Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolute shambles to tell you the truth just
Speaker 2: actually really come of blood on Who's closing the day
Speaker 2: after the alleged at an Ashelle mud bank and it
Speaker 2: fits through a river.
Speaker 3: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 3: there are good people.
Speaker 4: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 4: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 2: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 2: our justice system and ask who are the victims.
Speaker 4: I'm Amy Maguire and I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate
Speaker 4: for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service. And a warning. This
Speaker 4: series contains the names of deceased peoples and has distressing
Speaker 4: content that might upset some listeners.
Speaker 5: My name is Ramus Santana. My name is Kevin Richardson.
Speaker 6: My name is Yuseph Salam. I'm one of the Central
Speaker 6: Park five. In eighteen eighty nine, we were falsely arrested
Speaker 6: and convicted for crimes that we didn't commit.
Speaker 5: We were kids at the time.
Speaker 6: We spent presciushrees of our life in prison.
Speaker 5: We were taken from our homes and we were put
Speaker 5: in prison for the next seven to thirteen years.
Speaker 6: In our case, there were false confessions. The public never
Speaker 6: got a chance to see how these false confessions started.
Speaker 6: They only saw the ending.
Speaker 5: With the problem my rights and interrogated behind closed doors.
Speaker 5: This is stuff that we want people to see. What
Speaker 5: actually takes place inside that room when they feed you
Speaker 5: details the pride of food and he doesn't have any sleep,
Speaker 5: the pride of water. They go through dramatic stress, being
Speaker 5: the prov of your necessity. When a person sits there
Speaker 5: for over twenty hours, I just wanted to go home. Basically,
Speaker 5: all you get at the end is just that nice
Speaker 5: package of a person saying that they committed a crime.
Speaker 3: What was he doing with him?
Speaker 5: We want you to see the whole process, from me
Speaker 5: begeinning to the end, from beginning to the end.
Speaker 3: That was three members of the famous Central Park five.
Speaker 3: Like Kevin, they were convicted of murder twenty five years ago,
Speaker 3: and just like Kevin, the only evidence presented in court
Speaker 3: against them were false confessions. All were coerced using the
Speaker 3: same sort of police techniques that were very common at
Speaker 3: the time but still persist to this day. Just like Kevin,
Speaker 3: there was no forensic evidence or DNA linking them to
Speaker 3: the crime, and yet despite this, they lost years of
Speaker 3: their life in prison at the time of their sentence.
Speaker 3: Now President Donald Trump called for their execution, But the
Speaker 3: Central Park Five are now free and they've proven their
Speaker 3: innocence and they've shown that the way their confessions were
Speaker 3: taken and forced out of them was very common at
Speaker 3: the time. That's why now they want videos of confessions
Speaker 3: like theirs, taken from start to finish, not stopped and started,
Speaker 3: as was also the case with Kevin Henry. The Central
Speaker 3: Park Five are now successfully suing many of the people
Speaker 3: who were involved in their conviction for a crime they
Speaker 3: did not commit. Just like Kevin, they didn't have proper
Speaker 3: legal representation. They were also in no state to give
Speaker 3: any evidence to police. They should have had lawyers by
Speaker 3: their side. They should have had time to speak with
Speaker 3: these lawyers and understand what was being put to them
Speaker 3: and what the police was saying, but no one took
Speaker 3: that time, and sadly, just like Kevin Henry, they found
Speaker 3: themselves in prison for a crime they knew they didn't
Speaker 3: commit and just like Kevin Henry, they always maintained their innocence.
Speaker 3: For the past year, we've been outlining the case of
Speaker 3: Kevin Henry or Curtin, and over this year we've raised
Speaker 3: serious doubt about his gill. We're glad you've come on
Speaker 3: this journey with us and it become involved in investigating
Speaker 3: the case. Over the past few months, we've received a
Speaker 3: lot of feedback from those of you who are trying
Speaker 3: to figure out this case as well.
Speaker 2: We have tried to answer a lot of those questions
Speaker 2: that there is always one enduring one. If Kevin didn't
Speaker 2: do it, who did. In this episode, we're going to
Speaker 2: be backtracking a little bit and we'll give you some
Speaker 2: information that you haven't received yet. It revolves around another witness,
Speaker 2: because Kevin wasn't the first person police tried to pin
Speaker 2: this crime on. But first I want to stop asking Martin.
Speaker 2: You've received a lot of feedback, particularly from people in
Speaker 2: the legal fraternity. So what's been the common perception of
Speaker 2: this case.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people, particularly lawyers, in breaking
Speaker 1: down the case, quickly look at the legal technicalities of
Speaker 1: the case, the flaws and the lack of evidence, But
Speaker 1: also I think the common curiosity is if Kevin didn't
Speaker 1: do it, then who did?
Speaker 2: And I think we've seen, particularly overseas, that when these
Speaker 2: sort of investigations are made public, people tend to go
Speaker 2: down their own lines of inquiry. Do you think do
Speaker 2: you think there are certain people that the public are
Speaker 2: sort of thinking are more likely to have done this crime.
