Speaker 1: This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
Speaker 1: urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm
Speaker 1: thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
Speaker 1: lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2: Hello, Welcome to the tenth installment of Conversations and the
Speaker 2: last one for the year.
Speaker 1: Liam, Welcome Allison. It's been a long journey, hasn't it
Speaker 1: it has.
Speaker 2: I am in Perth with Liam and Tim. I saw
Speaker 2: Tim earlier, but unfortunately Tim has got stuck in that
Speaker 2: Rebello trial, which is fascinating, right.
Speaker 1: That is an interesting case Cracker.
Speaker 2: Also the fact that the friends were stuffed up in
Speaker 2: that case too.
Speaker 1: It's interesting, isn't it? But not as interesting as the
Speaker 1: case that we've been looking at for all these past
Speaker 1: weeks months. And we live in hope that the new team,
Speaker 1: as they call it, the new investigative Team, the task
Speaker 1: force that they've put into place, looking at the new
Speaker 1: leads that they have. Now. I know there's been some
Speaker 1: conjecture on this, even from within police ranks. There are
Speaker 1: still some policemen I don't think police women, but I'm
Speaker 1: willing to bet that there are still some policemen in
Speaker 1: senior ranks who don't treat and are not treating, at
Speaker 1: least mentally, some of these pieces of information as new
Speaker 1: leads on Amy's case. Now, whether or not that is
Speaker 1: a mental block that they have because they don't want
Speaker 1: to for various reasons over the course of the journey,
Speaker 1: because they're involved in the case on various levels, that's
Speaker 1: a matter of conjecture. But can I just say to
Speaker 1: you anyone, anyone with an investigative background who is not
Speaker 1: treating the pieces of information that have been brought to
Speaker 1: light through this podcast and through some of our very
Speaker 1: loyal listeners and people who have been prepared to ring
Speaker 1: crime stoppers and do the right thing after all these years,
Speaker 1: give for whatever information they've had, whatever information they think
Speaker 1: could be valuable to police to consider. If there are
Speaker 1: still people who don't think they constitute solid new leads,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but they're living on another planet.
Speaker 2: Well not just leads, but evidence.
Speaker 1: I'm treating that as the same thing. It's a lead,
Speaker 1: it's evidence, it's you know, it's material information, Allison.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly. And I think it's just really important that
Speaker 2: we look at everything. Yeah, I mean, we talk about
Speaker 2: an open mind and open mind is an interesting conceptism
Speaker 2: that when people say open mind, because I think anybody
Speaker 2: who was involved with the case in the early stages
Speaker 2: shouldn't be working on it now.
Speaker 1: No, I agree with that. I agree with that. I
Speaker 1: think they have a lot of copy book in that sense.
Speaker 1: I mean they've shown that they have a very narrow
Speaker 1: view of what took place or the possibilities, permutations, combinations
Speaker 1: of what may have happened may not have happened. So
Speaker 1: I think let's just push them to the sideline. They
Speaker 1: can spend their time happily thinking about other things. But
Speaker 1: I think for Amy and for Amy's family, especially for
Speaker 1: her two girls, we have to have an open mind.
Speaker 1: As you say, it's an open book at this stage.
Speaker 1: In fact, the coroner said it was an open finding,
Speaker 1: so I think that's pretty consistent. So we know that
Speaker 1: homicide is certainly on the table.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, Look, I've been speaking to other people as well,
Speaker 2: legal people. One of them has talked about now and
Speaker 2: a lot of our listeners up to finding the wood buyer,
Speaker 2: right the wood buyer who Amy was sending all these
Speaker 2: messages to David Simmons about getting back with the wood,
Speaker 2: so that they could sell the wood to the wood buyer.
Speaker 2: He was coming at three fifteen pm on that day, yes,
Speaker 2: so she needed him to be home because that's when
Speaker 2: she collects the kids, right, So the boys were home
Speaker 2: by then. What did this wood buyer see when he
Speaker 2: turned up? That's that's what I want to know. Because
Speaker 2: he couldn't communicate with David Simmons, or he or she
Speaker 2: it could have been a female couldn't communicate with him
Speaker 2: because his phone wasn't working. That's why he was communicating
Speaker 2: with Amy, and Amy's trying to get the message through.
Speaker 2: So I think I think police should be looking for
Speaker 2: this wood buyer.
Speaker 1: Do you know if the wood buyer has ever been contacted?
Speaker 1: I mean, has there ever been a statement, a formal
Speaker 1: statement taken from the wood buyer? No? No, At the moment,
Speaker 1: it's a complete mystery figure.
Speaker 2: Yes, it is a complete mystery figure. But I think
Speaker 2: that new task force, if they're going to be doing
Speaker 2: their job properly and comprehensively, they need to find this
Speaker 2: wood buyer.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't the wood buyer's number be on Amy's phone?
Speaker 2: Correct? I gather they still have it, I mean more
Speaker 2: the family have it, but maybe they should be getting
Speaker 2: hold of it because obviously, as you know, they missed
Speaker 2: the photo with the bruises too.
