Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really pinning.
Speaker 1: Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged a
Speaker 1: top a.
Speaker 3: Shallow mud bank and it fits through a river. Basically,
Speaker 3: I think most of the people are used to me
Speaker 3: are good people.
Speaker 4: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 4: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 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.
Speaker 4: I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner
Speaker 4: Support Service. And a warning this series contains the names
Speaker 4: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 4: some listeners.
Speaker 5: Welcome to Curtin the podcast. This week, we're exploring what
Speaker 5: it is to be innocent and improve in Australia just
Speaker 5: like Kevin Henry and there are many just like him,
Speaker 5: and what it takes to free someone, what role race
Speaker 5: plays in these cases and what similarities there seems to
Speaker 5: be amongst a few of those who were still imprisoned
Speaker 5: despite being innocent and having served decades for crimes they
Speaker 5: simply did not commit.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Henry Keo, jailed nineteen years ago for the
Speaker 1: drowning murder of his fiance Anna Jane Cheney, is tonight
Speaker 1: a free man. After relentlessly proclaiming his innocence, his conviction
Speaker 1: has been overturned and his home for Christmas for the
Speaker 1: first time in two decades. Live now to ben avery
Speaker 1: and ben high emotion at the Supreme.
Speaker 6: Court today, Yeah, there sure was kate. Around seventy supporters
Speaker 6: crammed into a court room as Henry Keo was granted
Speaker 6: bail at around four o'clock this afternoon. Then minutes later,
Speaker 6: he emerged from the Supreme Court to an awaiting media
Speaker 6: pack desperate to capture this major moment in one of
Speaker 6: the state's most controversial murder cases.
Speaker 3: Nearly twenty years after the Supreme Court jailed him for murder.
Speaker 2: How did the kielder retreat?
Speaker 3: Henry Keeyo walks from the very same court a free
Speaker 3: and innocent man. On Friday, the Court of Criminal Appeal
Speaker 3: ruled jailing Henry Keyo in nineteen ninety five for drowning
Speaker 3: his fiancee, Anna Jane Cheney in the bath of her
Speaker 3: McGill home was a miscarriage of justice. A retrial was
Speaker 3: ordered and today bail granted unopposed. Keyo has always denied
Speaker 3: he's a murderer and relentlessly pursued clemency through the courts.
Speaker 3: His brother, putting emotions into words.
Speaker 7: Henry would like to express his grabchu to the judges
Speaker 7: of a Court of Criminal Appeal for handing down their
Speaker 7: judgments so quickly after the hearing of the appeal, any
Speaker 7: time for his release before Christmas, so that he can
Speaker 7: spend this time with his family.
Speaker 5: That was a METEA report from a few years ago
Speaker 5: when innocent man Henry Keoh was finally released from prison
Speaker 5: after serving nearly twenty years for the murder of his
Speaker 5: fiancee that he didn't commit. That case was followed nearly
Speaker 5: throughout its time by veteran journalist Graham Rcher. He's recently
Speaker 5: published a book called Unmaking a Murder. Now, I want
Speaker 5: to read just briefly from the introduction of that book,
Speaker 5: what Graham Archer has written. And remember he followed this
Speaker 5: case for thirteen years and I think What he says
Speaker 5: relates not only to Kevin Henry, but to all innocent
Speaker 5: people who are imprisoned in Australia. Once a defendant is
Speaker 5: found guilty, great locke shift into place, and they become
Speaker 5: increasingly difficult to undo. The built in safeguards Titan. The
Speaker 5: community wants to believe the institutions of justice are invaaluable
Speaker 5: and incorruptible. All the good men and women in government
Speaker 5: or those anointed to run these institutions of power, see
Speaker 5: the unfailing faith of the public as essential to social
Speaker 5: and political order. Should that falter, should cracks appear, or
Speaker 5: doubts arise, who knows what might be unleashed. It is
Speaker 5: the unstated pledge of all the good men to defend
Speaker 5: citizens against enemies at the gates. Errors in competence, conflicts
Speaker 5: of interests, and acts of corruption are best refuted or
Speaker 5: rebuffed to ensure their constancy. These great edifices of public
Speaker 5: order are designed to move like glaciers. Individuals trying to
Speaker 5: change the se his institutions from the outside, which are
Speaker 5: difficult enough to reform from the inside, face a vastly
Speaker 5: daunting task For a person in custody with no money
Speaker 5: no resources, no credibility, and with limited opportunity to communicate
Speaker 5: with the outside world. The power balance is overwhelming. When
Speaker 5: Archer began writing this in twenty eleven, there were almost
Speaker 5: no avenues by which a convicted person in South Australia
Speaker 5: who had exhausted the normal appeal options could have their
Speaker 5: case returned to court. Even if they were to discover
Speaker 5: new evidence capable of challenging their conviction, it was almost
Speaker 5: impossible to have it considered. The only avenue was to
Speaker 5: petition the Governor, which effectively meant appealing to the Attorney General.
