December 1, 2024 • 70 mins
Internationally acclaimed criminal analyst Laura Richards provides insightful analysis regarding Amy’s case as WA Police acknowledges it will be seeking external expert analysis moving forward.
We also home in on one of the key pieces of evidence, which based on various witness accounts, will play an integral part in any future decision-making.
For more on Laura Richards, visit:
https://www.youtube.com/@crimeanalyst
https://wondery.com/shows/real-crime-profile/
https://www.dashriskchecklist.com/
Laura’s also available on the following social media
Insta: @laurarichards999 and @crimeanalyst
Tiktok: @crimeanalystpod
Twitter: @laurarichards99 and @thecrimeanalyst
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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
bags pack car running her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
to grab something.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Panic.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Amy is dead, Sir aim his dead?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Eight confusion about five minutes they sit not to suicide.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
One hundred percent. This is emergency.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 5 (01:06):
The Truth about Amy?
Speaker 6 (01:15):
Episode fourteen.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
I'm Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
And I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 7 (01:27):
Female fifteen, jud female Bustleton female thirty eight.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
This is the place, gender, and age of people who
have died in Western Australia this year as a result
of domestic violence. As their details are called out, loved
ones place a flour on a cardboard cutout, representing them
(02:00):
to be precise right where their heart would be.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
Every year in Perth, the Western Australian Center for Women's
Safety and well Being holds a Silent March.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
Stop Them, Silence, Stop.
Speaker 6 (02:18):
The violence, not only to honor those whose lives have
been lost at the hands of abuses, but to raise
awareness about how prevalent this is silence. So far this year,
there have been sixteen deaths in Wa alone, including Jennifer
and Gretel Patelchek Floris.
Speaker 7 (02:43):
Eighteen Florians.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Fifteen as their details are called. Twenty seven year old
Ariel Bombara tearfully puts flowers to each of her friend's hearts.
Jennifer was her mum's best friend, Gretel her daughter. They
were shot to death by Ariel's father, Mark Bombara at
(03:09):
the end of his search for them. Live from Perth
seven Yews with Rick Garden and Susannika Good Evening.
Speaker 8 (03:19):
For the first time we've heard what life was really
like under the roof of double murderer Mark Bombara. His
daughter Today detailed the reign of terror he inflicted on
their family before he tried to hunt down his ex wife.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Sadly, Ariel can't help but blame herself for what happened, knowing.
Speaker 9 (03:38):
Two lives were taken instead of my own and my
mom's because I was too good at hiding from him.
And hating myself for never considering that he would kill
other people if he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
In front of a crowd of hundreds, Ariel Bombara describes
the actions of a monster, a monster that was her father.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
My father was a.
Speaker 9 (03:59):
Dictator, and his coercive and controlling behaviors were constant. I
remember being whipped with belts, tied to my chair until
I ate every piece of food on my plane. He
thought women were less than dogshit, and he made it
clear in front of his daughters.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Aril knew her father was dangerous, and she and her
mother told police they feared that he would kill.
Speaker 9 (04:20):
After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police to take any
action to protect.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9 (04:29):
I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Speaking at Today's March against Domestic and Family Violence, Bombara
recounted that horrific night in May when her father shot
dead her mother's best friend, Jennifer Ptelchek, and her eighteen
year old daughter in their flory at home before turning
the gun on himself. Police did not intervene sooner because
the insidious abuse that he inflicted leading up to the incident,
(04:55):
known as coercive control, is not illegal, and while the
government now agrees that it should be, it won't commit
to pushing through legislation.
Speaker 9 (05:04):
Knowing that Jenny and Grettel lost their lives in our
places filled me with both devastation and an overwhelming sense
of duty to do everything.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
In my power to prevent this from ever happening again.
Speaker 9 (05:16):
Last year, after a state of murders, the government developed
the WA Family and Domestic Violence System Reform.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Plan, So now I'm asking what is being done to
implement it.
Speaker 9 (05:26):
I believe in the reform of our systems so long
as there is a commitment to adequately fund it. I
believe that we as a collective have the power to
make a real difference. But to do so, we need
to believe in victims, survivors and their right.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
To be heard and supported.
Speaker 9 (05:42):
We need to believe in the services and systems that
can help victims, and in the capacity for change in perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
I hope you'll join me in this fight, not just
for me, but for all of us.
Speaker 9 (05:53):
Because violence against women and children is everyone's problem.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
Coerce of control. Laws protecting domestic violence victims have been
introduced in New South Wales and Queensland, but not w
Way except here. The Seven Years Journalist pushes Prevention of
Family and Domestic Violence Minister Sabine Winton to commit to
a date to roll out a similar legislation.
Speaker 10 (06:19):
Coursive control.
Speaker 11 (06:20):
Legislation could have saved these two people that were killed
by this man. And you know that how I don't
know that, but I know that it's a real, tangible,
actual consequence for people like this man. And why then
will you not commit to a date when these laws
will be introduced.
Speaker 12 (06:36):
Our government has permitted to criminalizing coersim control.
Speaker 13 (06:41):
We will do it in a staged way. We will
do it in a way where we will.
Speaker 11 (06:45):
Know, we will get results, asking why you commit to
a date and will also make sure that when we
introduce it that we don't further put at risk victims survivors.
Speaker 9 (06:55):
The system doesn't protect us and puts the owners on
women to managements that behavior rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Natcy, can I ask your proper question?
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Amy's mom, Nancy and her best friend Aaron Gower, were
also at this event and understand how frustrating it was
for arial bombards, and despite a new investigation into Amy's
death by Wa police, they remain fearful that police will
continue to ignore key evidence supporting homicide.
Speaker 14 (07:24):
I know there were previous investigations, but more information has
come out now since the podcast has aired, that you know,
should have been found out while those other two investigations
were happening.
Speaker 13 (07:35):
The investigation being mishandled by police.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
How does that evenpact your family?
Speaker 14 (07:39):
It's so hard, you know, we haven't been able to
grieve properly because we're fighting constantly. So it's just it's exhausting.
Speaker 10 (07:48):
Really, I would love to hear the police commissioner apologize.
I don't want no letter of regret. I want an
apology aim.
Speaker 15 (08:02):
His daughters, apology.
Speaker 10 (08:06):
They disserve an apology for the big mess up then
I happened that night. We wouldn't be standing here if
it was conducted properly, but it wasn't.
Speaker 16 (08:18):
With respect to coercive control, one single piece of legislation
will not solve this.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Police Minister Paul Papalia responds to a scrum of journalists
asking if enough is being done to address domestic violence.
Speaker 11 (08:32):
I know that your officers know that they do all
this hard work and then it gets handed over to
the courts and then the magistrates slap these violent very signs. Right,
So we can do a community education campaign, But what.
Speaker 16 (08:46):
Of the magistrates When I've seen the training that's delivered
to officers in the academy and how significantly that has changed.
Speaker 8 (08:54):
I'm not sure that the courts.
Speaker 16 (08:55):
Are aware or have been provided the similar sort of training.
And I'll be encouraging the Attorney General to speak with
the heads of the different courts.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
And the Chief Justice wasn't even here today.
Speaker 16 (09:07):
Chief Justice is dedicated to dealing with family and domestic guidance,
so there's probably a reason for him.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Not Then we will talk to the town generally have
about it.
Speaker 16 (09:15):
I have taken before, but I would like to see
magistrates and judges be forwarded the opportunity to witness what
I witnessed at the academy, so they understand that police training,
police capability has moved and has changed, and then the
courts can reflect that knowledge. At the moment, I'm not
sure that they are aware of what is provided to
the police and then what is then presented to them
(09:37):
in the courts.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
We'll have more on the WA Attorney General later in
this episode.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
Thank you for welcoming me. Laura Richards, criminal behavioral analysts
and expert in domestic violence and coercive control and stalking
and domestic commicide.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Meanwhile, as promised, we caught up with internationally acclaimed criminal
behavioral analyst Laura Richards, who had a a lot to
say about domestic violence and the way it's being handled
by authorities.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Well, firstly, I just want to mention, having reviewed and
analyzed thousands of murders committed by men killing women and children,
it's not a drugs related issue. And I do want
to make that very clear because I have heard people
continuously say, oh, it's this, it's alcohol, it's drugs, and
(10:25):
actually it's not. That plays a role when it aggravates things.
It's an aggravating factor, but it's not a causal factor.
The behavior is the causal factor, and it's things around
power and control, a male entitlement, and the lack of accountability.
So when they are abusive and violent, there's no accountability
(10:45):
through the criminal justice system.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
And what that.
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Basically says to the perpetrator is carry on, carry on,
because it's not important enough. And what that says to
the female victim is you're not important enough and you
don't matter. So you have victims who then don't want
to report, and you have male perpetrators in the main
who just feel that they're untouchable and can do what
they want, set within a culture of misogyny and male entitlement.
(11:09):
So I do just want to make that clear, because
it's the same all across the world. There is nothing
new here other than the lack of accountability which has
been consistent and the misogynistic elements that create male entitlement
and green light these offenders. So I think it is
important that you look at the data and the facts
(11:32):
and the evidence, and that experts talk about domestic violence
and domestic homicide and femicide and given very clear indication
of what we see in these cases, rather than people
just speculating or quontificating because they had one case and
there was a drug element to it and therefore they
think it is drug related. It's an aggravating feature, but
(11:54):
it's not causal.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Laura acknowledgers frontline emergency officers often to make snap decisions,
which is why their training is so integral.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
Well, it's what I used to see when I trained detectives,
and I'd go up to detective training school and we'd
have one case, and a detective before me would talk
to the incoming detectives as if that one case would
repeat again and again and that was just one case.
You know, It's like a case of false allegation, where
you say, false allegations always look like this, and then
it becomes the norm where that's not the case at all.
(12:27):
You have to look at lots of cases together, which
I've spent my career doing looking at thousands of domestic
violence murders, and that's what I've spent my time at
New Scotland Yard doing of unraveling the psychological autopsy of
what's gone on so that we can get into intervention
and prevention, so that we do it through data, not
just through the prism of murder, but look at other
(12:47):
cases as well, so that we understand what the patterns
look like, so that we can get into early identification,
assessment and management. And I think sometimes people are just
overconfident in airing their one case or there are two
cases or a handful of cases, and thinks that that
just replicates and therefore you get these generalizations which really
(13:09):
aren't good. I've much rather the experts were spoken to
in this niche, and I think in Australia that's been
one of the problems of not listening to the experts
who do this day in day out, and they should
be advising on domestic homicides and so called suicides. They
should be the one the fatality reviews. And that was
(13:31):
a process I started at New Scotland Yard and then
it became a national process of domestic homicide review where
we made it very clear within the legislation experts should
be co opted to sit on those groups to give
that expertise because a lot of people still don't understand
co werse of control and stalking and it's really important
that we do have that expert voice that's victim led,
(13:54):
because obviously we do have it oftentimes the cases where
we get too focused on the perpetrators where we must
talk about the victim. And what I really like about
what you've been doing for Amy is giving her a
voice and a voice that she hasn't had, although she's
had relatives trying to bang the drama. Actually it needed
(14:15):
a much bigger platform to say, we'll hang on a minute,
are we asking the right questions here? Is there a
critical thinking process and a critical lens that we need
to apply, And this is a case which really lends
itself well to having that critical lens and having experts
talk about what we see in these types of cases
(14:35):
and what were the questions that should have been asked
at the time.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
So I'm glad you've mentioned that because the other issue
that we have with this case is the feeling from
the family, and I think they've got a good reason
to feel this way that WI Police, given what happened
at the beginning, that they don't feel that they can
trust them to carry the case further, even to the
point now they're reinvestigating. I guess is that something that
(15:01):
you've come across a bit where you know that's distrust
are suppose of authorities.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Absolutely, and from everything I've seen in this case, there's
good reason to distrust the authorities, and it's one of
the reasons when I was at New Scotland Yard we
started independent advisory groups in the wake of Stephen Lawrence
being killed and the Metropolitan Police was found through a
public inquiry to be institutionally racist, and so the Racial
(15:28):
and Violent Crime Task Force was set up, and within
that the Adeputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve had the foresight
to create critical friends, so people who would critically and
independently evaluate us and our decisions, both at the local
level and the strategic level. And I think that that's
really important to ensure that you don't become myopic and
(15:50):
you haven't got everybody in the room agreeing with you,
because ultimately, what I've seen in this case, in Amy's
case in particular, is you had two detectives who were
experienced attend the scene, and you had two junior officers
who were detectives who were in training six months in
and then you have a lead detective, Detective Kirkman, saying
(16:12):
one thing and then everyone agreeing with him. And that
happens a lot, and it's in their career future to agree,
particularly when we go back in the day, rather than
having a dissenting voice who might say we need to
question this, we actually do need to speak to other
members of the family and get a history here. We
(16:34):
should really do the toxicology, we should do the forensics,
we need to know in her bag, there was the passport.
We need to think about the fact that she was
actually exiting the relationship with the children, and the bags
packed and gifts, and that she had future planned. We
need to question the crime scene. And actually, we can't
make this determination in fifteen minutes. Let's take our time.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Laura then refers to the Internal Affairs Unit report relating
to the conduct of detectives Kirkman and Wiederman in Amy's case.
