Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline. I'm
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2: Hello, Welcome to Conversations five. I'm Alison Sandy and I'm
Speaker 2: joined by my fellow Brave and courageous colleagues Liam Bartlett
Speaker 2: and Tim Clark.
Speaker 3: Hi El Hi Tim, Morning, Liam. How are we well?
Speaker 1: I'm much better now that I've been described as brave courageous.
Speaker 2: It's true, you know, because there's no punches pulled in
Speaker 2: this podcast. We will shortly be joined by a very
Speaker 2: special guest. But first I wanted to turn your attention
Speaker 2: to this as you are all aware, there's been a
Speaker 2: big push for me his family to have her case
Speaker 2: far referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 2: If you haven't signed and shared the petition, please do so.
Speaker 2: Amy's aunt has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Speaker 2: Robert Owen recently and received this reply, dated the first
Speaker 2: of October twenty twenty four. Dear Miss Davey, thank you
Speaker 2: for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four. I
Speaker 2: acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my office
Speaker 2: is likely to be for you and your family. I
Speaker 2: understand you are seeking justice for Amy and that this
Speaker 2: reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However,
Speaker 2: I am unable to provide a materially different response from
Speaker 2: the one you received from the ODPP on the first
Speaker 2: of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you
Speaker 2: that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we
Speaker 2: do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints. Now,
Speaker 2: just to clarify here, that is not what Anna was
Speaker 2: asking for. Anna was just asking whether he could ask
Speaker 2: for Amy's file to refer to him, and was also
Speaker 2: asking for a meeting with him. Anyway, he goes on
Speaker 2: to say the odopp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable
Speaker 2: criminal offenses once charges have been laid by investigative agencies
Speaker 2: such as WA police. That function includes the assessment of
Speaker 2: the evidence gathered. If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP
Speaker 2: isn't able to proceed. Now again, my understanding is that
Speaker 2: the ODPP is the one that decides that Anyway, the
Speaker 2: ODPP has no power to investigate the conduct of other
Speaker 2: agencies or to assess whether an investigation by WA Police
Speaker 2: was insufficient. Again, that's not what Anna was asking. She's
Speaker 2: just asking, given that five years have now passed since
Speaker 2: they last saw it, they might want to take another
Speaker 2: look at it with all the updated information. Anyway. In
Speaker 2: our letter to you dated first of November twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: we indicated that an inquest into your niece death maybe
Speaker 2: an appropriate forum to ventilate the matter as you of race.
Speaker 2: An inquest into the death of your niece has now
Speaker 2: been completed and the findings were delivered by the Deputy
Speaker 2: State Coroner on ninth September twenty twenty one. The inquest
Speaker 2: followed a cold case review by WA Police. Blah blah,
Speaker 2: blah blah goes into the whole history that we already know.
Speaker 2: The Deputy State Coroner did make some adverse comments about
Speaker 2: the standard of the initial police investigation and the limitations
Speaker 2: is placed on the current's ability to consider all relevant evidence.
Speaker 2: I have outlined this information only to ensure that you
Speaker 2: are informed about events to date. I understand you are
Speaker 2: likely to be very familiar with what has occurred, and
Speaker 2: I mean no disrespect in doing so. At this time,
Speaker 2: the ODPP cannot undertake further steps so offer any other
Speaker 2: resolution of Amy's case. Your sincerely, Robert OMSC, Director of
Speaker 2: Public Prosecutions. So what do you guys think of that?
Speaker 4: Not surprising, but still disappointing, Like it's a rehash of
Speaker 4: arguments that we've just we've heard, and we've heard and
Speaker 4: then we've heard from.
Speaker 3: Different authorities and it's just.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just wholly disappointing and another example of buck passing
Speaker 4: really live.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's incredible, now, am I right? Just recapping on that.
Speaker 1: So twice in that letter, the current Director of Public
Speaker 1: Prosecutions references the previous correspondence with Amy Wensley's family, which
Speaker 1: is dated the first in November twenty nineteen, twice twice
Speaker 1: and so once in context. The first time he mentioned
Speaker 1: that date five years ago. He mentions that date because
Speaker 1: he says nothing's changed since the previous person was sitting
Speaker 1: in my seat. That's what he's saying, isn't he quite clearly?
Speaker 1: So they didn't do it, So I can't do it,
Speaker 1: That's what Robert Owen is saying. So for him to
Speaker 1: can't Blanche say, sorry, nothing's changed, see you later. It
Speaker 1: really is practically and technically pathetic. So can I can
Speaker 1: I I've got I've got Anna's reply to that letter
Speaker 1: that Robert Owen sent her.
Speaker 3: Do you mind if I just read this out? How
Speaker 3: we need to get the bleep machine ready?
Speaker 2: Look, I saw Anna's first version, so this one I've
Speaker 2: refined a little bit, helped to refine a bit.
Speaker 1: Anyway, keep going, yeah, no, no, no, I think this
Speaker 1: has been through the censorship. It's been through the filter,
Speaker 1: the special filter we have here. But this is this
Speaker 1: is pretty good. So I'm just going I'll just I'll
Speaker 1: read for the sake of our listeners. Dear mister Owen.
Speaker 1: So this is Anna's reply to that pathetic response from
Speaker 1: the director. She says, thank you for replying to my
Speaker 1: recent letter and for confirming your office hasn't seen Amy's
Speaker 1: case for at least five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's
Speaker 1: case was still being treated as a suicide by w
Speaker 1: WA police. Great point to my she goes on. Now,
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to
Speaker 1: as a homicide, and there is a considerable amount of
Speaker 1: new evidence now available. As per my previous letter. Would
Speaker 1: you be willing to meet with me to discuss not
Speaker 1: an unreasonable request, I would think, she goes on. Or
Speaker 1: is it a case that you won't seek any information
Speaker 1: from WA Police unless they raise it with you. Please
Speaker 1: forgive my ignorance, says Anna, But given my family seems
Speaker 1: to be at the mercy of WA Police, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to find out from you what it would take
Speaker 1: for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If, as a
Speaker 1: family we don't believe Amy's case is being handled properly,
Speaker 1: what avenues do we have Do we go back to
Speaker 1: the way Corruption and Crime Commission. I'm sure you can
Speaker 1: understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's come to
Speaker 1: light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast The Truth
Speaker 1: about Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've had to
Speaker 1: fight the system for more than ten years now because
Speaker 1: of a terrible mistake made by WA Police. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's asking too much, says Anna to seek help
Speaker 1: from people like you who are in a position to
Speaker 1: provide some but for whatever reason, don't seem to want
Speaker 1: to offer any assistance at all. Regards Anna, Davy pretty
Speaker 1: much sums it up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, typically strong, typically forthright, typically intelligent, and typically not unreasonable.
Speaker 4: Not an unreasonable request when you've got an unsolved, suspicious
Speaker 4: death of a young mother, you'd think police, DPP, Attorney
Speaker 4: General would have the gumption to say, okay. First of
Speaker 4: November twenty nineteen, I got some advice. The coroner had
Speaker 4: the information that she did during the inquest. But it's
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four and things have changed, Things have moved on,
Speaker 4: We have more information, and we also, to be blunt,
Speaker 4: we have a public push to relook at this case.
Speaker 1: And we know there is a further investigation confirmed by police.
Speaker 1: There's a quote new team doing that further investigation unquote
Speaker 1: right now as we speak.
Speaker 4: So we don't know whether it was Robowen that asked
Speaker 4: the police to do that. We don't think so. I
Speaker 4: think he probably might have mentioned that in his letter.