Speaker 1: Mainly they did they did that was in the case
Speaker 1: of photos on her phone that we found and they
Speaker 1: said they'd lost it. It's interesting, isn't it. There's a
Speaker 1: few different things, and to be fair, I mean, there
Speaker 1: may be different things. I'm hoping, fingers crossed, there maybe
Speaker 1: a lot of different things that this new team, this
Speaker 1: new task for us, is looking at behind the scenes
Speaker 1: they don't want us to know about and they don't
Speaker 1: want other people to be aware of at all. And
Speaker 1: that's a good thing. That's you know, obviously an investigative
Speaker 1: strategy that they may be employing that you know, you
Speaker 1: can't discuss every aspect of the case. And we hope,
Speaker 1: we hope there may be a range of initiatives that
Speaker 1: that team is performing at the moment that is way
Speaker 1: way beyond what our imagination can conjure up that would
Speaker 1: be helpful. I mean, we do know, for example, we've
Speaker 1: come into contact Allison, as you know, in the last
Speaker 1: couple of days, we've come into contact with a couple
Speaker 1: of people who were so of Amy's, were friends of Amy's,
Speaker 1: and they have told us that the police have taken statements,
Speaker 1: been back to them again. This new team has been
Speaker 1: back to them, taken new statements from them because they
Speaker 1: had contact with Amy in literally in the days that
Speaker 1: before she died, and that was as late or as
Speaker 1: recently as of second week as September, not that long
Speaker 1: ago at all, so that's very heartening. I was really
Speaker 1: heartened to hear that. I thought, Okay, well, they've been
Speaker 1: doing the footwork. They've been knocking on the doors, going
Speaker 1: to people, trying to get fresh background on what happened
Speaker 1: in the hours and days leading up to Amy's death.
Speaker 1: So that gives me some hope.
Speaker 2: Another bit of information that I've come across in Perth
Speaker 2: that I wasn't aware of until today is Shelley Stanley.
Speaker 2: Them finding Shelley Stanley because she has more information.
Speaker 1: Who is Shelley's.
Speaker 2: Shelley Stanley is the or friend, an old friend of Amy's.
Speaker 2: She only knew Amy because her former partner was friends
Speaker 2: with David Simmons. So what had happened is they used
Speaker 2: to go out and I remember I don't know if
Speaker 2: he recalled, but anyway, she remembers the way that he
Speaker 2: used to talk to her and was quite defensive. She
Speaker 2: put in a statement to police about that, and he
Speaker 2: accused her when she was trying to defend Amy, he
Speaker 2: accused her of being or lesbian or something, you know,
Speaker 2: like it was that sort of yeah, she said, and
Speaker 2: I don't I'm going to tell you. I'm going to
Speaker 2: do it in two ways in cases legaled out. So
Speaker 2: first of all, she told a story about what the
Speaker 2: boys used to get up to involving hunting. Now, what
Speaker 2: I can tell you is that I used to go
Speaker 2: pig hunting with it with just a knife, the three
Speaker 2: of them, so that that's already on the record. But
Speaker 2: what I wasn't aware of is that they would film
Speaker 2: themselves slaughtering the pigs and then head back home and
Speaker 2: make the girls watch it with them while they bring beers.
Speaker 1: Which is a bit their partners.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a bit strange, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wouldn't think that's that sort of a normal
Speaker 1: fraught autternoon fair for most blokes.
Speaker 2: I think it's significant because we talked about domestic violence, right,
Speaker 2: And the reason I think it's significant is because they
Speaker 2: have evidence of domestic violence witnesses. Even on that day
Speaker 2: that Amy was being you know it was in a
Speaker 2: violent physical altercation with David Simmons.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, again to be fair, I mean that's
Speaker 1: what police look at, don't they. That's what they in
Speaker 1: their investigative sort of template. They look at patterns of
Speaker 1: behavior and they can come from character as well as actions,
Speaker 1: can't they. So you know, it's all part of that
Speaker 1: mosaic that makes up the you know, the whole, the
Speaker 1: whole case. There's no question mark is there that it
Speaker 1: was a coercive relationship. I mean we know that from
Speaker 1: first hand evidence given from Amy's mum, from her closest friends,
Speaker 1: from those people around her at various times over the
Speaker 1: sort of the one two preceding years. So I don't think,
Speaker 1: I don't think, you know, that's not a question mark
Speaker 1: at all. The question is is how far does that
Speaker 1: behavior go?
Speaker 2: Speaking of David simmons behavior, we saw a bit of
Speaker 2: it this week because this was the week. The reason
Speaker 2: I am in Perth is I came to the court hearing.
Speaker 2: I was hoping to see the court hearing of the
Speaker 2: allegations or the charges against David Simmons, one being the
Speaker 2: most serious being assaulting a public officer, a police officer,
Speaker 2: which he's pleaded not guilty to, also obstruct, which is
Speaker 2: pleaded not guilty to. And there were two others which
Speaker 2: he did I think was disorderly behavior and something else
Speaker 2: a bit more minor that he has pleaded guilty to.
