Speaker 1: For you, the listeners of Curtin the podcast. Audible dot
Speaker 1: com is offering a free audiobook download with a free
Speaker 1: thirty day trial to give you the opportunity to check
Speaker 1: out their service. For that free trial, you go to
Speaker 1: www dot audibletrial dot com, forward slash Curtain the podcast
Speaker 1: and that link will be on our website.
Speaker 2: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returns guilty
Speaker 2: verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolute shambles, to
Speaker 2: tell you the truth, just absolutely really coloured blood on
Speaker 2: his clothing the day after the alleged at a shallow
Speaker 2: mud bank and it fits through a river.
Speaker 3: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 3: there are good people.
Speaker 1: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 1: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 2: This is Kurtain, 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. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Maguire.
Speaker 1: And I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign
Speaker 1: Prisoner Support Service. Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by
Speaker 1: Clint Curtis and produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous
Speaker 1: Media Association and a warning. This series contains the names
Speaker 1: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 1: some listeners.
Speaker 2: Last week we told you about Kevin's confession and how
Speaker 2: key parts of that confession were struck out by the judge.
Speaker 2: The judge found that what Kevin said to police was
Speaker 2: not admissible because it was not voluntary. So Kevin didn't
Speaker 2: actually confess to putting Linda in the water. Why did
Speaker 2: police continue to go down that line? Well, we have
Speaker 2: to take you back to that week in nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 4: Yet again, we'll take you back to the day after
Speaker 4: Winda was found. That was September two, nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 4: On that day and original man William Spicer was fishing
Speaker 4: on the Fitzroy River. Spicer wasn't from Rockhampton. He lived
Speaker 4: in Brisbane. A few days prior, he'd failed to appear
Speaker 4: in court for another matter down there. On that day,
Speaker 4: Spicer said he was fishing in between the new Bridge
Speaker 4: and the railway bridge when Kevin Henry was supposed to
Speaker 4: have approached him.
Speaker 2: If you've never been to Rockhampton, that's where Spicer said
Speaker 2: he was fishing, is about thirty minute walk from Tanuba
Speaker 2: on the same side of the riverbank. And this is
Speaker 2: what Spicer said on the witness stand.
Speaker 5: What happened?
Speaker 4: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen, please, what happened
Speaker 4: that man in the box there, he came up and
Speaker 4: started talking to me about that woman who got killed.
Speaker 4: Asked me, did I know anything about it?
Speaker 5: I said no.
Speaker 2: Spicer claimed that Kevin told what the women did to Linda,
Speaker 2: how they had used an iron bar, and then they
Speaker 2: walked back up the river and back towards town. Spicer
Speaker 2: says he parted ways with Kevin and then went to
Speaker 2: the police station. The next day, Kevin apparently came back
Speaker 2: down again to the same place where Spicer was fishing.
Speaker 2: Spicer said he walked across the railway bridge.
Speaker 4: This is what Spicer said on the witness stand the
Speaker 4: next day, What did you do? I was looking for
Speaker 4: him and that, and I heard in the paper the
Speaker 4: body was found in the water. And I asked him
Speaker 4: and he said he was the bloke who put the
Speaker 4: body in the water to make it float away. Spicer
Speaker 4: claimed that an article from the local paper about Linda's
Speaker 4: death had been read to him, and he asked Kevin
Speaker 4: whether he knew anything about the murder. After seeing Kevin
Speaker 4: for the second time, Spicer went back to the police
Speaker 4: station where they took a statement off him.
Speaker 1: That was one of.
Speaker 2: Two statements they took off Spicer. Now it's important to
Speaker 2: note here that Spicer also admitted on the stand that
Speaker 2: he is alliterate. He couldn't read, and so the state
Speaker 2: once he signed with an ex we're written by police. Now, madam,
Speaker 2: what do we know about this William Spicer character.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, it's quite unusual at the very beginning
Speaker 4: when we read his statement that allegedly Kevin's come and
Speaker 4: twice spoken to him having never met him before, and
Speaker 4: described what's allegedly taken place. Now, not only is that unusual,
Speaker 4: we know that mister Spicer doesn't always tell the truth.
Speaker 4: In fact, on the stand under cross examination, this is
Speaker 4: what Kevin Henry's lawyer asked him.
