13: Basic Instinct

Some of the nation’s best cold case analysts provide their expertise on Amy’s case and we delve deeper into some of the clues which are the key to finding out what really happened to Amy.

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 3 (00:50):
Panic.

Speaker 4 (00:51):
Amy is dead, Sir Amy his dead?

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Eight confusion.

Speaker 5 (00:54):
Well about five minutes they sit n' to suicide.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
One hundred percent.

Speaker 6 (00:58):
This is emersing.

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

Speaker 2 (01:06):
The truth about Amy?

Speaker 7 (01:08):
SA Episode thirteen.

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

Speaker 7 (01:21):
And I'm Alison Sandy.

Speaker 8 (01:28):
Let mess you dam Please forgive me for interrupting the
cocktail hour. But there are two questions of great importance
which I must put to you. First of all, did
anybody here throw a bottle into the sea this morning?

Speaker 5 (01:42):
No?

Speaker 8 (01:43):
Secondly, did any of you take a bath at twelve
fifteen today? An odd time for ablutions? Remarkable a bath
which nobody admits having taken, and a bottle which flies
by itself.

Speaker 7 (01:59):
You are listening to Peter Eustinov as the famous detective
Hercule Pio in the nineteen eighty one classic Agatha Christie
movie Evil under the Sun. Here he poses questions which
prove critical in him solving the mystery. We'll have some
questions like this later in this episode.

Speaker 8 (02:19):
I can't say I blame them.

Speaker 7 (02:20):
This movie resonates with me as we unpicked the various
clues which hold the key to the truth about Amy.

Speaker 5 (02:27):
All.

Speaker 7 (02:30):
Here Paro points out his pertinent points.

Speaker 8 (02:33):
I wish you to consider very carefully, a bathing cap,
a bath, a bottle, a wristwatch, the diamond, the noonday gun,
the breath of the sea, and the hate of the cliff.
From that, you should be able to solve it yourselves.

Speaker 7 (02:46):
We can compile a similar list, although not so glamorous
and a bit more comprehensive. A passport, a selfie, a
khaki jacket, a pink foone, the packed are, a missing
door handle, the gun in the wardrobe, the position of
the body, and the clothes David and Gareth provided to police.

(03:11):
Of course, there's also the taking out of the wheelibins
and all the phone calls that occurred just after Amy died.
There are so many anomalies which need addressing.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
And yes, fortunately police can't just gloss over things that
don't make sense, and they need to verify Josh Bryden's
movements around the time Amy died. Now that means speaking
to all of those other witnesses who didn't want to
be involved last time. We'll discuss more about this later,

(03:50):
but for now, let's revisit our recent interview with Australia's
own great detective, the good Cop, Ron Iddalls.

Speaker 9 (03:59):
Welcome, Ron, thank you, thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
When we caught up with Ron on conversations, he discussed
the steps to take when investigating an unexplained sudden death,
most importantly treating it as suspicious until you can prove
it isn't.

Speaker 9 (04:19):
It's a bit like ABC. Assume nothing, believe nothing, and
check everything. The three classic things that you always look
for motive, opportunity and capability. The truth is always in
an an investigation, you've actually got to go out and
find it, and at the moment, I don't think that's

(04:41):
being done now.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
Ron makes it very clear that while he believes Amy's
death was mishandled by the investigating detectives who determined its
suicide on the night she died. It is solvable, and
that's the important point.

Speaker 9 (04:58):
It is so the two people that were at the
house at the time, that's David and Gareth, they had
statements taken them down at the front gate, sitting in
the back of a police car. Now, before those statements
were finished, the detective that had already said it was
a suicide. Now that's impossible because you haven't even got

(05:21):
a full detailed statement from the two people who are present.
I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still
be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly
what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people.
Carl Williams, who was an underworld figure in Melbourne who
elderly died and was involved in four or five murders,

(05:44):
had this thing and he said those who know don't talk,
and those who talk don't know. But in the end
that was all proved wrong. Those who knew always told someone.
I don't know what they've done since the inquest, but
what I'd be doing is who is David's assaysiate, who

(06:06):
are his friends who he's been in contact with over
the last three or four years. And I know it's ONNUS,
but you would go around and speak to every one
of those. You would go and speak to all Garris
friends again, because sometimes with the passage of time, people's
relationship change. And I think if you did that, you

(06:26):
might actually find someone who says, this is what he
told me, which is inconsistent to what the account that
he gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And
then you couple that with all your evidence that you've
found and you put it to the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
Now. Last month, WA Police announced a cold case review
was underway.

Speaker 10 (06:49):
The WA Police Force are currently investigating the death of
Amy Wensley. The team are committed to investigating this matter
professionally and doing their utmost to uncover new evidence. As
this matter is currently under investigation, it would be premature
to refer it to the ODPP at this stage. Once

(07:12):
this investigation is complete, WA Police will present all findings
of the task force to the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. The investigation team are
making progress, however, no further details will be provided at
this time. Operational details of the investigation team will not

(07:35):
be revealed.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
So after WA Police provide an updated copy of the
brief of evidence, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Owen,
decides whether Amy's case is strong enough to take to court.
Amy's aunt, Anna Davy, recently reached out to mister Owen
to see if he'd meet with her to discuss Amy's

(07:58):
case and the way it's been handled. Dear Miss Davy,
this is his reply, dated first of October.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
Thank you for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four.
I acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my
office is likely to be for you and your family.
I understand you are seeking justice for Amy, and that
this reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However,
I am unable to provide a materially different response from

(08:26):
the one you received from the ODPP on the first
of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you
that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we
do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints.
The odpp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable criminal offenses.
Once charges have been laid by investigative agencies such as

(08:49):
WA Police. That function includes the assessment of the evidence gathered.
If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP isn't able to proceed.
The ODP VP has no power to investigate the conduct
of other agencies or to assess whether an investigation by
WA Police was insufficient. In our letter to you, dated

(09:10):
first of November twenty nineteen, we indicated that an inquest
into your niece's death may be the appropriate forum to
ventilate the matters you have raised. An inquest into the
death of your niece has now been completed and the
findings were delivered by the Deputy State Coroner on ninth
of September twenty twenty one. The inquest followed a cold
case review by WA Police in which further investigative strategies

(09:33):
were used to determine whether any evidence could be obtained
to establish criminality in relation to Amy's death. The review
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the involvement
of another person in Amy's death, and the matter was
referred back to the State Coroner to continue the coronial proceedings.
The ODPP received and assessed the evidence, which was obtained

(09:54):
by WA Police in its cold case homicide review. At
the time, the former Director did not con seated there
to be sufficient evidence to prosecute a person in relation
to Amy's death.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
As you are no.