Speaker 4: So the police have gone away listens been given information
Speaker 4: via crime stoppers or wherever, and thought right, we need
Speaker 4: a body of workers to work up a body of
Speaker 4: work on this new information totally, and it seems to
Speaker 4: me we go to the AG. He says, sorry, cannot
Speaker 4: do as Allison has done numerous times. Anna has gone
Speaker 4: to the DPP please, this is what we can do. No, no,
Speaker 4: can do, Because in twenty nineteen there was all this information,
Speaker 4: and in twenty twenty one the coroner came up with
Speaker 4: this conclusion that there's not enough.
Speaker 3: There's not enough. Three years on, we.
Speaker 4: Are now and we go to WA Police, respectfully but firmly,
Speaker 4: asking for an interview with Cole Blanche or whomever they
Speaker 4: wish to place before us to answer some questions that
Speaker 4: we want to ask, and we are politely declined. So
Speaker 4: you can probably say it's in my voice measure of
Speaker 4: the frustration. Imagine, imagine how the Wensley family have felt
Speaker 4: having to do this for ten years.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and you know, it just comes back to
Speaker 2: that whole thing of just Anna needing a champion, just
Speaker 2: someone who's willing to do their job. We're not even
Speaker 2: asking anyone to go out there on a limb, right,
Speaker 2: This is just part of their duties as a person
Speaker 2: who works for the public service. Public service being being
Speaker 2: the operative words here. So it's it just seems like
Speaker 2: people just so happy to slam the door in the
Speaker 2: faces of Amy's family, who, as we have already established,
Speaker 2: have a very good I mean all they want to
Speaker 2: do is go through the process, right, They're not asking
Speaker 2: for special favors or anything like that, just going through
Speaker 2: the democratic judicial legal process to see if justice can
Speaker 2: be reached for Amy Wensley, for their beloved niece, slush daughter,
Speaker 2: slush mother. You know, it's it's really sad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's an interesting point. I mean, we're not
Speaker 1: we're not even asking anyone to be entirely creative with this.
Speaker 1: Certainly not go out on a limb. We're just talking
Speaker 1: about things that you can do within the rules, like,
Speaker 1: within the processes that are already in place and the
Speaker 1: guidelines that have already been long established. It's not a
Speaker 1: big deal. And you know, I mean, we can use
Speaker 1: as many cliches as we like, but it is a
Speaker 1: fact that, you know, this is supposed to be justice
Speaker 1: for everybody because it's public. You know, the courts of
Speaker 1: public the police are publicly funded, the DPP's office is
Speaker 1: publicly funded. You know, sometimes these people, I think need
Speaker 1: to be reminded they're actually being paid by the taxpayer. Again,
Speaker 1: you know, the cliche about the duty and obligation and service.
Speaker 1: Maybe we need to remind them time and time again
Speaker 1: that guys, you're there to help people. You know, we're
Speaker 1: there to get a result for the public.
Speaker 4: And what irks me is they point to process as
Speaker 4: well when you ask them about it, Well, well we
Speaker 4: did this, we did this, we did this. But we
Speaker 4: know all that flowed from a process was it was
Speaker 4: completely botched right at the start. Right the process was
Speaker 4: there for the detectives to call in the homicide squad
Speaker 4: and to seal off that forensic area so there would
Speaker 4: be no doubts and there will be no lingering unknowns
Speaker 4: and frustrations. That's what started all that. They stuffed the
Speaker 4: process up right at the start, and everything that's flowed
Speaker 4: from that has been trying to play catch up. And
Speaker 4: you now can't say, in my humble opinion, you know,
Speaker 4: you shouldn't hide behind an inquest that we've explored and
Speaker 4: picked apart and other people other than us believe was
Speaker 4: flawed as well. And you can't. You can't say there
Speaker 4: was an investigation in twenty nineteen. Five years is a
Speaker 4: long time. There's there's a whole there's a whole other
Speaker 4: file to to pick through, and that's what they should
Speaker 4: be doing.
Speaker 1: Heah, And as Anna so pointedly reminds us, you know,
Speaker 1: those two references by the Director of Public Prosecutions to
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. That's when police were very much entrenched with
Speaker 1: this whole suicide theory. They wouldn't hear anything else to him,
Speaker 1: as you know, well they put it forward out the
Speaker 1: inquest exactly very strongly.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean so, so, how.
Speaker 1: Can the DPP be relying upon a time when the
Speaker 1: police had totally the opposite view and now the.
Speaker 4: Police have publicly listed it and offered a reward for
Speaker 4: an unsolved homicide.
Speaker 3: Doesn't make sense?
Speaker 4: Does which FI has showness and has also shown us
Speaker 4: that some people in there were upset that that was
Speaker 4: the case. But well why you asked the question why
Speaker 4: were they upset? Well, you know because because you called
Speaker 4: it as it was a first up and no it's not.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Can I just mention here, speaking of the inquest, the
Speaker 2: person who was seen to be representing the Commissioner at
Speaker 2: the inquest, as far as I can tell, was the
Speaker 2: Major Crime Division Detective Superintendent Robert Scantlebury. Rob Scantlebury anyway,
Speaker 2: now direct quote from the inquest here. I reviewed both investigations,
Speaker 2: the Coronial Brief, the coronial report, and quote there is
Speaker 2: no criminality identified in relation to this matter. He then says,
Speaker 2: I cannot put any other person in that room, and
Speaker 2: so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this.
Speaker 2: He then goes on to highlight the limitations of the
Speaker 2: testing done, which by their biomechanical experts to justify his
Speaker 2: position that was the closed minded, inflexible attitude existing in
Speaker 2: Wa police at the time, and we're yet to see
Speaker 2: evidence that that's not the case now. And of course,
Speaker 2: given quickly and Owen's replies to the family, it's really
Speaker 2: hard to have much faith that there seems to be
Speaker 2: a willingness to have a resolution in Aimy's case.
Speaker 1: I can't understand why he can say that, or how
Speaker 1: he can say that I cannot put any other person
Speaker 1: in that room.
Speaker 3: Presumably he's talking about the bedroom Amy's bedroom.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can come up with two or three scenarios just
Speaker 1: off the top of my head where I can easily
Speaker 1: put somebody else in that room, but it requires further
Speaker 1: investigation to get the evidence of that person being in
Speaker 1: that room. I mean, but that's the police job. That's
Speaker 1: not I'm not looking for a conclusion on a fairy
Speaker 1: tale from Rob Scantlebury. I mean, I want them to
Speaker 1: do their job. You know the thing that really annoys
Speaker 1: me about this whole thing. And I get annoyed, you know,
Speaker 1: on behalf of the family and just personally because I think, gee,
Speaker 1: you know, you wouldn't want to get into a serious
Speaker 1: bit of strife in this state at the moment, would you.
Speaker 3: But it's the level of openness that's all we're asking for. Like,
Speaker 3: it's not it's you know, I can't.
Speaker 1: Believe that this goes back to requests for interview and
Speaker 1: requests for information. Alison tim As, you know that whole
Speaker 1: closed door approach, the entire closed door approach. It's ironic
Speaker 1: because the police have a door very similar to Amy's
Speaker 1: bedroom where it doesn't seem to be a handle on
Speaker 1: the inside. No one opens it. But I don't understand
Speaker 1: why you just can't talk about this because I have
Speaker 1: the naive presumption that we're all on the same side.
Speaker 1: In other words, now that we have a million dollar
Speaker 1: reward for a homicide, we say, okay, it's a homicide.