Speaker 5: Mister Spicer, is that right? Yes?
Speaker 4: Or is it Forester no Spicer? Or is it Forester
Speaker 4: no Spicer? Are you sure it's not George Neville Forester,
Speaker 4: George Forester, George Neville Forester answer, I do have two names.
Speaker 4: You just use those names when you were committing a crime,
Speaker 4: do you.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 4: While we won't go into the full record of mister
Speaker 4: Spice's criminal history, it's long, it's extensive, and it includes fraud,
Speaker 4: includes indecent exposure, includes making false statements to police, and
Speaker 4: clearly he has multiple names. So instantly I think we
Speaker 4: can start to question what did Kevin say to him,
Speaker 4: if anything, and did in fact he ever speak to.
Speaker 5: Kevin at all?
Speaker 2: What would have been the motivation though, to make a
Speaker 2: statement like that to police if he never had seen
Speaker 2: Kevin to begin with.
Speaker 4: When we know that Spicer had failed to appear in
Speaker 4: court just days prior to Linda's death, we also know
Speaker 4: there was a warrant out for his arrest, and although
Speaker 4: on the witness stand he claimed not to have commit
Speaker 4: crimes recently, he in fact had committed at least three crimes.
Speaker 5: In the twelve months prior.
Speaker 4: So with a warrant out for his arrest, facing contempt
Speaker 4: of court charges as well as sentencing for a whole
Speaker 4: other load of cases where he'd been found guilty, he
Speaker 4: had plenty of reason to want to cooperate with the
Speaker 4: police and tell them something they wanted to hear to
Speaker 4: get himself out.
Speaker 5: Of trouble Mardin.
Speaker 2: It's brought up in the trial that he'd seen a
Speaker 2: newspaper article about Linda's death, but it's also brought up
Speaker 2: that he was illiterate. What can we take from that.
Speaker 4: Well, he does claim that that article was read to him,
Speaker 4: although he does also say that he bought the newspaper. Now,
Speaker 4: this is a man who does not read and write
Speaker 4: at all, so the fact he buys a newspaper allegedly
Speaker 4: is suspect.
Speaker 5: From the beginning. We also know that he gave.
Speaker 4: Two statements to police and he can't Again, he can't
Speaker 4: read and write. Now, these statements weren't necessarily read to him.
Speaker 4: In fact, he says that the second statement, which was
Speaker 4: taken a month later, and this is the one in
Speaker 4: which he implicates Kevin and not the women, he signs
Speaker 4: just with an X. And there's no suggestion that statement
Speaker 4: was ever read to him. He says on the witness stand,
Speaker 4: it's the same. But those two statements weren't the same. Now,
Speaker 4: given he couldn't read, and given it wasn't read to him,
Speaker 4: there's no way he could know what he was signing,
Speaker 4: or he did was put an X at the bottom
Speaker 4: and that's where he agreed that Kevin had confessed to him.
Speaker 4: So I think it's pretty clear that not only do
Speaker 4: we have a witness who was capable of making false claim,
Speaker 4: James who had an extensive criminal record, who probably didn't
Speaker 4: buy a newspaper, who'd probably never seen the article at all.
Speaker 4: In fact, I doubt he ever saw Kevin ever, And
Speaker 4: we should make this point. Kevin claims never to have
Speaker 4: met William Spicer, never to have seen him, and never
Speaker 4: to have made those walks over the bridge where mister
Speaker 4: Spicer was.
Speaker 2: How much did that win this statement play in Kevin's
Speaker 2: conviction or the trial.
Speaker 4: Well, I think in the trial it doesn't play too
Speaker 4: important a factor, given that it's clearly shown under cross
Speaker 4: examination that this is a man that is not someone
Speaker 4: who offers up the truth when asked. In fact, he
Speaker 4: sort of admits that by the end of his statement.
Speaker 4: The big role I believe mister Spicer plays in Kevin's trial,
Speaker 4: Kevin's conviction, and Kevin's arrest is the fact it appears
Speaker 4: he's the first person to claim that Kevin dumped the
Speaker 4: body in the water. Now that was made the day
Speaker 4: after Linda had passed, so immediately that would have influenced
Speaker 4: the police, and clearly we know from then on that's
Speaker 4: all they focused on, and once they'd arrested Kevin, they
Speaker 4: didn't investigate that issue any further. Nobody else raised that issue,
Speaker 4: So that must have been taken from mister Spicer, who
Speaker 4: quite clearly is someone pretty liberal with the truth.
