12: Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 Aimy his dead?

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

Speaker 4 (00:56):
One hundred percent. This is emersing.

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

Speaker 5 (01:06):
The Truth about Amy? Episode twelve.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'm Liam Bartlett and.

Speaker 5 (01:21):
I'm Alison Sandy.

Speaker 6 (01:25):
Love yourself first, continue to strive for loving oneself. You
have nothing to hide. Lack of self esteem can often
cause doubt. Always think confidently, let yourself out. We all
have something to give. By loving oneself, You're beginning to
live when you feel good, loyal and true. Only then
can we really help you. When you see a negative

(01:49):
or experience the pain, find yourself the positive, enjoy the
game for when we smile and glow within, we cancel
out the problem forever herein so you see, by loving oneself,
you then have the opportunity to love me.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Feeling positive, Amy posted this poem on Facebook on the
twentieth of September twenty thirteen. Now, as we've been investigating
this case, we've been exploring what is necessary for WA Police,

(02:26):
or indeed the WA Attorney General John Quigley, to take
it seriously. The highest standard of proof in our judicial
system is beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does that
really mean? OL caught up with WA barrister Tom Percy

(02:47):
case to discuss it.

Speaker 5 (02:51):
What sort of evidence is required for a criminal case
to get to court?

Speaker 7 (02:56):
Well, I think if it's a case that's top let's
say the police need to be satisfied that there's some elements,
some evidence of each of the elements that constitute.

Speaker 4 (03:07):
The offense, and then they would charge the person.

Speaker 7 (03:11):
If it's a simple matter it goes to the magistrates court,
well it would just stay there. But if it one
ultimately astigated the Director of Public Prosecutions once it had
been committed for trial, the Director would have to be
satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success.

Speaker 4 (03:26):
And that it was in the public interest to proceed
with it.

Speaker 7 (03:29):
Now, no one has to make a decision as to
whether there is enough of evidence to convince someone beyond
reasonable doubt.

Speaker 4 (03:34):
At that preliminary stage. But the director would have to
come to a conclusion that there was a reasonable.

Speaker 7 (03:42):
Prospect that a jury might come to the appropriate conclusion
beyond reasonable doubt. No one can define what reasonable doubt is.
Jury has often asked that question in the course of
their deliberations. I think I've been involved in probably one
hundred trials where a jury is asked that question, and
the answer is from the judge is always the same.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
I'm not at law allowed to explain that to you.
I can't explain it to you. The words are self explanatory.

Speaker 7 (04:10):
But sometimes you can say to a jury, look, it's
not the civil standard.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
It's not the standard that we imply.

Speaker 7 (04:16):
It's a defamation case, or a motor vehicle accident.

Speaker 4 (04:20):
Cases of civil damages, or a case over a contract
regarding money.

Speaker 7 (04:26):
In that case or a civil case, the judge would
only have to be satisfied that, on balance of probabilities.

Speaker 4 (04:32):
One side was more likely than not.

Speaker 8 (04:35):
Now judge may.

Speaker 4 (04:36):
Be entitled to tell a jury.

Speaker 7 (04:38):
That it's not the civil standard, it's a much higher standard,
and it's the highest standard known to law.

Speaker 4 (04:44):
But in order to get.

Speaker 7 (04:45):
A case back before a coroner where there's already been
a coroner's inquest, the Currents Act in Western Australia provides
that you can, in the event that there is new evidence,
take that to were the Supreme Court at Western Australia
and asked the matter be remitted back to the coroner,

(05:06):
either to reopen the hold in quest or to hold
a new one.

Speaker 4 (05:10):
So that's the starting point there.

Speaker 7 (05:12):
The way that that would happen would be that you
would compile the scientific or other evidence that you have
put that in the form of an APPI dated by
an appropriately qualified person and bring an application of the
Supreme Court seeking either a new inquest or to reopen
the old inquest. And if that was sufficient of sufficient moment,
and the Court was of the view that that was.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
Appropriate, then it would be referred back.

Speaker 7 (05:36):
And then once it was back with the coroner, if
the evidence of pe is compelling enough, the coroner has.

Speaker 4 (05:40):
The power to refer to the DPP.

Speaker 7 (05:43):
Now that seems a bit cumbersome. Another way it could
be done is for the people involved to petition the
DPP and put that sort of evidence in front of
the BPP, and he would have the power to that
issue charge as himself or refer to the police. The
third one which it could be referred as to is

(06:06):
if the police were pursuing their investigations and came to
the conclusion that there was an arguable case, or a
prime facing case as we say, of murder against a
person thought to be responsible in relation to the death
of the deceased, and the police could then charge the
person or refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Speaker 5 (06:28):
What primate facing mean facing.

Speaker 4 (06:30):
Means the evidence of each of the elements of the offense.

Speaker 7 (06:33):
That is, that the identity of the person is arguable,
that it was the person required, that there was a
death by which a person died, that that person was
the person in.

Speaker 4 (06:45):
Question, and that there was some evidence that that was.

Speaker 7 (06:48):
Not accidental or by natural causes. So on what I
know of this case watching the public domain, that I
would have thought there was ample evidence for the prosecution
to investigate this had possibly come to the conclusion that
there was a primer facing case.

Speaker 5 (07:06):
So what sort of burden of proof would be required
for them to take it to a trial.

Speaker 7 (07:12):
Well, if it does, the trial as a question exclusively
for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and essentially there are
two criteria. One that has to be in the public
interest and secondly, the director would have to form the
view that there were reasonable prospects of conviction.

Speaker 5 (07:28):
Okay, And so what do you look for when you
decide or you accept a case where you think there's
reasonable prospects of conviction.

Speaker 4 (07:38):
Well, I don't do much prosecuting these days. In fact,
they haven't done anything about twenty five years. But I
would think that a prosecutor would look for a case.

Speaker 7 (07:45):
Where there's really really no question about the identity the
presence of the potential accused person at the time, that is, opportunity, motive,
and some scientific basis which linked the.

Speaker 4 (08:00):
Two together with the cause of death.

Speaker 7 (08:04):
They were the sort of things and I mean sometimes
that is drawing a long bow, that that's a fanciful proposition.
But if the director was of the view that having
examined the police investigation and the evidence they came up with,
that there was ample material to go to a jury,
then they would normally proceed with the prosecution.

Speaker 5 (08:27):
What happens if a kroener has done an in quest
and hasn't recommended that it be referred to the ODPP.
I mean, given that there obviously that's very subjective.

Speaker 4 (08:38):
Well, I'm sure any director of public Prosecutions does.

Speaker 7 (08:41):
It doesn't matter what status, would look at a coroner's
inquest and see that there'd.

Speaker 4 (08:45):
Been an open finding, that that wouldn't preclude him or her.

Speaker 7 (08:49):
From coming to the proposition that, in life of fresh evidence,
particularly fresh scientific evidence.

Speaker 4 (08:56):
That the matter warranted be reopened. So it's no bar
to a prosecute that.

Speaker 7 (09:01):
A coroner's made an oven finding and decline to refer.

Speaker 4 (09:04):
The matter to the TPP.

Speaker 5 (09:06):
I would have thought going back to an inquest that
would just be expensive and as you say, cumbersome.

Speaker 7 (09:12):
I think right, that's securitous and unwieldy.

Speaker 4 (09:15):
For it to go back there. If there is a
body of fresh scientific evidence from reputable sources that.

Speaker 7 (09:21):
The police could have a look at, and it may
well be that the police want to exercise their own
discretion afresh and in the light of the fresh.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
Evidence, which or means the material.

Speaker 7 (09:33):
Already went before the coroner, come to a decision to
change someone.

Speaker 5 (09:38):
What about there's a term now called hidden homicides, where
they're put down a suicide or accidental and in some
cases the police have mismanaged it in the first place.
Is it then harder, given that it could draw criticism
from what you've I guess your extensive career, do you

(10:00):
find it often difficult to then get those sorts of
cases across the line.

Speaker 7 (10:06):
I think sometimes there's a degree of pride in the
police force which stands in the way of them saying.

Speaker 4 (10:13):
Oh, we were wrong when we'd have a good look
at this game. So yeah, you're right.

Speaker 7 (10:18):
There's certainly normal human frailty which sometimes might say this
might be an admission that we didn't do our case
correctly the first time, so we're not going to go
down that part.

Speaker 4 (10:29):
But there will come a time when they may be.

