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
Speaker 1: mom bags pack 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 3: Panic.
Speaker 4: Amy is dead, sir By, Amy's Dead?
Speaker 3: Eight Confusion World.
Speaker 4: About five minutes they said, N's a suicide. One hundred percent.
Speaker 5: This is emmersing.
Speaker 1: What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 6: The Truth About Amy.
Speaker 3: Episode twenty.
Speaker 7: I'm Liam Bartlett and I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 1: So our friends at seven News and The West Australian
Speaker 1: have hit up Police Minister Reese Whitby about Amy Wensley's
Speaker 1: case at a recent doorstop, and as a result they
Speaker 1: published an article in the newspaper the following day saying this.
Speaker 8: Police Minister Reese Whitby has refused to be drawn on
Speaker 8: whether he thought the Corruption and Crime Commission should launch
Speaker 8: its own investigation into the death of Amy Wensley after
Speaker 8: her family called for a fresh probe in a letter
Speaker 8: accusing WA police of attempting to cover up mismanagement of
Speaker 8: the case. When asked on Monday whether he agreed with
Speaker 8: miss Wensley's families call for a Triple C investigation, mister
Speaker 8: Whitby said it wasn't a decision for him. That's a
Speaker 8: matter for the Triple C. I'm not going to enter
Speaker 8: into their area, he said. The Triple C is distinct
Speaker 8: and independent of government, and they make their own decisions.
Speaker 8: What I will say is there is a current police
Speaker 8: investigation into that death, and there's also a one million
Speaker 8: dollar reward available. So police are still taking this seriously,
Speaker 8: still pursuing the issue. I'd urge anyone if you have
Speaker 8: any information, if you have any evidence that could solve
Speaker 8: this issue, please do so. When asked whether he believed
Speaker 8: police had mishandled the original investigation, mister Whitby said investigators
Speaker 8: were taking the cold case very seriously. In the letter
Speaker 8: to Triple C Commissioner John mckeckney, obtained by Channel seven's
Speaker 8: Invasigitive podcast The Truth about Amy, miss Wensley's aunt Anna Davy,
Speaker 8: accused officers of applying bias to try to manipulate as
Speaker 8: suicide finding.
Speaker 1: So that's the letter that Anna read out in episode seventeen. However,
Speaker 1: we did have to redact a little bit of it
Speaker 1: for legal reasons. But all of you who have been
Speaker 1: following this podcast and listening throughout would be very aware
Speaker 1: that Anna Davey, Amy's aunt, calls a spade a shovel.
Speaker 1: There's no sugarcoating anything she says, is there.
Speaker 6: I urge you to please undertake a new investigation into
Speaker 6: Western Australian Police's handling of the case of Amy Wensley
Speaker 6: relating to Operation Junde, the Homicide Squad's attempt to have
Speaker 6: an officer in charge of the coronial investigation treat Amy's
Speaker 6: case as non suspicious, and the obvious bias by senior
Speaker 6: police officers displayed at the coronial inquest.
Speaker 7: Yes, Liam, Anna's no shrinking Violet, which makes me wonder
Speaker 7: whether she actually is your art.
Speaker 1: Well funny that I have thought about adopting her officially
Speaker 1: through the channels. I mean, I'm more than happy to
Speaker 1: extend the family for Anna's purposes, solely to take her on.
Speaker 1: I love Anna, I think she's fantastic She's a smart,
Speaker 1: strong woman with strong opinions and she doesn't hold back.
Speaker 3: I think it's fantastic.
Speaker 1: Now, Al, I've viewed the footage of the presser, the
Speaker 1: press conference, and while I wouldn't exactly call Reese Whitby
Speaker 1: dismissive or evasive, I wouldn't go that far. It is
Speaker 1: clear though that he wouldn't be drawn on what he
Speaker 1: thought of the allegations of police misconduct and of course
Speaker 1: the serious implications of that.
Speaker 9: Have a listened to yourself, Abe Wensley, who the evidence
Speaker 9: points two was murdered, Yes, three, Policing force split off
Speaker 9: the points to the factor not murder. The family wants
Speaker 9: a triple see you investigate. Would you support that?
Speaker 10: Well, that's a matter for the Triple C. I'm not
Speaker 10: going to enter into their area. It's a distinct. The
Speaker 10: Triple C is distinct and independent of government, and they
Speaker 10: make their own decisions. I will say there is a
Speaker 10: current police investigation into that death, and there's also a
Speaker 10: one million dollar reward available, so police are still taking
Speaker 10: this seriously, still pursuing the issue, and if the Triple
Speaker 10: C are remind to investigate, that is a matter for them.
Speaker 9: Do you accept that the police didn't cover themselves in
Speaker 9: glory in those investigations, these earlier investigations.
Speaker 10: I'm not going to go through the issues of the investigation.
Speaker 10: There is a live investigation currently and I'd urge anyone
Speaker 10: if you have any information, if you have any evidence
Speaker 10: it could help to solve this issue, please do so.
Speaker 10: There is a million dollar reward out which is an
Speaker 10: indication of the seriousness that is this issue is being regarded.
Speaker 10: But as for the Triple C, that's matter for them.
Speaker 9: You're the new minister, right, No, but have you been
Speaker 9: briefed on that case, on her death and those earlier
Speaker 9: inquiries and the mistakes that were made.
Speaker 4: Yes, I had.
Speaker 9: So is it your judgment that they did bugger it up?
Speaker 3: Jeff.
Speaker 10: I'll hold my own counsel. I have my own communications
Speaker 10: with the commissioner. But I think when there's an issue
Speaker 10: that is live, it's best that the police be allowed
Speaker 10: to get on and make their investigation. And if the
Speaker 10: Triple C c fit to make an inquiry or look
Speaker 10: at anything in particular, that's a matter for them.
Speaker 7: Great job to Jeff Parry from the Seven Years Room
Speaker 7: for his persistence there.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's the police Minister Whitby, the new Police Minister,
Speaker 1: at the press conference, as we said, now just before
Speaker 1: we go on, let's go back to what we've just
Speaker 1: told you about the report on mister Whitby and how
Speaker 1: he was quoted originally, and he said, just to remind you,
Speaker 1: mister Whitby said investigators were taking the cold very seriously. Well,
Speaker 1: how would you know that if he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: get involved. I mean, he said at the start of
Speaker 1: the report to our reporters from seven Years and from
Speaker 1: the West Australian. He made a point of saying, look,
Speaker 1: this is a matter for the Triple C. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to enter into their arena. That's not for me
Speaker 1: as a police minister and go through with the whole
Speaker 1: Charter and all their obligations not only under the Act,
Speaker 1: but you know, basically to make sure every single policeman,
Speaker 1: man or woman in the state does their job properly.
Speaker 1: And he is the minister, so he's got the ultimate responsibility.
Speaker 1: That's why he gets paid the big bucks. That's why
Speaker 1: ministers get extra money on top of back benches, right
Speaker 1: because they've got all this extra responsibility. So here's the
Speaker 1: new Police Minister getting quite hoity toity about his role
Speaker 1: in the scheme of things. Oh, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: really interfere. It's not my job to interfere. It's your
Speaker 1: job to make sure the police do the right thing.
Speaker 1: And a member of the public, someone who helps to
Speaker 1: pay your way, just come along and point it out
Speaker 1: some very very serious issues about what they say is
Speaker 1: manipulation by the police. So later on he says, but
Speaker 1: hang on a minute, I know that the police are
Speaker 1: taking this cold case very seriously. Well, that's very interesting,
Speaker 1: because if you think that it's absolutely someone else's territory,
Speaker 1: what conversations have you had, Minister, with the police about
Speaker 1: this case in order to support them, not the members
Speaker 1: of the public. What conversations have you had. What sort
Speaker 1: of assurances have the police given you who are reinvestigating
Speaker 1: this case, to allow you to be able to say,
Speaker 1: don't worry, the investigators are taking this very seriously. Has
Speaker 1: he talked to the investigators themselves in order to form
Speaker 1: the confidence to be able to come out and say
Speaker 1: the investigators were taking the cold case very seriously. What
Speaker 1: sort of experience does he have with investigative procedures to
Speaker 1: know that they are very serious? I mean there's a
Speaker 1: whole raft of questions that come out from that statement.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime he doesn't want to get involved
Speaker 1: with the Triple C. As a minister, if you don't
Speaker 1: think that a member of the public is being treated fairly,
Speaker 1: especially in a judicial sense, and you have authority in
Speaker 1: that area, then you could take all sorts of measures
Speaker 1: to make sure to make sure, doubly sure, triply sure
Speaker 1: that everything is in order. The government have the power
Speaker 1: and often exercise it in many, many other ways, mostly
Speaker 1: for their own reasons, for their own political reasons, to
Speaker 1: jump up and say this demands a parliamentary inquiry, or
Speaker 1: let's have a judicial inquiry because we need to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of this. They can do all that
Speaker 1: and more.
Speaker 7: Well, it's not unprecedented either, is it. I mean, I've
Speaker 7: seen it in other states.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, absolutely, totally, totally. You're one hundred percent right.
Speaker 7: Well, we'll get to a bit more of that later.
Speaker 7: For me, I still haven't heard back from Waypole, even
Speaker 7: though I was assured that they would get back to me.