Speaker 2: So was that the only statement taken from a witness
Speaker 2: who couldn't read and write.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: In fact, the very next witness called on the stand
Speaker 4: was another person, a woman who couldn't read or write either,
Speaker 4: and she freely admitted that she was illiterate. Now, the
Speaker 4: problem with this is, just like mister Spicer during her statement,
Speaker 4: there was no one present with her. Now, if they
Speaker 4: can't read or write, and the police aren't reading the
Speaker 4: statement back to them, how have they got any chance
Speaker 4: of knowing what's in that statement. So there's a huge
Speaker 4: problem with the way this was conducted. And these statements
Speaker 4: were taken very early on in the piece and clearly
Speaker 4: impacted on the way the investigation was run.
Speaker 2: So were there any other issues in regards to this particular.
Speaker 4: Witness, Well, there was, and it's something that shows us
Speaker 4: that clearly she didn't know what was in her statement.
Speaker 5: Firstly, she admits.
Speaker 4: That she was very drunk on that day, so when
Speaker 4: she's giving this statement, there's a lot of inconsistencies. But
Speaker 4: it is again a lot worse than that, because not
Speaker 4: only can she not read and write, not only did
Speaker 4: she just initial the statement, she clearly didn't know what
Speaker 4: was in it. And we know that because she admitted
Speaker 4: as much in court. She was asked if she'd had
Speaker 4: a conversation outside the courtroom that day, and she admitted
Speaker 4: she had. She was taking direction from other people before
Speaker 4: going on the stand about what she should say on
Speaker 4: the stand, and this is what she said, What am
Speaker 4: I going to say? She admits she was asking for help.
Speaker 4: First she says she was asking for help in regards
Speaker 4: to just how to be a witness, and then she
Speaker 4: admits she was asking for help in regards to her statement.
Speaker 4: Clearly she had no idea what was in it. And
Speaker 4: this again was what was overheard. What do you want
Speaker 4: me to say here? Do you remember saying that? Yes,
Speaker 4: So she was asking someone for direction as to what
Speaker 4: to say on the witness stand, and we can tell
Speaker 4: you the person she was asking was a relative of hers,
Speaker 4: and that relative was one of Kevin's co accused.
Speaker 2: Now, Mardin, there was one other thing that you mentioned
Speaker 2: about this witness while we were investigating the case.
Speaker 5: What was it?
Speaker 4: Well, that was the fact that on the stand, this
Speaker 4: witness repeatedly claims that the day after Linda's body was found,
Speaker 4: nobody down at ten Uber House, and this includes all
Speaker 4: the people that were there the night before, the three
Speaker 4: women involved in the assault, that nobody spoke of what happened. Now,
Speaker 4: this is important because her statement was taken, just like
Speaker 4: mister Spicer, a second statement more than a month later,
Speaker 4: and she claims that even then she hadn't spoken to
Speaker 4: anyone about the case, hadn't spoken to anyone about what
Speaker 4: happened that night before, didn't talk about the fight, didn't
Speaker 4: talk about the fact that the police were all over
Speaker 4: the joint, nothing, And that claims that she'd only spoken
Speaker 4: to the police, and she was questioned about this quite
Speaker 4: forcefully on the stand. Now, the reason this is important
Speaker 4: is virtually every other witness will make this claim that
Speaker 4: the following day and the months after, some even claim
Speaker 4: all the way up until the trial, and we're talking
Speaker 4: eight months, never spoke to anyone but the police about
Speaker 4: what went on a That's very hard to believe that
Speaker 4: they wouldn't talk about something so serious that they'd witnessed
Speaker 4: the fact that they were going to court to be
Speaker 4: a witness, and that it just wouldn't come up in conversation.
Speaker 4: And we know that the very next day everyone was
Speaker 4: sitting around at Tanuba House before the police arrived. That's
Speaker 4: on the Sunday, and the suggestion is that they were
Speaker 4: not talking about the night before. That's something I just
Speaker 4: can't believe.
