WEBVTT - No Appeal if you're Aboriginal

0:00:02.680 --> 0:00:06.080
<v Speaker 1>Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty

0:00:06.160 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolutely shambles, to

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:12.680
<v Speaker 1>tell you the truth, just absolutely really. Heman blood on

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>his clothing the day after the alleged a top on

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>a shallow mud bank and it fits through a river. Basically,

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:19.200
<v Speaker 1>I think most of the people are used to me

0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>are good people. I think a really important question we

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:25.800
<v Speaker 1>need to ask is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia

0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>are innocent.

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 2>This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 2>blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of

0:00:32.479 --> 0:00:35.400
<v Speaker 2>our justice system and ask who are the victims.

0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:41.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm Amy Maguire and I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate

0:00:41.159 --> 0:00:44.960
<v Speaker 1>for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service. And a warning, this

0:00:45.120 --> 0:00:48.920
<v Speaker 1>series contains the names of deceased peoples and has distressing

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 1>content that might upset some listeners.

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 2>Welcome to Curtain the podcast. A few episodes ago, we

0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 2>reported on story of another Aboriginal man Innocent Inside. If

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:09.120
<v Speaker 2>you haven't heard that episode already, then I suggest you

0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:13.000
<v Speaker 2>go back through on iTunes or Spotify or where you're

0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:18.840
<v Speaker 2>listening now to find that episode and listen to the

0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 2>details of the case we're going to be discussing. Derek Bromley,

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:27.600
<v Speaker 2>as we explained, is an Aboriginal man who's been imprisoned

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:33.319
<v Speaker 2>for the last thirty five years in Australia. He's maintained

0:01:33.400 --> 0:01:39.960
<v Speaker 2>his innocence that entire time, and all the evidence suggests

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:44.399
<v Speaker 2>that his innocence is valid and his maintaining of his

0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 2>innocence is reflective of what happened that night, that he

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 2>is not guilty of the murder he is convicted of.

0:01:54.640 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 2>As we spoke about, Derek had recently been rejected by

0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:05.160
<v Speaker 2>the Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia. At the

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 2>time when we reported on the case, we really hadn't

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:11.880
<v Speaker 2>had a chance to explain or look at exactly why

0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:18.400
<v Speaker 2>the court had refused to uphold Derek's appeal and grant

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:22.680
<v Speaker 2>him a chance at a new trial. Now, after a

0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:25.520
<v Speaker 2>couple of months, we've been able to look at what

0:02:25.760 --> 0:02:30.040
<v Speaker 2>happened in the Court of Criminal Appeal, but more importantly

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:32.240
<v Speaker 2>we've had a chance to read some more of the

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:37.079
<v Speaker 2>work of doctor Bob Miles from Flinders University, who has

0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 2>followed this case. Is an expert in proving the innocence

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 2>of individuals and examining wrongful convictions and particularly at understanding

0:02:49.760 --> 0:02:56.360
<v Speaker 2>where forensic evidence breaks down. And Doctor Miles has had

0:02:56.360 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 2>some things to say about Derek's case and the rejection

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:05.560
<v Speaker 2>of his appeal that I think are very timely and

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:10.519
<v Speaker 2>need to be raised, both in relation to Derek's case

0:03:10.960 --> 0:03:16.839
<v Speaker 2>but also that of Kevin Henry. As Doctor Moles explains,

0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:22.880
<v Speaker 2>in twenty thirteen, South Australia enacted a new statutory right

0:03:22.960 --> 0:03:27.079
<v Speaker 2>of appeal. It was the first major change to appeals

0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:33.800
<v Speaker 2>rights in Australia for one hundred years, and both because

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 2>of the work that doctor Moles has done, the work

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:39.720
<v Speaker 2>we've done on this podcast and is now being done

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 2>right around Australia. It is quite clear that a large

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:48.040
<v Speaker 2>number of prisoners are innocent and clearly have been over

0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:50.840
<v Speaker 2>the previous one hundred years, who have never had a

0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:54.119
<v Speaker 2>chance to prove their innocence in a court of law.

