Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: actually really patent blood on his clothing the day after
Speaker 2: the alleged a toime on a shallow mud bank and
Speaker 2: it fits Roy River.
Speaker 1: Basically.
Speaker 3: 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 5: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 5: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 5: our justice system and ask who are the victims.
Speaker 2: I'm Amy Maguire.
Speaker 1: And Don Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign
Speaker 1: Prisoner Support Service.
Speaker 4: Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by Clint Curtis and
Speaker 4: produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous Media Association and
Speaker 4: a warning. This series contains the names of deceased peoples
Speaker 4: and has distressing content that might upset come with nerve.
Speaker 1: Over the past two weeks, we've told you a little
Speaker 1: bit about the strange circumstances surrounding the murder of an
Speaker 1: Aboriginal woman named Linda, found on the banks of the
Speaker 1: Fitzroy River in nineteen ninety one. We told you how
Speaker 1: we became interested in this case. We began to have
Speaker 1: doubts about the guilt of the man who was convicted
Speaker 1: of rape and murder over Linda's death the following year.
Speaker 5: That man's name is Kevin Henry, and they also call
Speaker 5: him Curdin last week, we told you a bit about
Speaker 5: Linda's last hours, the events that led to the savage
Speaker 5: assault inflicted on her body by three women who would
Speaker 5: later be convicted of grievous bodily harm. But at this point,
Speaker 5: if you were just joining us, we ask you to
Speaker 5: go back and listen to the two previous episodes. There's
Speaker 5: a lot of information in those episodes that you might
Speaker 5: need to know in order to understand this one.
Speaker 1: Now. We have told you previously that there was no
Speaker 1: linking Kevin to Linda's death. We also told you we
Speaker 1: had doubts that it was possible for him to have
Speaker 1: put her body in the river where her official cause
Speaker 1: of death was drowning. With this in mind, we also
Speaker 1: told you that there was one thing that implicated Kevin
Speaker 1: in Linda's death. That was his confession. Kevin's been in
Speaker 1: jail for twenty five years already because of this confession.
Speaker 1: There's no other evidence linking him to Linda's death. In
Speaker 1: this episode, you're going to hear the details of that confession,
Speaker 1: but first we want to tell you a few details,
Speaker 1: details that you may not know. Now.
Speaker 5: When I hear someone has confessed to a crime, I
Speaker 5: don't know about you, but I immediately think it is incriminating.
Speaker 5: When I heard Kevin had given a confession to police,
Speaker 5: I couldn't help but have this reaction. You know this
Speaker 5: is going to be very bad for Kevin. I immediately think, well,
Speaker 5: there is no way someone would confess to a crime
Speaker 5: if they didn't do it, what would be the point.
Speaker 5: But why did I immediately jump to this conclusion. In Australia,
Speaker 5: wrongful convictions are rare. We do have high profile cases
Speaker 5: like Andrew Mullard in Perth and also obviously the case
Speaker 5: of Lindy Chamberlain. So because this is rare in our
Speaker 5: own country, there's very limited research about wrongful convictions and
Speaker 5: what actually leads to innocent people being locked up. It's
Speaker 5: been found that one in four people in America who
Speaker 5: have been exonerated by DNA evidence actually gave a false confession.
Speaker 5: So it's obvious that false confessions are very common overseas.
Speaker 5: You have to think maybe they happen just as often
Speaker 5: over here in Australia as well.
Speaker 1: As a legal advocate, I have a very different reaction
Speaker 1: when I hear the word confession. I've been working with
Speaker 1: clients have been wrongfully convicted in the US, the Middle East,
Speaker 1: and Europe through prison and justice systems for a long time.
Speaker 1: Now I know the signs, what to look for and
Speaker 1: when someone is giving a false confession. I know this
Speaker 1: because of the research that's already being done based on
Speaker 1: actual cases where US prisoners have been forced to confess.
Speaker 1: One of the leading experts in the United States on
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions is Brandon L. Garrett. He's a Distinguished Professor
Speaker 1: of Law at the University of Virginia. He looked into
Speaker 1: cases where innocent people have been exonerated by DNA on
Speaker 1: forensics and eyewitnesses, but critically on false confessions. He's even
Speaker 1: written a book about it. It's called Convicting the Innocent,
Speaker 1: Where criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. While we were researching Kevin's case,
Speaker 1: we contacted Professor Garrett. Professor Garrett responded and gave us
Speaker 1: an example of what he calls confession contamination, using the
Speaker 1: case of Frank Stirling when nineteen ninety one, the same
Speaker 1: year Linda died confess to the killing of an elderly woman.
Speaker 6: In nineteen ninety one, Frank Sterling confessed to the nineteen
Speaker 6: eighty eight killing of an elderly woman. Sterling waived his
Speaker 6: Miranda rights and was interrogated without a.
Speaker 1: Lawyer for twelve hours.
Speaker 6: Only twenty minutes at the end of the interrogation was videotaped,
Speaker 6: and it shows him confessing in apparent detail, giving key
Speaker 6: facts in the case, the location of the murder, the
Speaker 6: color of the victim's jacket and clothing, and the use
Speaker 6: of a bb gun. DNA evidence proved that Frank Sterling
Speaker 6: was innocent and indicated the guilt of another man. Frank
Speaker 6: Sterling served almost nineteen years for a crime he didn't commit.