Speaker 4 (10:05):
Doubt aware, the Deputy State Coroner concluded that there was
not enough evidence to make a formal finding about how
Amy died. Accordingly, her honor made the open finding as
to the manner of death. Although the state Coroner has
the power to refer the matter to the ODPP, because
the Deputy State Coroner found there was insufficient evidence that
an indubtable offense had been committed, she did not refer

(10:28):
the matter to the ODPP. The Deputy State Coroner did
make some adverse comments about the standard of the initial
police investigation and the limitations placed on the Coroner's ability
to consider all relevant evidence. I've outlined this information only
to ensure that you are informed about the evidence to date.
I understand you are likely to be very familiar with

(10:48):
what has occurred, and I mean no disrespect in doing so.
At this time, the ODPP cannot undertake further steps or
offer any other resolution in this case. Yours sincerely, Robert,
Director of Public Prosecutions, dear.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Mister Owen, Anna writes back, thank.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
You for replying to my recent letter and for confirming
your office hasn't seen Amy's case file for at least
five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's case was still being
wrongly treated as a suicide by WA Police. Now in
twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to as
a homicide and there is a considerable amount of new

(11:29):
evidence now available as per my previous letter, would you
be willing to meet with me to discuss or is
it a case that you won't seek any information from
WA Police unless they raise it with you. Given my
family seems to be at the complete mercy of WA Police,
I just wanted to find out from you what it
would take for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If,

(11:52):
as a family we don't believe Amy's case is being
handled properly, what avenues do we have do we go
back to the WA Corption and Crime Commission. I'm sure
you can understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's
come to light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast
The Truth About Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've

(12:15):
had to fight the system for more than ten years
now because of the catastrophic mistake made by members of
the WA Police Force. I don't think it's asking too
much to seek help from people like you who are
in the position to provide some but for whatever reason,
don't seem to want to offer any assistance at all.

(12:35):
Regards Anna Davy.

Speaker 7 (12:39):
It's unclear how mister Owen will react when he receives
an updated brief into Amy's death, how thorough WA Police's
reinvestigation will be, or whether they even recommend any action.
But what's most troubling is a lack of accountability associated
with decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are

(13:00):
determines whether the case is strong enough to proceed with
a criminal trial.

Speaker 5 (13:04):
I think the problem is that they have TANGI.

Speaker 7 (13:07):
This came up when we caught up with New South
Wales Crime Commissioner and former State Coroner for both Queensland
and New South Wales, Michael Barnes, who discussed what was
at stake.

Speaker 5 (13:18):
Putting someone before the court is a serious impact on
that individual. Being wrongly accused and then publicly tried, even
if you are acquitted at the end of the day,
is a very serious impact. So it's appropriate that the
people making that decision do so cautiously. I think the
problem is that they have intangible, almost unknowable assessments they

(13:43):
must make. Is it in the public interest, is it
likely to result in a conviction? Well, sitting in the office,
reading your papers, looking at what the records of interview
show seems to me to be a fairly difficult way
to make an assessment of how a witness is going
to perform in front of front of a jury, what
they will say to questions that haven't yet been asked

(14:05):
of them, how the expert witnesses will impact upon a
jury's assessment. All of those things are very difficult to
know with certainty. So if, as you say, there's a
fifty to fifty chance, well, how do you decide which
way it goes? You'd be aware of William Blackstone, a
famous English jurist who is credited with saying that under

(14:29):
the English legal system, it's better that ten guilty men
go free than one innocent person is convicted. And I
stand bothside that. I think that's extremely important. We can't
have innocent people being locked up, but nor can we
have people who are actually guilty of crimes not being

(14:49):
brought to account. And the problem we've gotten the current
system is if you were accused, there are multiple opportunities
for you to vindicate yourself, for you to negate the
proceedings brought against you. You usually have a committal proceeding
in which you can seek to persuade the magistrate that
the matter shouldn't go further forward. Even if you are

(15:09):
committed for trial, you can make written submissions to the DPP,
who will regularly listen to those submissions and decide that
the matter shouldn't go to trial. If it goes to trial,
you can make no case submission to the trial judge,
saying there's no case for me to answer here. I
shouldn't even have to go into evidence. And if you
are convicted, of course you have all the appeal processes

(15:31):
available to you. But people in the position of Amy's
mother have no mechanism or process to contest the decision
of the DPP and the police not to bring charges.
That's quite surprising when you think about our commitment to
transparency and accountability. Think of any other public official whose

(15:54):
decisions aren't reviewable in any other circumstance. There's no mechanism
that you can review the decision of a DPP even
though they're making an assessment that isn't an objective, concrete
decision that you can calibrate. It's not how many bricks
were laid in a day, it's what will a jury
think about these persons explanation for what happened.

Speaker 7 (16:16):
Mister Barnes goes on to say that should the WA
Director of Public Prosecutions decide there's not enough evidence for
him to take the matter further, he doesn't even have
to justify it.

Speaker 5 (16:26):
The difficulty though, in the current circumstance, the DPP will
look at it and you'll get a two line letter
saying I don't consider there's a sufficient prospects of a conviction.
If that's the course, they take, no reasons, no analysis
of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory letter saying no,
I know better than everybody else, it's not going to happen.

Speaker 7 (16:46):
Mister Barnes cites several examples where he's recommended charges be
laid following an inquest, but the DPP refused.

Speaker 5 (16:54):
I've never seen a perfect investigation, and in most of
those cases, though there are problems, they can be remedied
and the investigation brought back on track. But you're right
to highlight that in a certain number of cases there
are crucial errors made that cause the resolution of the

(17:17):
matters to be very protracted and in some cases never resolved.
I mean, everyone knows about the Chris Dawson case here
in Sydney, now got a conviction but decades after the event. Similarly,
there was a tragic case here involving a young American mathematician,
Scott Johnson, who it took three inquests before we got

(17:38):
a really strong police investigation that only last year resulted
in someone pleading guilty and serving a lengthy term of imprisonment.
So yes, there are these cases. As I say, most
of the time police do a great job, but from
time to time mistakes are made. Either someone's not charged

(18:02):
or they are charged, and the system falls down somewhere
else along the way, as you'd appreciate. Even when a
charge is laid because police have got but they think
is sufficient evidence, all of the other parts of the
criminal justice system have to work appropriately. I was involved
in another very sad case in New South Wales, but

(18:24):
they had some unfortunate similarities and that the victim was
a young Aboriginal woman with young children and a devoted
family who died as a result of horrific internal injuries,
that the two miscreants who were with a claim were
the result of consensual sexual activity. The cops didn't go
for that she had a blood alcohol reading way beyond

(18:46):
which anyone could make any sorts of reasonable decisions, and
the circumstances in which she was found dead on the beach,
with the two individuals involved burning all her clothing and
the mattress from the back of the car made it
very obvious that there was more to the story the
cops charged with causing the death. The DPP discontinued the charge.

(19:12):
We run in quested, to my mind, made it abundantly
clear that the version given by the two people who
were with Lynnette on the day that she died weren't acceptable,
couldn't have possibly been true, and therefore strongly recommended that
the charges again be preferred. Despite those detailed findings, the

(19:34):
DPP declined to do that, and only when a couple
of media outlets got involved and drue attention to the
case was the DPP persuaded the brief and outside External
Council to give advice about whether or not charges could
or should be laid. That council indicated that a conviction
was likely. He was correct. He was brief to then

(19:57):
run the trial, and guilty verdicts were return by a
jury after a five day trial. They're only out for
thirty two minutes before they found the men guilty, and
they're now thankfully serving lengthy sentences. But that's just an
example of how everything at every step along the way,
problems can arise that frustrate the pursuit of justice.

Speaker 11 (20:18):
Julianne's husband, Allan, said the women had gone out on
a late night fishing trip near Atherton. They never came home.

Speaker 7 (20:25):
One of those cases was a supposed murder suicide of
Vicky Arnold and Julianne Lay.

