16: Courage Under Fire

How the finding by the detective assigned to head the Coronial Review “killed” her career in WA Police. Detective Senior Constable Ann Lehane was told to treat Amy Wensley’s death as ‘non-suspicious’. And when she didn’t, she was verbally berated in front of fellow officers. Why did WA Police persist with the suicide theory in Amy’s case?

Music used includes: Troublemaker Theme by Myuu thedarkpiano.com

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

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

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Panic.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
Amy is dead, sir By Amy's Dead?

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Eight Confusion World.

Speaker 4 (00:54):
About five minutes they sit N's a suicide.

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

Speaker 2 (00:58):
This is immersing.

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

Speaker 4 (01:06):
The Truth About Amy?

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Episode sixteen. I'm Liam Bartlington and I'm Alison Sandy. So
before we get started, I just wanted to provide listeners
with the latest on David Simmons. Since we last spoke Liam,

(01:38):
Yet another warrant was issued for his arrest after he
failed to turn up to Armadale court, this time on
driving offenses. The following day, wa police picked him up
and brought him to the courthouse. So it's no longer
a case of him turning up a few hours later.
Police are now giving him a lift, which I guess

(01:59):
is better than nothing. When he gets there, he's again
granted bail and scheduled to reappear three weeks later. Sound familiar, limb.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
Wel, I'm sorry, but it's laughable, isn't it. It's absolutely laughable.
As you say, he's got the best uber in town, right,
the police are taking him straight there, not charging him
a cent. He's obviously got an account, but it's for free.
I mean, when is the justice system going to catch

(02:29):
up with David Simmons? How many times do you breach bail? See? Look,
I'm a bit old fashioned. I always thought that breaching
bail is a really really serious charge, that's a really
serious thing to do. But clearly I'm wrong because they
just sort of give him chances like lollies to a
little kid. And that's how they're treating him, and that's

(02:51):
how they're treating the breaching of the bail. I mean once, twice,
three or four times. Now. The other thing, when you
say driving offenses, let's pause for a minute because that
sounds fairly innocuous. But it's worth mentioning here that these
driving offenses comprise reckless driving using an unlicensed vehicle on
the road, no authority to drive that means you haven't

(03:15):
got a license out, and driving with a prescribed illicit
drug in either oral fluid or your blood. I mean,
that's a nice grab bag, isn't it. And these aren't
isolated incidents. He's been a numerous traffic accidents, one of
which was mentioned in court the other week, a motorcycle
accident where, of course he lost his spleen. We spoke
about that at length in the first season. Then of

(03:38):
course the one that nearly killed Amy. Also remembering that
car accidents are the nation's biggest killer. So regardless of
what level of threat to society, the WA police or
the court system deem David Simmons to be or make
their mind up that he is or he isn't. He is,
at the very least safe to say, a serial dangerous

(03:58):
driver who can con tinuously flouts the law that we
know to be a fact. Now, bearing that in mind,
I just want to put it to the magistrate and
the lawyers, the police and the police prosecutors who collectively
enable him to continue just to walk free and do
seemingly whatever he likes. Of course, remember remember what they

(04:20):
said in court his family would keep him out of
trouble and he would apparently get the help that he
quote so desperately needs. Well, if in the future, if
there is a fatal car crash involving David Simmons, and
when I say fatal, not fatal for David, but fatal
for the poor blighters who are in the other car,

(04:42):
whoever they may be, however many they may be, whoever
gets caught in the crossfire. Let's face it, how many
times can you run the gauntlet on this? Then I
say to the magistrate and his lawyers and the police
and the prosecutors, that is on you. It's as simple
as that, precisely, Lamb. Yeah, and look, I don't think

(05:03):
I'm being too harsh in saying that. I mean, how
many chances does a person like that get out? It's just,
you know, it's a cliche these days, but it is
a truism. They will have blood on their hands. It's
as simple as that. And it's not difficult. It's not
difficult to foresee, you know, we're not trying to do
a nostrodamis. And anybody with half a brain can work

(05:25):
out that that is a very, very possible scenario given
what's happened in the past and his level of behavior
and the continuous level of behavior. Anyway, let's get back
to the death of Amy Wensley. Now. When we've started
this investigation, we discussed how the uniformed officers and the

(05:46):
detectives seemed very much to be pitted against each other
in their opinions of what really happened to Amy.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yes, Liam, simply put. The Rockingham detectives, led by Detective
Sergeant Tony Kirkman, believed Amy killed herself, and the uniform detectives,
led by Senior Constable Ian Roberts did not.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Yeah, you couldn't get more polarizing, could you. I mean,
it's one side of the fence the detectives, the other
side of the fence of the uniformed officers. And as
we delved deeper, we discovered there were also other detectives
and authorities behind the scenes who didn't just fall in
behind their particular colleagues. And it was their courage, I think,
to probe further that helped get Amy's case to where

(06:30):
it is today.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
This episode details how that came about.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
By way of background, in Western Australia, the rule is
that all deaths are reported to the coroner or the
coroner's clerk. If it's a reportable death as defined by
the Coroner's Act nineteen ninety six, then the coroner must
be notified. A reportable death, as defined by the Coroner's
Act is unexpected, unnatural, or violent, or to have resulted

(07:00):
directly or indirectly from some sort of injury. Now, this
generally includes a review of the person's medical history and
circumstances of death, a post mortem examination, and medical testing,
alongside the witness statements. Sometimes it also includes reports from
forensic experts, engineering and crime scene analysis.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
The coroner assigned to this case was Deputy State Coroner
Evil and Vicker. Ms. Vicker, who would be the first
of several who would ultimately take carriage of Amy's case,
made it clear from the start that she wasn't satisfied
by wa police's conclusion that Amy took her own life.

(07:43):
But before we get into all that, let's revisit the
crime scene through the eyes of one of the uniform officers.

Speaker 5 (07:50):
First on scene, I entered the property, had a quick look.
I saw what looked to be a female in black top,
black jeans, black beats, slumped behind the door. It was
a bit tight to enter as her left foot was
against the door.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
This is a statement made by Senior Constable Ian Roberts,
dated July fourth, twenty fourteen. He made several over the
course of a decade, one of which you've heard already,
but this one you haven't. Unlike the statements from Joshua Brydon,
Gareth Price, David Simmons, and his father Robert, Senior Constable
Roberts is consistent in his recollection.

Speaker 5 (08:26):
The body had a blue towel over the head, covering
the wounds. At this time the towel was left in
place and untouched. I could see a large amount of
blood spatter, bone fragments, and brain matter on the rear
wall to the side of the head, and the large
amount of blood had pooled under the bottom of the
body as it sat there. I could see that her
right hand was under her bottom and her left resting

(08:47):
in her lap. There was a queen sized bed in
the center of the room, with wooden bedside cabinets either side.
On the bedside cabinet to the left were two fourteen
gaged shotgun cartridges. One was live and the other spent.
I also saw there was a side by side double
barrel shotgun lying by the side of the bed and
it was pointing barrel towards the deceased. It was about

(09:09):
two meters away from the deceased. I could see that
it had blood spatterings around the front of both barrels.
Next to this bedside cabinet there was a pink rifle
leaned up against the wall in the corner. In the
far corner of the room, next to the other bedside
cabinet was another shotgun leaning against the wall. In the wardrobe,
another rifle was leaning against the inner wall, and several

(09:31):
boxes of ammunition, both shotgun and twenty two could be
seen on the upper shelf. It was about seventeen fifty
five hours that the paramedics arrived and I asked that
everything be untouched as much as possible, and simply ascertained
that the body was actually deceased so that the relevant
paperwork could be completed. The paramedics were in the scene

(09:51):
for no more than a few seconds. They signed and
completed the life extinct form and left the scene. At
eighteen o five a PFA was de declared and a
running sheet commenced At nineteen o five hours, Weedman and
Kirkman and Povar from Rockingham Detectives attended the scene. We
explained where the body lay and what we had so

