October 14, 2025 • 48 mins
More than fifty years after three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer vanished from Fairy Meadow Beach, her brother Ricki is still fighting for justice. In this episode, Adam Shand speaks with Ricki Nash about the heartbreaking failures that have kept Cheryl’s case unsolved — from a detailed 1971 confession ruled inadmissible, to decades of police inaction and bureaucratic stonewalling. Together, they examine the shocking gaps in the original investigation, new witnesses ignored by authorities and the renewed push for a fresh inquest.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Appoche production. This podcast contains discussion of child sexual assault
and psychological trauma. It's not recommended for younger listeners and
discretion is advised. Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand.
I'm your host Adam Shand. The disappearance and probable murder
(00:29):
of three year old Cheryl Grimmer at Ferry Meadow Beach
near Wollongong in New South Wales has become one of
Australia's best known cold cases one of the state's most
tragic and baffling miss traits. Three year old Cheryl Grimmer
disappeared from a Woongong beach more than five decades ago.
On January twelfth, nineteen seventy. Cheryl was with her family
(00:52):
on the beach. It was a blistering hot day before
a cool change hit at one thirty pm, sending people
scrambling off the beach. Cheryl's mum, Carol, sent her daughter
and her brothers to the shower block to wash before
going home. Ten minutes later, seven year old Ricky went
back to his mother to say Cheryl was refusing to
(01:13):
come out of the shower block. When Carol Grimmer got
to the shower block, Cheryl had disappeared. She's never been located, but.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
My daughter I would like her buck unharmed as early
as quick as possible.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
A year later, a troubled youth confessed to police, but
he was the one who'd abducted and murdered Cheryl.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
He gained detectives a detailed confession, but that admission didn't
mean it was case closed.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
But he was dismissed as an attention seeker and set free.
In March twenty seventeen, that individual was arrested and charged
was Cheryl's murder after New South Vald's detectives had discovered
the confession and corroborated key elements of it. However, the
prosecution was abruptly halted after a judge found that the
(02:04):
nineteen seven only one confession was inadmissible because an adult
was not present. Despite this crushing blow, Cheryl's brother Ricky
continues to fight for justice for his sister. Meanwhile, the suspect,
who cannot be named, hides behind the pseudonym Mercury. Ricky
continues to fight and mate, it's a pleasure to welcome
(02:27):
you to real crime. Thank you, you've been very busy.
I think of all the cases that I cover these
long term missing persons cases. It's always about pressure. You've
never stopped, You've never never stopped. How are you going now?
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Still still a battle? Mate's still a battle. And if
I stop, or my family stop, on my brothers or
my cousin in the UK, we've got family fighting in
the UK for us as well. I mean, if we stop,
Cheryl gets forgotten. Case will never hear the light of
day in court. Boy stopped back in nineteen seventy one
(03:05):
and they just put all the boxes into the archives
and send them off to homicide. And that's where they sat,
per near on forty five years until twenty sixteen, because.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Twenty nineteen could have been a moment where you went.
That's just the ultimate roadblock. Where the judge says the
confession from nineteen seventy one by Mercury, which is so detailed,
so corroborated by other witnesses and other evidence, where the
judge says, on the basis of this sack the children's
(03:34):
criminal proceedings at that this confession was not admissible because
allegedly there wasn't an adult supervising or assisting Mercury as
we call it, because of legal reasons there wasn't an
adult there at the time of this very very good confession.
A lot of people would have just gone, that's too much,
(03:55):
it's too hard. I can't change the law as well
as find the killer, motivate police, keep my own family together,
keep my own sanity through all this. It's cost you
a lot, but you didn't stop. And I love the
way you've kept at it. And you kept hammering me.
What have you got? Do you know anybody else? And
I referred you to a couple of lawyers that I knew,
(04:15):
and they kind of said the same thing, that there's
nothing more you can do, but or you're indefatigable.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Allegedly not in the room. What if there was somebody there,
like You've got to understand. His confession was given after
police were called to the juvenile Boys' home in Sydney.
They were rung by a person by the name of
mister Leckey, who was one of the terrors at the home. Mercury,
(04:43):
as he's known, informed mister Lecky that he had some
information about the Cheryl Griomer case. Mister Lecky, after being
hearing this information, felt that police should have a chat
to this guy. So police were invited into the home
just to go there and listen to what information he
might have on the Cheryl Grumer case. Then after chatting
(05:07):
to him and the conversation starts, they realize and they
cautioned him. They stop him when they realize he's starting
to confess to the crime, and that's when they take
his confession. But was mister Lecky still in the room.
He's been invited like police have been invited. Isn't that
consent enough? Been invited into the home where he resides.
(05:31):
Isn't that consent enough for police to do their job?
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah? I agree, and I think there's even some, at
least in my mind, confusion about well, where was he
in the home? Where did this interview even take place?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Correct? Was it just sitting in the launch room where
there are other people listening to it in the background,
although they weren't part of the conversation. Were there his
minders were there if they felt that he was threatened
in any way? This was in his home, not a
police station. And as I say, police were invited, they
didn't go there to take a confession from him. He
(06:06):
starts to confess. It was, as mister Finlay said, one
of the officers that was dictating the confession. He says,
it was just free, it flowed. We didn't have to
stop him. We had to slow him up because he
couldn't type quick enough. He didn't go back, he didn't
change his conversation in any way. It was just free flowing.
(06:29):
He just wanted to get it off his chest, so
thinly described to us, and unfortunately for us after that,
I mean, he then participated in a walk a few
days later, once again permission from the home take him
out of the home to do the walk through. So
police were doing everything right at the time until it
(06:50):
became time do we take this to the courts or
do we put it into a carboard box and forget
about it for forty five years, which is what they've done.
And this is so detailed. I recently met with the
Shadow ag at Parliament House in Sydney and he raised
a very valid question. Why wasn't he spoken to a
(07:11):
year later when he was eighteen? Why wasn't he spoken
to over the years. Why did it take forty five
years for this confession to be looked at again when
homicide should be reviewing their cases. I would have at
least thought yearly.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Because I understand somebody in the system of police at
the time decided that Mercury was an attention seeker, correct,
and that he he is a disturbed kid. He's got
mental health issues, probably some drug addiction issues as well.
But you make the very good point in the very
detailed eighteen nineteen pages summary, You've made that if you're
(07:47):
going to snatch a three year old girl from the
beach stranger, you're disturbed in the first place.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
You are, And in his confession, he doesn't just abduct
her and then murderer. He wants to have physical sexual
intercourse with a three year old. You're not right in
the head. You're not You're just not right in the head.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
With all due respect to Supreme Court Justice hum it's
not his faults specifically, but I see time and time
again the rights of the accused seemed to be looked
after more diligently than the rights of the victim.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Cheryl's voice hasn't once been heard. He didn't take her
rights into consideration at any time when he handed down
his judgment. Based on this retrospectiff of aw you'd understand this.
It's a law too that didn't come in for a
further six years down the track. Police done everything right
on the day they cautioned him at the time. It
(08:50):
did not need an adult present. Understand, if he was
another eight months older, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
He'd be locked up because the confession would have been
allowed in because it would have been eighteen even six
years later when the laws changed. This retrospective law surely
was not put in place to protect a self confess
(09:13):
child murderer.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah. I mean, you make the point about possible vested
interest in this, and I think the system tends to
look after itself.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
It doesn't like these inconvenient cases that ten particularly non
lawyers who come in and they change laws and they
change the way police have done things. But I can
see some pretty basic flaws in the original police investigation.
For instance, why was there no interview with mister Lecky
at the time to say, tell us the circumstances of
(09:41):
why we're here. Because just as helm in his wisdom says,
it's possible that Mercury was beguiled into a confession, even
within the laws and the conditions and the terms of
the day, it's important to know the context of a confession.
What was Mercury doing before this? At what point did
(10:02):
Lecky believe it was time to call the police. If
that had been done, we might have had a bit
more detail of what was actually going on in the
home on that day. What we don't So we were
starting behind the eight ball from the beginning, unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
And you know, there are many things. I mean, when
you get such a detailed confession, an eight page home
page confession, and one of the officers at the time,
mister Finlay, he said if he was not the junior officer,
he was a senior officer, he would have charged him
because he believed every word he was saying. At the time.
(10:37):
We're only fourteen months after Cheryl's gone missing. There are
lots of witnesses that still remember a lot of information.
There are a lot of people on that beach. What
did they not put him in a lineup and just
see who could pick him? What was he at the
beach on the day? That would have been a stunt.
Why did they not video the walkthrough that they'd done
(10:58):
with him where Vickery took them? Why did they not
have photographic evidence? This is a very detail confession. I mean,
why wasn't correct policing done, or if it's done, if
it's somewhere, where is it buried? I mean you would think.
In nineteen seventy, a few days after Cheryl went missing,
(11:19):
police received a ransom note. Unfortunately, they advertised what was
in that ransom note to the general public where the
ransom was due to be picked up on the Saturday
eleven am at Bullye Library And it's like a circus.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
I was selling ice creams.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
They were selling ice creams. And Wollongong University professor said
he was actually there on the day. It's in the podcast,
the Ferry Meadow Podcast and he said he's thought it
was just fascical. How could you do this? This is
the only solid lead that they had. This is within
the week of Cheryl going missing. Yet they advertise it
(11:59):
to the world and they turn it into a circus.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
And particularly looking back on it now, the handwriting expert
called Clark goes down there and looks at this letter
which says if you give us ten thousand dollars, will
handshare all over. He concludes that it's the handwriting of
a fourteen or fifteen year old individual. Yes, well, surprise, surprise,
(12:22):
Mercury was exactly that age at that time.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Yes he was.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
And I wonder even now, and you maybe i'd answer
this question. I presume that letter is still in the
evidence somewhere.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yes it is.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Could it not be compared to an example of Mercury's
handwriting today? Has a Has that been done?