Speaker 1: I think, based on the information that's available to the public,
Speaker 1: perhaps some people might think that the women who committed
Speaker 1: the initial assault might be responsible for Linda's dance. But
Speaker 1: from what we know, including all the facts that are
Speaker 1: available at the time and now, that's probably not the case,
Speaker 1: particularly not the case that they were the ones who
Speaker 1: placed Linder's body in the river.
Speaker 2: So it's I mean, we've said throughout this investigation that
Speaker 2: they were definitely the ones who committed the assault. We're
Speaker 2: not denying that that was an actual fact, and it
Speaker 2: came out in court, but it's just what happened to
Speaker 2: her body afterwards, and what Kevin got the harsher sentence for.
Speaker 2: That's what we're sort of saying that we have. No,
Speaker 2: we're not there's no indication that they were involved in
Speaker 2: any way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I think from the initial investigation, what
Speaker 1: came out at trial, and what we've learned now our
Speaker 1: own investigation that there's no doubt that they were not
Speaker 1: involved in the placing of the body in the river.
Speaker 2: So we never said the three women who were convicted
Speaker 2: of Griev's bodily harm were the ones who placed Linder
Speaker 2: in the river. We obviously can't rule it out, but
Speaker 2: it does seem very unlikely.
Speaker 1: But in this episode we're going to go through the
Speaker 1: other people. Police should have followed up and they didn't.
Speaker 2: I also have to note that many of the people
Speaker 2: were discussing are now deceased. That's the other tragic part
Speaker 2: of this story. Too many Aboriginal people who have died
Speaker 2: before their time. All of the people we've mentioned in
Speaker 2: this story have histories of trauma, just like Linda, and
Speaker 2: just like Kevin Henry so Martin. There was no forensics
Speaker 2: at the scene, nothing really tying Kevin to the crime
Speaker 2: at all. I just wonder why did the police start
Speaker 2: pointing towards Kevin. When did they start to do this
Speaker 2: and why?
Speaker 1: Well, at some point mister Henry believed or said he'd
Speaker 1: called an ambulance at some point in the evening, However,
Speaker 1: a check at the records showed that no ambulance was
Speaker 1: dispatched to Tanuba House, and that's most likely a call
Speaker 1: had never been made at all. Whether Kevin remembers this inaccurately,
Speaker 1: explained it this way due to the weight of pressure
Speaker 1: being exerted upon him in the interrogation, or made it up,
Speaker 1: it really doesn't matter. No ambulance came and no ambulance
Speaker 1: was called, But it's what happens next that's most concerning.
Speaker 2: So I guess I what happened after that? I mean,
Speaker 2: it seems to me, I mean, it isn't inaccurate information,
Speaker 2: but everyone was drunk at that time. There could have
Speaker 2: been quite an indis innocent explanation for it. So what
Speaker 2: happened after that? And and did police fail to follow
Speaker 2: any other avenues or so?
Speaker 1: What happened is that one police ascertained that most likely
Speaker 1: no ambulance was called. They zeroed in on Kevin Henry
Speaker 1: very quickly. And here's what happened at trial. This is
Speaker 1: David Murray, Kevin's barrister. My client told you in a
Speaker 1: record of interview that we will no doubt here tomorrow
Speaker 1: that he rang the ambulance. Whereas you inquired and found
Speaker 1: out that he never did. This paints the picture? Does it?
Speaker 1: This means Henry is right for it? Does it? Responding
Speaker 1: in court his officer hunt, No, it does not.
Speaker 2: Did if this was the only thing that sort of
Speaker 2: began the investigation and pointed more towards Kevin, did Kevin's
Speaker 2: representation at trial actually challenged that in any way when
Speaker 2: it went to court.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I think that the point mister Murray was
Speaker 1: making was that if all they had at this point
Speaker 1: was the fact that a call probably wasn't made to
Speaker 1: an ambulance, was this all they really had to investigate
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry? And why did they assume from this point
Speaker 1: that he was involved, particularly when there was potentially other suspects.
Speaker 1: And he'd go on to thrash out with the officers
Speaker 1: whether they'd investigated any of those other suspects.
Speaker 2: Before we go into that sort of testament, can I
Speaker 2: ask you who were were there a number of police
Speaker 2: officers who gave evidence at the trial it was only
Speaker 2: or how many actually gave evidence and who were they?
Speaker 1: So we have two officers who ran the investigation, while
Speaker 1: a number of officers gave evidence a trial only to
Speaker 1: speak to the actual investigation. The leading investigators were Senior
Speaker 1: Constable Robert Hunt and Plane closed Senior Constable leslie Girk.
Speaker 1: They ran the investigation from start to finish, and they
Speaker 1: were the two officers who gave testimony on the stand
Speaker 1: about the investigation itself.
Speaker 2: Did they ever give an actual explanation as to why
Speaker 2: Kevin was the one primarily cornered for this or that
Speaker 2: was the only thing? The ambulance and they didn't. That
Speaker 2: was all they said in relation to it.