Speaker 1: So in terms of public safety for everyone else who's
Speaker 1: still alive, isn't there a concern? But what about just
Speaker 1: the rest of it being an open book for the
Speaker 1: police them being able to talk about the possibilities like,
Speaker 1: for instance, getting fresh eyes on the case outside wa Now, Tim,
Speaker 1: you know there's a number of cases here where they've
Speaker 1: done this in the past with cold case reviews. They've
Speaker 1: brought somebody in from the East, or even somebody from
Speaker 1: America or whatever, you know, from Britain. There was the
Speaker 1: fellow who came over you know, I mean, who is
Speaker 1: looking at this? Given the Rob Scandalbury quote that you've
Speaker 1: just given us, Allison, you know, what's the makeup of
Speaker 1: this new team investigating it?
Speaker 3: For example?
Speaker 1: Is it the same old coppers who had that view
Speaker 1: that the DPP quoted in November of twenty nineteen. Is
Speaker 1: it somebody else? Have they got fresh eyes? Do they
Speaker 1: have a biased view towards that? Are they thinking more
Speaker 1: about protecting the thin blue line than they are about
Speaker 1: looking at fresh evidence or collecting fresh evidence? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, can we have fresh eyes on this? Is
Speaker 1: it a good idea?
Speaker 3: To me?
Speaker 4: It would be essential, right because you know, there has
Speaker 4: to be there just has to be you know, pressures issues.
Speaker 4: If you're an existing homicide detective, you would hope there'd
Speaker 4: be homicide detectives would be tasked with.
Speaker 3: Doing this work.
Speaker 4: You'd know someone, right, You'd know you'd have to have
Speaker 4: known someone or work someone with that down the track,
Speaker 4: who had who had involvement in this case. The other
Speaker 4: issue at the moment in Western Australia is there's there's
Speaker 4: not there's not that many homicide detectives to go around. Lin,
Speaker 4: my colleague got the West Australian Phil Hickey, who has
Speaker 4: some of the best police contacts in this state, has
Speaker 4: been talking to homicide detectives and they are absolutely chock
Speaker 4: a blot with work, slammed, absolutely slammed, as I'm sure
Speaker 4: many many other police forces across Australia are. Because for
Speaker 4: whatever reason, this has been a particularly violent gear.
Speaker 3: In Western Australia.
Speaker 4: There's been some horrible crimes, domestic violence desks that we've
Speaker 4: all heard about and regional homicides.
Speaker 3: They all take.
Speaker 4: Work, right, You've all got obviously, you've got you've got
Speaker 4: a victim, You've got a family also grieving, also wanting justice,
Speaker 4: also wanting information, also wanting every lead chase down. So
Speaker 4: I hate to say it, but how far up or
Speaker 4: down the priority list?
Speaker 1: Yeah, hay on for me, Well, more the case, more
Speaker 1: the case go to the Attorney General's office, see if
Speaker 1: you can wake up John Quigley or somebody close to
Speaker 1: him to get them to wake him up and say, hey, listen,
Speaker 1: how about an ex graser addition to our budget. Because
Speaker 1: we're struggling with serious crime. What about giving us a
Speaker 1: I don't know, one off payment. Give us a boost
Speaker 1: of a couple of million dollars. You have money coming
Speaker 1: out of your ears from the royalties. You're always banging
Speaker 1: on about it, Roger Cooks telling them what the whole state,
Speaker 1: what a great job they're doing economically. How about just
Speaker 1: a few million of that will use a little bit
Speaker 1: of it to get maybe a deputation from somebody in
Speaker 1: the Eastern States or maybe recently retired, somebody with a
Speaker 1: great reputation, maybe even someone like a Ron Idle's that
Speaker 1: we had on the program. I mean, you know, fantastic reputation.
Speaker 1: Bring them over for four weeks, get them to work
Speaker 1: on the case, put a set of fresh eyes on it.
Speaker 1: Make a consultancy payment. What's the big deal. Yeah, I'll
Speaker 1: take your point, But it's not an excuse to Oh no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I wasn't trying to make it excense.
Speaker 3: It's the will.
Speaker 4: It's the will, exactly, it's the will, and it's the
Speaker 4: willingness to think slightly outside the process and slightly outside
Speaker 4: the box and say, well, look, we've promised this, we've
Speaker 4: said it publicly, we're going to do it.
Speaker 1: Why don't we do it properly? Well exactly, I mean,
Speaker 1: we've got consultants for everything else. Maybe if they work
Speaker 1: for metro Net, we'd get it done. That's how far
Speaker 1: over budget is that? What billion or ten billion is it?
Speaker 1: At the last count.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of noughts at the end of our building.
Speaker 1: Anyway, this is about people, not about machine And.
Speaker 2: I'd face it, the reason we are in this predicament
Speaker 2: is because of the unwillingness to investigate properly in the
Speaker 2: first place. We point them in the right direction. It's
Speaker 2: not it shouldn't be as onerous as as it would
Speaker 2: have been. They've just done the forensics. But look that said,
Speaker 2: you know, this is more than just a case that
Speaker 2: wasn't handled properly at the beginning. They owe it to
Speaker 2: Amy's family to see it through. This is a suspicious
Speaker 2: death that has a lot of repercussions if it's not solved,
Speaker 2: potentially so there's no excuse. They just have to do it.
Speaker 2: They can't just say, oh, they were competing priorities. Well,
Speaker 2: every life matters. Anyway. I've put some questions to the
Speaker 2: WA Police, new questions to Waypole Commissioner Cole Blanche, and
Speaker 2: we haven't obviously got replies back yet, but we will
Speaker 2: and we'll inform you of those hopefully next week. Internal
Speaker 2: emails we obtained under freedom of information law shows later
Speaker 2: as last year, seen your high ranking police officers still
Speaker 2: adamant there's no possibility Amy's death was anything but suicide.
Speaker 2: How can Amy's family be confident that WA Police is
Speaker 2: interested in solving Amy's case giving this closed minded attitude
Speaker 2: within WA Police ranks. Two, given how much new evidence
Speaker 2: that's now available compared to the last time the ODBP
Speaker 2: reviewed Amy's file at least five years ago, why hasn't
Speaker 2: it been referred to them already? And three? What more
Speaker 2: does WA Police require for Amy's case to be referred
Speaker 2: to the ODPP. So anyway, we'll see what we get
Speaker 2: back from that. But it's it's just really important. I
Speaker 2: think that it's just I just like you know, when
Speaker 2: you look at what happens with other deaths you know,
Speaker 2: like Alison Baiden Clay in Queensland for example, her death,
Speaker 2: you know, and the Lynn Dawson case, you know that
Speaker 2: came back so many years later. Who chooses which is
Speaker 2: important or which isn't.
Speaker 3: Now that's a very very very good question.
Speaker 4: I think it probably depends on how embarrassing it might
Speaker 4: be if you did put the resources in, because it
Speaker 4: might be a different outcome.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I mean I would have thought a potential
Speaker 2: risk to society as well would have to be a
Speaker 2: factor that they could consider if if you know, this
Speaker 2: is something that could result in further violence against women
Speaker 2: or yeah, I mean all those sorts of factors should
Speaker 2: be taken into account. Right, is that the job criteria?
Speaker 1: It is the criteria. You're right, You're dead right, it's
Speaker 1: I mean it's basic policing one oh one, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's your that's your what do they
Speaker 1: call it?
Speaker 3: Mission statement? Tim?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know that's on the canteen at police headquarters.
Speaker 1: So please catch the bad guys before you go home.
Speaker 1: Clock off.
Speaker 3: It's not difficult. It's not difficult to work out.
Speaker 2: A former detective has made a big living out of
Speaker 2: a podcast called I catch killers. That's what people want, right,
Speaker 2: and it's a popular podcast because people want to tune
Speaker 2: in to homicide detectives catching killers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I heard them. I heard the head of
Speaker 1: the police union on the radio the other day talking
Speaker 1: about their their pay dispute with the state government and
Speaker 1: their paid claim and they were asking for two different
Speaker 1: I think they were asking for or was it eight
Speaker 1: and a half percent in the first year and five
Speaker 1: percent in the second year and the state government so
Speaker 1: far won't come to the party. And I had two
Speaker 1: thoughts on that. A. A. I think most police officers
Speaker 1: thoroughly deserve arise. Yeah, absolutely they do because they are underpaid.
