09: Sudden Death

A reconstruction of the crime scene reveals Amy couldn’t possibly have killed herself.

 

This episode includes the track 'Identity Crisis' by Myuu at thedarkpiano.com

as well as Graveyard Song by Bob Cronk 1 https://open.spotify.com/track/326bj0VCDTtj0yrNuyDw0c?si=be6d6eaeda4744ee

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old

(00:29):
devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom,
bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
to grab something.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Panic.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Amy is dead, Sir aim his dead?

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Eight confusion than about five minutes say sit n to suicide.

Speaker 4 (00:56):
One hundred percent.

Speaker 5 (00:58):
This is emersing.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
The truth about Amy?

Speaker 6 (01:15):
Episode nine.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I'm Liam Bartlett.

Speaker 6 (01:22):
And I'm Alison Sandy.

Speaker 7 (01:26):
Don't depend too much on anyone in the world, because
even your shadow leaves.

Speaker 6 (01:30):
You when you're in darkness.

Speaker 7 (01:33):
I'll be the one person my daughters can depend on,
no matter what.

Speaker 8 (01:39):
It's a mummy daughter thing.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
This comment was posted by Amy on Facebook on the
twenty first of August twenty thirteen, less than a year
before she died. Eight years later. Her daughters Tay and
Maya made the following statements at her request.

Speaker 9 (02:02):
I miss my mom so much every day and night.
It makes me sad just to look at her picture
in my room. Sometimes I would go to North Dandler
after dropping my sister off at school on a hot day.
On my mom's birthday, we would go to her favorite
spot and celebrate it. We would even have a Wednesdie
Night on Friday. We would eat popcorn and watch movies.

(02:24):
It was really fine. We would also go fishing and camping.
Mom was so funny and nice. We even have a
fringe of penny.

Speaker 8 (02:34):
Tree for her.

Speaker 9 (02:35):
They were her favorite flower, especially the yellow ones. Even
though her favorite color was pink, she still liked the
yellow ones better. I do really miss my mom.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
Mom was a very nice person. She had a lot
of friends, such as Aaron, which we sometimes call Auntie Anne.
I miss Mom, especially hearing her voice. If I could
make a wish that would actually come true, it would
be a wish to see my mom again. We always
used to have a movie onesie night where we would
wear onesies, sometimes matching ones. We would eat popcorn, watch movies,

(03:12):
and take selfies. I remember once Mama had gave Hay
a character eat at night and she fell asleep whilst
munching on the carrot. Mom had always loved animals. We
used to live near Gramps. I think it was on
some property and Mum had a little pig that she
would always cuddle. I remember on the day Mom passed away,

(03:33):
Mum and David had an argument and Mom was angry,
so she rushed into the shed. I followed her, and
she had walked past the pet lizards we used to
have and accidentally pushed the enclosure over and it smashed everywhere.
I think Mom was trying to look for something. I
was in shock and a bit upset because our lizards
had run away. I go tell David that Mum had

(03:55):
done that, and he rushed in the shed and yelled
at Mom. They had another and Mom told Tay and
I to get in the car. So we waited in
the car for Mum and she never came back out
of the house. David then drove to the petrol station
to fill the car up, and I think there was
a cold thing because he had left his phone at
the house, and then he bought a new phone and

(04:18):
called someone I don't know who, I think it was Mum.
Then David dropped us home at Pinjaa, Tay and I
used to go to Grant's house and make pizza. Mom
was so pretty. A lot of people think I look
like Mom, and I agree.

Speaker 6 (04:36):
Indeed she does. Both Neya and Tay exude the kindness
and warmth displayed by Amy in all the home movies
we've seen. As a mum, I can really relate to
her Facebook post about wanting to protect her children. It's
instinctive when someone says the word maternal, you think of caring, nurturing, protecting.

(04:59):
The was Amy even before her daughters were born, fostering
a baby Joey, looking after her sister's and upon having
her two girls, well, it just stepped up another level.
Her life revolved around them. She never wanted them to
feel the loneliness she felt. But it wasn't just about
the girls having her to rely upon. She had them.

(05:22):
They gave her strength and purpose. Amy would never have
wanted them to go through this. You might recall that
Naa was interviewed just after her mother's death. Because of

(05:42):
her age, her testimony perhaps wasn't taken seriously, but it
should have been. Naya's the only one to provide some
insight about the critical moment when Amy had re entered
the house to get something. She told them quite specifically
that while waiting for for a mum in the car,
Simmons used a black gun with a scope on it

(06:04):
and shot at a tree, and then went back inside
to the main bedroom where Amy was and placed the
gun in the mirror wardrobe. The significance of this information
just seems to have been completely ignored by the coroner.
There's a few other facts worth mentioning which should have

(06:25):
been given greater weight at the inquest. Firstly, the testimony
from Robert Simmons saying he was surprised at how bad
David's drink and drug problems had become, and how he
had regretted allowing him so much expendable income, which obviously
exacerbated the already volatile relationship he had with Amy. And

(06:48):
you may recall us mentioning in an earlier episode that
Nancy's husband, Rick Kirk, said, just four days before Amy died,
she told him how David had held a knife to
her throat. This is how Nancy tells it in her
interview with Liam, who has pulled.

Speaker 10 (07:05):
A knife out on her. Amy in one of those
drunken states She never told me that, but I've heard
that he has pulled a knife out on her. She
was tiny, here's six foot, here's big. He's just got
to push her away at one hand and she wouldn't

(07:25):
be able to touch him.

Speaker 6 (07:27):
You'll recall that. According to simmons police file, they note
he may be carrying a knife. Rick and Amy saw
a bit more of each other in the months preceding
her death, both obtaining their firearms licenses together. He was
interviewed by a member of the cold case investigation team,
who reported the following.

Speaker 11 (07:47):
He believed the trouble between miss Wensley and Simmons began
when they moved into the Serpentine property. The Sunday before
Miss Wensley died. She relayed an incident to him where
Simmons allegedly put a knife to her throat. He states
he didn't take what miss Wensley said seriously, telling interviewing
officers he didn't remember the circumstances around why he Simmons

(08:10):
put the knife to her throat and what happened after.
Miss Wensley advised him she was considering leaving the relationship,
that she needed to be more independent, and that she
hated to rely on getting money from Simmons.

Speaker 6 (08:24):
Again information corroborating evidence of domestic violence. For those of
you who have also listened to the podcast The Lady Vanishes,
you'll remember that authorities didn't believe Marian Barter had even
gone missing, let alone met with our play. Likewise with

(08:48):
Gwen Grover and shot in the dark, despite showing unabating
devotion to her children and all of her choices being
for their benefit, it proved incredibly difficult to change the
minds of aor once they had already come to a conclusion,
no matter how out of character it was. Inexplicably, these

(09:12):
key decision makers always seemed to act like they know
the person in question better than their friends and family,
even though they never met them. So in this episode,
we're going to return to the forensic facts, the circumstances
at the time, and the pattern of behavior of key
people involved, Starting with WA Police Senior Constable James Inskip.

(09:38):
He specializes in ballistics and made four statements on Amy's
case between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty one. This is
what he told the inquest.

Speaker 12 (09:48):
What was your role in respect to Amy's death?

Speaker 8 (09:51):
I was at the time attached to the forensics firearms unit.
At that time it was physical evidence in firearms examination.
We changed the name on a regular basis and mine
was to attend the scene in company with another forensic
firearms examiner. And we have a number of roles within
our unit, the examination of firearms and ammunition firearms where

(10:12):
they had been allegedly discharged at the scene. We can
attend and record the scene itself. That may lend later
on to a reconstruction event. We may attend the post mortem.

Speaker 6 (10:21):
All right.

Speaker 12 (10:22):
The date that you attended the scene, do you know
how long after Amy's death? That was? Was at the
weekend after Amy's death.

Speaker 8 (10:29):
We attended the police station, munda Jong Police Station at
eight thirty five on the twenty seventh of June. So
I'm not exactly sure when the alleged incident occurred. From
the IMS number, it says seventeen fifty on the twenty sixth,
so it appears to be sometimes afterwards.

