Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returns guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really coming.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing.
Speaker 2: The day after the alleged a tomp.
Speaker 3: On a show a mud bank and it fits through
Speaker 3: a river.
Speaker 1: Basically, I think most of the people are used to me,
Speaker 1: there are good people.
Speaker 3: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 3: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 2: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 2: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 2: Amy Maguire and I'm.
Speaker 3: Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.
Speaker 3: And a warning, this series contains the names of deceased
Speaker 3: peoples and has distressing content that might upset some listeners.
Speaker 1: Now our regular listeners will be aware that we've been
Speaker 1: waiting for news on Kevin's latest parole application that was
Speaker 1: submitted some time ago, and we told you we were
Speaker 1: working on that over the Christmas break. Today we can
Speaker 1: now reveal that we have news on that outcome and
Speaker 1: we've finally received a letter from the Queensland Parole.
Speaker 3: Board moan, what does that?
Speaker 2: Let us say, It's.
Speaker 1: A two page letter that is sent to Kevin and
Speaker 1: it's also forwarded to his legal representatives as well, and
Speaker 1: it begins by highlighting largely what was placed in the
Speaker 1: application on Kevin's behalf, but ultimately it rejects his application
Speaker 1: for parole, and the long and the short of that
Speaker 1: is that for now, that means Kevin will remain inside
Speaker 1: Capricornia Correctional Center.
Speaker 2: Now, just for our listeners knowledge, was this the first
Speaker 2: time Kevin was up for for or how far along
Speaker 2: is he in this.
Speaker 3: Sort of process?
Speaker 1: Okay, So Kevin's been up for parole quite a number
Speaker 1: of times and each time he's been rejected, and those
Speaker 1: rejections have been based largely on different reasons. There's a
Speaker 1: few commonalities in there, but they've largely been rejected for
Speaker 1: different reasons. And what I can say is that we're
Speaker 1: narrowing down what the Parole Board are wanting of us,
Speaker 1: and we're really down to just one last sticking point.
Speaker 3: So does it.
Speaker 2: Say that in the letter? Does it give you any
Speaker 2: sort of explanation as to why he's been knocked back
Speaker 2: this time.
Speaker 1: Look it does. I think one thing to acknowledge is
Speaker 1: that the Parole Board was very impressed by the support
Speaker 1: of the Warabinda community, the Rockhampton community, and particularly the
Speaker 1: elders of the Worabinda community who showed their support in
Speaker 1: a letter on behalf of Kevin, and that was accepted,
Speaker 1: acknowledged and seen as a very good step forward. There
Speaker 1: was quite a number of other issues in terms of
Speaker 1: the Mimosa Healing Center that they have at Warabinda and
Speaker 1: their willingness to offer support to Kevin. So I think
Speaker 1: it's important for people to understand who are listening that
Speaker 1: it's not as if Kevin would be released and that's it.
Speaker 1: There is a huge network of support in place for
Speaker 1: Kevin upon his release. That starts with his family and
Speaker 1: his closest friends, and it extends through to professional help,
Speaker 1: help from the indigenous community in Warabinda and in Rockhampton,
Speaker 1: its support from the elders, and there's also a number
Speaker 1: of other things we have in place in terms of
Speaker 1: the sort of work Kevin wishes to do. The programs
Speaker 1: that he has seccessfuly completed, so he has done a
Speaker 1: great deal of work to meet the requirements of the
Speaker 1: Parole Board, and we're really down to just this one
Speaker 1: sticking point. But unfortunately for Kevin, and it's particularly unfair
Speaker 1: that he has gone through this process a number of times.
Speaker 1: And I think people should take that in mind that
Speaker 1: Kevin's maintained his innocence for more than twenty five years
Speaker 1: and yet because of issues, largely of technicalities, his parole
Speaker 1: has been refused quite a number of times.
Speaker 2: So when we're talking about parole, particularly in this context,
Speaker 2: it's not a system that a lot of people understand,
Speaker 2: is it.