Speaker 1: The ambulance was the main reason that they seemed to
Speaker 1: target in on Kevin early on. What we don't know
Speaker 1: is what was said by other people off the record,
Speaker 1: what the police believed of their own volition and never
Speaker 1: admitted to on the stand. But what we do know
Speaker 1: is that very early on, and I mean very early on,
Speaker 1: the police targeted Kevin and virtually no one else.
Speaker 2: Now they didn't target anyone else. Was that fact brought
Speaker 2: force in trial, particularly by Kevin's representation. Did they bring
Speaker 2: up any other names?
Speaker 1: Yes, so a number of other names were raised, particularly
Speaker 1: mister Murray Kevin's defense barrister. Again, this is mister Murray
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry's barrister at trial, across examining officer Robert Hunt.
Speaker 1: You tell us now, detective, why you didn't investigate duk
Speaker 1: Heart and question why he lied to you? Answer? Duckhart
Speaker 1: had already been questioned in regard to the matter. In
Speaker 1: regards to the statement, question, did you go back and
Speaker 1: question why he lied to you? Answer? No, I did not.
Speaker 1: Why not because it had been clarified in other statements
Speaker 1: that he was not present there? Question can you tell
Speaker 1: us which statements it's clarified that he wasn't present? Answer?
Speaker 1: I cannot recall. I'd have to recall back to them.
Speaker 1: Question perhaps we will still be going tomorrow, you can
Speaker 1: do it tonight. Answer all right. Then mister Murray raised
Speaker 1: another potential suspect, the question do you know Willy West? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: I do not. Question, well, Willy West is mentioned in
Speaker 1: some of the material. Didn't you want to equate yourself
Speaker 1: with a name that was mentioned in the material that
Speaker 1: there was no statement? Front Hunt answers does he go
Speaker 1: by any other name? Murray continues, I'm asking you. You're
Speaker 1: the detective, I'm the barrister and answers, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: familiar with that name Willy West. Now, at this point,
Speaker 1: mister Murray also raises some other names. They may not
Speaker 1: be suspects, but they are names we do know that
Speaker 1: would have been known to the investigating officers. Mister Murray
Speaker 1: asks what about Clinton Hill? The answer, I'm not familiar
Speaker 1: with that name either. What about Brian Tawley, I'm not
Speaker 1: familiar with that name? What about a white fellow also
Speaker 1: a confident of Tully's, named Roy, who is recently deceased.
Speaker 1: Do you know him at all? I'm not sure who
Speaker 1: you are referring to know.
Speaker 2: So did the police make any effort to find out
Speaker 2: who these people were? And why didn't they know? And
Speaker 2: also what were their explanations for not following up for.
Speaker 1: The any Well, they didn't really seem to have an explanation.
Speaker 1: They should have known because these names were raised in
Speaker 1: statements by the people present at Tanuba House that night,
Speaker 1: so the information was known to police. The information was
Speaker 1: in the statements. I think one of the reasons they
Speaker 1: say they're not familiar with the names is they simply
Speaker 1: never followed it up. And this goes to a point
Speaker 1: that as soon as they looked at Kevin for the crime,
Speaker 1: they zeroed in on Kevin, and Kevin alone and that's
Speaker 1: problematic in any investigation by not keeping an open mind,
Speaker 1: by not being open to the possibility that anyone else
Speaker 1: and we know that at least thirty people were there
Speaker 1: that night, plus others who could have come and gone
Speaker 1: were potentially responsible, means that anyone who actually did the
Speaker 1: crime was missed from the start.
Speaker 2: Now, these there weren't only people who were known that
Speaker 2: to Nuba were there. We've already discussed several times on
Speaker 2: this program about the other camp which seemed to be
Speaker 2: predominantly white fellows who'd come down to Tanuba House. Did
Speaker 2: that come up in trial? And did the police show
Speaker 2: any indication that they knew about this other camp of people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that information certainly did come up, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: appear like any investigation was done into who these people
Speaker 1: were and what happened. Again, I'll go back to the transcript.
Speaker 1: It's mister Murray Cross examining Senior Constable Robert Hunt. Did
Speaker 1: you gain information that some white fellows and perhaps some
Speaker 1: Aboriginal fellows in company with them, used to frequent Tanuba
Speaker 1: House for purposes of violence and attempting intercourse with the
Speaker 1: Aboriginal women. The answer, yes, we had. Did you investigate
Speaker 1: to find those men. Yes, I think we did. Murray,
Speaker 1: you think we did? I have to ask you again,
Speaker 1: you are the detective. The answer, yes, we did. Where
Speaker 1: did you look? We tried to ascertain the names and
Speaker 1: identities of these people through the statements that were provided
Speaker 1: to us. As such, no further information could be given
Speaker 1: to us. As such, we could not continue with the investigation.