Speaker 2: So lo and behold limb. We were down at the court.
Speaker 2: I was down at the court very early, ready because
Speaker 2: obviously last time we were there, he didn't necessarily expect
Speaker 2: this last time, but he came quite early. So I
Speaker 2: was there from seven point thirty waiting for him, and
Speaker 2: he was due to be there by nine o'clock and
Speaker 2: he didn't show up.
Speaker 1: Didn't turn up, didn't turn up, no a no show.
Speaker 2: Yes, nobody is surprised about that, though.
Speaker 1: Well well, well yeah, okay, I'm still a bit surprised
Speaker 1: because it's you know, it's a serious charge. It is
Speaker 1: a serious charge, I mean, assaulting a public officer. And
Speaker 1: last time he got a delay when we confronted him
Speaker 1: last time, so this appearance was supposed to be that,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of the ultimate appearance. So what happened
Speaker 1: he didn't front were they court there.
Speaker 2: Court doesn't like that, obviously. It's a waste of resources, time, money,
Speaker 2: all that sort of thing. So they issued an arrest
Speaker 2: warrant for him, and that would have been I don't
Speaker 2: know about ten o'clock, eleven o'clock something like that. So
Speaker 2: that was that. It was just like, even if he
Speaker 2: did show up, it wouldn't proceed. So we were informed
Speaker 2: of that and that was the case. So I stuck
Speaker 2: around till about lunchtime, thinking, well, what's the point? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: and by that stage everyone had kind of cleared off.
Speaker 2: I wish I had stayed though, because it turns out
Speaker 2: that he did turn up about two fifteen two thirty
Speaker 2: that afternoon, and they just obviously withdrew the arrest warrant
Speaker 2: and rescheduled it for the sixth of January.
Speaker 1: For the sixth of January, so they just push it forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he's got Christmas out.
Speaker 1: So what happens in the interim, as you say, I mean,
Speaker 1: very important. He's pled not guilty, But what happens to
Speaker 1: public safety like this is, you know, forget David Simmons
Speaker 1: for a while. I mean, this is another issue. I guess.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole,
Speaker 1: but that's the bench warrants. I mean, we're just treating
Speaker 1: the court as a joke, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no real ramifications, is there. And funnily enough,
Speaker 2: I looked at some of his other charges which you
Speaker 2: would have seen on as well, and some of those
Speaker 2: include driving without a license, fraudulent number plates. You know,
Speaker 2: different cook pretty minor comparatively, like we're not talking about
Speaker 2: assault of public officer is a serious offense. But you know,
Speaker 2: just bearing in mind that he pleaded not guilty. We
Speaker 2: are aware that he has been convicted of assaulting a
Speaker 2: police officer before, and he served nine months for that.
Speaker 1: Certainly has well, let's just go through a few here
Speaker 1: we go, no authority to drive, disqualified from holding or obtaining,
Speaker 1: used an unlicensed vehicle on a road. See another offense.
Speaker 1: Drove caused or permitted a vehicle with a forged, replica
Speaker 1: or false plate to be driven on a road, Breach
Speaker 1: of bail. As you say, assaulting the public officer, that's
Speaker 1: the current charge. He's pled, not guilty. Obstructing public officers
Speaker 1: not guilty, that's still to be decided. Disorderly behavior in public.
Speaker 2: Yes, we saw in the next day driving a vehicle.
Speaker 2: I don't know about the number plates, but we do
Speaker 2: not he doesn't have a license, So straight away he's backbreaking,
Speaker 2: aw incredible in everything that I can see, he is
Speaker 2: untouchable incredible.
Speaker 1: So what do we got? Just coming back to the
Speaker 1: sort of important leads that have been given that we
Speaker 1: know of, that we know of, and as I say,
Speaker 1: I hope there's some that we don't know of, but
Speaker 1: the things that have been also communicated to us, Well,
Speaker 1: let's go back to the Joshua Brdon information because surely
Speaker 1: that's going to be a focal point for the new
Speaker 1: team that's been put together to reinvestigate the case. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: you think, just off the top of your head, that
Speaker 1: information about Joshua Brdon that was given by a third
Speaker 1: party is very interesting.
Speaker 2: It is. There are a couple of things with that one.
Speaker 2: Joshua Brden maintains that he did not say anything like
Speaker 2: this and that he wasn't there on the.
Speaker 1: Night, so he insists it's just rubbish.
Speaker 2: But in this case, there is also a message to
Speaker 2: the person who remembers him saying this, which says in
Speaker 2: twenty eight says he recalls finding his best mate's wife,
Speaker 2: who was like a sister to him, with her quote
Speaker 2: head blown off.