(10:12):
far done. They viewed the photographs that I had taken,
and Kirkman and Povar took our camera and went into
the property to assess the scene for themselves. They returned
about fifteen minutes later. We all stood in the large shed,
as it was raining quite heavily by this time, and
we discussed the incident. Sergeant Kirkman explained that he and
his partner had come to the conclusion that it was

(10:34):
a non suspicious suicide, stating that they thought the deceased
had pulled the trigger herself using her left hand, by
pressing the butt of the gun against the bed and
leaning over with her left arm. I then tried to
tell Sergeant Kirkman that I did not agree with him,
and stated that it would be almost, if not impossible,
for a slight girl of her size to be able
to reach over her body and pull the trigger with

(10:56):
her left hand, and demonstrated that even my arm was
not longer enough to reach the trigger. I also mentioned
that her natural trigger finger would have been her right hand,
which was situated under the bottom so could not have
been used. Sergeant Kirkman dismissed these facts, and his partner
Povar agreed with him. First Constable Blandford again tried to

(11:18):
explain that for a person to shoot themselves, they would
have to be seated with the butt of the weapon
against the ground and the barrel in their face. Sergeant
Kirkman replied that she was shot from the side of
the head. First Constable Blamford stated that there is no
female capable of holding the shotgun to the side of
their own head and pulling the trigger, certainly not with
their right hand trapped under their buttocks. Sergeant Kirkman answered

(11:40):
by saying she must have lent sidewards into the barrel.
I then stated that if the sergeant was happy to
call it a suicide, and there were not suspicious circumstances,
then we would continue with this as a sudden death
and complete the paperwork accordingly. Sergeant Kirkman stated that he
and his colleagues would first read the statements that were
taken to see if they confirmed the conclusions they had determined.

(12:03):
I asked that they call us once that decision had
been made. A short time later, Constable Dixon received a
call from Rockingham detectives that stated this incident was non suspicious.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
Now, according to the Major Crime Division decision Log, on
the twenty seventh of June, a decision was made to
arrest David Simmons and Gareth Price because of the following points.
Simmons history of violence, evidence of an argument between person
of interest Simmons and Amy prior to her death, the

(12:40):
inconsistency of the accounts they had provided thus far. However,
they were released the following day because and old quote,
forensic examination doesn't provide evidence of criminality. Their accounts were
more detailed and clarified earlier. And lastly, the police at

(13:04):
that stage were unable to establish that an offense had
been committed. And that's a bit of a save all,
isn't it now. That was signed by Detective Senior Sergeant
Gregory MacDonald of the Major Crime Division, who was the
officer in charge of Operation Juhnde. We'll come back to
him later this episode, but first a statement. Here's what

(13:26):
Serpentine Roadhouse owner Robert Ibbotson, who ironically is also a
former police officer, here's what he recalled.

Speaker 6 (13:36):
I am sixty eight years old and the owner of
the Serpentine Falls Roadhouse, located on the corner of Fools
Road in Southwestern Highway in Serpentine. On Thursday, the twenty
sixth of June, I was at work. I was working alone.
I was standing behind the counter when I saw a
white sedan pulled up close to Bowser five and two

(13:56):
males came inside in a hurry. I later checked the
cc TV footage and saw they arrived at five twenty
two pm. The clock on the CCTV footage is about
two minutes fast.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
That would make it five twenty four pm, but it's
worth noting that according to the Major Crime Report, the
CCTV clock was five minutes fast.

Speaker 6 (14:19):
I don't recall seeing either of them before. They both
looked to be in their late twenties or early thirties
and Caucasians. Male number one was wearing a black hooter
jump up with a green mother logo with a bright
green capital M. I can't recall what else he was wearing.
He was the only one who spoke to me. He said,
I got to use the phone. I got to call

(14:41):
Triple zero. I was about to point to the public
phone outside, but I let him use the roadhouse landline
because he spoke the submergency in the voice. The phone
number for the roadhouse is nine to five to two.
It is the only line I have and is the
cordless phone. I stood two to three meters away from

(15:02):
him when he called triple zero, and I heard him
say wanted an ambulance and gave an address of lot
number on the Southwestern Highway Serpentine. But I can't recall
the lot number.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
He said.

Speaker 6 (15:15):
There was a name on the gate, but I can't
recall the name. He said someone shot themselves in the head.
He gave the mobile number and said it didn't work
because he got wet. The entire time, he was calm,
just a little bit edgy and nervous, but he wasn't crying.
He asked if he could make another call, and I
said he could help himself. He took the cordless phone
just outside the door and made another call. I could

(15:37):
not hear him as the door was closed, but the
conversation was a minute or two long, at the longest.
The whole time, the second male stayed close behind him
and said words to the effect you're right mate, you're right, mate.
The second male wore a black beanie and a white
logo of some sort on the front, and a black
horter jumper with white logo on the front too. I
can't describe the logo as any further than that they

(16:00):
clearly visible on the CCTV and they are very distinct.
He brought the cordless phone back inside to me, handed
it to me, and walked out without another word. The
second mile, wearing the black beanie, didn't say anything either.
They got in the car and left. The first mile
without the beanie got in the driver's seat and drove
south on the Southwestern Highway. I did not notice anyone

(16:21):
else in the car, but I did have a good
view and it was just starting to get dark outside.
There was one other male customer in the store at
the time, and he heard the first mile without the
beanie say someone had shot themselves in the head. I
don't know his name, but he is a regular if
the police need to follow up with him too. On Friday,
the twenty seventh of June twenty fourteen, I downloaded a

(16:42):
copy of the CCTV footage of the two miles coming
into the store around five point twenty two on the disc.
I provided the disc a detective Senior Constable Danderly at
the same time, I provided the statement on the Saturday
of the twenty eighth of June twenty fourteen.

Speaker 1 (16:58):
So we know from this that the clothes they were
wearing at the roadhouse were the same clothes police confiscated
shortly after. You'll recall that these clothes didn't have any
blood or any gun residue on them whatsoever, despite Simmons
admitting to firing his gun not long before Amy died.

(17:19):
Remember he said he was firing his gun outside at
some parrots or whatever. The story was, oh fish, it was. Yeah,
there was a couple of different conflicting stories depending on
who you believed. And also Gareth Price, in his own words,
gave evidence that he patted down Amy's dead body looking
for her phone. Can you imagine patting down anybody in

(17:42):
that position that had been on the receiving end of
that sort of gunshot wound? And still, because let's go
back to the evidence, the police found, their clothes had
no blood residue, no gun residue, not one bit, not
one spot, not one spot. To believe, isn't it?

Speaker 2 (18:01):
Yeah? Or woodchips from chopping wood all afternoon, or.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
Any sort of fiber from all that wood shopping. That
is amazing.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
Look, it doesn't make any sense. The evidence is contrary
to what they've been saying. They obviously change their clothes.
There is no other reason that that would be the case.
They would have blood, they would have woodchips, they would
have gun residue, and even if they talk about gun
residue being you know, not reliable, they would at least
have Gareth having padded down a body. There's no way

(18:30):
you could do that without having some transfer of blood.
And there's no way that David Simmons wouldn't have wood
chips on his body from having chopped wood all that afternoon.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
So if we were to believe, let me just give
you a scenario. So let's assume that the clothes they
had on at the roadhouse, which were the ones police
then confiscated, finding no residue anywhere. Let's just say if
they were fresh clothes, they would have had to find
the time before they went to the roadhouse to phone
for the ambulance to both change their.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
Clothes, yep, or they had thirteen minutes.

Speaker 1 (19:06):
Thirteen minutes well at.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
Least that we know of. That's their official time frame that.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
Had Okay, I mean, do you think police have fully
investigated that aspect?