You'll recall that investigation found that they both neglected their
duty in their handling of Amy's case and were referred
to the Integrity Review Panel for consideration of an Assistant
(17:20):
Commissioner's warning notes. Doesn't sound like much, does it.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
There was a detective I think it was Detective Pover
who effectively said when he was interviewed by Internal Affairs
that he didn't remember anything because he didn't take notes
and he was six months in I probation. He said
he didn't speak to witnesses, he didn't go into the house,
he didn't assess the scene, but he did believe that
(17:46):
David and Gareth were telling the truth. But he can't
recall the reasons for the determination that it was a
non suspicious death. But he disagreed it was a premature
decision to say it was non suspicious and he had
very little recall, but he seems to remember vividly driving
away from the scene, happy the correct decision had been made.
(18:09):
That is confounding to me, because you know, I have
reviewed many, many cases and for him not to remember
so many things but remembered that it was the right decision.
And that's the problem when you've got everyone agreeing, but
you've got three uniformed officers saying differently and that their
voices weren't heard. So that's also why you have these
(18:32):
critical friends the advisory groups that New Scotland Yard started,
but also on the domestic homicide review panels, we have
independent advisors and family members who are also there to
give a very clear understanding of what was going on
because we know that victims were talked to them before
they talked to the police, and so it's really important
(18:53):
if you attend a scene where a young woman, a
mother as well, has suddenly and unexpectedly died in such
unusual circumstances, and yet further questions weren't asked of the
men who were at the scene at the time, and
a detective who doesn't interview them determines that there witnesses
(19:14):
are not suspects. That is a very confusing thing to me,
because you would want to get as much information as
possible in order to make an informed decision and write
up your decision log I mean, we're talking about twenty fourteen,
We're not talking about the nineteen seventies, the nineteen eighties,
(19:34):
whereas the uniform officers who were first on the scene
were very uncomfortable with what they saw, given that the
engine was running, the children were in the car, everything
was packed up. There were signs of a violent struggle,
not necessarily in the bedroom, but there was glass smashed.
One of the men gave an account that Amy tried
(19:57):
to head butt David Simmons. And you've got a door
knob missing, and you've got a young mother who, for
all intense purposes, police are being told, had packed the
car up but went back into the house and then
shot herself in the face, which is again highly unusual
(20:18):
for that to happen. That's not something I always look
for the one percent of cases, and they are out there.
But for me, this was all the things that I
found out initially, which is what led me to post
on social media was that she died suddenly and unexpectedly,
and two men's narrative were believed and they were treated
(20:38):
as witnesses.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Yeah, it is a standing. And of course the one
officer who did stand his ground and keep saying to
this day that he believes that suicide, he's gone. He's
no longer in the police force. So obviously it's not
good to go against a grain.
Speaker 5 (20:53):
It's not It can be very career limiting, and I
know that from having worked in it. The institutionalization is
profound and severe and if you have a dissenting voice,
you do tend to be shut down. And that's highly
problematic when you're talking about people's lives, and more in
particular women's lives, because I do think that there is
(21:16):
a huge issue and a poor trap record of responding
to women, and WA police have that same trap record,
And anyone can just do a Google search and find
three cases immediately where Lynn Cannon who was threatened by
her ex partner threatened by him with a knife, a
call to police was made, they didn't respond, and now
(21:39):
it's just been announced that an inquest is underway. Could
WA police have done more then? Another case, the legal
reason she hasn't been named, but a domestic violence call
out and yet the police didn't respond and she was
killed by Warwick Walker Bear in twenty twenty one, and
more recently the Ariel Bombara case who alerted police that
(22:00):
her father was a threat and she had called three times,
was concerned, and he ended up killing a mother and
a daughter, Jenny and Gretel who was eighteen, who were
trying to protect her mother. And the trap record of
not believing women and not responding everyone sees it. And
that's the point when people say, well, why didn't she
(22:22):
call if there was domestic violence, no cause to police?
Oh okay, no history. So it is complex, but when
snap decisions are made at a scene within fifteen minutes,
you're going to catch a cold on that. Ultimately, with
these cases without a decision log clearly written up, and
you're missing the very unusual circumstances of a car running
(22:45):
with children in it, with future plans being laid down
to exit, separation and finality being high risk factors and
coerci of control to femicide, and women are much more
likely to be killed. Six percent of murders happen on separation,
and yet they made a very quick judgment that this
(23:07):
was a suicide without knowing any of the history, and
that is extremely concerning.
Speaker 6 (23:13):
Okay, so how can the situation be redeemed? I mean,
I guess the point I say here is they're reinvestigating.
There was evidence that was misterior ignored, which is what
we've highlighted in the podcast, as well as new evidence.
But there still seems to be this reluctance to debate
from the suicide theory. And in this case, it comes
(23:36):
down to ultimately one man who will determine whether this
can proceed, and he's the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
police will, as I say, they'll prefer an update, a brief,
he will consider it. They have a little coverletter giving
their thoughts and then yay or nay, and they generally
give about two sentences saying I don't think this should
proceed or there's not enough to proceed. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
So that shows the lack of transparent and in the UK,
what was decided in twenty thirteen was that there would
be a right to review process built in to prosecutors' decisions,
where the victim or family members could request a right
(24:19):
to review within a six I think it's a six
month period if there is a determination not to prosecute,
and it has to be explained as to why either
a prosecution has stopped or a decision has been made
not to prosecute. And I think there should be that
transparency now because people deserve to understand with such serious
(24:39):
decisions in every part of I call it the criminal
legal system rather than the criminal justice system because there
seems to be an absence of a focus on justice,
which is why it comes much more down to the
criminal and legal matters relating to cases. But I think
that that would lend itself well in US. I mean,
(25:00):
normally you do tend to adopt things that are brought
in as good practice, and I think that with a
case like this, there should be transparency in that decision.
And also I would want to know what exactly the
brief look like, because you know, is there a thorough
reinvestigation or is it just a cursory review.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Yeah, there's a lot to take in its complex.
Speaker 5 (25:23):
It is, but cases have been prosecuted with a lot
less and therefore, you know, how do you make that decision?
And I notice within many of the documents that you
sent me. There was a document written by a clinical
psychologist that I believe went to the coroner's in quest,
(25:46):
and I have many questions about Chris Geeson's report. It
states that they're a clinical psychologist, but I believe that
they're also a detective senior sergeant within the police working
in the Detectives Command. So my initial question, as I
always like to understand, is what exactly is your background?
(26:07):
Are you a clinical psychologist or a police officer? First
and foremost are you independent? Because an expert who is
independent and outside the police would request a very clear
terms of reference that you would like me to do
AB and C and I have a very clear scope
of doing this work, and most independent experts would say,
(26:29):
actually to make this level of determination, I will need
other documentation. So it was ostensibly a three page report
that was written in March twenty nineteen, with no clear
terms of reference, that stated that they were a behavioral analyst.
And I have to say I have never in my
career seen report like that before, where it starts with
(26:51):
the conclusion that David Simmons is telling the truth, which
is based on pre prepared testimony with no understanding of
baseline behind. But the determination is there's no inconsistencies in
his account and that his emotional reactions were congruent. Well,
I could interpret the same thing in a very different fashion.
(27:12):
I Chris Geeson wrote that he showed intense distress and
disbelief and horror when he came across Amy, and that
he appeared to be in shock. And Simmons said the same,
that he appeared to be in shock, and that he
said fuck, fuck, fuck, and that was indicative of him
being in shock and telling the truth. Well, I could
(27:34):
also read that same behavior. Whatever happened unraveled in the moment,
you can interpret it in different ways. But the last
part of the document focuses solely on Amy's mental health.
All the while this report writer is focusing on her
mental health. The report writer fails to note at any
(27:55):
point David Simmons' mental health and his problem with alcohol
and drugs, and that according to other independent witnesses, they
said that when he drinks and when he does drugs,
he gets very bad tempered and that's when he devalues
and name calls it Amy. But yet there's no mention
of that at all. So you've got this epistemic imbalance
(28:17):
in this three page document that concludes it's much more
likely she ended her life. To me, that document is
not worth the paper it's written on. There's no behavioral analysis,
nothing about the crime scene assessment that I would expect
a behavioral analyst to comment on. There's nothing on the
history of the relationship and what other people said. There's
(28:38):
nothing about domestic abuse, there's nothing about the high risk factors.
All of these things are omissions that are problematic in
my view having written reports to help investigators with their inquiries,
and I don't know how much weight that document was
given within the coronial inquest. When you see someone, you know,
(29:01):
a clinical psychologist, putting a report together like this, and
you know Simmons did tell the police, as did I
think Gareth also said the same thing, that she wasn't
in a happy state of mind, and Kirkman commented on that.
But yet that is negated in that report. And also
(29:22):
what's negated as a triple zero call where he says,
David Simmons, I've got two kids and my wife just
shot herself, my wife without a name, which is distancing.
That's what we understand that to be. And can you
please just come and take her away or do something. Well,
(29:43):
that is a highly in my view, inappropriate reaction to
ask on a triple zero call to remove her body
like she's a piece of garbage, just to remove her
with no real emotion. That stands out to me. And
yet this clinical psychologist is saying that his response was
(30:04):
consistent with it being a suicide and his in shock.
So I think for me, there's very serious questions about
that particular report and what purpose was it really looking
to serve.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Deputy Coroner Sarah Linton addresses the report by doctor Geson
in her findings.
Speaker 17 (30:23):
Doctor Chris Geson, senior sergeant in the WA Police, who
is a practicing psychologist with a PhD in clinical psychology
and behavioral analyst at Major Crime, viewed the electronic recordings
of Simmons and Prices interviews and provided a psychological opinion.
Doctor Geson did not observe any seminal inconsistencies in simmons account,
(30:43):
even with the retelling parts, and did not detect any
obvious behavior that suggested he was censoring his disclosures or
constructing a story. Reports of his actions and behavior at
the time of the event were also felt to be
consistent with the account, and Doctor Geson did not believe
there was sufficient time lag to allow for any staging
and colluding between David Simmons and Gareth Price. Accordingly, doctor
(31:07):
Geeson was inclined to believe David Simmons' version of events
and expressed the opinion that both David and Gareth were
telling the truth in their interviews and statements. The detective's
reinvestigating also did not find there was any deliberate action
on the part of either witness to try and deceive them,
and inconsistencies between their accounts were felt to be explainable.
(31:29):
Doctor Geeson also reviewed the evidence of Amy's mental state
and the external factors preying upon her mind. Doctor Geeson
found that there were ongoing factors suggesting Amy was depressed
at the time of her death, with the onset of
depression appearing to coincide with the birth of her second child,
and then being exacerbated by her years in an unstable,
(31:49):
controlling and abusive relationship with David Simmons, social isolation, financial stress,
and health issues. Doctor Geeson noted that depression is known
to be the strongest predictor of suicide. While Amy did
not appear suicidal in the week prior to her death,
and made no such disclosures to friends and family. She
(32:10):
did show risk factors such as impulsivity, aggression, helplessness, and hopelessness.
The immediate circumstances prior to her death, involving the violent
argument with David and the potential breakdown of their relationship,
made the possibility of a suicide attempt by Amy more likely.
Doctor Geeson also speculated that Amy's use of the antidepressants
(32:32):
a tulepram could have been a factor, so.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Her report does appear to have been given weight at
the inquest. Now back to our interview with Laura.
Speaker 6 (32:49):
I guess from your perspective, it's the whole picture, isn't it.
It's not just singular elements it is.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
It's the totality of the circumstances when you look at everything.
Also weighed against men being given the benefit of the doubt.
And that's something that I see consistently in cases, and
there have been many cases that I could quote where
he says it's one thing and he's believed, but yet
(33:19):
there's evidence that it's something else, and the female victim
is not believed. And we've seen it with murders like
Robert Trigg who killed two women, and the first woman
who he killed was Susan Nicholson, and he claimed he
just rolled over on her in the night and she
died and Sussex police said okay then, and they believed
his narrative without any real investigation. Were five years later
(33:41):
he killed another woman, Caroline Devlin. How many passes do
men get? I have many of these cases where a
man's narrative is just believed just because he's a man,
and we have to move away from that. We have
to start to assess the evidence and analyze in context
the history of the relationship, because it is highly relevant.
(34:04):
When you are called to a twenty four year old
woman's death and the car is running and there were
two children in the car, and she's called her mother
to exit, and there's finality that she's going, and then
she's found allegedly having blown her head off, which I
can't think of one case where that's happened in my
(34:25):
almost thirty year career. There are those one percent of cases,
as I mentioned, but you should question everything, and the
history of that relationship is incredibly relevant. So if you
have seen a pattern of when he drinks, there is
abuse and violence. Well you would look at that relationship.
(34:45):
What's he like when he doesn't drink. Well, there's coercive control.
He's controlling and he devalues her. Still okay, so he's
still abusive with or without drink. But here we have
a situation where he is in drink. Why is it
that his narrative is just believed With a friend, two
of them are treated as witnesses. Often women are just
(35:06):
devalued and written off as well, they were crazy, Oh,
they took antidepressants. There's a reason why there are investigative protocols,
and particularly if for firearms involved, there's a reason why
those investigative standards are there to ensure that this type
of thing doesn't happen.