Speaker 1: They are underpaid for what they do. But secondly, guys, girls,
Speaker 1: if we're going to pay you, can you please try
Speaker 1: to catch the criminals?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean I have obviously huge respect and sympathy actually
Speaker 4: for a lot of the detectives that are tasked with,
Speaker 4: you know, cleaning up the most horrible messes on a
Speaker 4: daily basis and the impact that it has on their
Speaker 4: personal lives as well as the sort of professional reputations
Speaker 4: as well.
Speaker 3: But has gone back.
Speaker 4: To to the earlier point public servants, Right, they're two
Speaker 4: to protect and serves, I think is the motto that's
Speaker 4: on the side of American police cars. So and that
Speaker 4: goes worldwide. And yeah, it's just it's just so frustrating
Speaker 4: to come up against the same closed doors that Anna
Speaker 4: and her family have for so long. And it also
Speaker 4: just you know, adds another level of admiration to Anna
Speaker 4: for being able to keep going and not just.
Speaker 3: Not just go away and cool up in a ball
Speaker 3: in a corner somewhere.
Speaker 2: Speaking of Anna, she is our guest, and she is waiting.
Speaker 2: She's waiting for the host to accept. So whenever, Oh
Speaker 2: my god, I'm here, can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Are you all right?
Speaker 5: God? I was getting really nervous waiting for you guys
Speaker 5: to bloody let me join. It's like having a little
Speaker 5: private party without me.
Speaker 3: Well we are, but it's not complete without no.
Speaker 2: No, that the level of indignation is too low. So
Speaker 2: tell us, Anna, what's the latest. How are you feeling
Speaker 2: at the moment? And you know what's going on. You know,
Speaker 2: we've read your letter to the DPP, we've read the
Speaker 2: letter out that they sent to you. I imagine you're feeling
Speaker 2: a bit frustrated at the moment.
Speaker 5: Well, frustration It's not new for me, Alison, I've had
Speaker 5: over ten years of it now, but I have to
Speaker 5: say it is disappointing, but it's not surprising. I'm used
Speaker 5: to this sort of response passing the buck and people
Speaker 5: in positions of authority telling me that they can't help.
Speaker 5: It's like the people in charge are all playing a
Speaker 5: game of hot potato, and Amy's case is the ball
Speaker 5: being thrown around to the next person just to get
Speaker 5: rid of it. But this sort of response doesn't deter
Speaker 5: me or stop me from continuing the fight for Amy.
Speaker 5: It just means I have to keep trying and hope
Speaker 5: that one day someone in a position of authority has
Speaker 5: the courage to stand up and help.
Speaker 3: And Liam here, how are you going?
Speaker 5: I'm good, Thanks Liam.
Speaker 1: Look, I wanted to explore with you that I touched
Speaker 1: upon a subject. This is very basic, but I think openness,
Speaker 1: the ability for some of these people in high places
Speaker 1: to be just open to the public, to the family
Speaker 1: about the whole deal, I really find quite troubling, especially
Speaker 1: in the West Australian context of where we have had
Speaker 1: a lot of problems with policing generally. Can can you
Speaker 1: talk to me a little bit about the police's attitude
Speaker 1: from the police commissioner down, you know, how open are
Speaker 1: they to family? And I asked that question of knowing
Speaker 1: that you have a sort of a dedicated family liaison officer,
Speaker 1: but can you let our listeners know sort of you know,
Speaker 1: how that works and how often the contact takes place.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking you to disclose what they say to you,
Speaker 1: because you know that it has to be a degree
Speaker 1: of integrity there.
Speaker 3: But how's it going.
Speaker 5: Well, it's really difficult because you know I've said to
Speaker 5: you before that over ten years now, I've lost count
Speaker 5: of how many liaison officers we've had. But in the beginning,
Speaker 5: you get told nothing. Liam. There is no one there
Speaker 5: keeping you up to date, telling you what's going on.
Speaker 5: And it took almost three years before I actually found
Speaker 5: anything out about Amy's death. And that's a long time
Speaker 5: for family to have to wait to hear what's happening,
Speaker 5: what's going on, what took place that night. That's a
Speaker 5: very long time. And there's no one there that's willing
Speaker 5: to assist you and help you and give you that information.
Speaker 5: And you can write to the police commissioner. You can
Speaker 5: write to these high ranking officials, but they close rank.
Speaker 5: You know, they don't they don't tell you anything. It's
Speaker 5: just all a fob off. Like what I've said, I've
Speaker 5: been getting for over ten years now. But I have
Speaker 5: had some liaison officers who have been really polite. They
Speaker 5: appear to be very caring towards our situation, which is
Speaker 5: really nice. But I mean, it's felt like most of
Speaker 5: the liaison officers police liaison officers are there as a
Speaker 5: buffer between me and high ranking officials because I'll ask
Speaker 5: a question and so many times I've had the response
Speaker 5: I'm not sure, I don't know, I can't say it's
Speaker 5: under investigation, and you don't actually get an answer. They're
Speaker 5: a buffer, really. But the current liaison officer I have
Speaker 5: at the moment, he and one that I had for
Speaker 5: quite a few years, appear to be very responsive to
Speaker 5: my inquiries. They can't always tell me things, but you know,
Speaker 5: at least they respond at least they call me if
Speaker 5: I ask, at least they respond to emails. But still
Speaker 5: it's very limited in what they can tell me.
Speaker 2: How salective are they though? Do they ever ring you
Speaker 2: to tell you that they're being progress.
Speaker 5: In the past ten years, I've had one liaison officer
Speaker 5: who couldn't always tell me everything that's going on, but
Speaker 5: at least reached out without prompting from me. He reached
Speaker 5: out to me to tell me little pieces of information
Speaker 5: that he was allowed to tell me. But it's not
Speaker 5: like their forthcoming and.
Speaker 3: It's it's Tim here.
Speaker 4: Like I would think that your everyday listener, who you know,
Speaker 4: who God forbid, would never have to go through a
Speaker 4: situation like that. They would have a different impression. They
Speaker 4: would think, oh, well, you know that the police are.
Speaker 3: They'd be.
Speaker 4: They'd be so they'd be really keen to keep the
Speaker 4: family informed. They'd be they'd be wanting to provide information,
Speaker 4: you know, you know, possibly on a you know, a
Speaker 4: sort of need to know basis, but you know, as
Speaker 4: soon as something new would crop up, they want to
Speaker 4: tell you. But from from your experience, it's the exact opposite.
Speaker 4: It seems that they try and keep you, or have
Speaker 4: tried to keep you at arm's length as much as possible.
Speaker 4: I mean, do you think that's because it's you or
Speaker 4: do you think that's a general Have you spoken to
Speaker 4: other families that have gone through this.
Speaker 5: I think I've got to say the answer to your question, Tim,
Speaker 5: I was exactly what you just explained. I was that
Speaker 5: person who thought that the police are going to keep
Speaker 5: us informed, They're going to tell us what's going on,
Speaker 5: they're going to keep us updated. But that was early
Speaker 5: on in the day. I thought that, and I was
Speaker 5: completely wrong. It's not like that at all. And I
Speaker 5: think I don't know if it's because it's this particular case,
Speaker 5: because it was so badly messed up at the start
Speaker 5: that they were trying to, you know, sweep it under
Speaker 5: the carpet and make it go away. So I don't
Speaker 5: know if that's why. But I have met someone else.