Speaker 1: Everything he said to the coroner and the police. He
Speaker 1: wasn't supposed to be there. He's not there.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, he maintains he wasn't there. But as we
Speaker 2: pointed out in the timeline, there is issues with the
Speaker 2: timeline because he says he recalls getting a message at
Speaker 2: four forty seven or four forty eight from his mate
Speaker 2: Kid when he was leaving, But then he also says
Speaker 2: in his evidence that he saw David Simmons put the
Speaker 2: girls in the car, but that didn't happen until after five.
Speaker 2: Amy died around ten past five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the timeline doesn't make sense for him. But also
Speaker 1: if he writes that in a message, that doesn't make
Speaker 1: sense either. How can he not get that out of
Speaker 1: his head? That visual picture of Amy as he puts it,
Speaker 1: her head blown off if he's not there to see it.
Speaker 2: There is a lot of inconsistencies with the evidence. And yeah,
Speaker 2: as would be in a lot of cases, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: this isn't rare, no.
Speaker 1: No, this is where this is how cases go.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, but as you know, with briefs of evidence,
Speaker 2: they'll do up a whole brief and then they'll put
Speaker 2: a little cover sheet on the front and say dear
Speaker 2: Director of Public Prosecutions, we believe there's enough evidence to
Speaker 2: go forward, or we don't believe there's enough evidence to
Speaker 2: go forward, and then that's it. How much power or
Speaker 2: influence does that little cover letter have do you think?
Speaker 1: Oh? I think a lot, Yeah, I think a lot.
Speaker 2: These to me are the indisputable facts, the factual based
Speaker 2: evidence not circumstantial by three biomechanical experts in Amy's death
Speaker 2: was highly consistent with her not killing herself and someone
Speaker 2: else shooting her. Every crime reconstruction has limitations, but this
Speaker 2: is also based on her capacity to shoot herself with
Speaker 2: either hand and the people that were actually there, which
Speaker 2: I still find quite troubling that more weight isn't given
Speaker 2: to those three uniform police officers who were there first
Speaker 2: on scene had an argument with the detectives, saying that
Speaker 2: she wouldn't have been able to shoot herself like that
Speaker 2: was there, you know. So I just still think and
Speaker 2: that's been backed up by the biomechanical experts. So that's
Speaker 2: new evidence that previously not considered. Photo of Amy with
Speaker 2: bruises around her neck crimary construction by Scott rohder Renee
Speaker 2: mckeirne's snitch message on Amy's anniversary with David Simmons, not
Speaker 2: as a couple, but in his presence when she posted
Speaker 2: on Rachel's Facebook page on the anniversary of Amy's death.
Speaker 2: Suicideologist evidence on how likely or unlikely Amy's death was
Speaker 2: a suicide, taking in all information of the pack car,
Speaker 2: daughter strapped in the backseat, where she was found, method
Speaker 2: of death, etc. A doctor or mental health expert providing
Speaker 2: evidence to discuss how extensive the use of cetellopran is
Speaker 2: and how common the docy Jamie was or uncommon. They
Speaker 2: should also discuss the side effects of someone who suddenly
Speaker 2: stops taking cetelepran and the effects of methamphetamine and excessive
Speaker 2: alcohol use on a person's behavior. Statements from several witnesses
Speaker 2: saying Bridon says he never forgot and also his message
Speaker 2: in relation to that.
Speaker 1: That's significant, right, Oh yeah, yeah, well absolutely you'd think so,
Speaker 1: will you? Now? Look, if people want to send us
Speaker 1: a letter, what's the address?
Speaker 2: It is the Truth about Amy or one Word at
Speaker 2: seven dot com dot AU.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, Evelyn says, Hi, guys, I've been listening to
Speaker 1: the podcast as episodes are released each week. Everlyn says
Speaker 1: I was home when my father killed my mum. Pretty
Speaker 1: horrific story.
Speaker 2: It is so that the home she's in is where
Speaker 2: her father killed her mum.
Speaker 1: She says. We are about to hit the twenty three
Speaker 1: year mark this Saturday, twenty third anniversary, and although a
Speaker 1: lot of time has passed, I can tell you my
Speaker 1: mom wasn't fighting my dad. She was begging. My mum
Speaker 1: was pleading. She was offering the future graduations and weddings
Speaker 1: of their kids, grandkids that have one day, whatever she
Speaker 1: could to de escalate the situation. We know leaving is
Speaker 1: the most dangerous time for a woman, and not only that,
Speaker 1: but my mum and Amy both had kids they needed
Speaker 1: to protect too. And thank you Evelyn for sharing that
Speaker 1: with us. I can imagine it's been pretty difficult for
Speaker 1: you for.
Speaker 2: It's so sad. Oh, Evelyn, thank you so much for
Speaker 2: sharing that with us. And I am just horrified for
Speaker 2: what has happened. And I'm glad that you're okay, and
Speaker 2: I feel my condolence is to your mom. It's just
Speaker 2: a horrible thing. And I find there's a bit of
Speaker 2: double standard sometimes when you're interpreting the evidence that in
Speaker 2: that case it's turned against Amy in a way that
Speaker 2: fits the narrative as opposed to just what is more likely.