Speaker 1: We had nothing to go by. Has it puzzled you
Speaker 1: that during this trial this court has founded these names out? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: it does not. Again, mister Murray, very well, during the
Speaker 1: course of your investigation, did you find out the names
Speaker 1: of any persons who at any time had frequented ten
Speaker 1: Uber House, stirring up or causing trouble with the occupants there? Hunt, No,
Speaker 1: I did not. Can you tell us the extent of
Speaker 1: your inquiries in that respect? Is that to your initial
Speaker 1: inquiry to which you made or to your question? Now,
Speaker 1: Hunt replies, I'm talking about the same subject. We did
Speaker 1: not make any further inquiries in relation to that. Murray, then, presses,
Speaker 1: can you tell us the inquiries you did make? As
Speaker 1: I said before, it had come out in a number
Speaker 1: of the statements.
Speaker 2: So what do we take from that? It seems that
Speaker 2: Hunt has just admitted that they weren't actually actively investigating,
Speaker 2: actually going out and finding out more about suspects. They
Speaker 2: were just looking through the statements they had already taken.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's particularly troubling. I think when anyone
Speaker 1: thinks about police work, particularly something as serious as a murder,
Speaker 1: that police would be boots on the ground looking for information,
Speaker 1: speaking to people, knocking on doors and trying to find
Speaker 1: out who these other people were. Now they say that
Speaker 1: the names came up in the statements and plenty given't
Speaker 1: and that they just couldn't ascertain who these people were.
Speaker 1: But we know from these statements that they were told
Speaker 1: exactly who a number of these people were and it
Speaker 1: was just never followed up on. Understand Hunt was also
Speaker 1: asked about other people, Loretta Brown and could not recall
Speaker 1: if he interviewed her, nor a Bernie Ross. But he
Speaker 1: had taken these statements.
Speaker 2: The timeframe of them pointing at Kevin. Did he mention
Speaker 2: the ambulance in his original statement, and that's where they
Speaker 2: got it from. So they've only got one inconsistency from
Speaker 2: one early star, is that how it worked in relation.
Speaker 1: To the time for it comes from the first statement
Speaker 1: that Kevin gave, and we have to remember that he
Speaker 1: was clearly intoxicated at this time. We've heard from his cousin,
Speaker 1: Doug Graham, who saw a video of Kevin at this
Speaker 1: point and could tell he was intoxicated. Kevin made the
Speaker 1: claim about the ambulance, and whether he did that because
Speaker 1: he was just trying to please the officers and get
Speaker 1: out of the interview under massive stress, we don't know.
Speaker 1: But that was the point where they've decided Kevin was
Speaker 1: right for it. As mister Murray put to Senior Constable.
Speaker 2: Hunt, so before they picked him up that day and
Speaker 2: interviewed him, so over that course of that to our interview,
Speaker 2: they hadn't singled him out particularly. It was only because
Speaker 2: of that interview and him talking about the ambulance that
Speaker 2: they began to zone in on him. Or were there
Speaker 2: other people beforehand, or how did that work out? It
Speaker 2: was just when they picked him up and began talking
Speaker 2: to him at this point.
Speaker 1: In no way at all was Kevin Henry considered a
Speaker 1: suspect for the crime. His name hadn't come up because
Speaker 1: he wasn't involved at all in the assault on Winder
Speaker 1: and he wasn't considered a key person at the scene.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until that interview where the officers decided he
Speaker 1: was the person they were going to go after.
Speaker 2: So I guess we can take from that given that
Speaker 2: it was only after that interview that they really singled
Speaker 2: in on Kevin, that there might have been other black
Speaker 2: falls they were chasing a relation to this crime beforehand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we know that a number of other people
Speaker 1: were accused of the crime, and they include Frank and
Speaker 1: Wayne Saunters. Wayne's Saunders gave testimony on the stand, which
Speaker 1: was that he and his brother Frank were told by
Speaker 1: the police they'd done it. Now, there is absolutely no
Speaker 1: evidence that Frank and Wayne Saunders were at all involved,
Speaker 1: and we don't believe for a minute that the police
Speaker 1: thought they were either. They were simply trying to scare them.
Speaker 1: Wayne Saunders gave up to five statements to police, and
Speaker 1: we've discussed that previously. He was the one who police
Speaker 1: kept harassing for a statement all the way up to
Speaker 1: the prison that he was in in November, some months
Speaker 1: after the crime had occurred.
Speaker 2: So what did they say, why they had begun harassing
Speaker 2: him or looking into him, or what came out in court.
Speaker 1: There was absolutely no explanation as to why the police
Speaker 1: accused him, his brother, or some of the other people
Speaker 1: who were at an uber house. It appears that were
Speaker 1: just throwing accusations, either hoping some mud would stick or
Speaker 1: that someone would buckle and give information that it seems
Speaker 1: fairly clear the people being interviewed just didn't have.