Speaker 5: I've actually met another aunt, Janine Mackney, who is the
Speaker 5: aunt of Breanna Robinson, and it's her sister's daughter who died,
Speaker 5: and she's been fighting for her niece's case as well,
Speaker 5: and I think she's come up against the same thing
Speaker 5: that the police don't want to be so forthcoming with information.
Speaker 5: It's very difficult. It's very very hard, especially because in
Speaker 5: her situation with Janine's niece, the police deemed it a
Speaker 5: suicide immediately as well. Another young woman in an early twenties,
Speaker 5: same thing.
Speaker 4: And this is the case of a young woman who
Speaker 4: actually fell out of an elevated flat on the.
Speaker 5: Gold That's correct. So you know, it was actually really
Speaker 5: nice to meet another aunt that was going through the
Speaker 5: same thing, and she understood everything everything that I was saying.
Speaker 5: So yeah, she's come up against something very similar. And
Speaker 5: I wonder if that's because at the start the police
Speaker 5: called it a suicide. So I don't know.
Speaker 2: Ron Iddle's had that case in Shepard and that he
Speaker 2: talked about that he revisited and made stuff that one
Speaker 2: of the first instance too, But it was fine for
Speaker 2: him to solve that one. You know. It's just I mean,
Speaker 2: the law's meant to be deterrent too, right, Like the
Speaker 2: whole idea is that you want to discourage people from
Speaker 2: killing other people on the basis that they'll go to jail.
Speaker 2: It just seems kind of weird in this case that
Speaker 2: you know, a crime potentially has occurred, the evidence certainly
Speaker 2: points that way to a crime occurring, and that it
Speaker 2: needs to be you know, measured out and go through
Speaker 2: the system, like that's supposedly what it's supposed to do.
Speaker 2: But it hasn't gone through the system because that whole
Speaker 2: denial of a crime having existed. I just wanted to
Speaker 2: read this to you to Anna. This is from Melissa
Speaker 2: High Team The Truth about Amy. Such a fantastic podcast
Speaker 2: and so close to home for me. I lived in
Speaker 2: that area and was in a domestic violence relationship at
Speaker 2: the same time Amy died. I'm not surprised the police
Speaker 2: ruled a suicide. Domestic violence wasn't a high priority for
Speaker 2: the police in that area. I personally reached out for
Speaker 2: help from the police and the Armadale and Serpentine areas
Speaker 2: and didn't get any assistance. I was actually told by
Speaker 2: police that the person I was in a relationship with
Speaker 2: had over thirty reports slash phone calls for domestic violence
Speaker 2: issues in the past, but from pre as partners. In
Speaker 2: my opinion, there was a real culture within the place
Speaker 2: that domestic violence wasn't important. My heart breaks for Nancy
Speaker 2: and Amy's babies. Keep up the good work, keep fighting
Speaker 2: for Amy, so you know we are not alone.
Speaker 5: Sadly, I can only hope that the attitudes of police
Speaker 5: are evolving for the better and in a positive way,
Speaker 5: and changing for the better as well because so many women.
Speaker 5: There are so so many women, and I guess it's
Speaker 5: just I don't know if it's in the media more
Speaker 5: now or whether I'm more aware of it because of
Speaker 5: our own situation with Amy, but it's just shocking.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it is being reported more because of
Speaker 4: the public consciousness and the push to shine a light
Speaker 4: on what is a scourge in this country. I have
Speaker 4: had lawyers tell me, you're on and off the record,
Speaker 4: that the cases are getting more frequent, they're getting more serious.
Speaker 4: I know judges are sensensing more harshly because they have to,
Speaker 4: they've been told to, but more obviously that they want
Speaker 4: to also send a message to the public that this
Speaker 4: is being taken seriously and there will be serious repercussions.
Speaker 4: But then you go back to a case like Amy's,
Speaker 4: and it was it's obvious in twenty fourteen, it wasn't.
Speaker 4: It wasn't even it didn't seem to me that it
Speaker 4: was even seen through a prism of domestic violence on
Speaker 4: that night and in the days that followed, And even
Speaker 4: now you're having to push and push and push for
Speaker 4: authorities to get to see the whole picture.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: And we talked about it before, Anna that that in
Speaker 4: that in quest, there was a there seemed to be
Speaker 4: a lot of sympathy for David Simmons, and maybe that
Speaker 4: sympathy should have been cheered around a bit more.
Speaker 5: Well. I actually read through some of the Current's inquest
Speaker 5: finding I couldn't read the whole thing because it just
Speaker 5: makes me so angry. But there were comments and things
Speaker 5: that people said in there that just made me sick.
Speaker 5: You know, I jotted some of them down, But is
Speaker 5: it okay if I bring some of them up?
Speaker 3: Go on? Yeah? Yeah, please, absolutely so.
Speaker 5: When David Simmons was asked what Amy meant in her
Speaker 5: text to him when she said she was over being
Speaker 5: a no Hoper, David said it definitely wasn't him to change.
Speaker 5: He did everything for that family, for them. I don't
Speaker 5: know if she was on drugs or not. That's why
Speaker 5: I wanted to know if there were any illicit drugs
Speaker 5: in her system. I thought that's really comical that he
Speaker 5: says that he wasn't the one to change, because I
Speaker 5: have no doubt Amy's no Hope of comment was more
Speaker 5: about her having enough of being in a no Hoper
Speaker 5: relationship with him, and I think the comment is very tell.
Speaker 5: She says she's had enough. That's what I think. She
Speaker 5: says she's had enough and she wants to try for
Speaker 5: a better life. And and that was the decision she
Speaker 5: decided to finally act upon on the twenty sixth of
Speaker 5: June twenty fourteen. She hated drugs. The whole thing was
Speaker 5: about her telling him to stop doing that. And it's
Speaker 5: very well documented in the coroner's finding too, that he
Speaker 5: had an alcohol and substance abuse problem. Yet he says
Speaker 5: he wasn't the one who needed to change. There's just
Speaker 5: so much in there.
Speaker 2: Anna. We were talking the other day with Ron and
Speaker 2: I think somebody else sent another message about whether David
Speaker 2: simmons phone was seized by the police. Can you have
Speaker 2: an answer to that, don't you?
Speaker 5: I do so. After Amy died, he took Amy's car
Speaker 5: and the children and drove to Nancy's house, and when
Speaker 5: he got to the house, he told Nancy what he
Speaker 5: told her. Nancy became very distressed. She blamed him and
Speaker 5: accused him of causing it, and she pushed him and
Speaker 5: he fell on all fours onto the front lawn and
Speaker 5: when that happened, his phone, that he says was water damaged,
Speaker 5: fell out of his pocket and there it remained. So
Speaker 5: when the police became involved the next day, Nancy gave
Speaker 5: them Amy's phone back and told them that his phone
Speaker 5: had fell on her front lawn and she handed that
Speaker 5: over to them.
Speaker 1: So they've got well they had the phone. Whether or
Speaker 1: not they've still got it remains to be seen.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 3: So did they go through it?
Speaker 5: My understanding. So I'm not one hundred percent sure, But
Speaker 5: my understanding is it was water damaged and they couldn't
Speaker 5: access it.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, hang on a minute. I mean there's a
Speaker 1: lot of technology around you. You can dive into water damaged
Speaker 1: phones for data retrieval.
Speaker 3: It's not a big deal.
Speaker 5: Well, they couldn't get into Amy's iPhone at that point,
Speaker 5: but technology advanced and they were able to do that
Speaker 5: many years later. But I don't know if the police
Speaker 5: kept his phone or handed it back to him.
Speaker 1: But why wasn't that sort of that's sort of present
Speaker 1: detail explored by the coroner when she's hearing him, you know,
Speaker 1: make those sort of generic statements about Amy's drug usage.