Speaker 6 (19:17):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (19:17):
No way, Amy doesn't look like it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
No, no, And that's just been brushed over, right, you
know it hasn't. There's been no No one's really talked
about it, No one's pushed them about it. At the inquest,
it just wasn't. It was just glossed over. Really one
of the many things that was glossed over. And then
even looking for Amy's phone, patting down her body. I

(19:41):
mean that that whole thing of David Simmons not being
able to go up to the house because his dad
apparently wasn't there even though he worked at home all
the time, and then him also afterwards when they came
back to the property trying to get in there to
get Amy's phone again where he said, de Larry Blain,
you know I need to go get my phone. Wasn't

(20:03):
his phone because when he said it was my phone,
they said what color is it? And he said pink.

Speaker 1 (20:08):
He was claiming Amy's pink phone was his phone. Yeah,
and he wanted it, but Constable Blandford refused to give
it to him.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Yeah, refused to let him back, and he denies it obviously,
But I mean, who are you going to believe a.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
Swan police officer. I believe the police officer.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah, yeah, Well what benefit would he get from making
that up?

Speaker 6 (20:25):
No?

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Exactly, that was part of his official signed statement as
a police officer. I mean, I've got no doubt that
what he said was exactly what happened.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
This same day, the forensic Field Operations team, led by
Sergeant Brad Nind, went back to the house where Amy died.
In his report, Nind noted that the bedroom had been
professionally cleaned, and even a section of carpet and underlay
in the doorway to the bedroom had been removed. Now
that's the first time I've read this, but this carpet

(20:54):
had been removed.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
Well, who made the decision to remove that carpet? Unsafe
to assume anything in this case, But do we assume
that was the professional cleaners who said, look, this is
beyond cleaning, and either David Simmons or his father were
present to supervise the cleaning and agreed that the carpet
should be removed. I mean, how do you how do
you do that?

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Another unanswered question, liamb something that the police, the new
investigation team should be going back to.

Speaker 7 (21:22):
The premises was clean and tidy. Very small amounts of
blood evidence were present on the rear of the door
and adjacent walls. These stains were recorded and collected by
BPA officers.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Well BPA is what they referred to in forensic circles
as blood pattern analysis.

Speaker 7 (21:40):
Upon completion of the scene examination in Serpentine, FFO officers
attended the location of a vehicle subject to this incident
in company of Detective Dan Drilly.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
And FFO refers to forensic field operations.

Speaker 7 (21:55):
Photographs were obtained of the interior and exterior of the
vehicle and the presumptive test for blood was conducted on
the steering wheel, interior and exterior driver's door handle which
gave a negative reaction. Due to this, no swabs were
obtained from the vehicle.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
Back to Detective Senior Sergeant McDonald at the inquest, he
was questioned about how Operation Dundee came under his jurisdiction.

Speaker 8 (22:17):
There's a team structure within the Major Crime Squad which
is now the Homicide Squad, same principal, different name. So
the on call which was the process of provision of
a telephone so that anyone required assistance or advice they
would contact the on call phone.

Speaker 3 (22:35):
My team was on call that week.

Speaker 8 (22:38):
We were advised in the morning of the twenty seventh
by Rockingham detectives that there were some concerns.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
This is what they were advised.

Speaker 8 (22:47):
My understanding is the initial investigations were conducted under the
powers of the Coroner's Act Section thirty three. It was
dealt with as a coronial matter and not a criminal matter.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
The coronial investigation in it referred the matter to Major Crime.
Detective McDonald said he wasn't advised about it until after lunch,
too late to stop the professional cleaners who arrived at
ten am. He was then asked about Simmons and Price's arrest.

Speaker 8 (23:15):
My view of the interviews was that they were conducted
competently and both men appeared truthful. Price curainly appeared to
my recollection quite truthful, which is not always the case
with people we interview. My recollection is the actually I
thought at the time that his interview as quite good

(23:35):
and that he came across he presented as truthful and honest.
There were still inconsistencies between the interviews of the two men,
which is not surprising given that they are two different
people who have entered a room at two different times
on their explanation, and people under stress and in circumstances
that they are not used to and that will often

(23:57):
have a different view of the same event.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Detective McDonald is then asked what he looked for when
determining whether a witness is honest or not.

Speaker 8 (24:07):
Well, principally, we look for lies, and lies are not
always obvious. We're seeking an account from them as to
what their actions were if that provides us with the opportunity.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
So, just to clarify here, Detective McDonald says they were
looking for lies, which, of course they both couldn't have
been telling the truth, could they. I mean, if the
story is different at all, they're not both telling the
truth on the same issue or the same subject. But
Detective McDonald justifies that by explaining.

Speaker 8 (24:39):
There were some slight variations between them, but in the
large part, predominantly the accounts were well very similar.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Simmons and Price were intoxicated, so police had to wait
until they sobered up before interviewing them.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
Detective McDonald was asked if, after reviewing those interviews, he
suspected Simmons and Price colluded.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
No, I don't. I don't believe so.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
He also defended the detective's decision to rule Amy's death
a suicide so early, saying that Amy's body could have
been moved, despite of course, the blood spatter experts, as
we know, having ruled that out.

Speaker 8 (25:20):
I don't recall anything specific about the position of her
body in viewing those photographs. Certainly, I don't find that.
I don't recall anything from those photographs that suggested to
me that it was clearly not a suicide.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
But upon being pushed on this point, he clarified.

Speaker 8 (25:38):
There were concerns about the position of the body. Yes,
I can't recall without further reference specifically that they were.
But having said that, my understanding is that there was
some force required to move to get into the room.
There are a number of explanations for how her hand
may have wound up in that position.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
And when about Naya's evidence about Simmons putting the gun
in the cupboard, detective McDonald said he couldn't recall that,
but he told the inquest in his view, as a
general rule, children are honest. Similarly, when asked if he
remembered Naya saying that Price, Gareth Price, had put something

(26:20):
in the bin after Amy's death.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
I don't recall, sorry, the.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
Couple's history of domestic violence.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
So we examined it.

Speaker 8 (26:28):
I would point out that there are many family violence
incidents in this state every day that don't result in murder.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
It's worth noting too that in the Operation Jundee report,
reference was made to the violent argument just before Amy's death,
but it stipulated that Amy was the aggressor and Simmons
the vicar. I'm still trying to get my head around that.
It also states there was no evidence to suggest this
account is unreliable and no apparent motive for Simmons to

(27:11):
want to kill Amy. Well put, simply, how the hell
do they come up with that opinion?

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Well, because they weren't looking for one. Basically, the motive
came later. They only done a very perfunctory investigation at
this stage.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
But there's no background at all on all the domestic
violent stuff. We know that we've been through that in
the last fifteen episodes up. Yeah, there's no real investigation
about their background. How can there be a decision made
about motive if you haven't done proper research into background
for anybody. If you've done no research into history of
a relationship full stop, not just domestic violence, but a

(27:46):
whole stake of other issues, how can you say there's
no motive for anything? Is if you don't if you
don't know what you know, If you don't know what
makes people tick within that relationship, whether it be between
them or wider family, extended family, close friends, If you
haven't done any of that background and any of that
historical research, how the hell can anybody say that there's

(28:10):
no motive, no apparent motive. Surely they teach that in
police training academy. Surely.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah. Look, I don't know, Liam, I mean, well, one
thing I do know that they checked was whether there
being a reported domestic violence, and of course they hadn't.
But as you know, and as we outlined in the
last episode, eight out of ten incidents of domestic violence
aren't reported, you know, twenty percent are reported.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
That's my whole point. But we are dealing with the people.
The people who are writing the report are the people
who are dealing with the domestic violence issues. Yeah, all
these thousands of issues that we've talked about in the States.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
Yeah, so if.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
Anyone should know anything about background and possible motives, it
should be them. There's also this sort of crime of passion,
which which we know can flare in an instant. But
if people are already sort of predisposed, if you know
what I mean, because of their their tendency to violence
in their backgrounds, I mean, there's all that and more so.
I mean, I just look at that one line, just
that one line for me to conclude no apparent motive

(29:12):
for Simmons to want to kill Amy, I mean to me,
I'm sorry, but that makes this the whole report on
Operation jun D is complete and utter joke.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
Not to mention the thing that everyone knows, the most
dangerous time for a woman is when they're leaving. For
a woman in a relationship and a domestic violence relationship,
which of course the fight should have indicated that there
was domestic violence, just that fight beforehand, regardless of who
they thought was the aggressor, that's domestic violence. And the

(29:41):
most dangerous time is when the woman is leaving. So
that's not rocket science, is it.