Speaker 1: No, it's very complicated, and I think one thing our
Speaker 1: listeners and everybody needs to understand is that Queensland system,
Speaker 1: where Kevin is incarcerated, is perhaps the least developed of
Speaker 1: all the parole processes in Australia. And just yesterday we
Speaker 1: had news that a response has come down into a
Speaker 1: review of the Queensland parole system and it outlines quite
Speaker 1: a number of recommendations and one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: review took place is because of these technicalities we talk about.
Speaker 1: But I think the very first thing we should mention
Speaker 1: is this is the first review into the Queensland parole
Speaker 1: system for eighty years, so no review had been done
Speaker 1: since prior to the Second World War. So that means
Speaker 1: all the people who are in prison now and have
Speaker 1: been over the last many many decades have faced a
Speaker 1: system that was drafted between the wars and during the depression,
Speaker 1: and that's just not acceptable for a modern legal system,
Speaker 1: and that I think is partly what's prompted this review,
Speaker 1: and also the frustration that we continue to face roadblocks
Speaker 1: in these technicalities that just shouldn't be there.
Speaker 2: But just over the past couple of decades, the Queensland
Speaker 2: incarceration rate has continued to go off, so not only
Speaker 2: just aboriginal prisoners, but numbers of people we in prison
Speaker 2: and a lot of that has to do with parole.
Speaker 2: But that's all based on the same system. So is
Speaker 2: it the way the system is sort of being used,
Speaker 2: or is it the overarching system or what's the key problem?
Speaker 2: Because it seems like occasionally you can have a situation
Speaker 2: where parole numbers are going down and then you have
Speaker 2: an other situation like the present, where parole is being
Speaker 2: refused at higher.
Speaker 3: And higher rates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that therese are quite a few issues there.
Speaker 1: One is political will and we've spoken a number of
Speaker 1: times on this podcast. How when politicians, particularly those in power,
Speaker 1: ramp up this idea of law and order making the
Speaker 1: community safe by locking people up, we tend to see
Speaker 1: prison population skyrocket, and that's very well detailed in a
Speaker 1: new documentary called Thirteen that's available on Netflix that I
Speaker 1: would recommend people have.
Speaker 3: A look at.
Speaker 1: But when we add the complication of increased people going
Speaker 1: into prison with an ancient, eighty year old parole system
Speaker 1: making it even more difficult for people a to be
Speaker 1: released and also to rehabilitate while they're out in the community,
Speaker 1: but under parole conditions, you just have this real difficulty
Speaker 1: for everyone involved, whether it's lawyers, rehabilitation centers, the mental
Speaker 1: health sector, and the prisoners and their families themselves finding
Speaker 1: a way to navigate through this system. So I think
Speaker 1: it's a failure right across the board, and that's clearly
Speaker 1: why we've seen this review need to take place, and
Speaker 1: I hope we don't see the media cherry pick a
Speaker 1: few little aspects of the report and say that it's
Speaker 1: a need to become tough on law and order and
Speaker 1: actually look at what the bulk of the report says,
Speaker 1: which is about providing greater access to rehabilitation, updating the
Speaker 1: system and those sort of things.
Speaker 2: It's interesting because I think the public obviously views parole
Speaker 2: a certain way, don't they, Because this report has actually
Speaker 2: been sort of sparked by one of these law and
Speaker 2: outrages you're talking about, How do you think the public
Speaker 2: is the issue of parole and how is it different
Speaker 2: to what actually needs to happen.
Speaker 1: I think, almost exclusively, the only time we tend to
Speaker 1: hear about parole is when someone is paroled and then
Speaker 1: commits a fairly horrific crime upon their release. That's what
Speaker 1: we hear about, and that happens maybe once every five years. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that is just a microcosm of what is the actual
Speaker 1: parole system. It's no way indicative of what happens day
Speaker 1: in day out at correctional centers around Queensland, at police
Speaker 1: stations where people report, at all the mental health and
Speaker 1: rehabilitation centers, and all the individual issues and processes that
Speaker 1: people have to go through who are out on parole
Speaker 1: or applying for parole. So we tend to see this
Speaker 1: reporting that parole should be tougher and more restrictive, because
Speaker 1: once every now and then it does lead to a
Speaker 1: horrific outcome. And I don't think at all anyone is
Speaker 1: denying that mistakes are made and sometimes people who are
Speaker 1: released shouldn't be released. But it's very important to keep
Speaker 1: in mind that this is in the absolute minority, and
Speaker 1: largely what the report says is that one of the
Speaker 1: reasons this takes place is not because these people are
Speaker 1: released back into the community, but that they're not given
Speaker 1: the ability to rehabilitate why they're in prison. And if
Speaker 1: you don't give people access to those services, if you
Speaker 1: don't help people rehabilitate, address their issues with drug and alcohol,
Speaker 1: help them re establish their connections into their communities, find work,
Speaker 1: improve their education, then you're setting people up to fail.