Speaker 7: But again, not surprised or the Attorney General quickly's no
Speaker 7: longer there. There's a new attorney general. This is like
Speaker 7: kryptonite for Superman. I think not that any of them
Speaker 7: are Superman, but nobody wants to touch this. I did, though,
Speaker 7: get a response kind of from the Crime and Corruption
Speaker 7: Commission in that I was advised there wasn't a response
Speaker 7: as a Triple C doesn't comment on what it is
Speaker 7: and isn't investigating. That's completely consistent with agencies of that
Speaker 7: nature throughout the nation. But it doesn't stop me trying.
Speaker 7: And I would be negligent in my duty if I
Speaker 7: didn't go to them. So that's the latest communication from
Speaker 7: authorities I've had on Amy Wensley. Now a completely different
Speaker 7: story in relation to Courtney Anderson. Liam you'll remember this
Speaker 7: case from last week. Sure listeners will recall her family
Speaker 7: going into great detail with us.
Speaker 11: They're saying she suffered a decade of physical and emotional abuse,
Speaker 11: which they don't believe was fully considered.
Speaker 12: And the phone calls would start and it would just
Speaker 12: go and go and go and go, and it was
Speaker 12: just argument after argument after argument. Who are you with?
Speaker 12: You're not with your parents, You're cheating on me. He
Speaker 12: would choke her with his hand round her throat while
Speaker 12: he was driving.
Speaker 7: It's one of those cases that really gets under your skin,
Speaker 7: particularly given their history. Courtney was fourteen when she met
Speaker 7: Ashley Campbell fourteen, who was about twenty or twenty one
Speaker 7: at the time. Her family discussed how she'd written in
Speaker 7: her diary how he'd take her out, and she was
Speaker 7: excited about that. He was Courtney's first real boyfriend and
Speaker 7: much older than her.
Speaker 3: A bit of an imbalance, there, isn't that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, it's not hard to imagine what the power
Speaker 7: dynamic would have been like in their relationship, particularly after
Speaker 7: eleven years. And then there's the circumstances of her death.
Speaker 12: As soon as we knew he was in the car,
Speaker 12: alarm bells were ringing.
Speaker 11: Courtney paid Anderson died on April first last year. The
Speaker 11: official police release said she exited a moving car on
Speaker 11: the Bruce Highway.
Speaker 7: Anyway, I reached out to the Queensland Attorney General Deb
Speaker 7: Frecklington liamb and you know what happened. Her chief of
Speaker 7: staff called me, discussed the background he had from the department.
Speaker 7: I gave him a description of what the family told
Speaker 7: me and fought it through the documents they provided on
Speaker 7: the case. And guess what the family met with the
Speaker 7: Attorney General a week later.
Speaker 1: Wonders never cease. So Deb Frecklington, the Attorney General of
Speaker 1: Queensland's doing a job properly. It's being professional, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Isn't it?
Speaker 1: I mean Attorney General Frecklington has a very important position, yea,
Speaker 1: the state's top law officer. It's really crucial, you know,
Speaker 1: like a huge responsibility.
Speaker 3: But there you go.
Speaker 1: She finds time to deal with a constituent who was hurting.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, family members who are drowning in all sorts
Speaker 1: of emotions, and she does the right thing and she
Speaker 1: sits down and she talks to them and she provides
Speaker 1: an avenue for them to meet the person at the top. Fantastic.
Speaker 1: I mean that's called doing your job. And you can
Speaker 1: have the same position in two different states, operating on
Speaker 1: a completely different basis. So what is that That's down
Speaker 1: to the person, isn't it. It's down to personal attitudes
Speaker 1: and ethics. And dare I say integrity?
Speaker 7: Funnily enough that you mentioned integrity Lamb because she is
Speaker 7: actually also the Minister for integrity.
Speaker 1: H then go, but hang on, wait there's more. There
Speaker 1: is no Minister for Integrity in the West Australian cabinet.
Speaker 1: That portfolio doesn't exist.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I don't know if it's ever existed, has it?
Speaker 3: Liam? No, not that you have to be called that
Speaker 3: to have it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean they don't have a Minister for
Speaker 1: emotion or you know, minister for seriousness or a Minister
Speaker 1: for jocularity or a Minister for ridiculousness either. But still
Speaker 1: people manage to go through that gamut of emotions in parliament.
Speaker 3: I've seen it. I've witnessed it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, maybe, you know, I don't know, maybe people
Speaker 1: would take it more seriously. But again, you know, good
Speaker 1: on the deb Frecklington. I think that's fantastic. You know,
Speaker 1: we should see more of it. That's very human and
Speaker 1: coming from that position in parliament terrific.
Speaker 7: If there was a Party of Integrity, I would vote
Speaker 7: for them every election. But anyway, a disclaimer, I should
Speaker 7: mention this disclaim.
Speaker 4: I do.
Speaker 7: Oh yes, I do know Frecklington's chief of staff because,
Speaker 7: like Reese Whitby, he used to work at seven Except
Speaker 7: Ben Murphy is approachable and we often talk about going
Speaker 7: over to the dark side when people move into politics
Speaker 7: and political advisors or media advisors for politics or business
Speaker 7: and things like that. We often joke about it. But
Speaker 7: many of them really do change when they move over,
Speaker 7: don't they.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Speaker 7: Well some of them, I will say, and I'm not
Speaker 7: pointing to anyone, but some of them become ego driven,
Speaker 7: self indulgent gatekeepers of information that they dispense sparingly in
Speaker 7: an attempt to manipulate and control what and how news
Speaker 7: is reported. I mean, we're not the paparazzi here. We're
Speaker 7: not trying to get a picture of some Hollywood style
Speaker 7: at skinny dipping or something. We're just trying, Limb, to
Speaker 7: provide a voice for people who have been screwed over
Speaker 7: by the system, for families whose loved ones have been
Speaker 7: lost in the most terrible way and deserve to have
Speaker 7: their deaths investigated properly and treated fairly by authorities. Shouldn't
Speaker 7: we all be wanting to help these people, Limb, Everyone
Speaker 7: can win out of this situation, except the baddies. Isn't
Speaker 7: that something we can all be proud of? I just
Speaker 7: don't understand why this is an US and them situation?
Speaker 7: Why can't we work together? Why are people with power
Speaker 7: blinded by arrogance and what I can only imagine are
Speaker 7: selfish motives?
Speaker 1: That's an interesting question al. Yeah, I'll take that as
Speaker 1: rhetorical because I don't understand either. I don't understand either.
Speaker 3: I think we know in.
Speaker 1: These sort of said suations, if we get a result,
Speaker 1: that's the whole point, isn't it. Yeah, it does matter
Speaker 1: who claims credit. But I think a lot of times
Speaker 1: I think it's all about claiming credit. I think that's
Speaker 1: the way people perceive it to be, which is a shame.
Speaker 7: Sorry, sad Well, I'm happy to give them complete credit,
Speaker 7: should they take it seriously. I mean, because as we've
Speaker 7: seen right through this, there are some really good officers
Speaker 7: who you know, you can shine a spotlight on and
Speaker 7: say well done. Unfortunately the organization hasn't done that. But
Speaker 7: before we move on, let me update you with some correspondents.
Speaker 7: The family also received from the former Attorney General Shannon Fentaman,
Speaker 7: who's now in opposition, as well as offering support from
Speaker 7: her office to help frame the letter to the state
Speaker 7: coroner seeking inquest. Miss Fenterman said she'd also write one
Speaker 7: herself supporting this. My last response on Courtney Anderson's case
Speaker 7: was from Queensland Police Service, which stated.
Speaker 13: Police have finalized their investigation into the death of a
Speaker 13: twenty eight year old woman. No criminal charges have been laid.
Speaker 13: The matter was referred to the coroner and as such
Speaker 13: it would be inappropriate for Queensland Police Service to comment further.
Speaker 7: I replied that I was actually asking about the apparent
Speaker 7: internal investigation into the handling of the case, and then
Speaker 7: was told there was quote no current internal complaints or
Speaker 7: investigations in relation to this matter and the matter had
Speaker 7: been reviewed, but the investigation would not be reopened at
Speaker 7: this time.
Speaker 1: Well it's pretty stock standard, isn't it. Yeah, but that
Speaker 1: I mean that could that could change on the you know,
Speaker 1: in the blink of an eye.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I think that this will definitely get an in
Speaker 7: question Liam. I have no doubt in my mind that
Speaker 7: it meets the criteria.
Speaker 3: Criteria absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the criteria is unexplainable, very strange, weird, mysterious
Speaker 1: and should be explained. Further questions to be answered that
Speaker 1: that category are Yeah. Anyway, now moving on, Given the
Speaker 1: scope of Amy's story, I think it's good to get
Speaker 1: perspective from someone who has not only been a police
Speaker 1: officer but also a private investigator and a journalist talking
Speaker 1: about Duncan McNabb and Duncan's career has spanned something like
Speaker 1: fifty years. He's also a renowned author and has covered
Speaker 1: current affairs and news investigations for the ABC for nine
Speaker 1: and for the Seven network. Duncan is author of many
Speaker 1: of our listeners will relate to at least one of these.
Speaker 1: Duncan has authored The Usual Suspect, The Life of Abe Saffron,
Speaker 1: That was a Ripper Getting Away with Murder, and most
Speaker 1: recently Roger Rogerson from hero cop to convicted Murderer.