Speaker 5: That process, as practiced in South Australia has always been
Speaker 5: a political one. The Attorney General makes determinations without any
Speaker 5: independent oversight. There is effectively no time limit for processing petitions,
Speaker 5: no chance for the public to access the reasons for decisions,
Speaker 5: which are protected by legal professional privilege, and as a
Speaker 5: result of a Supreme Court decision in nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 5: there's no avenue of appeal. It confers a kind of
Speaker 5: divine right on the Attorney General to decide a person's
Speaker 5: fate with the stroke of a pen. It's a system
Speaker 5: that can be subject to abuse, and for me to
Speaker 5: echo the words of Archer, this is exactly the same
Speaker 5: problems that we've faced in trying to free Kevin Henry.
Speaker 5: Just like South Australia, we have to appeal to the governor.
Speaker 5: Just like South Australia, that means the political influence of
Speaker 5: the Attorney General. And just like in South East Australia,
Speaker 5: there are no other avenues, and so the wheels of
Speaker 5: justice turned slowly in a cold, dark corner of the
Speaker 5: state where the public eyes cannot see. But just like Keo,
Speaker 5: there's another case in South Australia that bears many similarities
Speaker 5: to those of Kevin Henry.
Speaker 2: And we told you a little bit about that case
Speaker 2: in previous episodes of Curtain. It involves an Aboriginal man
Speaker 2: named Derek Bromley who's currently serving his thirty fourth year
Speaker 2: in prison in South Australia for crime that he says
Speaker 2: he did not do. There are many similarities between Derek's
Speaker 2: case and Kevin's, but one of the most glaring is
Speaker 2: the fact both men are Aboriginal, and it's a key
Speaker 2: difference in the way that Henry Keo was treated and
Speaker 2: how Derek Bromley and Kevin Henry were treated and continue
Speaker 2: to be treated not just by the justice system, but
Speaker 2: by the media. And so this episode, we're going to
Speaker 2: give you a little overview of Henry Kio's case based
Speaker 2: on this new book that's just come out Unmaking a Murder,
Speaker 2: and Henry Kio is currently walking free after serving two
Speaker 2: decades for a crime that he didn't commit, a crime
Speaker 2: that likely never took place, because it's later been found
Speaker 2: that the forensics the conviction was based upon was shonky
Speaker 2: and it was likely a murder had never occurred at all.
Speaker 5: Henry Killo was convicted in nineteen ninety five of drowning
Speaker 5: his then fiance and a Jane Cheeney in a bath
Speaker 5: at the couple's home in an Adelaide, Northeastern suburb in
Speaker 5: March nineteen ninety four. His fiancee, Anna Jane, was twenty
Speaker 5: nine years old at the time and was then the
Speaker 5: head of professional conduct at the Law Society of Southeast.
Speaker 5: There really wasn't a great deal of evidence against Henry Keo.
Speaker 5: There was two issues. One was purely circumstantial, and that
Speaker 5: was the issue of these life insurance policies. The prosecution
Speaker 5: claimed that they valued those at over a million dollars.
Speaker 5: Keyo claimed they were valued more around four hundred thousand
Speaker 5: dollars and he'd signed them on Anna Jane's behalf, and
Speaker 5: this was before she'd died. Now, the other issue in
Speaker 5: the case was the forensics, and this was why in
Speaker 5: the end Henry Keo was able to be proven innocent.
Speaker 5: The forensics were done in a very boggy fashion by
Speaker 5: then chief forensic pathologist, doctor Colin Mannock. He testified at
Speaker 5: the trial that Anna Jane was held under the water
Speaker 5: and that she'd been held down and there were marks
Speaker 5: on her legs in particular that would show this, but
Speaker 5: he'd later change his mind about this crucial evidence, including
Speaker 5: the age of those marks and bruises on her legs. So,
Speaker 5: as with Kevin Henry, as with Derek Bromley, there was
Speaker 5: very little evidence to begin with in the first place,
Speaker 5: and what there was was very troublesome at the time
Speaker 5: and would be revealed by long investigations to be at
Speaker 5: best incompetent and at worst something far more sinister.