Speaker 6 (35:23):
How are we doing with this case? Is their progress
being made that you can see?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
Well, I think there have been some in roads, but
it hasn't been quick enough and it hasn't been urgent enough.
And when we look at the epistemic imbalance of one
of the Australian cities where a man was killed a
one punch kill and the city was shut down and
new laws come in when things like that happen and
(35:48):
yet we don't have urgent change happening. So the short
answer is, yes, we've made some inroads New South Wales
criminalizing coercive control and it takes time for that to
take effect. Queensland doing the same. Really, it should be
a federal law. So it's all across Australia, and I
think the general consensus is that it's just not quick enough.
(36:09):
There's a lot of glossy documents being written. But when
you've still got people saying, oh, this is a drugs problem,
or this is an unemployment problem, rather than actually it's
a male problem, and we need men to solve that problem,
rather than saying it's violence against women. It's a women's
safety issue and therefore the owner's falls to women. It's
(36:30):
not our burden to create this change. We actually need
male leaders and within the community to create change, to
help young boys to break those patterns and to break
the cycle of misogyny and sexism and chauvinism. And that's
where it begins. We've got to start young with young
boys changing that cycle and doing it at every level.
(36:52):
And really, Alison, it takes men to do it, not women.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Laura reiterates the need for independent expert analysis in cold
cases such as Amy's, and.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
If you've been part of making decisions that are under
review and being criticized, it's hard for the most evolved
person amongst us to not be conflicted and not be biased.
And that's what it takes. It's not about finger pointing.
When we brought in the domestic homicide review process, when
(37:22):
I work with Harriet Harmon, the Solicitor General, it wasn't
about pointing the finger to blame. It was about really
understanding intervention and prevention and getting upstream of things, and
that's always been the onus. It's not been about litigation.
So it's that changing that culture that we really do
want to get better at what we do. And when
I ran the homicide prevention unit, you know, some people
(37:44):
really loved it, but a lot of people didn't because
it meant my team and I were going to be
reviewing a lot of decisions that were made. So, you know,
I have the head wounds from banging my head against
the proverbial brick wall trying to create change. But it
does take leaders to agree that this is what we
need to do and have independent experts sat there who
(38:04):
really understand this area. Far better than other people around
the table and family members. You know, we hear so
much more. We learned so much more about victimology and
what was really going on. Rather than saying, oh, do
we have any history of domestic violence? Callouts to the address.
You know, that does not give a good indication of
whether there is a domestic violence history between two people.
(38:28):
You must talk to others to get a real sense
of what's going on, and you know it's not always easy.
You have to leave your ego at the door. And
what I saw in the police when I was in it,
and equally with Amy's case, is bro culture. The detectives arrive,
they're the bro culture together. One says one thing and
everyone just follows suit. But you've also got the bro
(38:50):
culture of David Simmons and two of his good friends
who are around at the house at the time where
all of this unfolded, and yet they're being given the
benefit of the doubt. Well, where's Amy's benefit of the doubt?
Where's the critical questioning for her? Where's her group saying well,
hang on? And that's been her sister and her mother
(39:12):
and others, But it's fallen on death is for far
too long, and it really shouldn't be this hard when
you're up against that brick wall. It shouldn't be this
hard in the day of transparency and openness, and people
should be wanting to get better at what they do.
We've got some learning to do here, and we want
to engage rather than being defensive and circling the wagons.
Speaker 6 (39:34):
One mass thing. They'll argue that you've got to have
a resumption of innocence and that they need a primer
facy case, which they say, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (39:41):
Well, you never get a primer facy case without investigating it.
I've never seen one yet. It doesn't land on your
lap with a nice big pink bow on it. You
have to ask questions irrespective of what case it is.
That's why you're an investigator, and you have to look
at everything at that scene the way that people behave
(40:04):
the history. You have to go through the forensic process
because there are certain areas that are not in your wheelhouse.
You have to have the results of the toxicology, the clothing,
the gunshot residue. You have to do all of these
things to be sure that your determination is the right one.
(40:24):
And that's about being having a critical mind and an
open mind at the outset of investigation, and you have
to look at building the case rather than looking to
confirm your initial assumption. And I believe it was the
latter here that there's confirmation bias of just the quick easy, Okay,
(40:47):
it looks to be this, and I'll read the statements
just to check it's this, rather than having professional curiosity.
And you have to have that professional curiosity an inquiring mind.
Speaker 6 (41:00):
But it's a balance of probabilities right as well.
Speaker 5 (41:02):
You have to look at the micro and the macro,
and timelines are very important and sequence of events. And
I have to say, I can't think of one case
that I've advised on where you get the timeline and
sequence of events within an hour. It just doesn't happen.
You have a starburst of at least seventy two hours
where all of that activity takes place. So even if
(41:22):
it's seventy two hours that you give it to, actually
have lines of investigation to be sure within your decision log.
You know, these are very serious decisions. A woman's life
with two young children. She mattered, She mattered enough to
give it longer than fifteen minutes or an hour.
Speaker 6 (41:43):
Well, we had the emails from place only from as
late as last year where they say they were foy
and they say that, you know, when they announced the
a million dollar reward treating it as a homicide walk
because also opened finding they said it was a saucer.
So they have seen your officers still in the so
Wa Police saying it was a surce.
Speaker 5 (42:03):
I would imagine that that is still very much in
the crime report, the decision log, that that's still very
much in there, and that's why they're still saying those things.
But that again fights itself and having someone you know,
who's small and of a slight build. But even where
she was found tucked into that area behind the door,
(42:25):
that's highly unusual for someone to end their life and
be wedged into that tiny area, and the way that
she did it, I can't think of any case where
that's happened with the children that are outside, with the
mother saying the children were her life, and everything that
she said to friends and everything that her mindset was
(42:45):
about was resilience. And I can tell you I know
no one stronger than single mothers. Single mothers who raise
children are the strongest kind, and certainly when you add
in domestic violence. They tend to be very resilient, and
it's their children that keep them resilient. So knowing that,
(43:06):
it's incredibly bizarre, puzzling, unfathomable of why she would end
her life. But I wouldn't expect any e mail detective
to think like that. I wouldn't expect them to go
to that scene and think, well, hang on a minute,
let's check the history. Oh, look, she survived a car accident.
She was resilient. Then hang on. Other people are saying
about strangulation, life to the throat, all these things that
(43:29):
have happened. She's been resilient, then being pregnant and being assaulted,
she's resilient then. So now she's saying, I'm leaving. She's
going to come into some money. She's finally said I'm going.
She's got her mother a place to stay, she's got
her passport, she's packed everything in future planned, even with
gifts for her daughter, and they're about to go. Why
(43:51):
would she end her life then? That just makes no
sense to me. When she had been earlier getting a
recipe for pe and ham soup, seeing friends, her mindset
wasn't of suicidal ideation. Her mindset was of leaving him,
and it was exacerbated in alcohol because she saw the
same thing from him again of the alcohol and putting
(44:14):
alcohol before the family. They have another huge argument and
she's assaulted and she's upset, but she is going to leave.
She did all of those things to exit that relationship.
I think you have got the perfect storm here of
all of these things happening together. I don't believe it
was any one thing as to why they made these decisions.
(44:34):
I think it's a culmination of all of those things.
But not to thoroughly interview the people at the scene
who were there in twenty fourteen, that's unfathomable.
Speaker 6 (44:44):
Laura, I just want to thank you so much. I
really really appreciate everything that you do. You're so important
in the world, So thank you.
Speaker 5 (44:52):
Thank you well. I appreciate you giving Amy and her
family a voice. And we need more victim advocates who
come at things for the right reasons of asking questions,
even though it might rattle cages and upset people, but
Amy deserves it, and her two children do as well,
her daughters. They deserve to establish what really went on,
(45:14):
rather than be met with a wall of silence or
what's more, a decision that is based on a house
of cards. Really that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's opinion. At the end of the day. Neither do
they have clear facts that point to suicide, but there
are many more questions that point to when we put
(45:36):
it in the wider context of male violence to women,
that women suddenly dying and unexpectedly dying in circumstances like this,
we owe it to women to do more, and we
owe it to them when they call for help that
we actually take action. So thank you for doing what
you do, and I really hope that there will be
(45:58):
justice for Amy and the right decisions are made well.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
We did ask WA Police, among other things, whether their
focus was still on proving suicide rather than homicide, the
weight being afforded to doctor Geson's report, and if external
experts would be consulted about Amy's case. We received this response.
Speaker 18 (46:30):
The investigation into Amy's death remains ongoing. WA Police continue
to explore a number of investigative leads, some of which
involve external experts. Upon the completion of the investigation, we
will present the findings the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions for their consideration and assessment. The death of
(46:50):
Amy Wensley is considered suspicious and the focus of the
investigation is to ensure all available evidence is captured and
presented to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
for his assessment. With regards to whether legal decisions made
by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should
be reviewable, that is a question for the Attorney General,
(47:11):
not the Western Australia Police Force. The information in the
coroner's findings referencing doctor Geeson is not material we presented
in criminal proceedings.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Now that's a bit confusing because it's unclear what he's
referring to. As far as we're aware, there haven't been
any criminal proceedings in relation to Amy Wensley. We also
queried Attorney General John Quigley's office about the concerns raised
by a new South Wales Crime Commissioner, Michael Barnes. Our
(47:49):
questions included should decisions by Directors of Public Prosecutions in
relation to suspicious debts be reviewable? Why or why not,
to which he replied.
Speaker 19 (48:04):
They are by the coroner.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Now we know that even if the coroner does recommend
charges be laid, the DPP doesn't have to comply, which
is what Michael Barnes recalled happening in Queensland following his
decision on the Vicky Arnold, Julie and Lay capse.
Speaker 17 (48:25):
I did the third in question and said it was
a homicide and the DPP refused to charge.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
The situation is not different here in WA. We then asked.
Speaker 6 (48:35):
Would your government consider an appeal system being implemented.
Speaker 19 (48:39):
Mister Quigley replied the High Court has ruled there can't
be a judicial review of a DPP's decision. However, there
can be a judicial review of a coroner's decision, which
an aggrieved party can seek.
Speaker 6 (48:52):
Should Directors of Public Prosecutions be made to provide comprehensive
explanations of their decisions.
Speaker 19 (48:58):
A comprehensive except given by the DPP as to why
not to commence a prosecution at that point in time
made prejudice any further prosecution or further police investigation.
Speaker 6 (49:11):
Not satisfied with this response, I wrote back to the
Attorney General's Chiefest Staff when Dy Pryor, thanking her, but
pointing out the criticism related to the issues raised by
mister Barnes following his experience as State Coroner of both
New South Wales and Queensland, citing cases such as Lynn Simms,
Julianne Leih and Vicky Arnold and Laney Carwell, and pointing
(49:34):
out that sometimes directors of public prosecution get it right,
but other times it's many more years before justice is realized.
I urged her to take a listen to our podcast,
and then c c the Premier's Chief of Staff, David Cooper,
asking if the AG's answer was reflective of the entire
government or just his office. I didn't hear back from
(49:56):
mister Cooper, but I did get this response from Miss Pryor.
Speaker 15 (50:00):
Hi Allison. Thanks for educating me. I also appreciate that
other people in other states may have various views on matters.
I am reiterating below the information we have provided on
the Wensley matter. The information was in a letter to
Miss Davy, which I understand you were provided. I'm not
sure if you have published all of it. The Attorney
(50:20):
General will not be making any further comment in relation
to your request for comment this week. I'm sorry that
you don't like his response, which explained what review mechanisms
are already in place. The letter outlined the following one
a hearing was set down for a discretionary coronial inquest
to be held in relation to Miss Wensley's death in
(50:40):
twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest, the former Deputy State
Coroner Vicker referred the matter to the DPP. This was
based on the opinion of an expert biomechanical report, which
former Deputy State Coroner Vicker considered contained information to suggest
an indebtable offense had been committed in relation to Miss
Wensley's death. Two. That referral to the DPP resulted in
(51:04):
the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad conducting a review
of the earlier police investigations into Miss Wensley's death. Three.
WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt to obtain
evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death.
Speaker 6 (51:21):
Four.
Speaker 15 (51:22):
The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish
the involvement of another person in Miss Wensley's death. Five
The DPP reviewed the materials and agreed with the determination
made by the WA Police and referred the matter back
to the Coroner's court.
Speaker 18 (51:39):
Six.
Speaker 15 (51:40):
An inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with
Deputy 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. Seven the
current deputies ste Coroner Linton declined to refer the matter
(52:02):
to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was
insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had
been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. Kind regards, Wendy.
Speaker 6 (52:16):
We also heard from a listener this week who was
concerned WA police had not made enough of the thirteen
second phone call to Robert Simmons by David at the
Serpentine roadhouse.
Speaker 20 (52:27):
Hi, Alian Liam, I find it strange that the coroner
ruled an open verdict, which includes the possibility of homicide.
Under one million dollar reward has been offered for information
leading to the identification of the perpetrator or perpetrators. There
were only two or possibly three of us present when
Amy died. Another point is regarding the phone call David
(52:49):
mead to Robert from the servo. It doesn't seem much
attention has been paid to this his word has just
been accepted. I'm enjoying listening to the podcast and I
hope Am and her family will finally get the justice
they deserve. Thanks.