Speaker 6 (29:46):
No?

Speaker 1 (29:47):
Well, unfortunately, there's a whole body of evidence to back
that up. There's a whole ton of research nationally and
internationally to back that up. So you're dead. Right back
to the inquest, So Senior Sergeant McDonald world is asked
if he considered the investigation to be thorough. Yes, accepting
al that an internal assessment of Operation Juhndee observed some criticism,

(30:12):
including the following here we go. There's four different points
of critique. Number one, a lack of scrutiny on the
location of the shotgun according to Simmonson Price when they
entered the room. Number two, the need for a more
comprehensive forensic analysis of the clothes and footwear that they wore.
What a surprise. They came to the same conclusion as

(30:33):
US three. Failure to undertake covert opportunities like telephone intercepts,
to which McDonald explained would only happen if he determined
it to be a homicide. It's interesting, isn't it. I
thought phone intercepts were used as a form of intelligence gathering,
not to justify a decision you'd already made.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:54):
Anyway, The last criticism, this is an internal criticism again
just to remind people, so it's not ours, it's the
polices that Detective McDonald, not Detective Sergeant Darryl Evans should
have compiled the final report. So that's a process thing
that they thought should have been one step out and

(31:15):
one step back basically for sort of more of an
independent look at it.

Speaker 8 (31:18):
I think, Look, I think I can say in my
experience that I have never yet completed an investigation that
I couldn't have looked at later with the benefit of
hindsight and done differently or better.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
And they would certainly be the case here.

Speaker 8 (31:33):
But I don't believe that I'm aware of anything that
would change my opinion this time. There are other things
we might have done, but I don't believe that would
all to my view of what occurred.

Speaker 2 (31:49):
Now you are aware of our listeners, aren't Liam. We
actually reached out to w Police about Operation Jenny, given
that they did do a review of Kirkman and Weedman
areter the inquest, and given this other evidence that has
come forth, including new evidence that we're about to bring
to light, they just didn't answer, basically refuse to answer.

(32:10):
I put them to the Commissioner, ilicted a whole bunch
of questions Operation Jundi and the handling of Amy's case
brought about by this new evidence that we've uncovered and
they just ignored me. So there you go. It shows
how important it is. They told me that we could
turn up to one of their doorstops anytime we want.

(32:31):
But when I asked them whether they could tell me
when they were or whether they could notify us, they
didn't get back to me about that either, So there
you go. That's the way it is.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
But to see their invitation for us to turn up
at a door stop, which a lot of people would
recognize as sort of industry jargon, which is basically a
press conference that is set up by the particular people involved. Say,
for instance, here the police commissioner to talk about a
different subject because he's got some news for the assembled media,
and clearly it's not going to be about Amy Wensley's death.

(33:05):
So we turn up to the doorstop, and then we
wait for the assembled media to ask their other questions
about that particular issue on the day, and then we
ask the commissioner. And then, according to their communication and
correspondence with you, they are very very kindly, out of
the goodness of their heart, they deign to answer the questions.

(33:26):
But if there's not enough information, or if we are
asking too many questions. Then, of course it's easy for
us to look like we're bullying and hectoring the police commissioner.
So it's an interesting invitation. You know, it's not quite
what it seems on the surface. I just make that
point from an industry point of view, so that our
listeners know where we're coming from.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
Yeah, we'd be lucky to get one question in it's Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
To say it's disingenuine, I think is probably again a
massive understatement, but this case is full of understatements.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
Let's continue. Under Cross's examination by rain Wade, Detective McDonald
struggled to justify this.

Speaker 9 (34:01):
What consideration did you give to the positioning of the
firearm and how in the circumstances that was consistent with suicide?

Speaker 8 (34:09):
Well, it is not inconsistent because it's the firearm is
still based on the evidence of witnesses within arm's reach
until it's moved. That is not inconsistent with suicide.

Speaker 9 (34:21):
But you're forgetting a very important thing. According to the thesis.
At the time, Amy used her right hand to push
the figure back whilst holding the weapon with her left hand. Yes,
the recoil is away from her. How does the weapon
move against the recoil and into her lap facing upwards.

Speaker 3 (34:39):
I don't see your point.

Speaker 8 (34:41):
If she's holding it in this way and the recoil
drives it down, it could conceivably hit the floor and bounce.
I have no idea to tell you how exactly it
wound up in this position.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
We don't know that.

Speaker 9 (34:55):
Did you at any point think that possibly there was
some utility in getting a blis expert just to comment
on one matter, and that is, if Amy used the
weapon from her right to kill herself, whether it was
in any way possible for that weapon to end up
in a lap.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
No.

Speaker 9 (35:11):
I didn't consider that necessary with hindsight. Do you accept
that's a fairly basic inquirity?

Speaker 10 (35:16):
No.

Speaker 8 (35:17):
I think the decisions I made were based on the
evidence we had at the time, and I think they
were reasonable.

Speaker 9 (35:24):
I don't you know you custom McDonald, please answer my question.
Is that a fairly basic inquirity to ask an expert
what are the characteristics of a firearm in recoil after
it's discharged.

Speaker 8 (35:37):
Well, that's why we had forensic ballistics officers involved with
the job to provide that advice. Now, that doesn't necessarily
mean I have to pursue independent advice. If I'm satisfied
of the advice I got from the ballistics officer at
the time, which I did.

Speaker 9 (35:52):
That question has never been asked or answered by anyone
from ballistics, and there is no evidence, no decision log,
nothing to support that occurred.

Speaker 3 (36:01):
Then I can't explain why that is.

Speaker 9 (36:03):
Today and applying common sense, do you understand the difficulty
that the family has with a construction of suicide where
the weapon ends up in Amy's lap?

Speaker 8 (36:12):
Well, they may not agree with the findings and they
may not be that's not up with it.

Speaker 3 (36:17):
Well, I don't agree.

Speaker 8 (36:19):
I think those explanations are not The explanation or the
lack of an explanation does not make a criminal or
suggest it is anything else. If you don't have an
answer to the question, you may not have the answer
to the question. You may not be able to answer
those questions. That doesn't make it criminal or anything else.

Speaker 9 (36:37):
But mister McDonald, I'm not suggesting any of that, and
I know you're not a forensic expert, but her honor
needs to make those findings in due course with reference
to who are forensic experts? What I need from you
with reference to the issue of how Surah this investigation
was in a very simple answer, as you sit here today,
do you have even a late person's explanation as to

(37:00):
how a firearm in the nature of a shotgun would
move against its own recoil forward into Amy's lap given
your hypothesis of suicide.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
I have no explanation for that.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
I mean, even when independent advice is sought and the
finding three independent experts all rule out suicide and basically
conclude homicide. They conclude that a third party is involved,
that Amy could not have shot herself major crime. Now,
the homicide unit refused to give it any weight, so

(37:33):
I'm just saying, oh, no wonder. Amy Wensley's family is
very cynical about WA Police acting with integrity in this
new investigation.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
So WA Police has a running sheet on Amy's death
which is constantly updated. In the early stages, the only
documents listed were witness statements from David Simmons and Gareth
Price and a report from the Mandura Family Protection Unit
following a meeting with Amy's mum c Kirk. The officer
initially in charge of the coronial investigation was Detective Senior

(38:06):
Constable An Lahane.

Speaker 11 (38:09):
Good afternoon, I've been assigned to the Amy Wensley file,
and I'm just going through all the documentation that has
been sent to CiU.

Speaker 2 (38:17):
This is an email from Detective Lahane on the twentieth
of August twenty fourteen. CiU is the Coronial Investigation Unit.

Speaker 11 (38:26):
I'm chasing the biomechanics report and or any forensic documentation
by the relative forensics personnel. Regards Ann.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
She receives this response.