Speaker 1: I mean, why isn't that cross referenced with, you know,
Speaker 1: with a call to provide information from his phone to
Speaker 1: see what goes on there. I mean, it's pretty basic stuff,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Or have we got well, I mean, who's
Speaker 1: running the joint inspectacles.
Speaker 2: I just want to go back to a question that
Speaker 2: we got that you read out or I read out
Speaker 2: yes last week, Paul's question about why Amy didn't use
Speaker 2: a dominant hand to defend herself. Now I've revisited the
Speaker 2: files on that, so just looking and it was obviously
Speaker 2: in spotlight as well, and anyone can look that up.
Speaker 2: So Amy was facing the like her legs was stretched
Speaker 2: out towards the door, so she was facing the door
Speaker 2: that the door opened on her left though, as I said,
Speaker 2: and so to get in. So but obviously it was
Speaker 2: a right temple. You know, there's a whole idea of
Speaker 2: her cowering. Potentially that if she was cowering at the time,
Speaker 2: she would have had her right temple up towards the door,
Speaker 2: which is potentially, you know, why she was shot in
Speaker 2: her right temple, but certainly with you know, holding her
Speaker 2: left arm out anyway, it's just something else to consider
Speaker 2: with all this, because it's it's just all part and
Speaker 2: parcel of the whole investigation and looking at the information
Speaker 2: in microscopic detail.
Speaker 5: Allison, I had someone, a police officer actually say to
Speaker 5: me that they thought with all the with the argument
Speaker 5: that was going on in that bedroom, that Amy's ended
Speaker 5: up in that corner, because that's what you do when
Speaker 5: you feel in danger, you know, you hide in a corner.
Speaker 5: And he said to me that he felt that Amy
Speaker 5: was using her dominant hand to brace herself against the
Speaker 5: wall and use her hand to lower herself to the floor,
Speaker 5: and when she got to the floor, she ended up
Speaker 5: sitting on it, and as the gun's to her head,
Speaker 5: she's used a left hand to try and push the
Speaker 5: gun away or well.
Speaker 1: That makes perfect sense because of the burnmark on her
Speaker 1: left hand, which was a muzzle mark, so that that
Speaker 1: would tend to indicate you're trying to push the muzzle away.
Speaker 4: It certainly makes more sense than your right hand firing
Speaker 4: a gun which's then on your lap and then your
Speaker 4: right hand end up ends up under your buttock.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, it's impossible, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, as the biomechanical experts basically said, but
Speaker 1: that makes perfect sense from that police officer.
Speaker 5: Anna, Yeah, And can I just read out another part
Speaker 5: of the inquest that I found disgusting really? At the inquest,
Speaker 5: the detective Kirkman said, I couldn't imagine somebody sitting there
Speaker 5: and allowing somebody to place a gun directly onto her
Speaker 5: head and pull the trigger and her not move or
Speaker 5: try to prevent it. It's not logical. When I read that,
Speaker 5: I thought, wow, talk about victim blaming, and his comment
Speaker 5: actually doesn't make logical sense, because if someone has a
Speaker 5: gun pointed at your head, you would freeze. My fear
Speaker 5: would be if I move, they might pull the trigger.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, lots of things happen in a rapid space
Speaker 1: of time.
Speaker 3: Doo. I mean that that is nonsensical.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but also you know with that comment that they
Speaker 5: couldn't imagine someone sitting there and allowing someone to place
Speaker 5: a gun on their head. If someone had a gun
Speaker 5: to my head, the only I believe because I'm know
Speaker 5: Bruce Lee or Action Hero, so I can't flick that
Speaker 5: gun away, you know, like they do in the movies.
Speaker 5: But my thought would be the only option for me
Speaker 5: would try to be would be to try and talk
Speaker 5: someone down. Yeah, talk them down, talk them out of it.
Speaker 1: But also, if you've got an aggressor who sticks a
Speaker 1: shotgun into your temple, and remember the pressure on that,
Speaker 1: it can be quite you know, it would be could
Speaker 1: be very hard, very strong. Hannah I mean you would
Speaker 1: you would freeze, wouldn't you.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Absolutely, I would freeze. I
Speaker 5: would ship myself.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, and there's that, But you don't I mean for
Speaker 1: a policeman to say that, it's just look that all
Speaker 1: that is. Let's be honest, that's complete self justification. He
Speaker 1: completely stuffed it up, and that was reinforced by the
Speaker 1: police's own internal affairs unit, not as strongly as it
Speaker 1: should have been. But you know, he'd already been slapped
Speaker 1: across the wrist for negligent duty, so it was that's
Speaker 1: just an exercise.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, But he still did it, didn't he. We're at
Speaker 5: an inquest and he's still saying it. Another another thing
Speaker 5: that Detective Kirkman said in assessing how Amy died, He
Speaker 5: said he considered he could he could easily reach the
Speaker 5: trigger sitting down like that with either the left or
Speaker 5: right hand, so deduced that Amy could do the same.
Speaker 5: How could you? How could you say that just because
Speaker 5: you could do something somebody else can. And then he
Speaker 5: was corrected and told that you know it wasn't the gun,
Speaker 5: you know, to the floor pointing upwards. So you know,
Speaker 5: the other thing is did he factor in her neck injury,
Speaker 5: and how could he reason that anything he could do
Speaker 5: someone else could do the same. One minute, he's saying
Speaker 5: she used a left hand and the end of the
Speaker 5: gun was on the propped onto the bed. Then he
Speaker 5: says she used a right hand which fell under a
Speaker 5: bottom afterwards. Then the gunshot was from the ground up,
Speaker 5: and then it's horizontal. I mean, can anyone else see
Speaker 5: an issue here or is it just met?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think that's definitely established. Anna, It's seriously and
Speaker 2: I think at the time, I think Ian Roberts's statement
Speaker 2: talked about how both him and Blandford said that it
Speaker 2: couldn't have happened that way, but of course they were ignored,
Speaker 2: which is terribly sad. But I guess what's even more sad.
Speaker 2: And I think you pointed this out last week with
Speaker 2: Ron Liam that when you lose, you've just got to
Speaker 2: lose gracefully, right, you just got to accept it rather
Speaker 2: than just keep pushing that barrow, right, And it was
Speaker 2: just just just, man, can you just stop already?
Speaker 1: Ron brought this up last week too, which I thought
Speaker 1: was the most pertinent thing of all. Even if you
Speaker 1: don't know anything about police procedures. You know, it just
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense. I mean, if you turn up at
Speaker 1: a scene and such a violent act has been perpetrated
Speaker 1: a young mum and a shotgun and a shooting injury
Speaker 1: to that extent, your default position is there's a problem here.
Speaker 1: This is potentially criminal. You know, this is suspicious. That's
Speaker 1: your default position, because you know, anyone who comes across
Speaker 1: a scene like that, you think that that is an
Speaker 1: ultra you know, aggressive, serious, you know whatever.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 1: You talk about domestic violence issues, generational attitudes till the
Speaker 1: cows come home. But the point is, if you turn
Speaker 1: up to a scene like that, you take the default
Speaker 1: position of it being the worst possible outcome in a
Speaker 1: police context, and you work backwards, you know, and if
Speaker 1: it turns out down the track from from all the
Speaker 1: forensics and all the bits and pieces that somehow that
Speaker 1: person has tragically taken their own life, well then that's
Speaker 1: a conclusion. But you start off from the position of
Speaker 1: assuming the worst. And I thought, you know, Ron making
Speaker 1: that point as an experienced detective made perfect sense, whether
Speaker 1: you're a policeman or not.
Speaker 3: Because, as we've said, detectives see things.