Speaker 2 (12:37):
I believe it should, and I believe it hasn't been
done to this date. I mean, here, you've got thirteen
months later, this now seventeen year old confesses in detail.
Thirteen months ago, you get a ransom note where you believe,
with your experts looking at it was written by a
fourteen to fifteen year old. Wouldn't you connect the two
(12:59):
dots and say, okay, well, let's have a look at this.
It's still a lineup. Let's do this thing. This really
needs to be looked at.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
I go only assume that they thought, oh, this couldn't
be a teenage boy. How could someone have done this
heenous crime? This must be either someone known to the fact.
The problem is, in those days these things were almost
a social welfare issue rather than a police matter. When
kids went missing and the finger of suspicion was normally
pointed at the family first, that something must have happened
(13:29):
and they're coming up. The Bonones went through the same
process years earlier and in South Australia, so inexplicable mistakes
one after the other. And we can go to the
details of many stuff ups that have happened since. But
I wonder an overarching apology to your family has it
ever been delivered now?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Even recently when I've attended a search with the Sydney
Search Dog Team.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Police.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Eventually after the Sydney Search Dog Team locating what they
believe some human remains, showed up on Friday last Friday,
three hours late, sat around, done nothing, didn't come and
talk to me or anything. I'm standing there and there
was lots of media there and stuff like that. They
couldn't even have the decency to come over and say hello,
(14:18):
where he now? Will do what we can for you
and the family? Nothing. They sent their Cadiva dog along
with a couple of officers up to the area. Press
weren't allowed up there, we weren't allowed that, no photos
take and know nothing. Yet within forty minutes they come
back with what they call bones. Didn't tell us it
was in the report later on a few hours later,
(14:40):
and then a few hours later these were determined to
be animal bones. So they looked for forty minutes and
that was their effort for the day, and that was
enough for them.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
You'll talk about this search. I think it's a very
important piece of the evidence because Mercury and his confession
and his discussions with the police afterwards, nominates a specific
place where he took Cheryl and attempted to her, strangled her,
and then left her body under a tree or next
to a tree covered in brush. And days later there's
(15:15):
a report from a local same there's flocks of crows
over that area and it corresponds to the same place
broke his nose. I believe it's called in balgowniep How
far is that away from very minute?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
About three kilometers so about a thirty minute.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Walk right, Quite possible to walk there. So never searched,
never searched. So Chris Darcy, for whom I have tremendous
admiration for what he does. What an asset to have
in your team. So he comes along with Rufus the dog.
You were there when the search was going on, tell
us what happened.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Started and early in the morning we got there sixty
minutes for there. They were there for a bit and
then once we got going, Chris myself, we've just started walking,
started let the dog do it. Seeing I just stayed back,
stayed out of the way. And it wasn't till really
late in the afternoon, and funny enough, I had a
(16:09):
I just wanted some time out on my own, because
I'd sort of been busy with sixty minutes in the morning,
and I just wanted some time out. So I just
started walking through the creek bed looking for areas from
my point of view, that haven't been disturbed in the
last forty to fifty sixty years. I wanted to find areas,
and I found a bit at the top of the
creek that to me looked untouched for the last fifty
(16:33):
sixty years. And I just sat there for a bit,
and then I went back down and Chris was having
a bit of a rest and Rufus was having a rest,
and I asked Chris, I said, look, would you mind
having a look up at the top section of this
creek area? He said, yore, whatever the family is, whatever
you need, And later that afternoon he took Rufus up
at the top of the creek and he came back
(16:55):
and he said, we may have located something. Ricky, he said,
but don't want you're anywhere near it. But we may
have located something, so can stay out of that. I
was shaking because I thought it was a one in
in a ten million shot of finding something. Anyway, he said, look,
we're going to let everything cool down today. We've had enough.
(17:16):
I'm going to come early tomorrow morning with the dog.
I don't want you here. I'm just going to let
Rupus do his thing.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Because it's potentially a crime scene. You don't want any
possibility that the family might have interfered or done something
to contaminate the crime scene. It's a really sensitive moment.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Very and I mean Rufus and Chris, they're really not
looking for bones. They're looking for something in the soil,
DNA residue because it's been now approaching fifty six years.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
And depending on the acidity of the soil, often there
is nothing left there except traces of residue of human remains.
And Chris was very clear when I spoke to him
during that search. He said, we're not looking for bones,
it's a residue. So he understood the soils there and he.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Believed that the soil there is great soil to hold DNA,
to hold residue within the soil. And then when I
went back that morning, he said, the dog has gone
back to the same area Riki and has done the
same reaction, not the normal reaction that the dog would
normally give, but a reaction in the identical same place
(18:26):
that he found the day before. So under consultation he
spoke to Frank sam Viertali was at the research as well.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
He was the original well not the vision but the
investigators into twenty fifteen sixteen with Damian Luhn, who really
breathe life into this whole investigation.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
And after they spoke for a while, Chris felt that
it was prudent now to call police in and what
he said, he believes it now to be a crime area.
Police came later that afternoon, no dogs, no nothing, went
up and had a look. Didn't leave anybody at the
site to guard the site overnight, just said look, we'll
(19:03):
come back at nine am on the Friday morning with
a dog with their own dog and forensics. They did
speak to me on that Thursday to detectives that I
never saw on the Friday and said, look, we'll bring forensics,
we'll bring our dog down, we'll start nine am Friday morning.
And I questioned them at the time, and I said, well,
(19:25):
if it's a crime, so now would you not tape
it off and leave somebody here overnight? I believe one
of the officers did try made an attempt to have
somebody stationed near the site, but that fell on death
is and no one was left there. So anybody could
have went on the site would have been a bit
difficult to find, but you know, it could have happened.
(19:47):
Somebody could have went to this. Well, the practice diligence,
show some effort. I felt, Ill, if my sister is
there and she's been there for near on fifty six years,
lying there on her own, now, I mean, I wasn't
the search a done right back in the day, you know,
the day that Mercury took and led police to that site.
(20:10):
Why wasn't a diligent search done then?
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Well, wasn't there the excuse profited that, Well, it was
a dairy farm when this has occurred, But there was
a housing development by the time they go back again,
so the area is now, it's changed.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Was that the excuse back in the day most likely,
but it's untouched this area that we were conducting and
with Sydney search dogs, it's untouched. Funny enough, there's a
house directly across the road from where Chris and his
team set up camp, and there was an Oldish lady
(20:48):
out the front doing her gardening and looking wondering what
was going on. As a lot of the locals came
out and offered to make lunch and teas and coffee
because they know about Cheryl and stuff like that. When
they realized it was a search for Cheryl, and Frank
sam Fittali happened to be speaking to the lady across
the road. She's an old Italian lady. She's been there
(21:10):
over sixty years. She has photos of what he documents
in his confession, where the category was, where the fence
line is, where the serpentine trees were. Everything he's got
in his confession. We believe she has photos. She can
remember the cattlegory, she remembers the serpentine trees, she remembers
(21:30):
the wire.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I love the diligence of San Vitali and Loon whereby
the caval grid gets excluded at some point because it
couldn't have been there at that time. But then there's
more inquiries and no, no, actually it was there, and
another witnesses found to actually corroborate that. So all along
I see a strange reluctance to accept key planks of
(21:52):
Mercury's confession and to exclude them as superficially as possible.
And it's been your job and a couple of diligent
police to actually reinstate this confession. And of course they hadn't.
They were the first ones to look at this. I mean,
this has been there since nineteen seventy one. And I
note that there was one of the reviews was a
(22:12):
detective who was at the academy doing an assignment, and
he could find it. But then when you get to
the inquest, so twenty eleven, I think it was they
can't even find the two suspects. They can't find Mercury
with the other Poratini I think his name was.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
It's correct.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
They couldn't even find them. It couldn't curse the research.
And then lun and Sanvitali find him in two hours, Mercury.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Under two hours. They had his address, God had his
driver's license. Yet I think his name Sergeant Dark. At
the time him and his team went. He done the
review for the twenty eleven inquest, and I may have
took forty one years for an inquest. There's another story,
and part of that inquest was the guy in the
(22:52):
academy doing a review in the academy. Wow. Okay, so
not even a police officer yet, and that's part of
what he had to do to get his detective badge
and so on. But when question by the coroner, mister
Dark informed the coroner that his team had made an
exhaustive effort to find the author of this confession. So
(23:16):
it was touched on in the twenty eleven inquest, which
I wasn't part of. I wasn't there. But another five
or six years later, the author can be found in
hours by one detective.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
He's not hiding, although he did. I know that he
did change his name at a certain point.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
He has changed his name for reasons unbeknown so us.
Why you wonder that's great? So did mister Dark mislead
the coroner or did he blatantly lie to the coroner?