Speaker 2: Now, one of the key differences in the three cases
Speaker 2: is that Henry Kier is a white man. He came
Speaker 2: from a background of considerable privilege compared to both Derek
Speaker 2: Bromley and Kevin Henry.
Speaker 4: And his victim.
Speaker 2: His fiancee was also a white woman. She was a
Speaker 2: lawyer and a much loved member of South Ausaia's legal fraternity, and.
Speaker 5: These facts clearly had a big implication on the way
Speaker 5: the story was covered. In the mid nineties in South Australia,
Speaker 5: this was often the number one story on the nightly news,
Speaker 5: it was all over talk radio, It dominated the newspapers
Speaker 5: right from the time Anna Jane was found dead all
Speaker 5: the way through the trial, and Henry Keo was seen
Speaker 5: as a monster, as South Australia's enemy number one, and
Speaker 5: there was a great deal of focus on getting justice
Speaker 5: for Anna Jane and punishing Henry Keo. But we've seen
Speaker 5: in the case of Kevin Henry that there was very
Speaker 5: little coverage, virtually none, and there was absolutely no call
Speaker 5: for justice for Linda and for her family. Her life
Speaker 5: was given no real value whatsoever. So I wonder Amy,
Speaker 5: as an Indigenous journalist, what you can say, having covered
Speaker 5: these sort of cases for ten years, how race plays
Speaker 5: an impact the differences.
Speaker 2: In coverage is incredibly stark. So obviously Henry Keo's case
Speaker 2: made the front page of newspapers all across South Australia,
Speaker 2: and in some ways it was a problem because, as
Speaker 2: documented in this book I'm Making a Murder by Graham Archer,
Speaker 2: it actually led to a lot of problems with the
Speaker 2: legal process and even a retrial for Henry Keo. But
Speaker 2: the ingredients that made up the Henry Kio story originally
Speaker 2: were very salacious and very enticing to media and to
Speaker 2: the South Australian and even the national public, and involved
Speaker 2: a man who only six weeks later was planning to
Speaker 2: walk down the Eye with this woman. She's found deceased
Speaker 2: in a bathtub and he's been accused of her murder. Then,
Speaker 2: as you were talking about before mut and there is
Speaker 2: all this circumstantial evidence around him taking out life insurance
Speaker 2: policies which came to quite a considerable amount. And so
Speaker 2: through the course of Henry Ko's trial, his second trial,
Speaker 2: and then his numerous appeals and attempts to attempts to
Speaker 2: prove his innocence through over two decades, it was very
Speaker 2: widely covered and at many points I think he was
Speaker 2: seen as one of the worst people in South Australia,
Speaker 2: but this case was national news. His name was a
Speaker 2: household name in South Australia and that of his victim
Speaker 2: as well. She was obviously seen as being like a daughter,
Speaker 2: I guess to a lot of South Australian locals. But
Speaker 2: then if we compare it to for example, Kevin's Henry's case,
Speaker 2: and we've looked through the archives of our local paper
Speaker 2: here the Morning Bulletin, and the day after Linda died
Speaker 2: it made the front page and there was a couple
Speaker 2: of front page articles about it that week, But the
Speaker 2: next year, by the time that the trial had come around,
Speaker 2: and even by the time of Kevin's conviction, the story
Speaker 2: had really fallen to the back of the newspages, so
Speaker 2: to like the fifth or the sixth page, and they
Speaker 2: were only very short stories in the middle of the newspaper.
Speaker 2: And so that gives you a sense that to the
Speaker 2: rock Hampton community and even to the Queensland community, this
Speaker 2: wasn't a big story for them. The victim was Aboriginal,
Speaker 2: she was largely faceless and nameless throughout the proceedings, and
Speaker 2: the alleged perpetrator was also Aboriginal. So it shows again
Speaker 2: just the value placed on Aboriginal lives, particularly the life
Speaker 2: of Linda, that it didn't cause a similar outrage as
Speaker 2: that of Enna Jane Cheney down in South Australia, who
Speaker 2: sadly died in nine to ninety five. Now, Martin, you've
Speaker 2: worked on cases all around the world. Have you had
Speaker 2: a similar experience in the way black and white victims
Speaker 2: of crime and also perpetrators are seen by the media.