Speaker 2: And that's why I think it's really really important that
Speaker 2: you have external experts, you have people who are qualified
Speaker 2: in these areas rather than anyone, because it's not well
Speaker 2: with everyone, right. Everyone has their own they're brought up
Speaker 2: in a culture or an environment, and they have, whether
Speaker 2: they like it or not, they have different ways that
Speaker 2: they interpret things based on their own upbringing.
Speaker 1: And the trouble is too, that a lot of people
Speaker 1: put themselves in this position. When they're thinking about it,
Speaker 1: they think about what they would do, and that's really
Speaker 1: that's tragically wrong, Alison, because that's the reason you need
Speaker 1: these experts is because they are trained and proficient at
Speaker 1: thinking about what that particular person physically is capable of
Speaker 1: and also culturally mentally. You know, according to a lot
Speaker 1: of things gender included would potentially do not do you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Not put your own template us
Speaker 1: somebody externally. So there's a lot of different variables, isn't there,
Speaker 1: Speaking of which you know, what I am looking forward
Speaker 1: to down the track is to have a chat to
Speaker 1: Laura Richards. She's a crime analyst of some note isn't
Speaker 1: she based overseas, But she's been following this case.
Speaker 2: Yes, very closely, as she did with Marion Barter. And
Speaker 2: she is amazing and she's very good in the criminal
Speaker 2: behavioral and analytical sphere, in certainly with Rick Blum in
Speaker 2: Marion Barter's case. You know, just the way you'd answer
Speaker 2: questions and things like that, and as you always say,
Speaker 2: no skin in the game, and that's really important too, write.
Speaker 2: I really do find the external analysts and you know,
Speaker 2: they're putting their name, their reputation, everything on the line.
Speaker 2: They want to get it right and they have the
Speaker 2: experience to do so that. You know, when I was
Speaker 2: talking about the suicidologists, right, we can talk about you know,
Speaker 2: police officers come across suicide all the time, right, so
Speaker 2: do lots of us in journalism. But the reality is
Speaker 2: these sociologists, like what Michael Barnes said, there are hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands of cases that they look at and the
Speaker 2: same with Laura. So Laura is going to be amazing.
Speaker 2: And you know her credibility, the involvement she's had with
Speaker 2: you know, implementing or getting implemented coercive control laws in Australia.
Speaker 2: I mean, she's just really a lot of influence.
Speaker 1: She's brilliant. I mean I think you know, she'd probably
Speaker 1: be one of the best criminal behavioral analysts going around. Absolutely, So, No,
Speaker 1: that'll be fascinating. I'm really looking forward to that. We
Speaker 1: should mention again to that petition because it's really if
Speaker 1: someone's listening and they haven't signed it, well.
Speaker 2: I was, I'm thinking maybe I was going to mention
Speaker 2: that now that it is going to the DPP. Depending
Speaker 2: on what happens there, we may need to like if
Speaker 2: the DPP, who knows what's going to happen, right, Well,
Speaker 2: that's the problem. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing that
Speaker 2: we still have. But but there are different things that
Speaker 2: will update on. What we do need to tell people about, though,
Speaker 2: is the Silent March coming up organized by the Center
Speaker 2: for Women's Safety in Perth on the twenty fifth of November,
Speaker 2: the thirty fourth March against Domestic and Family Violence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I couldn't believe that the thirty fourth March. There's
Speaker 1: no way I would have thought that would have been
Speaker 1: as many as that. So it just goes to show you,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. It's very much more on the radar now though. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And absolutely, there'll be people there marching. I think they're
Speaker 1: marching from basically the city, aren't they from Forest Place
Speaker 1: up to Parliament House in Perth? So you know that's yeah,
Speaker 1: as you say, twenty fifth of November. So that's going
Speaker 1: to be a very good focal point for Amy's case
Speaker 1: because a lot of Amy's family and friends and supporters
Speaker 1: will be there and anyone is encouraged to come along
Speaker 1: and wear pink support.
Speaker 2: Amy, Amy's favorite color. You weren't here last week, Liam,
Speaker 2: But Tom Percy said something to me I was not expecting,
Speaker 2: or said something to both him and I should say,
Speaker 2: and I was not expecting this about the domestic violence.
Speaker 2: What he witnesses is that domestic violence is worse now
Speaker 2: than it ever has been. And the reason he says
Speaker 2: he believes that to be the case is methamphetamine.
Speaker 1: Really his position that it's worse now than it's ever been.
Speaker 2: Yet his experienced being in the courts, obviously being legal
Speaker 2: system for such a long time, he says it's worse
Speaker 2: now than ever. See.