Speaker 6: Sterling has explained how he was worn down during the
Speaker 6: interrogation and ultimately decided to repeat the account that the
Speaker 6: police gave him. In sixteen percent of the first two
Speaker 6: hundred and fifty DNA exonerations, innocent defendants falsely confessed.
Speaker 1: Frank Sterling was not alone.
Speaker 6: All but two of forty DNAs honorees who falsely confessed
Speaker 6: were said to have confessed in detail. Their confessions were contaminated.
Speaker 6: Confession contamination means that non public feed as specific facts
Speaker 6: about how the crime was committed. I disclosed to a
Speaker 6: suspect during an interrogation.
Speaker 5: Now keep Frank's case in mind, because we have gone
Speaker 5: through Kevin's confession and we think there are some startling
Speaker 5: conclusions that can be drawn. But first of all, let's
Speaker 5: take you back to the day Kevin would have confessed.
Speaker 2: It was the afternoon of the fifth.
Speaker 5: Of September ninety ninety one. Now, remember Linda's body was
Speaker 5: found on the first of September, and she died the
Speaker 5: night before on the thirty first of August, so this
Speaker 5: was all in the same week. In fact, it was
Speaker 5: only four days after Linda was found.
Speaker 1: Now, Kevin had already been thrown in the watchhouse before
Speaker 1: picked up the next day on the first for public drunkenness.
Speaker 1: On the fifth, he was walking along the rock Hampden
Speaker 1: Street with a friend. He was again picked up by
Speaker 1: the police, but this time he wasn't drunk. The police
Speaker 1: officers had obviously picked him up for some other reason.
Speaker 2: Now it was.
Speaker 5: Two twenty one PM by this point, and Kevin was
Speaker 5: seated in a room at Rockampden Police Station. In attendance
Speaker 5: were the two arresting officers, Senior Constable Leslie Girk and
Speaker 5: Senior Constable Robert Hunt. Now, Hunt was listening while Girk
Speaker 5: was leading the interview. We don't have the recording of
Speaker 5: that confession, but we do have the transcript, and for
Speaker 5: the purposes of this podcast, we're as citing the transcript
Speaker 5: to make it easier to understand. Martin will play the
Speaker 5: voice of Senior Constable Girk, and I'll occasionally read out
Speaker 5: the lines of Senior Constable Hunt. We have also enlisted
Speaker 5: the help of Elijah Blair, a young Aboriginal radio announcer
Speaker 5: based at the Murray Radio station for US in Rockhampton,
Speaker 5: to play the part of the twenty two year old
Speaker 5: Kevin Henry.
Speaker 1: Now, Kevin's confession was two and a half hours long.
Speaker 1: We can't read out the whole thing, but we've picked
Speaker 1: out the excerpts we can play on air. Now, Kevin
Speaker 1: had already given us statement to police. He'd given it
Speaker 1: to them on the Monday, they set him down and
Speaker 1: read it out again. That statement details the assault on
Speaker 1: Linda with a great level of accuracy. We know this
Speaker 1: because it's corroborated by other witness's statements on the night
Speaker 1: and by the forensic examination of her body.
Speaker 5: In that original statement, Kevin claims that after Linda was assaulted,
Speaker 5: he went to the Crown Hotel with the others at Tanuba,
Speaker 5: where they all put in for alcohol purchased by Susan Aubrey,
Speaker 5: before going back to Tanuba a half an hour later.
Speaker 5: It was there that Linda was gone. Now we're going
Speaker 5: to read out Kevin's interview to police on the fifth
Speaker 5: of September nineteen ninety one, which would end up implicating
Speaker 5: him in Linda's death. It starts with the police asking
Speaker 5: Kevin if there is anything he wanted to change.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 5: Here is Martin as Senior Constable, Leslie Girk and Elijah
Speaker 5: as Kevin. Now again or warning to our listeners that
Speaker 5: this next part of the podcast contains some disturbing content.
Speaker 1: The time now is two twenty one PM. Do you
Speaker 1: agree with that time? Kevin?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Kevin. My questions to you today and your answers will
Speaker 1: be recorded on this tape recorder in front of us.
Speaker 1: Do you understand that?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: At the end of the interview, you'll be given a
Speaker 1: cassette tape of our conversations. Do you understand that?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay. I now ask each person present to say their
Speaker 1: full name. My full name is Leslie John Girk Plain
Speaker 1: closed Senior Constable of Police attached to the Rockampton CIB.
Speaker 1: My registered number is five nine three seven.
Speaker 2: My full name is Robert John Hunt.
Speaker 5: I'm a detective Senior Constable of Police presently stationed at
Speaker 5: Rapempton CIB.
Speaker 2: My registered number is six one five seven.
Speaker 1: Kevin, is there any person present who hasn't identified themselves? No, Kevin,
Speaker 1: for the record, could you please state your full name
Speaker 1: and correct.
Speaker 3: Name, Kevin Alan Henry.
Speaker 1: Are you known by any other name? Kevin Curtain with
Speaker 1: the key and your date and place of birth.