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Well, in my experience, conspiracy or funck. U've always go
for a fuck up and I think that's probably what
we'll be looking at here. Pretty lazy effort. I don't
want to fame the man, but I think a pretty
lazy effort. And I think the evidence speaks for itself.
They couldn't find the main suspect, really, and everyone went
along with that. I mean, I think a decent coroner
would have said, go on, go back and do some
(24:07):
more work.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Find the death certificate of the author, okay, because they
knew who the author was. And as I say, six
years later, he was found in a couple of hours
by one detective, a couple of pushes of the keyboard,
and there is larger than life. They had his address,
they had his driver's license, they had where he worked,
everything within hours. So either mister Dark, as I said,
(24:29):
lied blatantly, lied, misled lazy. He should have said, look,
we really haven't put in much effort to look for
the author. We disregard the confession. I mean, the confession
sat there for forty one years. Forty years sat there,
such a detailed confession. I think police should be embarrassed
(24:49):
that they didn't pick it up again and look at it,
you know, over the years, and say, oh, was this
guy wasting our top. Let's get him in again. Let's
have a look at this, you know, I mean, because
I suppose.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
You can see failure was search failure to find they
stopped working on the case for forty odd years. What
happens that at least evident of the family.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Nothing, We were told nothing, they'd done nothing. They just
forgot about Cheryl And when it did get picked up,
is it now total embarrassment for them? In twenty and sixteen,
You've got to understand the New South Wales authorities, the
legal system gave mister Leerne, Damen Learn and Frank sam
(25:31):
Bertali a warrant to arrest Mercury. So now it's all
all of a sudden being taken very serious. He's going
to be arrested, He's going to be charged. They formally
interview him at Frankston Police station where he takes ownership
of the confession. Again, He's charged, arrested and extradited, all
(25:52):
approved by the authorities Victorian and New South Wales at
the time. When he walks into Frankston Police station to
be interviewed, he's told, you know, to bring lawyers come down.
We're going to chat to you about something he knows
what he's going to be spoken about, because he admitted.
He basically confessed again to mister sam Fatali the week
(26:16):
before when he rang Frank Samfertali to say, I believe
you're looking for me. What's it in relation? And Frank said, well,
you tell me. He actually says to Frank Samfertali, it's
about something I've done years ago, and very beach he
called it.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Frank's a good detective, isn't he.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
As much as this has broken our family, it's broken
him as well.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
He's yeah, he's told me in the past how the
disappointment of this and the seeming like a common sense
or anything he can has caused him lot of trauma.
The fact that he has nightmares where he does see
Cheryl and he feels like he failed.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Well, he's challenging, understand, when he's supporting us, he's challenging
what he worked twenty five years for in the police.
He's that now and he can't put his finger on
nor can any of us. Why Sheryl's case has been
such a mess. And as I said, from the days,
the first days that she went missing, he said, it's
(27:18):
the case that no one wants heard now, as we
believe no one wants this case heard because of these mistakes.
We were told in twenty seventeen at the first hearing
for mercury at Wongong Supreme Court, we were told by
Crown Prosecutor we've got the right guy. They've got the
(27:41):
right guy. He will be serving the rest of his
life in jail or he will be fat found guilty.
But for me to do that, unfortunately for you and
your family, you're going to have to hear about all
the mistakes that were made. He knows the mistakes, so
now tell us as a family what those mistakes were.
(28:02):
He says, I will stay on this case from the
start to the very end. Two weeks later, he's moved
off the case. So called gets a promotion in Sydney.
Weeks later, Frank Sampatali's move left damn Loon who's got
a promotion somewhere out towards Tanworth. So the three key
(28:25):
players and they're still in this guy's locked up, put away.
They're still working on one of Australia's oldest cold cases.
We've got the perpetrator, he's locked away. Yet why do
you move all the pieces of the chessboard. Why why
would you do that?
Speaker 1 (28:43):
So we get twenty nineteen Supreme Court rules that his
confession is inadmissible. He's clearly lying in one or other
of his statements, so it all kind of all stops again.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
They just let him walk out in February of twenty nineteen,
and they haven't spoken to him since. Yeah, we've given
a lot of people came forward to our family and said, look,
we've worked with this character. These are the things, these
are his traits over many, many years, long before he
was arrested in twenty seventeen. These are the things he
(29:21):
used to do at his place of work. These are
the things he used to show us. And believe it
or not, he used to show his colleagues Cheryl's case
and admitted to them. He said, if I'd done that,
I'd never get caught. Well, so far he's right, but
his time's running out.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
I've got a single out that source from his workplace
who is just another fantastic supporter of you and your
family and just never stops. I mean I get messages
proving all the time, you know, but I take it
seriously because he really cares. And you can see onny
people do care, and to the point where other witnesses
have come forward as a result of the BBC podcast
(30:01):
Very Meta, in particular a young but he was then
young nine and seventy seven year old boy with his
migrant family living in the hostel there. He gives a
very detailed description of seeing a youth carrying a young
child away. I mean it's a dramatic scene. Obviously a hot,
(30:22):
hot day, and the winds changed and suddenly the ear
I was diving off the beach. He did itself and
he captures all that detail. He comes forward. What's happened
with his testimony?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Not think they haven't even spoken to him, No statement taken,
no nothing. I mean I believe they called him. Yeah,
five minute conversations to say, look, we will interview you
at a later date. Nothing to date.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
I did unsadly. I did follow up with Ane of
the homicide detectives and ask that question why walk, Why
wouldn't you And the response was well, there's no contemporaneous
note at the time, there's no diagram, there's no drawing.
We would be concerned that if he put him in
the box, he would be destroyed, that he would that
they could introduce the idea that he must have seen
(31:11):
or heard the podcast or seen the publicity and they're
simply making it up. How would you know until you
meet him and take the statement. Okay, sit down with
him for an hour or two.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Damien Lehne actually spoke to him for over an hour,
and Damien said he's very creditable and at the very
least points should have taken his statement.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
I mean, I guess this's probably the logical question is, well,
why did you hang on to it for so long?
Why didn't you say anything? At the time, I understand
that they were recent arrivals in Australia, didn't have much English,
did they have a television, so didn't understand the significance.
But later on he realizes, hey, I think I've seen
Cheryl Grimmer being abducted.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
No, I mean, I'd have to sit down with him
and ask his reasons and stuff. And obviously people that
have known him that the BBC have spoken to as well,
like people that know him today, said you know, is
this guy looking for attention? And they all said no,
this is eating him up over the years. He really
didn't know what he saw on that day. Obviously, no
(32:12):
televisions his family didn't have any televisions and it wasn't
until years later that he realized what he saw. But
I believed speaking with Damon, that he thought it was
too late, there's nothing that could be done.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
This was when I say years later, I mean many
years later. He's now a teenager, he's got a new
life in Australia now and stuff like that. So for
him to come forward and want to speak to police
at the time, it wasn't interested in the reward. He
just wanted to tell them what he believed he saw
(32:45):
on the day. Yeah, and also what I didn't know
at the time. I spoke to that amicide detective who said,
your witness is just a one out you get carved
up in the box. What I didn't know he didn't
know was that witness's later girlfriend corroborates his story.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
He told her.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Many years ago, years before this million dollar reward. He
actually told her. And there was another another lady that
knows him. I believe she's a professor at Wollongong Universe
and knows him as well, and he has told her
the story over years as well what he saw on
that day, and she urged him over the years to
come forward and tell his story. He eventually has, you
(33:27):
offer a million dollar reward, but you don't speak to
like I believe, there's like three people that now have
come forward as a result of the BBC or Meadow podcast,
not one has been spoken to. There were five informants
that came forward that used to work with Mercury, and
not one of those have been spoken to. So we've
(33:49):
now got eight people sitting out there with information that
could get Cheryl's case moving forward. Eight people with solid information.
There was one one work colleague that he stated he
used to steal cars and drive them to Ferry Meadow Beach.
That's pretty solid information because now you're saying you've never
(34:13):
been to ferry Meadow Breach, but you've told a work
colleague because you're in a I believe it's his way
of gloating showing Cheryl's case. It's your way of gloating.
You're getting it out there, You're feeling good about yourself,
You've gotten away with it. It's not on the radar in Victoria.
That's probably why hidden Victoria, because it's not on the radar.
(34:34):
Advertised very heavily when it first happened and since twenty sixteen,
but once again, mostly in New South Wales, he's avoided
the spotlight. But from seventy one to twenty and sixteen
there's nothing about Cheryl Grimmer. So he's feeling really comfortable
in his work environment. I'm going to show my work
(34:55):
colleagues we believe his own daughter thought she was Cheryl Grimmer.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yes, I've read this. Also, I don't think it's ever
been any effort to try to look at the code
of people who was in the Boy's Home or New
Mercury back in those days. There's also evidence of another
residence in Sydney separate to the Boy's Home where he
was staying. What about the people who were with him
at the time, where were they these days? There are records.