Speaker 11 (20:30):
Police ruled VICKI had killed Julianne and then turned the
gun on herself.

Speaker 5 (20:35):
I did the third in quest and said it was
a homicide, and the DPP refused to charge.

Speaker 7 (20:40):
The third inquest. Remember, Amy's case has only had one
and the new evidence is expected to be enough to
trigger another. But they're expensive and time consuming, and the
family has been fighting for the case to be tested
in court for more than a decade now. So why
can't that be done?

Speaker 5 (21:01):
Undoubtedly the work you've done has contributed to a softening
of that position the difficulty, though in the current circumstance,
the EPP will look at it and you'll get a
two line letter saying I don't consider there's sufficient prospects
of a conviction. If that's the course, they take, no reasons,
no analysis of the evidence. You get this very perfunctory
letter saying, no, I know better than everybody else, it's

(21:23):
not going to happen.

Speaker 7 (21:24):
Meanwhile, this begs the question, why are multiple inquests necessary
when it will presumably lead to the same place.

Speaker 5 (21:31):
You've heard of the term therapeutic jurist rudens and coroners
have been beaten around their head a bit on that
score in the last decord or so that you've got
research that suggests, in some cases unfortunately significant number of cases,
the inquest have made things worse for the bereaved, and
of course that's not what croners are inclined to do.

(21:55):
There's also lack of consistent practice among coroners as to
their role in suspected homicides. Some will say, we are
not there to investigate crimes, We're only there to find
the manner and cause of death, and that's the police
and the DPP who've got to do crime. Therefore, we
don't want to get involved in that. There are very

(22:18):
significant differences in views about what the role of the
coroner in suspected homicide is. Under the modern coronial system.
It used to be a major part of their role
and no one could go to trial in New South
Wales unless they'd been committed for trial by the coroner.
The eighties and nineties there's a big move away from that.

(22:39):
Coroners are seen to have focus more on prevention. Was
suggested that coron is unfairly damaging people's reputation and a
lot of coroners, a significant proportion of coroners are not
interested in reviewing their role in that regard. They see
themselves as something different from the criminal justice.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
We contacted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
about this, which replied swiftly with the following.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
The ODPP receives indictable prosecutions after the charges have been
laid in the Summary Court by the Investigative Agency WA.
Police prosecutions are assigned to suitable, experienced and qualified prosecutors.
According to the complexity and seriousness of the matter. Any
decision to commence or discontinue a prosecution is reviewed and

(23:38):
authorized by a more senior prosecutor. Where the matter is
proceeding to trial, a further pre trial review is conducted
by a consultant state prosecutor, who are our most senior prosecutors.
Where there are no reasonable prospects of conviction, a prosecution
cannot proceed. Additionally, victims have the power to request a

(23:58):
further review of the prosecutorial decisions which recommend discontinuance, in
accordance with the Policy and Guidelines for Victims of Crime
twenty twenty two. Of course, all prosecutions are critically reviewed
by an accused counsel, overseen by a judicial officer through
the court proceedings, and are ultimately reviewable by the Court
of Appeal. The ODPP also provides a formal charge advice

(24:21):
function at the request of an investigative agency, predominantly wa police.
The ODPP and investigative agencies have an independent function within
the criminal justice system, and it is a matter for
the investigative agency as to whether they accept that advice
and decide whether to lay charges or not. A setout
in Paragraphs sixteen to seventeen of the ODPP Media Policy

(24:43):
at Appendix three of the Guidelines. It is the odpp's
policy to provide reasons to a court for the discontinuance
of a prosecution unless the discontinuance is for administrative purposes only,
or to do so would prejudice the administration of justice
or cause heart to a victim, witness, or accused. It
is proper to publicly explain the odpp's approach to the

(25:06):
question of whether a prosecution is to continue or be
terminated by reference to the factors in the DPP Statement
of Prosecution Policy and guidelines, for example, by reference to
the lack of a prima facie case, lack of reasonable
prospects of conviction, or that there is no public interest
in proceeding.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
Where appropriate brief.

Speaker 4 (25:26):
Additional information by way of explanation can be provided, we
refer you to the odpp's Media Policy, in particular a
paragraph elevan in relation to further guidelines regarding the provision
of information when additional information is sought by media organizations.
These factors include that paramount need to ensure the integrity
of the criminal trial process, including any potential future trial,

(25:50):
the sensitivity of the information sought and the interests of
victims and witnesses.

Speaker 1 (25:56):
That response was provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions
Executive Assistant Margaret Ferry, and also reference the officer's Deputy Director,
Justin Waley SC and Director of Legal Services Matt Bug.
What they seem to be saying is that victims, not

(26:17):
victims families can only apply for review if they wish
to discontinue the case, and it's still up to WA
Police whether they wish to proceed with charges. But back
to Michael Barnes who also suggested WA Police seek the
advice of a suicidologist.

Speaker 5 (26:38):
I'm not intimately familiar with a with Australian legislation, but
generally currents need to be persuaded. There's fresh evidence that
wasn't considered at the previous inquest. It's not appropriate simply
to have another inquest because someone doesn't like the outcome
of the first inquest, so they would need to be
able to persuade the current There was fresh evidence that
hadn't been considered at the inquest that's already been pleaded,

(27:01):
that could lead to a different outcome and something that
strikes me in this case. It's and I said, I'm
not familiar with all of the evidence. I haven't read
all of the exhibits, but I haven't seen any reference
to expert suicide ology. One. It is very well renowned
homicide detective and I know you've interviewed, mentioned how he

(27:24):
was surprised by the circumstances, alleged that he'd never seen
a suicide where a young woman had shot herself in
such an awkward position and such a difficult circumstance. When
had she been inclined to do that? There were other
more convenient ways that should have been done. And Ronz
White as he said, he's looked at a thousand cases.

(27:45):
There are experts have looked at tens and hundreds of
thousands of suicides. They undertake what they call psychological autopsy,
so look at the victimology of the person and not
the circumstances of the death, and can offer expert advice
about whether people do ever kill themselves in this way.
The Scott Johnson matter I mentioned before, the police rated

(28:07):
off as a suicide in I think about two weeks
He was found naked at the bottom of a cliff.
His clothes neatly folded at the top of the cliff.
It was easy for our suicidologists to say that people
don't like themselves to be found in an undignified manner,
even though they know they're going to be dead, so

(28:28):
you don't take your clothes off before you jump to
your death. That sort of expert evidence doesn't seem to
have been brought to bear in this case.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Now.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
While a suicideologist wasn't consulted prior to the inquest, WA
police sought analysis from Major crime clinical psychologist Dr Chris
Geeson on whether David Simmons was telling the truth in
his interviews with police and if Amy was suicidal.

Speaker 12 (28:58):
I'm inclined to believe David Woman's version of events and
that Amy shot herself. I did not observe any seminal
inconsistencies in his account, even with the retelling of it
in parts, nor did I see any obvious behavior that
suggested he was censoring his disclosures or constructing a story.
I also noted that his response to questions were mostly

(29:19):
spontaneous with minimal lag, suggesting he was not cautious or
apprehensive about what he was disclosing or considering the implications
of what he was disclosing. While there were intermittent pauses,
these appeared to indicate he was trying to recall particular
events in response to the interviewer's questions. This was indicated
by his tentative responses I think and I'm not sure.