Speaker 1: And sadly, you will have a small percentage of people
Speaker 1: who will go back into the community and re offend
Speaker 1: because nothing has been done to improve them as individuals
Speaker 1: and assist them rehabilitate from being offenders before they are relief.
Speaker 2: So mar, what does this report actually say specific agree
Speaker 2: that agal Well.
Speaker 1: I think there's a few things in the report in
Speaker 1: terms of recommendations that can make us somewhat hopeful. There's
Speaker 1: some very specific recommendations that address the needs of Aboriginal
Speaker 1: entire Straight Islander prisoners, and they include things like rehabilitation
Speaker 1: programs that specifically address the needs of Aboriginal entire straight
Speaker 1: Islander people. That's in terms of things to do with
Speaker 1: the proper provision and resourcing of mental health services that
Speaker 1: are tailored to Aboriginal people. It's in terms of rehabilitation
Speaker 1: services of all kinds, because we do know that Aboriginal
Speaker 1: entire straight Islander peoples do respond very well to many
Speaker 1: of the real rehabilitations services that do exist. They just
Speaker 1: haven't been been offered to people in prison, and that
Speaker 1: is both unfair to the prisoners and unfair to the
Speaker 1: communities they come from that these provisions have not been
Speaker 1: in place in the past, and so I really hope
Speaker 1: these things are fast tracked through and we see those
Speaker 1: changes made. There's also a call for greater programs to
Speaker 1: be run by aberigin on Torres straight Islander people, and
Speaker 1: I think that's particularly important that we have a huge
Speaker 1: number of Aboriginal run and led professional organizations that deal
Speaker 1: with everything from mental health, to community and work placement
Speaker 1: to drug and alcohol rehabilitation that have really high success rates.
Speaker 1: And this might shock some non Indigenous people who listen,
Speaker 1: but the success rates are actually much higher than the
Speaker 1: broader community, and so I think it's a welcome change
Speaker 1: that finally in twenty seventeen there is a recognition of
Speaker 1: the great work these organizations are doing and the great
Speaker 1: changes people are making to their lives. So that's some
Speaker 1: of what's in place. But there's also a particular aspect
Speaker 1: that I think has been a concern of the Indigenous
Speaker 1: community right around Australia, which is do these parole boards
Speaker 1: have any Indigenous members sitting on them? And Recommendation thirty
Speaker 1: eight requires that at least one professional member of the
Speaker 1: board be Aboriginal lot of Tois straight Islander. Previously, we've
Speaker 1: been given assurance that an Aboriginal lot Toros Straight Islander
Speaker 1: person would be on a parole board and it wasn't
Speaker 1: a requirement that that person be a professional in this area.
Speaker 1: And so I think again we have quite a number
Speaker 1: of Indigenous experts in this area who are well versed
Speaker 1: in understanding the needs of prisoners and their communities, who
Speaker 1: will now hopefully be employed by the Queensland Government to
Speaker 1: assist in addressing these issues.
Speaker 2: A lot of listeners who may not understand or have
Speaker 2: a lot of contact with Aboriginal communities, might be wondering
Speaker 2: why would you need someone like that on a parole board.
Speaker 2: Does the report find any specific discrimination against Aboriginal and
Speaker 2: Hashate Island a prisoners on I go for parole.