Speaker 7: Yeah, this was great talking to Duncan. Well, thank you
Speaker 7: so much, Duncan. So first of all, I'd like to
Speaker 7: ask a little bit about your background.
Speaker 4: I started off in law school and the courts actually,
Speaker 4: and after failing law skill comprehensively, I thinkrobably been kicked
Speaker 4: out more law skills than anyone else in Australia history.
Speaker 4: Probably a good idea really. I joined the New South
Speaker 4: Wales Cops, spent nine years there, stepped across to do
Speaker 4: criminal defense afterwards because it's very hand little a lot
Speaker 4: of major criminal defense work, and that sort of gave
Speaker 4: me a taste of how involved the media are in
Speaker 4: prosecutions and in defense for that matter. So that's how
Speaker 4: I sort of ended up in the media thirty eight
Speaker 4: years ago.
Speaker 7: Not many of us in the media have been police officers.
Speaker 7: So can you tell me why you didn't stay a
Speaker 7: police officer.
Speaker 4: Well, I didn't stay at police officer because I was
Speaker 4: in New South Wales at the time of staggering corruption,
Speaker 4: and I was working at internal affairs at the very
Speaker 4: end of it, and I was seeing things happening, and
Speaker 4: I was seeing how it was being swept under the carpet,
Speaker 4: and in particular the matter of Roger Rogerson, who I've
Speaker 4: written about on a couple of occasions. And in nineteen
Speaker 4: eighty four I remember standing in my boss's office when
Speaker 4: a dying deposition from Mick Drury, who'd been shot by
Speaker 4: Christopher Flannery, the well known hitman who went missing forty
Speaker 4: years ago last week and we haven't found career. Flannery
Speaker 4: had tried to bump off Mick Drury, who had survived.
Speaker 4: The dying declaration deposition I'm sorry from Mick Drury in
Speaker 4: part said that Roger Rogerson was at the heart of
Speaker 4: it all, and my boss nodded his head safely and
Speaker 4: said it couldn't be Roger. He's too good a blog,
Speaker 4: and what followed was a shamer of an investigation, and
Speaker 4: I thought, well, that's how you guys really treat the
Speaker 4: attemptment of a fellow police officer. I'm not hanging around.
Speaker 4: See you later. I had parted, and it spent a
Speaker 4: couple of years defending some people who were wrongly accused
Speaker 4: of terrible, terrible crimes on briefs of evidence, in one
Speaker 4: in particular, which is just a complete and utter sham,
Speaker 4: and it looked good on paper until we sort of
Speaker 4: delved into it slightly and we realized that none of it,
Speaker 4: none of it hooked together. The chronology failed the case,
Speaker 4: and our clients were exonerated fortunately and didn't go to
Speaker 4: jail for a long time for a horrible crime. Mate,
Speaker 4: it's likely the crime had never even happened, let alone
Speaker 4: been committed by any and in crime, first of all,
Speaker 4: prove you've got a crime.
Speaker 7: So Juhnt can explain to me why do they get
Speaker 7: it so wrong so often in relation to saying that
Speaker 7: somebody is guilty when they're not, all saying that they're
Speaker 7: innocent when they're not.
Speaker 4: Well on paper, the cops aren't as supposed to decide
Speaker 4: good enough. We reckon he's guilty. All they need is
Speaker 4: reasonable cause to suspect and then it goes up to
Speaker 4: judging jury basically at some stage. But the costs have
Speaker 4: got a huge onus on them to make sure that
Speaker 4: the case is absolutely sound. And the fundamental problem, well,
Speaker 4: there're a couple of problems in policing. It's very very easy.
Speaker 4: Back in the old days, it was very easy to
Speaker 4: decide on someone you didn't like and make sure that
Speaker 4: evidence fitted them. That's bad our corrupt does. But the
Speaker 4: greatest problem with any investigation, and that whether it's done
Speaker 4: by cops, whether it's done by journalists for that matter,
Speaker 4: is deciding what the result might look like and working
Speaker 4: towards it. It's sort of confirmational bias. It can happen deliberately,
Speaker 4: as I've seen quite a number of occasions, or it
Speaker 4: can happen by accident and you decide, well, this person
Speaker 4: looks good to me. Let's work towards that. And the
Speaker 4: moment you have confirmation or bias in your investigation, your
Speaker 4: investigation is perilous. It means that you're going to stuff
Speaker 4: it up. It also means that someone innocent might get
Speaker 4: convicted or railroaded. Towards a conviction. And it also means
Speaker 4: that the victims of the crime aren't properly served by
Speaker 4: the investigators. So investigation is a jigsaw puzzle, usually analogy.
Speaker 4: You throw all the pieces of the jigsaw on the
Speaker 4: table and work towards systematically till you get a result.
Speaker 4: And that's what coppers and journalists need to do. You
Speaker 4: can't say, oh, this person looks good, let's work towards that.
Speaker 4: In New South Wales recently the William Tyrell case, I
Speaker 4: think about one point five million dollars compensation paid to
Speaker 4: a blood who was falsely the focus of an investigation,
Speaker 4: and that investigation decided on him by the look of
Speaker 4: it and work towards it. He picked up one point
Speaker 4: five million dollars. His life was devastated. The fundamentals and
Speaker 4: that is he actually could prove as I recall that
Speaker 4: he was somewhere else at the time he was accused
Speaker 4: of chasing William Tyrell. He was in a cafe with
Speaker 4: his wife for a memory. Good luck with that. So
Speaker 4: confirmational bias is perilous in investigations and it damages so
Speaker 4: many people, not only the accused, but the families and
Speaker 4: all those people involved in them as well. So bottom
Speaker 4: lineers don't assume work towards it. Let the evidence guide
Speaker 4: you to the result. And that's the classic problem. I
Speaker 4: think that another thing and in the chronology also has
Speaker 4: to work. And these are two important parts of an
Speaker 4: investigation that are sometimes overlooked willfully, sometimes accidentally, sometimes with enthusiasm.
Speaker 4: Inexperience also comes into play as well, or in some
Speaker 4: investigations I've seen, they just can't be damned.
Speaker 7: But it seems like detective school one oh one that
Speaker 7: you let the evidence guide you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, if you're trained as a detective. I don't
Speaker 4: know what training around Australia is like, but certainly when
Speaker 4: I was trained to spend three years on the job
Speaker 4: learning with people who are supposed to know what they're doing,
Speaker 4: I've had some great mentors, I have to say once
Speaker 4: it weren't that's so great over but some really fantastic people.
Speaker 4: And at the same time you then spend in our
Speaker 4: days three months in the classroom learning it, making sure
Speaker 4: that it is driven hard into your head so you
Speaker 4: don't stup. What happens after that, that's where things can
Speaker 4: get interesting, but it shouldn't happen. But it does, and
Speaker 4: all sorts of things come into play. But you know,
Speaker 4: from laziness through to criminality, there's a whole range of
Speaker 4: reasons why these investigations stuff up. And sometimes it's Friday
Speaker 4: after and in Jesus Christ, I can't be bothered. We
Speaker 4: don't want to go with the weekend. Let's piss this
Speaker 4: off and move on to the weekend. It can be
Speaker 4: something as simple as that.
Speaker 7: Which seems like the case with Amy Wensley right going
Speaker 7: on holiday.
Speaker 4: Yeah, with Amy Wensley, it's an unusual case from what
Speaker 4: I can see the chronology. The uniform people have turned
Speaker 4: up and that one look at them that I mean
Speaker 4: a confronting crime scene as well. I mean if the
Speaker 4: injuries from a shotgun devastating, so the crime scene would
Speaker 4: have been quite confronting for the cops, and the uniform
Speaker 4: blacks are quite reasonably worried about it. I've just read
Speaker 4: the coroners the inquest summary, and the uniform cops have
Speaker 4: done exactly what they should have done, and they've called
Speaker 4: the detectives because you've walked in and the first thing
Speaker 4: you do at a crime scene is make sure you
Speaker 4: have an open mind and don't tread on too much,
Speaker 4: and the uniform cop has struck me as having done
Speaker 4: a really good job. They've had a look and thought one,
Speaker 4: it's an extraordinary violent crime scene. And secondly we have questions.
Speaker 4: For my mind, they've done exactly what they should have
Speaker 4: done and got on them for doing it. They've called
Speaker 4: the detectives who haven't from what I've seen from the
Speaker 4: coroner's summary, done a spectacular job in the first place.
Speaker 4: I don't know. I don't know what day of the
Speaker 4: week this was. Was it before a long weekend or
Speaker 4: they just couldn't be bothered. I don't know what it is.
Speaker 4: But when you go to a crime scene, and I
Speaker 4: mean as an investigation I've done it, as a journalist,
Speaker 4: I've done it, and as a defense person, you go
Speaker 4: through it with a fine tooth. Came to see where
Speaker 4: the police went right and where they went wrong. Especially
Speaker 4: in cold cases, when we review them, the first thing
Speaker 4: you do is not assume the police got it right
Speaker 4: or they got it wrong. We go back and walk
Speaker 4: out way through it ourselves. Not only we've got fresh eyes,
Speaker 4: but we also have newer science that we can also.
Speaker 4: Does that come to bear, you know something we didn't
Speaker 4: have twenty years ago. Can that be useful looking at
Speaker 4: the summaries from the corner, the uniform bolgs have done
Speaker 4: the right thing. The detectives have arrived, and they haven't.