0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 2>They're not asking simply to walk free. They're asking for

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:05.400
<v Speaker 2>a trial where all the evidence is presented and experts

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 2>with valid qualifications are called. That's all they're asking for

0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 2>and they say that will prove their innocence, so why

0:04:14.640 --> 0:04:20.560
<v Speaker 2>not test it. But as Doctor Moles also points out,

0:04:21.440 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 2>the recent decision rejecting Derek Bromley's case has not only

0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:33.719
<v Speaker 2>invalidated this new appeal right, but also raised questions about

0:04:33.880 --> 0:04:39.920
<v Speaker 2>rights of appeal in Australia completely. As we mentioned, when

0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:44.560
<v Speaker 2>Derek went to the Court of Appeal, eight experts, including

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 2>two experts brought by the Crown, all agreed in their

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:54.760
<v Speaker 2>reports that significant errors had been made at Derek's initial

0:04:54.839 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 2>trial in regards to the evidence that was presented. But

0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:05.160
<v Speaker 2>despite this, despite all these experts both for the defense

0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:10.720
<v Speaker 2>and the Crown, agreeing that significant errors had been made,

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 2>the appeal judges said that even after a careful review,

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:19.839
<v Speaker 2>they could satisfy themselves that Bromley was actually guilty of

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 2>the offense. What throws this into further disregard is the

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:28.719
<v Speaker 2>fact that, as we've spoken about on this podcast a

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:34.359
<v Speaker 2>number of times, the forensic pathologist who performed all the

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 2>pathology work in Derek's trial was one doctor Mannock, the

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:45.560
<v Speaker 2>now disgraced former head of forensic pathology in South Australia,

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 2>who it is also questioned whether he even has the

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:55.040
<v Speaker 2>appropriate or ever held the appropriate qualifications to be a

0:05:55.080 --> 0:06:01.359
<v Speaker 2>forensic pathologist. So the errors that he made was significant,

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:07.920
<v Speaker 2>and it was these errors largely that allowed for Derek

0:06:08.040 --> 0:06:10.839
<v Speaker 2>to be placed at the crime scene and for it

0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 2>to be possible for Derek to have committed the crime

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:18.800
<v Speaker 2>when you know the record of doctor Mannock, as we've

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:24.720
<v Speaker 2>previously spelled out, case after case where he has been involved,

0:06:25.200 --> 0:06:27.960
<v Speaker 2>has been shown that he has got the forensic work

0:06:28.279 --> 0:06:33.039
<v Speaker 2>completely wrong. As all the experts in this new appeal

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:38.799
<v Speaker 2>said significant errors were made, and yet Derek has spent

0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:43.200
<v Speaker 2>thirty five years in prison despite all the experts today

0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:49.600
<v Speaker 2>saying significant errors were made. There's also the issue that

0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:57.039
<v Speaker 2>the lead witness against Derek was someone who suffered from schizophrenia,

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 2>who was known to lie, who it has been demonstrated,

0:07:04.160 --> 0:07:10.040
<v Speaker 2>was very susceptible to manipulation by law enforcement and those

0:07:10.240 --> 0:07:14.160
<v Speaker 2>trying to get Derek Bromley. And as we've explained in

0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:16.440
<v Speaker 2>the past, and you need to listen to this in

0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 2>the other episode, the police had a reason to be

0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:25.440
<v Speaker 2>going after Derek, and that's because he helped expose the rotten,

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:32.120
<v Speaker 2>corruption and violent conditions in a prison in South Australia.

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 2>But what is most troubling about Derek's appeal and the

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:41.360
<v Speaker 2>decision of the judges.

0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 1>Is that.

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:49.880
<v Speaker 2>Those judges allowed the Crown to present additional evidence, new

0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:57.240
<v Speaker 2>evidence that was not shown at Derek's first trial. This

0:07:57.680 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 2>is almost without precedent, and it was done purely to

0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:07.280
<v Speaker 2>demonstrate that Derek had and I quote doctor Miles here,

0:08:07.680 --> 0:08:11.160
<v Speaker 2>a propensity to commit that type of appellance guilt of

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:18.440
<v Speaker 2>the offense. Clearly, as doctor Miles suggests, if this was

0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:23.080
<v Speaker 2>so true, why didn't the Crown offer up this evidence

0:08:23.200 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 2>at Derrek's original trial. The truth is that evidence can't

0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:33.080
<v Speaker 2>be substantiated, there is no weight to it, and it

0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:37.560
<v Speaker 2>should never have been allowed in the appeal. This is

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 2>not what the appeal is supposed to look at. It

0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:44.680
<v Speaker 2>was supposed to look at fresh and compelling evidence that

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 2>would grant Derek a new trial. Fresh and compelling evidence

0:08:49.040 --> 0:08:53.480
<v Speaker 2>was provided by eight experts, two of whom were for

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 2>the Crown. All agreed significant errors had been made. The

0:08:59.679 --> 0:09:03.719
<v Speaker 2>fact that the Crown then resorted to bringing in this

0:09:03.800 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 2>new evidence, and that the judge has allowed it, will

0:09:06.880 --> 0:09:12.080
<v Speaker 2>now be of review by the High Court. This is

0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:15.760
<v Speaker 2>something we hope the High Court takes very very seriously,

0:09:16.360 --> 0:09:21.040
<v Speaker 2>and a tactic that should not survive because it throws

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 2>into question the possibility of having a fair trial at all.