Speaker 4: That's the normal sort of working Joe's like you and me,
Speaker 4: Liam would never see yeah and never wish to see.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: But this one, this is, this is still has to
Speaker 4: be highly unusual in regional Western Australia. We're not talking
Speaker 4: about Perth or north Bridge, and they're hardly the Bronx,
Speaker 4: you know what I mean. Yeah, we're talking about Serpentine.
Speaker 4: We're talking about a rural area, young woman, kids in
Speaker 4: the car. I mean, it just like red flags planted
Speaker 4: all over.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh mate, it was so many red flat I mean
Speaker 1: a place would it looked like Tianum and square. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't make it up. It's just no, it's phenomenal.
Speaker 1: Tim me your spot on, don't you think?
Speaker 3: Anna?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking, listen to everything you're saying,
Speaker 5: and you know I agree with you. But I've got
Speaker 5: to say there were three constables that were there who
Speaker 5: thought exactly what Ron was saying, the same way Ron
Speaker 5: was thinking. They were taking you know, making the right
Speaker 5: steps and following procedure. They wanted this done. They wanted forensics.
Speaker 5: You know, why is it detectives could come in and
Speaker 5: just shut all of that down. It is so wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the irony They were good coppers, every one
Speaker 1: of those constables.
Speaker 5: They were.
Speaker 2: Now next week, Annie, you'll be pleased to hear we
Speaker 2: are going to have the new South Wales Crime Commissioner,
Speaker 2: Michael Barnes, Oh my god, talking about Amy's case, and
Speaker 2: I guess he's experienced now he's it's going to be
Speaker 2: an exciting, exciting episode, but I guess for now. I mean,
Speaker 2: obviously I wanted to speak to you about the family
Speaker 2: and how everyone's coping. I mean everyone forgets sometimes, Anna,
Speaker 2: because you're just out there and you're going hard, and
Speaker 2: you know, everyone just assumes that you're so strong, but
Speaker 2: I know this is often hard, always hard. Really, how
Speaker 2: you doing? First, first and foremost?
Speaker 5: Well, you know you're not allowed to ask me that question,
Speaker 5: I know, I know. Sorry, I yeah, that's a really
Speaker 5: hard one, because yeah, it is. It is so difficult
Speaker 5: what this has done to me, you know, how it's
Speaker 5: affected me, my life, you know, my family's life is
Speaker 5: just devastating. I have good days, I have bad days,
Speaker 5: and generally that question you just asked me could make
Speaker 5: me burst into tears because I try not to think
Speaker 5: about anything but what's in front of me, which is
Speaker 5: you know, fighting for the truth about Amy. So I
Speaker 5: don't stop to look either side of me to think
Speaker 5: about how I'm feeling, or you know that sort of thing.
Speaker 5: It's my focus is Amy, So sometimes I don't even
Speaker 5: realize things build up. And when someone asked me that questions,
Speaker 5: you know, there's been times when I've just burst into
Speaker 5: tears because I haven't stopped to think about how I feel. Yeah,
Speaker 5: but you know, the family's doing well, the kids are
Speaker 5: doing well, Nancy is doing well. But you know that
Speaker 5: only lasts a little while, Allison, until you know there's
Speaker 5: another smack in the face or another let down, or
Speaker 5: something happens. And once that happened, you know, once some
Speaker 5: sort of news comes along, it just dredges everything up
Speaker 5: gain and we're back to the twenty sixth of June
Speaker 5: twenty fourteen. So there is no moving on until you
Speaker 5: know there's some sort of answer to all this.
Speaker 2: You're doing your great job, Anna, You're doing a great job.
Speaker 2: And thank you, and thank you for trusting us with
Speaker 2: Amy's story. We'll keep going.
Speaker 5: Oh, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. Have I got
Speaker 5: time to talk about something else? Yes, Okay, I wanted
Speaker 5: to bring up Robert Simmons, if that's okay, it's fine. Yeah,
Speaker 5: just a couple of things about him. He said that
Speaker 5: Amy and his son David and the kids were living
Speaker 5: on his property for about three months, and he said
Speaker 5: he only saw Amy a couple of times and he
Speaker 5: didn't know her very well. But he did say she
Speaker 5: was a good mother, always polite and nice to him.
Speaker 5: I found it interesting that he claims he didn't know
Speaker 5: the mother of his grandchild, the one who looked after
Speaker 5: his horses when he was away, the one who picked
Speaker 5: him up from the airport a couple of times, he
Speaker 5: doesn't know very well. And then he said that he
Speaker 5: went into that room and unloaded that shotgun, and I
Speaker 5: thought to myself, well, why didn't he unload the pink
Speaker 5: gun too, and in fact, why not all the other
Speaker 5: guns that were in that room. He said at the
Speaker 5: inquest that he was a bit reluctant to sign off
Speaker 5: to get Amy a gun license because of what his
Speaker 5: son and his mates had told him about Amy going
Speaker 5: to violent rages and things like that. So he's worried about,
Speaker 5: you know, supporting Amy getting a gun license. Yet he's
Speaker 5: okay with his son, the one with a substance abuse problem,
Speaker 5: having a gun, and he's never witnessed anything from Amy
Speaker 5: and says she was polite and nice and claims that
Speaker 5: he didn't know very well. So if it's okay with you,
Speaker 5: I actually have a personal message for Robert Simmons.
Speaker 3: Is that okay?
Speaker 2: Bert?
Speaker 5: You've said in your own words that you've tried so
Speaker 5: hard to help your son get his life on track.
Speaker 5: I'd like to ask you this, Bert, have you ever
Speaker 5: stopped and considered in all of this, just once your
Speaker 5: granddaughter and what she's gone through the pain and the
Speaker 5: suffering she lives with caused by losing the most important
Speaker 5: person in her life, her mother Amy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a that's a that's a great statement.
Speaker 1: And I asked the question again. Anyone can answer this.
Speaker 1: You included Anna, why did he touch that gun? Why
Speaker 1: did he go in that room and unload that gun?
Speaker 2: I can give you an answer. Somebody else said that,
Speaker 2: and you know because he kind of explained it in
Speaker 2: his statement. He said, you know, as a gun user,
Speaker 2: it's always to disarm the guns, you know, when they're
Speaker 2: not being used. So that's that's try.
Speaker 3: Come on, but just that one, come on, Well.
Speaker 2: He said that he didn't see her he only saw
Speaker 2: the gun and then turned around and saw Amy.
Speaker 1: But I'm confused. But this is something I've always been
Speaker 1: confused about. The chronology of events. Robert Simmons' phone call
Speaker 1: to the ambulance operator, where he says in the transcript
Speaker 1: of the call, he's on record as saying, what are
Speaker 1: the words, Tim? I think I think my son.
Speaker 5: Someone shot her. I think it must have been my son.
Speaker 5: He's not here. My son made the mistake.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Is that before he goes into the room
Speaker 3: or after?
Speaker 2: That was after he got a phone call, initially being
Speaker 2: told that something was going on, so he went there,
Speaker 2: And it's a good point you make. He went there
Speaker 2: knowing that there was someone to think of, yeah, yep,
Speaker 2: that's right, someone in distress, or yeah, that that there
Speaker 2: was an person hurt.
Speaker 3: Something had happened.
Speaker 1: So he uttered those words after he'd been in the
Speaker 1: room and unloaded the gun.
Speaker 5: Yes, correct, and found Amy.
Speaker 1: And found Amy. So he sees her in situe after
Speaker 1: he unloads the gun. According to him, it's just such
Speaker 1: a small room. We know what the dimensions are. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've been inside the replica. But anyway, I'll go with
Speaker 1: him on the chronology that's his evidence. But he unloads
Speaker 1: the gun, then he sees her, then he utters those words, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but I there's still there's so much, there's
Speaker 1: so much to unpack there, there's so much still unanswered.