Speaker 4: They've made a mistakes. They've made a classic mistake. They
Speaker 4: haven't assumed that foul play and worked backwards to eliminate
Speaker 4: whether there was foul play or whether it was suicide.
Speaker 4: They seem to have readily just assumed it was suicide.
Speaker 4: And this is something I noted in the current summary
Speaker 4: without my glasses on something that struck me as being unusual.
Speaker 4: The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish
Speaker 4: the involvement of another person, so he's death. When I
Speaker 4: read that, my first thought was, shouldn't it be the reverse?
Speaker 4: Is there insufficient evidence to it out whether it was
Speaker 4: it in fact suicide. I mean, my assumption is you
Speaker 4: assume if oul play and work backwards, you know, keep
Speaker 4: your mind really open so you don't miss anything. But
Speaker 4: if it happens, you work it backwards and suicide becomes obvious,
Speaker 4: then fine, you've got a decision. But so when I
Speaker 4: saw it's bizarre insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of
Speaker 4: another person, that strikes me as being the reverse of
Speaker 4: what should have been said.
Speaker 7: Well, particularly when you have three mechanics well at the
Speaker 7: time two by a mechanic experts saying that the evidence
Speaker 7: is highly consistent with having her being shot by somebody else.
Speaker 7: So yeah, it was really odd. But the lead detective
Speaker 7: was going on holidays.
Speaker 4: It's used to affect police thinking when I was young,
Speaker 4: not that you'd pass a murder of but you're thinking, God,
Speaker 4: I want to pay day, let's get to the pub,
Speaker 4: going on holidays? Do I want? There's lingering on. I
Speaker 4: find their attitude very unusual. Don't put it that way. Yes,
Speaker 4: I would have thought. You walk into that scene as
Speaker 4: a detective and the first thing you do is start
Speaker 4: thinking what's wrong with it, not what's right with it.
Speaker 4: And I'm fascinated too that they've made their decision yet
Speaker 4: according to some of the evidence I've looked at, someone
Speaker 4: has actually gone there and moved the shotgun. That in
Speaker 4: itself is unusual. Why would you do that? I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm getting question at the moment I looked my good
Speaker 4: questions said the dignity of covering up slightly. I can
Speaker 4: understand that. What I can't understand is why you choose
Speaker 4: to move the shotgun? What purpose does that have in you?
Speaker 4: I'm thinking, well, okay, the shotguns. And it comes back
Speaker 4: to what you were mentioning earlier, the biomechanics of it.
Speaker 4: Surely you would reconstruct the crime scene to make sure
Speaker 4: that it was that there was possibly if suicide was
Speaker 4: either included or eliminated. Could she have actually done what
Speaker 4: she has alleged done in and as she did it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's where the lynch penable is to move on very
Speaker 4: very quickly without possibly giving that due consideration and asking
Speaker 4: questions about why someone would choose just purely to move
Speaker 4: the shotgun. That's all too simple acts by one person.
Speaker 4: For me, this has got alarm bells ringing all over it.
Speaker 4: And then you consider a couple of questions later, you
Speaker 4: consider the antecedents of both people involved in it, and
Speaker 4: you start thinking you'd be getting the hair standing up
Speaker 4: on the back of your neck. I would have thought, no,
Speaker 4: that's not normal. No, unfortunately happens far too often, but
Speaker 4: it isn't normal.
Speaker 7: So yeah, it's the world they live in. It was
Speaker 7: the socioeconomic factors as well. Some people say or have
Speaker 7: somemise that maybe he was an informant. Maybe that was
Speaker 7: why they went lightly on him. So, but I think,
Speaker 7: as you probably find with all these cases, Duncan, it
Speaker 7: usually comes down to laziness more than conspiracy.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Look and classic in every investigation, never ever, always
Speaker 4: put up and put it politely in two versions, fuck
Speaker 4: up before conspiracy, and I always lean on the film
Speaker 4: rather than the latter. Conspiracies are wonderful and it's great
Speaker 4: stuff to have a talk about over glass of wine
Speaker 4: at night. But the reality, as we go back to
Speaker 4: what I said at the very beginning, it's chronology, and
Speaker 4: it's keeping that open mind and or have your mind
Speaker 4: opened certainly to other things. Sure, but she wiz, the
Speaker 4: simplest route is usually the accurate one. Just do your job,
Speaker 4: step by step.
Speaker 7: I think the problem with this one, Duncan, is what
Speaker 7: happened is they then launched an operation the next day,
Speaker 7: and so the detectives came back, not the same detectives,
Speaker 7: another operation JUNDI, the homicide squad. They came back major crime.
Speaker 7: It was then because they went back, so they came back,
Speaker 7: they did their own investigation, but for whatever reason, they
Speaker 7: ended up coming to the conclusion of suicide as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there may be a couple of things in play
Speaker 4: here too, because I noticed the crime senate also being
Speaker 4: cleaned to that happened before the homicide squad. Well, this
Speaker 4: is where you have a fundamental problem with the entire case.
Speaker 4: The crime scene was cleaned up very very quickly. So
Speaker 4: when the so called experts or perhaps experts from Perth
Speaker 4: and Serpentines on the edge of Perth as well, it's
Speaker 4: not a huge schlep away. When I first looked at
Speaker 4: that Serpentine roadhouse, well will that be? It's about fifty
Speaker 4: on k's out of Perth. It's not a massive schlep. Well,
Speaker 4: you might actually want to live out there and commute
Speaker 4: in to town. So we're not talking remote Western Australia
Speaker 4: at all. If the detectives had chosen to cal the homicides,
Speaker 4: god well, surely the homicide squad first up would have
Speaker 4: said preserve the scene what you do so we can
Speaker 4: have a look at it. But that didn't happen for
Speaker 4: some reason, I don't know why. Instead that not only
Speaker 4: was the scene not preserved, even though the uniform blacks
Speaker 4: were saying we don't like this, the scene wasn't preserved,
Speaker 4: and in fact that someone very kindly gave the owner
Speaker 4: of the property the telephone number of someone who forensic
Speaker 4: cleaners to come out and give the place a runover.
Speaker 4: I don't know, maybe it's more current, but certainly when
Speaker 4: I was a young copper, which is quite some time ago,
Speaker 4: we didn't immediately have forensic cleaning services at our beck
Speaker 4: and calls oh yeah, I've got a number in my
Speaker 4: pocket here. No, I'd be curious to see how quickly
Speaker 4: the forensic cleaners are in fact called to the scene.
Speaker 4: So when the homicide squad the experts have arrived the
Speaker 4: next morning, they see a pristine, non crime scene, So
Speaker 4: they have to make their decision on suicide based on
Speaker 4: what they're told by their colleagues, who've already written it
Speaker 4: off as suicide. So you can see already the problem starting.
Speaker 4: They might have gone there with fresh eyes, but they've
Speaker 4: got nothing to see. So how can they reasonably say
Speaker 4: we've independently reviewed the investigation because the crime scene's gone.
Speaker 4: How can we actually say that they've done it. They've
Speaker 4: relied on what their mates have told them, or their
Speaker 4: colleagues have told them, and they've drawn that conclusion from
Speaker 4: what their colleagues have told them. So unless they've had
Speaker 4: eyes on the crime scene, have walked around and done
Speaker 4: their bits and pieces, use their expertise, they're relying on
Speaker 4: what they were told and they ain't gonna work.
Speaker 7: Yes at all, that makes perfect sense.
Speaker 4: It's fund a metal floor in the review.
Speaker 7: Yes, but it was a reportable event, so as you know,
Speaker 7: and that's where the coroner gets involved, and that's why
Speaker 7: it was reopened a third time. And you of course
Speaker 7: know Evil and Bigger.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I've known evil And for years and her partner
Speaker 4: is probably my oldest friend, and he and I worked
Speaker 4: together in the New South Well's Cops. These people have
Speaker 4: extraordinary careers. I mean, Evil and had a great career
Speaker 4: as a prosecutor. She was a fabulous coroner. Her views
Speaker 4: on this are spot on the money. She's done what
Speaker 4: a good detective would do. She looked at it and thought,
Speaker 4: this doesn't smell right, and I noticed it's now become
Speaker 4: an open finding. I'm still troubled by the other coroner,
Speaker 4: who Coronel Linton. I think it was in the summary
Speaker 4: just saying insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of another person.
Speaker 4: Call me pessimistic, I'd be wreaking the reverse way let's
Speaker 4: have a look at it. Yeah, so evil the money.
Speaker 4: She looked at it, and the first thing I would
Speaker 4: imagine her noses wrinkled in the hairs that stood up
Speaker 4: on the back of her head. This doesn't work. And
Speaker 4: then you go down to the biomechanics of it all.
Speaker 4: I mean, can it have happened in the way the
Speaker 4: police believed that led them to suicide? Well what did
Speaker 4: they do? Did they just walk in, have a look around,
Speaker 4: put their hands in their pockets, say this looked like
Speaker 4: a suicide. Walk up the door, the old detective trick,
Speaker 4: your hands in pockets so you don't touch anything. You
Speaker 4: walk around, have a look around. Yeah right, fine, it
Speaker 4: looks like a suicide to me. Job done. I don't
Speaker 4: know whether it was that casual. But I'd also be
Speaker 4: concerned if I've got a couple of uniform coppers saying
Speaker 4: this doesn't work, there's something wrong here.