Speaker 6 (53:03):
And we touched on this thirteen second phone call last
week and in episode seven when Robert Simmons was questioned
by council assisting the coroner, Sarah Tyler.
Speaker 21 (53:14):
On your mobile phone, there's a record at five twenty
pm of an incoming phone call from Serpentine Falls Roadhouse
that lasted for thirteen seconds. We know that David and
Gareth went to the roadhouse to call the emergency services.
Speaker 13 (53:28):
That was going to my landline, that was to your
mobile phone.
Speaker 22 (53:31):
I don't think I never answer it.
Speaker 6 (53:33):
Then, here's what Robert Simmons said when questioned at the
inquest by counsel for Amy Wensley's family, Peter Ward.
Speaker 23 (53:40):
Phone records indicate that there was a call from the
Serpentine Falls Roadhouse number to your mobile yes, at five
twenty one, two minutes before you got the call from St.
John Ambulance.
Speaker 22 (53:50):
I never received it.
Speaker 23 (53:51):
You don't recall receiving that no?
Speaker 5 (53:53):
Okay.
Speaker 23 (53:53):
One of the police officers who attended that night has
recorded in his nose that when he went up to
see you at the end of the night and give
you the receipt for the firearms. That you spoke to
him then and you said you'd received a phone call
from the service station. Do you remember telling him that? No,
And he says that what you told him was that
you had received a call from Bob Ibbotson, the service
station owner, to say that he was worried about Garett,
(54:16):
worried about David. No, not at it was the police
officer was mistaken when he made that note in his notes.
Speaker 22 (54:22):
My phone had an answering service on it, but I
never had the message on there or anything like that.
And the only call I got that day was from
the Saint the emergency services. They asked me if I
was David Simmons. Someone from there has called an ambulance
and that's when I said, I will go and investigate.
Speaker 6 (54:42):
So there's a police record that Robert Simmons said who
received that call. This is extremely important, particularly as with
much of this case, there are varying witness accounts which
will ultimately require investigators to weigh up the balance of probability.
It's pretty clear where the weight lies here, and when
(55:05):
looking at the evidence in its entirety back to mister Ward,
who continues questioning Robert Simmons about his phone conversation with
the Saint John's ambulance operator and what the transcript of
the call indicates. He said, upon answering.
Speaker 23 (55:22):
You responded, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Yes, go on.
Speaker 23 (55:25):
Who's Lloyd?
Speaker 22 (55:26):
There was no one with me at all.
Speaker 3 (55:27):
There was no one with you.
Speaker 22 (55:29):
No, I don't know where they got that from.
Speaker 23 (55:31):
Well, this is your voice recorded on the phone call.
You say, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 22 (55:36):
Well was I no? I know I was speaking. I
was talking to someone on my mobile. That's what it was. Yes,
I've got to go. I had two I wasn't speaking
to anyone.
Speaker 23 (55:47):
You were talking to somebody on your mobile.
Speaker 22 (55:49):
Unless it was someone who wrung me about a job
or something like that. I run a business. Could have
been someone who said Lloyd and were looking to do
some clearing work.
Speaker 6 (55:58):
And here's what David Simmons said on the last day
of the inquest.
Speaker 21 (56:03):
We have it in evidence that you made that call
to the ambulance services and then you asked if you
could make his second phone call, and you took the
phone out the front and dialed another number.
Speaker 13 (56:12):
Do you remember making that second call?
Speaker 3 (56:14):
Maybe? Yeah, Well I can't.
Speaker 13 (56:17):
Who are you calling? What do you remember?
Speaker 3 (56:19):
I think? I don't know?
Speaker 13 (56:21):
You're not sure, nah?
Speaker 21 (56:23):
If I said the second phone call was made to
your dad from the Serpentine roadhouse around that time with
that jog your.
Speaker 24 (56:30):
Memory, maybe I can't remember exactly.
Speaker 23 (56:37):
No.
Speaker 13 (56:37):
Do you remember talking to your dad before from the
roadhouse or talking to your dad about what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3 (56:45):
Yeah? Vaguely maybe I can. Yeah.
Speaker 13 (56:48):
What do you remember about that.
Speaker 3 (56:50):
I was seeing? If he was at home? I think?
And that what had happened?
Speaker 13 (56:54):
And what did he say?
Speaker 3 (56:56):
I can't remember.
Speaker 13 (56:57):
But you're sure you called him? You've got a memory
of that?
Speaker 3 (57:00):
I do now, yeah?
Speaker 1 (57:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 17 (57:03):
And did you definitely talk to him?
Speaker 13 (57:07):
Sorry, that's the coroner.
Speaker 3 (57:09):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I talked to him.
Speaker 21 (57:11):
Yeah, but you don't remember the details other than what
had happened.
Speaker 24 (57:15):
Nah. To tell you the truth, I've just turned my
whole memory and everything off for the last so many years,
you know, and I've just tried to forget things, and
now I'm still dealing with it and got to go
through it again.
Speaker 21 (57:27):
So I understand that It's difficult to talk about these things,
and I know I'm asking you to remember things that
happened a long time ago, but it's important to tell
me what you do remember, and if you don't remember,
just tell me that you don't remember. Is there anything
else that you remember about the phone call to your
dad from the roadhouse.
Speaker 1 (57:45):
No, so like the bins, the lack of gun residue
or blood on David and Gareth's clothing, David going back
for the pink phone, or entering the room within ten
minutes before Amy died, the missing door handle, and so
(58:06):
much more. In this case, no real clarity was provided
surrounding that thirteen second phone call, and the contradictions appear
to have just been glossed over, like so much in
Amy's case. What we do know for certain, though, is
(58:26):
the call occurred, because the phone records prove it did. Unfortunately,
David was questioned after his father Robert, so there was
no opportunity to requestion him, and nothing about it was
even mentioned in Deputy coroner Sarah Linton's findings. But she
(58:48):
did have this to say about Robert simmons testimony.
Speaker 17 (58:52):
I considered Robert Simmons to be an honest, forthright witness.
He certainly had not tried to hide his concerns about
what David might have done when he sat spoke to
the emergency services operator after going into the house at
their request. Mister Simmons also gave evidence that he said
to David at a later time, I'm going to ask
you once, and then asked David to talk him through
exactly what happened when Amy died and to tell him
(59:15):
if he had any involvement.
Speaker 6 (59:16):
In her death.
Speaker 17 (59:18):
Mister Simmons gave evidence that David has never been the
same since that day. At the time of the inquest,
mister Simmons gave evidence that David's drug and alcohol problems
have spiraled out of control and is now homeless and
his mental and physical health is compromised. Mister Simmons said
he had tried to help him at various times, but ultimately,
for his own health and to protect other family members,
(59:40):
he has to stay away from David.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
So the coroner acknowledges Robert's comments that he needs to
protect other family members from David, but she doesn't mention
his comments about the thirteen second phone calls.
Speaker 12 (01:00:01):
Hi, Allison, I've been listening to the truth about any
podcast and have to say that you are all doing
such a great job. There is one point that keeps
coming up, and it's a missing door handle.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
This is Jane, a DV survivor who, like many other listeners,
wants to share her story.
Speaker 12 (01:00:18):
I found myself in an abusive relationship twenty years ago.
I was lucky enough and managed to escape it within
four years. I was in my mid forties when it happened.
What I wanted to say is that sometimes he would
take off the door handle inside the bedroom, leave the room,
and of course I could not get out. I hope
(01:00:41):
this helps keep up the good work guys, Jane.
Speaker 6 (01:00:45):
Thanks Jane for turning your pain into purpose. We know
it can't be easy. We're truly grateful to people like
you and Ann earlier who want to help. It hasn't
been easy for any of us involved in fighting for
the truth about Amy, and we honestly couldn't do it
without the support of our listeners.
Speaker 10 (01:01:07):
So soon you see, this.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
Is our final episode for the year, but we will
be back next year with season two. From all of
us here, thank you all for caring about Amy's story
and supporting her family's continuing fight for justice. We wish
you all a very safe festive season. We'll leave you
(01:01:34):
with more from Ariel Bombara, whose story reminds us not
to take safety for granted. Also how far as a
society we still need to go to protect domestic violence victims.
Please note some listeners might find this distressing.
Speaker 9 (01:01:58):
Six months ago, I picked up the keys to our
new rental apartment. It was a breath of fresh air,
a sigh of intense release. We'd been on the run
for eight weeks, and during that time we were gas lit,
told we were overreacting crazy, but my father would never
physically hurt us. We were stressed, malnourished, and living on
(01:02:19):
top of each other and various accommodations, dragging our belongings
around in suitcases and garbage bags, just trying to make
it through each day. We often questioned our sanity, but
I remained adamant that my father was dangerous and I
would do anything to keep him.
Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
Away from us.
Speaker 9 (01:02:39):
So when we stepped into that new rental, it felt
like the first glimpse of light at the end of
a very dark tunnel we'd been navigating. We were giddy
and excited as we unpacked the same clothes we'd been
wearing for eight weeks, this time with the knowledge that
we finally had a home again and could start to
rebuild our lives.
Speaker 4 (01:02:58):
While unpacking, my received from her best green Jenny. We
heard Jenny telling her eighteen year old daughter, Gretel to
go hide.
Speaker 9 (01:03:06):
My father had turned up looking for Mum and he
didn't believe her when she said Mum wasn't there, so
he forced his way into their home. We heard Jenny say,
Mark put the gun away, and I remember the ice
cold shot of adrenaline and the sound that escaped my mouth,
akin to that of someone who's been kicked in the girl.
It was the knowledge that after eight weeks of meticulous
(01:03:28):
safety planning, eight weeks of predicting and staying ahead of
his behavior in the most terrifying game of cat and mouse,
he was about to do everything we thought he was
going to do to us, to somebody else. Those were
the last words I heard Jenny say as I frantic
the cul triple zero while Mum continued to listen to
what was going on in Jenny's house. While speaking to
(01:03:52):
the police, I heard Mum scream and then she was wailing.
The last thing Mum heard was two gunshots before the
phone went dead. I stood there, powerless, watching her in
shock as her whales filled our empty apartment, laden with
the pain of someone who's just heard their abusive husband
murdered their best friend. My father murdered Jenny and Gretel
(01:04:14):
while Jenny's other daughter, Liesl and her boyfriend Blair were
down the road at the shops.
Speaker 4 (01:04:19):
They returned after Gretel texted.
Speaker 9 (01:04:21):
Liesl to call the police and heard my father's final
gun shot as he ended his life.
Speaker 4 (01:04:28):
What people don't realize is that the true impact of.
Speaker 9 (01:04:31):
Domestic violence homicides isn't just the loss of life. It's
the devastation that ripples through the families, the quiet aftermath,
the survivors guild. For the rest of my life, I'll
question every decision I made, from the point of convincing
Mom to leave because it wasn't safe, wondering what more
I could have done to stop him, knowing two lives
(01:04:53):
were taken instead of my own and my mom's because
I was too good at hiding from him, and hating
my for never considering that he would kill other people
if he.
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
Couldn't find us. It's a heavy burden women carry, blaming themselves.
Speaker 9 (01:05:10):
For men's violence, an utterly unfair, twisted weight we feel
because the system doesn't protect us and puts the onus
on women to manage men's behavior, rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
We weren't the ones to pick up that gun, yet
we must live the rest of our lives paying.
Speaker 4 (01:05:29):
For his crimes.
Speaker 9 (01:05:32):
My father was a dictator and his coercive and controlling
behaviors were constant. He constantly humiliated Mum in front of us,
tore her down and made her feel small. He was
a master manipulator who would twist her words and gaslight
her until.
Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
She couldn't trust her own mind. He kept her isolated
from friends and family. He controlled the money.
Speaker 9 (01:05:55):
He'd make degrading comments about her appearance, call her names,
criticize every little pressure her to wear clothes she didn't
want to wear, constant unwanted sexual advances, and I could
see the dead look behind her eyes. That new compliance
wasn't as bad as the alternative, because she knew that
when she resists, he takes it out on her children.
Speaker 4 (01:06:17):
He knows this is the most effective way to hurt her.
It was the persistent.
Speaker 9 (01:06:22):
Gut wrenching dread, waiting for when and how he was
going to shame you. That had everyone walking on eggshells,
constantly on edge and exhausted from playing his mind games.
Oh but he's not a violent man, people would tell me. Hm,
So how did this non violent, gun wielding, law abiding
(01:06:44):
citizen end up committing murder? Because he believed my mother
was his property and if he couldn't have her, then
no one could. After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police
to take any action to protect.
Speaker 4 (01:06:58):
Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9 (01:07:03):
I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us,
and still managed to inflict maximum damage.
Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
Utter devastation.
Speaker 9 (01:07:15):
I thought for eight weeks against every person that tried
to convince us we were overreacting, the police who dismissed us,
the people who said, oh, but he doesn't rape.
Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
You or hit you, so it can't be that bad.
All I can ask is do you believe me?
Speaker 6 (01:07:31):
Now?
Speaker 12 (01:08:02):
Lisser c.
Speaker 23 (01:08:06):
So deation.
Speaker 9 (01:08:11):
We both know the now set you mek.
Speaker 4 (01:08:20):
S.
Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
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
(01:08:53):
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
(01:09:16):
for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make
any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,
don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
(01:09:39):
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's Emo. This
(01:10:13):
is a seven News production.