I know they're on paper and that it'll take a
(35:22):
while to find, but there are records of of he
was with in the Boy's Home. If he's told mister Leckey,
I'd back it, and he's told other people as well,
his behavior was erratic because he was a disturbed young
man who's potentially abducted, strangled and killed a three year
old girl. So I mean, I'm going to make an
offer to your witness today, because I think there's no
(35:44):
way to push this forward except through the court of
public opinion. And if his credibility is questioned, let's put
him on a polygraph. Steve Van Apron, my friend and
colleague from our Channel seven other show, would more than
willingly put him on the polygraph and test his credibility
and let the public decide whether this should or should
(36:09):
not be tested or be spoken to by police. And
I think this all comes back to and often say
this when I deal with long term missing persons cases
and murders as well, is a fresh inquest.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
We've pleaded for a fresh inquest because there is so
much more information now available. You've got the five informants,
You've got the three witnesses, You've now got the author
of the confession. You've got everything now in front of you.
I mean, we believe a lot of things that he does.
(36:40):
Like even with mister Leckey, he said to mister Lecky
when he was an escapee, he was in a juvenile
detention home, had escaped when he had abducted a murdered cheryl,
and when he was sort of brought back to the home,
he actually said to mister Lecky while it was the
boy's shelter in Sydney. He actually says to mister Lacky,
(37:04):
he said, I'm going to have to pay for what
I've done when I was on the run, and mister
lake he said, well what did you do? He said,
I killed a security guard in a blue shirt. Hey,
you didn't he killed a little three year old in
a blue swimming costume. I believe he's a great manipulator.
(37:24):
I believe he likes to play games. I believe he's
a lot smarter than what police had given him credit for.
And who knows what hells he's done.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Well, he's certainly's shown. I think it's on the record
that he has an ability to manipulate authority. He sets
out to do this, and I think he even saw
it during the court process in twenty nineteen and before then,
that he runs these psychiatrists around in circles.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Well understand too, he sat in a prison cell for
two years. On the morning of the hearing of the
final hearing where Justice him made his decision, the psychiatrist
working for the DPP, Now this guy sat in John
for two years, comes late to the case, hasn't read
(38:13):
the confession, over the two years, hasn't even spoken to
Mercury once. Sitting in a New South Wales Security maximum
security jail. There was no effort by the DPP, by
the New South Wales Authority to look into this guy.
He just sat there. No one spoke to him. No
(38:34):
one went in to say, you know, this is what
you're being charged with, this is what's happened, to tell
us you view and have a chat to him. No psychologists,
as I say, the New South Wales authorities. He arrives
late to the final hearing, not read the confession. Where's
the seriousness in batting for Cheryl here? No one's helping
(38:59):
a little defenseless three year old. You've got a guy
locked up and you say you have got no opportunity
to go and have a chat to him. Well, I
can tell you where he was in silver Water if
you look up the address and the Yellow Pages come
and find him. He's really sitting there.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
When you think of the cost of these proceedings, and
they're huge when they get these expert witnesses in My
dad was a psychiatrist and that was part of his
business was to do just these sort of cases. He
took them very seriously fortunately, But I'm not going to
cast dispersions on this particular psychiatrist. But I think the
facts speak for themselves, and I think these sort of
aspects should be tested in the corridor's court in the
fresh inquestion. There's certainly illegal path to do that with
(39:37):
his fresh and compelling evidence, but also to review the
entire police case, which has never really been done. You've
got what I'm calling the thermonuclear option. Now. Jeremy Buckingham,
Member of Parliament New South Wales has offered to use
parliamentary privilege to name Mercury publicly. It's a big step.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
It's a huge step, and my brothers and I we
spoke about it over the last week, family members in
the UK, we've all spoke about it, and we think
we are at a point we've got no choice but
to take Jeremy's offer to name Mercury in parliament, to
(40:18):
read the confession out loud, word for word in parliament
and put a name to it. Put a name to it.
Now we've been told he will be hounded by the media,
by the press, his family, everybody, because now what's happened
to us over the last seven years since learning about
this confession is now going to be on him, and
(40:42):
the spotlight will be well and truly on him and
his family. I would urge him now to contact his lawyers,
set up a meeting with our family, police, his lawyers
at a location of his choosing, and tell us if
the confession is false, why you made it, and how
(41:06):
you knew what you confess to what you saw, and
we want to know why and how you knew this information,
if it was just you being a teenager and seeking attention,
tell us. But at the moment, you just keep hiding
behind this retrospective law, staying quiet. We've had homicide detectives
(41:29):
tell us they know it's you. You've told us it's you.
Everybody's telling us it's you. Now it's your time, your spotlight.
Now you have to explain to the media, to the public.
The public have so much anger towards you as a
person at the moment because you've confessed to this and
(41:52):
you hide behind this law. You don't even have the
decency if it was a lie, to come and tell us,
because you're a coward. A three year old little girl
had more courage than you. Implore you to contact your
lawyers today because I will push the green light on
this next week.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
I was going to ask you how long will you
give him? Because I mean, there's obviously this is a
dangerous situation, it's volatile. I mean some would say that
it might jeopardize his right to a fair trial. I
personally think that's just rubbish. I mean, I've seen this
so many times over the years of my crime journalism career,
where the defendants barrister says, oh, I know my client
(42:35):
is now too well known. He certainly can't get a
fair trial because he's been named in the change of
the media. But I think the record shows that juries
take more time and diligence to look at these questions
and get them right. But also in South Wales, he's
got the charts for a judge only trial, so it
becomes a mood point. So how long will you giving me?
A second? Maybe a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
I'll give him two weeks to protect his family. Now
you've got family out there. I know that you've got
a son, you've got a daughter, you've got an ex wife,
you've got a current wife, you've got other family members,
You've got family members in the UK. Here's your chance
to do the right thing, and if it was all
a pack of lies, come and tell us and we
can stop, we can stop chasing you. But I'm telling
(43:18):
you now, it's going to have to be compelling. You're
going to have to convince us that this was a
bunch of lies when everybody else and you tell us
what you said in your confession to be true.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
Tell me, I mean, this has been something that you've
been living with since January the twelve, nineteen seventy. How
you going with it all?
Speaker 2 (43:38):
What do you think? I'm a mess? Our family's a mess.
You know, you get blamed by underknownst to me at
the time, you're not biological father. And it wasn't until
many years later that I found out. But who I
believe was my father wasn't my biological father. It wasn't
(43:59):
until I was thirtained. So his hatred towards me, and
after that, after Cheryl was taken, after that day was
we had a volatile relationship thereafter. And when you sort
of hear every night when they're arguing, you know, why
did he leve he? Why did he lever he? And
he carry that blame then with your all your life.
(44:21):
And that's why I will not lay down until I
know the truth about this confession, about this guy Mercury,
and you're all going to know his name within a
couple of weeks who he is, and then everybody that's
known this guy over the years. We've got stories that
a young lady got into his taxi one night. He
(44:42):
was a taxi driver as well, got into his taxi.
She was so scared she made him stop to get out.
She's one of the informants that come forward and years
later she runs into him in the same work environment.
She was terrified. The ex wife is terrified of him.
What type of guy is this out in the st
(45:05):
It's running around the streets where his ex wife's terrified.
People that used to work with him were terrified of him.
What type of person is this guy? Well, he can't
hide anymore.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
No, And I think he also know. I know he's
been questioned in relation to the Frankston tyin On murders
and with possible links to the I think it's nineteen
seventy six disappearance of Elouise wallage Ye. This may open
the door to resolve other cases, or at least give
him the chance to deny them and be eliminated from
all this.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
You know, you've got a guy that's confessed to murder
in one state, he's a person of interest in unsolved
homicides in another state. What type of person is this?
I mean what drew police in Victoria to him in
relation to hunsold homicides in Frankston. They did not know
(45:57):
at the time when they interviewed him, but he had
confessed already to a child murder in New South Wales.
So why don't New South Wales and Victoria police get
together start talking build a picture of profile on this guy.
I believe he's done more things. You don't stop. I mean,
he's gone in confessed and police let him walk out.
(46:18):
I thinks, well that's pretty easy. Might be able to
do this again. How much more has he done? And
he's still walking the streets in Victoria here, it's going
to be some pretty angry people when they find out
where he lives.
Speaker 1 (46:31):
Yeah, well, the next several X will be a watershed
in this case. And I wish you all the very
best of luck and that we move this forward. And
you've got to stop blaming yourself, Ricky. You've got you've
done everything you possibly could for your sister. You know,
I've dealt with a number of people like you have
(46:51):
lost banding members and it is very hard. But I
think all of Australia is behind you, all the right
thinking people, and they know the blinked approach the police
had and the courts all the way through to this.
We just want this whole thing to be resolved. So
I really do wish you all the very best with it, mate,
and I will look forward to getting you back on
Rukiman Adam Sham when we could talk about this Blake's name.
Speaker 2 (47:13):
All we want is the honest answers. That's what we want.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
That's Ricky Nash, brother of Cheryl Grimmer, disappeared in January
nineteen seventy. This case again highlights something that's a bit
unpalatable about a justice system. The victim and their family
is not represented in the court. They think the prosecutor
is there for them. They're not. They're there for the Crown,
the accused as a barrister and they talk through the
(48:09):
court proceedings. He's solely there. There's nobody in the court
for the victim. Is this right? And I can understand
Ricky's frustration and the family. I mean, Ricky wasn't even
even interviewed for decades after he was there on the
beach that day. At the very least, a fresh inquest
must be held into this case to highlight the failures
(48:32):
of police, not just in nineteen seventy, but in twenty nineteen.