Speaker 1: The report does, and I think we can detail some
Speaker 1: of it in terms of Kevin's particular case, which is
Speaker 1: that there is a real lack of understanding by government
Speaker 1: agencies across the board, including parole boards, about what constitutes
Speaker 1: things like a fair family life, reintegration into community work
Speaker 1: for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, and the particular
Speaker 1: importance of community and connection to country that Aboriginal and
Speaker 1: Toros Straight Islander people have. So often a parole board
Speaker 1: might want to see a person placed back with one
Speaker 1: particular relative in particular, and that tends to just look
Speaker 1: at what we see in the broader community as mum,
Speaker 1: dad and the kids, and as we know in Aboriginal
Speaker 1: in Toros Straight Islander communities, families and communities don't always
Speaker 1: operate that way. Elders play a very significant role in
Speaker 1: assisting everyone in the community, and often elders are in
Speaker 1: fact the very best people placed in the community to
Speaker 1: assist those who are coming out of prison, and I
Speaker 1: think there's finally again a little bit of acknowledgment in
Speaker 1: terms of the role they can play. And one of
Speaker 1: the other issues is that the report recommendation number sixty
Speaker 1: four is that there should be a substantial and immediate
Speaker 1: increase in the number of cultural liaison of positions within
Speaker 1: probation and parole. So we have those people in terms
Speaker 1: of incorrection facilities, we have those people working with police,
Speaker 1: but there has not been enough of those jobs in
Speaker 1: terms of probation and parole, so assisting people who are
Speaker 1: out on parole and assisting people with that transition. And
Speaker 1: again I think that's one area where Aboriginal people are
Speaker 1: much better positioned to assist other Aboriginal people than the
Speaker 1: wider community is. But reading the report as well, Amy,
Speaker 1: there's also something that touches very close to home for
Speaker 1: Kevin's case in partent, Yeah, it was.
Speaker 2: Very interesting when you consider that the war of Endo community,
Speaker 2: where Kevin is actually from the worrib Indo community's deputy
Speaker 2: there is actually the man who recommended these cultural liaison officers.
Speaker 2: So it's obvious that the war of inter community itself
Speaker 2: is very well versed in the problems around parole and
Speaker 2: would acknowledge the problems that Kevin's currently coming up against.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's evident as well in the Worrebindo
Speaker 1: community support for Kevin, and I think people right around
Speaker 1: Australia should understand that the Worribinda community here we have
Speaker 1: an example of them addressing a broader issue that affects
Speaker 1: every Queenslander and providing expert advice on what needs to happen,
Speaker 1: and that's been acknowledged and taken on board by this
Speaker 1: review for the Coinsaying government. And then at a micro
Speaker 1: level we also see in Kevin's case that the Worrebindo
Speaker 1: com community has rallied around Kevin. Elders have supported Kevin
Speaker 1: and signed a letter of support for Kevin for his parole.
Speaker 1: So despite the fact that Warabinda is a small community
Speaker 1: in central Queensland, Indigenous or non Indigenous, this must be
Speaker 1: one of the most active communities in all of Australia
Speaker 1: in terms of working to reform our prison system, our
Speaker 1: parole system and assisting with rehabilitation and that benefits everybody
Speaker 1: in the community. These are the things that reduce crime
Speaker 1: and recidivism. This helps absolutely everyone, and I think really
Speaker 1: we should see the Warabinda community applauded for the hard
Speaker 1: work that they've done in assisting with this new recommendation
Speaker 1: that will hopefully be rolled out very soon and not
Speaker 1: only assist people like Kevin and all those from the
Speaker 1: Warabinda community, but absolutely everybody in Queensland. And again I
Speaker 1: think they should be congratulated for that fact.
Speaker 2: Now this report is just being released only yesterday, will
Speaker 2: it actually help Kevin's case for parole? Do you think
Speaker 2: if all of these recommendations are implemented.
Speaker 1: Look, I think that's a really good question, and I
Speaker 1: think it goes to the fact that there's been no
Speaker 1: review for eighty years. If this review had taken place
Speaker 1: ten years ago, twenty years ago and contains these recommendations
Speaker 1: and they'd been put in place, as you say, these
Speaker 1: would have helped Kevin absolutely. In fact, I don't think
Speaker 1: Kevin would still be in prison if these recommendations had
Speaker 1: been implemented years ago when they should have. So absolutely
Speaker 1: I think they can help Kevin going forward a because
Speaker 1: so much of these recommendations back up what we've been
Speaker 1: saying for years and backs up what Kevin's been saying
Speaker 1: saying about his own rehabilitation, his own innocence, and his
Speaker 1: right to maintain his innocence, and his right and the
Speaker 1: benefit to him and his community to be able to
Speaker 1: return to his community and be supported by his elders.