Speaker 7: Well, that's rare, right, that's really rare.
Speaker 4: It's really rare. And good on them for taking that stand.
Speaker 4: But that's the hierarchy of policing. You know, it's not
Speaker 4: a uniform matter. It's a detective matter. The detectives are spoken.
Speaker 4: Thus it is, and it's curious that our reviewers ensued
Speaker 4: twenty four hours later. But by that stage there's nothing
Speaker 4: to review.
Speaker 7: Yes, but luckily, luckily, the uniform officers did do quite
Speaker 7: a bit before the detectives got there. So they took photos.
Speaker 7: So they've had those photos. They've seen the position of
Speaker 7: the body, they've seen the position of the gun, so
Speaker 7: it wasn't lost.
Speaker 4: That's incredibly important. It would have been even better if
Speaker 4: they'd had a forensic scientist turn up and examine the
Speaker 4: crime scene rigorously. I know, I don't know whether that
Speaker 4: actually ever happened.
Speaker 7: No, that was a problem because I said, you know,
Speaker 7: by then it was getting late. The detectives had turned up,
Speaker 7: and then they took over and said, no, no, let's
Speaker 7: clean up the crime scene.
Speaker 4: Well call me old fashioned, but I would have thought
Speaker 4: you turn up, But this did. Uniform cops called the detectives.
Speaker 4: The detectives had turned up, and I would imagine forensics
Speaker 4: should have been summoned at the same time. Let's capture
Speaker 4: the video of the scene. We've got contemporary technology. Let's
Speaker 4: get still photographs, position of the body, position of the gun, which,
Speaker 4: of course by that stage was tricky because it had
Speaker 4: been moved. Blood spatter pattern analysis critical in crime scenes
Speaker 4: like this, so you can make sure that it actually
Speaker 4: happened on the way it did with there are other
Speaker 4: fingerprints at the scene, what's on the gun? Did anyone
Speaker 4: look at the gun for other fingerprints and or DNA?
Speaker 4: Did they examine any of the people adjacent to it
Speaker 4: to see if they had some gunshot residue? All those
Speaker 4: sorts of things don't appear to have happened.
Speaker 7: So evil and started asking questions. And then there was
Speaker 7: an officer who was appointed as head of the coronial investigation,
Speaker 7: and that was Senior Constable and Lahane. So she was
Speaker 7: told by the homicide Squad Major crime squad at the time.
Speaker 7: She was told to treat it as non suspicious.
Speaker 4: Is that usual? I would have thought that the person
Speaker 4: in the courner's office would be the very end of
Speaker 4: the game. The homicide squad should have been handling it.
Speaker 4: I'm not too sure how Perth works. West Australia works
Speaker 4: in ways that have often found mysterious. I would imagine
Speaker 4: the person at the coroner's office was just basically handling
Speaker 4: the paperwork. The conduct of the bread detectives said nothing
Speaker 4: to see her homicide squad have said nothing to see here,
Speaker 4: So then it goes to the coroner's office, and this
Speaker 4: is just basically the mechanics of getting the coronial in
Speaker 4: quest in progress, not actually investigating. The investigation was done,
Speaker 4: so I take a pumpet. By the time the senior
Speaker 4: constable assisting the coroner's got involved, well game over. They're
Speaker 4: just presenting the paperwork has provided to them by their
Speaker 4: fellow officers, so not a lot of skin in the
Speaker 4: game as an investigator.
Speaker 7: By that stage. She then got reprimanded. She told me
Speaker 7: how she got called into a senior homicide detective who
Speaker 7: yelled at her for questioning his detectives to the point
Speaker 7: that she could feel spit on her face. So that
Speaker 7: probably you So she wasn't seen as a team player,
Speaker 7: so she was punished for that.
Speaker 4: No, well, she's the endgame. Presumably she's the person then
Speaker 4: takes it to the coroner works for the coroner, and
Speaker 4: she's looked at it and thought this doesn't smell right either,
Speaker 4: and she's taken a fairly ballsy iView have gone back
Speaker 4: to probably some senior detectives who don't like that interference.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're the experts. Why are you questioning it.
Speaker 4: But like any good review of a brief, and that'd
Speaker 4: be the same if you take a conal brief to
Speaker 4: the Director of Public Prosecutions, they will review the brief
Speaker 4: and think there's bits missing here, this is problematic. Fix this,
Speaker 4: there's a gap here. I don't understand this. Can you
Speaker 4: explain why? And I think that sounds like what her
Speaker 4: wrong was. She's putting the paperwork together, she's reviewing it
Speaker 4: before it goes to Corona. She's finding what she perceives
Speaker 4: the problems with the investigation, and she's gone back to
Speaker 4: them say what's the score. So rather than actually think, yeah,
Speaker 4: you're right, there are problems here that you're reviewing it,
Speaker 4: you've got problems with it. Very common in policing is
Speaker 4: not to say, well, yeah, I see what you mean.
Speaker 4: Very common in policing is to say congratulations, do what
Speaker 4: you're told. And that seems to be what has happened here.
Speaker 4: So look, it happens in policing around the country and
Speaker 4: we see cases like this where things have been gloriously
Speaker 4: stuffed up. We don't want to accept we've made a mistake.
Speaker 4: Rather than except we've made a mistake, we'll just push
Speaker 4: on hard copplers around the country, and I think internationally
Speaker 4: to that matter, seldom say ooks, we've got it wrong.
Speaker 4: They have to be forced into that position and that's
Speaker 4: always unwilling.
Speaker 7: So Duncan, you wouldn't be surprised that she also told
Speaker 7: me that it killed her career. She's no longer with
Speaker 7: way Pong.
Speaker 4: Oh, it wouldn't surprise me at all. In fact, I
Speaker 4: could see it happening very very quickly. My dealings with
Speaker 4: the Western Australian Police have been a couple of them.
Speaker 4: Some great people I've dealt with over the years when
Speaker 4: we did the Bernie story for Channel seven, but other
Speaker 4: horror stories as well, and you get them throughout around
Speaker 4: the countryside, and I've been doing this for fifty odd years.
Speaker 4: Some great stories about fabulous policing, but some terrible stuff,
Speaker 4: and the whistleblower or the dissenter is often just crushed
Speaker 4: because we don't want to bite the bullet and say
Speaker 4: we stuffed up, Whereas my view is if you're stuffed up,
Speaker 4: you take it on the chin and fix it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I know, like it's really been drag kicking a straight.
Speaker 4: I always go back to West Australia's police's greatest greatest achievements.
Speaker 4: It was the Clermont disaster for years, yes, but the
Speaker 4: one that always sticks in my mind from Western Australia
Speaker 4: is the Scott Ostick case. We did it seven all
Speaker 4: those years ago.
Speaker 2: The actions of WA police have been placed under an
Speaker 2: uncomfortable spotlight as an appeal against a decade old murder
Speaker 2: conviction got underway today. Today, Ostik's defense told the court
Speaker 2: there are problems with key pieces of evidence, in particular
Speaker 2: a packet of Winfield Blue cigarettes allegedly stained with miss
Speaker 2: Thorn's blood, which was nowhere to be seen in the
Speaker 2: initial forensic photographs of Ostick's house, but then appeared in
Speaker 2: more police photographs taken days later. Then there's the alleged
Speaker 2: murder weapon, a pocket knife missed by Sees volunteers when
Speaker 2: they searched a paddock near the murder scene, but discovered
Speaker 2: days later by detectives.
Speaker 4: Here's a bloke who was a rail roaded into a prosecution.
Speaker 4: In my view, Stacy Thornt murdered, stabbed to death in
Speaker 4: her home. They arrest Scott Ostick, her occasional sort of
Speaker 4: boyfriend for what it might have a better term. Scott
Speaker 4: is convicted. I don't think his defense was particularly good.
Speaker 4: Scott has convicted. He's insight for twelve years before some
Speaker 4: people like Malcolm McCusker and other crew from Western Australia
Speaker 4: start looking into it. Came to us with the story
Speaker 4: where looking the first thing I do, I wouldn't think
Speaker 4: this just doesn't work and you go back to the
Speaker 4: crime scene again. It comes back to the mechanics of
Speaker 4: the crime scene. Stacy I think was there were murdered.
Speaker 4: There was blood everywhere as you could expect. There are
Speaker 4: two sets of footprints in the blood, one is hers
Speaker 4: and the other presumably as a perpetrator. There's a small
Speaker 4: feed and Scott isiac's got a bloody big feet, So
Speaker 4: that doesn't work. In reviewing the case independently years yell
Speaker 4: out later, not only is there things like that, there's
Speaker 4: suggestions that the metadata might have been problematic in some
Speaker 4: of the visions they've got, and simple things like footprints
Speaker 4: and the part that always also dragged my attention is
Speaker 4: an independent and incredibly capable pathologist. I think Richard Sheppard
Speaker 4: from Memory the UK blog, who did the Princess Die autopsy,
Speaker 4: looks at the murder weapon, looks at the results and
Speaker 4: says this isn't the murder weapon. It's not long enough yet.