Speaker 12 (10:44):
Yes, your attendance at the munda Jong police station. The
purpose of that, I assume was to obtain to seize
the firearms that have been collected by the local police.

Speaker 8 (10:53):
First of all, it was to liaise with the detectives
who were at Mundajong Police Station dealing with the incident.
But at that locate there were a number of firearms
that had been stored and so yes, as well as
liaising with the detectives, it was to seize certain exhibits
that were present at the police station.

Speaker 12 (11:09):
And in our supplementary report there's some photographs of a
firearms cabinet in which those firearms were seized. Is that
the Mondejong Police station firearms cabinet.

Speaker 8 (11:19):
Yes, those firearms come in for so they've been seized
in the course of a warrant or something along those lines.
The cupboard is to store the firearms prior to them
being moved to a central storage depot.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
Senior Constable in Skip goes on to point out that
they weren't considered forensic exhibits and as such were left unsealed.

Speaker 12 (11:40):
Did you seize any ammunition in that visit?

Speaker 8 (11:43):
Not at that time.

Speaker 12 (11:44):
No, At what point in time did you seize ammunition?

Speaker 8 (11:47):
There was no ammunition seized by me from the Senate,
I understand it had already been seized. A number of
items of ammunition seized and they had packaged some of
them together. So I can't attest as to the continuity
of where certain exhibit items of ammunition were taken from
and what they were put in with in the same bag,
or anything along those lines. I understand that some of

(12:08):
them were separated out at a later date due to
the fact that they were identified as being perhaps more
pertinent to the investigation. But yes, I can't attest to
how or when they were seized, what they were put
in with, or anything along those lines from the scene.

Speaker 12 (12:22):
So if I showed you photographs of two cartridges, you
couldn't tell me where they were stored, where they were taken,
how they were what they were kept.

Speaker 8 (12:33):
Is there is a record on the incident Management system
of certain items that were stored together, and there seems
to be entries on there as to where items were
taken from from one exhibit, placed into another exhibit, and
separated out. I didn't actually do that, so I can
only attest to what's written on the IMS system, the
incident management system, what actually occurred, where they were from originally,

(12:55):
which bags they went into, and then who took them
out and put them where. I can't attest to that.
I can only tell you the point that they were transferred
to the forensics Register and we took possession of them,
perhaps for an examination.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
So it seems nobody knows what ammunition is relevant to
Amy's death. So it's not clear if it went missing
or not. All we know is that WA police did
go looking for it a day after Amy died.

Speaker 12 (13:24):
So after you went to the Mondujon police station and
you seize the firearms and you spoke to the detective
in charge of what I assume is Operation Juhnde, what
did you do next in relation to this investigation.

Speaker 8 (13:38):
I don't know whether it was the detective who was
in charge, but I believe it was Detective Dandly, if
I've pronounced that incorrectly, I apologize, but I believe that
he may have been taking on the role as physical
material manager. They gave us information in respect to what
had been alleged to have occurred, what it had occurred,
what police actions had been taken up to that point,
where perhaps exhibits were and I think they pro I

(14:00):
did my colleague, Senior Constable meets with a disk of
some photographs that he later transferred to the forensics register.
Obviously there was information that those firearms were in the
they were seized in the firearms cabinet, so they were
subsequently seized, and then after that point we attended the
location where the alleged incident had occurred.

Speaker 12 (14:18):
That attendance, what was the purpose of that attendance, knowing
that it had been forensically cleaned in the interim.

Speaker 8 (14:24):
I didn't actually enter inside the residence myself. My colleague,
Senior Constable Meets did, along with Senior Sergeant Diamond and
Detective Danderly, and I believe they made a preliminary what
we call a preliminary forensic assessment, and that is to
have a look at what's still in sitsu at the location,
see whether there are any other forensic opportunities, and then
potentially direct other units from there to attend and undertake

(14:47):
certain examinations if there were those forensic opportunities still available.
So they then exited the premises and I made a
brief summation on the forensics register as to what they
had told me they had seen inside.

Speaker 12 (14:59):
From there, it was the next task that you attended
to mortuary and the forensic examination.

Speaker 8 (15:05):
Myself and some of the colleagues of the other disciplines
conducted a co analysis. Officers from BPA blood spatter pattern analysis.
I believe there was senior Constable Walker from the fingerprint unit,
and we did a co examination of the four ten
shotgun that was seized and alleged to have been involved
in the incident, and so we undertook the examination. I
made measurements and documented that firearm further, and I attended

(15:27):
our reference library and selected this firearm which had similar characteristics,
to take to the post mortem in order to use
it in any potential reconstruction event that we might do
during the post mortem.

Speaker 12 (15:38):
And you noted in our report that there were relatively
minor size differences between the firearm that was the reference firearm.

Speaker 8 (15:46):
Yes, there were a couple of millimeters on some of
the aspects of it, which I believe that in the
grand scheme of things, when we got to the post mortem,
it may not prove to be an issue at all
because they were so minute.

Speaker 12 (15:57):
So you attended the post mortem's, yeah, and I understand
you undertook observations of the wound to the right side
of Amy's head.

Speaker 13 (16:05):
Is that right?

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (16:07):
I did.

Speaker 13 (16:07):
What did you observe?

Speaker 8 (16:09):
There are certain aspects of gunshot wounds, the characteristics that
can perhaps tell us certain distances that the muzzle of
the firearm was from the actual target itself from where
the gunshot wound is. And some of those characteristics are
deposition of soot. There didn't appear to be any noticeable
deposition of soot, searing where the muzzle is too close
as to see a flesh, and sometimes baking some of

(16:31):
that soot as well. It can't be removed even when
white clean. There's also characteristics of a muzzle imprint, so
the muzzle of the firearm leaving an imprint if it's
in such close proximity to the skin. There's also the
possibility that we look for unburnt propellant particles, which again
can give us an indication of distance. So those are
the characteristics that we looked at, as well as a

(16:52):
potential trajectory front on shot that may have passed through
the head. There was significant disruption to the head and
therefore we were limit in regards to the trajectory that
we could assess. But the characteristics that I did observe,
especially the imprint of the second non firing barrel on
the skin and the absence of a great deal of
soot and the actual lack of spread of the shot

(17:13):
from the skull. I was able to determine that the
firearm had been in contact with or incomplete contact with
the head, So a slight gap against a temple at
the time of discharge.

Speaker 1 (17:23):
Missus Tyler refers to a photo of the wound.

Speaker 12 (17:27):
So that circular pattern where you've got a little white
arrow pointing to that is the imprint effectively of the
barrel being held against Amy's head.

Speaker 8 (17:36):
Yes, that's correct. The mechanism for which that occurs is
that there's a large amount of gas that enters the
wound itself, and that can sometimes cause the wound to
balloon back towards the actual muzzle of the firearm and
cause an imprint as well.

Speaker 12 (17:51):
So that's from the barrel where the cartridge didn't fire.

Speaker 8 (17:54):
That's correct, Yes, And.

Speaker 12 (17:55):
So that allows you to say with relative confidence that
the muzzle of the fire arm was held close to,
if not against, Amy's head.

Speaker 8 (18:03):
That and the other characteristics the severe disruption to the
head where a lot of gas has flowed into the
actual brain itself, the skull itself, the characteristics of the
defect in the skull being that there appeared to be
no spread of the shot it was all going through
in a solid column of shot rather than starting to diverge. Yes,
that indicated the proximity was that it was in contact

(18:26):
or incomplete contact.

Speaker 12 (18:27):
And we've heard from the forensic pathologists this morning that
she couldn't specify the angle at which the projectiles was
traveling through the skull. Do you agree with that position
or do you think the angle can be determined?

Speaker 8 (18:40):
The best I could do at the time was to say,
and now on review is to say that it's certainly
from right to left across the face. As to whether
it was slightly downwards, upwards, back forwards, nah, I can't
make that assessment. From the severity of the disruption, it
didn't allow us to make that sort of assessment.