Speaker 12 (38:38):
Hi, Ann, everything we have would be in the case
files you have been provided. Forensics keep and compile all
of their own notes.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Et cetera.

Speaker 12 (38:46):
To my knowledge, no report was ever generated by forensics
regarding the biomechanics. Detective Deandrilly from this office attended and
performed the biomechanics part of the examination. They provided their
opinion on site that deceased was easily capable of inflicting
the injury with the subject firearm herself. You could ask
them for a report if required. Regards Cameron Blaine.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
Now there's an interesting name. You might remember the name,
Cameron Blaine. You certainly would if you're a West Australian,
because Cameron Blaine was the officer filmed rescuing missing four
year old Cleo Smith up in Carnarvon in Remote Wa
in twenty twenty one, but then he lost his job
after being a hero. He got the boot after allegedly

(39:32):
leaking information about the case to a journalist that he
was seeing or trying to see emotionally. Now, Detective Lahaine
was told in no uncertain terms by the homicide squad
that Amy Wensley's death was non suspicious, and there was
a clear expectation from that squad from her superiors that

(39:57):
she would come to the same conclusion as them in
her investigation. She followed up with the key experts already involved,
like pathologist doctor Amy Spark. Doctor Spark performed the autopsy
on Amy Wensley.

Speaker 4 (40:12):
Good afternoon, doctor Spark.

Speaker 11 (40:14):
I have previously sent an email in relation to the
post mortem report for the deceased Amy Wensley, although at
the time I replied that it didn't need to be prioritized.
Could this now be bumped up the list? I know
you are extremely busy, but any assistants expediting the report
would be greatly appreciated.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
Kind regards and Detective Lahine also met with Amy's mum,
Nancy kirk She liaised with detectives Kirkman and Weedman sought
second opinions and chased up forensic reports she thought had
been undertaken. That seems like an actual investigation.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
Lamb exactly, asking questions, delving a bit further, digging a
little bit further, trying to get behind the veneer. It
sounds like she did did a great job.

Speaker 11 (41:01):
Queried the availability of a biomechanics report. Senior Constable Meeks
and Senior Constable Inskip attended the post mortem with a
firearm that was the same type, shape and size as
the firearm used in the incident. Meeks and Inskip conducted
an analysis and deducted that the deceased was capable of
using the firearm with either hand and inflicting the wound sustained.

(41:24):
There is no biomechanics report. The analysis was conducted during
the post mortem. Senior Constable Meeks believes the analysis slush
examination should be detailed in the post mortem by the pathologist.
If not detailed by the pathologist, Senior Constable Meeks willing
to provide a report as to the examination conducted.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Despite directions to treat Amy's death as non suspicious, Detective
Lahyne wasn't buying it, and on twentieth of March twenty fifteen,
she alerted her boss, Detective Sergeant Alex West, that the
evidence just didn't add up.

Speaker 11 (42:02):
Ballistics have stated they took a number of measurements and
utilized a similar firearm to show that at the time
of the post mortem that both arms could be maneuvered
to utilize the firearm, but this does not determine that
at the time of the incident the decease was able
to use either arm, as the body reacts differently prior slush.
Post death forensics have stated that the measurements obtained would

(42:24):
have to be forwarded to a physiologist to make a
qualified determination that the deceased could have used either arm
to utilize the firearm.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
And so a meeting with the forensics division was held
on the fourteenth of April twenty fifteen, which determined that
Detective Anne Lahane create a matrix outlining any inconsistencies highlighted
during the investigation, starting with an undertaking of a biomechanics examination.

Speaker 11 (42:51):
Eighth of July twenty fifteen a review. Hello, Brad and Michelle.
I've received the report in relation to the blood analysis
conducted on the lower clothing. I have conducted inquiries with
Royal Perth Hospital in relation to whether the deceased experienced
any mobility issues due to the car accident and subsequent
C two fracture she suffered in January twenty thirteen. R

(43:14):
p H letter attached the last paragraph states that the
decease reported no ongoing symptomology and no physical such movement
restrictions noted as per discussions held on thirtieth of April
twenty fifteen with the Forensic Division and Detective Inspector George Macintosh,
are you able to progress with the appropriate testing in

(43:34):
order to determine the viability of the deceased having an
ability to inflict the wound I e. Biomechanics kind regards Ann.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
In the meantime, Detective Lahane also contacted Stephen Brown Lawyers,
which confirmed Amy as a client. Now. In May twenty fourteen,
not long before her death, Amy attended an appraisal with
doctor Peter Watson from Sin John of gott Hospit. Amy
told them she was unable to undertake an employment position

(44:05):
that she had applied for prior to the accident. That's
the car accident with Simmons Now. Around the same time,
the state government insurance Commissioner SGIC, which is no longer
known as the SGIC, It's now known as the Insurance
Business Australia sent David Simmons a crash report to complete,
but it was never completed, so they appointed an investigator,

(44:29):
a guy called Stephen Carozzi now mister Carozzi obtained a
statement from David Simmons, who had lodged a motor vehicle
claim with Amy Wensley sustaining injuries as a result of
that crash. Simmons did have third party insurance, but the
SGIC did not have any other details relating to the claim. Now.

(44:52):
In June twenty fourteen, Stephen Brown Lawyers received a call
from a former client who knew the deceased Amy and
advised that she had been quote killed by her partner.
Stephen Brown Lawyers told Detective Lahyne they'd never had any
contact with David Simmons and advised the claim entitlement had

(45:14):
ceased when Amy died. However, experts trying to ascertain whether
Amy's injury would have also impeded her ability to shoot
herself were concerned that WA police did not take that
into consideration, which is quite astounding, isn't it. Here's an
email to Detective L. Hayne from forensic consultant and the

(45:36):
manager of Quality Assurance, Mark Reynolds, dated fifth of August
twenty fifteen.

Speaker 13 (45:43):
And Kylie, thanks to the report and whilst I appreciate
on the surf as it appears to indicate that following
the C two spinal injury there was apparently no mobility restrictions.
Can you please tell exactly what was asked of doctor
Weeks when they did testing. I assume they did some
that resulted in the comment no physical movement restrictions were noted?

(46:06):
Did the test indicate holding a shotgun horizontally to one's head?
Was Weeks told of the specific questions we wanted answered?
Sorry to bug you, but the hair on the back
of my neck read this one won't go down, Mark Reynolds.

Speaker 2 (46:22):
About a month prior to this, Doctor Reynolds sent this
email to Detective Sergeants Brad Nind and Garith Waits see
seeing in Detective Senior Sergeant John Robertson, gents.

Speaker 13 (46:35):
I reviewed the BPA on this matter, but and yet
to complete the formal report. I've had to reprioritize this
matter behind the BPA report for Operation Marino trial August
sixteen and the trial of four police officers commencing in
Sydney twenty six to the fourth twenty sixteen, for which
I am prosecution witness. I will complete the report asap

(46:57):
following my evidence in New South Wales. What I can
say is that the BPA evidence supports the deceased as
being shot in the position found with little or no
movement of her following the injury infliction. Regards Mark Reynolds,
APM PhD.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
Here's an excerpt from doctor Reynolds Bloodstained Patent Analyst report
he prepared for the coroner, dated eighteenth of May twenty sixteen.

Speaker 13 (47:24):
Blood flows can be seen originating from the ear, nose, mouth,
and injury of Wensley. The path of the flows from
those areas are downwards and essentially parallel to each other,
indicating that their direction has been driven by gravity. Furthermore,
little apparent deviation from the vertical and parallel configuration is

(47:47):
seen in any of these blood flows, indicating that at
the time of flow, there has been little or no
movement of Wensley's head from its position as seen in
the photographic record. Saturation blood stains are seen on the
clothing of Wensley, and a pooled accumulation of blood is

(48:07):
present on the carpet adjacent to her body. Conclusions one,
at the time of the injury infliction, Wensley's body was
in the position and configuration or near position and configuration
as seen in the photographic record. Two, at the time
of injury infliction, Wensley's head was in the position or

(48:31):
near position as seen in the photographic record. And three,
Whilst the specific configuration of the contacting surface responsible for
the deposition of some of the transferred blunt stains seen
on the curved surfaces of the barrels cannot be determined,
the color, shape, and positioning of the blood stains is

(48:53):
suggestive of a surface that was flexible and or yielding.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
Three years later, on the thirty first of March twenty nineteen,
forensic Field Operation Sergeant Brett mccantz made a similar finding.