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:30.079
<v Speaker 2>Of being able to have a retrial or a trial

0:09:30.559 --> 0:09:35.480
<v Speaker 2>in front of a jury of one's peers. If every

0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:40.840
<v Speaker 2>norm can be broken simply to secure a conviction, above

0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:46.000
<v Speaker 2>all the errors made in Derek's case, Above all the

0:09:46.080 --> 0:09:51.640
<v Speaker 2>evidence that shows he is innocent of this crime. The

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:57.360
<v Speaker 2>fact that he spent thirty five years in prison where

0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:03.120
<v Speaker 2>both sides agree significant errors were made, where the chief

0:10:03.160 --> 0:10:07.520
<v Speaker 2>forensic pathologist had no qualification to be in that courtroom,

0:10:07.760 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 2>and has been shown to get forensic report after forensic

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:19.319
<v Speaker 2>report wrong, is an outrage. Derek Bromley should be freed tomorrow.

0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:24.360
<v Speaker 2>The fact is, though he will require the High Court

0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:28.440
<v Speaker 2>to step in and ensure all Australians are able to

0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:34.240
<v Speaker 2>get a fair retrial and an effective chance at appeal.

0:10:35.640 --> 0:10:39.320
<v Speaker 2>What makes this even more galling is that others have

0:10:39.440 --> 0:10:45.600
<v Speaker 2>been released because of doctor Mannock's dodgy work. They include

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:54.359
<v Speaker 2>Henry Keoh, whose conviction was quashed on December nineteen, twenty fourteen.

0:10:55.400 --> 0:10:59.280
<v Speaker 2>There is far less compelling evidence against Derek than there

0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:04.320
<v Speaker 2>was against Henry, and yet Henry was rightly freed and

0:11:04.360 --> 0:11:10.079
<v Speaker 2>his murder conviction overturned. More so, Henry was paid compensation

0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:16.400
<v Speaker 2>in the way of two point five million dollars. Yet

0:11:16.440 --> 0:11:20.720
<v Speaker 2>Henry has not served and did not serve anywhere near

0:11:20.800 --> 0:11:26.200
<v Speaker 2>the time Derek has served. Henry and as we say again,

0:11:26.880 --> 0:11:30.840
<v Speaker 2>should have been freed but didn't have the overwhelming weight

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:35.720
<v Speaker 2>of evidence in his favor as Derek does. So why

0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:38.520
<v Speaker 2>does a black man who has served thirty five years

0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:46.480
<v Speaker 2>in prison remain there when others walk free? Today? I

0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:50.960
<v Speaker 2>think we get further answers when we look to New

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:56.520
<v Speaker 2>South Wales. It was announced by the Attorney General that

0:11:56.800 --> 0:12:00.440
<v Speaker 2>Kathleen Folbeg, who was found guilty of over the deaths

0:12:00.480 --> 0:12:04.520
<v Speaker 2>of her four children, would have her case subject to

0:12:04.559 --> 0:12:08.840
<v Speaker 2>an inquiry. This is the sort of inquiry we've been

0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:13.600
<v Speaker 2>calling on for Kevin Henry, and also that should examine

0:12:13.840 --> 0:12:19.880
<v Speaker 2>all the cases of people serving significant sentences of decades

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:23.320
<v Speaker 2>and decades where they maintain their innocence and there are

0:12:23.400 --> 0:12:28.560
<v Speaker 2>doubts as to the forensic evidence. In the case of

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:34.079
<v Speaker 2>Kathleen Folbeg, all four of her children died as infants.

0:12:35.480 --> 0:12:38.360
<v Speaker 2>In two thousand and three, she was found guilty of

0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:41.800
<v Speaker 2>the murder of three of her children and the manslaughter

0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:47.920
<v Speaker 2>of the fourth. She's always maintained they died of natural causes.

0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 2>She's currently serving a minimum of twenty five years behind bars.