Speaker 1: I think there's recommendations in here that address some of
Speaker 1: the concerns we've raised with the Parole Board, and I
Speaker 1: hope now the Parole Board, having seen them been fleshed
Speaker 1: out in a government report, will see that we're not
Speaker 1: the only people saying them that this shouldn't just be
Speaker 1: something that's about whether Kevin is or isn't given parole.
Speaker 1: This is something that affects all prisoners and therefore affects
Speaker 1: Kevin as well. So it's not usd just trying to
Speaker 1: make excuses to get Kevin out. These are real issues
Speaker 1: that experts have looked at and they've come to the
Speaker 1: conclusion that much of what Kevin has been putting in
Speaker 1: his applications for parole is absolutely spot on. And so
Speaker 1: I hope going forward that as we see the Parole
Speaker 1: Board take these recommendations on and implement them, that now
Speaker 1: many of the things where I mentioned previously Kevin has
Speaker 1: been knocked back for on those technicalities can now be redressed.
Speaker 1: And while we have many other things we're working on
Speaker 1: in terms of Kevin's release in parole, this is just
Speaker 1: another issue that's come along that should assist Kevin greatly.
Speaker 2: Now we are going to outline the reasons that Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry was knocked back for parole, and we'll do that
Speaker 2: next week, but first of all, we need to go
Speaker 2: back and examine the forensics yet again. Now Mardin last
Speaker 2: week we focused mostly on the drowning, but were there
Speaker 2: other issues that were brought up in a forensic report
Speaker 2: that is important to know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is. I think the drowning is the most
Speaker 1: conclusive part of the report that, as we detailed last week,
Speaker 1: outlines just how poor the forensic work was, to be honest,
Speaker 1: and it's what's often referred to as junk science. But
Speaker 1: there is a second aspect to the report that is
Speaker 1: very important, and that relates to the issue of blood.
Speaker 1: And I think anyone can understand that when you have
Speaker 1: a murder has occurred, that generally you're going to have
Speaker 1: a large amount of blood present where the crime scene
Speaker 1: takes place. And I think anyone who's seen a documentary
Speaker 1: about such a thing, or even a movie will understand
Speaker 1: that often these crime scenes are very bloody and are
Speaker 1: very horrific things to witness and see. But in that
Speaker 1: mess that is the crime scene is a large amount
Speaker 1: of clues. And the clues that were very evident to
Speaker 1: all involved in this case was the blood. There was
Speaker 1: a large amount of Linda's blood in the crime scene
Speaker 1: and within the vicinity of the crime scene, and there
Speaker 1: was also blood that was belonging to other individuals. But
Speaker 1: the most important aspect is this large amount of Linda's blood.
Speaker 1: And the first thing we would expect is that whoever
Speaker 1: was to have handled Linda's body, and remember the allegation
Speaker 1: is that Kevin placed Linda's body in the water, you
Speaker 1: would expect, firstly, just by common sense, that that person
Speaker 1: would have some of that blood on their body. Now
Speaker 1: that's because of a few reasons. One, the wounds that
Speaker 1: Linda had suffered were wounds that are considered to produce
Speaker 1: a great deal of blood, and these were wounds and
Speaker 1: injuries that were right across Linda's body. So from a
Speaker 1: forensic point of view, there would have been no way
Speaker 1: to handle Linda's body without getting blood on more than
Speaker 1: just the hands. This is not something you could just
Speaker 1: wash off your hands. The forensic examiners believe the blood
Speaker 1: would be all over a person who had handled the body,
Speaker 1: and that's in.
Speaker 3: The independent report.