Speaker 7 (10:32):
Forced into that position where the evidence stares them in
the face and they say, look, perhaps we're wrong not
to change this person or to go down this.

Speaker 4 (10:39):
Other line of investigation, and we're about to do it,
and we may make an arrest.

Speaker 5 (10:44):
Yes, well, certainly, back in twenty twenty one at the inquest,
it was very much police did make a submission that
it was suicide. They didn't change for it in this case.
So if they're looking at it and they do have
a million dollar reward being an open fire, that they
have to consider the other options given that they're not
ruled out.

Speaker 4 (11:05):
That's right. I mean AVLU cases such as Chris Dawson.

Speaker 7 (11:09):
I mean, for many years the police didn't think there
was enough evidence to charge him with murder, and twenty
thirty years later they reviewed that in the light of
all the evidence that they had, they came to a
subjective conclusion that there were reasonable prospects of a conviction.

Speaker 4 (11:28):
They charged him, and he was ultimately convicted. So they
can't happen.

Speaker 7 (11:32):
And just because there's been an initial decision made not
to charge someone, and even though a decade may have passed,
it's always open to review.

Speaker 4 (11:42):
And it does happen.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
One of the issues that was brought up at the
time is limitation of I guess the biomechanical evidence, and
that was a decision made by the currentor not necessarily
by the biomechanical experts, and certainly not by the new
one who's done their own analysis. Again, is that ever
a case, you know, particularly cold cases right where you

(12:06):
can just put it down to the fact that because
there wasn't forensics at the time or whatever, it wasn't
undertaken as a proper investigation at the time, that it
could be limited and therefore no chance of a criminal conviction.

Speaker 4 (12:22):
I wouldn't have thought that's the case. I wouldn't have
thought that's going to be a limiting factor any sense.

Speaker 7 (12:26):
If the evidence is credible, if the evidence stands up
to scrutiny, and on the subjective assessment by either the
police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is sufficiently compelling,
And I wouldn't have thought the fact that it wasn't
used in the first place would be in any way

(12:48):
impede the matter proceeding on the.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
Basis of that evidence.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
So how is the standard of proof applied? Well, then,
wa Section one four one of the Evidence Act nineteen
ninety five provides that in a criminal proceeding, the court
is not to find the case of the prosecution proved
unless it's satisfied it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However,

(13:19):
no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to
meet this threshold. Basically, it's up to the prosecution to
convince the court based on the evidence that there's no
other reasonable explanation other than the accused is guilty. The

(13:40):
accused need not prove that they didn't commit the crime,
but show an alternative explanation is reasonable. The jury, of course,
then decides whether there's reasonable doubt that they committed the
crime or in the recent case of Chris Dawson, who
was convicted of killing his wife Lynn Simms, a judge

(14:03):
only will make that determination. Judge only trials are allowed
after an application from the defense or prosecution if a
judge determines its appropriate after considering the circumstances of the case.
There's a lot to consider, obviously in this case, and

(14:26):
ultimately it's a determination of the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions in wa as to whether there's a
reasonable prospect of a conviction if they proceed with a
criminal trial. Now, before we contemplate all the evidence they
would need to evaluate, we wanted to share with you

(14:48):
a message recently sent to us by one of our listeners.

Speaker 8 (14:56):
Living close to the local area of Serpentine and being
thirty four years old, I found this podcast hitting close
to home in more ways than one. I found it
really interesting. In the recent episode where Gareth is retelling
the story of what happened when he says he pushed
open the door. I don't know why, but I found
this really strange. If I myself had just witnessed my
partner being shot, the last thing I would be doing

(15:18):
is running out of the room and thinking that I
needed to consciously close the door on my way out.
I just found it odd.

Speaker 5 (15:28):
That's right, Gareth Price, as the second person had to
open the door to see if Amy was dead. It's
worth noting that while the stories of what happened as
recalled by David Simmons and his family and friends on
the night Amy died varied, often wildly, what Amy's friends
and family said both then and now has not, and

(15:52):
remember they were also traumatized. The problem is it's not
one thing, but lots of things and a lot of
gaping holes in the evidence. Let's discuss them one by one.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
So initially, wa police detectives believed she shot herself with
her left hand because her right hand was under her buttock.
This was supported by the fact it was the only
hand with gun residue on it. But there's a problem
with that. Amy had a burnmark on her left hand

(16:30):
caused by the barrel, not the trigger, and they eventually
discover it's impossible for her to reach across the front
of her body with her left hand to shoot herself
in the right temple.

Speaker 5 (16:46):
They then turned to Amy's right hand, after all, she
was right handed, but as we said earlier, that hand
was found under her right buttock. So testing gets underway
to find out if it's possible her right hand could
have landed in that position after she used it to
shoot herself.

Speaker 1 (17:05):
In all of the tests undertaken, not one has Amy's
right hand landing under her right buttock, so the question
is asked if it could have ended up there after
being shoved so many times as people entered the room.
It's impossible to test that, so it's not ruled out.

Speaker 5 (17:28):
But the right hand doesn't have gun residue on it.
Could the hand that pulled or pushed the trigger not
have gun residue on it?

Speaker 1 (17:36):
Apparently yes, it's determined that it's possible the gun residue
could have been lost.

Speaker 5 (17:44):
When Senior Constable James Inskip was asked about this during
the inquest, he said, the loss of gunshot residue from
surfaces is quite easy.

Speaker 1 (17:53):
Even though paper bags were placed on Amy's hands.

Speaker 5 (17:58):
He says bags could have been sampled too, though, but
we can't find any reference to that happening anywhere.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
So suicide is still considered an option, despite the biomechanical
testing suggesting evidence is quote highly consistent with someone else
pulling the trigger and quote again not consistent with Amy
shooting herself due to the limitations of the testing.

Speaker 5 (18:28):
Correct despite evidence to the contrary. Now, let's turn to
whether Amy was a victim of domestic violence. The curenter
didn't make a ruling on this at the inquest, and
there doesn't seem to be any domestic violence lens placed
across this case at all. At the conclusion of the

(18:48):
Major Crime Investigation Operation, jundi Wa police determined there was
no evidence of physical violence from David towards Amy. So
despite acknowledging the violence an argument Amy had with David
that afternoon, it still wasn't considered a factor in Amy's death.

Speaker 1 (19:09):
But what about the testimony from Natasha Selzer and Erin Gower.
Natasha saw her bent backwards over a table, struggling with symmons,
and Amy sent erin a photo of bruises where she
says David choked her for some reason.

Speaker 5 (19:29):
Natasha's evidence didn't seem to be given any weight at
the inquest, and WA police couldn't find that photo of
Amy from Amy's phone, even though we managed to find
it within twenty minutes. In its investigation, Major Crime determined
that the argument between Amy and David before she died
suggested Amy was the aggressor and David had no motive

(19:52):
to want to kill Amy.

Speaker 1 (19:55):
Did Amy drink.

Speaker 5 (19:57):
Very infrequently and if she did, friends can't recall a
time since having kids that she'd drink more than one.

Speaker 1 (20:03):
Did she take illegal drugs?

Speaker 5 (20:05):
Well, no, but David's father, Robert Simmons says he heard
she used to.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
Be wild, but he barely knew her.

Speaker 5 (20:13):
Yes, but the curenter found him credible.

Speaker 1 (20:16):
Despite Robert Simmons singing the praises of Detective Kirkman, who
completely botched the investigation at the start.

Speaker 5 (20:25):
I know, but in her findings, the coroner said she
considered Robert to be an honest, forthright witness. He was
the only one she afforded such credibility anyway, when it
was mentioned David Simmons told Gareth his dad wasn't home
Robert appeared confused as to why he would think that
when he almost always worked from home.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
Yes, and upon receiving a call from emergency services, Robert
immediately jumped to the conclusion that David shot Amy. Now
that is not the typical response you get from a parent,
but the coroner doesn't seem to give much consideration to
the fact that Robert thought his son capable of this,

(21:10):
as he had changed his mind since.

Speaker 5 (21:15):
Yes, and then he asked Gareth when he arrives at
the gate, who moved the gun.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Also, it's strange Robert didn't notice her body or the
blood spatter upon entering the bedroom. After all, he'd already
spoken to Triple zero, so surely his first priority would
be to look for a person in trouble. Instead, he
goes straight for the gun.