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
bags pack car running her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Mom told me that she needed to go back inside
to grab something.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Panic.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Amy is dead, Sir aim his dead?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Eight confusion about five minutes they sit not to suicide.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
One hundred percent. This is emergency.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
Speaker 5 (01:06):
The Truth about Amy?
Speaker 6 (01:15):
Episode fourteen.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
I'm Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 6 (01:21):
And I'm Alison Sandy.
Speaker 7 (01:27):
Female fifteen, jud female Bustleton female thirty eight.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
This is the place, gender, and age of people who
have died in Western Australia this year as a result
of domestic violence. As their details are called out, loved
ones place a flour on a cardboard cutout, representing them
(02:00):
to be precise right where their heart would be.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
Every year in Perth, the Western Australian Center for Women's
Safety and well Being holds a Silent March.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
Stop Them, Silence, Stop.
Speaker 6 (02:18):
The violence, not only to honor those whose lives have
been lost at the hands of abuses, but to raise
awareness about how prevalent this is silence. So far this year,
there have been sixteen deaths in Wa alone, including Jennifer
and Gretel Patelchek Floris.
Speaker 7 (02:43):
Eighteen Florians.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Fifteen as their details are called. Twenty seven year old
Ariel Bombara tearfully puts flowers to each of her friend's hearts.
Jennifer was her mum's best friend, Gretel her daughter. They
were shot to death by Ariel's father, Mark Bombara at
(03:09):
the end of his search for them. Live from Perth
seven Yews with Rick Garden and Susannika Good Evening.
Speaker 8 (03:19):
For the first time we've heard what life was really
like under the roof of double murderer Mark Bombara. His
daughter Today detailed the reign of terror he inflicted on
their family before he tried to hunt down his ex wife.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Sadly, Ariel can't help but blame herself for what happened, knowing.
Speaker 9 (03:38):
Two lives were taken instead of my own and my
mom's because I was too good at hiding from him.
And hating myself for never considering that he would kill
other people if he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
In front of a crowd of hundreds, Ariel Bombara describes
the actions of a monster, a monster that was her father.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
My father was a.
Speaker 9 (03:59):
Dictator, and his coercive and controlling behaviors were constant. I
remember being whipped with belts, tied to my chair until
I ate every piece of food on my plane. He
thought women were less than dogshit, and he made it
clear in front of his daughters.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Aril knew her father was dangerous, and she and her
mother told police they feared that he would kill.
Speaker 9 (04:20):
After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police to take any
action to protect.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9 (04:29):
I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Speaking at Today's March against Domestic and Family Violence, Bombara
recounted that horrific night in May when her father shot
dead her mother's best friend, Jennifer Ptelchek, and her eighteen
year old daughter in their flory at home before turning
the gun on himself. Police did not intervene sooner because
the insidious abuse that he inflicted leading up to the incident,
(04:55):
known as coercive control, is not illegal, and while the
government now agrees that it should be, it won't commit
to pushing through legislation.
Speaker 9 (05:04):
Knowing that Jenny and Grettel lost their lives in our
places filled me with both devastation and an overwhelming sense
of duty to do everything.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
In my power to prevent this from ever happening again.
Speaker 9 (05:16):
Last year, after a state of murders, the government developed
the WA Family and Domestic Violence System Reform.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Plan, So now I'm asking what is being done to
implement it.
Speaker 9 (05:26):
I believe in the reform of our systems so long
as there is a commitment to adequately fund it. I
believe that we as a collective have the power to
make a real difference. But to do so, we need
to believe in victims, survivors and their right.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
To be heard and supported.
Speaker 9 (05:42):
We need to believe in the services and systems that
can help victims, and in the capacity for change in perpetrators.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
I hope you'll join me in this fight, not just
for me, but for all of us.
Speaker 9 (05:53):
Because violence against women and children is everyone's problem.
Speaker 6 (05:58):
Coerce of control. Laws protecting domestic violence victims have been
introduced in New South Wales and Queensland, but not w
Way except here. The Seven Years Journalist pushes Prevention of
Family and Domestic Violence Minister Sabine Winton to commit to
a date to roll out a similar legislation.
Speaker 10 (06:19):
Coursive control.
Speaker 11 (06:20):
Legislation could have saved these two people that were killed
by this man. And you know that how I don't
know that, but I know that it's a real, tangible,
actual consequence for people like this man. And why then
will you not commit to a date when these laws
will be introduced.
Speaker 12 (06:36):
Our government has permitted to criminalizing coersim control.
Speaker 13 (06:41):
We will do it in a staged way. We will
do it in a way where we will.
Speaker 11 (06:45):
Know, we will get results, asking why you commit to
a date and will also make sure that when we
introduce it that we don't further put at risk victims survivors.
Speaker 9 (06:55):
The system doesn't protect us and puts the owners on
women to managements that behavior rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Natcy, can I ask your proper question?
Speaker 6 (07:05):
Amy's mom, Nancy and her best friend Aaron Gower, were
also at this event and understand how frustrating it was
for arial bombards, and despite a new investigation into Amy's
death by Wa police, they remain fearful that police will
continue to ignore key evidence supporting homicide.
Speaker 14 (07:24):
I know there were previous investigations, but more information has
come out now since the podcast has aired, that you know,
should have been found out while those other two investigations
were happening.
Speaker 13 (07:35):
The investigation being mishandled by police.
Speaker 4 (07:38):
How does that evenpact your family?
Speaker 14 (07:39):
It's so hard, you know, we haven't been able to
grieve properly because we're fighting constantly. So it's just it's exhausting.
Speaker 10 (07:48):
Really, I would love to hear the police commissioner apologize.
I don't want no letter of regret. I want an
apology aim.
Speaker 15 (08:02):
His daughters, apology.
Speaker 10 (08:06):
They disserve an apology for the big mess up then
I happened that night. We wouldn't be standing here if
it was conducted properly, but it wasn't.
Speaker 16 (08:18):
With respect to coercive control, one single piece of legislation
will not solve this.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Police Minister Paul Papalia responds to a scrum of journalists
asking if enough is being done to address domestic violence.
Speaker 11 (08:32):
I know that your officers know that they do all
this hard work and then it gets handed over to
the courts and then the magistrates slap these violent very signs. Right,
So we can do a community education campaign, But what.
Speaker 16 (08:46):
Of the magistrates When I've seen the training that's delivered
to officers in the academy and how significantly that has changed.
Speaker 8 (08:54):
I'm not sure that the courts.
Speaker 16 (08:55):
Are aware or have been provided the similar sort of training.
And I'll be encouraging the Attorney General to speak with
the heads of the different courts.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
And the Chief Justice wasn't even here today.
Speaker 16 (09:07):
Chief Justice is dedicated to dealing with family and domestic guidance,
so there's probably a reason for him.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Not Then we will talk to the town generally have
about it.
Speaker 16 (09:15):
I have taken before, but I would like to see
magistrates and judges be forwarded the opportunity to witness what
I witnessed at the academy, so they understand that police training,
police capability has moved and has changed, and then the
courts can reflect that knowledge. At the moment, I'm not
sure that they are aware of what is provided to
the police and then what is then presented to them
(09:37):
in the courts.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
We'll have more on the WA Attorney General later in
this episode.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
Thank you for welcoming me. Laura Richards, criminal behavioral analysts
and expert in domestic violence and coercive control and stalking
and domestic commicide.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Meanwhile, as promised, we caught up with internationally acclaimed criminal
behavioral analyst Laura Richards, who had a a lot to
say about domestic violence and the way it's being handled
by authorities.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Well, firstly, I just want to mention, having reviewed and
analyzed thousands of murders committed by men killing women and children,
it's not a drugs related issue. And I do want
to make that very clear because I have heard people
continuously say, oh, it's this, it's alcohol, it's drugs, and
(10:25):
actually it's not. That plays a role when it aggravates things.
It's an aggravating factor, but it's not a causal factor.
The behavior is the causal factor, and it's things around
power and control, a male entitlement, and the lack of accountability.
So when they are abusive and violent, there's no accountability
(10:45):
through the criminal justice system.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
And what that.
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Basically says to the perpetrator is carry on, carry on,
because it's not important enough. And what that says to
the female victim is you're not important enough and you
don't matter. So you have victims who then don't want
to report, and you have male perpetrators in the main
who just feel that they're untouchable and can do what
they want, set within a culture of misogyny and male entitlement.
(11:09):
So I do just want to make that clear, because
it's the same all across the world. There is nothing
new here other than the lack of accountability which has
been consistent and the misogynistic elements that create male entitlement
and green light these offenders. So I think it is
important that you look at the data and the facts
(11:32):
and the evidence, and that experts talk about domestic violence
and domestic homicide and femicide and given very clear indication
of what we see in these cases, rather than people
just speculating or quontificating because they had one case and
there was a drug element to it and therefore they
think it is drug related. It's an aggravating feature, but
(11:54):
it's not causal.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Laura acknowledgers frontline emergency officers often to make snap decisions,
which is why their training is so integral.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
Well, it's what I used to see when I trained detectives,
and I'd go up to detective training school and we'd
have one case, and a detective before me would talk
to the incoming detectives as if that one case would
repeat again and again and that was just one case.
You know, It's like a case of false allegation, where
you say, false allegations always look like this, and then
it becomes the norm where that's not the case at all.
(12:27):
You have to look at lots of cases together, which
I've spent my career doing looking at thousands of domestic
violence murders, and that's what I've spent my time at
New Scotland Yard doing of unraveling the psychological autopsy of
what's gone on so that we can get into intervention
and prevention, so that we do it through data, not
just through the prism of murder, but look at other
(12:47):
cases as well, so that we understand what the patterns
look like, so that we can get into early identification,
assessment and management. And I think sometimes people are just
overconfident in airing their one case or there are two
cases or a handful of cases, and thinks that that
just replicates and therefore you get these generalizations which really
(13:09):
aren't good. I've much rather the experts were spoken to
in this niche, and I think in Australia that's been
one of the problems of not listening to the experts
who do this day in day out, and they should
be advising on domestic homicides and so called suicides. They
should be the one the fatality reviews. And that was
(13:31):
a process I started at New Scotland Yard and then
it became a national process of domestic homicide review where
we made it very clear within the legislation experts should
be co opted to sit on those groups to give
that expertise because a lot of people still don't understand
co werse of control and stalking and it's really important
that we do have that expert voice that's victim led,
(13:54):
because obviously we do have it oftentimes the cases where
we get too focused on the perpetrators where we must
talk about the victim. And what I really like about
what you've been doing for Amy is giving her a
voice and a voice that she hasn't had, although she's
had relatives trying to bang the drama. Actually it needed
(14:15):
a much bigger platform to say, we'll hang on a minute,
are we asking the right questions here? Is there a
critical thinking process and a critical lens that we need
to apply, And this is a case which really lends
itself well to having that critical lens and having experts
talk about what we see in these types of cases
(14:35):
and what were the questions that should have been asked
at the time.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
So I'm glad you've mentioned that because the other issue
that we have with this case is the feeling from
the family, and I think they've got a good reason
to feel this way that WI Police, given what happened
at the beginning, that they don't feel that they can
trust them to carry the case further, even to the
point now they're reinvestigating. I guess is that something that
(15:01):
you've come across a bit where you know that's distrust
are suppose of authorities.
Speaker 5 (15:06):
Absolutely, and from everything I've seen in this case, there's
good reason to distrust the authorities, and it's one of
the reasons when I was at New Scotland Yard we
started independent advisory groups in the wake of Stephen Lawrence
being killed and the Metropolitan Police was found through a
public inquiry to be institutionally racist, and so the Racial
(15:28):
and Violent Crime Task Force was set up, and within
that the Adeputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve had the foresight
to create critical friends, so people who would critically and
independently evaluate us and our decisions, both at the local
level and the strategic level. And I think that that's
really important to ensure that you don't become myopic and
(15:50):
you haven't got everybody in the room agreeing with you,
because ultimately, what I've seen in this case, in Amy's
case in particular, is you had two detectives who were
experienced attend the scene, and you had two junior officers
who were detectives who were in training six months in
and then you have a lead detective, Detective Kirkman, saying
(16:12):
one thing and then everyone agreeing with him. And that
happens a lot, and it's in their career future to agree,
particularly when we go back in the day, rather than
having a dissenting voice who might say we need to
question this, we actually do need to speak to other
members of the family and get a history here. We
(16:34):
should really do the toxicology, we should do the forensics,
we need to know in her bag, there was the passport.
We need to think about the fact that she was
actually exiting the relationship with the children, and the bags
packed and gifts, and that she had future planned. We
need to question the crime scene. And actually, we can't
make this determination in fifteen minutes. Let's take our time.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Laura then refers to the Internal Affairs Unit report relating
to the conduct of detectives Kirkman and Wiederman in Amy's case.
You'll recall that investigation found that they both neglected their
duty in their handling of Amy's case and were referred
to the Integrity Review Panel for consideration of an Assistant
(17:20):
Commissioner's warning notes. Doesn't sound like much, does it.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
There was a detective I think it was Detective Pover
who effectively said when he was interviewed by Internal Affairs
that he didn't remember anything because he didn't take notes
and he was six months in I probation. He said
he didn't speak to witnesses, he didn't go into the house,
he didn't assess the scene, but he did believe that
(17:46):
David and Gareth were telling the truth. But he can't
recall the reasons for the determination that it was a
non suspicious death. But he disagreed it was a premature
decision to say it was non suspicious and he had
very little recall, but he seems to remember vividly driving
away from the scene, happy the correct decision had been made.