Speaker 14 (19:02):
Well, you agree with the general evidence seems to be
it's largely horizontal.

Speaker 8 (19:06):
Yes, there didn't appear to be any extremes.

Speaker 12 (19:09):
You then participated in a scenario reconstruction while at the
state mortuary.

Speaker 8 (19:14):
I did. Yes. With regards to the reference firearm that
we took with us, Yes.

Speaker 12 (19:19):
What did that involve? What were you hoping to establish?

Speaker 8 (19:22):
Well, at that point, we had characterized the fact that
it was a contact wound, and so we placed the
reference firearm in a position where it was touching the
contact wound, and then we're able to show whether or
not there we were to extend the hands of the
deceased towards the trigger, and it was to give reference
as to whether or not the hands were capable of
reaching the trigger with the muzzle being in contact with

(19:43):
the temple. It's sometimes the case that we may find
that the distance that we've assessed means that we can
exclude the potential for somebody to have self inflicted a
gunshot injury by not being able to reach the trigger.

Speaker 12 (19:55):
I understand that you observed an injury to Aimy's left
hand while the post mortem was conducted.

Speaker 13 (20:01):
Is that right?

Speaker 8 (20:02):
Yes, that's correct.

Speaker 12 (20:03):
What did you understand that injury to be? What were
your observations?

Speaker 1 (20:07):
He refers to a photo.

Speaker 8 (20:09):
This wound was noticed before the body was washed, but
it was also apparent after the body was washed, and
there was this dark discoloration. Often when a firearm is
in close proximity, as well as just searing the skin,
as I mentioned previously, this soot can embed the actual
flesh itself, and even after washing, you can't remove the
embedded suit and so it was swabbed by Senior Constable Meeks.

(20:31):
It's purported described in literature that an injury such as
this can occur when the portion of skin in that
area is actually over the muzzle of the firearm, slightly
over the muzzle of the firearm, so that when the
shot and the word exit the muzzle, they can contact
the skin and cause an injury such as this, where
the soot can be possibly impregnated as well as causing

(20:52):
the grayish type of injury.

Speaker 14 (20:53):
So it would be if the hand was close to
the head near the muzzle at the time it's fired.

Speaker 8 (20:57):
Yes, that's correct, and that would again another reason why
I've mentioned that it could be an incomplete contact wound
is that is that that may have caused there to
be a slight gap in between the actual head itself
and the muzzle. One of those was how it can
be over the muzzle at the time of discharge. Another
one that we that I considered at the time was

(21:19):
the foresight, which is the front side of the firearm itself.
It's in the proximity of the end of the muzzle,
and during the discharge of a four to ten there
is a certain injury as well So those are the
two things that I've highlighted as potential for causing injury.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
Ms. Tyler wants to know if the gun residue could
have been.

Speaker 12 (21:39):
Lost there were paper bags on the deceased hands.

Speaker 1 (21:43):
Yes, the coroner follows up.

Speaker 14 (21:45):
All right, and that's what you need to have on
there in order to try and preserve any gunshot residue.
Is that right?

Speaker 8 (21:51):
Yes, yes, I can't. The loss of gunshot residue from
surfaces is it's quite easy, So it doesn't mean it's
not necessarily going to be lost from that surface. I
believe the bags could be then sampled as well if
there was any concern that they're lost from.

Speaker 14 (22:05):
There, and I believe that was done in this case.

Speaker 8 (22:08):
Yes, it would certainly aid in the preservation, certainly more
than if the hand was just loose in the body
bag and had the potential to cross contaminate from another
part of the body.

Speaker 14 (22:17):
I suppose, I'm asking, we've got a scenario where she's
actually sitting on one hand, which might have been the
logical hand that she would have used to pull the
trigger if she's self harmed, and whether or not if
you took samples then and there, you could actually have
a chance of seeing whether there's gunshot residue on the
hands if you took the sample at the time she's
at the scene, as opposed to once she's been bagged

(22:39):
up and moved.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
The matter is referred to another expert, University of Wa
forensic scientist, doctor Carrie Pitts, who will get to later,
but Senior Constable in Skip confirms that his tests were
done to the best of his ability with the remaining evidence,
but he was unable to verify whether the cartridges examined

(23:12):
were the same as those removed from the rifle by
Robert Simmons.

Speaker 8 (23:17):
So it was the assumption that if that was the cartridge,
and again there was, we can't place the continuity of
where that cartridge came from in the scene where it
was put. It was supplied to us. If that was
the cartridge that was discharged, then that would that assumption
could be made that the orientation of the firearm was

(23:39):
such well when you consider the actual gunshot wound itself
and the imprint of the second barrel, that it was
in that orientation as in per Fig. Twenty two.

Speaker 1 (23:50):
In Skip discusses helping Professor Ackland with his reconstructions undertaken
ten times, which he describes as limited.

Speaker 8 (24:00):
I think there were limitations in respect of the calculations
that he made. There there was a point where he
makes a comment that he believes that the wind trajectory
is slightly downwards. I can't make that opinion myself.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
However, he acknowledges several times in his evidence that many
of the matters he's raising concern about are outside his expertise,
But he does go on to say this.

Speaker 8 (24:27):
From the evidence, the physical evidence that I was able
to examine, I cannot exclude the possibility of self inflicted injury. However,
I cannot exclude the possibility that it wasn't either, So
unfortunately it's not I can't make a definitive answer as
to whether it was self inflected. I certainly cannot exclude it.

Speaker 14 (24:46):
But one of the problems with her having with Amy
having shot herself is where her right hand has ended
up at the end, isn't it?

Speaker 8 (24:53):
Yes, I think there are too many factors to ascertain
whether or not the firearm being in contact with the
hand and vice versa, how that could have caused a
hand to be in a certain position. So I'm not
so sure I can comment as to whether or not
I certainly cannot exclude it from occurring. From the firearms
point of view, I've seen some instances where a firearm
has been used from a distance from a person, but

(25:15):
that person wasn't incapacitated at the time, And that's another
thing you would have to discuss with the forensics pathologist
whether there was a complete incapacitation or whether there wasn't.
And to end consideration as to whether a hand could
have been there.

Speaker 14 (25:30):
All right, So looking at that from what, from your
knowledge and from your area of expertise, you couldn't really
say one way or the other whether it was more
consistent with a self inflicted injury or injury inflicted by
someone else.

Speaker 1 (25:44):
No, And then incredibly, counsel assisting the family, Peter Ward
asks in skip if he's ever seen David Simmons, who
he has to explain was Amy Wensley's former partner Simmons.

Speaker 15 (26:00):
No, you'll have to remind me I haven't seen pictures
of mister Simmons, of his frame. You're aware that he's
an experienced shooter.

Speaker 8 (26:08):
Yes, I'm not a qualified medical professional or a biomechanics person.
And so to say this specific person was able to
do this, that, and the other. I certainly could say
I could do it, but you have to take it
on a case by case, individual basis.

Speaker 15 (26:23):
The reason I raised this senior constable the average figure
of the standing knuckle height for an average male is
approximately close to the seated eye height of a FEMA.
So the question arises, and you may be able to
comment on this, but whether typically somebody who is an
experienced shooter would be able to hold a gun in
that position such that their knuckle height is roughly at

(26:43):
Amy Wensley's eye height.

Speaker 8 (26:45):
I think it would be more their physical stature, whether
or not they can support up to two point eight
nine kilos in a certain position that you're suggesting. Certainly
I could tell you I could do it. If you
came up, then you can try and see whether you
can do it, but it will be on an individual,
case case basis.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
In Skip says he's six foot two. Remember he's already
determined the trajectory was right to left. Amy was right handed,
shot in her right temple while her right hand was
found under her right thigh.

Speaker 6 (27:22):
So the question is, why won't any test done to
see if David Simmons could do it. Yes, they need
his consent, but surely it's in his interest too if
it means they could rule him out.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
Instead. They're bouncing back and forth between the impossible and
the implausible Amy's right hand, which doesn't have any gun
residue on it, or her left hand, which in order
to use she would have had to have stretched her
arm across her body to hold up an almost three

(27:59):
killer firearm to her right temple.