Speaker 3: The first of the third sixty nine.
Speaker 1: Where were you born, Kevin, Rockhampton. Are you currently employed?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Whereabouts you working?
Speaker 3: No? I'm on unemployment benefit.
Speaker 1: Unemployment benefits right? What grade of education did you achieve?
Speaker 3: Nine?
Speaker 1: And where was that?
Speaker 3: Or a bender?
Speaker 1: Can you read and write the English language?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Can you clearly understand my questions? To you today. Yeah, Kevin,
Speaker 1: do you recall a short while before we commenced this interview,
Speaker 1: I asked you if you wish to have anyone from
Speaker 1: a legal aid present. Do you recall that?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And could you tell me what you said to me?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: When I asked you if you wanted someone from legal aid,
Speaker 1: could you tell me what you said?
Speaker 3: I want somebody here anyways from legal aid. Anyways?
Speaker 1: When I asked you before the commencement of the interview,
Speaker 1: you told me you didn't want anyone from legal aid.
Speaker 1: Do you recall that?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yes, yeah?
Speaker 1: Now do you are you saying now that you want
Speaker 1: someone from legal aid or you don't want someone from
Speaker 1: legal aid to city?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I want someone from legal aid.
Speaker 1: So you want someone from legal aid now?
Speaker 3: Yes? Yes? Yeah, now.
Speaker 1: Right Kevin. What I'm going to do now I'll suspend
Speaker 1: the interview, yes, so you can get someone from legal aid. Okay?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: The time now is two fourteen pm. Do you agree
Speaker 1: with that time?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, two nineteen pm. Do you agree with that time?
Speaker 1: We'll now suspend the interview and I'll contact someone from
Speaker 1: Legal Aid okay, so they can sit here with you.
Speaker 2: It's two twenty four.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Kevin. The time is two twenty four Yeah.
Speaker 1: Interview suspended at two twenty four pm. Interview resumed at
Speaker 1: two twenty seven pm. Right, this interview is now resumed.
Speaker 1: The time now is two twenty seven pm. Do you
Speaker 1: agree with that time, Kevin, two twenty seven yes, Kevin.
Speaker 1: Prior to me suspending the interview, you said that you
Speaker 1: wanted someone from Legal Aid. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And then I then suspended the interview and I said
Speaker 1: I was just going to get someone from Legal Aid,
Speaker 1: and you told me that you wanted to get on
Speaker 1: with the interview and you didn't want anyone from Legal Aid.
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Now, do you wish to have anyone from Legal Aid
Speaker 1: here or ninth?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Well, you're happy if we continue with the interview, yes,
Speaker 1: without anyone from legal Aid?
Speaker 3: Yeah? No? Oh yes, yeah, no legal Aid here?
Speaker 1: Right, Kevin? Did you provide a statement to police on
Speaker 1: two of this month? That's on I don't know, second
Speaker 1: of the ninth, that's correct, Yeah, that's Tuesday, wasn't it?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: Monday morning?
Speaker 1: Monday morning, Monday morning. Did you provide a statement to police? Yeah, Kevin,
Speaker 1: I've got a copy of that statement with me. I'll
Speaker 1: now read that statement to you. Okay, Yes, Do you
Speaker 1: wish to read the statement or would you like me
Speaker 1: to read it?
Speaker 3: Oh, you can read it.
Speaker 1: Okay. Did you read this statement over on Monday?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: And did you then sign that statement? Yes, on Monday morning.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: Is there anything in that statement that you wish to change?
Speaker 3: No, there's nothing to change there.
Speaker 1: Anything.
Speaker 3: You just put it in the bottom. There.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else you'd like to add to that statement?
Speaker 3: No, there's nothing else there.
Speaker 1: Well, what would you like me to put at the
Speaker 1: bottom of it?
Speaker 3: What I did? What happened?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: Could you tell me what that was?
Speaker 3: What happened? Well, I'm just talking about when she got
Speaker 3: That's what I'm just talking And that is the last
Speaker 3: and that's all. That's the last. That's the last page
Speaker 3: for me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the largest page of your statement. Yeah, we'll put.
Speaker 3: Down the bottom there that I stayed.
Speaker 1: There, You stayed where you stayed where.
Speaker 3: Down at to Nimba. I waited till he went up
Speaker 3: to the bank.
Speaker 1: You waited till who went.
Speaker 3: All of them, all of them, all our ulburry girls. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and after that I pulled the that bar out of
Speaker 3: her behind at Linda's behind and I threw it away
Speaker 3: in the barbecue. And after that I dragged her to
Speaker 3: root Root Valley. Then after that I had sex with
Speaker 3: her and she was she woke up. She had sex
Speaker 3: with me then she was awake to see, right. And
Speaker 3: after that, then that I left from her and I
Speaker 3: told her to come along with me. Then after that
Speaker 3: I went up to ring an ambulance. But after that,
Speaker 3: when the ambulance came, she was gone from there when
Speaker 3: there wasn't no dragon mark there?
Speaker 1: See when did she wake up? At what stage? Did
Speaker 1: she wake up?
Speaker 3: What time? Then?
Speaker 1: Was she awake?