Speaker 2: What was my interusments to this or did people or
Speaker 2: people around ten Uba seem to know what was happening,
Speaker 2: because I can imagine it would have been quite a
Speaker 2: fearful time for a lot of people if the police
Speaker 2: are coming in and accusing a whole heap of people
Speaker 2: at the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we know there was a great deal of
Speaker 1: fear amongst the people down at tan Uba. They'd obviously
Speaker 1: witnessed something horrific. We know that some of the people
Speaker 1: there had been involved in the assault. They didn't have
Speaker 1: any information they could provide to police that was useful,
Speaker 1: and this is where we get to many of the
Speaker 1: statements that were simply inaccurate, made up, or just trying
Speaker 1: to please the police to get out of the interviews
Speaker 1: they were giving. But with this information being so unclear,
Speaker 1: the police should have been investigating further. They couldn't simply
Speaker 1: continue to drag Aboriginal people up to the police station,
Speaker 1: accuse them of murder and hope that information would come
Speaker 1: from it.
Speaker 2: Tanuba was largely frequented by mostly Aboriginal people, but there
Speaker 2: were white people who were down there occasionally. And we've
Speaker 2: talked a bit about the other camps that were along
Speaker 2: the riverbank. So was it only blackfellows who were targeted?
Speaker 2: And did that ever come up in the trial that
Speaker 2: they could have been they should have maybe been looking
Speaker 2: for someone outside of the Tanuba community.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that came up again in the cross examination of
Speaker 1: Senior Constable Hunt, and it was known to everyone. And
Speaker 1: it's important to point this out that anyone who knew
Speaker 1: this area of Rockhampton knew about the multiple camps along
Speaker 1: the river and that it wasn't only Aboriginal people. This
Speaker 1: is what mister Murray, Kevin Henry's barrister asked Senior Comfortable
Speaker 1: Hunt on the stand. A number of white people have
Speaker 1: been down there trying to stir up trouble cause some
Speaker 1: either assault the aboriginals down there, Hunt interrupts. We tried
Speaker 1: to take that further, but we could not find any
Speaker 1: identity or any names as to who we could go
Speaker 1: further with the investigation on that matter. The next question,
Speaker 1: did you ascertain it all if there was another camp
Speaker 1: at all further down the river, down past the Cruising
Speaker 1: Knot Club Answer, I did not realize that. Now. There's
Speaker 1: two problems with these answers that have been given. A
Speaker 1: Hunt did know the names of some of those people
Speaker 1: who'd been coming down, because they were in the statements
Speaker 1: that had been given to him, and they were people
Speaker 1: who were frequently known to police. The other issue is
Speaker 1: that there is no doubt, an abstractous credulity to believe
Speaker 1: that Hunt was not aware of another camp nearby at
Speaker 1: the Cruising Yacht Club. He was an officer in Rockhampton
Speaker 1: who frequently visited this area and these camps were often
Speaker 1: where people were picked up by police. For him to
Speaker 1: suggest he didn't know this camp existed at all and
Speaker 1: that was the reason he didn't investigate the white people
Speaker 1: who'd been at that camp and who were known to
Speaker 1: cause trouble at Tonouba when they visited there. It's just
Speaker 1: not believable, and just for.
Speaker 2: Our audiences and people had never been to Rockhampton, the
Speaker 2: Cruising your club is literally just right next to Tanuba House,
Speaker 2: so not very far away, probably about fifty meters away.
Speaker 2: So if you were going to do but surely you
Speaker 2: would have seen the evidence of another camp somewhere around there,
Speaker 2: wouldn't you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's right. And I mean the next day
Speaker 1: when these officers were at Tanuba looking at the crime scene,
Speaker 1: not only was their people still at Tanuba House, the
Speaker 1: other camp was full of people, whether they were suspects,
Speaker 1: whether they were witnesses, the fact that they'd continued to
Speaker 1: harass Aboriginal people prior to that night. Those people were
Speaker 1: right there, and Hunt or any of his colleagues could
Speaker 1: have interviewed them on that day or in the days following,
Speaker 1: they simply chose not to.
Speaker 2: And we've talked previously about how after Kevin was charged
Speaker 2: that their investigation was completely dropped, and that's something that
Speaker 2: they do admit to. But did they say anything or
Speaker 2: does Hunt admit anything about what happened leading up to
Speaker 2: Kevin being charged and whether they were investigating. Does he
Speaker 2: admit anything in relation to that, because afterwards they pretty
Speaker 2: much admit that it was dropped completely, But before then,
Speaker 2: do they admit anything.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that on the same day that
Speaker 1: Kevin was charged, the fifth of September, the three women
Speaker 1: who were involved in the assault on Linda were charged
Speaker 1: with her murder and admits that this was done on
Speaker 1: the fifth, Kevin following the women. However, there's a crucial
Speaker 1: point we need to know about that day, which is
Speaker 1: that at the time the three women and Kevin were charged,
Speaker 1: the police did not know the cause of death. That
Speaker 1: means the forensic doctor had not yet provided his report
Speaker 1: as to how Linda had passed away. And yet we
Speaker 1: have four people charged with murder in two different circumstances,
Speaker 1: and that once Kevin was charged despite no cause of
Speaker 1: death having yet been established, the investigation essentially stopped.