Speaker 4: This poor bloke's done twelve years in jail. The Western
Speaker 4: Australian Government begrudgingly eventually it goes to appeal. They order
Speaker 4: a retrial. The government does a retrial. The retrial takes
Speaker 4: a couple of weeks. The jury are out for time
Speaker 4: to pour a cup of coffee and have a Scotch
Speaker 4: finger biscuit before they ac quit. Scott Austik he's lost
Speaker 4: twelve years of his life. His father's died whilst he's
Speaker 4: in jail, his daughter's grown up while he's been in jail,
Speaker 4: and he's now out. But gee is the battle to
Speaker 4: get it done all because the crime scene was originally
Speaker 4: not terribly well looked at, and no one ever wanted
Speaker 4: to say books, we've made a mistake.
Speaker 7: Sounds so familiar. Well Waypole has launched a new investigation
Speaker 7: off the back of our podcast in the Spotlight episode,
Speaker 7: and they're reinvestigating Amy's case of the fourth time this time,
Speaker 7: and they're updating the brief for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 7: But the family is concerned that given they keep pushing
Speaker 7: the suicide angle, you know, sort of favored result. And
Speaker 7: I don't think it's drawing a long vote to say
Speaker 7: that there is bias within the ranks. They're really good
Speaker 7: police officers, but also some officers who don't want to
Speaker 7: admit they're wrong. So they're going through the process now.
Speaker 7: The biggest fear from the family and they've called them
Speaker 7: the Triple Cee to oversee it as well. John mc
Speaker 7: keeckney used to be a DPP himself, and obviously Rob Owen,
Speaker 7: who's the DPP now. I mean, all ways are on
Speaker 7: them and I don't know if the Scott Austic case
Speaker 7: at the time did it have a spotlight shone on
Speaker 7: it when that was.
Speaker 4: Nothing to see here. It was only until he'd been
Speaker 4: in jar for about twelve years and basically saying I
Speaker 4: didn't do it, that he was fortunately scooped up by
Speaker 4: a good barrister, a good solicitor, and then the former governor,
Speaker 4: a distinguished lawyer himself, gets behind the exactly as you're
Speaker 4: seeing in this case, it smells what can we do
Speaker 4: about it quickly? There's a parallel in what you're seeing
Speaker 4: at the we had in Sydney, the case of Scott
Speaker 4: Johnson whose death in nineteen eighteen nine he set off
Speaker 4: the top of his head, was passed up quickly as
Speaker 4: a suicide. There was a rudimentary investigation. Day one Scott
Speaker 4: was sound naked at the bottom North headed Citny. Yes,
Speaker 4: this one, yes, and it's very similar to what you're
Speaker 4: looking at now. The police said our suicide bank.
Speaker 14: In nineteen eighty eight to the American's naked body was
Speaker 14: found at the bottom of cliffs in Manly, originally ruled
Speaker 14: a suicide. That theory changed following three inquests.
Speaker 4: There was review a couple of weeks later which put
Speaker 4: a map by detectives who weren't at the scene. Massive
Speaker 4: rubber stamp put on saying suicide. Feel later nothing to
Speaker 4: see here. Years later, when his brother went from being
Speaker 4: a pauper basically his bum hanging out of his trousers
Speaker 4: to suddenly a multimillionaire because he invented very cleverly the
Speaker 4: algorithm to sent a picture down the Internet. All of
Speaker 4: a sudden, Big brothers wealthy. He sees the cases in
Speaker 4: Sydney about gay, Hey crime, you thinks is my brother
Speaker 4: one of those? He funds an investigation. Now for almost
Speaker 4: thirty years, the New South Wales Police Force stood steadfastly
Speaker 4: behind their original decision that it was suicide, and it
Speaker 4: wasn't until twenty sixteen that a coroner said, I don't
Speaker 4: think it is.
Speaker 7: That's Michael Barnes, right, Michael Barnes, yes, yes, he spoke
Speaker 7: about this.
Speaker 10: Scott Johnson died as a result of a gay hate attack.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Barnes dropped this fairly large bombshell at the coroner's court.
Speaker 4: And I was there that morning, thinking, at last someone
Speaker 4: has done what had to be done. And I was
Speaker 4: adjacent outside to a member of the unsolved homicide mob
Speaker 4: and a couple of blokes and Steve Johnson, who's Scott's brother,
Speaker 4: was there. Steve Paige, a great detective who led the
Speaker 4: investigations that originally uncovered the hate crimes. Fabulous detective. They think,
Speaker 4: you know, let's chat a chapter the senior homicide squad
Speaker 4: detective and just see if we can make amends and
Speaker 4: get on with the business of investigating the crime. This
Speaker 4: senior detective turned around basically and said, up yours, I
Speaker 4: think the coroner's wrong and walked away. So they clung
Speaker 4: to that original decision for years and years and years,
Speaker 4: and curiously enough, some fresh set of cop has finally
Speaker 4: put on the case, have arrested somebody and is in jail.
Speaker 14: Thirty three years after Scott Johnson was murdered, Scott White
Speaker 14: finally admitted what he'd done. Guilty. I am guilty, guilty.
Speaker 14: His outburst mid court hearing came as a shock to
Speaker 14: his own lawyer, police and his victim's brother who'd flown
Speaker 14: here to face him.
Speaker 4: So we've gone from suicide to a murder conviction for
Speaker 4: manslor I think it was. It's taken thirty odd years
Speaker 4: to get there, and it's been a battle every step
Speaker 4: of the way. But it's been done and it may
Speaker 4: give some hope to the victims here are the victim's
Speaker 4: family that it can be done. It just requires the
Speaker 4: cops to change their thinking absolutely.
Speaker 7: And this is make or break time. I mean, I
Speaker 7: know duncan that if if they don't do something now,
Speaker 7: it will eventually be done. Because it has to be
Speaker 7: like that. There will have to be a goodie down
Speaker 7: the track now. Michael Barnes, you know, I'm glad you
Speaker 7: mentioned that because he spoke about that case too, and
Speaker 7: you know he had a suicideologist also gave their advice
Speaker 7: and I think at the time the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Speaker 7: because the police weren't pushing for charges to be laid,
Speaker 7: didn't they charges? And that's the problem. And so if
Speaker 7: the police in Aimy's case provide an updated brief of
Speaker 7: evidence and then the cover sheet says we don't think
Speaker 7: charges should be laid, then we're kind of in And
Speaker 7: of course their decisions aren't reviewable.
Speaker 4: I think in Scott's case it was a little bit
Speaker 4: it was simplified. The Commissioner actually at the time realized
Speaker 4: that it was probably proven to have another look at it,
Speaker 4: and he appointed a group of detectives who are fabulous people.
Speaker 4: I've had the joy of meeting them, and they just
Speaker 4: took to the case and thought, yeah, this does think,
Speaker 4: let's go and do something. So when they by the
Speaker 4: time they got to the DPP in Scott's case, they
Speaker 4: were convinced that they had the right blow and they
Speaker 4: should prosecute him. But it took an enormous amount of
Speaker 4: navigation to get to that point and the involvement of
Speaker 4: the then commission Nick Fuller, saying yeah, we've got to
Speaker 4: fix this, and you need that high level to come
Speaker 4: in and kick this. Maybe that's what Amy deserves this,
Speaker 4: it's got to be done right. Yes, there is a
Speaker 4: problem with the crime scene. We had the same problem
Speaker 4: with Scott Johnson. The only story we have about Scott
Speaker 4: Johnson is that of the blog who finally confessed. Whether
Speaker 4: you're not believed that, but he's in jail, which is
Speaker 4: a result which we didn't think we'd get.
Speaker 7: Did you need the champion, don't you? And Nick Fuller
Speaker 7: did come to the party with obviously the chrystalson case.
Speaker 4: Ga Fuller made some various stute decisions and they're a
Speaker 4: stute decision that impact very heavily on the victims of crime.
Speaker 4: And maybe they're there's little beacons that make other detectives
Speaker 4: or other senior coppers start thinking, well, instead of saying no, no, no,
Speaker 4: forget the past, to deal with the past and get
Speaker 4: these crimes fixed. And that's where Amy's case is so significant.
Speaker 4: Maybe at that higher level, someone in the West Australian
Speaker 4: policing and or government will say, well, we need to
Speaker 4: fix this. It doesn't work, it's not right. Let's go
Speaker 4: back and get it right.
Speaker 7: Well, I hope so, I mean Robo and sc I'm
Speaker 7: really hopeful that he'll be the one, because I don't
Speaker 7: have a lot of faith in cole Blanche at this
Speaker 7: stage given the track record and he's handling on the
Speaker 7: bombar right.
Speaker 4: From a pr side of thing, I would pr is
Speaker 4: what it is. The political side is, here's the chance
Speaker 4: for you to get in front of something. Here's the
Speaker 4: chance for you to be seen as someone doing the
Speaker 4: right thing. Yes, a couple of rank and file might
Speaker 4: squawk loudly about it, but you're a leader leader.
Speaker 7: Well much like you don't can see it all Liam.
Speaker 7: But as it talked about New South Wales Police Commissioner
Speaker 7: Mick Fuller, I was feeling a bit sad that to
Speaker 7: this point there's been no evidence in relation to Amy's
Speaker 7: case that cole Blanche or another senior ranking member of
Speaker 7: Waypole has had that level of commitment into the case.
Speaker 7: So far, there haven't been any favorable murmurings about the
Speaker 7: case being taken seriously. That said, we won't know for
Speaker 7: sure until we hear back after the DPP has been
Speaker 7: provided a copy of the new brief of evidence and
Speaker 7: made its decision.