Speaker 6 (28:04):
This soon becomes a moot point after forensic pathologists doctor
Carri Pitts gives her opinion that the gun residue particles
on her left thumb actually indicate it was near the
muzzle of the gun when it went off.

Speaker 7 (28:18):
It was more consistent with an impact with the polyethylene,
which obviously was in the vicinity of the discharge, so
it certainly would be consistent with being near the discharge
and at the muzzle.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
So they have to go back to her right hand,
prompting this question from council assisting WA Police Naomi Eagling.

Speaker 16 (28:39):
So not finding GSR or particles consistent with GSR or
characteristic on the right hand, but finding them on the left.
If the firing of the shotgun was done by the
right hand, and then the right hand after the firing
of the shotgun went under the body. That could there's
other possibilities, but that could in its own case result

(29:01):
in no GSR being found on the right hand.

Speaker 7 (29:05):
Yes, I can't exclude that possibility.

Speaker 16 (29:07):
Whereas if the left hand was against the muzzle as
it was fired, that might explain why it was and
also then exposed after death as the dust particle settles
sitting on the lap, that would make it more likely
to have the GSR on it.

Speaker 7 (29:22):
Yes, it was an open area as well as being
near the muzzle end of the actual firearm.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
MS Eagling doesn't bother to question David Simmons when he
appears on the last day of the inquest. And now
we move to forensic pathologist Dr Jody White, who at
the time of the inquest in twenty twenty one had
sixteen years experience. She didn't perform the autopsy, and there's

(29:52):
no reason given as to why Dr Amy Spark, who did,
wasn't here to answer the questions herself. Instead, Doctor White
is asked about her colleagues report.

Speaker 12 (30:07):
Could you please state your full name for.

Speaker 17 (30:10):
The court, Doctor Jody Nicole White.

Speaker 12 (30:12):
Okay, and I understand that you didn't conduct the post
mortem in this matter, but that you're in a position
to speak to the report completed by a past colleague
of yours, doctor Spark.

Speaker 13 (30:22):
Is that right, Yes, that's correct, Okay.

Speaker 12 (30:25):
A post mortem examination was undertaken on the first and
second of July twenty fourteen on miss Wensley.

Speaker 13 (30:32):
Yes, that's correct, all right.

Speaker 12 (30:34):
And that report contains a view regarding doctor Sparks's view
of the cause of death in this case.

Speaker 6 (30:39):
Is that right?

Speaker 12 (30:40):
Yes, you've reviewed that report. Do you agree with the
conclusions of doctor Spark in that death?

Speaker 6 (30:45):
Yes?

Speaker 17 (30:46):
I agree with her cause of death.

Speaker 12 (30:47):
Is there any aspect of that report that you would
amend or change in your evidence today? No.

Speaker 1 (30:54):
She goes on to explain that the shotgun injury to
the head was the cause of death, and there was
scattered soft tissue injuries including bruising around the right wrist,
mild chest and spinal deformities, and air within the right
chest cavity.

Speaker 12 (31:12):
All right, Can you speak any further to those injuries?
Can you age the bruise? Can you give evidence as
to how it was formed?

Speaker 9 (31:20):
So?

Speaker 13 (31:20):
Aging?

Speaker 17 (31:21):
I will tackle aging first. Aging of bruises is quite difficult.

Speaker 12 (31:26):
It's a bit like we all see with our bruises.
They start off darker red and eventually get black and
fade to a sort of yellowy color. You see it
on yourselves.

Speaker 17 (31:36):
Exactly, that's right, but it can be quite difficult in
different people, and according to the size of the bruise,
and so there are a lot of different factors around
that which make it difficult just to the naked eye.
Another way we can do it is we can sample
the bruise and look under the microscope. But again that
won't give you a definite time, so our skill in
aging bruises, unfortunately, is quite limited.

Speaker 12 (31:59):
Well, all the bruises is that doctor spark noted on
Amy's body microscopically analyzed.

Speaker 17 (32:05):
No, she only examined four of them, one on the
right thigh, the left buttck, and the two knees. She
also sampled the gunshot injury margin, so three of them
showed fresh bruising. I think the ones on the knees
it was the left knee, I would have to check.
The notes didn't show any bruising, and the gunshot injury site.
She took a number of tissue samples from that that

(32:26):
showed heat effect to the tissues, which is.

Speaker 12 (32:29):
Expect that's consistent with the firer. Yes, as a forensic pathologist,
are you able to speak to how an injury might
have been inflicted or a bruise.

Speaker 17 (32:38):
So a bruise is a blunt force type of injury.
So you have bruises, tears, and abrasions, and they're your
blunt force injury. So they're due to the part of
the body being struck with something. So you can get
them when you fall onto the floor or when you
knock yourself, or you can get them when you're struck
by something.

Speaker 12 (32:56):
Okay, I'm thinking. Doctor Spark noted in her at that
in terms of forensic procedures undertaken in her presence, a
light colored hair was located between Amy's thumb and index finger.
Is that correct?

Speaker 13 (33:11):
Yes, that's right.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
They refer to some of the technicalities of the testing
and then move on to the location of the gunshot wound.

Speaker 17 (33:21):
So it's in the right temple, just lateral two and
slightly above the eye, so the lateral margin is about
fifty millimeters above and behind the middle aspect for the
right external auditory metis, which is the hole in your
ear and about one hundred and fifty five centimeters above
the right heel upwards, so you know from standing height
how high that particular injury is, and then goes on

(33:43):
to talk about injuries associated with that like searing and
darkening of the margin around the wound, the fracturing of
the skull, and the other tears and bruising over the
face and skullp.

Speaker 12 (33:53):
Can you tell whether that was in a downward angle
or an upward angle based on that entree not with
any ac no. I understand that Doctor Spark also observed
a number of injuries to the deceased's head and neck.
Is it your view that those injuries were simply consistent
with the force of the gunshot being inflicted or was

(34:14):
there other underlying cause of any type of injury to
the head and neck.

Speaker 17 (34:18):
The injuries described around the head and neck would be
consistent with the gunshot injury.

Speaker 12 (34:22):
Doctor Spark then went on to examine Amy's upper limbs.
My understanding is that on the left index finger there
was a laceration on the thumb side of the front
left index finger with surrounding black sooting.

Speaker 13 (34:38):
Is that correct?

Speaker 12 (34:39):
Yes, that's right, but you can't speak as to whether
that was holding the firing end of the weapon or
simply in close proximity to the firing end of the weapon.

Speaker 17 (34:48):
In the literature, there are injuries to that area described
when the firearm end is held, particularly to that part
sort of of the whibbing over the knuckle, So it
could be consistent with the left hand actually the end
of the whippen.

Speaker 12 (35:01):
And of course that doesn't speak to whether it has
been held to support a self inflicted firing or an
attempt to move a firearm away from her.

Speaker 13 (35:10):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Yes, Just to clarify here, we're talking about the area
the bullet comes out, not the trigger here.

Speaker 13 (35:18):
Okay.

Speaker 12 (35:19):
Was there anything observed on the right hand of the deceased.

Speaker 17 (35:23):
Well, from the pictures and the notes, there is a
bruise to the rest. Yes, there was a small bruise
to the middle of the forearm, and I think there
was a small mark on the thumb as well.

Speaker 12 (35:32):
Was there any blood staining or blood spatter observed on the.

Speaker 13 (35:36):
Right hand, I don't think so.

Speaker 6 (35:37):
No.

Speaker 11 (35:38):
No.

Speaker 12 (35:38):
Doctor Spark then examined the lower limbs, and you've spoken
about the bruises that were examined. We know that Amy
was a relatively slight woman one hundred and sixty three
centimeters tall in terms of average. Is that accurate? Yes,
that's right, And we know that she was involved in
a traffic crash in March of twenty thirteen, sorry in

(36:00):
January twenty thirteen that resulted in her wearing a halo
device for three months to treat a spinal fracture. In
the course of the post mortem examination, had there been
a spinal fracture that had then headed, would you expect
to still be able to observe the evidence of that
injury in a spinal examination or with the overarching bullet

(36:20):
wound eliminate that type of evidence.