Speaker 5 (21:43):
Don't forget there was also a thirteen second phone call
receipt on his phone from David at the roadhouse, and
records show it didn't go to voicemail.

Speaker 1 (21:54):
Robert Simmons denies receiving this call. He was upfront about
his son's drink and drug problem, though.

Speaker 5 (22:03):
Except there seems to be no consideration of that in
her findings. They were more concerned about Amy being on antidepressants,
even though David suffers depression and was supposed to be
taking them as well.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
It's worth mentioning that catelepram in the dosage Amy was
prescribed is pretty mild.

Speaker 5 (22:22):
And pretty common. According to later statistics from the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, one in five Australians fielled
a mental health related prescription in twenty twenty two twenty three.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
What about the lack of any gun residue on both
Price and Simmons clothes they were supposedly wearing when Amy died,
that's an issue.

Speaker 5 (22:47):
Yes, we know that David at least fired the gun
a couple of times that afternoon.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
Then there's Amy's pink phone and Price patting down her
body to try to find it so he could call
Triple zero. Still no blood transfer onto his clothes. Though
both his and simmons clothes were spotlets when they handed
them to police, not a trace of blood was found

(23:15):
on them.

Speaker 5 (23:18):
And remember Simmons going back to the house later to
try to retrieve Amy's iPhone, telling Larry Blamford it was his.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
But Simmons denies doing that, So it's barely even noted
in the coroner's findings.

Speaker 5 (23:32):
Unbelievable.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
Then there's the missing door handle. If Amy decided to
take her own life in the bedroom, wouldn't she have
taken the door handle off the outside of the door
so her children couldn't have discovered her body, not the
inside of the door.

Speaker 5 (23:49):
There's never been any real explanation for that. Also, the wheelibins.
In his first statement, Joshua Brydon makes a particular note
about taking them out earlier in the day at Amy's request.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
But then Naa said she saw Price taking the bins
up the drive after Amy's death. Of course, her testimony
was inadmissible because she was only six at the time.

Speaker 5 (24:16):
Another red flag is the fact that no fingerprints were
found on the gun that killed Amy, despite at least
three people having handled it.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, that to me says it was wiped down. A
major red flag. Also, what about what Charondev said about
major crime not having checked Amy's handbag. Had they done so,
they would have seen her passport.

Speaker 5 (24:42):
Exactly Again, if you planned to kill yourself, why worry
about your passport. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's
look at the timeline, which was compiled as part of
the Major Crimes Investigation Operation JUNDI.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
David Simmons, Joshua Bridon and Gareth Price returned to the
small Serpentine home Simmons shared with Amy just before four pm.
We know this because Simmons used Brydon's phone to send
Amy a message on Facebook at three point fifty one
PM asking her where are you, and she replies gone crazy.

(25:26):
Amy arrives home shortly after and may have a massive
fight where she throws a beer bottle and mirror at
him and he puts her in a headlock and wrestles
her to the ground. After the fight, which they estimate
last at about fourteen minutes, bringing it to roughly four
point thirty pm, Amy goes into the shed and accidentally

(25:48):
smashes the lizard tank. She then heads to the bedroom.
At four forty eight, Amy takes a selfie in front
of the mirror in the master bed with the Boito
four ten, which was used to kill her. In the photo,
she's sitting on the edge of the bed holding the

(26:10):
rifle by the muzzle, with the butt of the gun
on the floor. Joshua Brdon says before leaving, he helps
Price clean up the smashed lizard tank.

Speaker 9 (26:25):
Simmo came and told the girls that they have to
go to their NaNs. Simmo put the kids in the car.
He put them in the car and explained to him
that they were going with Mummy to stay at grandma's.

Speaker 1 (26:35):
Once I saw things looked a little more.

Speaker 9 (26:37):
Under control, I put my dogs in a cage and
took him home to have a shower of stuff.

Speaker 1 (26:43):
Brydon says he leaves at four forty seven pm, which
is just one minute prior to Amy taking her selfie.
He says he knows this because as he was driving out,
he receives a text message from his old schoolmate, who
he was supposed to have picked up from the train station.

(27:05):
He planned to go Peakcott that night.

Speaker 5 (27:08):
Now I have a problem with this because after the
fight with David, Amy says I'm moving out and then
goes to the bedroom. According to the Major Crime timeline,
Amy only started packing after speaking to her mum at
five o'clock. The phone call with Nancy last two hundred
and twelve seconds, according to phone records. Nancy describes Amy

(27:33):
as hysterical at the beginning, but then says she calms down.

Speaker 6 (27:41):
Oh, I will I'll see you soon.

Speaker 4 (27:43):
I will come.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
Just a reminder. This is a recreation according to Nancy's
recollection of the phone call. But the point here is
how did Brydon witness the kids being put in the
car when he left fifteen minutes earlier.

Speaker 5 (28:04):
It's just another gaping hole in the story and it
wasn't explored.

Speaker 1 (28:11):
Okay, back to the timeline. So after the lizard tank incident,
Amy is in the bedroom and takes the selfie at
four forty eight pm. Nancy then calls her that phone
call lasts two hundred and twelve seconds.

Speaker 10 (28:27):
Don't hear here a week, a month, a year, I
don't hear get here now.

Speaker 1 (28:32):
And it's only then that Amy starts packing the car.
Price estimates she made three to four trips.

Speaker 5 (28:43):
While this is happening. David says he packs the children's
toys and clothes in the car, turning on the heater
and music for the girls. He then shouts to Amy,
hurry off, and we're told Amy replies just a minute.
Then at five ten pm, Gareth and David say they

(29:03):
hear a thud.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Investigators estimate there was twelve minutes between the time Amy
was shot and Simmons and Price left the premises to
notify emergency services. The CCTV captures them at the Serpentine
roadhouse at five twenty two pm. Major Crime ruled out

(29:30):
foul play because they reckon there wouldn't be enough time
to formulate a plan to hide what had occurred, and
if they had staged the scene, surely they would put
the gun in a position where there was no alternative
to suicide. The coroner indicates she's inclined to agree with

(29:51):
this too, but we're not dealing with Rhodes scholars here.

Speaker 5 (29:59):
Simmons says he first inside and knocked on the bedroom
door while calling out to Amy.

Speaker 11 (30:04):
Amy.

Speaker 5 (30:06):
This time, the door is slightly ajar and David says
he could see Amy's foot just inside the bedroom. He
says he rushes out, calling out something like.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Is she still alive or why.

Speaker 5 (30:19):
Depending which version you believe. But Gareth says David was
saying fuck fuck.

Speaker 12 (30:24):
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

Speaker 5 (30:27):
Fuck and starts punching the shed. He then goes in
and flicks the shotgun out of her lap and places
a towel over her head. Another version has David and
Gareth going into the house at the same time, with
Gareth remaining in the corridor while David goes into the
bedroom first.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
Yes, when you put it all together, it's hard to
come to any other conclusion other.

Speaker 5 (30:53):
Than Amy did not shoot herself.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
Amy did not shoot herself. But because of the errors
made from the beginning, there seems to be a real
reluctance by anyone who's been given any say over how
this case is treated to do any more than absolutely necessary.

Speaker 5 (31:21):
And at the inquest there seems to be a real
push towards suicide and against bowl play. Listen again to
the questions from the coroner pose to David Simmons at
the end of the inquest.

Speaker 13 (31:33):
All right, thank you very much, David. I've heard what
you've had to say. I'm the coroner, so I'm the
one listening to your evidence and all the other evidence
and bearing that in mind. Just to go back then,
my understanding of what you're telling me is that you
and Gareth had nothing to do with Amy being shot
in the head that day. Is that right?

Speaker 1 (31:51):
That's right?

Speaker 13 (31:51):
And you were both standing outside the car and you
heard a sound and you went into the house and
found Amy behind the door with the shotgun injury. Is
that right?

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Yes, that's correct. Yes, the thud was definitely a gunshot,
and David Simmons definitely wasn't in the room when the
gun went off.

Speaker 5 (32:12):
There's always been this assumption because Amy had left David
Simmons before, but.

Speaker 1 (32:18):
This time was different. Simmons drinking and drug taking was
worse than it had ever been prior. Robert Simmons even
acknowledges that, blaming himself for letting them live rent free, I'd.

Speaker 7 (32:33):
Given them a whole heat more cash to buy drugs
and alcohol because they're not paying any rent.