Speaker 3: She was awake. She was awake when she got to
Speaker 3: the Rude Valley. She was awake then, right, And we
Speaker 3: had sex there, okay. And after that I left from there.
Speaker 1: Before I ask any further questions, Kevin, I warn you
Speaker 1: that you don't have to answer any more questions yes,
Speaker 1: or say anything yes okay, because anything you say or
Speaker 1: any statement you give will be recorded here today and
Speaker 1: may later be given in evidence. Do you understand that yes?
Speaker 1: Do you understand you don't have to answer any more questions?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you understand that if you do, they'll be recorded?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: And then they may later be told to the court. Yes,
Speaker 1: do you understand that?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Why for what reason did you drag Linda down to
Speaker 1: root Valley?
Speaker 3: Well? I dragged her away because them girls come back down,
Speaker 3: you see, they would bash her more up, more and
Speaker 3: more and more, because I know what they're like. See,
Speaker 3: they bash, they're bashing the every other girl that's coming
Speaker 3: out here. They get jealous of them, of the men,
Speaker 3: all those fellows down there who root them. That's why
Speaker 3: they get jealous of them, right, that's why they bash.
Speaker 3: Bash other women's up. Sometimes they bash men's up to
Speaker 3: see which girls? Is that? All the girls?
Speaker 1: Right? How did you drag her just.
Speaker 3: By one arm, just by just two arms like that,
Speaker 3: just dragged her along?
Speaker 1: You held her with your two arms.
Speaker 3: Two arms, yeah, and dragging her by the yeah, left
Speaker 3: arm on her back, dragging her by the left arm.
Speaker 1: Did Linda have any blood on her from being assaulted
Speaker 1: by the other girls?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 3: Yes, she had a lot of blood all on her face.
Speaker 1: And where was the blood coming from.
Speaker 3: From her face? Her face? Noise mouth?
Speaker 1: Did you have any cuts? Do you know?
Speaker 3: I wouldn't know. I couldn't see that so much blood
Speaker 3: was on her face.
Speaker 1: Hmmm, And you said before you dragged her that you
Speaker 1: pulled the Was it a stick out of her bottom?
Speaker 3: Babe?
Speaker 1: What was this? There was a stick or something in
Speaker 1: her bottom?
Speaker 3: You said, the bar?
Speaker 1: The bar? Was it stuck into her bottom?
Speaker 3: Was it? Yes? It was stuck in her bottom. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Because I was sitting right on the steps, I was
Speaker 3: watching all the time.
Speaker 1: Who stuck this bar into it?
Speaker 3: Amy Saunders? Amy Saunders?
Speaker 1: Could you describe this bar to me.
Speaker 3: Just some? It was about that long, about a sort
Speaker 3: of like a temper, sort of sort of sort of
Speaker 3: like this, you know, but it's got thin here, right?
Speaker 1: And do you know where Amy got this bar from?
Speaker 3: No, I wouldn't have a clue about it. I wouldn't
Speaker 3: have nothing. I wouldn't have nothing to do about that.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't even know where the bar come from.
Speaker 1: And where did you throw the bar when you took
Speaker 1: it out?
Speaker 3: I threw it in the barbecue.
Speaker 1: Did it go into the barbecue or no?
Speaker 3: I threw it just against the barbecue on the side, right,
Speaker 3: But it bounced back that way, but sort of on
Speaker 3: an angle sort of angle.
Speaker 1: And where did it land? Did it land anywhere near
Speaker 1: the river bank? Did it?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yeah? Oh?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: It didn't land near the river bank bridge there, but
Speaker 3: it was still there. Barbecue just apart just about right.
Speaker 1: Did Linda did move it all when you pulled the
Speaker 1: bar around?
Speaker 3: Yeah, she moved a bit. Yeah, she moved a bit.
Speaker 1: When you were having sex with Linda.
Speaker 3: No, No, I didn't have blood on me.
Speaker 1: Are you sure of that?
Speaker 3: Yes, I'm sure. I'm positive.
Speaker 1: You said she kissed you all over.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but there was no blood on me, you see, right,
Speaker 3: there was no blood.
Speaker 1: And when you said her legs.
Speaker 3: Like all her blood went all hard?
Speaker 2: It was all hard, was it?
Speaker 3: Yeah? It was all hard?
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's all.
Speaker 3: That's all I we just had sex and I just
Speaker 3: hung up. I just wrung up the ambulance and just
Speaker 3: wring them down.
Speaker 1: And okay, she wasn't.
Speaker 3: She might have because the bank's just there, you know,
Speaker 3: and she might have just dragged herself.
Speaker 1: Did the ambulance come down? Did they?
Speaker 3: They came down? But then I showed them. I said,
Speaker 3: she's not there now, right, And what did they? So
Speaker 3: I went across and had a look and she and
Speaker 3: she not there?
Speaker 1: And what did they say? When they got down?
Speaker 3: They thought I was lying. In the next morning they
Speaker 3: heard found her dead. What nobody killed her? Nobody killed her?
Speaker 3: Blood just lost a lot of blood off them girls,
Speaker 3: You know, nobody killed anyone. She just must have just
Speaker 3: lost a lot of blood off.
Speaker 1: Sorry. How did you contact the ambulance?
Speaker 3: I rang up? I rang up? Right?