Speaker 5: I definitely have, and my experience echoes yours right around
Speaker 5: the world, whether it's in Australia or any continent. And
Speaker 5: I've worked on cases in Africa, Europe, North and South
Speaker 5: America and across Asia and the Middle East, and it
Speaker 5: really is, sadly a black and white issue. And I
Speaker 5: think we've and I think we particularly have to focus
Speaker 5: on whether either party, the perpetrator or the victim is black,
Speaker 5: and that's where the difference changes. So in the case
Speaker 5: of Rodney Reid, who we've spoken about before, in this
Speaker 5: case he was a black man and the victim was white.
Speaker 5: And even to this day, although the evidence is absolutely
Speaker 5: crystal clear that Rodney did not commit this crime, that
Speaker 5: in fact it was a white man who committed the crime,
Speaker 5: who murdered his white fiance. Stacy styes that a large
Speaker 5: percentage of the public just refused to accept this, and
Speaker 5: so there's still a great deal of negative media against Rodney.
Speaker 5: There's still a lot of politicians who want Rodney executed,
Speaker 5: and so it's quite clear that once the evidence is exposed,
Speaker 5: it's also the fact of race that plays a decision
Speaker 5: on whether people are willing to change their mind with
Speaker 5: the evidence right in their face, and we see that
Speaker 5: with Kevin too. I think to take it to an
Speaker 5: even more extreme example is another case I've worked on.
Speaker 5: Now we moved to Europe and the case of Amanda Knox. Now,
Speaker 5: she was young, beautiful, white university student who was accused
Speaker 5: of murder, and the sympathy for her, even as the
Speaker 5: person who was accused, was enormous. So I would say,
Speaker 5: not only was the media coverage extensive, it was global.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's how extensive it was. It was largely sympathetic.
Speaker 5: At least fifty percent was on her side, and we
Speaker 5: saw everyone from President Obama to then Secretary of State
Speaker 5: Hillary Clinton involved. And because she was a young white woman,
Speaker 5: even as the alleged perpetrator, again the victim was forgotten.
Speaker 5: And in this case it did really matter the race
Speaker 5: of the victim. It was the fact that people could
Speaker 5: relate to the alleged perpetrator as being the white innocent woman.
Speaker 5: And so the cases we all know has resulted in movies, documentaries, books,
Speaker 5: there's a Netflix special and although I was glad to
Speaker 5: be part of helping a man to prove her innocence,
Speaker 5: so I think it exposes quite drastically what happens when
Speaker 5: you have a difference in race.
Speaker 2: So, Martin, what do you take from the fact that
Speaker 2: Henry Kio, I mean, rightly, he's been his conviction has
Speaker 2: been quashed after two decades, is now a free man.
Speaker 2: But how do you view the fact that Derek Bromley
Speaker 2: in South Australia, an Aboriginal man, has been sitting in
Speaker 2: jail for even longer. So he was accused of murder
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty four, so he's been sitting there for
Speaker 2: thirty four years. I mean, what do you take from
Speaker 2: the fact that we're still waiting and Derek Bromley is
Speaker 2: still fighting through the courts to have his name cleared.
Speaker 2: While obviously we had this really great exoneration in the
Speaker 2: case of Henry ko.
Speaker 5: I think, sadly my experience again seeing cases all over
Speaker 5: the world, but where the commonalities are a black and
Speaker 5: non black people. Is that once again race plays an
Speaker 5: issue now for both Bromley and Keo, they're both trying
Speaker 5: to prove their innocence in the same state in South Australia.
Speaker 5: They're both hamstrung along the way by the same laws,
Speaker 5: having to go through the same processes. And where Bromley's
Speaker 5: case was really not known to many people and really
Speaker 5: not widely reported, Keo's case, as we've mentioned, was far
Speaker 5: more widely reported and he really was seen as this monster.
Speaker 5: But the issue here is when you're trying to set
Speaker 5: a new precedent in here, we're trying to prove that
Speaker 5: in Australia the criminal justice system is getting it wrong,
Speaker 5: and we're trying to prove that there are many people
Speaker 5: in prison who are innocent. And so when you run
Speaker 5: test cases, you really want to run a case that
Speaker 5: will be successful because it will impact on all your
Speaker 5: other clients, all the other people who are in a
Speaker 5: similar position who are faced by these same hurdles. Now,
Speaker 5: despite the fact that Derek Bromley has always had far
Speaker 5: more clouds over his guilt, his innocence has always been
Speaker 5: much more obvious and there was far less evidence against him.