0:12:55.720 --> 0:13:00.679
<v Speaker 2>But new forensic evidence suggests it is possible for a

0:13:00.720 --> 0:13:05.440
<v Speaker 2>single family to have multiple deaths attributed to natural causes

0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 2>of children who are infants. Now, I don't know the

0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:14.920
<v Speaker 2>forensic evidence well enough to make a call on this

0:13:15.120 --> 0:13:18.040
<v Speaker 2>one way or the other, and I don't offer any

0:13:18.080 --> 0:13:23.560
<v Speaker 2>opinion as to miss Folbegg's guilt or innocence. What I

0:13:23.679 --> 0:13:27.960
<v Speaker 2>do say, however, is that given there is new forensic

0:13:28.040 --> 0:13:32.920
<v Speaker 2>evidence now saying what was previously presented as forensic fact

0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:39.520
<v Speaker 2>is now at least doubtful, if not wrong, then an

0:13:39.559 --> 0:13:45.560
<v Speaker 2>inquiry has rightly been called. The Attorney General said that

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:51.320
<v Speaker 2>it was with immense difficulty that this decision was made.

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:56.599
<v Speaker 2>But why is it so difficult for anywhere in Australia,

0:13:56.720 --> 0:14:01.160
<v Speaker 2>any jurisdiction, whether it's South Australia with Derek Brom or

0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:05.160
<v Speaker 2>in New South Wales with this case, for the justice

0:14:05.160 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 2>system to be willing to do some self reflection and

0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:13.880
<v Speaker 2>see if they've got it wrong in the past, particularly

0:14:13.920 --> 0:14:19.120
<v Speaker 2>when we are talking about forensic science. We know forensic

0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:24.360
<v Speaker 2>science is a fast moving field. We also know significant

0:14:24.440 --> 0:14:30.680
<v Speaker 2>mistakes are made, as we've explained in the past the

0:14:30.760 --> 0:14:34.800
<v Speaker 2>state of Illinois, for example, completely scrapped the use of

0:14:34.840 --> 0:14:39.040
<v Speaker 2>the death penalty because twenty five percent of all men

0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:42.560
<v Speaker 2>on death row in Illinois were found to be innocent

0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:46.840
<v Speaker 2>when a review of their cases was conducted. A quarter

0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:50.360
<v Speaker 2>of the men who were about to be executed had

0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:55.440
<v Speaker 2>in fact not committed any crime at all. More of

0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:59.520
<v Speaker 2>those men that were on death row had serious doubts

0:14:59.640 --> 0:15:02.680
<v Speaker 2>rays as to whether they'd committed the crime because of

0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:07.800
<v Speaker 2>new evidence. So once again in New South Wales we

0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:12.600
<v Speaker 2>at least have the willingness of an inquiry to be called.

0:15:13.280 --> 0:15:15.840
<v Speaker 2>And it's hard not to think this didn't come on

0:15:15.960 --> 0:15:20.400
<v Speaker 2>the back of the ABC's Australian story into the case

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:26.880
<v Speaker 2>of Miss Folbig. Now what this inquiry determines, I honestly

0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:30.760
<v Speaker 2>have no idea. Again, I offer no opinion as to

0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.640
<v Speaker 2>her guilt or innocence. I can only hope that the

0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:39.920
<v Speaker 2>inquiry gets to the truth. Four young children have died

0:15:41.480 --> 0:15:45.840
<v Speaker 2>and they deserve justice, and so does their family. If

0:15:45.880 --> 0:15:50.160
<v Speaker 2>Miss Folbig has been wrongfully convicted because of bogus science,

0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:55.800
<v Speaker 2>she deserves to be released. If the forensics was correct

0:15:55.840 --> 0:16:01.840
<v Speaker 2>in her initial trial, and modern forensic pathologists using the

0:16:01.920 --> 0:16:07.280
<v Speaker 2>latest technology determine that well, then her sentence will remain.

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:13.200
<v Speaker 2>But you have to ask why is Kevin Henry not

0:16:13.280 --> 0:16:18.360
<v Speaker 2>granted this same opportunity, remembering there is far less doubt

0:16:19.040 --> 0:16:23.560
<v Speaker 2>about the forensics in Kevin Henry's case in Miss Folbigg's

0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:26.920
<v Speaker 2>and I need to say this purely for the education

0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:31.480
<v Speaker 2>and information of our listeners. Miss Fahlbig is a white

0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 2>woman in New South Wales. Kevin Henry, like Derek Bromley,

0:16:36.640 --> 0:16:43.600
<v Speaker 2>is aboriginal. Kevin Henry, like Derek Bromley, sees other people