Speaker 2: So, Madam, we've been talking about how Kevin was zoned
Speaker 2: in on even though there was very little evidence to
Speaker 2: go on. But in relation to the other names that
Speaker 2: have come up in which the police didn't investigate further,
Speaker 2: were there other signs that were sort of more likely
Speaker 2: that they had been involved in the crime rather than
Speaker 2: Kevin that came up in trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, there was plenty of other people where there
Speaker 1: was far more information about them, was more inconsistencies in
Speaker 1: their statement and there was more information as to whether
Speaker 1: they could have been involved at or now I should
Speaker 1: say at this point the names we're going to mention,
Speaker 1: we're not suggesting these people are responsible for the crime.
Speaker 1: What we are suggesting, however, is the police should have
Speaker 1: investigated these people further, even if it was just to
Speaker 1: rule them out. That they didn't. Despite there being no
Speaker 1: cause of death when Kevin was charged, these people were
Speaker 1: not looked into any further and there are clearly reasons
Speaker 1: that you'll hear why they should have been.
Speaker 2: So how did that come out in the trial?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 1: In episode two, we began talking about a duck Heart,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of information that you would have
Speaker 1: heard so far about him at this stage, whether he
Speaker 1: was involved or not, it was clear to anyone with
Speaker 1: half an investigative eye that he was someone who should
Speaker 1: have been followed up on. And this is what mister
Speaker 1: Murray asked Plaine Clothes Senior Constable Leslie Girk on the stand.
Speaker 1: Were you aware that both Lyle Barnes and Wayne Saunders
Speaker 1: stated that Duckhart was not at the Great Western but
Speaker 1: was actually down at Tanuba. They didn't actually say he
Speaker 1: wasn't at the Great Western. They said he was down
Speaker 1: at Tanuba in the afternoon. Kirk's response, I'm aware that
Speaker 1: Lyle said that in his statement, but I don't recall
Speaker 1: Wayne Murray. You see, did it occur to you that
Speaker 1: perhaps Duckhart was telling you a lie? Answer? No, I
Speaker 1: had no cause to believe that, even though there was
Speaker 1: someone contradicting him. Answer yes, Lyle Barnes, you considered to
Speaker 1: be a fairly reliable witness, didn't you.
Speaker 2: Yes, So they pretty much accepted Duckhart's statement and what
Speaker 2: he said.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, And at this point they'd also accepted
Speaker 1: all of Lyle Barnes's statement, but when it comes to
Speaker 1: duck Heart, they don't seem to accept what was being
Speaker 1: said by other individuals. Again, I'll go back to Murray.
Speaker 1: Did you accept that part of Lile Barnes's statement as
Speaker 1: being accurate? The answer from Gurk I did did you
Speaker 1: accept the part of his statement saying that Duckhart was
Speaker 1: at ten Uber House as being accurate? This is Girk's response.
Speaker 1: I asked duck about it when that was brought to
Speaker 1: my attention or when I read it, and he said no,
Speaker 1: he was definitely at the Great Western. So that was
Speaker 1: good enough. Answer yes again, mister Murray, mister Hart has
Speaker 1: been caught in the active intercourse in the lame way
Speaker 1: by his girlfriend. Come to facto, he's whereaboutser in question,
Speaker 1: when something happens to winda at a place you believed
Speaker 1: to be down at t Nuba House, Duckhart's whereabouts can't
Speaker 1: be accounted for? That didn't raise your suspicions? Answer No, Well,
Speaker 1: I had no doubt as to where Duck was.
Speaker 2: So basically the police accepted Duck's arabi without even going
Speaker 2: to investigate it further. I mean, I'm just thinking it
Speaker 2: wouldn't have been hard to just ask a few questions,
Speaker 2: particularly from the Great Western. Did they even do that?
Speaker 1: No, And that comes up at the trial in the transcripts. Now,
Speaker 1: you would think that they would go down there and
Speaker 1: ask if Duck was there, what time he was there,
Speaker 1: especially if they had two statements saying that Duck was
Speaker 1: not at the Great Western, he was at Tanuba. And
Speaker 1: this is mister Murray asking about that. Could you verify
Speaker 1: it from the Great Western? Answer? Could I question? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Answer by Girk. I guess if you'd ask them you
Speaker 1: could verify it. Did you you're the investigator? Answer no,
Speaker 1: I didn't.
Speaker 2: So that's a pretty big concession from one of the
Speaker 2: police officers investigating that they didn't follow up a really
Speaker 2: crucial lead and a potential alibi. They didn't even bother
Speaker 2: to try and confirm anything. They just took Duckhart on
Speaker 2: his word.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think we have a list of names now.