Speaker 1: It is interesting, isn't it that we haven't really heard
Speaker 1: from any senior ranking police publicly about making comments they
Speaker 1: just no one in a position of power wants to
Speaker 1: dip their toe into the water, do they. And I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I'm not sure whether that's just about the
Speaker 1: investigative schedule, if I can put it that way, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure about that. I get the distinct impression they're
Speaker 1: just they're holding back because they don't want to commit
Speaker 1: to anything, anything at all, which is interesting. I think
Speaker 1: it's quite strange because only only a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: ago we had a situation where the police Commissioner Cold
Speaker 1: Blanche came out and you know, furiously defended the force's
Speaker 1: position on domestic violence, which as we know, is very
Speaker 1: very much the case with Amy Wensley in terms of
Speaker 1: experiencing domestic violence. We've got, you know, photographic proof, and
Speaker 1: we've got you know, eyewitness proof and eyewitness recollections from
Speaker 1: her close friends. I mean, you know, we know it's
Speaker 1: all part of it, and yet for some reason that
Speaker 1: seems to be just forgotten about, you know. So here
Speaker 1: I'm going to draw a parallel and I'm just going
Speaker 1: to go ahead and say this because I think it's
Speaker 1: a very firm link to me. Anyway, the fantastic speech
Speaker 1: given by Ariol Bombara. Listeners to this podcast will remember
Speaker 1: it well, so well spoken and sew together for what
Speaker 1: she's been through and her father, Mark Bombara obviously committed
Speaker 1: that heenus double murder and is now dead himself. But
Speaker 1: you know, Cold Blanch the police commissioner came out, as
Speaker 1: I say, just recently and said, we now have a
Speaker 1: zero tolerance approach. He infers, it's not going to happen
Speaker 1: again because they've changed the culture, or they've started to
Speaker 1: help change the culture. Now, what we know, and we've
Speaker 1: only found this out recently, is that no less than
Speaker 1: eight police officers, and this is all from bodycam footage
Speaker 1: and other substantive sort of evidentrary chain from the police themselves,
Speaker 1: eight police officers failed in their duty. Not one of
Speaker 1: them was sacked, not one lost their job, not one,
Speaker 1: but they failed in their duty. Now is that sounding
Speaker 1: familiar to the two detectives who were first on the
Speaker 1: scene to the Amy Wensley case. But Cole Blanche's police
Speaker 1: commissioner comes out now and says, because there's been so
Speaker 1: much public pressure as a result of the Bombarer case,
Speaker 1: he says, look from now on, zero tolerance. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, wouldn't happen again. If any of those eight
Speaker 1: came before my desk, I'd sack them. He actually has
Speaker 1: said that in public, you know, sack I'd sack the
Speaker 1: officers if I find them not to have done their job.
Speaker 1: You can say what you want in public to try
Speaker 1: and shore up the sort of public confidence in the force.
Speaker 1: But if you're not doing the bottom line stuff from
Speaker 1: day to day, and you're not actually showing people that
Speaker 1: you are prepared to go the whole hog, then what
Speaker 1: does it all mean? And that comes back to the
Speaker 1: point you've just made about the fact that it is
Speaker 1: sad that more senior police officers haven't come out and
Speaker 1: stated publicly a position on the Amy Wensley case. You know,
Speaker 1: in various I'm not talking about, you know, making comments
Speaker 1: that are sub judas or whatever or potentially you know,
Speaker 1: a problem legally. I'm just talking about the way that
Speaker 1: Duncan McNabb was talking about Mick Fuller, the former New
Speaker 1: South Wales commissioner. Yeah, and it does strike me again.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like the difference between the Queensland Attorney
Speaker 1: General and the WA Attorney General. Same position, totally different response,
Speaker 1: totally different reaction. Totally different public stance. So I think
Speaker 1: it's very enlightening.
Speaker 7: But you can say what you want, though, Liam. That's
Speaker 7: the thing. It's like between the theory and the practice.
Speaker 7: So come out and say the media that I'm going
Speaker 7: to have a zero tolerance approach and we're going to
Speaker 7: not let this happen again, but then ignore seemingly the
Speaker 7: Amy Wensley case. I've asked him, I think a dozen
Speaker 7: times to come on this podcast to talk about Amy Wensley,
Speaker 7: and you've seen some of the replies I've got, which
Speaker 7: are kind of a bit sarcastic really, and you're just like, well,
Speaker 7: I mean, really, is what I'm asking unreasonable?
Speaker 1: Well, no, it's not unreasonable. But you don't expect to
Speaker 1: make friends of any of those people either, do We're
Speaker 1: not inviting them over to your place for Christmas lunch
Speaker 1: this year, So it doesn't matter. I mean, what you're
Speaker 1: trying to do is what you're trying to do is
Speaker 1: help a family and obtain justice one way or the other, right,
Speaker 1: And that's very noble action, ol, and you need to
Speaker 1: just concentrate on that and just forget about all the tinsel, really,
Speaker 1: you know, forget about it.
Speaker 3: But I understand what you mean. It is.
Speaker 1: It's an immature reaction. But there's three different things. You
Speaker 1: can sound tough, and you can look tough, or you
Speaker 1: can just be tough. And clearly the trifecta is not
Speaker 1: happening in the WA Police force. And surrounding all that
Speaker 1: is transparency and accountability, and I think that's all. That's
Speaker 1: all we ask for because if this happened to you,
Speaker 1: or if this happened to a member of your family
Speaker 1: or extended family or a very close friend, you would
Speaker 1: want the absolute best reaction, most professional approach. You'd want
Speaker 1: people to really go out of their way to make
Speaker 1: sure that they were doing a job properly, to put
Speaker 1: things right. That's all you ask you know, it's not
Speaker 1: a question of any other function. You just want justice
Speaker 1: to be served and you want a police force that
Speaker 1: does their job properly. And it's as simple as that.
Speaker 7: Yes, have a bit of an update. So it's not
Speaker 7: just Joshua bright And who's reached out recently, Liam, We've
Speaker 7: also had Gareth Price. He initially sent a message to
Speaker 7: Amy's best friend Aaron Gower on Facebook Messenger. He offered
Speaker 7: to catch up with her one day so she could
Speaker 7: hear what he had to say. Aaron replied, I definitely
Speaker 7: want to hear what you have to say, Gareth, thanks
Speaker 7: for reaching out.
Speaker 6: Are you willing to talk to Alison of the phone.
Speaker 7: Aaron offered to pass on his number to me, but
Speaker 7: he requested I text him on Facebook, Messenger and step
Speaker 7: which I did anyway, a bit more betuing and rowing,
Speaker 7: but later that day I made friends with Gareth and
Speaker 7: I called him. We spoke for about an hour limb
Speaker 7: about him doing a sit down interview for Spotlight, which
Speaker 7: you know, I thought would be better, so we're not
Speaker 7: kind of rushing, and he's.
Speaker 3: You know, I'd like that. Yeah, that'd be good.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think so. He was a bit confused about you, actually, Liam,
Speaker 7: because he seemed to think that you were some big
Speaker 7: week from Sydney, but you're just a big week from Perth.
Speaker 3: Local. I'm gonna hear wig anyway.
Speaker 7: Anyway, he were the take homes From my end, he
Speaker 7: reiterated what he told you about David not having pulled
Speaker 7: the trigger. Now. I pushed him on this and asked,
Speaker 7: how does he know Simmons was firing the gun all afternoon?
Speaker 7: He didn't see Amy shoot herself Simmons went into the
Speaker 7: bedroom on his own, So how did Gareth know that
Speaker 7: this thud they both heard after he came back outside
Speaker 7: was Amy being shot? You know, when they were shooting
Speaker 7: all afternoon, what's to say that she wasn't shot on
Speaker 7: any of those earlier occasions. Gareth didn't seem to really
Speaker 7: comprehend what I was saying there, because he kept telling
Speaker 7: me that Simmons wasn't the Flash or Superman, but then
Speaker 7: later admitted it only takes a milli second to fire
Speaker 7: a shot. I told him three biomechanic experts say Amy
Speaker 7: didn't shoot herself and the evidence is highly consistent with
Speaker 7: her having been shot by someone else. He said he
Speaker 7: had a certificate or documents or report or something in
Speaker 7: his room which said Amy killed herself, and that's what
Speaker 7: the police told him, so I'm assuming he's referring to
Speaker 7: the conclusion of Operation Junde. He kept repeating this and
Speaker 7: didn't understand that the coroner didn't agree with the police
Speaker 7: and ruled an open finding. So then I asked him
Speaker 7: how he didn't have any blood transfer from patting down
Speaker 7: Amy's body looking for her phone. He said the blood
Speaker 7: was just on the wall and Amy's face. But I said,
Speaker 7: that's not true, because we all know that head wounds
Speaker 7: bleed profusely. But not only that, the police report said
Speaker 7: she was in a pool of blood. The blood had
Speaker 7: seek down or all over her. Gareth said he checked
Speaker 7: Amy's pockets, including her back pocket, and flipped her to
Speaker 7: do this, so he's touching her body, the blood has
Speaker 7: come down. You know, we know that she was sitting
Speaker 7: in blood.