Speaker 13 (49:08):
Weinsley has not moved or been moved from this location
post injury infliction.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
So al When Professor Timothy Ackland reconstructed a simulation to
test whether or not it was possible that Amy could
have killed herself, he observed that the model representing Amy
couldn't quote hold up the gun even with both hands.
He noted that the model found it difficult to place
the gun in a position with the slightwood downward trajectory

(49:36):
in which the bullet entered Amy's right temple.

Speaker 10 (49:38):
Detectives at the scene on the evening of the incident
suggested that the deceased could have held and fired the
gun with her left hand, either with or without the
assistance of her right hand. As seen in Figures twenty
and twenty one. The model struggles to hold the gun
and her head in an orientation that matches the post
has shown in figure one and consistent with the orientation
of the deceased. Injuries to her head and to face,

(50:00):
as well as blood spatter marks on the wall to
the left side of her head, even with the assistance
of her right hand. When one views the video footage,
the model is heard to report how awkward the position
is and how difficult it was to hold the gun,
let alone pull The trigger. Weight or mass of the
gun is six point three nine one pounds or two
point eight nine kilograms free recall energy. Considering the weights

(50:23):
of the shot, what and powder in the cartridge equals
eight point seven pounds.

Speaker 1 (50:28):
And Professor Acklin concludes, if what Price says about the
location of the gun is correct, then.

Speaker 10 (50:34):
My conclusion remains that the gun was placed there by
a person other than the deceased.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
So the left hand couldn't have been used, neither could
the right hand.

Speaker 10 (50:42):
Given a scenario whereby the decease shot herself by holding
the barrel against her right temple using her left hand,
then orientating the gun horizontally and near perpendicularly to the
side of her head, and finally pushing the trigger with
her right hand, where would the gun end up after discharge?
According to my calculations above, and with the assumptions as stated,

(51:03):
I estimate the gun would have come to rest some
twenty one centimeters away from the deceased hand, landing on
the carpet, with the barrel pointing toward the victim. In
no way does this position relate to the photographs or
our attempt to recreate elements of the witness statement by
mister Price.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
Now at the inquest, Major Crime Division Detective Superintendent Rob
Scantlebury backed Detective McDonald's conclusion that they could not place
anyone else in the room with Amy. However, that's only
if they ignore Neya's evidence and the gun's location, because
it had to have been placed where it was found,
not that it was possible for her to shoot herself.

Speaker 10 (51:40):
Anyway, If mister Price, as the first person who have
entered the room after mister d. Simmons, has stated the
location of the gun truthfully, then my conclusion remains that
the gun was placed there by a person other than
the deceased. Dr Timothy Ackland, PhD, Professor of Applied Anatomy
and Biomechanics, the University of Wa, fourteen August twenty eighteen.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
So we'll be speaking to Professor Acklin next episode, and
that's a fascinating interview with Professor Acklin. He's very confident
with his conclusion, even today, with the limitations of what
a reconstructed crime scene brings, he is very very confident.
Of course, by the time his evidence came through, Detective
Senior Constable and Lahane had left the coronial investigation unit.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
It's understood her relocation had nothing to do with the
way she conducted her investigation, but the fact she refused
to treat Amy's death as non suspicious certainly ruffled some feathers.
At one stage, she was severely reprimanded by a higher
ranking detective Lamb in major crime. He was so angry
and stood so close to her that she remembered feeling

(53:00):
he spit on her face. She says her decision killed
her career at w A police. Are you surprised by that?

Speaker 1 (53:07):
Incredible, isn't it?

Speaker 11 (53:09):
Well?

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Well, I actually am surprised because you've got a person
here who's who's very committed, very professional in her approach
to everything, successful because of it to a certain point,
as she says, you know she's intimating she obviously didn't
go past that point because she stood her ground based
on professional analysis, which just goes to prove it's very sad. Actually,

(53:33):
I think it's just goes to prove again the layers
of politics involved in this. I mean, if someone came
to you and said the sort of stuff we've heard
from from Detective Lahayne, you know, you know, to form
a view that police are willing to throw these tier
one crimes under the carpet for the sake of political

(53:56):
expediency within their own ranks, you know, just to protect
other people's reputation. You'd laugh at it, wouldn't you think
it's a stupid conspiracy theory. But Detective Lahyne is just
another another person with integrity in a line of people
that had integrity that weren't listened to or were sidelined

(54:16):
or were treated like that. I mean, the spit in
the face is just in the Can you imagine it?
I mean, that would make life incredibly uncomfortable, wouldn't it
to work within ranks like that? But it's so disappointing
to hear that stuff from a public point of view,
and it just goes to the heart of what Amy
Wensley's family are still going through.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
And it was only ten years ago, lamp, so we're
not talking you know, like you can kind of imagine that.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
Sort of sow this look I don't. Yeah, absolutely, this
is not a cold case for me. I mean, this
is you know, there's someone still walking around who's responsible.
So this is not a cold case. This is very
much alive, very much alive.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
I obviously went to police, I mean, because that's the
impression I get as well, right, that they're protecting the
cool kids or whatever, or you know, for whatever reason
and anyone, you know, because this isn't a police bashing exercise.
There are so many police who are doing the right
things in this investigation, and they're terrific, But this talks

(55:14):
to the organization, the system itself, right, and that's what
really disturbs me. And I went back to a w
Police as you know again that was you know, one
of my questions and that you know, it was about
six questions all up. They're not answering it. They don't
there you know, write a reply obviously, I mean, because
that's the impression that everyone will get. And I guess

(55:35):
they just don't think it's warrants any justification. I don't know.
So I also went to the new Police Minister, Reese Whitby,
to find out if he had any concerns given the
respective damage this was doing to Wave Pole's reputation and
it's apparent failure to protect and serve the people of
Western Australia. You've said it numerous times, Slam. At the

(55:59):
time of this area, we hadn't received a response. But
let's give it one more week to see if the
minister is worth his salt or just another powerful person
who puts politics before justice. If that is the case,
we'll go to Premier Cook.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
Remember too, that Reese Whitby, the new Police Minister, used
to be a journalist. Oh really, yeah, for Channel seven
at one stage. So he knows very well the power
of public perception and the power of messaging and communication.
So if anyone can appreciate the fact that somebody should
say something, it is the new police minister fingers crossed.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
But had Detective Lahyane not followed her gut concerns Amy's
death being anything other than a suicide may have never
seen the light of gay.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
Yep. That's absolutely right. She has been and to an
extent still is a very very integral piece of this
jigsaw puzzle, isn't she. And I've got to say again,
you know, by standing up and taking the position she took,
you've got to give her full credit. I hate here
about people experiencing that sort of stuff in the end,
but I love hearing about that sort of integrity. That's

(57:04):
the sort of thing we need in the police. Detective
la Hayne also our identified numerous issues which weren't considered
during that operation Juhndee or jun D, depending on which
school he went to, including evidence provided by Rick kirk Now.
Rick is Amy's stepfather that Amy told him the Sunday

(57:24):
before her death. The Sunday before her death, she told
her stepdad that Simmons held a knife to her throat.
Now I've met Rick Kirk, so of you and I
reckon he's a pretty straight up sort of guy. For
him to give that evidence, I think is quite compelling.
She also Detective La Hayne that is had issues with
the way detectives handled the interviews with Gareth Price and

(57:47):
David Simmons when he was arrested a few days after
Amy's death. They had a list of questions which they
ticked off as they went through with no probing. It
was literally a tick and click exercise. That was Detective
Leahynes's criticism, not ours. Now we've sent questions to Wa
police about this, You've sent them plenty l In an email,

(58:11):
she also pointed out Detective la Haynes, this is that
David Simmons only disclosed that he'd retrieved his other firearm,
his twenty two rifle, from the front seat of his Subaru,
and shot at a bird which was attempting to remove
fish from the pond. After Amy's six year old daughter

(58:32):
was interviewed by a specialist child investigator.