(18:09):
That is confounding to me, because you know, I have
reviewed many, many cases and for him not to remember
so many things but remembered that it was the right decision.
And that's the problem when you've got everyone agreeing, but
you've got three uniformed officers saying differently and that their
voices weren't heard. So that's also why you have these
(18:32):
critical friends the advisory groups that New Scotland Yard started,
but also on the domestic homicide review panels, we have
independent advisors and family members who are also there to
give a very clear understanding of what was going on
because we know that victims were talked to them before
they talked to the police, and so it's really important
(18:53):
if you attend a scene where a young woman, a
mother as well, has suddenly and unexpectedly died in such
unusual circumstances, and yet further questions weren't asked of the
men who were at the scene at the time, and
a detective who doesn't interview them determines that there witnesses
(19:14):
are not suspects. That is a very confusing thing to me,
because you would want to get as much information as
possible in order to make an informed decision and write
up your decision log I mean, we're talking about twenty fourteen,
We're not talking about the nineteen seventies, the nineteen eighties,
(19:34):
whereas the uniform officers who were first on the scene
were very uncomfortable with what they saw, given that the
engine was running, the children were in the car, everything
was packed up. There were signs of a violent struggle,
not necessarily in the bedroom, but there was glass smashed.
One of the men gave an account that Amy tried
(19:57):
to head butt David Simmons. And you've got a door
knob missing, and you've got a young mother who, for
all intense purposes, police are being told, had packed the
car up but went back into the house and then
shot herself in the face, which is again highly unusual
(20:18):
for that to happen. That's not something I always look
for the one percent of cases, and they are out there.
But for me, this was all the things that I
found out initially, which is what led me to post
on social media was that she died suddenly and unexpectedly,
and two men's narrative were believed and they were treated
(20:38):
as witnesses.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Yeah, it is a standing. And of course the one
officer who did stand his ground and keep saying to
this day that he believes that suicide, he's gone. He's
no longer in the police force. So obviously it's not
good to go against a grain.
Speaker 5 (20:53):
It's not It can be very career limiting, and I
know that from having worked in it. The institutionalization is
profound and severe and if you have a dissenting voice,
you do tend to be shut down. And that's highly
problematic when you're talking about people's lives, and more in
particular women's lives, because I do think that there is
(21:16):
a huge issue and a poor trap record of responding
to women, and WA police have that same trap record,
And anyone can just do a Google search and find
three cases immediately where Lynn Cannon who was threatened by
her ex partner threatened by him with a knife, a
call to police was made, they didn't respond, and now
(21:39):
it's just been announced that an inquest is underway. Could
WA police have done more then? Another case, the legal
reason she hasn't been named, but a domestic violence call
out and yet the police didn't respond and she was
killed by Warwick Walker Bear in twenty twenty one, and
more recently the Ariel Bombara case who alerted police that
(22:00):
her father was a threat and she had called three times,
was concerned, and he ended up killing a mother and
a daughter, Jenny and Gretel who was eighteen, who were
trying to protect her mother. And the trap record of
not believing women and not responding everyone sees it. And
that's the point when people say, well, why didn't she
(22:22):
call if there was domestic violence, no cause to police?
Oh okay, no history. So it is complex, but when
snap decisions are made at a scene within fifteen minutes,
you're going to catch a cold on that. Ultimately, with
these cases without a decision log clearly written up, and
you're missing the very unusual circumstances of a car running
(22:45):
with children in it, with future plans being laid down
to exit, separation and finality being high risk factors and
coerci of control to femicide, and women are much more
likely to be killed. Six percent of murders happen on separation,
and yet they made a very quick judgment that this
(23:07):
was a suicide without knowing any of the history, and
that is extremely concerning.
Speaker 6 (23:13):
Okay, so how can the situation be redeemed? I mean,
I guess the point I say here is they're reinvestigating.
There was evidence that was misterior ignored, which is what
we've highlighted in the podcast, as well as new evidence.
But there still seems to be this reluctance to debate
from the suicide theory. And in this case, it comes
(23:36):
down to ultimately one man who will determine whether this
can proceed, and he's the Director of Public Prosecutions. The
police will, as I say, they'll prefer an update, a brief,
he will consider it. They have a little coverletter giving
their thoughts and then yay or nay, and they generally
give about two sentences saying I don't think this should
proceed or there's not enough to proceed. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
So that shows the lack of transparent and in the UK,
what was decided in twenty thirteen was that there would
be a right to review process built in to prosecutors' decisions,
where the victim or family members could request a right
(24:19):
to review within a six I think it's a six
month period if there is a determination not to prosecute,
and it has to be explained as to why either
a prosecution has stopped or a decision has been made
not to prosecute. And I think there should be that
transparency now because people deserve to understand with such serious
(24:39):
decisions in every part of I call it the criminal
legal system rather than the criminal justice system because there
seems to be an absence of a focus on justice,
which is why it comes much more down to the
criminal and legal matters relating to cases. But I think
that that would lend itself well in US. I mean,
(25:00):
normally you do tend to adopt things that are brought
in as good practice, and I think that with a
case like this, there should be transparency in that decision.
And also I would want to know what exactly the
brief look like, because you know, is there a thorough
reinvestigation or is it just a cursory review.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Yeah, there's a lot to take in its complex.
Speaker 5 (25:23):
It is, but cases have been prosecuted with a lot
less and therefore, you know, how do you make that decision?
And I notice within many of the documents that you
sent me. There was a document written by a clinical
psychologist that I believe went to the coroner's in quest,
(25:46):
and I have many questions about Chris Geeson's report. It
states that they're a clinical psychologist, but I believe that
they're also a detective senior sergeant within the police working
in the Detectives Command. So my initial question, as I
always like to understand, is what exactly is your background?
(26:07):
Are you a clinical psychologist or a police officer? First
and foremost are you independent? Because an expert who is
independent and outside the police would request a very clear
terms of reference that you would like me to do
AB and C and I have a very clear scope
of doing this work, and most independent experts would say,
(26:29):
actually to make this level of determination, I will need
other documentation. So it was ostensibly a three page report
that was written in March twenty nineteen, with no clear
terms of reference, that stated that they were a behavioral analyst.
And I have to say I have never in my
career seen report like that before, where it starts with
(26:51):
the conclusion that David Simmons is telling the truth, which
is based on pre prepared testimony with no understanding of
baseline behind. But the determination is there's no inconsistencies in
his account and that his emotional reactions were congruent. Well,
I could interpret the same thing in a very different fashion.
(27:12):
I Chris Geeson wrote that he showed intense distress and
disbelief and horror when he came across Amy, and that
he appeared to be in shock. And Simmons said the same,
that he appeared to be in shock, and that he
said fuck, fuck, fuck, and that was indicative of him
being in shock and telling the truth. Well, I could
(27:34):
also read that same behavior. Whatever happened unraveled in the moment,
you can interpret it in different ways. But the last
part of the document focuses solely on Amy's mental health.
All the while this report writer is focusing on her
mental health. The report writer fails to note at any
(27:55):
point David Simmons' mental health and his problem with alcohol
and drugs, and that according to other independent witnesses, they
said that when he drinks and when he does drugs,
he gets very bad tempered and that's when he devalues
and name calls it Amy. But yet there's no mention
of that at all. So you've got this epistemic imbalance
(28:17):
in this three page document that concludes it's much more
likely she ended her life. To me, that document is
not worth the paper it's written on. There's no behavioral analysis,
nothing about the crime scene assessment that I would expect
a behavioral analyst to comment on. There's nothing on the
history of the relationship and what other people said. There's
(28:38):
nothing about domestic abuse, there's nothing about the high risk factors.
All of these things are omissions that are problematic in
my view having written reports to help investigators with their inquiries,
and I don't know how much weight that document was
given within the coronial inquest. When you see someone, you know,
(29:01):
a clinical psychologist, putting a report together like this, and
you know Simmons did tell the police, as did I
think Gareth also said the same thing, that she wasn't
in a happy state of mind, and Kirkman commented on that.
But yet that is negated in that report. And also
(29:22):
what's negated as a triple zero call where he says,
David Simmons, I've got two kids and my wife just
shot herself, my wife without a name, which is distancing.
That's what we understand that to be. And can you
please just come and take her away or do something. Well,
(29:43):
that is a highly in my view, inappropriate reaction to
ask on a triple zero call to remove her body
like she's a piece of garbage, just to remove her
with no real emotion. That stands out to me. And
yet this clinical psychologist is saying that his response was
(30:04):
consistent with it being a suicide and his in shock.
So I think for me, there's very serious questions about
that particular report and what purpose was it really looking
to serve.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Deputy Coroner Sarah Linton addresses the report by doctor Geson
in her findings.
Speaker 17 (30:23):
Doctor Chris Geson, senior sergeant in the WA Police, who
is a practicing psychologist with a PhD in clinical psychology
and behavioral analyst at Major Crime, viewed the electronic recordings
of Simmons and Prices interviews and provided a psychological opinion.
Doctor Geson did not observe any seminal inconsistencies in simmons account,
(30:43):
even with the retelling parts, and did not detect any
obvious behavior that suggested he was censoring his disclosures or
constructing a story. Reports of his actions and behavior at
the time of the event were also felt to be
consistent with the account, and Doctor Geson did not believe
there was sufficient time lag to allow for any staging
and colluding between David Simmons and Gareth Price. Accordingly, doctor
(31:07):
Geeson was inclined to believe David Simmons' version of events
and expressed the opinion that both David and Gareth were
telling the truth in their interviews and statements. The detective's
reinvestigating also did not find there was any deliberate action
on the part of either witness to try and deceive them,
and inconsistencies between their accounts were felt to be explainable.
(31:29):
Doctor Geeson also reviewed the evidence of Amy's mental state
and the external factors preying upon her mind. Doctor Geeson
found that there were ongoing factors suggesting Amy was depressed
at the time of her death, with the onset of
depression appearing to coincide with the birth of her second child,
and then being exacerbated by her years in an unstable,
(31:49):
controlling and abusive relationship with David Simmons, social isolation, financial stress,
and health issues. Doctor Geeson noted that depression is known
to be the strongest predictor of suicide. While Amy did
not appear suicidal in the week prior to her death,
and made no such disclosures to friends and family. She
(32:10):
did show risk factors such as impulsivity, aggression, helplessness, and hopelessness.
The immediate circumstances prior to her death, involving the violent
argument with David and the potential breakdown of their relationship,
made the possibility of a suicide attempt by Amy more likely.
Doctor Geeson also speculated that Amy's use of the antidepressants
(32:32):
a tulepram could have been a factor, so.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Her report does appear to have been given weight at
the inquest. Now back to our interview with Laura.
Speaker 6 (32:49):
I guess from your perspective, it's the whole picture, isn't it.
It's not just singular elements it is.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
It's the totality of the circumstances when you look at everything.
Also weighed against men being given the benefit of the doubt.
And that's something that I see consistently in cases, and
there have been many cases that I could quote where
he says it's one thing and he's believed, but yet
(33:19):
there's evidence that it's something else, and the female victim
is not believed. And we've seen it with murders like
Robert Trigg who killed two women, and the first woman
who he killed was Susan Nicholson, and he claimed he
just rolled over on her in the night and she
died and Sussex police said okay then, and they believed
his narrative without any real investigation. Were five years later
(33:41):
he killed another woman, Caroline Devlin. How many passes do
men get? I have many of these cases where a
man's narrative is just believed just because he's a man,
and we have to move away from that. We have
to start to assess the evidence and analyze in context
the history of the relationship, because it is highly relevant.
(34:04):
When you are called to a twenty four year old
woman's death and the car is running and there were
two children in the car, and she's called her mother
to exit, and there's finality that she's going, and then
she's found allegedly having blown her head off, which I
can't think of one case where that's happened in my
(34:25):
almost thirty year career. There are those one percent of cases,
as I mentioned, but you should question everything, and the
history of that relationship is incredibly relevant. So if you
have seen a pattern of when he drinks, there is
abuse and violence. Well you would look at that relationship.
(34:45):
What's he like when he doesn't drink. Well, there's coercive control.
He's controlling and he devalues her. Still okay, so he's
still abusive with or without drink. But here we have
a situation where he is in drink. Why is it
that his narrative is just believed With a friend, two
of them are treated as witnesses. Often women are just
(35:06):
devalued and written off as well, they were crazy, Oh,
they took antidepressants. There's a reason why there are investigative protocols,
and particularly if for firearms involved, there's a reason why
those investigative standards are there to ensure that this type
of thing doesn't happen.
Speaker 6 (35:23):
How are we doing with this case? Is their progress
being made that you can see?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
Well, I think there have been some in roads, but
it hasn't been quick enough and it hasn't been urgent enough.
And when we look at the epistemic imbalance of one
of the Australian cities where a man was killed a
one punch kill and the city was shut down and
new laws come in when things like that happen and
(35:48):
yet we don't have urgent change happening. So the short
answer is, yes, we've made some inroads New South Wales
criminalizing coercive control and it takes time for that to
take effect. Queensland doing the same. Really, it should be
a federal law. So it's all across Australia, and I
think the general consensus is that it's just not quick enough.