Speaker 1: Where did you rung up from?
Speaker 3: I rang up from the from the box, from the
Speaker 3: box down there, to come to the mall, to the
Speaker 3: mall across the road there?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Will you come to the mall? All them calves pull
Speaker 3: up there? Right?
Speaker 1: That's where not.
Speaker 3: This roundabout at the front, not that one near near the.
Speaker 1: Yeah, across the road from the Union Hotel? Yeah, from
Speaker 1: the Union Is that where Union Hotel is? Just at
Speaker 1: the end of the mall?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And what did you do after? What did you say
Speaker 1: to them when you rang out?
Speaker 3: Just someone out here, blood and all over the place,
Speaker 3: broken nose and mouth and all that, all the bleed
Speaker 3: and everything and what they came out and.
Speaker 5: She was gone after you wrong the ambulance. You said
Speaker 5: you went down to the Crown Hotel.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Then you said you went from the Crown Hotel back
Speaker 2: down to Tanuba. Yeah, is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Was anyone else with you when you went down to
Speaker 2: Tanuba from the Crown Hotel.
Speaker 3: No, there was nobody else.
Speaker 2: How long do you think you would have been at
Speaker 2: the Crown Hotel?
Speaker 4: For?
Speaker 3: It would have been there about quarter past seven, was
Speaker 3: something around there.
Speaker 2: Did you have a drink at the Crown Hotel when
Speaker 2: you were there?
Speaker 3: No? No, I was a bit shocked in that.
Speaker 2: Had you been drinking it all that day?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I'd been drinking that day. Yeah.
Speaker 2: How much do you think.
Speaker 3: Before that even happened, before that even.
Speaker 2: Happened, how much do you think you would have drunk
Speaker 2: that day?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 3: About two cartons? No, three cartoons, three cartoons, three flanagans,
Speaker 3: one vodka, one rum and cola, just a big rum,
Speaker 3: you know, straight and just pure rum and coke, coke bottles,
Speaker 3: soft ring bottles, that's all.
Speaker 1: How many of those cartons would you have drunk? You said,
Speaker 1: three curtains.
Speaker 3: I only had about seven of them, that's all I had.
Speaker 1: Right when you went to the Crown after you rang
Speaker 1: the ambulance up. Yeah, did you speak to anyone at
Speaker 1: the Crown?
Speaker 3: No, I said nothing, just talk to nobody.
Speaker 1: Why did you go to the Crown day? Why did
Speaker 1: you go to the Crown?
Speaker 3: But just I was going to say something, but there
Speaker 3: wasn't there. See you were came back down then then
Speaker 3: I was. But I need say nothing about that till
Speaker 3: they came.
Speaker 1: Down, right. You were quite concerned about Linda, were you?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I didn't even know, Percy.
Speaker 1: This tape's just about to run out, keV. What we
Speaker 1: might suspend the interview?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 1: Would you look at the clock on the wall. Do
Speaker 1: you agree that the time is now six minutes past three?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay, Now I'll just to spend the interview.
Speaker 3: That's all I got to tell you. That's all I know.
Speaker 1: Interview suspended at three oh six pm.
Speaker 2: Interview resumed at three eight pm.
Speaker 1: This is tape two of the interview between myself, Leslie
Speaker 1: Girk and Kevin Henry. Kevin, do you agree that the
Speaker 1: time is now just after eight minutes past three in
Speaker 1: the afternoon?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you agree Kevin that whilst we suspended the interview,
Speaker 1: we didn't speak to you about this matter?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 1: When we were changing the tapes over, No, I didn't.
Speaker 1: Do you agree that we didn't speak? No about what
Speaker 1: about the matter I'm talking to you about now?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that? Yes, Kevin? I said earlier
Speaker 1: or just before we suspended the interview, that you were
Speaker 1: quite worried about Linda. Yeah, Why were you worried about her?
Speaker 3: Just worried about the girls getting into her, that's all.
Speaker 1: Right. Were you concerned at all about the injuries she'd sustained, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's the injuries that were caused to her. Yes, like
Speaker 1: the blood on her face and the injury to her bottom.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Could you tell me why you didn't call an ambulance
Speaker 1: before you dragged her down to Root Valley.
Speaker 3: Just wanted to get her away from the girls, that's all.
Speaker 3: M Otherwise the girls come back down, they're going to
Speaker 3: bash her more with more.
Speaker 1: Why did you have sex with her before you called
Speaker 1: the ambulance?
Speaker 3: She was to have sex with me first, she woke
Speaker 3: up down there in Red Valley. She wanted to have
Speaker 3: sex with me. Then when she woke up.
Speaker 1: Did you say anything to you about the injuries to
Speaker 1: her face?
Speaker 3: No, she didn't say nothing at all, nothing at all,
Speaker 3: nothing at all. If she didn't say nothing about that.
Speaker 1: Did you say anything to her?
Speaker 3: No? I never said nothing at all to her.
Speaker 1: Why didn't you?
Speaker 3: No, I didn't say nothing.
Speaker 1: Do you think she would have been in any pain
Speaker 1: from her injuries.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, she was in plenty of pain.
Speaker 1: Why did you have sex with her if you thought
Speaker 1: she was in pain?