Speaker 11 (58:36):
This fact had not been mentioned in any previous statement
or conversations, and was corroborated by nad who mentioned it
during the course of her interview with the child Assessment team.

Speaker 1 (58:46):
I find that fascinating to it, and it's worth mentioning
here that Simmons' story changed from shooting at a bird,
which it was attempting to remove fish from the pond,
according to him, to shooting at parrots trying to take
fruit from the tree. That was the other story that
was given that. I'm not sure about you, but I

(59:09):
think that if you're talking about conflict, shooting at a
bird in a tree compared to shooting at bird on
a pond is quite different. Now quite different. Are you
trying to remove fish or you're trying to remove parrots?
What are you trying to do? Hello? Now here's what
Detective Lahayne concluded in her report, which was completed incidentally

(59:30):
by Detective Sergeant Gary Thwaites.

Speaker 11 (59:34):
Amy Lee Wensley was a twenty four year old female
who was in a tumultuous relationship with her partner, David
Robert Simmons, which had a major impact on her confidence
and self worth. Family and friends of the deceased believe
Simmons displayed a high degree of domination and control over
the deceased. The dominance, combined with the isolation of rural
living and financial stress, appeared to heighten the deceased anxiety,

(59:58):
albeit outwardly she she appeared to be a happy and
outgoing person. The deceased sought assistance from her general practitioner
for her declining mental health and was subsequently prescribed antidepressant medication.
On the strength of the evidence gathered by the MCS
Major Crime Squad, both Simmons and Price were interviewed and

(01:00:18):
cleared of any criminal involvement in the death of the deceased.
As a result of my investigations and review of the
circumstances in this matter, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate
the unlawful involvement of another person in the death of
the deceased. This concludes my investigation into the death of
Amy Lee Wensley, subject of further direction from the coroner.

(01:00:39):
Forwarded for your information and attention, Detective Senior Constable and
Lehane Coronial Investigation Squad.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
This is Detective Lahne at the twenty twenty one coronial inquest.
She's speaking with counsel assisting the coroner, Sarah Tyler.

Speaker 14 (01:00:54):
When this case came to you, did you have any
initial concerns upon receiving and reviewing the material from the
Major Crime Squad?

Speaker 4 (01:01:01):
Yes? I did.

Speaker 14 (01:01:02):
What concerns did you have when the file.

Speaker 4 (01:01:04):
Originally came to me?

Speaker 11 (01:01:05):
Actually, Major Crime hadn't had the file at that stage,
and I reviewed it at that point and then it
went to Major Crime and then it came back to me.

Speaker 14 (01:01:12):
Was this the day after Amy died? Yes, it came
to you first. Were you the person it.

Speaker 11 (01:01:19):
Came to the Coronial Unit? Then I actually reviewed it
with some other.

Speaker 14 (01:01:22):
Officers, okay. And what concerns did you immediately identify that
caused it to be referred to Major Crime?

Speaker 11 (01:01:28):
It was the inconsistencies in the statements that were taken
at the time.

Speaker 14 (01:01:31):
Between David Simmons and Gareth Price Price. Yes, and as
a result of those inconsistencies, you felt that a more
fulsome investigation should occur. That's correct, Yes, all right. Were
you involved in briefing the Major Crime Squad in any way?

Speaker 4 (01:01:46):
Yes?

Speaker 11 (01:01:47):
I was, and I was also involved in the arrest
of David Simmons and Gareth Price.

Speaker 14 (01:01:51):
And I understand that you've been in the back of
the court throughout the inquest thus far, is that correct?

Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
That's correct?

Speaker 14 (01:01:56):
Yes, after you were involved in the initial discuss and
the case was referred back to the Major Crime squad.
Were you involved in any other point during that initial
referral stage or through the Major Crime investigation.

Speaker 11 (01:02:09):
When it was Operation jund No, not until it came
back to the coronials.

Speaker 14 (01:02:13):
So when it was referred back to the Coronial Service,
was it allocated to you?

Speaker 4 (01:02:18):
Yes?

Speaker 14 (01:02:19):
What steps did you take upon receiving that file?

Speaker 11 (01:02:21):
So I reviewed all the information and intelligence they gave
me which was in the file, and also reviewed some
of the viper actions. I then started to put the
coronial file together and I identified what outstanding lines of
inquiry should be followed, for instance a forensic So I
started looking at that and then I asked Major Crime
for a memo giving their critical decisions on what actually

(01:02:44):
how they deemed it non suspicious.

Speaker 14 (01:02:47):
So your initial concern were the inconsistencies between the witness statements.

Speaker 4 (01:02:52):
That's correct. On the first day.

Speaker 14 (01:02:54):
Upon receiving the file from Operation Junde. Were your concerns addressed?

Speaker 4 (01:02:59):
They the majority of them were.

Speaker 11 (01:03:01):
When I received the memo from Major Crime, I did
identify that they had actually specified there was a biomechanics report,
and I queried that biomechanics report and asked for a
copy because I couldn't find it, and was advised there
actually wasn't a biomechanics report. I then contacted forensic and
asked them were they going to provide a biomechanics report?
And they said no, they would not provide one.

Speaker 14 (01:03:23):
Did they explain why?

Speaker 4 (01:03:25):
They said, it's only done on homicides?

Speaker 14 (01:03:27):
Okay, do you know where the information came that there
had been a biomechanics report? Was it a case of
the measurements being done by the officers at the post
mortem had been confused for a biomechanical report.

Speaker 4 (01:03:41):
I don't recall if they told me that.

Speaker 11 (01:03:42):
They basically said that they could only give me the
verbal or that dimensions they had taken or the measurement,
but and if I required anything further from that, I
would have to go to the physiologist.

Speaker 15 (01:03:52):
Did they basically say that was kind of outside their
area of expertise, like they did the measurements and whether
there was a possible or impossibility of arms reaching certain
length of shotguns, but they weren't prepared to go down
on paper and do a full report saying you really
need to go to a more expert person in that area.

Speaker 4 (01:04:11):
Is that right? That's correct? Yes?

Speaker 14 (01:04:13):
Is that how you ended up consulting Professor Ackland?

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
Yes?

Speaker 14 (01:04:17):
Do you remember when that occurred? Was that in November
of twenty fourteen?

Speaker 11 (01:04:21):
That was a few months into my investigation. I actually
can't recall because I had actually gone through the forensic
at that stage and actually spoke to forensic and asked them.

Speaker 15 (01:04:30):
So a bit of tooing and throwing there wasn't there?

Speaker 11 (01:04:32):
There was, Yes, it was a bit of back and forth.
So I asked them who I would speak to or
what I and I think doctor Mark Reynold's advised to
speak to you wa.

Speaker 2 (01:04:42):
You wa is University of Western Australia.

Speaker 14 (01:04:45):
He made the referral to Professor Ackland. He did, yes, Okay,
did you speak directly to Professor Ackland?

Speaker 6 (01:04:53):
No?

Speaker 14 (01:04:53):
Did you email him or brief him in some way?

Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
I don't recall actually whether it was me that had
done it or.

Speaker 14 (01:04:59):
Doctor rh Okay, what was your understanding of the response
by Professor Acklin to the initial request that he provide
or biomechanical opinion? Did he agree to do that?

Speaker 11 (01:05:10):
I think I had left coronial by that stage, but
I think he basically said that he.

Speaker 4 (01:05:15):
Could not give determination.

Speaker 14 (01:05:17):
My understanding was that he told officers that there were
too many unknowns to make a formal determination.

Speaker 4 (01:05:23):
Yes, that's correct.