Speaker 2: We should say, so, this is what the independent forensic
Speaker 2: experts has said.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's correct, and it's also largely what was said
Speaker 1: at trial. I should say too that this is what
Speaker 1: you would expect to find. But in the forensic evidence,
Speaker 1: there is none of this blood on Kevin Henry. Now,
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry's clothes that he was wearing that night were
Speaker 1: recovered and there is no suggestion by the process cution
Speaker 1: or police or forensic experts that Kevin made any attempt
Speaker 1: to clean these clothes. The clothes were well worn and
Speaker 1: slightly dirty, and they still contained this dirt that was
Speaker 1: days old, So there was no evidence of anyone trying
Speaker 1: to clean blood or anything off the clothes. The clothes
Speaker 1: contained no traces, not even microscopic traces of Linda's blood.
Speaker 1: Kevin's shoes were also recovered, and as we've mentioned previously,
Speaker 1: they didn't have any mud on them that we would
Speaker 1: have expected had Kevin gone down into the riverbank, which
Speaker 1: he would have been required to do to place the
Speaker 1: body in the water, But both the initial forensic report
Speaker 1: and now more conclusively in the new forensic report, there
Speaker 1: is no suggestion of any blood at all, neither Kevin's
Speaker 1: nor Linda's, nor anybody else's on Kevin's shoes. There was
Speaker 1: also no suggestion at the initial trial, and none found
Speaker 1: in the new forensic report, that there was any blood
Speaker 1: on Kevin's person. That is, there was no blood on
Speaker 1: his skin, on his hands, on his arms, on his
Speaker 1: feet where it would be possible for him to have
Speaker 1: perhaps removed his clothing and then move Linda's body. So
Speaker 1: there was no blood anywhere on Kevin, neither his own,
Speaker 1: nor more importantly, any of Linda's. And it's believed by
Speaker 1: the forensic experts that to have done what the police
Speaker 1: alleged Kevin did, it's simply impossible for him to have
Speaker 1: done it without getting blood on him, either on his
Speaker 1: body or clothes or shoes, and none of that blood exists.
Speaker 2: I was just going to ask Martin with the blood,
Speaker 2: was any of it found near De Grassy areas or
Speaker 2: anywhere near the riverbank or it was largely just near
Speaker 2: to Newba House where we know the assault did occur,
Speaker 2: so the.
Speaker 1: Vast bulk of the forensic matter that was collected was
Speaker 1: taken where we know absolutely the assault took place. There
Speaker 1: were small trace amounts of blood found in other areas,
Speaker 1: but largely this was not tested. It was just assumed
Speaker 1: that this was Linda's blood, but it could have been
Speaker 1: anybody's blood. There's nothing to rule out that someone had
Speaker 1: cut themselves, that there hadn't been a fight a day earlier,
Speaker 1: and someone else might have been injured, that it could
Speaker 1: be fish blood. Remember that fishing is very common by
Speaker 1: the river and where this took place, So the forensics
Speaker 1: were also collected in a way that makes determining these
Speaker 1: things very difficult. But I think it is fair to say,
Speaker 1: given that the police were so aggressive in going after
Speaker 1: Kevin Henry, if they believed any this forensic material related
Speaker 1: to Kevin or belonged to Kevin, they would have tested it,
Speaker 1: but they decided not to, and I think that's because
Speaker 1: they knew that it didn't relate and had no connection
Speaker 1: whatsoever to Kevin Henry.
Speaker 2: So police could have used that original clue about the
Speaker 2: blood that the person who had supposedly done STILLNDA would
Speaker 2: likely have quite a lot of blood on them to
Speaker 2: sort of zero down.
Speaker 3: Or help their investigation.