Speaker 2: Now, what do you talk about how all of the
Speaker 2: witnesses claimed that they didn't talk to each other, but
Speaker 2: you say that a lot of them were around sitting
Speaker 2: around Tanuba House before police courted it off. What do
Speaker 2: we know about that? When did police go down to Tanuba.
Speaker 4: We know that a body was found early that morning,
Speaker 4: around eight am. We know that a number of extra
Speaker 4: police were called on duty at about nine thirty am,
Speaker 4: and that was clearly to do with the fact that
Speaker 4: a body had been found and a serious investigation was
Speaker 4: about to begin. But those police who would secure the
Speaker 4: crime scene didn't arrive at t Nuba House until three
Speaker 4: point fifteen that afternoon. So that's a considerable period where
Speaker 4: the crime scene of the assault, where all the witnesses
Speaker 4: still were was unsecured, so.
Speaker 2: Mardin the crime scene had been unsecured for a very
Speaker 2: long time. What does that mean for the evidence, Well.
Speaker 4: It's quite significant because the assault had taken place on
Speaker 4: Lnder nearly twenty four hours earlier before the crime scene
Speaker 4: was secured. But also all the witnesses, the three women
Speaker 4: who would later be convicted of that assault, was still around,
Speaker 4: so they had significant time up to twenty four hours,
Speaker 4: but from the time the body was found still another
Speaker 4: six hours where any of that evidence.
Speaker 5: Could have been tampered with.
Speaker 4: There could have been attempts to clean it up, There
Speaker 4: could have been attempts to destroy particular pieces of evidence,
Speaker 4: or there simply would have been people just walking around.
Speaker 4: And we know there was a considerable number of people,
Speaker 4: and so even just people walking around walking through a
Speaker 4: crime scene that disturbs a lot of the evidence. It
Speaker 4: changes the way things are placed. People might move objects
Speaker 4: they don't know were associated with the crime. They might
Speaker 4: clean something up not knowing what had gone on, because
Speaker 4: we do know a lot of people came and went
Speaker 4: from Tanuba, so someone could have seen some blood and
Speaker 4: maybe just cleaned it up thinking they were doing the
Speaker 4: right thing. So this clearly plays an impact in the
Speaker 4: crime scene and the forensic evidence and the way it
Speaker 4: was gathered. But most importantly, this is the site where
Speaker 4: virtually all the forensic evidence that would be tended in
Speaker 4: court is taken from a crime scene that was unsecured
Speaker 4: for twenty four hours from the time of the assault
Speaker 4: and six hours from when the body was found, and
Speaker 4: particularly the area where Linda was assaulted, and this forms
Speaker 4: the majority of the forensic evidence.
Speaker 2: Now, Mardin is going to provide a few details of
Speaker 2: the forensic evidence, and we must warn our listeners it
Speaker 2: does contain distressing content.
Speaker 4: Now, the assault on Winder is a significant part of
Speaker 4: this entire event. We can't be sure whether this assault
Speaker 4: was lethal and resulted in her death or whether she
Speaker 4: was still alive after the assault had finished. Witnesses seem
Speaker 4: to be confused on this fact, and the forensic scientists
Speaker 4: can't provide conclusive evidence, although under questioning one would give
Speaker 4: a more definitive opinion, and will come to that later.
Speaker 4: But what's clear from the statements of the witnesses, from
Speaker 4: the statements of the accused and the women who would
Speaker 4: later be convicted of this assault, one of whom would
Speaker 4: plead guilty during the process, and of everyone else who
Speaker 4: was around at that time, is that the assault on
Speaker 4: Linda was long and sustained. The three women initially began
Speaker 4: with blows to Linda's head, and these blows were significant.
Speaker 4: That's testified to both by the witnesses who saw them
Speaker 4: and by the forensic scientists, one of whom said a
Speaker 4: significant degree of force was delivered to the head area.
Speaker 4: The assault took place, then it paused for a while,
Speaker 4: and then it recommenced, and when it recommenced, it was
Speaker 4: far more violent. The assault resulted in severe trauma and
Speaker 4: lacerations to the head, to the torso, to the arms,
Speaker 4: the legs, and even the hands. It was a considerable
Speaker 4: amount of bleeding. Much of this blood came from the
Speaker 4: head and two significant wounds that were caused by severe blows.
Speaker 4: We also know that at least one of the women
Speaker 4: and possibly two jumped onto Winder off a nearby step.