Speaker 1: Surely the police, even if they were believing duck Hart
Speaker 1: and not believing those who said he was ton Uba,
Speaker 1: there was a very easy way to clarify this, which
Speaker 1: is what mister Murray asked. Why didn't you simply go
Speaker 1: down to the Great Western and ask them? And Girk
Speaker 1: says that plainly he just didn't do it. Now, this
Speaker 1: would have allowed them to either continue to investigate dark
Speaker 1: Heart if there were issues as to his alibi, or
Speaker 1: cross his name off the list and start to look
Speaker 1: at other people, but they chose simply not to do it.
Speaker 2: Now, let me talk about dark I mean, I've just
Speaker 2: been asking around and he seemed to be they all accounts,
Speaker 2: a lovely old man. I mean, I've heard him referred
Speaker 2: to as an old gentleman. Everyone really thinks warmly of him.
Speaker 2: But I guess why have we included him in this podcast,
Speaker 2: and why do you think his name keeps coming up
Speaker 2: even though he obviously had had a really good reputation
Speaker 2: around the place.
Speaker 4: I think there's some.
Speaker 1: Crucial factors, and we're not suggesting in any way that
Speaker 1: Duckhart was involved in the death of Linda, but his
Speaker 1: is the most clear example of police being given information
Speaker 1: that they simply didn't follow up on. We do know
Speaker 1: that mister Hart had intercourse with Linda that day. We
Speaker 1: also know he was seen by multiple witnesses at Tanuba,
Speaker 1: and this means that his alleged alibi at the Great
Speaker 1: Western was not accurate, and yet police made.
Speaker 4: No efforts to confirm that.
Speaker 1: We also know that Duckhart was the person who found
Speaker 1: Winder's clothing the next morning, and he's also the person
Speaker 1: that found the supposed drag marks that led to the water.
Speaker 1: But even these drag marks were contentious. Hunt was asked,
Speaker 1: was there a trap as such or merely grass pushed
Speaker 1: over his answer, it's hard to say. It wasn't a
Speaker 1: definite track. Now you have to remember there was no
Speaker 1: forensic evidence, no DNA, no eye witnesses. That these tracks,
Speaker 1: according to police, was proof positive that this is where
Speaker 1: Kevin dragged winds through this area on the way to
Speaker 1: the river, and we've just heard from Officer Hunt that
Speaker 1: it was hard to say that it wasn't even a
Speaker 1: definite track. So the reason we raise mister Hart is
Speaker 1: perhaps he was assisting police, but the information he gave
Speaker 1: was either largely inaccurate or the forensic information he led
Speaker 1: police to was not followed up on. And what was
Speaker 1: investigated in no way led to Kevin Henry. And there
Speaker 1: were plenty other people whose names were raised, and these
Speaker 1: people were not investigated either.
Speaker 2: So who were the names and did they come up
Speaker 2: in court? And were they put to the detectives.
Speaker 1: Yes, so these names were in statements given by people
Speaker 1: who were there at Tanubah that night as to people
Speaker 1: who were perhaps involved, were perhaps just at Tanuba House
Speaker 1: or were names of interest? And mister Murray asked the
Speaker 1: officer Gurk on the stand about a number of these people.
Speaker 1: Mister Murray, did you interview a person called Willy West? Answer?
Speaker 1: Willie West, Yeah, a fellow from Cherberg Cherberg who was
Speaker 1: drinking with duck Hart that afternoon in the Crown Hotel.
Speaker 1: Answer interview him. It's possible someone else did. Question from
Speaker 1: Murray possible. No one did. That's also possible. Did you
Speaker 1: interview a person called Snowy? I didn't. Has he got
Speaker 1: a name? Mister Murray, you're the investigator here. Did you
Speaker 1: read a statement taken by Roger Lowe given by Susan Aubrey. Yes?
Speaker 6: I did.
Speaker 1: In that statement it refers to a white fellow named
Speaker 1: Snowy that was down at the Crown having an argument
Speaker 1: with Linda about land rights. Answer, yes, did you try
Speaker 1: and find this fellow named Snowy?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: You are aware that Susan Aubrey talks about eight whitefellows,
Speaker 1: about eight white fellows coming down to Tanuba on the
Speaker 1: Friday night. The answer, I don't remember the amount eight,
Speaker 1: but I do remember some mention of white fellows. For
Speaker 1: the purpose of this recording, I'm going to exclude some
Speaker 1: of the offensive language that was used in the following questioning.
Speaker 1: Mister Murray continued. The white fellows were calling them black seas,
Speaker 1: saying they wanted to root a gin in quotation marks
Speaker 1: because we were easy, that sort of stuff. Do you
Speaker 1: remember that? Girk responded, I remember her saying something about
Speaker 1: white fellows going down. But those words, Murray, they don't
Speaker 1: ring a bell. Answer. I know the statement contains something
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 5: If she.
Speaker 1: Murray again the white fellows calling us black seas saying
Speaker 1: they wanted to root a gin because we were easy
Speaker 1: and we were blacks. Does that ring a bell at all?