Speaker 2: But they obviously didn't find anyone else, but they didn't
Speaker 2: want to find anyone else who might fit it and
Speaker 2: more fit it better.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right, and I think it's there's two very
Speaker 1: disturbing aspects here. One is on behalf of the police,
Speaker 1: and that is that while they recovered the evidence that
Speaker 1: relates to the three women who committed the assault, and
Speaker 1: unsurprisingly they did have traces of Linda's blood on them,
Speaker 1: on their clothes, on their person, and some of it
Speaker 1: was a little bit more difficult to detect because days
Speaker 1: had gone by before they were first interviewed. But remember
Speaker 1: they were charged with murder on the fifth of September,
Speaker 1: on the Thursday, and the assault took place on the
Speaker 1: Saturday night, so there was certainly other forensic evidence. It's
Speaker 1: just that none of it relates to Kevin Henry. And
Speaker 1: as you rightly say, if police wanted to solve this crime,
Speaker 1: very early on it became obvious that the person they
Speaker 1: should be looking for is someone that either had blood
Speaker 1: on their clothes or on their person, or a person
Speaker 1: who had disposed of bloody clothing and we do know
Speaker 1: that there was some forensic evidence that was disposed of
Speaker 1: and that was by one of the women who was
Speaker 1: charged with murder and then later convicted of Griever's bottle harm,
Speaker 1: and it is believed that did contain and there was
Speaker 1: a confession to that containing some of Linda's blood, So
Speaker 1: we know that that blood transfer between people who absolutely
Speaker 1: were involved on the attack of Linda against Linda took place.
Speaker 1: So when the police were looking for the person who
Speaker 1: committed the last remaining part of the crime, particularly putting
Speaker 1: Linda in the water, they should have been zeroing in
Speaker 1: on anyone who had destroyed their clothing, wasn't wearing their
Speaker 1: clothing from the night before, or who had made attempts
Speaker 1: to wash their clothing or other such matters, and they
Speaker 1: didn't do that. Now, before we leave the forensic issue,
Speaker 1: there's one final thing I want to raise that, as
Speaker 1: I said, I think is the second part that's most disturbing,
Speaker 1: and that is that the forensic evidence presented it Kevin
Speaker 1: Henry's trial was mixed with the forensic evidence of the
Speaker 1: three women because they were all tried at the same time,
Speaker 1: and so most of the forensics relates to the women
Speaker 1: and not Kevin Henry. The forensics presented at the trial
Speaker 1: and now examined in the new report that we have
Speaker 1: shows there was no forensic link of Kevin Henry to
Speaker 1: this crime. So you would assume that at Kevin Henry's
Speaker 1: trial and at Kevin Henry's appeal, that experts would have
Speaker 1: been called on his behalf to point this fact out
Speaker 1: and to explain to a jury and to a judge
Speaker 1: that this very simplistic evidence, this junk science that was
Speaker 1: being used to try and link Kevin to the crime
Speaker 1: simply didn't exist. We know it didn't exist because there
Speaker 1: was no blood, There was no link, and the police
Speaker 1: didn't even offer any forensic link on Kevin Henry's behalf,
Speaker 1: but not a single witness was called for Kevin. Now,
Speaker 1: anyone who's watched say anything on the OJ Simpson trial
Speaker 1: or any of these famous murder trials will know that
Speaker 1: the prosecution calls their witnesses and the defense calls theirs,
Speaker 1: and the defense does not have to accept the forensic
Speaker 1: proposals that are put forward by the state and by
Speaker 1: the state examiner and the pathologists that work for the state.
Speaker 1: They can bring forward their own experts to at least
Speaker 1: challenge the forensics. Now, these forensics were so weak that
Speaker 1: it would have taken just a few sentences of a
Speaker 1: forensic expert called on Kevin's behalf to have them dismissed
Speaker 1: and either dismissed or shown to the jury and made
Speaker 1: it very clear to the jury that there was absolutely
Speaker 1: no forensic link of Kevin to the crime. But again,
Speaker 1: in Kevin's trial and his appeals, not a single expert
Speaker 1: witness was called on his behalf. So really, what you're
Speaker 1: hearing is, for the first time in twenty five years,
Speaker 1: any effort to show and advocate on Kevin's behalf that
Speaker 1: that forensic evidence didn't exist, and it doesn't and that
Speaker 1: he had no forensic link whatsoever to this crime, and
Speaker 1: that should have been made clear to the jury. And
Speaker 1: it wasn't sorry to cut you off before we go.
Speaker 1: I have just got a message and it's gotten attachment
Speaker 1: what and it's oh man, we've got them.
Speaker 2: What does it say?
Speaker 1: Amy? As soon as we go off air, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what I've received, and listeners next week you will
Speaker 1: hear are what I've just received in an email and
Speaker 1: it's explosive. Tune in next week for Curtin the podcast