Speaker 1: That's that's disappointing, isn't it. I mean absolutely Tom sees
Speaker 1: the worst of it coming and going in every walk
Speaker 1: of life and with incredibly well well experienced Tom you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, he really is up there in terms of
Speaker 1: street behavior. So for him to say that's that's quite shocking,
Speaker 1: isn't it. It's a terrible drug. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: many drugs that are good drugs, but that is a shocker,
Speaker 1: isn't it? In terms of behavioral change, and you know,
Speaker 1: getting the worst out of people. Meth is it's not
Speaker 1: number one, it's certainly in the top three. That march
Speaker 1: is organized by the Center for Women's Safety in Perth,
Speaker 1: and yes, so just in case you want to get
Speaker 1: in touch with them, But twenty fifth of November just
Speaker 1: just another reminder that'll be good.
Speaker 2: It will be good, so we'll send people out there. Also,
Speaker 2: we'll obviously be covering if David Simmons turns up to
Speaker 2: his new hearing into assaulting public officer allegedly in January,
Speaker 2: the January the sixth, twenty five, so that there's that
Speaker 2: coming up as well. And look, I have to say now, Liam,
Speaker 2: as I look back and everything that's happened. I mean,
Speaker 2: we launched on the twenty th June this year, it's
Speaker 2: now November.
Speaker 1: It feels like, Look, I've got to say this the
Speaker 1: whole sort of saga. And I think we touched on
Speaker 1: this when we talked to Xanthi Mallet, because she made
Speaker 1: the point that it's not a cold case in her
Speaker 1: opinion and the way the whole definition of cold case goes.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not trying to be technical here, Don't
Speaker 1: get me wrong, I'm not being playing semantics. But what
Speaker 1: was really interesting about her expression about that is that
Speaker 1: it's not a case that has been decided and then
Speaker 1: brought back up or do you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: There's been no sort of it is fright from the start.
Speaker 1: It has been a case with a huge question mark
Speaker 1: on it, and it's quite fresh in terms of history.
Speaker 1: It's twenty ten years old, so during that whole the
Speaker 1: way it's been structured, it's not a cold case at all.
Speaker 1: It's a current case and we know there's a current
Speaker 1: team investigating it. So I just think it's amazing. Al
Speaker 1: we've been going now since the twenty third of June,
Speaker 1: so it's five solid months, five solid months, a lot
Speaker 1: of episodes, structured episodes of the podcast, and then obviously
Speaker 1: conversations like this where we have a chat and you know,
Speaker 1: go back over a few bits and pieces and try
Speaker 1: and sort of keep the home fires burning. But we've
Speaker 1: still got a couple of episodes to come, going back
Speaker 1: to a more structured podcast episode, how we can reintroduce
Speaker 1: some of those new leads and new ideas and things
Speaker 1: that have happened, some of those developments. But you see,
Speaker 1: there's an amazing amount of water under the bridge already,
Speaker 1: isn't there just in those five months.
Speaker 2: It feels like it's painfully slow. Said that, but it
Speaker 2: really isn't when you look at what has actually happened
Speaker 2: in that five months. I mean, we've gone from I
Speaker 2: don't know if we've really had much, you know, sort
Speaker 2: of flat fanfare from w plice and what they were doing.
Speaker 2: But we did get you know, pretty early on, I
Speaker 2: think it was, you know, that they would be reinvestigating
Speaker 2: the new lead. So that was probably about a month
Speaker 2: ago that they announced a team that would be reinvestigating
Speaker 2: this case. So that's really significant. And then the team
Speaker 2: turned into a task force. That's right, and now they're
Speaker 2: going to provide a brief to the DVP, which was
Speaker 2: obviously very big for us that that was going to happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know, nothing happens in a vacuum, and
Speaker 1: they haven't done anything without being pushed. Let's be honest,
Speaker 1: and you can't have hundreds of thousands of people downloading
Speaker 1: the podcast and saying yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, we
Speaker 1: can see what you can see. We see the suspicions
Speaker 1: that you see. We're not making it up. We don't
Speaker 1: have to make it up. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Speaker 1: And this case is a classic. This case is that cliche,
Speaker 1: isn't it all over writ large? So the police really
Speaker 1: had no choice. And don't get me wrong, I'm not
Speaker 1: not giving them credit. I'll give them full credit when
Speaker 1: the thing is finished, when it's fixed, when some charges
Speaker 1: have been laid somewhere, because you know, bad thing should
Speaker 1: not go unpunished, right, so the whole meaning of the
Speaker 1: word justice. You know, let's let's be real about this,
Speaker 1: so you know, let's talk about other cliches. The expression
Speaker 1: kicking and screaming is perfect for this as well, because
Speaker 1: that's what's happened. That's how we've got to this stage.
Speaker 1: That team has been set up because they've been pushed
Speaker 1: into it kicking and screaming, and some of them are
Speaker 1: still screaming rather than concentrating on the brief, but that's
Speaker 1: you know, that's another story.
