3: Henry at the Crown, And we have to remember that
Speaker 3: this is something we've raised before, that part of Kevin's
Speaker 3: alibi is that he was at the Crown, and if
Speaker 3: he was, he couldn't possibly have committed the murder. And
Speaker 3: so this witness did, like others see Kevin Henry at
Speaker 3: the Crown and at the time the body was placed
Speaker 3: in the river, this witness saw Kevin Henry asleep under
Speaker 3: Tenuba House. Now, again, all of this matches with the
Speaker 3: fact that, by Kevin's own admission, he drunk a considerable
Speaker 3: amount of alcohol that morning, and that he spent most
Speaker 3: of the rest of the day asleep and a brief
Speaker 3: period of time at the Crown Hotel, And all of
Speaker 3: this is confirmed by an eyewitness.
Speaker 1: Now we've got two other men who Witness X says
Speaker 1: she saw dumping Linda's body in the river. One of
Speaker 1: these men we've concealed the identity, we've called him c
Speaker 1: But another man, Willie West. What do we know about him?
Speaker 1: And why have we chose and to say his name
Speaker 1: in full?
Speaker 3: Okay, The reason we've decided to say his name in
Speaker 3: full is that his name was raised as a potential
Speaker 3: suspect at the initial trial. Now, that name was raised
Speaker 3: both by lawyers for the women and the lawyer for
Speaker 3: Kevin Henry, And that name was raised in full to
Speaker 3: the police in particular, and also to others who were
Speaker 3: there that day. This is not the first witness to
Speaker 3: place Willy West at the scene. We have other witnesses
Speaker 3: who say that Willy West was at Tanuba House. We
Speaker 3: have other witnesses who say that Willy West was at
Speaker 3: the Crown Hotel. And the reason this is important is
Speaker 3: because the police deny all knowledge of this individual, and
Speaker 3: the police claimed that they did not take a statement
Speaker 3: from this individual, and that is despite the fact that
Speaker 3: multiple witnesses raised this person's name. Now, based on what
Speaker 3: we know from this witness testimony, it appears this person,
Speaker 3: according to witness X, drove the car and was one
Speaker 3: of two men to place Linda's body in the river.
Speaker 3: So I think we can very reasonably understand why the
Speaker 3: lawyers for the women and particularly Kevin Henry, repeatedly brought
Speaker 3: up the name Willie West and asked the police if
Speaker 3: they'd investigated that individual, had they taken a statement from
Speaker 3: that individual, and in fact, did they even know who
Speaker 3: that individual was. Now, again, the police denied knowing who
Speaker 3: this person was, nor ever having taken a statement. But
Speaker 3: I think it's fair to know that the lawyers at
Speaker 3: the time knew something was up with this individual, and
Speaker 3: that's why they raised that person's name. And now we
Speaker 3: have the evidence about that individual.
Speaker 1: I mean, the fact that he seems like he's one
Speaker 1: of the very few people at Tanuba House to have
Speaker 1: a car should have raised alarm bell bell straight away,
Speaker 1: because even from the very moment we knew that this crime,
Speaker 1: you would have needed some sort of vehicle in order
Speaker 1: to actually do this the way Linda's body was found,
Speaker 1: you would have had to have some sort of vehicle
Speaker 1: of some sort.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. And I think again that was one
Speaker 3: of those points that seems obvious to absolutely everybody involved
Speaker 3: from twenty five years ago until today, except for the
Speaker 3: investigating officers, that a car would have been required. And
Speaker 3: this is the only person that we know of and
Speaker 3: that was mentioned by witnesses to have access to a car.
Speaker 3: So I think that's why it stretched credulity for the
Speaker 3: lawyers to believe that the police had not interviewed this
Speaker 3: person nor knew who they were. And we have to
Speaker 3: remember that absolutely everybody was interviewed. Anyone that was at
Speaker 3: ten Uber House was questioned at least once and up
Speaker 3: to five times by police. And as we've mentioned in
Speaker 3: previous episodes, some witnesses who were at t Uber House
Speaker 3: but had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime were
Speaker 3: followed for months, including a mister Wayne Saunders, who was
Speaker 3: followed out to the Rockhampton prison and he gave a
Speaker 3: statement he was accused of committing the crime and he
Speaker 3: had no involvement whatsoever. But this individual Willie West, who
Speaker 3: this witness names, who clearly other witness name, and to
Speaker 3: Lawyer's raise, was not once interviewed by police. And I
Speaker 3: think that raises very serious doubts as to the quality
Speaker 3: of the investigation and to whether that investigation really found
Speaker 3: or sought to find the truth of what happened that night.
Speaker 1: And not only that, this is just another piece of evidence,
Speaker 1: along with everything else we've provided you with over the
Speaker 1: past year that points towards Kevin Henry or Curtin's innocence.
Speaker 1: Join us next week for Curtain