Speaker 5 (32:38):
Gareth too admitted in that interview with you, people do
dumb things on drugs.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
Drugs, drugs, People who drugged dumb You know that. Obviously,
because of the way detectives treated Amy's case, neither David
nor Gareth were tested for drugs or excess alcohol consumption.
But in the absence of all that, it's about looking
at the pattern of behavior and other corroborating evidence.

Speaker 5 (33:07):
The subsequent investigations by WA police via major crime and
cold case did not seem to be concerned with any
of that, and neither was the inquest. Then, of course,
there's claims that Brydon allegedly told multiple people they burned
the clothes they were wearing the Knight Amy died, including

(33:28):
his favorite shorts. After moving Amy's body.

Speaker 14 (33:31):
You know, we'd had this conversation with Joshua and he
said about moving the body and burning the clothes.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
Although if Amy's body was moved, it can't have been
very far. According to forensic experts. The blood spatter indicates
she died where she was found, crammed between a door
so that you can barely open the door, with blood
on the left side on this wall here. Many people

(34:02):
weren't aware of this, but council representing the family during
the inquest, Peter Ward took our Namy's case for free.
I caught up with Peter in Perth to discuss why
he got involved and whether he's surprised by the way
it's been handled. Peter, thank you very much for having

(34:24):
a chat to us about this. Goes without saying. You've
got a world of legal experience from a human experience.
You've known this family for a long time, working this
case about nine years and going through all the various
nuances of it. How do you see it as an
overview Sitting at the moment, what's your opinion of the case?

(34:48):
In terms of its legal merits.

Speaker 15 (34:50):
The legal merits is something I can't specifically speak to,
but what I can say is that the impact on
the family of the way in which the police investigation
didn't occur initially has been massive. And what I've seen
is a family that feel hurt. They feel like they

(35:11):
haven't been given the respect that they deserve. They haven't
had the decency of a proper investigation, and they haven't
had an apology for the failure to investigate.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
When you heard the coroner's decision and you read the
coroner's findings, what did you make of that?

Speaker 15 (35:37):
I wasn't surprised that it was an open verdict. In
some ways, I was glad it was an open verdict
because that at least would compel the police to continue investigating.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
When you say that, you mean it gave them some
elasticity to be able to work with something in the future.

Speaker 15 (35:56):
The police approached the coronial inquest in the same way
as the first to investigations, which was to say that
there was no evidence of criminality and that they believed
it was a suicide. The coroner wasn't satisfied on the
balance of probabilities that that was the case and having
a coroner say no, I'm not satisfied essentially leaves the

(36:19):
case open, requiring the police to continue investigating.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
And really provides some justification for the Famili's point of view.
Does it not? Well?

Speaker 15 (36:27):
It certainly helped to confirm the family's view that more
needed to be looked at.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Why have the police been so stuck on this one channel?
They said at the inquest, and they kept saying it.
The Major Crime Squad concluded that the evidence that Amy
died by suicide was compelling, that's the word they used.

Speaker 15 (36:49):
Well, the coroner didn't accept it was compelling. And I
don't know why the police have been so focused on suicide.
There's a lot there to be in investigated. There are
a lot of indications in her personal circumstances that would
exclude suicide, and in fact, we tried to point to
those in the coronial in quest and we asked the
coroner to it at the very least exclude that on

(37:12):
the balance of probabilities. But I'm not surprised that the
coroner in the end couldn't exclude anything.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
But that's the whole point, Peter, is not I mean,
anybody who reads even that final coroner's report will find
holes in the police argument. You don't have to be
a trained lawyer to do that. So why do the
police keep going on about the suicide. It's got to
be suicide. I mean that alone allows people and even

(37:42):
the coroner jumped in at one point and said she
understood why some people, even the family could think this
was the result of a police cover up.

Speaker 15 (37:54):
As I've said, I can't talk to the merits of
the case that the police ran, and really the question
has to be to them as to why they've focused
on suicide. Superintendent Scandalbury, he gave evidence that that was
the opinion he formed, but others may form a different opinion.
And the coroner in this case didn't adopt his opinion.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
But at one stage that policeman, the head of homicide
in wa told the coroner that there was no evidence
to place another person in that room in that bedroom
at the time of Amy's death.

Speaker 15 (38:29):
Yes, that's his opinion. The coroner didn't agree on the
balance of probabilities.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
But what can you say about that? I mean, you
ran basically the other case, didn't you.

Speaker 15 (38:38):
I ran the case for the family to tease out
the evidence that would be inconsistent with a finding of suicide,
and I made submissions at the end of the case
that the coroner should exclude suicide on the balance of probabilities.
But the coroner, as I say, wasn't satisfied either way.

(39:02):
And you may recall Justice Lee in the Luhman case
recently gave a really good explanation about what's required to
make a finding on the balance of probabilities, and that
is that the judicial officer in this case of corona
has to be persuaded toward an outcome.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
They have to.

Speaker 15 (39:20):
Feel that they've positively been persuaded to that finding, and
the coroner in this case didn't reach that standard of
satisfaction in respect of any of the options.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
There's been a lot of coroners involved in this case.
A lot of coroner's names have passed over the desk, havevin'
they it took a long time to get there.

Speaker 15 (39:37):
It did take a long time, so it was first
listed in twenty eighteen. I think it was then the
Coroner's office received the biomechanical report of Professor Ackland and
on that basis vacated the coronial inquest that was scheduled,
sent it back to police for investigation, it went back
to the DPP. They were all off concluded that there

(40:01):
was no prosecution warranted at that stage, so it came
back to the coroner, came back in twenty twenty, COVID
hit that and then came back again in twenty twenty one.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
So what three four coroners until we got to the
final corner.

Speaker 15 (40:15):
Well, I don't know if it was the same one
listed to do each one, but certainly it was. There
were three or four dates in which it was scheduled
before it finally occurred in February twenty two.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
Just seems like the family's just gone through. You know,
you pick the worst case scenario, this family's got it.
I mean, it's like winning the unlucky lot.

Speaker 15 (40:34):
Of well to go from twenty fourteen Amy's death to
twenty twenty two investigation and then twenty twenty three reward
finally being offered nine years down the track. It's it's
been a long time for them.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
I I just can't get my head around Peter. Can
you explain to me an in a legal way again?
And I'm not trying to get you hooked on the
merits of the case, but can you explain to me
how the two detectives who are in charge of this
case first day, that night, that tragic night, takes five
years for the police Internal Affairs Unit to make the

(41:10):
finding that they neglected their duty. That's big call. They
neglected their duty as detectives five years and the only
reason the Internal Affairs Unit did that was because the
Coroner's office sent a letter back to the commissioner saying
what the heck? Basically, so those two detectives say, there's
nothing to see here. Five years later, they are found

(41:31):
to have neglected their duty, but the police line remains
the same. It remains the same right up until twenty
twenty one to the coroner's inquest, and the police are
still singing the same tune, still determined that it was suicide.
Are the police just looking after their own.

Speaker 15 (41:49):
Well, there are two ways to look at it. That
might be one, But the other is to say, well,
major Crime did an investigation shortly after their attendance, and
Major Crime reached the same conclusion of suicide, and therefore,
from the police perspective, while they may not have been

(42:10):
as diligent as they should have been on the night,
ultimately it didn't make any difference to their outcome, and.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
Yet the coronial investigation squad say otherwise.

Speaker 15 (42:18):
Well, the cold case investigation that occurred later had the
benefit of the biomechanical evidence that those guys didn't and
that came to a slightly different conclusion. And the coroner
had the benefit of all of that evidence and also
came to a different conclusion.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
So two independent biomechanical experts say that the evidence showed
to them, yes, that Amy did not shoot herself.

Speaker 15 (42:42):
What they said was that what they could see was
not consistent with suicide.

Speaker 1 (42:46):
In fact, they went one step further, didn't they, because
they actually said that it was consistent with someone else
shooting her.