(29:44):
I note that he responded this way even when the
questions weren't critically relevant. I also noted that mister Simmons'
emotional reactions i e. Expression, effect, and emotion was congruent
with the content being disclosed at that point in the interview.
What I mean by this is that when he became
visually distressed, for example, this was both relevant and proportionate

(30:07):
to that being disclosed. Further, when he recounted supposedly finding
Miss Wensley in the bedroom after she had been shot,
his reaction in the interview was intense distress, disbelief, and horror,
with his nonverbal behavior supporting this. His behavior, for example,
running around and dropping to the floor when he found

(30:28):
Miss Wensley had been shot, is also consistent with these
observed emotions and proportionate to the event. Mister Price's description
of Miss Simmons also supports this congruency. Saying that he
heard mister Simmons repeat fuck, fuck fuck and appearing in shock.
I also noted that mister simmons reaction to the interviewer's

(30:49):
reaction was indifferent to his responses. This suggested to me
that he was not focused on whether or not the
interviewers were accepting his version of events, i e. Being believed.
This again suggests to me that Simmons was retelling his
experiences from memory rather than constructing them. For these reasons,
I'm inclined to accept David Simmons' version of events.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
Doctor Geson then goes into whether it was likely Simmons
killed Amy or that she took her own life.

Speaker 12 (31:19):
Homicides can generally be categorized into two types, either being
emotional and spontaneous or planned unintentional. I'm inclined to consider
that neither of these scenarios fit the circumstances surrounding Miss
Wensley's death to any convincing degree. Firstly, if mister Simmons
had killed miss Wensley and staged the scene to look

(31:40):
like an apparent suicide, then it would have needed to
be an emotional reaction and spontaneous decision rather than a
planned event.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
Here, doctor Geson argues, if planned a suicide, note would
have been fabricated and better placement of the weapon. Simmons
would have argued that Amy was depressed and suicidal, so
she concludes that unlikely. She does concede Simmons is described

(32:08):
as physically abusive with a propensity for violence when intoxicated,
but suggests that Price would have needed to be complicit
in Simmons killing Amy.

Speaker 12 (32:21):
Collusion seems unlikely. I say this because the events described
and the language used by mister Simmons and mister Price
are different, suggesting that they had actually observed the events
and had done so from different fontage points. If they
had colluded, I would have expected them to use the
same language and narrative, since this is how information is
retained when not actually observed. For example, after miss Wensley

(32:46):
supposedly discharged the firearm, mister Symons said he heard a thud,
whereas mister Price describes a crack like a thud. Another
example is when mister Price describes hearing a smashing sound
and hearing one of the kids saying Miss Wensley had
flipped the lizard tank, while mister Simmons heard his daughter
say Miss Wensley had smashed the fish tank if they

(33:08):
had colluded, I would also not expect mister Price to
disclose to police that mister Simmons called Miss Wensley a
gutless piece of shit, or that he heard mister Simmons
saying to Miss Wensley, pack your bags and fuck off,
as these commons placed mister Simmons in a poor questioning light. Further,
if mister Simmons had killed Miss Wensley in an emotional

(33:30):
and impulsive rage, I would have expected a longer lag
between Miss Wensley being shot and mister simmons arrival at
the service station, with this time being needed to create
a plausible story of Miss Wensley's death. Yet there is
a lag of just sixteen minutes from the time Amy
phones her mother and the triple zero call to the
service station. When including the four minute drive from the

(33:53):
house to the service station and Miss Wensley's three minute
call to her mother according to phone records, this means
there is now only nine minutes for any colluding and
staging to occur. We also need to consider that a
proportion of these nine minutes needs to be allocated for
mister Simmons recovering from the shock of comprehending his actions

(34:14):
and be sufficiently stable to disclose the events to mister
Price and construct an alternative story. Another portion of this
time but also need to be attributed to Miss Wensley
placing her daughters in the car and making four trips
from the house to the car to collect belongings. Hence,
given all of these events that needed to occur within

(34:35):
the nine minute period, any staging or colluding between mister
Simmons and mister Price seems unlikely. These challenges make me
consider that homicide, whether planned and intentional or impulsive and emotional,
is unlikely.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
So there you have it. If two people have different
versions of the same event, it's actually more likely that
they're telling the truth according to the logic of WA Police.
But just something for WA Police to contemplate here. Is
there the slightest possibility that Gareth Price just believes his

(35:15):
best mate when he's told him he didn't shoot Amy.

Speaker 13 (35:19):
No, he didn't fuckynure it.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
He didn't know it. Sorry, this is what Gareth told
me when I asked him about it.

Speaker 8 (35:25):
Now, Simo is a good buddy man, He is a
good man.

Speaker 4 (35:28):
He wouldn't have done in the first place. Well, I
know that FO one hundred percent, he wouldn't have done it.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
Doctor Geeson now discusses Amy.

Speaker 12 (35:34):
Miss Wensley, appears to have been depressed at the time
of her death. In the week prior to her death,
she said she felt depressed and apparently said she wanted
to change to another antidepressant medication because her current medication
was not working.

Speaker 1 (35:49):
Okay, stopping here. Apparently now none of this is attributed
and we can't find a record of this being said,
but it's part of the narrative which leads to doctor
Geeson concluding Amy took her own life, along with the
following host natal depression, after having tay four years of

(36:12):
a controlling, unstable and abusive relationship with mister Symons, social isolation,
financial stress, a motor vehicle accident in March twenty thirteen
causing spinal injuries and pain, affecting quality of life, two
pregnancy terminations in twenty thirteen, poor body image, and self worth.

Speaker 12 (36:37):
This was compounded by further isolation when her partner, mister
Simmons commenced fi FO around February twenty fourteen, leaving her
to meet the demands of two young children on her own,
and then moving to a rural property in Serpentine in
March or April twenty fourteen. Miss Wensley's medical notes show
that on twenty six February twenty fourteen, she was prescribed escitalapram,

(37:00):
an antidepressant medication. This was after she described several months
of low mood, anxiety, worrying about little things, anedonia or
loss of joy, poor appetite, and sleep to servants. The
medical notes say she had no thoughts of self harm
at the time, although I see in her medical file
there was a prior report of thoughts of self harm.

(37:23):
Her follow up GP consult a month later, on thirty
one March twenty fourteen, noted that Miss Wensley described some
improvement in her mood, but that her partner had noticed
it more than her. She also said she was drinking
alcohol when she normally doesn't and was struggling with insomnia
and irrational fears. While Miss Wensley did not appear suicidal

(37:45):
in the weak prior, as she made no disclosures to
her friends and family, depression is known to be the
strongest predictor of suicide when this is combined with her
other risk factors impulsivity, aggression, paranoia, irritability, in irrationality, helplessness
and hopelessness, loss and rejection, then the possibility of a

(38:06):
successful suicide attempt, unfortunately becomes more likely.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
Dr Geeson goes on to say that while uncommon, there
have been links between acetuleopram and increased risk of suicide,
suggesting Amy suffered a rare adverse reaction to esse telepram,
or that the taking of the medication, and this is
a direct quote from her report, alleviated the inertia of

(38:37):
depression and activated problem solving and action, with suicide being
considered a viable solution to escaping severe emotional pain and
distress associated with depression. So, in other words, upon finally

(38:57):
being able to think clearly and rationally, Amy realized her
situation was absolutely hopeless and the best option was to
take her own life. Now, I'm no expert, I certainly
haven't got a psych degree, but that seems to me
to be a very, very long bow to draw. It

(39:21):
would be interesting to see whether that analysis would be
backed up by other independent psychological analysts.