Speaker 3: Because all the blood all over her head, all over
Speaker 3: her head evering kicked in?
Speaker 7: Probably been probably, But why did you have sex with
Speaker 7: her if you thought she was hurting? Come again, my
Speaker 7: question was why did you have sex with her when
Speaker 7: you thought she was in pain? But when you thought
Speaker 7: she was hurting from her injuries?
Speaker 3: Well, I just dragged her and just I just dragged
Speaker 3: her down. She rolled over down in Ride Valley. She
Speaker 3: just took her clothes off, and she just wanted to
Speaker 3: have sex just then. After that, I had sex with her,
Speaker 3: and then I told her to get up. I said,
Speaker 3: are you coming now? I was getting the ambulance for her.
Speaker 3: When they came back, she was gone. Nobody ever dragged
Speaker 3: her in there because she had no mark there. I
Speaker 3: tell you, I tell you now, there was no mark
Speaker 3: there because nobody dragged her. She fell in there. She
Speaker 3: fell in there, and she drowned her own self. Nobody
Speaker 3: killed her. Okay, See that's it, man, I just told
Speaker 3: you everything. That's all the evidence. Like, got nothing to
Speaker 3: say no more. Now you can't ask me anymore because
Speaker 3: I've got nothing else to say.
Speaker 5: Okay, Martin, you've read that confession. You've heard that confession again,
Speaker 5: what did you think of it? Like, what were your
Speaker 5: initial thoughts when you first read Kevin's confession?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the first thing that really stands out
Speaker 1: is Kevin's insistence early on that he wanted legal representation,
Speaker 1: and then that was changed for whatever reason. So immediately
Speaker 1: we know he was confused. We also know reading the
Speaker 1: confession that there was a lot of inaccuracies and things
Speaker 1: that just didn't add up. There were things he said
Speaker 1: that just couldn't have possibly taken place, so straight away
Speaker 1: you know that something's not right with the confession itself.
Speaker 5: Could it have just been the adversarial nature of you know,
Speaker 5: where he was in the sterile, in the foreign environment,
Speaker 5: Like he would have been nervous anyway, even if he
Speaker 5: had walked in and given a confession on his own will.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he definitely would have been. I think what we
Speaker 1: know is that this was the second statement that Kevin gave,
Speaker 1: So why was he feeling more apprehension this time around?
Speaker 1: His first statement reads much more clearly and for some
Speaker 1: reason in this second statement, we've got Kevin changing things around,
Speaker 1: not sure what he's being asked, changing his mind about
Speaker 1: legal representation. So just weighing up the way the two
Speaker 1: confessions read and sound, they're very very different.
Speaker 5: I mean when you I mean you've had experience over
Speaker 5: in the US when you look at cases where there
Speaker 5: has been, for example, a forced confession, what do you
Speaker 5: actually look for? What are the beginning signs or the
Speaker 5: science that you watch out for.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly you're looking for things like is the person
Speaker 1: under du rest, do they sound like this's coercion or
Speaker 1: they're being led that way? Is there any diminished capacity
Speaker 1: mental impairment which includes intoxication that could have happened prior
Speaker 1: to the confession being taken, and that's played a role
Speaker 1: in that person being unsure of what they're doing. And
Speaker 1: we know this is a great possibility because more than
Speaker 1: one in four people who've been wrongly convicted and then
Speaker 1: later exonerated by DNA evidence gave a false confession. So
Speaker 1: these are people who definitely did not commit the crime.
Speaker 1: Most were nowhere near the crime scene and they didn't
Speaker 1: even know the victim, but they gave a confession. And
Speaker 1: there's a lot of the same markers that we look
Speaker 1: for in Kevin's confession that can be found in those confessions.
Speaker 5: What do you mean by markers? What would you look
Speaker 5: out for? And what were evident in Kevin's confession?
Speaker 1: I think certainly his confusion is not understanding a lot
Speaker 1: of the questions that were being asked immediately. That suggests
Speaker 1: that he was either stressed under duress, he was giving
Speaker 1: statements that the police knew didn't match the facts, but
Speaker 1: he was never picked up on that. So that always
Speaker 1: suggests that perhaps someone's been told things prior to the
Speaker 1: interview commencing. And that's something we need to keep in
Speaker 1: mind is while we know what happened while the tape
Speaker 1: recorder was playing, we don't know what happened in between
Speaker 1: the time Kevin was picked up, when he was in
Speaker 1: the police car, when he was in the watchhouse, and
Speaker 1: before record was pressed on the tape.
Speaker 5: So we don't know what the conversations he had prior
Speaker 5: to the tape being recorded. We don't know anything about that.
Speaker 1: No, nothing in terms of that is recorded. You often
Speaker 1: see in some states where they will vig the entire
Speaker 1: process because we do know what's said beforehand, can cause
Speaker 1: what we know is confession contamination, and that's the interviewee
Speaker 1: being given information that they couldn't possibly know and that's
Speaker 1: not on the public record, and then they make those
Speaker 1: statements in their confession. And I certainly think there's things
Speaker 1: in Kevin's confession that match that description of confession contamination.
Speaker 2: How would you pull out those comments?