Speaker 1: Doesn't make sense. Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no way in the world, in the
Speaker 1: human world, that he would not get blood on his
Speaker 1: clothes or on his hands, arms, forearms, And that was
Speaker 1: an incredibly bloody scene. Yeah, by anybody's estimation, in fact,
Speaker 1: anybody who dies in that manner, there's no way that
Speaker 1: he would not get blood on him, especially if he
Speaker 1: as he describes to you, he flipped her like and
Speaker 1: he's searching through her pockets.
Speaker 3: Absolutely ridiculous. Sorry, I've got to say.
Speaker 7: That's the thing though, Lamb. See, I got the feeling
Speaker 7: that that question was a question he had never been
Speaker 7: asked before, never been asked that question. I wonder whether
Speaker 7: the new investigation has asked him that question. Surely surely
Speaker 7: really scare me. There's a lot that scares me about
Speaker 7: this so called new investigation. But anyway, it may not
Speaker 7: be as poorly handled again as what I've been told.
Speaker 7: But it's different when you ask When you were talking
Speaker 7: to him and asking about what happened the THOD, and
Speaker 7: he's consistent telling that story. That's something he said a lot.
Speaker 7: And he's talked about the type of gun that was used,
Speaker 7: a four ten Buoi too. He repeats that same thing.
Speaker 7: But when you ask him something that he hasn't been
Speaker 7: asked before, it's different. He tries to answer it. I
Speaker 7: then told him there's no way he would have been
Speaker 7: able to do that without getting blood on him anyway.
Speaker 7: He didn't really have a response for that. But then
Speaker 7: I mentioned how Josh said they burned their clothes, and
Speaker 7: he replied that was after the police handed them back,
Speaker 7: so again a question that seemingly he hadn't been asked before,
Speaker 7: so he was thinking on his feet. He didn't deny
Speaker 7: them burning the clothes, which is what I was expecting,
Speaker 7: but stated they were the ones they'd handed to police.
Speaker 7: And I said, well, that doesn't make any sense. Why
Speaker 7: would you burn those ones? He then argued the biomechanic
Speaker 7: experts were delusional. Yes, that's the word he used, and
Speaker 7: we rely too much on technology. I also mentioned how
Speaker 7: after the car accident she couldn't move her body while
Speaker 7: he explained how he pulled the gun off her lap
Speaker 7: and it was pointing towards her mouth. So Gareth doesn't
Speaker 7: seem to understand that she was shot in her temple.
Speaker 7: He seems to think that she somehow shot herself up
Speaker 7: through the mouth, so he doesn't even recognize that she'd
Speaker 7: have to be contautionous to have shot herself in that position.
Speaker 7: And that's a problem Liam. Gareth doesn't understand the facts
Speaker 7: of the case and is just totally reliant on what
Speaker 7: he's being told. So I've got two more items of
Speaker 7: note with what Gareth Sedlimb. Firstly, I talked about the
Speaker 7: physical abuse by David Simmons, which as you know, reportedly
Speaker 7: included placing Amy in a headlock that afternoon, and Gareth
Speaker 7: replied she was beating him up, not the other way round.
Speaker 7: I mentioned the headlock and him strangling her, and he
Speaker 7: replied not there, as if it happened another time, but
Speaker 7: not that afternoon. I then said she wasn't big enough
Speaker 7: to beat him up, and he asked me if I
Speaker 7: was married and if I'd ever been hit. I told him, oh,
Speaker 7: nobody had ever laid a hand on me, because that's
Speaker 7: not normal in a relationship. He was surprised by that
Speaker 7: and replied, what is normal? I get bit up all
Speaker 7: the time, he said, But I guess that's why neither
Speaker 7: he nor Josh intervened in the physical fight between Amy
Speaker 7: and David Simmons. He continued to defend Simmons, saying Amy
Speaker 7: was a love of his life. I said, telling her
Speaker 7: to erf off to a mum's and calling her the
Speaker 7: sea word, not to mention the violence were not signs
Speaker 7: of love. And lastly, the black gun with the scope
Speaker 7: that Naa saw Simmons bring back into the room. When
Speaker 7: I mentioned this to Gareth, he was familiar with that
Speaker 7: gun and didn't deny this happening. He went on to
Speaker 7: say that Simmons had all the guns out because he
Speaker 7: was cleaning them. Naya, who was seated in the back
Speaker 7: seat of the car at the time waiting for her
Speaker 7: mum to come out, said she saw David put that
Speaker 7: gun with the scope into the wardrobe, which is exactly
Speaker 7: where it was found. So it's just interesting when you're
Speaker 7: dealing with Gareth about things that he hasn't seemingly memorized.
Speaker 1: It's almost like a muscle memory thing, isn't it this stage?
Speaker 1: And you just don't know how many times he's repeated
Speaker 1: that same story.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, in that interview with you, he kept trying
Speaker 7: to get a word perfect. He'd go back and it's
Speaker 7: like he's learned a line and he wanted to make
Speaker 7: sure that he repeated it exactly.
Speaker 1: I think it'd be interesting to see him sitting in
Speaker 1: a seat. And there's a lot too with facial expressions.
Speaker 1: I think that go with the answer that you can
Speaker 1: interpret and interpolate one way or the other. Now, a
Speaker 1: reminder ol this is the final episode of season two,
Speaker 1: but shortly it will appear on YouTube as a vodcast,
Speaker 1: so stay tuned for that. Will provide updates on social
Speaker 1: media and put out a notification wherever you're listening to
Speaker 1: this podcast. Meanwhile, we also have some bonus episodes coming
Speaker 1: up to coincide with another episode in Spotlight on Sunday
Speaker 1: Nights and as more events relating to the current reinvestigation
Speaker 1: by Waypole into Amy's death unfold and we'll keep you
Speaker 1: up to date on that, and this will include details
Speaker 1: of the brief of evidence being provided to the DPP,
Speaker 1: the Director of Public Prosecutions, and any subsequent updates, revelations
Speaker 1: and or announcements. The whole grab bag will stay across it,
Speaker 1: and if we get any more information from other other
Speaker 1: listeners or anyone close to the case, obviously that is pertinent,
Speaker 1: and we can advance Amy's case in other ways. Of course,
Speaker 1: it goes without saying.
Speaker 7: We will, So thank you all for listening and coming
Speaker 7: on this journey with us and remaining to the end
Speaker 7: when the entire truth about Amy is finally realized. So
Speaker 7: this isn't the end completely, but it's the end of
Speaker 7: season two. We're at a crucial moment as WA Police's
Speaker 7: cold case team finishes up its investigation, which has gone
Speaker 7: on for much longer than they initially expect it apparently
Speaker 7: hopefully that's a good thing. And all the information is there,
Speaker 7: including independent expert advice from a criminologist, a suicideologist, an
Speaker 7: independent psychologist not just the police psychologist they used initially,
Speaker 7: which as you know, has been debunked, and a domestic
Speaker 7: violence specialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, also Scott Rhoda not to be forgotten, and Scott's
Speaker 1: ongoing participation in the case. He has helped an amazing
Speaker 1: number of jurisdictions and police agencies in the United States,
Speaker 1: being an American himself, with some very very big cases.
Speaker 1: Among all the other new evidence that we've uncovered, of
Speaker 1: course from key witnesses we've identified, and that which was
Speaker 1: previously ignored, such as you only mentioned it a little
Speaker 1: while ago, the fact that the clothes the police received
Speaker 1: from Gareth Price and David Simmons could not have been
Speaker 1: the ones they were wearing when Amy died.
Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely, pinly the ones that they were wearing at
Speaker 7: the roadhouse, but they weren't the ones that they were
Speaker 7: wearing when Amy died. And of course that the gun
Speaker 7: was placed in the position Gareth founded in it was
Speaker 7: placed there, it could not have landed there. Amy's daughter Naya,
Speaker 7: saw David Simmons in the room with Amy after she
Speaker 7: went back inside and before the so called bud And
Speaker 7: that's just to name a few key details which we
Speaker 7: provided painstaking detail on throughout the duration of this podcast.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I guess we now put our faith in
Speaker 1: the Director of Public Prosecutions and his team carefully analyzing
Speaker 1: it and following up on any holes in the evidence,
Speaker 1: overall in the hope that a criminal trial is the
Speaker 1: ultimate goal. Hopefully they'll listen to this podcast.
Speaker 7: It certainly can't hurt Liam. It's essential listening given the
Speaker 7: responsibility of the position. They are intrusted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all eyes on them. There was a famous quote
Speaker 1: from the thirty fourth President of the United States, Al
Speaker 1: Dwight D. Eisenhower, and it goes like this, The supreme
Speaker 1: quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real
Speaker 1: success is possible, no matter whether it is on a
Speaker 1: section gang football field, in an army, or in an office.
Speaker 1: I think Dwight was referring to a police office at
Speaker 1: the end. He just missed out that word, but it's appropriate.
Speaker 7: Sure is. Thanks Leam, Thanks thankslessness.
Speaker 5: Lasimus so deation. We would know the nasty kill me.
Speaker 1: Say 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 au. That's s E v E N The
Speaker 1: Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au, or
Speaker 1: visit our website sevenews dot com dot au. Forward slash
Speaker 1: the Truth About Amy. You can also send us an
Speaker 1: anonymous tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com.
Speaker 1: If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us
Speaker 1: to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but
Speaker 1: for legal reasons, unfortunately Lee, 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, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford,
Speaker 1: and special thanks to Brian Seymour and Jessica Evanson. This
Speaker 1: is a Seven News production.