Speaker 4: That was why her body was on the ground, and
Speaker 4: it's believed she was still conscious at the time. Again,
Speaker 4: the forensic testimony would show that this too caused significant
Speaker 4: damage to Linda's body and wounds both to her head
Speaker 4: and to her to Also, towards the end of the assault,
Speaker 4: we get to the point of the bar. Now this
Speaker 4: is important because the confession that would convict Kevin is
Speaker 4: claimed that he put the bar in Linda's mouth. Now,
Speaker 4: there is no forensic evidence that suggests this ever took place.
Speaker 4: What we do know, though, however, is a bar was
Speaker 4: used by the three women. Now at trial, it's never
Speaker 4: confirmed exactly who was the person to pick up the bar,
Speaker 4: although all the witnesses tend to agree that.
Speaker 5: It was one individual in particular.
Speaker 4: Out of up to thirty statements, really only one or
Speaker 4: two differ on this fact, and that bar was used
Speaker 4: to inflict a significant injury on Linda. It resulted in
Speaker 4: a seven centimeter wound that would have caused significant bleeding,
Speaker 4: It was a deep penetrating wound into the tissue, and
Speaker 4: it punctured a significant organ in Linda's body.
Speaker 5: All of this is important to remember.
Speaker 4: Not only does it go to the fact that the
Speaker 4: assault committed by the women was significant and possibly lethal,
Speaker 4: it also shows the potential that Kevin wasn't needed at all.
Speaker 5: To solve this crime.
Speaker 4: That the assault on Linda by the three women was
Speaker 4: the significant event of that night. Now we can begin
Speaker 4: to confirm some of this by two events. Firstly, that
Speaker 4: those three women were initially charged by.
Speaker 5: The detective inspector.
Speaker 4: At the police station with murder, and that's quite consistent
Speaker 4: with the forensic evidence that's offered, and we'll go into
Speaker 4: that in more detail. But perhaps what's also significant is
Speaker 4: something we've mentioned earlier in this podcast today, and that's
Speaker 4: that mister Spicer, the witness who was illiterate, who didn't
Speaker 4: know what was in his statement, who simply put an
Speaker 4: X on his second statement, given more than a month
Speaker 4: after the events, that would implicate Kevin, had been given
Speaker 4: to police very early on in proceedings. Now it's not
Speaker 4: till later on that it's established by anyone other than
Speaker 4: the police that this mister Spicer was known not to
Speaker 4: be truthful. We know this because of the many crimes
Speaker 4: mister Spicer was convicted of and the fact there was
Speaker 4: already outstanding warrants for his arrest. The fact he implicated
Speaker 4: Kevin so early on, based on what appears to be
Speaker 4: no evidence at all, persuayed some but not all, of
Speaker 4: the police officers that Kevin was somewhat of interest, But
Speaker 4: that clearly wasn't enough for Detective Inspector Weeks, the most
Speaker 4: senior officer, based on the assault I've just described, decided
Speaker 4: that was enough for murder charges to be laid against
Speaker 4: the three women.
Speaker 2: Now, in the last episode we told you about multiple
Speaker 2: people being charged. There were multiple versions of events and
Speaker 2: there seemed to be a degree of confusion amongst police. Madam,
Speaker 2: was this the only Was this confusion only in relation
Speaker 2: to the charging?
Speaker 4: No, So that charging initially resulted in the three women
Speaker 4: being charged with murder by the same police officer, Detective
Speaker 4: Inspector Weeks, who I mentioned just previously, and then only
Speaker 4: a few hours Kevin Henry being charged by a lower
Speaker 4: ranking officer with murder based on an entire separate version
Speaker 4: of events.
Speaker 5: But the confusion began on.
Speaker 1: The very day the police began.