A million dollar reward, well haha, who's going to pick
up that million dollar award? I see there's dozens of
million dollar rewards and nothing ever happens. It's got to
be human will here. We saw it with Frank san
Vittali and Damian Lion. They had the will to attack
this case. Ricky just needs a prosecutor a couple more
(48:54):
coppers to have the same dash as Frank and Damien.
That's all I can say. Get in touch if you've
got thoughts about this
Appoche production. This podcast contains discussion of child sexual assault
and psychological trauma. It's not recommended for younger listeners and
discretion is advised. Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand.
I'm your host Adam Shand. The disappearance and probable murder
(00:29):
of three year old Cheryl Grimmer at Ferry Meadow Beach
near Wollongong in New South Wales has become one of
Australia's best known cold cases one of the state's most
tragic and baffling miss traits. Three year old Cheryl Grimmer
disappeared from a Woongong beach more than five decades ago.
On January twelfth, nineteen seventy. Cheryl was with her family
(00:52):
on the beach. It was a blistering hot day before
a cool change hit at one thirty pm, sending people
scrambling off the beach. Cheryl's mum, Carol, sent her daughter
and her brothers to the shower block to wash before
going home. Ten minutes later, seven year old Ricky went
back to his mother to say Cheryl was refusing to
(01:13):
come out of the shower block. When Carol Grimmer got
to the shower block, Cheryl had disappeared. She's never been located, but.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
My daughter I would like her buck unharmed as early
as quick as possible.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
A year later, a troubled youth confessed to police, but
he was the one who'd abducted and murdered Cheryl.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
He gained detectives a detailed confession, but that admission didn't
mean it was case closed.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
But he was dismissed as an attention seeker and set free.
In March twenty seventeen, that individual was arrested and charged
was Cheryl's murder after New South Vald's detectives had discovered
the confession and corroborated key elements of it. However, the
prosecution was abruptly halted after a judge found that the
(02:04):
nineteen seven only one confession was inadmissible because an adult
was not present. Despite this crushing blow, Cheryl's brother Ricky
continues to fight for justice for his sister. Meanwhile, the suspect,
who cannot be named, hides behind the pseudonym Mercury. Ricky
continues to fight and mate, it's a pleasure to welcome
(02:27):
you to real crime. Thank you, you've been very busy.
I think of all the cases that I cover these
long term missing persons cases. It's always about pressure. You've
never stopped, You've never never stopped. How are you going now?
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Still still a battle? Mate's still a battle. And if
I stop, or my family stop, on my brothers or
my cousin in the UK, we've got family fighting in
the UK for us as well. I mean, if we stop,
Cheryl gets forgotten. Case will never hear the light of
day in court. Boy stopped back in nineteen seventy one
(03:05):
and they just put all the boxes into the archives
and send them off to homicide. And that's where they sat,
per near on forty five years until twenty sixteen, because.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Twenty nineteen could have been a moment where you went.
That's just the ultimate roadblock. Where the judge says the
confession from nineteen seventy one by Mercury, which is so detailed,
so corroborated by other witnesses and other evidence, where the
judge says, on the basis of this sack the children's
(03:34):
criminal proceedings at that this confession was not admissible because
allegedly there wasn't an adult supervising or assisting Mercury as
we call it, because of legal reasons there wasn't an
adult there at the time of this very very good confession.
A lot of people would have just gone, that's too much,
(03:55):
it's too hard. I can't change the law as well
as find the killer, motivate police, keep my own family together,
keep my own sanity through all this. It's cost you
a lot, but you didn't stop. And I love the
way you've kept at it. And you kept hammering me.
What have you got? Do you know anybody else? And
I referred you to a couple of lawyers that I knew,
(04:15):
and they kind of said the same thing, that there's
nothing more you can do, but or you're indefatigable.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Allegedly not in the room. What if there was somebody there,
like You've got to understand. His confession was given after
police were called to the juvenile Boys' home in Sydney.
They were rung by a person by the name of
mister Leckey, who was one of the terrors at the home. Mercury,
(04:43):
as he's known, informed mister Lecky that he had some
information about the Cheryl Griomer case. Mister Lecky, after being
hearing this information, felt that police should have a chat
to this guy. So police were invited into the home
just to go there and listen to what information he
might have on the Cheryl Grumer case. Then after chatting
(05:07):
to him and the conversation starts, they realize and they
cautioned him. They stop him when they realize he's starting
to confess to the crime, and that's when they take
his confession. But was mister Lecky still in the room.
He's been invited like police have been invited. Isn't that
consent enough? Been invited into the home where he resides.
(05:31):
Isn't that consent enough for police to do their job?
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah? I agree, and I think there's even some, at
least in my mind, confusion about well, where was he
in the home? Where did this interview even take place?
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Correct? Was it just sitting in the launch room where
there are other people listening to it in the background,
although they weren't part of the conversation. Were there his
minders were there if they felt that he was threatened
in any way? This was in his home, not a
police station. And as I say, police were invited, they
didn't go there to take a confession from him. He
(06:06):
starts to confess. It was, as mister Finlay said, one
of the officers that was dictating the confession. He says,
it was just free, it flowed. We didn't have to
stop him. We had to slow him up because he
couldn't type quick enough. He didn't go back, he didn't
change his conversation in any way. It was just free flowing.
(06:29):
He just wanted to get it off his chest, so
thinly described to us, and unfortunately for us after that,
I mean, he then participated in a walk a few
days later, once again permission from the home take him
out of the home to do the walk through. So
police were doing everything right at the time until it
(06:50):
became time do we take this to the courts or
do we put it into a carboard box and forget
about it for forty five years, which is what they've done.
And this is so detailed. I recently met with the
Shadow ag at Parliament House in Sydney and he raised
a very valid question. Why wasn't he spoken to a
(07:11):
year later when he was eighteen? Why wasn't he spoken
to over the years. Why did it take forty five
years for this confession to be looked at again when
homicide should be reviewing their cases. I would have at
least thought yearly.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Because I understand somebody in the system of police at
the time decided that Mercury was an attention seeker, correct,
and that he he is a disturbed kid. He's got
mental health issues, probably some drug addiction issues as well.
But you make the very good point in the very
detailed eighteen nineteen pages summary, You've made that if you're
(07:47):
going to snatch a three year old girl from the
beach stranger, you're disturbed in the first place.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
You are, And in his confession, he doesn't just abduct
her and then murderer. He wants to have physical sexual
intercourse with a three year old. You're not right in
the head. You're not You're just not right in the head.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
With all due respect to Supreme Court Justice hum it's
not his faults specifically, but I see time and time
again the rights of the accused seemed to be looked
after more diligently than the rights of the victim.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Cheryl's voice hasn't once been heard. He didn't take her
rights into consideration at any time when he handed down
his judgment. Based on this retrospectiff of aw you'd understand this.
It's a law too that didn't come in for a
further six years down the track. Police done everything right
on the day they cautioned him at the time. It
(08:50):
did not need an adult present. Understand, if he was
another eight months older, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
He'd be locked up because the confession would have been
allowed in because it would have been eighteen even six
years later when the laws changed. This retrospective law surely
was not put in place to protect a self confess
(09:13):
child murderer.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah. I mean, you make the point about possible vested
interest in this, and I think the system tends to
look after itself.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
It doesn't like these inconvenient cases that ten particularly non
lawyers who come in and they change laws and they
change the way police have done things. But I can
see some pretty basic flaws in the original police investigation.
For instance, why was there no interview with mister Lecky
at the time to say, tell us the circumstances of
(09:41):
why we're here. Because just as helm in his wisdom says,
it's possible that Mercury was beguiled into a confession, even
within the laws and the conditions and the terms of
the day, it's important to know the context of a confession.
What was Mercury doing before this? At what point did
(10:02):
Lecky believe it was time to call the police. If
that had been done, we might have had a bit
more detail of what was actually going on in the
home on that day. What we don't So we were
starting behind the eight ball from the beginning, unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
And you know, there are many things. I mean, when
you get such a detailed confession, an eight page home
page confession, and one of the officers at the time,
mister Finlay, he said if he was not the junior officer,
he was a senior officer, he would have charged him
because he believed every word he was saying. At the time.
(10:37):
We're only fourteen months after Cheryl's gone missing. There are
lots of witnesses that still remember a lot of information.
There are a lot of people on that beach. What
did they not put him in a lineup and just
see who could pick him? What was he at the
beach on the day? That would have been a stunt.
Why did they not video the walkthrough that they'd done
(10:58):
with him where Vickery took them? Why did they not
have photographic evidence? This is a very detail confession. I mean,
why wasn't correct policing done, or if it's done, if
it's somewhere, where is it buried? I mean you would think.
In nineteen seventy, a few days after Cheryl went missing,
(11:19):
police received a ransom note. Unfortunately, they advertised what was
in that ransom note to the general public where the
ransom was due to be picked up on the Saturday
eleven am at Bullye Library And it's like a circus.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
I was selling ice creams.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
They were selling ice creams. And Wollongong University professor said
he was actually there on the day. It's in the podcast,
the Ferry Meadow Podcast and he said he's thought it
was just fascical. How could you do this? This is
the only solid lead that they had. This is within
the week of Cheryl going missing. Yet they advertise it
(11:59):
to the world and they turn it into a circus.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
And particularly looking back on it now, the handwriting expert
called Clark goes down there and looks at this letter
which says if you give us ten thousand dollars, will
handshare all over. He concludes that it's the handwriting of
a fourteen or fifteen year old individual. Yes, well, surprise, surprise,
(12:22):
Mercury was exactly that age at that time.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Yes he was.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
And I wonder even now, and you maybe i'd answer
this question. I presume that letter is still in the
evidence somewhere.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yes it is.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Could it not be compared to an example of Mercury's
handwriting today? Has a Has that been done?