Speaker 17 (36:23):
The injuries at post mortem were to the upper spine,
so it would depend on where the injury was and
how bad it was and how well it had healed.
It probably would have been obvious on imaging like X
ray or CT or if the spine had been removed
and retained for examination by doctor Fabian, she might have
noted it. But unless you're aware of it being there, perhaps, yes.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
The coroner probes for more detail on it.

Speaker 14 (36:46):
Unless you're looking for it, you probably wouldn't.

Speaker 17 (36:48):
Yes, amaze it, Yes, that's right. And the spinal column
wasn't exposed. Only the soft issues of the front of
the neck were examined.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Now, this is a pretty big oversight. Post mortem was
conducted several days after Amy's death, when they were supposed
to be exploring something other than suicide. Yet her spinal
injury and what deficiencies that would have posed in holding
a heavy shotgun at an awkward angle and shooting herself

(37:20):
supposedly through the right temple were not explored. They move on, okay.

Speaker 12 (37:26):
The final page of her report, doctor Spark provided a
five point summary of her findings that was effectively the
shotgun injury to the head, scattered soft tissue injuries, a
mild chest, and spinal deformity.

Speaker 13 (37:40):
Just on that point.

Speaker 12 (37:41):
Was that simply some degree of scoliosis or were there
some other issues?

Speaker 17 (37:46):
Yes, so, Amy has described some scoliosis of the thoracic
spine and pectus excavetant, which just means your breastplate is
slightly depressed. But they're both congenital in nature, and so
they're not related to the injury.

Speaker 12 (37:58):
Is that something that would in your general experience or
can you speak to whether that's something that would limit
movement in any way.

Speaker 17 (38:07):
I wouldn't think so, but yes, I can't speak to
it definitively.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Here they're talking just about the scoliosis, as they can't
comment on the injury because that wasn't examined.

Speaker 12 (38:20):
I understand that the police officers that attended requested that
doctor Spark undertake some measurements of the deceased's arm.

Speaker 13 (38:27):
Is that right? Yes, that's right.

Speaker 12 (38:29):
And I understand that you've seen some of the photographs
that were taken by the police in the course of
the post mortem that related to an exhibit firearm being
placed within the grip of the deceased to see whether
she could reach.

Speaker 17 (38:42):
Yes, I've seen those photos.

Speaker 12 (38:43):
In terms of those photos being taken, is there anything
different about the way that the human body would react
post mortem as opposed to when alive that might make
those photographs exploring the issue of reach more or less reliable.

Speaker 17 (38:59):
The only thing would be if missus Winsley still had rigor,
which would make her stiffer, more difficult to move.

Speaker 13 (39:05):
So it would be my.

Speaker 17 (39:05):
Understanding that if the rigor had passed, which is likely
to have passed because it usually passes after a couple
of days, and Amy hasn't made any comment about it
being present, and yes, so it would just be the same.

Speaker 6 (39:16):
I would imagine just a reminder hear as it's a
bit confusing, Doctor White is referring to doctor Amy Spark,
the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy.

Speaker 14 (39:27):
I suppose in that context though, it's what the body
is capable of, but wouldn't necessarily reflect. I mean, for example,
I've got a very stiff neck on one side. What
would have been very uncomfortable for me to do in life.
You wouldn't necessarily have that reflected in a body doing
the same thing, because there's no discomfort or anything of
that nature.

Speaker 17 (39:46):
That's right in that regard. How we perhaps might just
move an arm across. If you're reaching for something like
a cup, you actually might move your trunk to actually
get it. So there are a lot of factors that
would play on that rather than just moving an arm
across or back.

Speaker 14 (40:00):
So really it's just looking at whether it's physically possible
with the length of the arm in relation to the
torso and that sort of thing, without any reflection upon
what's comfortable for a person or natural or full biomechanical movement.

Speaker 13 (40:12):
If I put it that.

Speaker 14 (40:13):
Way, exactly you're on and in term of with those females,
whether that's a suicide or a homicide isn't necessarily the
conclusion you're considering at the time. You're just looking at
the cause of death as opposed to the manner of death.
Is that right?

Speaker 17 (40:26):
That's right?

Speaker 13 (40:27):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (40:28):
So, in short, the forensic pathologist can't make a determination
about whether Amy could have killed herself or not. That
was a job for the biomechanical experts, of which both
said it's much more likely someone else pulled the trigger.

(40:49):
The coroner then explores whether the position of her body
could have changed, after establishing that rigor mortis takes three
to six hours to take effect and at least four
people pushed the door open with Amy on the other
side to get into the room during that time. Now,

(41:10):
Dr White confirms it could have moved, and then responds
to questions about Amy possibly still being alive in response
to Gareth Price saying as part of his evidence that
she was making noises.

Speaker 17 (41:27):
The injury itself is was non survivable, but there's often
in these cases there is a period where the person
is still alive for a variable number of minutes afterwards.

Speaker 14 (41:36):
That's what I was going to ask if he has seen,
if he's hearing some sounds and seeing some bubbling, how
long would that be likely to last with that kind
of injury. How long after the injury is inflicted would
you expect that to occur?

Speaker 17 (41:49):
I would say less than minutes.

Speaker 14 (41:51):
All right, So that would be consistent with mister Price
coming across her within minutes of the shotgun injury being
inflicted on her. Is that right?

Speaker 6 (41:58):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (42:01):
The blood spatter expert can provide more details about the
position Amy was in when she died. After examining the
gun used to kill Amy Wensley, the clothes she was wearing,
and photos from the scene, Sergeant Brett mccantz made the
following findings in a report.

Speaker 5 (42:23):
The injury to the head of Wensley was inflicted in
the master bedroom, behind the door where she was located.
The head of Wensley was approximately seventy centimeters above floor
level and facing the general direction of the door to
the master bedroom at the time of the injury infliction.
The blood stains and the blood stain patterns observed on Wensley,

(42:49):
the northwest wall carpet and the black jeans indicate she
was in the sitting position as located at the time
of the injury infliction. Wensley has not moved or been
moved from this location post injury infliction. The locking mechanism

(43:09):
of the Boito fourteen shotgun has been opened post injury
infliction to Wensley, exposing the breach and barrel chamber surfaces.
This is allowed either a blood stained surface or blood
traveling through the air in the form of droplets to
come into contact with these surfaces. The exact mechanism responsible

(43:33):
cannot be determined. The muzzle end of the Boito fourteen
shotgun has come into contact with a liquid blood sauce.
The only blood sources within the premises are Wensley or
the blood saturated carpet in the master bedroom.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
At the inquest, he explains how the blood spatter indicates
the trajectory of the Bulletrorzontal because it was in line
with her head.

Speaker 18 (44:04):
There is nothing to suggest that there is a spatter
going up towards the ceiling or going down towards the floor.
It's in a fairly neutral plane.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
It's worth noting here. Contrary to what he said just
after Amy died in twenty fourteen, David Simmons' father testified
at the inquest that the blood spatter went all the
way up to the ceiling. This is refuted by Sergeant McCants.

Speaker 18 (44:33):
It's more of a horizontal plane rather than anything going
up or down.

Speaker 6 (44:39):
All of the facts reported by forensics were taken into
account by biomechanical experts Professor Timothy Ackland and doctor Thomas Gibson,
who were also questioned at the inquest. So, just to clarify,
biomechanics is the science of the movement of a living body,
including how muscles, bones, tendons, and ligaments work together to

(45:01):
provide movement. We start with Professor Ackland, who is being
asked by counsel assisting Sarah Tyler about the recoil of
the shotgun.