Speaker 1: It does about them coming, is the answer? Now Here
Speaker 1: was the chance for Gurk and Hunt to investigate these
Speaker 1: white men from further up the river. Hunt says they
Speaker 1: got no names. But here we know that Girk was
Speaker 1: clearly given a name, Snowy, but this was not followed
Speaker 1: up on. This is despite the men from this other
Speaker 1: camp very close as Amy has described to Tanuba House
Speaker 1: saying appalling things about Aboriginal people and wanting to rape
Speaker 1: Aboriginal women, and these things were said the very night
Speaker 1: before Linda was murdered. That these people were not investigated
Speaker 1: in any way, and Murray would continue to flash this
Speaker 1: out in court. This is what he says about some
Speaker 1: of them, those statements that were made by those men.
Speaker 1: That's fairly strong material, isn't it? Those words? In what way?
Speaker 1: Questions Gurk said in relation to intruders to Tanuba House.
Speaker 1: Fairly violent strong stuff, isn't it? Girk? I wouldn't say violent,
Speaker 1: did you think it bought investigation to try and turn
Speaker 1: these white fellows up. Answer, It's pretty hard to investigate
Speaker 1: when you haven't got any names or descriptions. Did you
Speaker 1: think it bore investigation? Yes? Did you investigate it? Well,
Speaker 1: we couldn't, Murray, Officer, Every crime that is committed where
Speaker 1: the person is not caught red handed, the police start
Speaker 1: with a blank, don't you answer? That's right? Not necessarily
Speaker 1: a blank. There is always whenever a crime is committed,
Speaker 1: there is something there, Murray. Did you go to all
Speaker 1: of the other occupants at t Muba House on Friday
Speaker 1: the thirtieth of August and asked them?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Why not? A lot of them? A few of them
Speaker 1: mentioned in their statements, but they weren't able to say
Speaker 1: who they were. Which ones did you ask? Answer? Which ones?
Speaker 4: Did I ask? Yes?
Speaker 1: No, I didn't say I asked anyone I said in
Speaker 1: their statements. Mister Murray continues, Did it occur to you
Speaker 1: that perhaps Linda was left lying on the ground at
Speaker 1: Root Valley, that somebody else came there who had been
Speaker 1: there a couple of nights before. Never occurred to you, No,
Speaker 1: never occurred to you that duck Hart might have come
Speaker 1: back from the Great Western Hotel. Definitely not never occurred
Speaker 1: to you that anybody else could have been involved except
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry. That's right. Nothing was that after the fifth
Speaker 1: of September you decided that or before? Answer well, when
Speaker 1: I interviewed him, when you interviewed him, hadn't you already
Speaker 1: charged Susan Aubrey with murder? The three of them were
Speaker 1: charged with murder. They were before Kevin was interviewed. Answer yes,
Speaker 1: earlier that day.
Speaker 2: So what you said there it shows that the police
Speaker 2: really didn't fill out very crucial leads. But the bits
Speaker 2: about not falling up, particularly from the white camp, and
Speaker 2: them not bothering to go in because they apparently didn't
Speaker 2: have any names or descriptions, I mean, it says to
Speaker 2: me that Aboriginal women were very accustomed to not feeling
Speaker 2: protected by the people who were supposed to protect them
Speaker 2: on the riverbank.
Speaker 1: I think that's born out, particularly in their statements given
Speaker 1: by the Aboriginal women we know who didn't have anything
Speaker 1: to do with the crime whatsoever. They were either witnesses
Speaker 1: or who'd been made aware of what had gone on,
Speaker 1: and yet it's very clear from their statements that they
Speaker 1: didn't feel like they were assisting police, they felt clearly
Speaker 1: under threat and that they were being pressured to say
Speaker 1: things they either couldn't remember or didn't know. We know
Speaker 1: that multiple numbers of these Aboriginal women retracted their statements
Speaker 1: on the stand under cross examination. We know that a
Speaker 1: number were intoxicated when they gave their statements, and although
Speaker 1: police claimed they weren't intoxicated, these women admitted that they
Speaker 1: were when they gave the statements, but no concern was
Speaker 1: given to that. No concern was given to when they
Speaker 1: were picked up to make their statements, anything they had
Speaker 1: to say, and nothing they said was ever followed up on.
Speaker 1: And if this is the way they treat innocent Aboriginal
Speaker 1: women who were simply around at the time, some not
Speaker 1: even there that night, it tends to show how the
Speaker 1: police viewed Linda the victim. They simply had no regard
Speaker 1: for Aboriginal women, because if they did, surely their intention
Speaker 1: would have been to do justice for her, which means
Speaker 1: one thing, finding the real perpetrator. But they made no
Speaker 1: effort to do that, and in their investigation they clearly
Speaker 1: disregard the statements of all the Aboriginal women.
Speaker 3: That was episode twelve of kurtin the podcast. Today is
Speaker 3: Survival Day, or as some wrongly call it, Australia Day.
Speaker 3: For those who celebrate it as Australia Day, that's a
Speaker 3: celebration of invasion and one of the consequences of invasion
Speaker 3: is mass incarceration. Next week, we reveal further truths about
Speaker 3: this case that's wrongly led to the incarceration of Kevin Henry.