Speaker 5: It was the KEYO case that was run with first
Speaker 5: by the courts, and people can draw their own conclusions,
Speaker 5: but mine is that Derek Bromley is a forgotten Aboriginal
Speaker 5: man in prison, just like Kevin Henry. And because there
Speaker 5: is no media coverage, there's no ability to put a
Speaker 5: great deal of pressure on this arbiter of justice, the
Speaker 5: attorney general in both states or even the courts to
Speaker 5: get these cases heard. So once again we see race
Speaker 5: impeding justice and this is something we're really pushing hard
Speaker 5: to change. And something that links both Kea and Bromley
Speaker 5: that makes the fact that Bromley's still in prison very
Speaker 5: bizarre is that is that both cases revolve around evidence
Speaker 5: given by the chief forensic pathologist, Dr Mannock, the now
Speaker 5: disgraced doctor Mannock, and that work for Henry Keo. That
Speaker 5: this man's credibility is completely shot to pieces this forensic pathologist,
Speaker 5: but it still hasn't helped Derek Bromley yet, who was
Speaker 5: subject to the same sort of dodgy evidence being given
Speaker 5: by doctor Manock, even worse in Bromley's case. And I
Speaker 5: think there's something that's been uncovered that shows just what
Speaker 5: sort of attitude doctor Manock had to the Aboriginal community.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's actually been reported by the same journalists who
Speaker 2: wrote this book Graham Archer on Today Tonight. But it
Speaker 2: really speaks to doctor Mannock's behavior and what he was like.
Speaker 2: So in the late nineteen seventies, Archer writes in the book,
Speaker 2: doctor Mannock was required to travel to the remote to
Speaker 2: a remote location to conduct an autopsy on an Aboriginal
Speaker 2: man who's death unexplained. When he arrived, the local publican
Speaker 2: offered the States Director of Forensic Pathology his cool room
Speaker 2: in which to conduct his investigation. Doctor Manick declined the offer, and,
Speaker 2: according to the police witness, performed the autopsy out in
Speaker 2: the open and in front of onlookers. So this would
Speaker 2: have been an Aboriginal community. He was performing this autopsy
Speaker 2: on one of their community members in front of the
Speaker 2: Aboriginal community. Graham Rsher writes, the scene would have been
Speaker 2: shocking enough, but the police witness's recollection includes the following detail.
Speaker 2: The pathologist so doctor Manick dipped a metal ladle into.
Speaker 8: The bodily fluids and blood within the trunk of the body,
Speaker 8: held the ladle in front of him at arm's length,
Speaker 8: facing the gathered group and made inappropriate remarks.
Speaker 2: That was a statement signed by a police witness in
Speaker 2: South Australia who saw doctor Manick do this conductor open
Speaker 2: autopsy of an Aboriginal of an Aboriginal man in front
Speaker 2: of Aboriginal community members who, if you can imagine, many
Speaker 2: of them maybe could have been members of his own family.
Speaker 2: So that's the forensic pathologist that the South Australian government
Speaker 2: really refused to well, they looked into it, they knew
Speaker 2: there were problems with a lot of his autopsies and
Speaker 2: a lot of his evidence that he'd give in up
Speaker 2: to four hundred trials where he was an expert witness
Speaker 2: in and yet they really looked away. They looked away
Speaker 2: in relation to Henry Kio's case, and they seem to
Speaker 2: continually be looking away in relation to Derek Bromley's case
Speaker 2: and Derek Bromley's appeal, which is currently before the courts
Speaker 2: in South Australia is heavily based on the fact that
Speaker 2: doctor Mennock's forensic evidence was also flawed in his own case.
Speaker 5: This has caused large problems for the South Australian legal system.