Speaker 12 (39:29):
Based on these historical and temporal events, my conclusion is
miss Wensley's death was the result of suicide Chris Geesan
twenty two March twenty nineteen.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
And something worth noting here. Doctor Geeson never met David Simmons,
hasn't spoken face to face with him once, nor obviously Amy.
Her assessment is based on police statements and video interviews.
We will be revisiting the psychological profiles of Amy and

(40:07):
David Simmons in coming weeks.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
I actually run.

Speaker 14 (40:10):
At the University of Newcastle, the Justice Clinic, and I
established that in twenty nineteen.

Speaker 1 (40:14):
In the meantime we caught up with another expert who
offered other insight.

Speaker 14 (40:18):
It was initially called an Innocence Initiative, but we changed
the name because we do look at cases of mischaracters
of justice frong for conviction. But then when we established it,
people started coming to us with all sorts of different cases,
long term cold cases for example, but also what we've
now classed as misclassification of death cases or those hidden homicides.

(40:41):
And we've worked through with a number of families in
the Justice Clinic, and we still have a number of
ongoing cases of exactly that hidden homicide. So it's something
we've been looking at at the University of Newcastle since
I would think around twenty twenty, and sadly it's a
lot more prevalent than I ever imagined until those families

(41:01):
started contacting us and saying, can you please help my
loved one's death was ruled a suicide or misadventure. And
sometimes you look at these cases and I can't detail
them because they're obviously classified. We're working through them legally.
But yeah, you know, you look at it and go,
how on earth was that classified as a suicide when
you look at the facts of the case.

Speaker 7 (41:22):
Doctor Mallet is a forensic anthropologist and criminologist at the
University of Newcastle who was also explored in detail the
efficacy of expert witness evidence and the impact of external
influences that may result in bias or prejudice in the
decision making processes of duras.

Speaker 14 (41:41):
So this falls into that very much, that category, doesn't it?
Of suspicious deaths? I mean, I guess one of the
biggest questions for me looking at this as a forensic
scientist and behavioral expert, is how on earth the detectives
arrived at that scene and classified this so quickly is
not suspicious as a suicide? Obviously the uniform officers believed

(42:04):
that this was suspicious, but the detective seemed so keen
to dismiss this very, very quickly. And that's a pattern
that I've seen in hidden homicides. It's that initial response,
that lack of interest in capturing the scene forensically, lack
of interest in interviewing those key witnesses, and so sadly,

(42:26):
it was all too familiar when I read those initial
stages of the investigation and what had gone so obviously
horribly wrong.

Speaker 6 (42:36):
Madam.

Speaker 7 (42:38):
Obviously everyone would like a water tight case, but this
isn't an Agatha Christie murder mystery where everything is tied
up with a bow at the end.

Speaker 8 (42:48):
I have discovered the identity of the murder of Madame Martha.

Speaker 7 (42:52):
Very seldom does the culprit confess to a complicated, convoluted
execution of a crime after the detective has pointed out
the inconsistence. But if proper time and resources are spent
on it now, maybe they'll save a considerable amount of
money in the long term. And there are plenty of
other cost effective ways to reach a conclusion which won't

(43:13):
be tainted by fears of organizational bias.

Speaker 9 (43:16):
I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred.
I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to
the Director of Public Prosecutions and it's come back in
sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer,
and more so the reconstruction that you have done with
the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a

(43:40):
detective and I looked at the photos and the right
hand is under the right leg, so the only way
that she could have pulled the trigger was with her
left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen
shotgun in the position that she was and get a
ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible.

Speaker 7 (44:02):
It's recommends officers tasked with reinvestigating Amy's case need to
do so with an open mind and distance themselves from
those who remain convinced Amy killed herself and no amount
of new evidence will be strong enough to lead to
a conviction.

Speaker 9 (44:18):
I think there definitely should have been an open mind.
After I made my statement for the Currner's court, they
then got a superintendent to read my report and to
produce a report. Now I listened to his evidence at
the Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It
was all done properly, although he conceded mistakes at the

(44:40):
crime scene, but he said, I can tell you now
she took her own life. Well, that is just a
closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in forty
two years, I've had to go up against the brotherhood
and not once has anyone ever apologized to me of

(45:00):
families that we got it wrong.

Speaker 7 (45:11):
The most senior ranking officer who appeared at Amy's inquest
was Detective Superintendent Rob Scantalberry, and he was adamant that
Amy's death was suicide.

Speaker 15 (45:21):
Detective Superintendent, my name is miss Tyler. I'm counsel assisting
the coroner. Could you state your full name.

Speaker 3 (45:28):
Robert Anthony Scantlebury.

Speaker 15 (45:30):
And you're currently a detective superintendent with WA Police.

Speaker 3 (45:34):
Yes, I am Major Crime Division.

Speaker 15 (45:36):
You've been a police officer for thirty one years. Is
that right?

Speaker 3 (45:39):
That's correct?

Speaker 6 (45:40):
All right?

Speaker 15 (45:41):
Were you personally involved in any of the investigations into
Amy's death.

Speaker 3 (45:46):
No.

Speaker 15 (45:46):
I understand that you also obtained some coronial information to
assist the coroner in relation to firearms deaths from twenty
fourteen to twenty twenty. That's correct, Is it your understanding
that firearm related deaths in where in Australia.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
Generally are rare. Yes.

Speaker 15 (46:03):
Do you have a view as to why that is.

Speaker 3 (46:05):
Not really apart from the gun licensing laws in Western Australia.

Speaker 15 (46:08):
A question of accessibility, Yes, all right. You also provided
a copy of an extract from the WA Police manual
that relates to firearm deaths.

Speaker 3 (46:19):
Yes.

Speaker 15 (46:19):
This is effectively a step by step account of what
should occur when a firearm related death is being investigated
by police.

Speaker 7 (46:27):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (46:27):
That's yes, it's under review, so that's the current one.

Speaker 15 (46:30):
Was that policy or aspect of the manual in place
in twenty fourteen, yes, alright in your view, then was
that policy followed by the responding police when they.

Speaker 3 (46:41):
First No, no, it wasn't.

Speaker 15 (46:42):
What emissions do you note if.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
I go to the policy? Yes, so verifying the scene,
the position of the body. If further and I will
go on weapon locations are consistent with the method in
which the death has occurred, and further advice or specialist
assistance is required to make this determination contact forensic or
ballistics or forensic field operations. There's a number of other
but that's the fundamental.

Speaker 15 (47:05):
So that's the major emission that you've noticed that I
see in terms of the responding detectives.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
Yes, the only problem.

Speaker 15 (47:12):
Is it says if further advice or specialist assistance is required,
which to some degree leaves it to the discretion of
the person. So they thought they didn't need further specialist assistance.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
Absolutely that they should have at the time as it
comes to knowledge and experience, And if I listened to
the two police officers that gave evidence here, they both
admitted their knowledge and experience wasn't where it should have been.
They could have should have called for more assistance. So
that's a fundamental change to that is that on every
occasion of a firearm that's used in a death, then

(47:49):
homicide are to be consulted. So that's the fundamental change
going forward.