Speaker 12 (45:14):
Just in terms of clarity about the trajectory of the
projective the analysis that you undertook, I think refers to
the shotgun barrel being oriented horizontally or in near contact
with the deceased's right temple. But then there's a mention
that the barrel was slightly angled to the coronal plane
such that the butt was slightly posterior to the deceased temple. Yes,

(45:37):
so my understanding is that That means the gun was
angled in your view slightly back.

Speaker 13 (45:42):
Is that right?

Speaker 1 (45:43):
That's right.

Speaker 6 (45:52):
While there was concern that Amy's body and the gun
had been moved before photographs were taken, it's believed her
head had not.

Speaker 19 (46:00):
The deceased head would have basically been in the same
position it would have been moved after the gun was fired,
and that head was essentially upright, leaning into the corner
of the alcove, and that the blood spatter was directly
adjacent to a left side of her head and down
towards the shoulder. The other thing, too, is I had
images of the decease, and the images clearly showed an
entry wound on the right side of the temple and

(46:22):
a sort of exit exiting to the left side in
a sort of horizontal or slightly downward and slightly forward orientation.
Now I'm no expert in that, but if we go
back to the first Newtonian laws, we know that after
discharge the pellets, the gas, any other material, the wadding,
and any of the biological material will go in that
same direction as well. Okas so on that basis, it

(46:44):
was my opinion that the shotgun was held early horizontally
slightly behind and maybe slightly raised because of what I
could see as the trajectory of the pellets.

Speaker 12 (46:53):
We have heard evidence from a forensic pathologist and evidence
from blood spatter.

Speaker 13 (46:58):
Experts in the course of this inquest.

Speaker 12 (47:00):
They maintain their view that the firearm was held horizontally,
but they've My understanding of both of their evidence is
that they couldn't speak to any angle of the shotgun
given the severity of the damage to the deceased skull.
Would that information change your perspective in terms of this
matter in any way?

Speaker 6 (47:19):
No, the coroner interjects.

Speaker 14 (47:21):
Would you defer to the opinion of a forensic pathologist
in terms of the injuries and what you can ready
from them in terms of their expertise?

Speaker 19 (47:28):
Absolutely, all right, thank you.

Speaker 12 (47:31):
In your first report, is it correct that you were
considering simply the scenario mentioned in Senior Constable in Skips
ballistics report, which is that Amy held the gun and
fired it with her left hand.

Speaker 6 (47:44):
So, just to clarify here, initially wa police thought that
Amy must have shot herself with her left hand because
it was the only one with gun residue on it
and she was sitting on her right hand.

Speaker 19 (47:55):
Yes, there were a couple of scenarios suggested by the
attending police that she may have lent a cross and
the butt onto the edge of the bed or onto
the floor in order to stop that recoil, and simply
used her left hand alone. So I was looking at
that considering that I was also considering whether the left
hand was used in some combination with the right hand
holding the barrel of the gun at the right temple.

Speaker 12 (48:17):
Okay, and what were your conclusions in respect of your
first report?

Speaker 19 (48:22):
So my conclusions were that the notion that miss Wensley
leant over with the butt of the gun on the
bed and used her left arm to push the trigger,
not pull the trigger to push the trigger would have
resulted in a blood spatter in a completely different position,
so it was inconsistent with the other evidence around, including
blood particles on her left hand and shotgun residue on

(48:42):
her left hand. The other conclusion related to the premise
that she did not lean over, but in fact held
the gun with her left or fired the gun with
her left hand in a more upright position. Hence that's
the way she would have finished up in the position
shown in one of my figures. Various problems with that,
Why would she use her left hand, Why would she
go into such an awkward posture with her left hand,

(49:03):
Why would she not use the right hand, Why would
the right hand not be involved. There's still issues to
do with there's blood on the left hand and there
was shotgun residue on the left hand. I did perform
an analysis to determine that she would have had she
could possibly had the strength to hold the gun in
that position with one hand, but the other parts of
the evidence doesn't fish I can, and my conclusion was

(49:24):
that it was inconsistent with the other evidence.

Speaker 12 (49:26):
The use of the left hand alone. Yes, what were
your conclusions in relation to the suggestion that she held
the muzzle with her left hand and pulled the trigger
with the right hand.

Speaker 19 (49:37):
So it was my conclusion that if she had taken
her own life, it would be more consistent with the
evidence that she would hold the gun with her left
hand close to the temple and her right hand fired
the gun. But there are problems with that as well
because of the position of her right hand afterwards. And
I agree with the advice of one of those documents
that I read in that the deceased would have suffered
an immediate and catastrophic damage, such that she could not

(50:00):
have moved after the gun had been.

Speaker 12 (50:01):
Fired, couldn't have moved independently.

Speaker 19 (50:03):
Independently from the second report, we found that the hand,
if the right hand was indeed used, it fell in
a position that was quite a yeal away from her trunk,
but any jerky might have pulled it back in, so
that is certainly a possibility. I posited that on the
basis of the other two scenarios, plus the possibility of
shooting herself with her right hand on the trigger, we're
inconsistent with the evidence. I was also concerned about where

(50:26):
the witnesses discovered the shotgun, and my evidence, particularly in
the second report, is that if she had shot herself
with a horizontally aligned shotgun, the shotgun would have, by
Newton's third law, gone in the opposite direction. It would
not landed on her with the button near her feet
and pointing towards her head.

Speaker 12 (50:42):
And that was the description given by Gareth Price when
he sat correct, when he gave evidence that he discovered
the body. Is that right?

Speaker 19 (50:49):
That's correct?

Speaker 6 (50:50):
The coroner interjects again.

Speaker 14 (50:52):
Sorry, just before we move on from that, we did
have a I think it was one of the ballistics
experts the other day, Either that or one of the
forensic wales I can't remember, which gave some evidence to
suggest that they thought it was possible that there was
a different force applying to the firearm because her finger
would have been well, thumb or fingers would have been
in the trigger and arm up, and so although the

(51:14):
firearm might move back because of the recoil, there would
also be a force exerted by the arm falling down
and gravity drawing it down that might have altered the movement,
so it wouldn't necessarily fly backwards because the hand might
be in it and pulling it down. I'd dispute that,
all right, Can you explain why?

Speaker 19 (51:32):
So if the left hand was holding this trigger out here?

Speaker 14 (51:34):
No, sorry, if it's the right hand. So if the
left hand is here and the right hand is here,
if she shoots the shotgun, the suggestion was the hand
could still be in the trigger or through the guard
and pulling it down as her hand falls, because you know,
the body becomes lifeless and it moves down. Instead of
it going that way, it could pull down that way.

Speaker 19 (51:53):
Yes, I understand the suggestion, but I don't agree with
the suggestion.

Speaker 14 (51:56):
Okay, so I'm saying we're assuming it's the right hand,
is all.

Speaker 19 (52:00):
Okay, Yes, So if the right hand pushes, there is
recoil which is significant going that way. Now I understand
then that the gun might have fallen down, but it's
going to fall down in my view because of the
sort of massive amount of damage done to her brain,
that she would have just fallen down in that particular plane,
not brought it around to the front as described by
a price. So yes, it can be pulled down or

(52:21):
it can fall down. She would have lost grip with
her left hand immediately, but it would have ended up
in my view, out to the side.

Speaker 14 (52:27):
All right, so sideways, So it wouldn't necessarily I suppose,
in the sense it might reduce the distance it moves
away from the body, but it would fall down on
an angle to the side of her body rather than
centrally to the front of her body.

Speaker 19 (52:40):
Yes, that's correct, okay, all right.

Speaker 12 (52:42):
Just to clarify, would the movement of the body from
the force of the projectile moving the body towards the
wall have any impact on that also?

Speaker 19 (52:51):
Now, once the gun has been discharged, because it was
discharged at her head level. Her shoulder was already up
against the wall, so the head would have gone in
the opposite direction, but it wouldn't have affected the velocity
of the gun going in that direction.

Speaker 6 (53:03):
The Karna explains that when looking at the photographs of
Amy's body, her left leg is up against the door,
close to the wall, but according to Garett's recollection, it
was actually slightly more central to the middle of the
door when he came in.