Speaker 15 (42:53):
They did, that was their opinion on the basis of
the evidence that they had. But one of the police
officers who attended the reconstruction with Professor Ackland, he gave
evidence also before the coroner, and he expressed his concerns
about the way in which the experiments were conducted and
the difficulties in perfectly reconstructing the case. So whilst those

(43:20):
biomechanical experts had that opinion, it's only the opinion is
only as good as the evidence on which the opinion
is based. And the present case. The opinion is based
on reconstructions that have inherent difficulties given two things, one
the lack of a clear forensic picture from the night,

(43:44):
and two the fact that you can never really truly
test how a body reacts when it's hit with a shotgun.
You can't reconstruct that.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
No, exactly, But two independent experts, one from Perth, one
from Sydney, both sides of the country, both come to
exactly the same conclusions, and they've got no skin in
the game. I agree as the word is, they're independent.
But the only person who objects to that is a
policeman who happens to go back to the same line,

(44:13):
same theme, same song, as they've always been singing.

Speaker 15 (44:16):
Question you might like to put to the police, speaking.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
Of the police, Peter, as you know, the coroner encouraged
WA police to make a formal apology to the family.
Yes now, instead they received a letter of regret. How
does that sit with you?

Speaker 15 (44:33):
The letter of regret was I think, unfortunately a really
bad idea. Perhaps it was done with good intent, but
there are two things wrong with it. The first is
that it referred only to regret as to a couple
of particular aspects of the investigation not even being conducted properly.

(44:56):
It didn't express any regret at all about the fact
that the family may never know what truly happened on
the night. And the second was that it just perpetuated
the family's feeling that the police didn't care. And that
comes through in the very first line of the Acting
Commissioner's letter when he expresses condolences for the loss of

(45:20):
Amy in February twenty twenty one. Couldn't even get the
date of her death right after an inquest, says it
all really doesn't I've got a query with the acting
Commissioner even read the letter before he signed it.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
Did you have any conversation with the police about that?
Did they run that past you as the lawyer?

Speaker 15 (45:39):
They didn't run the draft letter pass us. They did
say that they were going to issue a letter of regret,
and I did caution privately the Commissioner's lawyer that they
might like to get some input from a grief counselor
before they did anything like that.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Jest to them quite plainly that it probably wouldn't be enough.

Speaker 15 (46:03):
I suggested to them it would be a very good
idea to get some input from a professional grief counselor
or psychologists before sending a letter of that type, because
I was worried about the impact that it would have,
particularly on Nancy.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
Clearly they didn't take your advice.

Speaker 15 (46:19):
Doesn't appear.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
So where can the family go from here? Legally? Is
there a particular avenue that is available to them or
do they just literally have to sit around and wait
for fresh evidence to come forward.

Speaker 15 (46:36):
The only way that the coronial inquest can be reopened
is if there is fresh evidence. They can conduct their
own inquiries to some limited extent, and to that end,
they identified as an expert in the US who may
be able to help. But unfortunately we're a bit hamstrung
at the moment because we can't use the coronial brief
or transcript to brief any experts. Were really are limited

(46:59):
in what we can do.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
Why can't you do that?

Speaker 15 (47:01):
There are restrictions on the use of the brief that
have been imposed by order of the coroner's office. Why well,
the currenter will usually impose limitations on the use of
the brief in circumstances where criminal charges may result in
the future, So it's to protect the integrity of the
investigation and any future prosecution.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
Is that a common thing?

Speaker 15 (47:22):
It's not uncommon if there's potentially criminal proceedings that might
follow in the future.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
I know the family have tried to access a transcript, yes,
of the full coronial inquest. It's an open court, it's
a public court. We all pay for it, Peter, you
and I. Why haven't they been allowed to do that.

Speaker 15 (47:44):
I don't know why Western Australia limits access to transcript
in that way. I can understand it, and respect to
the version we got originally that was provided free of
charge because the family's lawyers were acting pro bono and
in circumstances where there was no payment for the transcript
for a copy of it, I can understand the court

(48:06):
saying well, no, we want it back at the end,
when the family or anybody else like the media, want
to get access to a copy of the transcript later
and are willing to pay for it, you can do
that in any court except the coroner's court. It would
appear even the Triple c put their transcripts online for free,

(48:27):
apart from their closed sessions. So I don't know why
evidence given in the open coroner's court should not be
freely available.

Speaker 1 (48:36):
Do other states do that, as far as.

Speaker 15 (48:38):
I'm aware, Western Australia is unique in that regard.

Speaker 1 (48:41):
And yet they have it on record.

Speaker 15 (48:42):
I mean it's all transcribed, yes, yes, And we were
given the transcript for the purposes of preparing closing submissions
and it's a public concondition that we had to give
it back and we weren't allowed to keep any copies.

Speaker 1 (48:52):
But they're not allowed to have a copy even if
they pay whatever it is, a dollar a page.

Speaker 15 (48:57):
Applications to the court have been refused without any detailed reasons.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
Just say, every step this family takes it, it's a
tough It's a tough rode, isn't it.

Speaker 15 (49:07):
Yes, yes, absolutely. At the moment, they're in the hands
of the police to continue investigating with little confidence that
the police actually will do anything about it unless something
comes out that forces the police to investigate.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
But technically there's no limit is there for the police?
I mean whatever police action needs to be taken or
they want to take, they can take it. Is that correct?
Am I right in saying that.

Speaker 15 (49:35):
Well, if the police had unlimited resources, they could throw
a strikeforce team at this case and go off and
seek to use any of their sophisticated investigation techniques. But
of course they're balancing their investigative resources against this and
many other cases.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
But there's nothing to stop them doing it. It's a
cold case, and they could revive it at any stage.

Speaker 15 (49:57):
They could. I would expect that they won't unless there
is some new development, maybe that might come out of
the podcast. Maybe somebody might come forward. Maybe the reward
might entice somebody to come forward.

Speaker 1 (50:12):
The reward may give somebody the ability to develop a conscience.

Speaker 15 (50:16):
Perhaps if they know something that will assist the police.
It would be very very good if that came forward.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
Do you think there are people involved in this case
who do know something, don't you?

Speaker 15 (50:27):
I don't know that for sure, But there are certainly
some aspects of the evidence that was given before the
coroner that warrant further investigation. There are some things that
just didn't quite gel, some contradictions in some ways, and

(50:48):
some incomplete things.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
Speaking of incomplete, we know from the inquest that the
two detectives who attended the scene that night between them,
took less than one page of notes and did not
formally interview the two men at the scene of the death.

Speaker 15 (51:11):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
Do you find that incredible.

Speaker 15 (51:16):
I find the shutting down of the scene on that
night quite remarkable, particularly given the views of the three
uniform officers who attended. They themselves described it in their
evidence that they had a heated discussion with the detectives
and eventually they were effectively ordered to shut the scene down.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
And yet during the inquest, Peter, as you well know,
both those detectives couldn't remember that heated argument.

Speaker 15 (51:47):
That's right, there was an inconsistency between their evidence and
the evidence of the three uniform officers. And the other
things worth noting on that is that the three uniforms
who attended gave evidence that they've never had a formal
statement taken in any of the subsequent investigations.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
Incredible. So the first three police men and women who
were on the scene have never had a formal statement taken.

Speaker 15 (52:13):
That was their evidence before the coroner.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
That's Constables Dixon, Roberts and Blandford. And they all said
during the inquest that they thought death was suspicious. Even
the paramedic said it was a bit strange. Yes, and
yet we still go back to perhaps suicide, or if
you believe the police absolutely suicide.

Speaker 15 (52:37):
That's the view that was formed by the officers on
the night, and it's the view that was formed by
the Major Crime squad when they came into it shortly afterwards,
subject of course to the limitations of not having a
proper forensic scene to investigate.

Speaker 1 (52:51):
And no formal interviews with the two men involved.

Speaker 15 (52:54):
There were formal interviews conducted by Major Crimes.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
But that was days afterwards, not on the night.

Speaker 15 (52:59):
Not on the night. No, and unfortunately also not without
separating them immediately so that you get a clear account
from each of them. Well, one would expect that proper
procedure on the night would have been to interview each
of them separately, and I and not what you said.
There's no evidence that there was any collusion, but the

(53:21):
clearest way to avoid any inferences at all would have
been for police to investigate it properly on the night.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
So again we just don't know. W Do you think
the million dollar reward for information will help?

Speaker 15 (53:36):
I hope it will, even if it just brings forward
somebody to say, well, I think you should look at this.
A million dollars there's a lot of money, particularly to
people in that community.

Speaker 1 (53:48):
Did you raise your eyebrows when you saw the million
dollar reward on the Internet alongside the word homicide.