Speaker 14 (01:05:24):
I understand you also made some further inquiries of forensics
in relation to the bloodstained pattern analysis and the forensic
analysis undertaken of the clothing. Is that correct?

Speaker 4 (01:05:34):
That's correct?

Speaker 11 (01:05:35):
Yes.

Speaker 14 (01:05:35):
Can you talk me a little bit through those inquiries.

Speaker 11 (01:05:38):
Well, originally I contacted forensic to get any information from
them and any reports that were available. I ended up
having a meeting with Forensic and with my officer in charge,
and we discussed what they could offer and what we required,
and brad Mind turned around and said that he would
provide the forensic report because he was the case manager.

Speaker 14 (01:05:57):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (01:05:58):
I also requested a BP report.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
As well, Detective Lahayne, he's referring to blood pattern analysis.

Speaker 14 (01:06:05):
Did you ultimately receive those reports?

Speaker 11 (01:06:07):
I think I received the BPA. Again, I think that
was after I left the investigation.

Speaker 14 (01:06:12):
Did you review any other materials? For example, Triple O calls,
the Serpentine Roadhouse CCTV footage. Was that all part of
Operation Junde's brief, Yes, okay. Did you speak independently to
any witnesses or is that did you reply upon the
Operation jun De records.

Speaker 11 (01:06:32):
The witnesses I spoke to as part of the coronial report.
You actually have to speak to the family. So I
spoke to Nancy Kirk, and I spoke to the three
friends of Amy's and that was near the end of
my investigation that I spoke to them and obtained a
statement from them.

Speaker 14 (01:06:48):
Was the purpose of that to explore the type of
relationship that Amy and David had.

Speaker 4 (01:06:53):
That's correct?

Speaker 14 (01:06:53):
Yes, okay, based on your conversations with Amy's friends, did
you have concerns about the conclusions reached by Operation Juhnde.

Speaker 11 (01:07:03):
I had concerns all the way through the investigation. But
whether for all of the lines of inquiries I followed,
I didn't actually achieve any I didn't get any further
information to suggest that someone else was involved.

Speaker 14 (01:07:14):
Is that because that information simply wasn't available or were
there any problems?

Speaker 11 (01:07:19):
That's correct? And also the original attendance. I think we
lost some information at the original attendance.

Speaker 14 (01:07:25):
The premature decision that it was suicide, yes, and the
failure to investigate that night. Yes, okay, are you satisfied?
And I appreciate you left the Coronial Investigation Service before
this report was finalized, But to the extent that you
were involved in this case, are you satisfied that every

(01:07:45):
line of inquiry that you could think of was appropriately
pursued with respect to Amy's death?

Speaker 4 (01:07:51):
Every line I identified?

Speaker 11 (01:07:53):
Yes?

Speaker 14 (01:07:54):
What was the ultimate conclusion with respect to your involvement
in this investigation?

Speaker 11 (01:07:58):
There was insufficient evidence to make any form of determination.

Speaker 14 (01:08:01):
Did you have a view one way or the other?
How Amy died?

Speaker 11 (01:08:06):
I try to follow the evidence rule, and I, as
I said, I didn't find anything that gave me an
indicator that someone else had been involved. But whether that's
because we lost the evidence at the start, I'm not sure.

Speaker 14 (01:08:17):
I appreciate you have no specific qualifications in this area,
but as an experienced police officer, the coroner is going
to have to grapple with how Amy's right hand came
to be resting under her buttocks when there's a suggestion
that she used that hand to pull the trigger to
shoot herself. Is there a scenario that you can think

(01:08:38):
of that would allow that to occur and allow that
finding to be suicide or do you think there's simply
too many questions.

Speaker 4 (01:08:46):
I think there's too many questions.

Speaker 14 (01:08:47):
Do you have a definitive view one way or the other?

Speaker 16 (01:08:50):
No?

Speaker 14 (01:08:51):
Is there anything further you'd like to say about the
investigations into Amy's death or your conclusions?

Speaker 16 (01:08:58):
No?

Speaker 14 (01:08:59):
Thank you, Detective, seen your constable. I have no further questions.

Speaker 15 (01:09:02):
Detective, Just before you go to council, if I can
just clarify with you, and as I say, I have
read through a lot of your running sheet which kind
of indicated all of the steps you were taking. But
from my understanding from your evidence today and from that
running sheet, is that you received the file very early
on after the initial detectives who attended the scene had

(01:09:24):
determined it non suspicious.

Speaker 4 (01:09:26):
But when you.

Speaker 15 (01:09:27):
Received that you didn't receive it with a closed mind.
You looked at it and immediately had some concerns about
that decision.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
Is that right?

Speaker 4 (01:09:35):
That's correct? All right?

Speaker 15 (01:09:37):
So, as a coronial investigator, if you've got some concerns
that there is some suspicion in relation to the death
or potential criminality, you have the option of referring it
somewhere else, such as major Crime Squad at that time.

Speaker 4 (01:09:50):
Is that right?

Speaker 11 (01:09:51):
You have to go through your train of command. Sure,
so you would speak to like I did spoke to
my sergeant. But on the initial day when we initially
got the file there was it wasn't handed to me
on that day. I was just that we were There
was a few colleagues reviewing it and we between us
we kind of went, well, there's some inconsistencies in the statement,
and then it was given to one of the sergeants

(01:10:12):
who brought it over to Major Crime. I'm unsure who
actually brought it over, So it wasn't your decision, That's correct.

Speaker 15 (01:10:19):
With your colleagues in Coronial Investigation Unit, you had some
concerns about it being considered a non suspicious death at
that stage, so it was referred through the line of
the hierarchy back through to Major Crime, and you were
aware that an investigation then took place.

Speaker 4 (01:10:34):
Is that right? That's correct.

Speaker 15 (01:10:36):
But when it came back to you, it came back
with in effect the same conclusion, in the sense that
it had been ruled that there was no obvious criminality
and it was to be investigated as a non suspicious
with moving towards a potential suicide.

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
Is that right, that's correct.

Speaker 11 (01:10:51):
I was advised to actually investigate it as a coronial file,
which is.

Speaker 15 (01:10:55):
A sudden and unexpected but not less non suspicious, right.
But the impression from your running sheet is that you
still have some unanswered questions as to how that conclusion
had been reached.

Speaker 4 (01:11:06):
Is that right? That's correct?

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Yes, just a clarification here. Detective Senior Constable Anne Lahane
was still under the employee of WA Police when she
appeared before the inquest. However, she no longer had carriage
of the inquest investigation, and while the Coronial Investigation Unit
maintained her position, they weren't prepared to push any harder

(01:11:29):
than that.

Speaker 1 (01:11:35):
Next week through the eyes of an expert, Tim Ackland.

Speaker 16 (01:11:41):
What I'm saying is she could not have killed herself
holding the gun in front of her, with all those
other pieces of evidence.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
Professor Tim Mackland will explain his report, and that is
certainly worth listening to.

Speaker 16 (01:11:54):
So the only thing that then made sense, and partly
because this trajectory of the entry and exit were in
the trajectory of the pellets was horizontal but slightly down.
The fact that Price said that the gun was placed
here led me to conclude that Amy was shot by

(01:12:14):
a third party and.

Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
The gun was placed there.

Speaker 2 (01:12:24):
So so de.

Speaker 1 (01:12:34):
Re uti.

Speaker 6 (01:12:43):
Unt.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
If you knew Amy and have information, any information about
her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just at
The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au.
That's s E V E N The Truth about Amy

(01:13:11):
at seven dot com dot Au, or visit our website
sevenews dot com dot au forward slash the Truth about Amy.
You can also send us an anonymous tip at www
dot the Truth about Amy dot com. If you're on

(01:13:33):
Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us to see photos
and updates relevant to the case, but for legal reasons,
unfortunately you won't be able to make any comments. And remember,
if you like what you're hearing, don't forget to subscribe.
Please rate and review our series because it really helps

(01:13:55):
new listeners to find us. Presenter 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

(01:14:22):
to Brian Seymour. This is a seven News production