Speaker 5: Is that the way he's saying it, the way he's
Speaker 5: terming certain things that he's saying, or how can you
Speaker 5: even determine which parts he may have may have been contaminated?
Speaker 1: Well, we look for the things that we do know
Speaker 1: to be true that match everyone else's statements, that match
Speaker 1: the forensic evidence provided at trial by doctors and forensic experts,
Speaker 1: and we look at the things that Kevin has said
Speaker 1: that just don't match those We know them not to
Speaker 1: be true. We know them from all those things I've mentioned,
Speaker 1: as well as the court proceedings and the claims that
Speaker 1: everyone else has made, including the police themselves, so we
Speaker 1: know he says things that just are not true.
Speaker 5: I mean, one of the things that got me was
Speaker 5: he was very confused about whether there was any blood there,
Speaker 5: and he seems to go back and forth, and the
Speaker 5: only time he seems to give a proper answer is
Speaker 5: when he had seen the blood earlier, when she'd been
Speaker 5: lying in the light after the woman had assaulted her.
Speaker 5: But after that he kept changing his mind. He was
Speaker 5: very flustered and couldn't remember whether there was blood I
Speaker 5: guess coming out of certain parts of her body.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right, And I think what we see in
Speaker 1: the confession is two issues being confused. Kevin when he
Speaker 1: speaks of the blood, when he speaks of the injuries,
Speaker 1: when he speaks of Linda, he's clearly referring to what
Speaker 1: he saw while Linda was being assaulted by the three women.
Speaker 1: But the inference in the confession and the way the
Speaker 1: questions are asked leads those reading the confession to believe
Speaker 1: that that's what Kevin saw when he was allegedly alone
Speaker 1: with Linda. But it's quite obvious from what he says
Speaker 1: that that's not correct, because he mentions the stairs, he
Speaker 1: mentions the trauma to Linda's face and head, and the
Speaker 1: way that that was inflicted, and we know that that occurred.
Speaker 1: We know from evidence provided by forensic experts, when and
Speaker 1: where that occurred, and so we know what Kevin says
Speaker 1: about those issues only matches. If he's talking about the assault.
Speaker 5: On the women, which he definitely saw, it's established. So
Speaker 5: he definitely saw that assault.
Speaker 1: Absolutely he saw it, and he even says he looked
Speaker 1: away at one point while it was going on, but
Speaker 1: he certainly saw the beginning of the assault, most of
Speaker 1: the assault and the aftermath. He was quite close. And
Speaker 1: so he gives a very clear recollection of the things
Speaker 1: we know took place. He's very fuzzy on the things
Speaker 1: that we cannot confirm took place other than what is
Speaker 1: in his confession.
Speaker 5: The other thing Martin I got from his confession is
Speaker 5: he was very adamant. He was saying things like nobody.
Speaker 5: There was even a part where he goes, nobody killed her.
Speaker 5: Nobody killed her.
Speaker 2: I mean, he was.
Speaker 5: Very adamant about that, very direct, almost defensive language. Whereas
Speaker 5: if you're confessing, I mean, would you say.
Speaker 1: That, well, certainly. And that's one of the things that
Speaker 1: about this supposed confession that's quite unusual is that he
Speaker 1: is very clear he didn't do certain things, but he
Speaker 1: seems to confess to other aspects. But the way he
Speaker 1: confesses is what we call answering questions with questions. So
Speaker 1: he often answers by asking a question of his own,
Speaker 1: and that tends to suggest that he doesn't actually know
Speaker 1: the answer to the question he's being asked. And one
Speaker 1: of the other markers we look for is a lack
Speaker 1: of detail, and you can't know the detail of something
Speaker 1: you know nothing about and didn't see.
Speaker 4: One of the things we look for is called the
Speaker 4: mean length of utterance, and this is something that's been
Speaker 4: subject to rigorous study over many, many decades that helps
Speaker 4: us analyze a confession or a statement given to police
Speaker 4: or other investigative services. And what it tells us is
Speaker 4: that the average person answers these sort of questions with
Speaker 4: a sentence between ten and fifteen words. Now, highly educated
Speaker 4: person with a very high IQ will tend to go
Speaker 4: in the other direction, the answer significantly longer, and that's
Speaker 4: because they're trying to confuse the interviewer. They're trying to
Speaker 4: outsmart them, and they're trying to obfiscate, they're trying not
Speaker 4: to answer the question directly. For people who are from
Speaker 4: lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who are particularly nervous and have reason
Speaker 4: to be when questioned by police, and particularly someone like Kevin,
Speaker 4: who we know hadn't completed a great deal of schooling.
Speaker 4: The studies tell us that they answer significantly shorter, and
Speaker 4: throughout Kevin's testimony, he often answers which has one word
Speaker 4: yeah or no. So he's not actually giving his side
Speaker 4: of the story. He's just agreeing or disagreeing to what
Speaker 4: he's asked by the police.
Speaker 5: And that's some I know just from other stories I've done,
Speaker 5: that seems to be quite an aboriginal trait.
Speaker 2: A lot of the time, collegratuitous concurrence.
Speaker 5: Do you think that's something that that he's just agreeing
Speaker 5: to certain things?