Speaker 15 (53:56):
I didn't because I think the way it was done
as being a package of I can't remember how many
exactly there were then, but I think somewhere around fifty
cold cases. Yes, I think they were all just lumped
in together without a lot of consideration given to the
terminology that was used.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
It seems to be a common theme these days, so
you think what that was just an oversight or no
one really gave it much thoughts, They just chucked it in.

Speaker 15 (54:23):
I think there was a sort of sweep up of
open cases within police and given to the government as
here here are all the ones that you might like
to announce a reward in respect of. And I'm aware
that some police internally have expressed concern about this being
called a homicide.

Speaker 1 (54:44):
Really so they're still worried.

Speaker 15 (54:46):
Well, I've seen some documents obtained under Freedom of Information
in which they've expressed concern about about it.

Speaker 5 (54:55):
Peter Ward is referring to the FI application we made
to WA about the internal correspondence relating to Amy's case.
The documents captured include emails by senior police officers, including
a detective acting inspector from the homicide squad, seemingly criticizing
the fact that a million dollar reward was introduced for

(55:16):
information into Amy's death. Referring to the article about this
in the West Australian, he says in an email, I was.

Speaker 11 (55:24):
Wondering if the claim that this matter is now being
listed as a homicide bringing a million dollar reward is correct.
The scudder gun approach to offering rewards is just ridiculous,
particularly if it leads to commentaries such as this.

Speaker 5 (55:36):
He seems to be referring to the criticism of WA
Police for the initial quote botched investigation. In reply, the
Detective Superintendent and Major Crime Squad emails back.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
I saw this in today's paper. Interestingly, it wasn't homicide.

Speaker 5 (55:52):
Another officer, this time an examiner from the ballistics unit,
was also disgruntled, saying.

Speaker 12 (55:58):
What the fuck?

Speaker 11 (55:59):
Who has admitted this or is it poetic license by
the West? If so, any idea what is being done
about it?

Speaker 5 (56:06):
So high ranking offices in WA Police still don't even
acknowledge that Amy Wensley's investigation was stuffed up. These emails
were dated the seventeenth and nineteenth of May twenty twenty three, respectively.
Fortunately not everyone feels the same way. On the sixteenth
of May, a crime Stoppers media officer following up on

(56:27):
the new one million dollar reward says he's leaving out
the part about the coroner making an open finding, instead saying.

Speaker 11 (56:34):
The circumstances surrounding the death of Amy are suspicious and
the matter is being investigated as a suspected homicide.

Speaker 5 (56:41):
Unfortunately, he's not the one who'd be tasked to investigate it.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
You probably can't answer this, but do you think police
are more worried about their own reputations than the outcome
for Amy's family?

Speaker 15 (57:00):
I can't answer that specifically, and I really hesitate to
answer it in respect of individual officers, because I think
there are some officers who attended on the date, and
there are some officers who were involved in the cold
case investigation who really seem to have done a good
job with the limitations they faced, but demonstrated good support

(57:24):
for the family and discharged their duties to the best
of their abilities. Where I'm more concerned is at an
institutional level. The police institutionally don't appear to have shown
the family that they care.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
Peter, You've done a lot of work over the years
in the service of the public at times when you
probably could have made more money in private practice. Yes,
so you do have a conscience in that regard. I mean,
how do you see this for Amy's family, for those
behind it still having to feel as though they have

(58:02):
to keep fighting it metaphorically headbutting those institutions to try
and get some answers for a young woman who was
found dead in horrific circumstances in very suspicious way. I mean,

(58:24):
how do you view that.

Speaker 15 (58:26):
So I've done quite a bit of domestic violence related
work pro bono as a sideline to my regular commercial practice,
and I've done that throughout Western Australia, the NT and
I've seen a lot of instances where police and corrections
authorities have not kept tabs on offenders or have not

(58:50):
properly investigated things. I think that sometimes families in the
position of Amy's family need somebody to stand up for them,
and within the legal profession, there's a long history of
people doing that. I'm not the only one. John Quickly
is the classic example, with the work that he did
to free Andrew Mallett.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
Many years ago when he was a humble attorney.

Speaker 15 (59:14):
He's demonstrated that he's got a heart to stand up
for victims.

Speaker 1 (59:19):
Well, he's now that his Attorney General, who see he's
in the ultimate position of power, is the law maker,
and he won't sit down and take any questions on
this subject. It all becomes too hard politically, doesn't it.
That's all right for John's political future, but what does
it say for Amy's family.

Speaker 15 (59:34):
I'm sure that Amy's family would like to hear from
him or the police minister or the commissioner, but of
course they can't be forced and there is still an
ongoing police investigation at least in name.

Speaker 1 (59:47):
That's why lawyers like yourself are so badly needed, especially
in pro by no situations where people from poorer backgrounds
need that help. As you rightly point out, they need
people to stand up for them. They are public leaders
standing up for people when they need them. And isn't
this the argument we're having right now around Australia about

(01:00:08):
domestic violence.

Speaker 15 (01:00:10):
The domestic violence aspect certainly gets raised in this. There
was a huge amount of evidence given before the coroner
about the previous history of controlling behavior and domestic violence
incidents well before the night in question. And you can't
just reason that because there was a history of violence,
that there must have been something that occurred on the night.

(01:00:33):
But if that violence in the past had been addressed,
if as a society we had systems in place to
deal with domestic violence more generally to provide refuge to women,
then we've been a lot better place than Maybe Amy
wouldn't have been shot, Maybe things never would have escalated

(01:00:55):
to the point of homicide, suicide or accident, whichever it was.

Speaker 1 (01:00:58):
I couldn't agree more with you. But again, you know,
Amy's family and friends told the coroner repeatedly, as you've
just pointed out, that there was a history there of
violent acts and actions. And yet the police get up
and they say, well, we check the police database. Nothing
in the police data base, nothing to see here, Move away, folks,

(01:01:19):
go home. Yep, there's a gulf between the reality and
the officialdom, isn't there?

Speaker 15 (01:01:28):
There is, And there is a lot more to be
done on the ground level to address the causes and
instances of domestic violence, not just for Amy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
Not just for Amy. As I understand it, We're not
talking any sort of double jeopardy moment here. David Simmons
has been formally arrested on suspicion of murder in this
case twice yes, on two separate occasions. Discharged every time.
So if there is any evidence that he should be

(01:02:04):
charged again in that way, there's no impediment, is there none? Whatsoever?
It doesn't have to be shall we say, fresh evidence
in terms of what the police already have. It can
be what they already have plus plus Yes, So it's
an open playing field.

Speaker 15 (01:02:19):
Really, what you're talking about is whether the police would
arrest him a third time. And the only reason why
they would arrest him a third time would be because
they've got something new that supplements the evidence they previously
had that cast doubt on the suicide theory and it
implicates David in Amy's.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
Death, something that the DPP would consider would provide a
complete brief in order to justify the charges.

Speaker 15 (01:02:46):
Yes, it would provide a reasonable prospect of a jury
reaching a verdict of.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
Guilty, which is the beginning point for any charge.

Speaker 4 (01:02:56):
Yes.

Speaker 15 (01:02:56):
Yes, there has to be a reasonable prospect of a
conviction before charges are proceeded with.

Speaker 5 (01:03:12):
This is how coroner Sarah Linton concluded her findings.

Speaker 13 (01:03:17):
I have considered all the available evidence that has been
obtained in all of the police investigations and obtained through
the inquest process itself, and I have concluded that there
is not enough evidence for me to make a formal
finding as to how Amy died. I regret that I
am unable to provide all of the answers that Amy's
family is seeking, but I am required to base my

(01:03:37):
findings on the evidence, and there are too many unknowns
in this case. I extend my deepest condolence to Amy's
family and friends who have followed this matter all the
way through and put their energy and efforts into seeking
the truth. They have demonstrated in their commitment to the
process their love for Amy and her daughters. I understand

(01:03:58):
that this finding is unlikely to ring them closure, but
I hope at least they will take some satisfaction from
having brought to the light the failings of the initial
investigation and ensured that all proper measures were taken to
investigate Amy's death in the way it should have been
from the very start. Sh Linton Coroner, nine September twenty
twenty one.

Speaker 1 (01:04:22):
Now we acknowledge not all of the evidence we've presented
in this podcast was available at the time, but a
lot of it was, and it's not just us who
feel it was all dealt with haphazardly. Someone who is
deeply concerned about the lack of action on Amy's case

(01:04:45):
is wa opposition leader in the Legislative Council, Peter Collier.
He's asked a lot of questions in Parliament recently. Peter,
thanks very much for being part of this. My pleasure
having a chat to us, trying like we are to
find the truth about Amy. I think it's incredibly important

(01:05:06):
in the interest of public justice.