0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:50.040
<v Speaker 2>released when they have more evidence proving their innocence. The

0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:55.280
<v Speaker 2>forensic evidence that is up for debate in Miss Folbigg's case,

0:16:55.920 --> 0:16:58.320
<v Speaker 2>and it will be subject to an inquiry over the

0:16:58.360 --> 0:17:02.920
<v Speaker 2>next six to twelve months, is complex. The forensic evidence

0:17:02.960 --> 0:17:08.880
<v Speaker 2>against Kevin Henry simply does not exist. What forensic evidence

0:17:09.480 --> 0:17:13.480
<v Speaker 2>there is, as we have demonstrated quite clearly in this podcast,

0:17:13.960 --> 0:17:18.439
<v Speaker 2>proves Kevin Henry could not have committed the murder of

0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:24.680
<v Speaker 2>Linda could not have committed. In fact, not a single

0:17:24.800 --> 0:17:29.000
<v Speaker 2>piece of forensic evidence was offered up at Kevin's trial

0:17:29.320 --> 0:17:33.359
<v Speaker 2>to show he committed the murder, not a single piece.

0:17:33.920 --> 0:17:38.679
<v Speaker 2>What was presented was wrong anyway, remember as well, not

0:17:38.760 --> 0:17:43.640
<v Speaker 2>a single witness was called that saw Kevin Henry commit

0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:51.040
<v Speaker 2>a crime, not one, and that is not disputed. So

0:17:51.240 --> 0:17:55.159
<v Speaker 2>why in South Australia has a white man been freed

0:17:55.280 --> 0:18:00.480
<v Speaker 2>and paid two point five million dollars in compensation while Bromley,

0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:04.520
<v Speaker 2>an Aboriginal man in South Australia, has had his appeals

0:18:04.600 --> 0:18:13.600
<v Speaker 2>rejected despite more compelling evidence. Significant errors was the statements

0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:17.879
<v Speaker 2>of all laid experts in Derek Bromley's appeal. Why in

0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:23.520
<v Speaker 2>New South Wales, where there is evidence towards both innocence

0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:27.440
<v Speaker 2>and guilt in the case of Miss Folby, is there

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:34.120
<v Speaker 2>an inquiry into her case? But in Queensland for Kevin Henry,

0:18:34.359 --> 0:18:37.119
<v Speaker 2>where there is no doubt as to the forensics pointing

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:42.560
<v Speaker 2>to his innocence, there is no such inquiry. Two Aboriginal

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:52.520
<v Speaker 2>men no justice, two non Aboriginal Australians getting justice. That

0:18:52.680 --> 0:18:55.920
<v Speaker 2>is why we started curtin the podcast. That is what

0:18:55.960 --> 0:18:59.520
<v Speaker 2>we hoped we wouldn't prove, but what we thought would

0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:04.720
<v Speaker 2>be the case that other innocent Aboriginal people are in prison,

0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:10.240
<v Speaker 2>men and women. The proof of today's episode is not

0:19:10.320 --> 0:19:13.840
<v Speaker 2>that they're not innocent. Derek Bromley and Kevin Henry are

0:19:13.960 --> 0:19:19.240
<v Speaker 2>innocent men. The proof is that every state in Australia

0:19:20.640 --> 0:19:25.400
<v Speaker 2>and the Commonwealth of Australia refuses to even look at

0:19:25.440 --> 0:19:30.399
<v Speaker 2>the evidence against either Derek Bromley or Kevin Henry. And

0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:32.600
<v Speaker 2>I put it to you the reason they will not

0:19:32.800 --> 0:19:37.840
<v Speaker 2>even let that evidence in court, evidence that, if they

0:19:37.880 --> 0:19:40.679
<v Speaker 2>were so sure was accurate, would show these men to

0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:43.920
<v Speaker 2>be guilty, is because they know it shows them not

0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.240
<v Speaker 2>to be guilty and proves what we have said from

0:19:47.240 --> 0:19:51.679
<v Speaker 2>the first episode of this series. Kevin Henry is an

0:19:51.800 --> 0:19:58.080
<v Speaker 2>innocent man and joining him in South Australia is innocent

0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:02.919
<v Speaker 2>man Derek Bromley. It's time both of them got inquiries

0:20:03.359 --> 0:20:07.639
<v Speaker 2>into their cases and the sooner they walk free the better.

0:20:10.200 --> 0:20:14.040
<v Speaker 2>That was Curtain the podcast