Speaker 15 (47:53):
I appreciate em asking you this in hindsight, but in
your view, had homicide been contacted then that Amy died,
what steps do you think would have been taken by
homicide that weren't taken in this case.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
So homicide attended these matters, these instances or all instances
in conjunction with forensic field operations, so immediately there would
have been a joint investigation between homicide and forensics. They
did that in the twenty tens and before I was
there on the floor, and they would make a determination
together and that's still how it's done.

Speaker 15 (48:26):
So you would have at least the expertise of the
forensic officers there to say what they could or couldn't
do based on the scene before a decision is made
whether to actually do all those other things.

Speaker 3 (48:39):
Yes, it comes again, whether your experience is it comes
with consistency. So if it's reported to be in this instance,
it was reported that Amy shot herself, is the scene
consistent with that the firearm being moved. Obviously, for Roberts,
Blandford and Dixon early in the piece, the firearm being
away from the body was not consistent with someone having
taken their own life, so immediately they had those suspicions.

(49:02):
So they're the That's the circumstances you look at when
you're attending, and forensics can give you a lot more
because of their expertise with BPA, blood pattern analysis, and
a whole lot more.

Speaker 15 (49:13):
In your view, Even that one outstanding question, that question
of the gun having clearly been moved, yes, should have
been a trigger to a call to the Homicide.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
Squad, Yes, even though it was later explained it should
have generated a conversation or generated that thought and a
call to the Homicide Squad and Homicide to attend.

Speaker 15 (49:31):
I understand that you also review the Internal Affairs Unit
report that was completed in respect of this matter.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
Yes.

Speaker 15 (49:38):
My understanding is that you agree with the majority of
the criticisms that are made of the detectives in that report.
But there are some areas where you disagree.

Speaker 7 (49:48):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (49:48):
There is?

Speaker 15 (49:49):
Can you take me through those areas of disagreement?

Speaker 5 (49:52):
So?

Speaker 3 (49:52):
I think point two was in relation to the interview
of Price and Simmons's witnesses.

Speaker 7 (49:57):
Point two refers to classifying David Simmons and Arth Price
as witnesses and requesting statements be obtained from them by
junior inexperienced staff prior to making any assessment of their criminality.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
When a PFA had been declared, it was basically a
contradiction of the Criminal Investigation Act. However, neither Kirkman or
Wiederman declared the PFA, and at no stage had their
suspicions raised to the reasonable suspicion of criminality, and so
in their mind, these two worst witnesses, and it was
being investigated under the auspices of the Coroners Act, not

(50:32):
under the Criminal Investigations Act.

Speaker 15 (50:33):
Before we move on, can I query whether you have
any concerns, having reviewed the matter, that the statements as
witnesses as opposed to suspects were taken from each of
those persons by relatively junior staff at the scene.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
Look absolutely in What should have happened is that they
should have been taken back to the local police station
and thoroughly interviewed, so an electronic record of interviews should
have been taken. They don't have to speak to you
unless they wish to do so, even though they're not
under suspicion or there's no reasonable suspicion of criminality. That's

(51:08):
what should have occurred.

Speaker 7 (51:10):
Get Biddy, State Coronor Sarah Linton interjects.

Speaker 16 (51:13):
It occurred to me at the time as well. There
were two other detectives floating around who didn't seem to
be doing the pivotal stuff. Yes, and they could have
assisted the uniformed officers to take statements. Even if they
were going to do statements, they could have applied their expertise.
Given the circumstances.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
I think one was a detective. The other one was
a uniform sirconment to Rockingham detectives. That said, if you
look at the seniority, Roberts, Blandford and Dixon were realistically
senior people at that I.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
Don't think Dixon was. Wasn't she a police.

Speaker 3 (51:42):
Constable constable first class?

Speaker 16 (51:44):
No, I think she was just police constable. I think
she had only just come out of the accademy.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
Any event.

Speaker 16 (51:49):
The other two that they weren't taking statements, they were
up at the scene, So you've got I think it
was just some local police right from somewhere else that
turned out.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
As I reiterate, the witness statements should have been taken there.
They should have been taken back and interviewed properly. There
was just too many questions.

Speaker 16 (52:05):
And also then they could have been separate. I think
one was moved to a car and one was doing
something else.

Speaker 3 (52:11):
Yes, look, if we're in regional wa very difficult and
so we will make those calls as we go. And
there's times times have changed and we've got electronic means
to be able to do portable electronic means to be
able to record conversations. That has evolved, but there is
plenty of occasions when you will still do your handwritten

(52:31):
statements and even interviewing of offenders if required, if there's
no electronic means available and it has to be and
I said, he said written, then that's still allowable. Yes.

Speaker 7 (52:43):
Scandal berry Is then questioned about the missing door handle
inside the bedroom and whether it should have been considered
as evidence of a struggle.

Speaker 3 (52:51):
Yes, so I questioned that one, I don't know the
relevance of the door handle, and again looking at the
internal investigation report, they've not touched on it in any
other place. And then when I listened to the evidence
in court, hey today, well this week and last week,
mister Robert Simmons said the door handle was always falling off,
and others have given evidence the door handle wasn't there.
So I don't see the relevance in relation to a

(53:13):
sanction on the officers were not following up on the
door handle when there's plenty of other things they should
have followed up on.

Speaker 16 (53:22):
I suppose, I mean, it is one thing I thought
that was strange that no one really thought about, only
because you've got her sitting behind the door with her
feet up and like she's blocking it, and there's no
way of locking that door other than putting something up
against it, because you can't lock the door handle because
there isn't one. Yes, so it seems to me it
had some significance, But I don't know if you necessarily

(53:45):
need to pick that out of.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
Everything within an internal report. Yes, yes, yes, when their
overall actions were incorrect.

Speaker 16 (53:51):
Yes, so it's a relevant piece of evidence, but not
necessarily the smoking gun, if we use that unfortunate term
in this case exactly.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
And the last one was in relation to the gunshot
residue fingernail scrapings as well. We've already heard from McDonald
and others last week in relation to the unreliability of
gunshot residue, and especially when they've all conceded they've been
handling firearms. When I say all, I mean Price and Simmons.

Speaker 7 (54:14):
Yes, this relates to Kirtman and Wiedeman's failure to consider
necessary forensic procedures such as gunshot residue on Simmons and
Price and all the other core material which would normally
be collected if they were attending a suspicious death.

Speaker 15 (54:30):
So your view is that a criticism for not considering
or not having gunshot residue testing done was not particularly
fair giving the evidence about its reliabilities.

Speaker 16 (54:42):
Okay, although even though you might not expect it to
be that significant, if forensics had come out and everyone
had thought to do it as a suspicious death, you
would have done they would have done those GSR tests.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Anyway, Yes, I look, I truly believe if we go
back to the basics, the basics are that if homicide
had been called or the major crime squad had been called,
and forensics had attended, then all those sorts of actions
would have been completed. However they weren't, and so to
pick small things, their fundamental mistake was not calling for assistance.
So to as you say, to nitpick or go through

(55:18):
the small points, I don't think it was relevant.