Speaker 5: In documents lodged with the Supreme Court of South Australia,
Speaker 5: doctor Colin Manok, the chief forensic pathologist of the state
Speaker 5: for some twenty six years, is described as unprofessional, incompetent
Speaker 5: and untrustworthy and in cases lodged by those who are
Speaker 5: appealing their convictions, it's alleged that not only was the
Speaker 5: evidence given by doctor Manock completely incorrect and inaccurate, that
Speaker 5: doctor Manock was not qualified to be giving expert testimony. Now,
Speaker 5: this is very similar to Kevin Henry's case, where what
Speaker 5: we see is huge holes in the forensic evidence, and
Speaker 5: as we've had this evidence retested, we've been able to
Speaker 5: expose some of that. Now we also have the issue
Speaker 5: of just as Amy described about doctor Mannock's behavior with
Speaker 5: the Aboriginal community, that the same has occurred in Queensland
Speaker 5: and in Kevin Henry's case. Now there's many examples, but
Speaker 5: I'll just point to a few. Firstly, the way Linda
Speaker 5: was treated as the victim. Remember that her body was
Speaker 5: found in the Muddy River, but before an autopsy was conducted,
Speaker 5: her body was washed and hosed down. What sort of
Speaker 5: way is this to treat a human being? And it
Speaker 5: also meant that much of the evidence was destroyed and
Speaker 5: that it meant getting Kevin Henry a fair trial was
Speaker 5: almost impossible. Now we also have to consider some other
Speaker 5: things about the forensic evidence and the way the police
Speaker 5: and prosecution dealt with it. Remember, Kevin Henry is convicted
Speaker 5: of both rape and murder, and as we've previously discussed
Speaker 5: on this podcast, even according to the original forensic expert,
Speaker 5: not only was Linda not raped, no sign of sexual
Speaker 5: intercourse was found during any of the forensic examinations. So
Speaker 5: here we have a state in Queensland that would allow
Speaker 5: Linda's family to believe this horrific crime of rape had
Speaker 5: been committed against her when it clearly hadn't. The evidence
Speaker 5: showed no sexual intercourse had taken place, let alone rape.
Speaker 5: And then, of course, to compound it, Kevin Henry, now
Speaker 5: clearly shown by the evidence to be an innocent man,
Speaker 5: is still having this conviction of rape hanging over his head,
Speaker 5: and it's quite clear he did not commit that crime,
Speaker 5: or did he commit the murder, which the forensic evidence
Speaker 5: also shows. It does not show his guilt. But of course,
Speaker 5: as we've pointed out in the past, only the forensic
Speaker 5: evidence and it was very little to none that fit
Speaker 5: with the police story was ever presented in court because
Speaker 5: all they could rely on was a confession that, once
Speaker 5: again remember, was taken after they had produced a firearm
Speaker 5: to get Kevin Henry to confess. So just briefly before
Speaker 5: we end the episode to give an update on Kevin's case.
Speaker 5: As Graham Arsher describes at the start of this episode
Speaker 5: in his book in the introduction, that the wheels of
Speaker 5: justice turn extremely slowly for those who are already convicted.
Speaker 5: It's like trying to move a glacier. But we are
Speaker 5: slowly moving that glacier for Kevin Henry. The appeal to
Speaker 5: the Governor is ongoing and we're presenting new evidence to
Speaker 5: the Governor as it comes forward and as we're able
Speaker 5: to piece it together. Already that is an enormous amount
Speaker 5: of evidence that shows Kevin Henry's innocence. And the parole
Speaker 5: process continues and although I don't want to go into detail,
Speaker 5: we are making progress, although slow, on that front too,
Speaker 5: And Kevin Henry's spirits remain high and he's buoyed by
Speaker 5: the support he's received and the fact that Queensland, the
Speaker 5: Rockhampton community, his own community of Warabinda and now Australia,
Speaker 5: and the world are hearing about his innocence and the
Speaker 5: fact that the Australian justice system is going to finally
Speaker 5: have to face up to this very real fact. Innocent
Speaker 5: men and women, particularly innocent Aboriginal people, are being shown
Speaker 5: to be innocent, and it's largely based on dodgy police
Speaker 5: work and crap forensics that should never have been allowed
Speaker 5: into courts, conducted by people who are not experts and
Speaker 5: got it wrong. This should result in a nationwide review
Speaker 5: of every prisoner currently serving a sentence for a serious
Speaker 5: crime such as murder, because we cannot allow innocent people
Speaker 5: to spend another day in prison, We cannot allow victims
Speaker 5: of crime to not have justice, and we cannot have
Speaker 5: their families not knowing the truth. We owe them all
Speaker 5: that much.
Speaker 2: That was episode forty three of Curtain