Speaker 2: The proof is in the pudding, though, isn't it. Because
Speaker 2: we all sit here now, aren't we. We're kind of
Speaker 2: sitting here with clenched fists, and just is it going
Speaker 2: to be done properly? That's that's the problem, to be
Speaker 2: able to put your faith wholeheartedly in that. Obviously, we've
Speaker 2: got evidence that was there at the time that wasn't
Speaker 2: interrogated properly. So there's also that it's not just a
Speaker 2: new evidence, and that's frustrating because if it's not interrogated properly,
Speaker 2: and the same with this new evidence, then you have
Speaker 2: to find more new evidence because they say, oh, no,
Speaker 2: we looked at that, and we're like, nah.
Speaker 1: No, it's the application now, that's what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's just the general sense of
Speaker 1: the public, you know, being let up the garden path,
Speaker 1: and people get it. They get it. Even the hierarchy
Speaker 1: at the police headquarters they don't give people enough credit
Speaker 1: for just injecting a bit of common sense and looking
Speaker 1: at the case and going something's not right there. Mate.
Speaker 1: It doesn't pass the pub test. I mean just a
Speaker 1: few days ago, you know, you and I have been
Speaker 1: to you, and I've been to a pub where Amy
Speaker 1: used to work, right in the heartland of where we're talking,
Speaker 1: all the local community, and those people still now they've
Speaker 1: got signs up in support of her. They've got even
Speaker 1: a little shrine there for Amy. You know, it's lovely.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've got supportive posters up for the podcast
Speaker 1: to try to show that they support, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not about us, it's not about you and me.
Speaker 1: It's just I'm just saying, you know, they are trying
Speaker 1: to do everything they can at their level to show
Speaker 1: support because guess what, all the people who are running
Speaker 1: the place, people who are working at the place, people
Speaker 1: who come in to have a drink, they get it,
Speaker 1: and they read all about the bits and pieces over
Speaker 1: the years they knew her. It's not difficult. So if
Speaker 1: the application to this case is made right, and then
Speaker 1: after the interrogation as you put it, you know, for
Speaker 1: bits and pieces, and the whole thing is teased out
Speaker 1: properly as it should have been in the first place,
Speaker 1: then if someone turns around say you know what, it's
Speaker 1: a genuine mystery, then maybe people will say, okay, well
Speaker 1: we can see what you know, you can plainly see
Speaker 1: what you've done and how you've done it, and you
Speaker 1: know you've clearly given this the right application. But don't
Speaker 1: treat us like idiots and then pretend that it's a
Speaker 1: conclusion that suits your you know, the sort of tail
Speaker 1: wagging the dog, so you can put the file in
Speaker 1: the bottom drawer and wash your hands and say that's it,
Speaker 1: tick the box, case closed, because that just wouldn't be right.
Speaker 2: You know, for the first time, when we went out
Speaker 2: to Armadale for the first time, I actually understood a
Speaker 2: little bit more about what this environment where the way
Speaker 2: Amy lived. The interesting thing was is that even though
Speaker 2: everyone was upset and emotional and outraged, they weren't surprised either, right,
Speaker 2: either are our listeners. They're not surprised. And that's sad.
Speaker 1: It's sad. It is sad because that area has been
Speaker 1: plagued by a high crime rate over the past years
Speaker 1: for both petty theft and breaking enters. And I guess
Speaker 1: you know, you could say minor assaults, you know, crimes
Speaker 1: related to sort of violent acts in one way or
Speaker 1: the other, and I think you know you tend to
Speaker 1: so it's the boiling frog argument. Doesn't it. You grow
Speaker 1: up in that environment, you just tend to think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, that's just what we get. That's sort of
Speaker 1: how it rolls. And if police turn up at the
Speaker 1: odd event and you know, they don't necessarily do their
Speaker 1: homework as they should have, it's sort of like, oh yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: that's a volume argument because they're jaded and they don't
Speaker 1: really want to be there as well, and so on
Speaker 1: and so forth, and that's the atmosphere that you sort
Speaker 1: of then think, oh, well, you know, we probably we
Speaker 1: sort of we get what we deserve, but it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be like that at all. And that's been if we
Speaker 1: go full circle to when we first started the podcast,
Speaker 1: you know, in the first couple of episodes, where we
Speaker 1: explored that didn't we that sort of concept.
Speaker 2: Even when those two officers were wrapped over the knuckles,
Speaker 2: they were told that they did the wrong thing, but
Speaker 2: there wasn't a lot of weight given even though they
Speaker 2: did the wrong thing. The implication was that it would
Speaker 2: have been the same outcome anyway, hadn't they not done
Speaker 2: the wrong thing, because it was su sight well.
Speaker 1: I think it was a deep Hopefully it's not around
Speaker 1: as much now, but who knows. That's another argument. That's
Speaker 1: another podcast, I think, And I think there's a bit
Speaker 1: of an Ingrain culture among you know, certainly among certain
Speaker 1: members of major crime in Western Australia twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Look at those that particular period. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of people who were doing their
Speaker 1: utmost to make sure they were all looked after internally.
Speaker 1: But you know, if there were external problems, the shutters
Speaker 1: would come down and that would be the end of it.
Speaker 1: Quite a few cases out that you could go through
Speaker 1: actually to mention problems with around about that time. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, but as I say, that's an another story.