Speaker 15 (55:20):
Yes, you mentioned in our earlier evidence that a lack
of experience on the part of the responding detectives was
certainly a factor. Yes, As a relative lay person, a
detective is a detective. To me, I assume there's a
distinction between homicide detectives and detectives that might be the
on call response car.

Speaker 3 (55:40):
Is that right? Yes, there is, there is, and it
goes to the supervision and accountability So within the WA
Police the structure of detectives, you start as an I four.
So when you've done a certain amount of years with
the WA Police, you apply for a detective training school
and then you go to that school. When you successfully
complete that four week training block, you become an EYE four.

(56:00):
So you're on probation and your on probation for two
years and during that time you do three eight months
to conoments in different areas to gain experiences and a
variety of experiences. You also complete a book in relation
to the number of investigations you've conducted, media statements, court appearances,
hand up briefs, etc. Following that, there's another course and
then you become a permanent detective, which is an I five.

(56:23):
And what we find that in the Metro at the moment,
and it has been for some time, is that the
majority of detectives that are on crime car I fours
or I fives or an I five with an I four,
so they don't have a lot of experience. And in
this instance, whilst Kirkman was an I five and he

(56:44):
was a detective sergeant, he didn't have a lot of
experience in relation to these matters. And Tom Wiederman had
even less.

Speaker 16 (56:50):
Because detectives, I mean, they're dealing with serious matters, but
it's not always homicide. A lot of the time it's
armed robberies and other kinds of violence, assaults and drug
matters and things of that nature.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
There is there is, but with the specialist squads within
the state's crime portfolio, the investigations they do in relation
to homicides and drug and firearms, organized crime, gang crime,
Sex Crime Division, Financial Crime Division, those are specialists, so
a lot of the officers within the districts don't necessarily

(57:22):
get to experience those investigations.

Speaker 15 (57:24):
We heard evidence from detective Kirkman earlier this week. I
think you were in court when he gave evidence to
say that he felt that he was the one that
had to make a decision and he made the wrong decision.
He appreciates about is there an issue with respect to
was there an issue in twenty fourteen in terms of
a detective's ability to call for that backup from the

(57:45):
homicide squad or was there a culture against doing such
a thing.

Speaker 3 (57:49):
There was no issue making the call. However, the reception
on making the call varies on who received it. Within
the homicide squad. So it was very much and even
earlier when I was on the floor. Earlier it was
if the person hadn't died, don't ring us till they do,
And if a person had died, don't ring us until
you've got reasonable suspicion of criminality. Ruled out everything else first,

(58:12):
and that's the case now.

Speaker 7 (58:13):
It's worth noting that this goes against what Ron Das
had said that in an unexplained sudden death, you should
start from the basis of being a homicide. And on
that basis, despite the two detectives on scene saying it
was suicide, they wouldn't have been able to rule that out.

Speaker 15 (58:29):
What is the case now.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
The case now is that any death where there is
questions asked, it's to contact homicide.

Speaker 16 (58:37):
So it's changing that culture to encourage people to access
the expertise in the homicide squad. Yes, rather than saying
unless you're sure it's a homicide, don't call us, it's like,
we will help you decide if it is.

Speaker 3 (58:50):
And I also think the not just the availability to
be contacted on the phone and consult, but the willingness
to attend is another thing that the homicide squad now
for the past twelve months or more have been willing
to attend anything and case. In point two nights ago,
there was a death in Hamilton Hill where the State
Operations Center contacted homicide before they contacted the local detectives. Normally,
the local detectives would go first so they can update

(59:13):
and provide what the circumstances are. But that's how it
is at the moment, and I think it's a pretty
good state.

Speaker 15 (59:18):
Yes, just some final questions in terms of the Internal
Affairs Unit report. Now, I appreciate that's not your area. No,
you weren't involved in the decision to refer it to
the Internal Affairs Unit and or any of the outcomes
that occurred.

Speaker 16 (59:34):
Can I ask you that? Though, just pause for a second.
My understanding and I could be wrong, but it actually
seems that Internal Affairs Unit review is coming quite late
in the day. My understanding is that it was potentially
prompted by the former Deputy State Coroner, mister King.

Speaker 5 (59:50):
Yes.

Speaker 16 (59:51):
Is there a reason why that wouldn't have arisen earlier
given what was going on in terms of referrals of
the matter from the Coroner's court or the fact that
Operation Jundie kicked off because things hadn't been properly investigated
at the first stage, Like who prompts that sort of
referral if it's not coming from the coroner's court, I.

Speaker 3 (01:00:08):
Would say anyone can prompt that referral for an internal investigation.
So it's a conduct report, a police conduct report, very
simple to enter, and it's either an email or a
phone call. I think the difference is now is we've
got a real desire for supervision and accountability, so quite
often detectives and this one I pushed quite hard and
have done a number of years, is if you attend

(01:00:30):
an investigation and the local police have made the wrong call,
or have made a call it's inconsistent with the legislation
or policy, then you not just correct it, but educate.
And I think then that's one of these things that
happened back then, was that they could see there was
the non contacting of homicide squad in forensics, the non
consultation with specialist areas was identified, but it wasn't addressed.

(01:00:53):
I think the drive for supervision and accountability, to make
the sergeants accountable, to make senior sergeants accountable for the
sergeant's decision, is going a long way to rectify those
Otherwise they would keep making the same mistakes. And I
don't know how many times between this matter and when
it was addressed with Kirkman and Wiederman that they would
have made the same call, made the same mistake in
a flow.

Speaker 15 (01:01:14):
On consequence of the delay in terms of there being
an internal affairs investigation, I imagine that the family have a
perspective that the investigation of those detectives was relatively begrudging,
and at a late stage, would you accept that would
be their perception?

Speaker 17 (01:01:30):
I do.

Speaker 3 (01:01:30):
I think that some of the failing we did in
twenty fourteen in relationshis matter have affected a lot of people,
including the family, especially the family, And.

Speaker 15 (01:01:38):
So your evidence really is that best practice those failures
of those first responding detectives should have been addressed in
an internal investigation in twenty fourteen.

Speaker 3 (01:01:49):
Yes, And even if not an internal investigation, they within
the police district, the Rocking and police district, So in
those districts you have a crime inspector. The crime inspector
should have been aware of this and would have been
aware of this because of the fact it was raised
within the major crime division through coronials who spoke to
homicide and the senior sergeants within the Rockingham Detectives. It

(01:02:10):
should have been raised and investigated then, so it could
have been investigated at the local level.

Speaker 7 (01:02:15):
Detective Superintendent Scantalbury goes on for much of his testimony
to discuss all the changes WA Police has made to
try to ensure an investigation like that of Amy Wensley's
isn't bungled in the same way. Again. Counsel assisting Amy
Wensley's family, Rayne Wade, went on to push for answers
about what more Professor Ackland would need to produce an

(01:02:38):
accurate biomechanical report, which he considers would not be limited.

Speaker 3 (01:02:42):
Our electronic record of interviews of Price of Simmons, especially
for Price in relation to the location of where the
firearm was that was never never given to him the
information from Kirkman, so Professor Ackland was relying upon Robert's
statement where Roberts said that he was informed by Kirkman
that the left hand was used, and so his experiments
concentrated on the left hand, so he had to press

(01:03:04):
the button. There was a whole range of evidence, statements
and reports that should have been provided.