(36:09):
There's a lot of glossy documents being written. But when
you've still got people saying, oh, this is a drugs problem,
or this is an unemployment problem, rather than actually it's
a male problem, and we need men to solve that problem,
rather than saying it's violence against women. It's a women's
safety issue and therefore the owner's falls to women. It's
(36:30):
not our burden to create this change. We actually need
male leaders and within the community to create change, to
help young boys to break those patterns and to break
the cycle of misogyny and sexism and chauvinism. And that's
where it begins. We've got to start young with young
boys changing that cycle and doing it at every level.
(36:52):
And really, Alison, it takes men to do it, not women.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Laura reiterates the need for independent expert analysis in cold
cases such as Amy's, and.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
If you've been part of making decisions that are under
review and being criticized, it's hard for the most evolved
person amongst us to not be conflicted and not be biased.
And that's what it takes. It's not about finger pointing.
When we brought in the domestic homicide review process, when
(37:22):
I work with Harriet Harmon, the Solicitor General, it wasn't
about pointing the finger to blame. It was about really
understanding intervention and prevention and getting upstream of things, and
that's always been the onus. It's not been about litigation.
So it's that changing that culture that we really do
want to get better at what we do. And when
I ran the homicide prevention unit, you know, some people
(37:44):
really loved it, but a lot of people didn't because
it meant my team and I were going to be
reviewing a lot of decisions that were made. So, you know,
I have the head wounds from banging my head against
the proverbial brick wall trying to create change. But it
does take leaders to agree that this is what we
need to do and have independent experts sat there who
(38:04):
really understand this area. Far better than other people around
the table and family members. You know, we hear so
much more. We learned so much more about victimology and
what was really going on. Rather than saying, oh, do
we have any history of domestic violence? Callouts to the address.
You know, that does not give a good indication of
whether there is a domestic violence history between two people.
(38:28):
You must talk to others to get a real sense
of what's going on, and you know it's not always easy.
You have to leave your ego at the door. And
what I saw in the police when I was in it,
and equally with Amy's case, is bro culture. The detectives arrive,
they're the bro culture together. One says one thing and
everyone just follows suit. But you've also got the bro
(38:50):
culture of David Simmons and two of his good friends
who are around at the house at the time where
all of this unfolded, and yet they're being given the
benefit of the doubt. Well, where's Amy's benefit of the doubt?
Where's the critical questioning for her? Where's her group saying well,
hang on? And that's been her sister and her mother
(39:12):
and others, But it's fallen on death is for far
too long, and it really shouldn't be this hard when
you're up against that brick wall. It shouldn't be this
hard in the day of transparency and openness, and people
should be wanting to get better at what they do.
We've got some learning to do here, and we want
to engage rather than being defensive and circling the wagons.
Speaker 6 (39:34):
One mass thing. They'll argue that you've got to have
a resumption of innocence and that they need a primer
facy case, which they say, isn't it.
Speaker 5 (39:41):
Well, you never get a primer facy case without investigating it.
I've never seen one yet. It doesn't land on your
lap with a nice big pink bow on it. You
have to ask questions irrespective of what case it is.
That's why you're an investigator, and you have to look
at everything at that scene the way that people behave
(40:04):
the history. You have to go through the forensic process
because there are certain areas that are not in your wheelhouse.
You have to have the results of the toxicology, the clothing,
the gunshot residue. You have to do all of these
things to be sure that your determination is the right one.
(40:24):
And that's about being having a critical mind and an
open mind at the outset of investigation, and you have
to look at building the case rather than looking to
confirm your initial assumption. And I believe it was the
latter here that there's confirmation bias of just the quick easy, Okay,
(40:47):
it looks to be this, and I'll read the statements
just to check it's this, rather than having professional curiosity.
And you have to have that professional curiosity an inquiring mind.
Speaker 6 (41:00):
But it's a balance of probabilities right as well.
Speaker 5 (41:02):
You have to look at the micro and the macro,
and timelines are very important and sequence of events. And
I have to say, I can't think of one case
that I've advised on where you get the timeline and
sequence of events within an hour. It just doesn't happen.
You have a starburst of at least seventy two hours
where all of that activity takes place. So even if
(41:22):
it's seventy two hours that you give it to, actually
have lines of investigation to be sure within your decision log.
You know, these are very serious decisions. A woman's life
with two young children. She mattered, She mattered enough to
give it longer than fifteen minutes or an hour.
Speaker 6 (41:43):
Well, we had the emails from place only from as
late as last year where they say they were foy
and they say that, you know, when they announced the
a million dollar reward treating it as a homicide walk
because also opened finding they said it was a saucer.
So they have seen your officers still in the so
Wa Police saying it was a surce.
Speaker 5 (42:03):
I would imagine that that is still very much in
the crime report, the decision log, that that's still very
much in there, and that's why they're still saying those things.
But that again fights itself and having someone you know,
who's small and of a slight build. But even where
she was found tucked into that area behind the door,
(42:25):
that's highly unusual for someone to end their life and
be wedged into that tiny area, and the way that
she did it, I can't think of any case where
that's happened with the children that are outside, with the
mother saying the children were her life, and everything that
she said to friends and everything that her mindset was
(42:45):
about was resilience. And I can tell you I know
no one stronger than single mothers. Single mothers who raise
children are the strongest kind, and certainly when you add
in domestic violence. They tend to be very resilient, and
it's their children that keep them resilient. So knowing that,
(43:06):
it's incredibly bizarre, puzzling, unfathomable of why she would end
her life. But I wouldn't expect any e mail detective
to think like that. I wouldn't expect them to go
to that scene and think, well, hang on a minute,
let's check the history. Oh, look, she survived a car accident.
She was resilient. Then hang on. Other people are saying
about strangulation, life to the throat, all these things that
(43:29):
have happened. She's been resilient, then being pregnant and being assaulted,
she's resilient then. So now she's saying, I'm leaving. She's
going to come into some money. She's finally said I'm going.
She's got her mother a place to stay, she's got
her passport, she's packed everything in future planned, even with
gifts for her daughter, and they're about to go. Why
(43:51):
would she end her life then? That just makes no
sense to me. When she had been earlier getting a
recipe for pe and ham soup, seeing friends, her mindset
wasn't of suicidal ideation. Her mindset was of leaving him,
and it was exacerbated in alcohol because she saw the
same thing from him again of the alcohol and putting
(44:14):
alcohol before the family. They have another huge argument and
she's assaulted and she's upset, but she is going to leave.
She did all of those things to exit that relationship.
I think you have got the perfect storm here of
all of these things happening together. I don't believe it
was any one thing as to why they made these decisions.
(44:34):
I think it's a culmination of all of those things.
But not to thoroughly interview the people at the scene
who were there in twenty fourteen, that's unfathomable.
Speaker 6 (44:44):
Laura, I just want to thank you so much. I
really really appreciate everything that you do. You're so important
in the world, So thank you.
Speaker 5 (44:52):
Thank you well. I appreciate you giving Amy and her
family a voice. And we need more victim advocates who
come at things for the right reasons of asking questions,
even though it might rattle cages and upset people, but
Amy deserves it, and her two children do as well,
her daughters. They deserve to establish what really went on,
(45:14):
rather than be met with a wall of silence or
what's more, a decision that is based on a house
of cards. Really that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's opinion. At the end of the day. Neither do
they have clear facts that point to suicide, but there
are many more questions that point to when we put
(45:36):
it in the wider context of male violence to women,
that women suddenly dying and unexpectedly dying in circumstances like this,
we owe it to women to do more, and we
owe it to them when they call for help that
we actually take action. So thank you for doing what
you do, and I really hope that there will be
(45:58):
justice for Amy and the right decisions are made well.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
We did ask WA Police, among other things, whether their
focus was still on proving suicide rather than homicide, the
weight being afforded to doctor Geson's report, and if external
experts would be consulted about Amy's case. We received this response.
Speaker 18 (46:30):
The investigation into Amy's death remains ongoing. WA Police continue
to explore a number of investigative leads, some of which
involve external experts. Upon the completion of the investigation, we
will present the findings the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions for their consideration and assessment. The death of
(46:50):
Amy Wensley is considered suspicious and the focus of the
investigation is to ensure all available evidence is captured and
presented to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
for his assessment. With regards to whether legal decisions made
by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should
be reviewable, that is a question for the Attorney General,
(47:11):
not the Western Australia Police Force. The information in the
coroner's findings referencing doctor Geeson is not material we presented
in criminal proceedings.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Now that's a bit confusing because it's unclear what he's
referring to. As far as we're aware, there haven't been
any criminal proceedings in relation to Amy Wensley. We also
queried Attorney General John Quigley's office about the concerns raised
by a new South Wales Crime Commissioner, Michael Barnes. Our
(47:49):
questions included should decisions by Directors of Public Prosecutions in
relation to suspicious debts be reviewable? Why or why not,
to which he replied.
Speaker 19 (48:04):
They are by the coroner.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Now we know that even if the coroner does recommend
charges be laid, the DPP doesn't have to comply, which
is what Michael Barnes recalled happening in Queensland following his
decision on the Vicky Arnold, Julie and Lay capse.
Speaker 17 (48:25):
I did the third in question and said it was
a homicide and the DPP refused to charge.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
The situation is not different here in WA. We then asked.
Speaker 6 (48:35):
Would your government consider an appeal system being implemented.
Speaker 19 (48:39):
Mister Quigley replied the High Court has ruled there can't
be a judicial review of a DPP's decision. However, there
can be a judicial review of a coroner's decision, which
an aggrieved party can seek.
Speaker 6 (48:52):
Should Directors of Public Prosecutions be made to provide comprehensive
explanations of their decisions.
Speaker 19 (48:58):
A comprehensive except given by the DPP as to why
not to commence a prosecution at that point in time
made prejudice any further prosecution or further police investigation.
Speaker 6 (49:11):
Not satisfied with this response, I wrote back to the
Attorney General's Chiefest Staff when Dy Pryor, thanking her, but
pointing out the criticism related to the issues raised by
mister Barnes following his experience as State Coroner of both
New South Wales and Queensland, citing cases such as Lynn Simms,
Julianne Leih and Vicky Arnold and Laney Carwell, and pointing
(49:34):
out that sometimes directors of public prosecution get it right,
but other times it's many more years before justice is realized.
I urged her to take a listen to our podcast,
and then c c the Premier's Chief of Staff, David Cooper,
asking if the AG's answer was reflective of the entire
government or just his office. I didn't hear back from
(49:56):
mister Cooper, but I did get this response from Miss Pryor.
Speaker 15 (50:00):
Hi Allison. Thanks for educating me. I also appreciate that
other people in other states may have various views on matters.
I am reiterating below the information we have provided on
the Wensley matter. The information was in a letter to
Miss Davy, which I understand you were provided. I'm not
sure if you have published all of it. The Attorney
(50:20):
General will not be making any further comment in relation
to your request for comment this week. I'm sorry that
you don't like his response, which explained what review mechanisms
are already in place. The letter outlined the following one
a hearing was set down for a discretionary coronial inquest
to be held in relation to Miss Wensley's death in
(50:40):
twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest, the former Deputy State
Coroner Vicker referred the matter to the DPP. This was
based on the opinion of an expert biomechanical report, which
former Deputy State Coroner Vicker considered contained information to suggest
an indebtable offense had been committed in relation to Miss
Wensley's death. Two. That referral to the DPP resulted in
(51:04):
the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad conducting a review
of the earlier police investigations into Miss Wensley's death. Three.
WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt to obtain
evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death.
Speaker 6 (51:21):
Four.
Speaker 15 (51:22):
The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish
the involvement of another person in Miss Wensley's death. Five
The DPP reviewed the materials and agreed with the determination
made by the WA Police and referred the matter back
to the Coroner's court.
Speaker 18 (51:39):
Six.
Speaker 15 (51:40):
An inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with
Deputy 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. Seven the
current deputies ste Coroner Linton declined to refer the matter
(52:02):
to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was
insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had
been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. Kind regards, Wendy.
Speaker 6 (52:16):
We also heard from a listener this week who was
concerned WA police had not made enough of the thirteen
second phone call to Robert Simmons by David at the
Serpentine roadhouse.
Speaker 20 (52:27):
Hi, Alian Liam, I find it strange that the coroner
ruled an open verdict, which includes the possibility of homicide.
Under one million dollar reward has been offered for information
leading to the identification of the perpetrator or perpetrators. There
were only two or possibly three of us present when
Amy died. Another point is regarding the phone call David
(52:49):
mead to Robert from the servo. It doesn't seem much
attention has been paid to this his word has just
been accepted. I'm enjoying listening to the podcast and I
hope Am and her family will finally get the justice
they deserve. Thanks.
Speaker 6 (53:03):
And we touched on this thirteen second phone call last
week and in episode seven when Robert Simmons was questioned
by council assisting the coroner, Sarah Tyler.
Speaker 21 (53:14):
On your mobile phone, there's a record at five twenty
pm of an incoming phone call from Serpentine Falls Roadhouse
that lasted for thirteen seconds. We know that David and
Gareth went to the roadhouse to call the emergency services.