Speaker 4: Their investigation, and that's quite clear by much of what
Speaker 4: takes place and by their testimony. Now that includes the
Speaker 4: failure to secure the crime scene, even though a police
Speaker 4: officer admits he was aware at around nine to thirty
Speaker 4: of where the assault had probably taken place, or at
Speaker 4: the very least where the body is believed to have
Speaker 4: entered the river. Or the police's idea of where the
Speaker 4: body had entered the river. Now, based on that that
Speaker 4: officer should have secured that crime scene immediately, but that
Speaker 4: didn't take place for five or six hours. Now, there
Speaker 4: are other issues. There were multiple people, multiple police officers,
Speaker 4: claiming from the very beginning, to be in charge of
Speaker 4: the investigation, and they clearly took very different paths. Why
Speaker 4: wasn't a decision made very early on as to who
Speaker 4: would be in charge of the crime scene, who would
Speaker 4: be in charge of the investigation, and finally who would
Speaker 4: lay the formal charges? But the discussions between the police
Speaker 4: seemed to be very mixed and very confused. Some say
Speaker 4: there was consultation, others say there was not. Some say
Speaker 4: they made the decisions on their own. Some say they
Speaker 4: did so with the agreement of other police officers who
Speaker 4: would later claim they weren't consulted. This leaves us with
Speaker 4: a great problem at this point, in kurtin the podcast,
Speaker 4: it's fair to say we may never uncover the truth.
Speaker 4: And that's because on that day the police did not
Speaker 4: do their job. They didn't do it in the way
Speaker 4: they questioned witnesses who were either still hungover, were still
Speaker 4: heavily intoxicated, or who were illiterate, and none of whom
Speaker 4: were given assistance giving their statement, nor allowed the presence
Speaker 4: of a lawyer. It's because of the way the crime
Speaker 4: scene was secured or not secured for many many hours
Speaker 4: after the crime had took place, and after that crime
Speaker 4: scene was known to be the most important place, too secure,
Speaker 4: and where the vast majority of evidence would lay. And
Speaker 4: it's also because once Kevin was charged only a few
Speaker 4: days after the crime had taken place, the police, by
Speaker 4: their own admission, ceased investigating. There was so much more
Speaker 4: they could have uncovered, so much of which we've uncovered.
Speaker 4: But twenty five years later, it's very difficult to do
Speaker 4: the work the police should have done on that day.
Speaker 2: Now, how much did the forensics play upont in the trial?
Speaker 2: Was it a big part in the trial?
Speaker 4: It was quite a large part. But because the women
Speaker 4: who committed the assault and Kevin were all put on
Speaker 4: trial together, most of that forensic evidence in fact relates
Speaker 4: to the assault carried out by the women and not
Speaker 4: at all to do with Kevin Henry. Very little of
Speaker 4: the actual evidence, and it is significant, relates in any
Speaker 4: way to Kevin's involvement, and the small bit that does
Speaker 4: relate to Kevin is of considerable contention. So, given that
Speaker 4: such a small amount of the forensic evidence related to Kevin,
Speaker 4: it's very important that the forensic scientists and the examining
Speaker 4: doctor did their job absolutely properly. Otherwise the only bit
Speaker 4: of forensic evidence tying Kevin to the case at all
Speaker 4: causes huge problems and has to be questioned. Now.
Speaker 2: In order to understand the next episode, you have to
Speaker 2: understand a little bit about the role of forensics and
Speaker 2: forensic experts in trials. Here's Sue Black, a forensic anthropologist
Speaker 2: at the University of Dundee who's highly experienced in murder trials.
Speaker 3: Our job is not to help the police are Our
Speaker 3: job is not to be involved in the investigation. Our
Speaker 3: job is to prepare evidence for the court, and that's
Speaker 3: the expert witness part of what we do. Sometimes our
Speaker 3: evidence will be heard in court without us needing to
Speaker 3: appear there. Other times our evidence will be heard and
Speaker 3: we will have to give an oral presentation as the
Speaker 3: expert witness in the court room.
Speaker 4: Next week we'll examine whether the forensic experts and medical
Speaker 4: examiner conducted themselves in this way or were they involved
Speaker 4: in the investigation at all, and will also speak to
Speaker 4: an internationally renowned forensic expert who right now is examining
Speaker 4: the forensic evidence that was presented at trial against Kevin Henry.
Speaker 2: That was episode one of Curtain, a podcast delving into
Speaker 2: the ninety ninety one murder of an Aboriginal woman named
Speaker 2: Linda on the banks of Tanoba or the Fitzroy River
Speaker 2: in Rockhampton, Central Queensland. For now, you can catch up
Speaker 2: on iTunes by typing in Curtain the Podcast, or go
Speaker 2: to our website www dot Curtain Thepodcast dot com.
Speaker 1: Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter at Curtain the
Speaker 1: Podcast