Speaker 14 (53:17):
Although it's just perhaps from the perspective the photograph is taken,
it looks more to the left. Would that change your
view at all?

Speaker 19 (53:24):
If the left leg was slightly more central to the door,
It wouldn't change my eventual outcome, but it may change
the question surrounding whether her torso was moved.

Speaker 13 (53:32):
Yes, okay, well her head had moved perhaps.

Speaker 12 (53:34):
Then, moving on to your second report, you were approached
by the cold case homicide squad when they were undertaking
a review of Amy's case.

Speaker 13 (53:42):
Is that right?

Speaker 19 (53:43):
That's correct. There were seven scenarios are presented in that report.
At the same time the police were interested in videoing
the scenarios, they were taking measurements of the whole surrounding,
and at my request they would also take photographs.

Speaker 12 (53:54):
Did you have any concerns about preparing a scenario's reconstruction
in this case? Were there limitations in terms of scenarios
that you were developing.

Speaker 19 (54:04):
Yes, there are always limitations in preparing scenarios. One tries
to mitigate against any potential bias on behalf of a
model that we employed to come and represent the deceased
and try to put together the various parts of the
evidence in order to set up the scenario as accurately
as possible.

Speaker 12 (54:17):
Were you satisfied that the model was consistent enough with
Amy's dimensions to be an appropriate model.

Speaker 19 (54:24):
Yes, I was, as far as I was told. She
knew nothing, She had seen no photographs or evidence, and
did not know the reason why we were setting up
those scenarios.

Speaker 14 (54:31):
Can I just ask before you go on, just because
it's fresh in my mind and just to clarify for me.
Obviously you're using a live model, not a person who
has now suffered a catastrophic injury. Does that make a
difference in terms of recreation? And I'm asking it sounds
like a stupid question, but you're the expert, so can
you tell me?

Speaker 1 (54:51):
So?

Speaker 19 (54:51):
No one could ever say that the person would react
in exactly the same way as someone who suffered a
catastrophic injury. So I was a great pains to say
to the model, let's just let everything go loose and drop.
But one cannot say it's going to be an exact replication.

Speaker 6 (55:05):
Professor Acklam was asked if there was any possible scenario
where Amy shot herself and she fell in a way
where her right thigh ended up on top of her
right hand.

Speaker 19 (55:16):
The only possibility was born out in scenario too, that
the right leg did indeed abduct to the floor, and
then the subsequent openings might have then pushed the thigh
over the top of her hand. That's what we were
trying to work out and convince myself whether that was
still possible. I've said in my report that I don't
think it's possible.

Speaker 12 (55:34):
You say, the evidence is highly consistent with the scenario
that Amy was shot by another person.

Speaker 1 (55:40):
Yes.

Speaker 12 (55:41):
Are there any other limitations or concerns that you have
about the nature of the experiment or the opinion that
you've provided to the coroner that you think the coroner
should be aware of.

Speaker 9 (55:52):
No.

Speaker 19 (55:53):
I think we've discussed all the limitations.

Speaker 12 (55:54):
And just in terms of the information that you received.
You were given photographs that were taken by police officers
at the scene that weren't forensic photographs, they weren't to scale,
weren't formally measured.

Speaker 19 (56:07):
That's correct.

Speaker 12 (56:08):
Would your opinions have been greatly assisted had you been
provided full forensic photographs Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 14 (56:15):
And forensic measurements and everything else in.

Speaker 19 (56:17):
Most particularly in terms of the trajectory of the entry,
exit wound, and blood spatter proper blood spatter analysis. Yes,
I think that would help to make certain exactly the
orientation of the gun prior to discharge or at discharge.

Speaker 12 (56:30):
Would you have also been assisted by perhaps more detailed
interviews with each of the witnesses about what they observed, if.

Speaker 19 (56:36):
There was an opportunity to cross check against the various
witness evidence. Yes, that would have been very useful.

Speaker 12 (56:41):
Is there anything else that occurs to you that might
have been useful to help you form a final view
in terms of this case.

Speaker 19 (56:47):
I think with those extra details I could have been
guided better in the investigation process. But I still think
there's an overwhelming view that there is inconsistency in the
witness reports that needed to be addressed.

Speaker 6 (56:58):
But those inconsistencies are not addressed. Moving on to doctor Gibson.

Speaker 12 (57:03):
In terms of the questions that were put to Professor Ackland,
the central issue really is how Amy's right hand came
to be found to be wedged effectively underneath her butteck
or underneath her thigh, depending on your view of the photographs.
Can you give a biomedical explanation as to how that
might have occurred?

Speaker 4 (57:21):
No, apart from what was explored with Professor Ackland, I
have no explanation for how that could have ended in
that position unless she was already sitting on it.

Speaker 12 (57:30):
In terms of the scenario put forward relating to the
deceased holding the firearm, balancing the muzzle effectively with her
left hand across her body, and pulling the trigger with
her right hand. If that scenario had occurred, what is
your view about the movement of the deceased body and
hands as a result of the gun firing in that position?
What do you say would be likely to occur if she.

Speaker 1 (57:53):
Was able to do that?

Speaker 4 (57:54):
And I think one of the things that Professor Ackland
checked was whether she could physically actually support the gun
in that position. Then I have no explanation of where
her right hand ended.

Speaker 12 (58:05):
Up in that case. Can you just taught me through
the conclusions of your report and the responses that you
would have today in terms of the three questions that
were put to you, whether.

Speaker 4 (58:14):
The gunshot wound was self inflicted and deliberate, Well, I
don't see any reason to change what I wrote before.
I don't think there has been any new evidence regarding
that introduced. So I think it was unlikely the gunshot
wound was self inflicted and deliberate.

Speaker 12 (58:31):
You also found that it was unlikely that the gunshot
wound was self inflicted and accidental, and.

Speaker 4 (58:36):
Even less likely that it was self inflicted and accidental.
So it's sort of almost by elimination that we end
up with the final question. And in terms of the
evidence that I have reviewed, the gun shot does appear
to have been inflicted by someone shooting, and.

Speaker 12 (58:53):
That view is not affected by the emergence of information
that the door to the bedroom was opened on multiple occasions.
We know that it was at least opened and closed
by David Simmons, opened and closed twice by Gareth Price,
opened and closed by Robert Simmons, opened by the first
responding officer, Larry Blandford, and Miss Moore, opened again by

(59:16):
Senior Constable Roberts, and opened again by Saint John Ambulance Service.

Speaker 6 (59:21):
Ms Moore is comfortable Pip Dixon, who has since married
and is still at wa police.

Speaker 12 (59:27):
Would that affect your view of the scene and the
conclusions that you can draw from the photographs that were taken, well.

Speaker 4 (59:33):
Obviously it removes some of the certainty about the actual situation,
and apart from that, I guess I can't say a
great deal else.

Speaker 12 (59:42):
The issue that the position of her right hand is
unusual and you can't see a way to explain that
allows for the scenario where she shot herself.

Speaker 13 (59:51):
Is that right?

Speaker 4 (59:51):
That is part of it, But there is still also
the point of the actual blood spatter and the direction
that the gun needed to be pointed at at the
time it was discharged to produce the blood spatter, where
it was and how that would have We obviously don't
really know where the gun ended up following that, but
the descriptions are probably I can't add more. Obviously, what

(01:00:13):
has been said and was rehearsed in the simulations which
were made doesn't seem an appropriate place for the gun
to have ended up. And finally, there is a thing
of where the hand ended up, and it seems that
it would have been very difficult for it to end
up in that position given the circumstances.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
So there you have it. Amy's right hand could not
have ended up under her right thigh or buttock if
she had shot herself, and the laws of physics mean
the gun should have flung back from the direction it
was being shot from, which is the right not landing

(01:00:58):
on her lap or in front of her. According to
everyone who saw it, the shotgun was either in front
of her or on her lap. Since starting this podcast,
many people have reached out to us with information which
we're still examining. One of those people include Michael Facing,

(01:01:22):
Amy's former boss when she worked in hospitality. He saw
Amy less than twenty four hours before she died.

Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
Yeah, I met Amy when I was working in a bar.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
Ol recently caught up with him and had a chat.

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
I was working a night shift. I was about seven
eight o'clock, so it wasn't too far away from closing time,
and Amy and Rachel walked in and I think for
remember they'd just come from the movies or they were
going to the movies. And yes, it's the first time
I'd seen them in a while, and it was great
to great to catch up, especially with Amy.

Speaker 6 (01:01:59):
What did you end up talking about?

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
Amy was talking about how my daughter's birthday was coming up,
and so she was going to go shopping the next day,
and she was talking about how so she was to
be shopping for presents for her, and that was really
her big plan for the next day. And then it was, yeah,
just everything. She was full of life and was sort
of thinking about what she's things she was going to do,

(01:02:22):
and just it was almost like she had a full
plan of activities for the week.

Speaker 6 (01:02:26):
And what about Rachel?

Speaker 3 (01:02:27):
I can't I can't recall too much of a conversation
with Rachel.

Speaker 6 (01:02:30):
So Amy was kind of the was the social butterfly?
I suppose of.

Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
The absolutely yes.

Speaker 6 (01:02:38):
So did you know that she was in a relationship
with David Simmons at this time?

Speaker 3 (01:02:44):
No, I still wasn't aware, so she.

Speaker 6 (01:02:46):
Didn't mention him.

Speaker 10 (01:02:48):
No, she didn't.

Speaker 6 (01:02:49):
Have you learned anything since then about their relationship?

Speaker 3 (01:02:54):
Obviously, you know in the last ten years, I have
hearing the stories and read about it.

Speaker 6 (01:03:01):
So when did you find out what had happened to Amy?

Speaker 3 (01:03:05):
Two days after I had seen her, and it was
just absolute shock to be told that she'd committed suicide.
I mean, no one talks about their plans for the
rest of the week and the next day to then
go and do that well in my opinion anyway.

Speaker 6 (01:03:22):
And so that was kind of the talk of the
town at the time.

Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
Especially with all amongst all of our customers and the
staff that knew her at the business.

Speaker 6 (01:03:32):
And didn't seem suicidal when you saw her.

Speaker 3 (01:03:34):
Definitely not, definitely not. I meant most suicides never seemed suicidal.
But you know, in my experience of having lost people
to their friends of mine have killed themselves in the past,
there are signs, but they certainly don't talk about what
their plans are for the very next day. If they're
planning to end it, they normally become evasive or they

(01:03:56):
give non committal answers. Whereas Amy was being very detailed. No,
she was excited about going shopping, she couldn't wait for
the birthday party, all these things though, and then just
the love for those girls, there is absolutely no way
in the world should leave them.

Speaker 6 (01:04:12):
So then from there have you just been, like everyone else,
surprised that this has gone on so long.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
Absolutely surprised and shocked and horrified. I mean, it's really
an indictment on the Western Australian Police. I mean my
experience of them is that you know, they don't actually
really do any policing. They just take the easy way
out because it's a lot of they can't be bothered
and you know it's a lot of anger with it too.

(01:04:40):
At worst, is incomfidence. At best, it's thays were lazy.

Speaker 6 (01:04:43):
What you're saying is it's not an isolated incident.

Speaker 9 (01:04:46):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (01:04:47):
And that's my experience of being out that way for
over ten years is that you know the police there's
don't There's a few out there that try to do
the right thing and try to do the work, but
most of the older, jaded officers just really couldn't give
a shit.

Speaker 6 (01:05:04):
So after that, have you seen any of the people?
Have you seen Rachel? Have you seen David? Have you
seen Gareth?

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
I haven't seen Rachel since that night where I last
saw Amy. I have seen David.

Speaker 6 (01:05:16):
How does he appear?

Speaker 7 (01:05:18):
Cocky?

Speaker 1 (01:05:18):
Arrogant?

Speaker 3 (01:05:19):
He will come in and have a great northern mid
strength stubby and he'll play some bits in the TB. Yeah,
he doesn't hang around very long. There's a few people
there that if they walked in and saw him there,
they probably wouldn't take it too well.

Speaker 6 (01:05:35):
What do you mean by that.

Speaker 3 (01:05:37):
There's a few people that really loved Amy and really
dislike him. So yeah, I'm pretty certain that there'd be
an issue if they walked in and they saw him there.
So this boy doesn't stay very long, I think.

Speaker 6 (01:05:52):
Have you heard about other incidents, like, for example, you
might be aware that he's up what he did nine
months for assaulting a public office that was Larry, that
was one of the officers on scene. But also he's
up again for another assault in the public officer and
things like that. Are you aware of his violence or
violent Oh?

Speaker 3 (01:06:11):
Yeah, we definitely hear about it. I mean it's a
very small, tiny community, so people do talk. And this
is you know, when someone's at a history of violence
and then they're still able to be wandering around, it's
another indictment on our system.

Speaker 9 (01:06:26):
Isn't it.

Speaker 6 (01:06:27):
What about drug use, Well, you.

Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
Can tell by looking at him, you know, I mean
working in this trade, you know, with bars and alcohol,
you learn to pick who the addicts are based on
the way they look, their behavioral mannerisms and speech, the
way they speak and carry themselves, and it's quite obvious
that he's got an issue there.

Speaker 6 (01:06:50):
So what would you like to see happen for Ami? Now?

Speaker 3 (01:06:54):
Well, I think what her family and all of the
friends and everyone that knew her, what they need is justice.
We need the you know, the police commissioner and the
w A police need to step up and get on
with their job and you know, get their job done.
They're just trying to say a face of the moment,
they're sort of hoping, oh, for doing nothing, it will

(01:07:15):
go away if we just you know, stay quiet, you know,
this will go away, And it's like, no, it's not
going to go away.

Speaker 6 (01:07:23):
Yeah. Yeah, It's kind of sad, isn't it. Michael says
he will never forget how positive and engaging Amy was,
and if police detectives had taken the time to talk
to anyone who really knew her, they wouldn't have been
so quick to jump to conclusions.

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
And I think that's why some people gravitated towards her,
because she was such a friendly, happy, bubbly person, like
you could be having the worst day ever and she'd
walk in and all of a sudden She'd make everyone
feel welcome and good. She was just one of those
people to be around. It was a positive experience. I

(01:08:00):
think that's pretty why all the customers loved her and
all the stuff. Everyone just you know, she was just
so much fun to be around. She had a very
quick sense of humor. She had no filter over so
she literally would say anything that came to her head,
and I think just made her just a fun person

(01:08:20):
to be around. And that's just when you stuck working
twelve hour shifts for people, they're the ones you want.

Speaker 1 (01:08:25):
To have around.

Speaker 6 (01:08:27):
Michael, I want to thank you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:08:30):
It's railing to help. What happened to her, It's just atrocious.
It should not happen to anyone. And this is also
where the politicians should stand up as well.

Speaker 1 (01:08:46):
In the next episode, is there any possibility Amy killed herself?
We hear from an internationally renowned crime reconstruction expert who
takes us through the evidence from scratch.

Speaker 15 (01:09:00):
There's enough evidence in this case to move forward.

Speaker 1 (01:09:04):
And the good Cop, Australia's most famous detective, Ron idols
He weighs in on what he thinks about what happened
to Amy and the way her investigation was handled.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
So lisser you see.

Speaker 3 (01:09:29):
So desm.

Speaker 1 (01:09:34):
Re both the nasty until me.

Speaker 9 (01:09:44):
Too.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
If you knew Amy and have information, any information about
her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just email
us at The Truth about Amy at seven dot com
dot au. That's s E v E N The Truth
about Amy at seven dot com dot Au, or visit

(01:10:17):
our website sevennews dot com dot Au forward slash the
Truth about Amy. You can also send us an anonymous
tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com.
If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us
to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but

(01:10:40):
for legal reasons, unfortunately you won't be able to make
any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,
don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter

(01:11:02):
and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,
Sound design Mark Wright, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford,
and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour. This

(01:11:36):
is a seven News production