Speaker 2: Can we see that in confessions? Or is that not
Speaker 2: a factor in this?
Speaker 4: It's certainly a factor in this, and we certainly see
Speaker 4: them in confessions. One thing that's often on the person's mind,
Speaker 4: and this may be under hard to understand for the
Speaker 4: general public, is they just want to get out of there,
Speaker 4: so they will often agree or disagree just as a
Speaker 4: way of getting this over and done with. And one
Speaker 4: thing the studies have shown with people who have confessed
Speaker 4: to crimes that DNA evidence has proven the innocence of
Speaker 4: is they just went along with it. They wanted to
Speaker 4: please the people that were asking the questions. They wanted
Speaker 4: no hostility, and they wanted it over and done with
Speaker 4: as soon as possible. And we can tell Kevin was
Speaker 4: that way Incline because he tried to end the interview.
Speaker 4: He became very agitated and he just didn't want to
Speaker 4: speak anymore.
Speaker 5: It was interesting because he was also very as we
Speaker 5: were talking about, very careful. I mean, he would give
Speaker 5: certain concessions, but then he'd say something like, for example,
Speaker 5: because no one, nobody ever dragged her in the water
Speaker 5: to see.
Speaker 2: So I guess I was a bit confused by that.
Speaker 5: How if you're saying a confession, you're also saying because
Speaker 5: nobody ever dragged her in the water, nobody killed her.
Speaker 5: She I think in another party says she dragged her
Speaker 5: own self into the water, or she put us own
Speaker 5: self into the water. So there's he's quite defensive, very
Speaker 5: careful to try not to incriminate himself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think at this stage the great possibility that
Speaker 4: Kevin believed he was just another witness and so he
Speaker 4: was just one of the more than thirty people there
Speaker 4: on the night, and the things we know he says
Speaker 4: proven by the forensic evidence and the testimony. He's quite
Speaker 4: clear on when there's allegations or assumptions made on behalf
Speaker 4: of the police about things that he finds troubling and disturbing.
Speaker 4: He is very very clear to point out he didn't
Speaker 4: do certain things. So while he seems okay with answering
Speaker 4: questions that don't really implicate him that anyone there could
Speaker 4: have seen that will just get the police off his back,
Speaker 4: and he's just answering yes or no and agreeing to anything,
Speaker 4: when it comes to accusations of anything that's serious, he
Speaker 4: deviates and he's very clear on saying he did not
Speaker 4: do those things.
Speaker 5: But wouldn't a guilty person act the exact same way?
Speaker 5: I mean, no one wants to go to jail. Wouldn't
Speaker 5: a guilty person if they're giving that sort of statement, wouldn't.
Speaker 2: They just lie as well?
Speaker 5: Wouldn't they they do the same thing, try to downgrade
Speaker 5: what they'd actually done.
Speaker 4: Well, that's true, And there's two ways of looking at it.
Speaker 4: If this is a confession as is alleged, and confession
Speaker 4: that results in Kevin being convicted of murder, why doesn't
Speaker 4: he just agree to everything? Why does he fight back
Speaker 4: on certain issues and not others. So, if it's a
Speaker 4: straight confession of Gil, there would be no point for
Speaker 4: Kevin to disagree with what's being said, particularly those parts
Speaker 4: that implicate him. But your question does go to something
Speaker 4: that's very important to understand, which is, to the general
Speaker 4: public side, the difference between a false confession and a
Speaker 4: true confession can't be determined. In fact, the police are
Speaker 4: not good at determining these issues, and nor are many prosecutors.
Speaker 4: And that's why we see now a great deal of
Speaker 4: science going in to analyzing confessions and why these studies
Speaker 4: have been done because we do know that more than
Speaker 4: one in four people have asked to crime that DNA
Speaker 4: would show they did not commit, So it does occur
Speaker 4: far more frequently than people would believe.
Speaker 5: So that just raised so many questions. First of all,
Speaker 5: Kevin never actually confessed. He never said he put her
Speaker 5: in the water. In fact, he was very adamant that
Speaker 5: no one had killed her. And what happened in those
Speaker 5: crucial three minutes when turned off the recording afterwards Kevin
Speaker 5: changed his story? And did Kevin actually want legal aid?
Speaker 5: Why did he change his mind conveniently when the tape
Speaker 5: had turned off right at the beginning of the interview.
Speaker 1: So far in this podcast, you've heard my analysis and
Speaker 1: a brief discussion trying to answer some of the questions
Speaker 1: that Amy raises. Next week, we'll hear from a trial lawyer,
Speaker 1: so expert in this field. The film documenting his work
Speaker 1: won an Academy Award, and we'll ask him the question
Speaker 1: is there something wrong with this confession? In fact, we
Speaker 1: know there is because we weren't the first people to
Speaker 1: raise issue with it. Twenty five years ago, the same
Speaker 1: questions were asked. Those questions were asked by a very
Speaker 1: important person in this case and in the trial.
Speaker 2: For now.
Speaker 5: You can catch up on iTunes by typing in Curtain
Speaker 5: the Podcast, or go to our website www dot Curtain
Speaker 5: Thepodcast dot com.
Speaker 4: Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter at Curtain the Podcast.
Speaker 2: Join us next week for Curtain