Speaker 2 (12:37):
I believe it should, and I believe it hasn't been
done to this date. I mean, here, you've got thirteen
months later, this now seventeen year old confesses in detail.
Thirteen months ago, you get a ransom note where you believe,
with your experts looking at it was written by a
fourteen to fifteen year old. Wouldn't you connect the two
(12:59):
dots and say, okay, well, let's have a look at this.
It's still a lineup. Let's do this thing. This really
needs to be looked at.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
I go only assume that they thought, oh, this couldn't
be a teenage boy. How could someone have done this
heenous crime? This must be either someone known to the fact.
The problem is, in those days these things were almost
a social welfare issue rather than a police matter. When
kids went missing and the finger of suspicion was normally
pointed at the family first, that something must have happened
(13:29):
and they're coming up. The Bonones went through the same
process years earlier and in South Australia, so inexplicable mistakes
one after the other. And we can go to the
details of many stuff ups that have happened since. But
I wonder an overarching apology to your family has it
ever been delivered now?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Even recently when I've attended a search with the Sydney
Search Dog Team.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Police.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Eventually after the Sydney Search Dog Team locating what they
believe some human remains, showed up on Friday last Friday,
three hours late, sat around, done nothing, didn't come and
talk to me or anything. I'm standing there and there
was lots of media there and stuff like that. They
couldn't even have the decency to come over and say hello,
(14:18):
where he now? Will do what we can for you
and the family? Nothing. They sent their Cadiva dog along
with a couple of officers up to the area. Press
weren't allowed up there, we weren't allowed that, no photos
take and know nothing. Yet within forty minutes they come
back with what they call bones. Didn't tell us it
was in the report later on a few hours later,
(14:40):
and then a few hours later these were determined to
be animal bones. So they looked for forty minutes and
that was their effort for the day, and that was
enough for them.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
You'll talk about this search. I think it's a very
important piece of the evidence because Mercury and his confession
and his discussions with the police afterwards, nominates a specific
place where he took Cheryl and attempted to her, strangled her,
and then left her body under a tree or next
to a tree covered in brush. And days later there's
(15:15):
a report from a local same there's flocks of crows
over that area and it corresponds to the same place
broke his nose. I believe it's called in balgowniep How
far is that away from very minute?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
About three kilometers so about a thirty minute.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Walk right, Quite possible to walk there. So never searched,
never searched. So Chris Darcy, for whom I have tremendous
admiration for what he does. What an asset to have
in your team. So he comes along with Rufus the dog.
You were there when the search was going on, tell
us what happened.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Started and early in the morning we got there sixty
minutes for there. They were there for a bit and
then once we got going, Chris myself, we've just started walking,
started let the dog do it. Seeing I just stayed back,
stayed out of the way. And it wasn't till really
late in the afternoon, and funny enough, I had a
(16:09):
I just wanted some time out on my own, because
I'd sort of been busy with sixty minutes in the morning,
and I just wanted some time out. So I just
started walking through the creek bed looking for areas from
my point of view, that haven't been disturbed in the
last forty to fifty sixty years. I wanted to find areas,
and I found a bit at the top of the
creek that to me looked untouched for the last fifty
(16:33):
sixty years. And I just sat there for a bit,
and then I went back down and Chris was having
a bit of a rest and Rufus was having a rest,
and I asked Chris, I said, look, would you mind
having a look up at the top section of this
creek area? He said, yore, whatever the family is, whatever
you need, And later that afternoon he took Rufus up
at the top of the creek and he came back
(16:55):
and he said, we may have located something. Ricky, he said,
but don't want you're anywhere near it. But we may
have located something, so can stay out of that. I
was shaking because I thought it was a one in
in a ten million shot of finding something. Anyway, he said, look,
we're going to let everything cool down today. We've had enough.
(17:16):
I'm going to come early tomorrow morning with the dog.
I don't want you here. I'm just going to let
Rupus do his thing.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Because it's potentially a crime scene. You don't want any
possibility that the family might have interfered or done something
to contaminate the crime scene. It's a really sensitive moment.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Very and I mean Rufus and Chris, they're really not
looking for bones. They're looking for something in the soil,
DNA residue because it's been now approaching fifty six years.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
And depending on the acidity of the soil, often there
is nothing left there except traces of residue of human remains.
And Chris was very clear when I spoke to him
during that search. He said, we're not looking for bones,
it's a residue. So he understood the soils there and he.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
Believed that the soil there is great soil to hold DNA,
to hold residue within the soil. And then when I
went back that morning, he said, the dog has gone
back to the same area Riki and has done the
same reaction, not the normal reaction that the dog would
normally give, but a reaction in the identical same place
(18:26):
that he found the day before. So under consultation he
spoke to Frank sam Viertali was at the research as well.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
He was the original well not the vision but the
investigators into twenty fifteen sixteen with Damian Luhn, who really
breathe life into this whole investigation.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
And after they spoke for a while, Chris felt that
it was prudent now to call police in and what
he said, he believes it now to be a crime area.
Police came later that afternoon, no dogs, no nothing, went
up and had a look. Didn't leave anybody at the
site to guard the site overnight, just said look, we'll
(19:03):
come back at nine am on the Friday morning with
a dog with their own dog and forensics. They did
speak to me on that Thursday to detectives that I
never saw on the Friday and said, look, we'll bring forensics,
we'll bring our dog down, we'll start nine am Friday morning.
And I questioned them at the time, and I said, well,
(19:25):
if it's a crime, so now would you not tape
it off and leave somebody here overnight? I believe one
of the officers did try made an attempt to have
somebody stationed near the site, but that fell on death
is and no one was left there. So anybody could
have went on the site would have been a bit
difficult to find, but you know, it could have happened.
(19:47):
Somebody could have went to this. Well, the practice diligence,
show some effort. I felt, Ill, if my sister is
there and she's been there for near on fifty six years,
lying there on her own, now, I mean, I wasn't
the search a done right back in the day, you know,
the day that Mercury took and led police to that site.
(20:10):
Why wasn't a diligent search done then?
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Well, wasn't there the excuse profited that, Well, it was
a dairy farm when this has occurred, But there was
a housing development by the time they go back again,
so the area is now, it's changed.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Was that the excuse back in the day most likely,
but it's untouched this area that we were conducting and
with Sydney search dogs, it's untouched. Funny enough, there's a
house directly across the road from where Chris and his
team set up camp, and there was an Oldish lady
(20:48):
out the front doing her gardening and looking wondering what
was going on. As a lot of the locals came
out and offered to make lunch and teas and coffee
because they know about Cheryl and stuff like that. When
they realized it was a search for Cheryl, and Frank
sam Fittali happened to be speaking to the lady across
the road. She's an old Italian lady. She's been there
(21:10):
over sixty years. She has photos of what he documents
in his confession, where the category was, where the fence
line is, where the serpentine trees were. Everything he's got
in his confession. We believe she has photos. She can
remember the cattlegory, she remembers the serpentine trees, she remembers
(21:30):
the wire.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I love the diligence of San Vitali and Loon whereby
the caval grid gets excluded at some point because it
couldn't have been there at that time. But then there's
more inquiries and no, no, actually it was there, and
another witnesses found to actually corroborate that. So all along
I see a strange reluctance to accept key planks of
(21:52):
Mercury's confession and to exclude them as superficially as possible.
And it's been your job and a couple of diligent
police to actually reinstate this confession. And of course they hadn't.
They were the first ones to look at this. I mean,
this has been there since nineteen seventy one. And I
note that there was one of the reviews was a
(22:12):
detective who was at the academy doing an assignment, and
he could find it. But then when you get to
the inquest, so twenty eleven, I think it was they
can't even find the two suspects. They can't find Mercury
with the other Poratini I think his name was.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
It's correct.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
They couldn't even find them. It couldn't curse the research.
And then lun and Sanvitali find him in two hours, Mercury.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Under two hours. They had his address, God had his
driver's license. Yet I think his name Sergeant Dark. At
the time him and his team went. He done the
review for the twenty eleven inquest, and I may have
took forty one years for an inquest. There's another story,
and part of that inquest was the guy in the
(22:52):
academy doing a review in the academy. Wow. Okay, so
not even a police officer yet, and that's part of
what he had to do to get his detective badge
and so on. But when question by the coroner, mister
Dark informed the coroner that his team had made an
exhaustive effort to find the author of this confession. So
(23:16):
it was touched on in the twenty eleven inquest, which
I wasn't part of. I wasn't there. But another five
or six years later, the author can be found in
hours by one detective.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
He's not hiding, although he did. I know that he
did change his name at a certain point.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
He has changed his name for reasons unbeknown so us.
Why you wonder that's great? So did mister Dark mislead
the coroner or did he blatantly lie to the coroner?
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Well, in my experience, conspiracy or funck. U've always go
for a fuck up and I think that's probably what
we'll be looking at here. Pretty lazy effort. I don't
want to fame the man, but I think a pretty
lazy effort. And I think the evidence speaks for itself.