Speaker 13 (53:28):
That was going to my landline, that was to your
mobile phone.
Speaker 22 (53:31):
I don't think I never answer it.
Speaker 6 (53:33):
Then, here's what Robert Simmons said when questioned at the
inquest by counsel for Amy Wensley's family, Peter Ward.
Speaker 23 (53:40):
Phone records indicate that there was a call from the
Serpentine Falls Roadhouse number to your mobile yes, at five
twenty one, two minutes before you got the call from St.
John Ambulance.
Speaker 22 (53:50):
I never received it.
Speaker 23 (53:51):
You don't recall receiving that no?
Speaker 5 (53:53):
Okay.
Speaker 23 (53:53):
One of the police officers who attended that night has
recorded in his nose that when he went up to
see you at the end of the night and give
you the receipt for the firearms. That you spoke to
him then and you said you'd received a phone call
from the service station. Do you remember telling him that? No,
And he says that what you told him was that
you had received a call from Bob Ibbotson, the service
station owner, to say that he was worried about Garett,
(54:16):
worried about David. No, not at it was the police
officer was mistaken when he made that note in his notes.
Speaker 22 (54:22):
My phone had an answering service on it, but I
never had the message on there or anything like that.
And the only call I got that day was from
the Saint the emergency services. They asked me if I
was David Simmons. Someone from there has called an ambulance
and that's when I said, I will go and investigate.
Speaker 6 (54:42):
So there's a police record that Robert Simmons said who
received that call. This is extremely important, particularly as with
much of this case, there are varying witness accounts which
will ultimately require investigators to weigh up the balance of probability.
It's pretty clear where the weight lies here, and when
(55:05):
looking at the evidence in its entirety back to mister Ward,
who continues questioning Robert Simmons about his phone conversation with
the Saint John's ambulance operator and what the transcript of
the call indicates. He said, upon answering.
Speaker 23 (55:22):
You responded, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Yes, go on.
Speaker 23 (55:25):
Who's Lloyd?
Speaker 22 (55:26):
There was no one with me at all.
Speaker 3 (55:27):
There was no one with you.
Speaker 22 (55:29):
No, I don't know where they got that from.
Speaker 23 (55:31):
Well, this is your voice recorded on the phone call.
You say, hang on, Lloyd, I have to go.
Speaker 22 (55:36):
Well was I no? I know I was speaking. I
was talking to someone on my mobile. That's what it was. Yes,
I've got to go. I had two I wasn't speaking
to anyone.
Speaker 23 (55:47):
You were talking to somebody on your mobile.
Speaker 22 (55:49):
Unless it was someone who wrung me about a job
or something like that. I run a business. Could have
been someone who said Lloyd and were looking to do
some clearing work.
Speaker 6 (55:58):
And here's what David Simmons said on the last day
of the inquest.
Speaker 21 (56:03):
We have it in evidence that you made that call
to the ambulance services and then you asked if you
could make his second phone call, and you took the
phone out the front and dialed another number.
Speaker 13 (56:12):
Do you remember making that second call?
Speaker 3 (56:14):
Maybe? Yeah, Well I can't.
Speaker 13 (56:17):
Who are you calling? What do you remember?
Speaker 3 (56:19):
I think? I don't know?
Speaker 13 (56:21):
You're not sure, nah?
Speaker 21 (56:23):
If I said the second phone call was made to
your dad from the Serpentine roadhouse around that time with
that jog your.
Speaker 24 (56:30):
Memory, maybe I can't remember exactly.
Speaker 23 (56:37):
No.
Speaker 13 (56:37):
Do you remember talking to your dad before from the
roadhouse or talking to your dad about what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3 (56:45):
Yeah? Vaguely maybe I can. Yeah.
Speaker 13 (56:48):
What do you remember about that.
Speaker 3 (56:50):
I was seeing? If he was at home? I think?
And that what had happened?
Speaker 13 (56:54):
And what did he say?
Speaker 3 (56:56):
I can't remember.
Speaker 13 (56:57):
But you're sure you called him? You've got a memory
of that?
Speaker 3 (57:00):
I do now, yeah?
Speaker 1 (57:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 17 (57:03):
And did you definitely talk to him?
Speaker 13 (57:07):
Sorry, that's the coroner.
Speaker 3 (57:09):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I talked to him.
Speaker 21 (57:11):
Yeah, but you don't remember the details other than what
had happened.
Speaker 24 (57:15):
Nah. To tell you the truth, I've just turned my
whole memory and everything off for the last so many years,
you know, and I've just tried to forget things, and
now I'm still dealing with it and got to go
through it again.
Speaker 21 (57:27):
So I understand that It's difficult to talk about these things,
and I know I'm asking you to remember things that
happened a long time ago, but it's important to tell
me what you do remember, and if you don't remember,
just tell me that you don't remember. Is there anything
else that you remember about the phone call to your
dad from the roadhouse.
Speaker 1 (57:45):
No, so like the bins, the lack of gun residue
or blood on David and Gareth's clothing, David going back
for the pink phone, or entering the room within ten
minutes before Amy died, the missing door handle, and so
(58:06):
much more. In this case, no real clarity was provided
surrounding that thirteen second phone call, and the contradictions appear
to have just been glossed over, like so much in
Amy's case. What we do know for certain, though, is
(58:26):
the call occurred, because the phone records prove it did. Unfortunately,
David was questioned after his father Robert, so there was
no opportunity to requestion him, and nothing about it was
even mentioned in Deputy coroner Sarah Linton's findings. But she
(58:48):
did have this to say about Robert simmons testimony.
Speaker 17 (58:52):
I considered Robert Simmons to be an honest, forthright witness.
He certainly had not tried to hide his concerns about
what David might have done when he sat spoke to
the emergency services operator after going into the house at
their request. Mister Simmons also gave evidence that he said
to David at a later time, I'm going to ask
you once, and then asked David to talk him through
exactly what happened when Amy died and to tell him
(59:15):
if he had any involvement.
Speaker 6 (59:16):
In her death.
Speaker 17 (59:18):
Mister Simmons gave evidence that David has never been the
same since that day. At the time of the inquest,
mister Simmons gave evidence that David's drug and alcohol problems
have spiraled out of control and is now homeless and
his mental and physical health is compromised. Mister Simmons said
he had tried to help him at various times, but ultimately,
for his own health and to protect other family members,
(59:40):
he has to stay away from David.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
So the coroner acknowledges Robert's comments that he needs to
protect other family members from David, but she doesn't mention
his comments about the thirteen second phone calls.
Speaker 12 (01:00:01):
Hi, Allison, I've been listening to the truth about any
podcast and have to say that you are all doing
such a great job. There is one point that keeps
coming up, and it's a missing door handle.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
This is Jane, a DV survivor who, like many other listeners,
wants to share her story.
Speaker 12 (01:00:18):
I found myself in an abusive relationship twenty years ago.
I was lucky enough and managed to escape it within
four years. I was in my mid forties when it happened.
What I wanted to say is that sometimes he would
take off the door handle inside the bedroom, leave the room,
and of course I could not get out. I hope
(01:00:41):
this helps keep up the good work guys, Jane.
Speaker 6 (01:00:45):
Thanks Jane for turning your pain into purpose. We know
it can't be easy. We're truly grateful to people like
you and Ann earlier who want to help. It hasn't
been easy for any of us involved in fighting for
the truth about Amy, and we honestly couldn't do it
without the support of our listeners.
Speaker 10 (01:01:07):
So soon you see, this.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
Is our final episode for the year, but we will
be back next year with season two. From all of
us here, thank you all for caring about Amy's story
and supporting her family's continuing fight for justice. We wish
you all a very safe festive season. We'll leave you
(01:01:34):
with more from Ariel Bombara, whose story reminds us not
to take safety for granted. Also how far as a
society we still need to go to protect domestic violence victims.
Please note some listeners might find this distressing.
Speaker 9 (01:01:58):
Six months ago, I picked up the keys to our
new rental apartment. It was a breath of fresh air,
a sigh of intense release. We'd been on the run
for eight weeks, and during that time we were gas lit,
told we were overreacting crazy, but my father would never
physically hurt us. We were stressed, malnourished, and living on
(01:02:19):
top of each other and various accommodations, dragging our belongings
around in suitcases and garbage bags, just trying to make
it through each day. We often questioned our sanity, but
I remained adamant that my father was dangerous and I
would do anything to keep him.
Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
Away from us.
Speaker 9 (01:02:39):
So when we stepped into that new rental, it felt
like the first glimpse of light at the end of
a very dark tunnel we'd been navigating. We were giddy
and excited as we unpacked the same clothes we'd been
wearing for eight weeks, this time with the knowledge that
we finally had a home again and could start to
rebuild our lives.
Speaker 4 (01:02:58):
While unpacking, my received from her best green Jenny. We
heard Jenny telling her eighteen year old daughter, Gretel to
go hide.
Speaker 9 (01:03:06):
My father had turned up looking for Mum and he
didn't believe her when she said Mum wasn't there, so
he forced his way into their home. We heard Jenny say,
Mark put the gun away, and I remember the ice
cold shot of adrenaline and the sound that escaped my mouth,
akin to that of someone who's been kicked in the girl.
It was the knowledge that after eight weeks of meticulous
(01:03:28):
safety planning, eight weeks of predicting and staying ahead of
his behavior in the most terrifying game of cat and mouse,
he was about to do everything we thought he was
going to do to us, to somebody else. Those were
the last words I heard Jenny say as I frantic
the cul triple zero while Mum continued to listen to
what was going on in Jenny's house. While speaking to
(01:03:52):
the police, I heard Mum scream and then she was wailing.
The last thing Mum heard was two gunshots before the
phone went dead. I stood there, powerless, watching her in
shock as her whales filled our empty apartment, laden with
the pain of someone who's just heard their abusive husband
murdered their best friend. My father murdered Jenny and Gretel
(01:04:14):
while Jenny's other daughter, Liesl and her boyfriend Blair were
down the road at the shops.
Speaker 4 (01:04:19):
They returned after Gretel texted.
Speaker 9 (01:04:21):
Liesl to call the police and heard my father's final
gun shot as he ended his life.
Speaker 4 (01:04:28):
What people don't realize is that the true impact of.
Speaker 9 (01:04:31):
Domestic violence homicides isn't just the loss of life. It's
the devastation that ripples through the families, the quiet aftermath,
the survivors guild. For the rest of my life, I'll
question every decision I made, from the point of convincing
Mom to leave because it wasn't safe, wondering what more
I could have done to stop him, knowing two lives
(01:04:53):
were taken instead of my own and my mom's because
I was too good at hiding from him, and hating
my for never considering that he would kill other people
if he.
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
Couldn't find us. It's a heavy burden women carry, blaming themselves.
Speaker 9 (01:05:10):
For men's violence, an utterly unfair, twisted weight we feel
because the system doesn't protect us and puts the onus
on women to manage men's behavior, rather than holding perpetrators accountable.
We weren't the ones to pick up that gun, yet
we must live the rest of our lives paying.
Speaker 4 (01:05:29):
For his crimes.
Speaker 9 (01:05:32):
My father was a dictator and his coercive and controlling
behaviors were constant. He constantly humiliated Mum in front of us,
tore her down and made her feel small. He was
a master manipulator who would twist her words and gaslight
her until.
Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
She couldn't trust her own mind. He kept her isolated
from friends and family. He controlled the money.
Speaker 9 (01:05:55):
He'd make degrading comments about her appearance, call her names,
criticize every little pressure her to wear clothes she didn't
want to wear, constant unwanted sexual advances, and I could
see the dead look behind her eyes. That new compliance
wasn't as bad as the alternative, because she knew that
when she resists, he takes it out on her children.
Speaker 4 (01:06:17):
He knows this is the most effective way to hurt her.
It was the persistent.
Speaker 9 (01:06:22):
Gut wrenching dread, waiting for when and how he was
going to shame you. That had everyone walking on eggshells,
constantly on edge and exhausted from playing his mind games.
Oh but he's not a violent man, people would tell me. Hm,
So how did this non violent, gun wielding, law abiding
(01:06:44):
citizen end up committing murder? Because he believed my mother
was his property and if he couldn't have her, then
no one could. After trying unsuccessfully to convince the police
to take any action to protect.
Speaker 4 (01:06:58):
Us against him back in March, we had to disappear.
Speaker 9 (01:07:03):
I knew the only way to make sure he couldn't
kill us was to make sure he couldn't find us,
and still managed to inflict maximum damage.
Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
Utter devastation.
Speaker 9 (01:07:15):
I thought for eight weeks against every person that tried
to convince us we were overreacting, the police who dismissed us,
the people who said, oh, but he doesn't rape.
Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
You or hit you, so it can't be that bad.
All I can ask is do you believe me?
Speaker 6 (01:07:31):
Now?
Speaker 12 (01:08:02):
Lisser c.
Speaker 23 (01:08:06):
So deation.
Speaker 9 (01:08:11):
We both know the now set you mek.
Speaker 4 (01:08:20):
S.
Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
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
(01:08:53):
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
(01:09:16):
for legal reasons, unfortunately, you won't be able to make
any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing,
don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series
because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter
(01:09:39):
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's Emo. This
(01:10:13):
is a seven News production.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!