Speaker 7 (01:03:09):
Mister Way then asks.

Speaker 13 (01:03:11):
But do you accept that all these potential shortcomings have
been corrected before her honor in the sense that those
propositions have been put and we have the benefit of
whatever responses Professor Ackland gave to those issues and the shortcoming.

Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
I think Professor Ackland acknowledged that he was provided with
a lot more information. His findings may have been different.

Speaker 7 (01:03:31):
Just stopping here. You'll remember from a previous episode when
Professor Ackland was questioned during the inquest about this.

Speaker 17 (01:03:37):
There are always limitations in preparing scenarios. One tries to
mitigate against any potential bias on behalf of a model
that we employ 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.
So 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

(01:03:57):
say to the model, just let everything go loose drop,
but one cannot say it's going to be an exact replication.

Speaker 7 (01:04:03):
Professor Acklan ended up ruling out Amy being able to
use either hand to kill herself and end up in
the position she was in, which was consistent with the
surrounding evidence such as the blood spatter.

Speaker 17 (01:04:15):
The only possibility was borne 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 7 (01:04:33):
This was backed up by the testing of US crime
reconstruction expert Scott Rhoder, who went one step further and
concluded Amy could not have taken her own life.

Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
Now one hundred percent this is a homicide.

Speaker 7 (01:04:49):
Back to Scannerbury at the inquest, who defends the decision
to not treat Amy's death as a suicide.

Speaker 3 (01:04:54):
There is no criminality identified in relation to this matter.
I cannot put any other person in that room and
so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this.

Speaker 7 (01:05:03):
Now bear in mind this is before David Simmons gave
evidence before the inquest. Simmons denied having entered the bedroom
he shared with Amy just prior to her death, but
when questioned about it by the coroner, he replied.

Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
I can't remember.

Speaker 7 (01:05:19):
It's worth noting Simmons said I can't remember at least
thirty times when questioned at the inquest.

Speaker 3 (01:05:25):
My memory is not real good from that.

Speaker 7 (01:05:27):
Day, notwithstanding evidence provided by Amy's six year old daughter
who said she saw Simmons go into that room, which
wasn't heard at the inquest because of her age at
the time. Moving on, Scanderburry is questioned about the prospect
of a cash reward for information about Amy's death.

Speaker 3 (01:05:47):
Her honor has the ability to refer it back to
the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if it's then sent
back to the WA Police for further investigation, and it
is seen as an investigative avenue to apply for a reward,
then that can be done.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
And now it has. But as we mentioned in an
earlier episode, not as a result of a WA Police proposal,
but a state government won announced last year to try
to address the high rate of unsolved cold cases.

Speaker 10 (01:06:17):
Now sixty other cases of missing and murdered people from
across the state will also attract a million dollar reward.

Speaker 9 (01:06:23):
It can happen. I've solved the case that was thirty
two years old by going back over, So that was
a young sixteen year old girl in Shepperton who went missing,
was found in a table drain, stabed sixteen to eighteen
times in nineteen eighty two. Now again investigated in that

(01:06:45):
made a mistake earlier on and they believed it was
a person Paul Greg Bledhill. They even actually charged him
with the murder. And back then it went to an
inquest which was the same as at the middle. The
coroner found that there was insufficient evidence and it was released.
Now young Joernals wanted to do a story about it,

(01:07:06):
and she wrote a story and I actually went to
Shepherd and after I read the file and publicly I
said Greg Gladill could not have done this. So there
were mistakes earlier on. But as a result of that
being honest upfront, the information came in and eventually I
charged Stephen Bradley, who's now doing thirty six years. One

(01:07:27):
of the things with that case is that the original
exhibits for some reason had been destroyed, so I didn't
have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst there
had been someone that was already charged and released and
the exhibits were missing, we were still able to build
a case and get sufficient evidence for him to stand

(01:07:47):
his trial.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
Now one of the issues here is there seems to
be this obsession by some members of WA Police thinking
that somehow this can no longer be solved because the
scene was whited.

Speaker 7 (01:08:05):
We have reached out again to WA Police and the
Attorney General about some of their concerns raised by Ron
Iddles and Michael Barnes. You'll hear their responses next week.
But back to the clues we mentioned at the start
of the episode, which are necessary to realizing the full
truth about Amy Well.

Speaker 1 (01:08:28):
Number one, how about checking out Joshua Brydon's alibi and
the discrepancies with the timeline of when he left the
property set out in episode twelve. You'll remember in episode
six where at the inquest, when counsel assisting the family,
Peter Ward, tried to delve deeper into this, he was

(01:08:49):
shut down by the coroner.

Speaker 9 (01:08:52):
The witness's account of his movements versus the messages that
were being sent or received is inaccurate. The account he
gave to police at the time is in accurate when
it was fresh in his mind.

Speaker 16 (01:09:02):
There's nothing to suggest josh Bryden is in some conspiracy
where he's actually been at the house during all these events.
And I just can't see how questioning this witness unless
he suddenly completely changes his story and announces that he
was there when he wasn't, and you can put that
to him, but I can't see any evidence to suggest
that at this stage, and I'm unlikely to be hearing

(01:09:22):
evidence of that however long I give you. I would
have thought, I accept that his evidence is not reliable
in some parts, and I mean, he kind of almost
concedes that throughout, but by all means put a little
bit more to him. But I just think we have
time pressures here in the sense of getting through the
witnesses today. And also I don't want people to come
to an inquest and feel like they're being cross examined

(01:09:44):
in a criminal trial when they're not. That's not the
purpose of it. You're not being aggressive or anything. I'm
not suggesting your manner as inappropriate, but I just think
that kind of pinning down for all the inconsistencies in
prior statements is probably not perfectly suited to this jurisdiction.

Speaker 7 (01:10:03):
And why the clothes supposedly worn by David Simmons and
Gareth Price didn't have gun residue or blood on them
when Simmons admits to shooting guns that afternoon and Price
patted down Amy's body looking for her phone.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
Also why Simmons allegedly told Larry Blandford he wanted to
go back into the house to get his pink phone,
and why his father Robert denies receiving a thirteen second
phone call made by David from the Serpentine roadhouse.

Speaker 7 (01:10:36):
And like Ronidle says, all key witnesses need to be
exhaustively requestioned and external independent expert insight, such as that
from a suicideologist and criminal behavioral analyst.

Speaker 13 (01:10:50):
Soorked.

Speaker 1 (01:10:55):
Well, it's funny you should say that, Al, because next
week we'll be hearing from internationally acclaimed criminal behavioral analyst
Laura Richards providing her expertise on Amy's coats.

Speaker 14 (01:11:09):
From everything I've seen in this case, there's good reason
to distrust the authorities.

Speaker 1 (01:11:15):
And we go back to where it all started.

Speaker 6 (01:11:20):
Yeah, it was just toxic. It was so toxic, sous.

Speaker 7 (01:11:40):
So de.

Speaker 6 (01:11:45):
We know the nasty until unt.

Speaker 1 (01:12:01):
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

(01:12:27):
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 dot com.
If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us
to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but

(01:12:50):
for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make
any comments. And remember, if you like what you hearing,
don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter

(01:13:13):
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

(01:13:47):
is a seven News production.