They couldn't find the main suspect, really, and everyone went
along with that. I mean, I think a decent coroner
would have said, go on, go back and do some
(24:07):
more work.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Find the death certificate of the author, okay, because they
knew who the author was. And as I say, six
years later, he was found in a couple of hours
by one detective, a couple of pushes of the keyboard,
and there is larger than life. They had his address,
they had his driver's license, they had where he worked,
everything within hours. So either mister Dark, as I said,
(24:29):
lied blatantly, lied, misled lazy. He should have said, look,
we really haven't put in much effort to look for
the author. We disregard the confession. I mean, the confession
sat there for forty one years. Forty years sat there,
such a detailed confession. I think police should be embarrassed
(24:49):
that they didn't pick it up again and look at it,
you know, over the years, and say, oh, was this
guy wasting our top. Let's get him in again. Let's
have a look at this, you know, I mean, because
I suppose.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
You can see failure was search failure to find they
stopped working on the case for forty odd years. What
happens that at least evident of the family.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Nothing, We were told nothing, they'd done nothing. They just
forgot about Cheryl And when it did get picked up,
is it now total embarrassment for them? In twenty and sixteen,
You've got to understand the New South Wales authorities, the
legal system gave mister Leerne, Damen Learn and Frank sam
(25:31):
Bertali a warrant to arrest Mercury. So now it's all
all of a sudden being taken very serious. He's going
to be arrested, He's going to be charged. They formally
interview him at Frankston Police station where he takes ownership
of the confession. Again, He's charged, arrested and extradited, all
(25:52):
approved by the authorities Victorian and New South Wales at
the time. When he walks into Frankston Police station to
be interviewed, he's told, you know, to bring lawyers come down.
We're going to chat to you about something he knows
what he's going to be spoken about, because he admitted.
He basically confessed again to mister sam Fatali the week
(26:16):
before when he rang Frank Samfertali to say, I believe
you're looking for me. What's it in relation? And Frank said, well,
you tell me. He actually says to Frank Samfertali, it's
about something I've done years ago, and very beach he
called it.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Frank's a good detective, isn't he.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
As much as this has broken our family, it's broken
him as well.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
He's yeah, he's told me in the past how the
disappointment of this and the seeming like a common sense
or anything he can has caused him lot of trauma.
The fact that he has nightmares where he does see
Cheryl and he feels like he failed.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Well, he's challenging, understand, when he's supporting us, he's challenging
what he worked twenty five years for in the police.
He's that now and he can't put his finger on
nor can any of us. Why Sheryl's case has been
such a mess. And as I said, from the days,
the first days that she went missing, he said, it's
(27:18):
the case that no one wants heard now, as we
believe no one wants this case heard because of these mistakes.
We were told in twenty seventeen at the first hearing
for mercury at Wongong Supreme Court, we were told by
Crown Prosecutor we've got the right guy. They've got the
(27:41):
right guy. He will be serving the rest of his
life in jail or he will be fat found guilty.
But for me to do that, unfortunately for you and
your family, you're going to have to hear about all
the mistakes that were made. He knows the mistakes, so
now tell us as a family what those mistakes were.
(28:02):
He says, I will stay on this case from the
start to the very end. Two weeks later, he's moved
off the case. So called gets a promotion in Sydney.
Weeks later, Frank Sampatali's move left damn Loon who's got
a promotion somewhere out towards Tanworth. So the three key
(28:25):
players and they're still in this guy's locked up, put away.
They're still working on one of Australia's oldest cold cases.
We've got the perpetrator, he's locked away. Yet why do
you move all the pieces of the chessboard. Why why
would you do that?
Speaker 1 (28:43):
So we get twenty nineteen Supreme Court rules that his
confession is inadmissible. He's clearly lying in one or other
of his statements, so it all kind of all stops again.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
They just let him walk out in February of twenty nineteen,
and they haven't spoken to him since. Yeah, we've given
a lot of people came forward to our family and said, look,
we've worked with this character. These are the things, these
are his traits over many, many years, long before he
was arrested in twenty seventeen. These are the things he
(29:21):
used to do at his place of work. These are
the things he used to show us. And believe it
or not, he used to show his colleagues Cheryl's case
and admitted to them. He said, if I'd done that,
I'd never get caught. Well, so far he's right, but
his time's running out.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
I've got a single out that source from his workplace
who is just another fantastic supporter of you and your
family and just never stops. I mean I get messages
proving all the time, you know, but I take it
seriously because he really cares. And you can see onny
people do care, and to the point where other witnesses
have come forward as a result of the BBC podcast
(30:01):
Very Meta, in particular a young but he was then
young nine and seventy seven year old boy with his
migrant family living in the hostel there. He gives a
very detailed description of seeing a youth carrying a young
child away. I mean it's a dramatic scene. Obviously a hot,
(30:22):
hot day, and the winds changed and suddenly the ear
I was diving off the beach. He did itself and
he captures all that detail. He comes forward. What's happened
with his testimony?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Not think they haven't even spoken to him, No statement taken,
no nothing. I mean I believe they called him. Yeah,
five minute conversations to say, look, we will interview you
at a later date. Nothing to date.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
I did unsadly. I did follow up with Ane of
the homicide detectives and ask that question why walk, Why
wouldn't you And the response was well, there's no contemporaneous
note at the time, there's no diagram, there's no drawing.
We would be concerned that if he put him in
the box, he would be destroyed, that he would that
they could introduce the idea that he must have seen
(31:11):
or heard the podcast or seen the publicity and they're
simply making it up. How would you know until you
meet him and take the statement. Okay, sit down with
him for an hour or two.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Damien Lehne actually spoke to him for over an hour,
and Damien said he's very creditable and at the very
least points should have taken his statement.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
I mean, I guess this's probably the logical question is, well,
why did you hang on to it for so long?
Why didn't you say anything? At the time, I understand
that they were recent arrivals in Australia, didn't have much English,
did they have a television, so didn't understand the significance.
But later on he realizes, hey, I think I've seen
Cheryl Grimmer being abducted.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
No, I mean, I'd have to sit down with him
and ask his reasons and stuff. And obviously people that
have known him that the BBC have spoken to as well,
like people that know him today, said you know, is
this guy looking for attention? And they all said no,
this is eating him up over the years. He really
didn't know what he saw on that day. Obviously, no
(32:12):
televisions his family didn't have any televisions and it wasn't
until years later that he realized what he saw. But
I believed speaking with Damon, that he thought it was
too late, there's nothing that could be done.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
This was when I say years later, I mean many
years later. He's now a teenager, he's got a new
life in Australia now and stuff like that. So for
him to come forward and want to speak to police
at the time, it wasn't interested in the reward. He
just wanted to tell them what he believed he saw
(32:45):
on the day. Yeah, and also what I didn't know
at the time. I spoke to that amicide detective who said,
your witness is just a one out you get carved
up in the box. What I didn't know he didn't
know was that witness's later girlfriend corroborates his story.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
He told her.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Many years ago, years before this million dollar reward. He
actually told her. And there was another another lady that
knows him. I believe she's a professor at Wollongong Universe
and knows him as well, and he has told her
the story over years as well what he saw on
that day, and she urged him over the years to
come forward and tell his story. He eventually has, you
(33:27):
offer a million dollar reward, but you don't speak to
like I believe, there's like three people that now have
come forward as a result of the BBC or Meadow podcast,
not one has been spoken to. There were five informants
that came forward that used to work with Mercury, and
not one of those have been spoken to. So we've
(33:49):
now got eight people sitting out there with information that
could get Cheryl's case moving forward. Eight people with solid information.
There was one one work colleague that he stated he
used to steal cars and drive them to Ferry Meadow Beach.
That's pretty solid information because now you're saying you've never
(34:13):
been to ferry Meadow Breach, but you've told a work
colleague because you're in a I believe it's his way
of gloating showing Cheryl's case. It's your way of gloating.
You're getting it out there, You're feeling good about yourself,
You've gotten away with it. It's not on the radar in Victoria.
That's probably why hidden Victoria, because it's not on the radar.
(34:34):
Advertised very heavily when it first happened and since twenty sixteen,
but once again, mostly in New South Wales, he's avoided
the spotlight. But from seventy one to twenty and sixteen
there's nothing about Cheryl Grimmer. So he's feeling really comfortable
in his work environment. I'm going to show my work
(34:55):
colleagues we believe his own daughter thought she was Cheryl Grimmer.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yes, I've read this. Also, I don't think it's ever
been any effort to try to look at the code
of people who was in the Boy's Home or New
Mercury back in those days. There's also evidence of another
residence in Sydney separate to the Boy's Home where he
was staying. What about the people who were with him
at the time, where were they these days? There are records.
I know they're on paper and that it'll take a
(35:22):
while to find, but there are records of of he
was with in the Boy's Home. If he's told mister Leckey,
I'd back it, and he's told other people as well,
his behavior was erratic because he was a disturbed young
man who's potentially abducted, strangled and killed a three year
old girl. So I mean, I'm going to make an
offer to your witness today, because I think there's no
(35:44):
way to push this forward except through the court of
public opinion. And if his credibility is questioned, let's put
him on a polygraph. Steve Van Apron, my friend and
colleague from our Channel seven other show, would more than
willingly put him on the polygraph and test his credibility
and let the public decide whether this should or should
(36:09):
not be tested or be spoken to by police. And
I think this all comes back to and often say
this when I deal with long term missing persons cases
and murders as well, is a fresh inquest.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
We've pleaded for a fresh inquest because there is so
much more information now available. You've got the five informants,
You've got the three witnesses, You've now got the author
of the confession. You've got everything now in front of you.