Speaker 16 (01:05:08):
Is that the way you see it one hundred percent.
I've spoken with Amy's family at length. The inconsistencies, the
contradictions that exist around this case are profound.

Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
Now, I don't take these things unlikely. I've been in this.

Speaker 16 (01:05:20):
Game for twenty years and you hear a lot of innuendo,
a lot of rumors, a lot of emotion from families affected,
et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:05:28):
This one is compelling.

Speaker 16 (01:05:30):
Having spoken with Amy's family, I don't think you need
a PhD in criminology to understand that there is something
within this case without a shadow of it out.

Speaker 1 (01:05:39):
What do you think about the way the death of
Amy Wensley has been treated.

Speaker 16 (01:05:44):
I understand why the family are so aggrieved with the process,
the inconsistencies from day one from the attending officers when
Amy's was first found to then the attending detectivesance on
the part of the authority to do anything about it.
The open finding from the coroner show that there is

(01:06:07):
there are many more questions and answers, a lot of
questions and.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
A lot more questions that we've raised through the course
of this podcast so far. So one could argue, do
you think that you could put together a pretty strong
brief now if you really wanted.

Speaker 16 (01:06:23):
To, if there was there the will to do so
without a shadow of it out.

Speaker 1 (01:06:27):
So if that's the case, then why is the Attorney
General of Wa so reluctant to refer this case off
to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Speaker 16 (01:06:36):
Well that's the do I say, the million dollar question?
Because the government have offered a million dollars for information
into Amy's death. Quite frankly, in addition to that, on
the Minister for Police's website it is listed Amy step
There's listed as a homicide. Yet the Attorney General in
the same government is reluctant to report it to the DPP. Now,

(01:07:01):
how can you have those contradictions Okay, this is not
a speeding fine. This is something that is profoundly significant.
A young woman lost her life. The government knows that
we as a community owe it not just to her daughters,
not just to her family, not just to justice, but
to Amy. We owe it to Amy to get to
the bottom of this. And I specifically asked in the

(01:07:22):
Parliament as to why he wouldn't forward it off to
the DPP, the Public prosecutor. I've pretty much got, in
political terms, a single finger solute that is it's under investigation.

Speaker 3 (01:07:34):
Well, we don't know whether it is or it isn't.
Quite frankly, there is an easy avenue for this.

Speaker 16 (01:07:39):
I know that the Attorney General is using the guys
that there's no statutory requirement or no statutory avenue for
him to send it to the DPP. At the same time,
there is no statutory impediment to him sending it to
the DPP. Quite frankly, for a government that has got
on one minister's website that it's a homicide to not

(01:08:01):
have the other minister responsible to actually send it off
to the DPP is gob smackingly unbelievable.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
Let me drill down on that. Peter so you're saying
the Attorney General is using the excuse there's nothing in
the Act that says he should send it to the DPP.
That's correct, but you're saying, in effect, there's also nothing
in the Act that prevents him from sending it to
the DPP.

Speaker 3 (01:08:23):
Without a shadow of it out, without a shadow of
it out.

Speaker 16 (01:08:26):
I mean, anyone that's got raised eyebrows with regard to
Amy's death is going to have them even higher at
this stage.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
And also it's straightforward along the lines the Attorney General
has already used to give himself a better image in
the public. He has said in recent weeks and months
he wants to help the victims of domestic violence. If
that is true, isn't this the perfect opportunity to show
that he wants to help them.

Speaker 16 (01:08:51):
One hundred percent? You know, domestic violence is a scourge
on our community. Has escalated forty four percent over the
last quarter compared to the last.

Speaker 3 (01:08:59):
Five years average.

Speaker 16 (01:09:00):
It's a very very sad testament of whether or not
we're sincere about overcoming domestic violence issues. Let's not forget
Liam Amy lost her life over ten years ago. On
the twenty sixth of June two thousand and forty Amy
lost her life and ten years down the track it
has been, in some instances a slow moving train wreck.

(01:09:20):
You know, if you want to have some solace for
Amy's family, but also for Amy herself, for goodness sake,
have the courage of your convictions to the government. It
turn your General sends it off to the DPP and
then you'll find that'll give a lot more comfort to
the family.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
Where is the blockage here?

Speaker 10 (01:09:39):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Dare I say? Is it embarrassment? Somewhere at the top?

Speaker 16 (01:09:44):
You know, we can only speculate on that limb which
cases similar cases move along. This one has really captured
my imagination, captured my conviction, and that is because I
don't think Amy took her own life. I've had multiple
occasions in the last twenty years, particularly over the last
four years as Shadow Police Minister, to lay the boots

(01:10:06):
in to the government from multiple people that have come
to me with concerns over actions of the police, erections
of the Attorney General or justice that's been denied.

Speaker 3 (01:10:16):
Almost exclusively.

Speaker 16 (01:10:18):
I have listened to them, tried to assist them, but
directed them to the Triple C or to another authority.
Not in this instance. I think I think it has
been an injustice. I think the government quite frankly, is
dragging its heels and their motives are.

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Hard to fathom.

Speaker 5 (01:10:37):
Attorney General John Quigley last week wrote to Amy's aunt,
Anna Davy, claiming he couldn't help her.

Speaker 12 (01:10:45):
Dear Miss Davy, I write to you with regards to
the ongoing matter of the death of your niece, Miss
Amy Wensley in twenty fourteen. I would again like to
express my sincere condolences for your loss and for the
difficult times you and your fair have endured. Since I
understand that Miss Amy Wensley's family, including yourself, are advocating

(01:11:07):
for the matter to be referred to the Office of
the Director of Public Prosecutions for the matter to be
raised in court. I advise that as Attorney General, there
is nothing in Part four of the Director of Public
Prosecutions Act under the heading Relationship with Attorney General, which
provides for the Attorney to refer matters to the DPP,

(01:11:27):
and it specifically prohibits me, as the Attorney, from issuing
directions to the DPP. In respect of a particular case.
The coroner has the authority to report a matter to
the DPP if the coroner believes an indictable offense has
been committed in connection with the death which the coroner investigates.
WA Police can also refer a matter to the DPP

(01:11:49):
for assessment and advise as to whether the available evidence
establishes a prima facie case with reasonable prospects, but as
Attorney General I have no role in that. I can, however,
confirm that the following has taken place in relation to
Miss Wensley's death. Point one. A hearing was set down

(01:12:10):
for a discretionary coronial inquest to be held in relation
to Miss Wensley's death in twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest,
the former Deputy State Coroner Vicar referred the matter to
the DPP. This was based on the opinion of an
expert biomechanical report, which former Deputy State Coroner Vicer considered
contained information to suggest an indictable offense had been committed

(01:12:33):
in relation to Miss Wensley's death. That referral to the
DPP resulted in the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad
conducting a review of the earlier police investigations into Miss
Wensley's death. WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt
to obtain evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death.

(01:12:55):
Zero point four. The review concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to establish the involvement of another person in Miss
Wensley's death. Point five. The DPP reviewed the materials and
agreed with the determination made by WA Police and referred
the matter back to the coroner's court. Point six. An
inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with Deputy

(01:13:18):
State Coroner Linton conducting the inquest with a focus on
whether there was any additional evidence that could be obtained
that might assist in determining how Miss Wensley came to
suffer the injury that caused her death. Point seven. The
current Deputy State Coroner, Linton declined to refer the matter
to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was

(01:13:39):
insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had
been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. I want
to commend you for your advocacy on behalf of your
niece during a difficult time. I understand that it would
have been a difficult process and as a result you
may wish to make contact with the offers of the
Commissioner for Victims of Crime. Yours, sincerely, John Quiggly.

Speaker 5 (01:14:04):
To say Anna was livid with this letter from mister
Quiggley is an understatement. We've received legal advice which confirmed
there is nothing preventing the ag from asking the DPP
to review the brief again in light of the evidence
that has arisen through this podcast, and to consider exercising
the Director's power under Section twenty two of the DPP

(01:14:27):
Act to request police to undertake specific investigations into the
new evidence. This podcast should never have been made. When
I started writing it, I hadn't read all the documents,

(01:14:48):
and when I spoke with Anna, she spoke like someone
who had witnessed a great injustice. Passionate, angry, outraged. I
came to the end I felt the exact same emotions,
but also absolutely astonished that this could happen in this
day and age. It's only been ten years. We reached

(01:15:13):
out to Premier Roger Cook. He referred us to the
Attorney General. We'd already emailed the Attorney General asking if
he'd do an interview with us and meet with Amy's family.
His spokesman said this in reply.