Speaker 1: It's it's incredible.
Speaker 4: And we've discussed it before. He wasn't saying this to
Speaker 4: the neighbor that he knew. He wasn't saying this to
Speaker 4: one of his son's friends. He was saying this to
Speaker 4: a complete stranger or an emergency call.
Speaker 3: It's a great point.
Speaker 4: It's like, yes, I mean, you're overwhelmed like this, that
Speaker 4: life is coming at you pretty fast at that point,
Speaker 4: but that that's your first instinct to tell a complete
Speaker 4: stranger you think your son has shot his partner like that.
Speaker 3: That to me is very.
Speaker 4: Telling to what he really thought had happened in that moment. Yes,
Speaker 4: and then everything since, as and has just pointed out,
Speaker 4: has seemed to walk that back or try to.
Speaker 1: Yes, because that's that's the flavor I get from everything
Speaker 1: he said at the ink, he seemed to get more
Speaker 1: and more did so.
Speaker 4: He downplayed it, definitely downplayed it at the inquest. But
Speaker 4: if you you'll remember this and the post, it notes
Speaker 4: that were all over that small house. Robert Simmons at
Speaker 4: one point said to Amy's mum that they showed me.
Speaker 4: I didn't realize it was that bad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: And those were notes that Amy had made, presumably about
Speaker 4: what was happening in that house, or what's what had
Speaker 4: happened to her in that house, or what Simmons had
Speaker 4: said to her in that house. I didn't realize it
Speaker 4: was that bad. So that that's that's him again, not
Speaker 4: not admitting to someone unimportant, admitting to the mother of
Speaker 4: a of a of a of a dead young woman
Speaker 4: that yeah, oh god, it was bad in that house.
Speaker 4: Now what did he What did you mean by that?
Speaker 5: And those post it notes were thrown out. He threw
Speaker 5: the post it notes out, And I just wanted to
Speaker 5: say also, Robert gave evidence at the inquest that he
Speaker 5: had never known his son David being violent towards a woman, right,
Speaker 5: Yet his first instinctive comment to police emergency on the
Speaker 5: phone was that someone shot on he thought it was
Speaker 5: his son. So if you give evidence in court and
Speaker 5: you say I've never known my son to be violent
Speaker 5: towards a woman, yet that's your response when you see
Speaker 5: a dead woman, you call police emergency and you say
Speaker 5: you think he did it, Well, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3: It's counterintuitive.
Speaker 2: Boyce should be talking to Robert Simmons again if they're
Speaker 2: not already, but they also should be speaking to his
Speaker 2: partner at the time, or his former partners. They should
Speaker 2: be speaking to them because we know more in relation
Speaker 2: to those relationships, and I think they could offer some information,
Speaker 2: give a bit of clarification on the situation. But you know,
Speaker 2: I mean again, like so much of this, right, we
Speaker 2: look at this, we look at the words, we look
Speaker 2: at the situation, and we know we're talking circumstantial. But
Speaker 2: the way they have interpreted stuff doesn't make sense. The
Speaker 2: way we're talking about it now does make sense. And
Speaker 2: they've just conveniently omitted the other information which backs up
Speaker 2: the whole idea of Amy being killed as opposed to
Speaker 2: having killed herself. So that's been the ongoing frustration for you, hasn't,
Speaker 2: an Anna.
Speaker 5: The whole thing's been frustrating, Alison, like every step of
Speaker 5: the way. I mean, I cannot believe. I still can't believe.
Speaker 5: I know, I've had over ten years of it, and
Speaker 5: I still cannot believe that there is no one in
Speaker 5: authority that is stepping up to help. No one. I
Speaker 5: just keep being fobbed off. Like I said, it's a
Speaker 5: game of hot potato. Just keep throwing it because you know,
Speaker 5: don't want to hold that for too long, do you
Speaker 5: I get burned? That's right.
Speaker 3: We'll just keep the pot boiling away.
Speaker 2: We'll hold the potato until they only take it. But Anna,
Speaker 2: is it? You know again? Thank you so much? Is
Speaker 2: there anything else you'd like to say? I know that
Speaker 2: we could, We could dedicate so much time to all
Speaker 2: of this, but there's going to be plenty of opportunity,
Speaker 2: I can assure you. And you know, we've got some
Speaker 2: really exciting people coming up in conversation.
Speaker 5: Have you've done so well?
Speaker 2: As I said, starting with Michael Michael Barnes next week.
Speaker 2: And you know, there are people willing to help. They're
Speaker 2: not in the position, the direct position to help, but
Speaker 2: they're willing to at least provide advice and insight on
Speaker 2: what should be happening.
Speaker 5: Well, Allison, I'm so grateful to everyone who has stepped
Speaker 5: forward to speak to the podcast. You know, people from
Speaker 5: you know, specific expertise and backgrounds that have that have
Speaker 5: come on here and helped and you know, given their
Speaker 5: opinion on the matter, it's been just amazing that they've
Speaker 5: been willing to do that. I would like to sincerely
Speaker 5: thank the listeners who've been following Amy's story and to
Speaker 5: everyone who's signed who has signed the petition in support
Speaker 5: of Amy. They're helping to make such a difference, So
Speaker 5: if people could please keep spreading the word and sharing
Speaker 5: the link. And I'd also like to thank the people
Speaker 5: who have come forward with information. Our family are so
Speaker 5: appreciative of their courage in doing so, and my family
Speaker 5: and I are also grateful to you, Alison, Sandy, Liam
Speaker 5: and Tim and the team at seven Media for the
Speaker 5: ongoing help and support you continue to give us Amy's
Speaker 5: family and friends by helping to uncover the truth. I'd
Speaker 5: also like to thank the three of you for your
Speaker 5: kind words in conversation one. Alison, You're amazing. Tim, I've
Speaker 5: appreciated all all the articles you've written, and Liam, I'm
Speaker 5: happy to be your auntie Anna. No one's taking down
Speaker 5: a dirt road.
Speaker 1: That's praise, that's praise indeed, praise indeed, were compared to
Speaker 1: some of my other arsers. I don't know whether you
Speaker 1: want to be in that bucket. But I'm very pleased
Speaker 1: to put you there. No good on you, Anna, thanks
Speaker 1: very much. We all really appreciate it, and so least
Speaker 1: we can do. We just want to We just want
Speaker 1: to get more, more, more, more traction. That's that's what
Speaker 1: we're frustrated about too, equally with you. But although we
Speaker 1: could probably never reach those dizzying heights after ten years,
Speaker 1: but that's a great way to finish this if we
Speaker 1: can just again urge people to to even get their
Speaker 1: friends to look at it, family members, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Go to change dot org and just type in Amy
Speaker 1: Wensley and please sign that petition, you know, because that's
Speaker 1: a really important thing to do, and we could get
Speaker 1: some some literally some change from that anner.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'd like to hope so absolutely.
Speaker 2: Well, the good thing is we're edging ten thousand now,
Speaker 2: which is good. So we're making progress. It's slow, slowly
Speaker 2: but surely, but you know, we're going to get there.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's every we all sing from the same
Speaker 2: hymn sheet. We're all dedicated to this and getting the
Speaker 2: truth about Amy out there. And we just again, thank.
Speaker 5: You so much.
Speaker 2: And Anna Davy, you're a real superstar, which is so
Speaker 2: much admiration for you.
Speaker 5: Thank you well, thank you so much for your kind words.
Speaker 5: I appreciate it and everything that you're doing to help.
Speaker 5: I just really appreciate it so much. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thanks guys, all right, thank you, Thanks Tom.
Speaker 3: Bye,