Speaker 2: It is. And look, I know I usually do these
Speaker 2: for an hour and I've lost track of time, but
Speaker 2: I just every time you talk about this, it gives
Speaker 2: me another question. But one of the things, Yes, so
Speaker 2: with the inquest, you've got to remember also they went
Speaker 2: into that in quest with the whole idea that Amy
Speaker 2: shot herself with the left hand, but then of course
Speaker 2: with the with the burn mark that came from the
Speaker 2: muzzle because it was plastic or whatever remnants and remember
Speaker 2: lock Art's principles. We'll get back to that, So which
Speaker 2: shows that you know that that was with the muzzle
Speaker 2: and that she couldn't have used that, And so then
Speaker 2: they go straight to the right hand. Why don't you
Speaker 2: consider the point that she just didn't do it. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's the other issue with that.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying about the end justifying the means.
Speaker 1: You know, it's the tail wagon the dog, and I
Speaker 1: think that's the way they've done this whole thing. It's
Speaker 1: like playing snakes and ladders, but backwards, isn't it. Everything
Speaker 1: sort of tried. They try to make it fit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know that the two detectives. It took five years,
Speaker 1: but they they were found to be negligent in their duty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, negligent in your duty, but not wrong. So my
Speaker 2: I guess my concern with that is they were negligent
Speaker 2: in their duty by calling off the forensics, but the
Speaker 2: result of them calling off the forensics isn't different to
Speaker 2: what the result would have been anyway. That is the
Speaker 2: impression that you're left with when you look at what happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's wheeze all words, isn't it. Because if
Speaker 1: you're negligent, you haven't done your job. Properly. That's what
Speaker 1: that means. So if you haven't done your job properly,
Speaker 1: and the job is to figure out whether there's a
Speaker 1: murder scene or what's happened, the whole thing goes up
Speaker 1: in smoke. This comes back to the whole point of
Speaker 1: how important a good police service is because when things
Speaker 1: go wrong, you are absolutely one hundred percent reliant upon them.
Speaker 1: You are so dependent. And I'm talking about all of us,
Speaker 1: you know, every one of us. If we haven't forbid
Speaker 1: found ourselves in that situation, we are beholden to, you know,
Speaker 1: to their actions and their and their serviceability and their
Speaker 1: concept of duty and loyalty. You know, we are literally
Speaker 1: sort of left, you know, there's nobody else. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's sort of the start and the end
Speaker 1: when those people turn up.
Speaker 2: But it's not all. I it's not a case of
Speaker 2: that's that's the end. We can't get justice now, Oh no,
Speaker 2: not at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's that's it. It's just a lot
Speaker 1: more difficult. Yeah, but that's no, it's no solace is
Speaker 1: it to Amy's family.
Speaker 2: Well, on that note, I want to thank you Liam
Speaker 2: and Tim. You're out there and we will speak to
Speaker 2: you soon. I feel like I'm, you know, speaking to
Speaker 2: somebody who's a long way away. But you're only at
Speaker 2: court at the Rebellau case, which is fascinating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's an amazing case. But Tim spends most of
Speaker 1: his time down at the Supreme Court. I don't know
Speaker 1: if his family ever gets to see him, but he's
Speaker 1: been he's been great for us.
Speaker 2: Oh he has well, he does. They do shut the
Speaker 2: court sometimes so he has to come home.
Speaker 1: Oh really, really, I thought one of those camp stretches
Speaker 1: down there. He's believable.
Speaker 2: He is. No, he's amazing. And we'll obviously continue working
Speaker 2: with Tim on this. But like with anything that this important,
Speaker 2: this big, it takes a lot of people. You don't
Speaker 2: work in a silo.
Speaker 1: No, exactly, exactly. Well, Well done to you well for
Speaker 1: continuing to portion directing traffic in it, because it's not easy.
Speaker 2: I've got to keep going like there's no you know,
Speaker 2: we'll be back in the new year with season two,
Speaker 2: and we have a few more standalone episodes which are
Speaker 2: coming up, which they're going to be absolutely fantastic, really
Speaker 2: really strong. So I'll be calling you to do some
Speaker 2: more voice before the end of the year I am,
Speaker 2: but they're really good and of course Laura Richards so
Speaker 2: we'll catch up with her soon. So thank you and
Speaker 2: wishing everybody all our listener it's a very wonderful festive season.
Speaker 2: As I said, you'll have more episodes after this, but
Speaker 2: I'm just going to say goodbye because obviously the conversations
Speaker 2: is a bit more, you know, talking directly to you.
Speaker 2: So thank you for your support. We can't do this
Speaker 2: without you, and come down to the March, the Silent
Speaker 2: March on the twenty fifth of November. We're pink in
Speaker 2: support for Amy.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and just a final word, wishing the new
Speaker 1: investigative team looking at this case a safe and prosperous
Speaker 1: and I mean that in every sense of the word.
Speaker 1: A prosperous new year. I think so