Speaker 14 (01:15:28):
Hello Allison, the attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family.
As stated in my earlier email, this matter is or
may be the subject of a police investigation now or
in the future, and as such it would not be
appropriate for the attorney to comment. I also repeat what
I provided earlier, being that police can refer a brief

(01:15:51):
of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions for advice and to assess whether the available evidence
establishes a primer facy case with reasonable prospects, but the
attorney has no role in that process. There is nothing
in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for
the attorney to refer matters to the ODPP, and it

(01:16:13):
specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to the DPP
in respect of a particular case. It should also be
noted that the ODPP has no investigative function regards Jordan.

Speaker 1 (01:16:30):
Prima facie as described by Jordan here is based on
the first impression. Accept it is correct until proved otherwise. Now,
this case has already been referred to the ODPP due
to the findings of the unbiased biomechanical experts Tim Ackland

(01:16:51):
and Tom Gibson, both of whom concluded the evidence was
highly consistent with Amy having been shot by so someone else,
not having taken her own life. That's what triggered the
cold case investigation and of course the subsequent inquest. What
we can ascertain from Jordan's email is that there's nothing

(01:17:14):
stopping Attorney General John Quigley from referring it back to
the ODPP, but he won't because he doesn't have to.
We sought clarification as to whether this means he won't
even meet with Amy's family, and we've heard nothing back.

(01:17:35):
He's just leaving it in the hands of WA police, who,
after bungling Amy's investigation at the start, appear to now
have absolutely no desire to rectify the situation.

Speaker 5 (01:17:51):
Apparently so because, as you know, we spoke to Chris,
who provided a significant tip to crime Stoppers about how
apparently Joshua Brydon told her and others that he helped
move Amy's body and they had to burn their clothes.
To clarify here, he was apparently still maintaining Amy shot
herself and the blood was actually as a result of

(01:18:13):
going pigging but that he lost his favorite shorts as
a result, which again begs the question among others, did
they always burn their clothes after pigging.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
Now we heard from Chris again last week. She's been
scrolling through her past messages with Brydon and found one
from twenty eighteen of him recalling, wait for it, finding
his best mate's wife, who was like a sister to him,
with her head blown off his words, which certainly adds

(01:18:52):
weight to what Chris is saying. Now. Brighton has denied
ever having such a conversation and maintains to this day
he was not there when Amy died, but the evidence
he was is quite overwhelming, and as we've said before,

(01:19:12):
his story was never verified by police. That should be
one of the first things this new team, which has
been formed to follow up all the tips sent to
crime stoppers, should do that and to properly interrogate all
the key people, both Simmons father and son, Gareth Price,

(01:19:38):
Joshua Brydon and Rachel mckinne. To date, there has never
been a thorough investigation to the standard you'd expect for
a possible homicide.

Speaker 5 (01:19:51):
The truth about Amy is that it's a hidden homicide
and as such much more difficult to address. This termsents
all those cases that are written off a suicide or accident,
usually as a result of a shoddy police investigation from
the start, but sadly, once the initial decision is made,

(01:20:11):
it's incredibly difficult to have it overturned, regardless of how
much evidence there is to the contrary. Thus reflected in
this email response we had from Police Commissioner Cole Blanche's
media officer.

Speaker 2 (01:20:25):
WA Police Special Crime Squad has carriage of the investigation
into Amy's death and there is a million dollar reward
for information leading to the conviction of the person or
persons responsible. Anyone who has information in relation to her
death is encouraged to contact crime Stoppers on one eight hundred,
triple three, triple zero or online at www dot Crimestopperswa

(01:20:46):
dot com dot au. WA Police will never give up
and is committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death.

Speaker 1 (01:20:53):
While it appears pretty much a cut and paste from
previous media releases, they do at least say that they're
committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death. Contrast that
with the position they put to the coroner in closing
submissions in twenty twenty one that there was no one

(01:21:14):
responsible other than Amy. It's a remarkable turnaround that they
now publicly accept someone else is responsible. Although disappointing, the
old school establishment still seemed to be fighting this. According
to the emails that we got under FOI.

Speaker 5 (01:21:34):
The problem is WA Police hasn't been proactive about this
case from the start. It just appears to be a
tick and flick exercise. So I'm not sure how optimistic
I can be from this response given their record to date.
Initially I thought we wouldn't even reach this episode because
surely if anyone from WA Police was listening, they'd looked

(01:21:57):
to make the most of the publicity and turn the screws,
so to speak. But looking at that comment from the
Office of the Police Commissioner, it just seems they're waiting
for the heat to die down so they don't have
to deal with it. If you are listening, please be
aware it doesn't end here.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Yep, that's right. How we are just getting started soon soon?

Speaker 3 (01:22:25):
You again, so soon.

Speaker 1 (01:22:32):
This was about revealing the truth about Amy by presenting facts,
showing how they were handled, and bringing to their attention
new evidence that provides the foundation for this case to progress.
From next week myself, Al and Tim Clark from the

(01:22:55):
West Australian will engage in a weekly conversations podcast, engaging
various experts to provide their opinions. Amy's family has now
also launched a petition via change dot org calling for
her case to be referred to the Office of the

(01:23:16):
Director of Public Prosecutions. You can find the details in
the show's notes, but will also post a link on
our Facebook and Instagram accounts. We'll also continue to seek
answers from the WA Police Commissioner Cole Blanche, Attorney General

(01:23:37):
John Quigley, and Premier Roger Cook about why this case
continues to be ignored when there is a clear need
for action. Their ongoing refusal to address the issues is
a disgrace. Last question before we shall finish. I don't

(01:24:05):
know whether you're aware of this. So there's evidence from
one of the women who've gone to crime stoppers, the
friend of Joshua Bryden's ex partner, and she's saying that
she was at his house a couple of months afterwards.
He was crying and saying he remembers Amy's you know,
he helped move Amy's body with Gareth christ the other
his body of evidence is that he was never there.

Speaker 3 (01:24:26):
That was ad weight, without a doubt.

Speaker 16 (01:24:29):
And as again, just that to those constant inconsistencies that exist,
and can I say it should not, with all respect
to yourself and to your media colleagues, be up to.

Speaker 3 (01:24:39):
The media to actually solve this case and get to
the bottom of it. Gets the truth for the peace
of mind.

Speaker 16 (01:24:45):
Of everyone involved, including Amy's family, but also for Amy herself.
Don't just rely on the police. There is absolutely no
reason whatsoever that the Attorney General should not be referring
this to the deep and that provides solace for everybody.

Speaker 5 (01:25:05):
We'll leave you with a message from Amy's mum, Nancy,
who is so grateful for all the support she's received
since the podcast started and hopes you can continue to
help our plight to see the truth about Amy realized
by signing the petition.

Speaker 10 (01:25:22):
To all the people around the world who have been
listening and following the truth about Amy, I would like
to say thank you for all the lovely messages and support.
My sister Anna has been the driving force for the
last ten years. She has given up life to fight
for justice for Amy, and I cannot thank her enough.

(01:25:46):
Amy's daughters are well loved and cared for and have
grown into the most beautiful, caring and loving teenage girls.

Speaker 17 (01:25:55):
They are doing great at school. Amy would be prayer
as I am lisser.

Speaker 10 (01:26:11):
You s so des.

Speaker 1 (01:26:19):
Re.

Speaker 4 (01:26:20):
Both know they jell me.

Speaker 1 (01:26:29):
Hunt. 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

(01:26:50):
com dot a U that's s e V E N
The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au,
or visit our website sevenews 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

(01:27:14):
dot com. If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can
follow us to see photos and updates relevant to the case,
but for legal reasons, unfortunately you won't be able to
make any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,

(01:27:35):
don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,

(01:27:57):
Sound design Mark Wright and producer Cassie Woodward. Graphics Jason
Blandford and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour.

(01:28:21):
This is a seven News production.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}12: Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

12: Beyond Reasonable Doubt

On Purpose with Jay Shetty