I mean, we believe a lot of things that he does.
(36:40):
Like even with mister Leckey, he said to mister Lecky
when he was an escapee, he was in a juvenile
detention home, had escaped when he had abducted a murdered cheryl,
and when he was sort of brought back to the home,
he actually said to mister Lecky while it was the
boy's shelter in Sydney. He actually says to mister Lacky,
(37:04):
he said, I'm going to have to pay for what
I've done when I was on the run, and mister
lake he said, well what did you do? He said,
I killed a security guard in a blue shirt. Hey,
you didn't he killed a little three year old in
a blue swimming costume. I believe he's a great manipulator.
(37:24):
I believe he likes to play games. I believe he's
a lot smarter than what police had given him credit for.
And who knows what hells he's done.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Well, he's certainly's shown. I think it's on the record
that he has an ability to manipulate authority. He sets
out to do this, and I think he even saw
it during the court process in twenty nineteen and before then,
that he runs these psychiatrists around in circles.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Well understand too, he sat in a prison cell for
two years. On the morning of the hearing of the
final hearing where Justice him made his decision, the psychiatrist
working for the DPP, Now this guy sat in John
for two years, comes late to the case, hasn't read
(38:13):
the confession, over the two years, hasn't even spoken to
Mercury once. Sitting in a New South Wales Security maximum
security jail. There was no effort by the DPP, by
the New South Wales Authority to look into this guy.
He just sat there. No one spoke to him. No
(38:34):
one went in to say, you know, this is what
you're being charged with, this is what's happened, to tell
us you view and have a chat to him. No psychologists,
as I say, the New South Wales authorities. He arrives
late to the final hearing, not read the confession. Where's
the seriousness in batting for Cheryl here? No one's helping
(38:59):
a little defenseless three year old. You've got a guy
locked up and you say you have got no opportunity
to go and have a chat to him. Well, I
can tell you where he was in silver Water if
you look up the address and the Yellow Pages come
and find him. He's really sitting there.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
When you think of the cost of these proceedings, and
they're huge when they get these expert witnesses in My
dad was a psychiatrist and that was part of his
business was to do just these sort of cases. He
took them very seriously fortunately, But I'm not going to
cast dispersions on this particular psychiatrist. But I think the
facts speak for themselves, and I think these sort of
aspects should be tested in the corridor's court in the
fresh inquestion. There's certainly illegal path to do that with
(39:37):
his fresh and compelling evidence, but also to review the
entire police case, which has never really been done. You've
got what I'm calling the thermonuclear option. Now. Jeremy Buckingham,
Member of Parliament New South Wales has offered to use
parliamentary privilege to name Mercury publicly. It's a big step.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
It's a huge step, and my brothers and I we
spoke about it over the last week, family members in
the UK, we've all spoke about it, and we think
we are at a point we've got no choice but
to take Jeremy's offer to name Mercury in parliament, to
(40:18):
read the confession out loud, word for word in parliament
and put a name to it. Put a name to it.
Now we've been told he will be hounded by the media,
by the press, his family, everybody, because now what's happened
to us over the last seven years since learning about
this confession is now going to be on him, and
(40:42):
the spotlight will be well and truly on him and
his family. I would urge him now to contact his lawyers,
set up a meeting with our family, police, his lawyers
at a location of his choosing, and tell us if
the confession is false, why you made it, and how
(41:06):
you knew what you confess to what you saw, and
we want to know why and how you knew this information,
if it was just you being a teenager and seeking attention,
tell us. But at the moment, you just keep hiding
behind this retrospective law, staying quiet. We've had homicide detectives
(41:29):
tell us they know it's you. You've told us it's you.
Everybody's telling us it's you. Now it's your time, your spotlight.
Now you have to explain to the media, to the public.
The public have so much anger towards you as a
person at the moment because you've confessed to this and
(41:52):
you hide behind this law. You don't even have the
decency if it was a lie, to come and tell us,
because you're a coward. A three year old little girl
had more courage than you. Implore you to contact your
lawyers today because I will push the green light on
this next week.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
I was going to ask you how long will you
give him? Because I mean, there's obviously this is a
dangerous situation, it's volatile. I mean some would say that
it might jeopardize his right to a fair trial. I
personally think that's just rubbish. I mean, I've seen this
so many times over the years of my crime journalism career,
where the defendants barrister says, oh, I know my client
(42:35):
is now too well known. He certainly can't get a
fair trial because he's been named in the change of
the media. But I think the record shows that juries
take more time and diligence to look at these questions
and get them right. But also in South Wales, he's
got the charts for a judge only trial, so it
becomes a mood point. So how long will you giving me?
A second? Maybe a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
I'll give him two weeks to protect his family. Now
you've got family out there. I know that you've got
a son, you've got a daughter, you've got an ex wife,
you've got a current wife, you've got other family members,
You've got family members in the UK. Here's your chance
to do the right thing, and if it was all
a pack of lies, come and tell us and we
can stop, we can stop chasing you. But I'm telling
(43:18):
you now, it's going to have to be compelling. You're
going to have to convince us that this was a
bunch of lies when everybody else and you tell us
what you said in your confession to be true.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
Tell me, I mean, this has been something that you've
been living with since January the twelve, nineteen seventy. How
you going with it all?
Speaker 2 (43:38):
What do you think? I'm a mess? Our family's a mess.
You know, you get blamed by underknownst to me at
the time, you're not biological father. And it wasn't until
many years later that I found out. But who I
believe was my father wasn't my biological father. It wasn't
(43:59):
until I was thirtained. So his hatred towards me, and
after that, after Cheryl was taken, after that day was
we had a volatile relationship thereafter. And when you sort
of hear every night when they're arguing, you know, why
did he leve he? Why did he lever he? And
he carry that blame then with your all your life.
(44:21):
And that's why I will not lay down until I
know the truth about this confession, about this guy Mercury,
and you're all going to know his name within a
couple of weeks who he is, and then everybody that's
known this guy over the years. We've got stories that
a young lady got into his taxi one night. He
(44:42):
was a taxi driver as well, got into his taxi.
She was so scared she made him stop to get out.
She's one of the informants that come forward and years
later she runs into him in the same work environment.
She was terrified. The ex wife is terrified of him.
What type of guy is this out in the st
(45:05):
It's running around the streets where his ex wife's terrified.
People that used to work with him were terrified of him.
What type of person is this guy? Well, he can't
hide anymore.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
No, And I think he also know. I know he's
been questioned in relation to the Frankston tyin On murders
and with possible links to the I think it's nineteen
seventy six disappearance of Elouise wallage Ye. This may open
the door to resolve other cases, or at least give
him the chance to deny them and be eliminated from
all this.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
You know, you've got a guy that's confessed to murder
in one state, he's a person of interest in unsolved
homicides in another state. What type of person is this?
I mean what drew police in Victoria to him in
relation to hunsold homicides in Frankston. They did not know
(45:57):
at the time when they interviewed him, but he had
confessed already to a child murder in New South Wales.
So why don't New South Wales and Victoria police get
together start talking build a picture of profile on this guy.
I believe he's done more things. You don't stop. I mean,
he's gone in confessed and police let him walk out.
(46:18):
I thinks, well that's pretty easy. Might be able to
do this again. How much more has he done? And
he's still walking the streets in Victoria here, it's going
to be some pretty angry people when they find out
where he lives.
Speaker 1 (46:31):
Yeah, well, the next several X will be a watershed
in this case. And I wish you all the very
best of luck and that we move this forward. And
you've got to stop blaming yourself, Ricky. You've got you've
done everything you possibly could for your sister. You know,
I've dealt with a number of people like you have
(46:51):
lost banding members and it is very hard. But I
think all of Australia is behind you, all the right
thinking people, and they know the blinked approach the police
had and the courts all the way through to this.
We just want this whole thing to be resolved. So
I really do wish you all the very best with it, mate,
and I will look forward to getting you back on
Rukiman Adam Sham when we could talk about this Blake's name.
Speaker 2 (47:13):
All we want is the honest answers. That's what we want.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
That's Ricky Nash, brother of Cheryl Grimmer, disappeared in January
nineteen seventy. This case again highlights something that's a bit
unpalatable about a justice system. The victim and their family
is not represented in the court. They think the prosecutor
is there for them. They're not. They're there for the Crown,
the accused as a barrister and they talk through the
(48:09):
court proceedings. He's solely there. There's nobody in the court
for the victim. Is this right? And I can understand
Ricky's frustration and the family. I mean, Ricky wasn't even
even interviewed for decades after he was there on the
beach that day. At the very least, a fresh inquest
must be held into this case to highlight the failures
(48:32):
of police, not just in nineteen seventy, but in twenty nineteen.
A million dollar reward, well haha, who's going to pick
up that million dollar award? I see there's dozens of
million dollar rewards and nothing ever happens. It's got to
be human will here. We saw it with Frank san
Vittali and Damian Lion. They had the will to attack
this case. Ricky just needs a prosecutor a couple more
(48:54):
coppers to have the same dash as Frank and Damien.
That's all I can say. Get in touch if you've
got thoughts about this
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.