Conversations 1

After 12 episodes, there’s so much to digest in The Truth About Amy. Alison and Liam are joined by Chief Courts Reporter for The West Australian newspaper, Tim Clarke who lends his considerable expertise to the analysis of Amy’s case.

Last year Tim was named WA journalist of the year and has covered a variety of major criminal trials, including that of Bradley Robert Edwards, who was eventually convicted of the Claremont killings. He went on to write a book about it called Enigma of the Dark.

Please sign and share our petition for Amy –

https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-amy-help-refer-my-niece-s-case-to-office-of-director-of-public-prosecutions

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 I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot AU.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Good morning, everyone, Welcome to the Truth About Amy podcast Conversations.
I am Alison Sandy, the executive producer of the podcast,
and I'm joined by Liam Bartlett, who you all know
in Western Australia, and also Tim Clark.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah, thanks very much, Alison, and great to be here. Tim,
legal affairs editor at The West Australian of course s
WM and a man who's done so much work on
this podcast. We're thirteen weeks in now, Tim, what are
you making of it?

Speaker 3 (00:58):
Well, firstly, Liam, sorry, I'm not either Robbie Williams or
James Packer, so apologies for that. Your level is up
here Mine is sort of slightly underneath that, but you know,
all joking aside. It's that quality of journalism that's brought
us here today with the podcast and the interest that
it's been gathering over the weeks, which is what we

(01:23):
can see from the level of reaction it's getting both
from the listeners and from those that you've been approaching
to interview as the podcast has gone on. There's two
things that's struck me really, and it was the one
thing that struck me when I first met Anna outside

(01:45):
the first day of the inquest all those years ago.
Is her strength and the strength of the Wensley and
Davely families for refusing to give up really and refusing
to bow down to what is obviously being pressure put
on them from various quarters. And then opposite that strength

(02:07):
is basically the weakness of the authorities that have dealt
with this case for ten years now, starting obviously with
the with the detectives that first turned up at the scene,
but then the rolling sort of denials and obscation.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
And yeah, complete intransigence, isn't that That's a good word.
That's a good word. You really hit the nail on
the head there. I think that the contradiction pointing out
that contradiction, and it is a huge golf, isn't it
between what Anna Davey Amy's aren't and extended family and
Nancy herm and especially Nancy what they have done and

(02:49):
what they continue to go through, but what the way
they have sort of marshaled their forces, albeit very small,
you know, the virtually powerless in that sense, But what
power they have in terms of talking to people like
us and Allison will back me up on this, and
going to authorities and doing whatever they can whenever they can,

(03:12):
compared to people in those positions of power. I think
that's one of the things that's really struck me about this.
I'm and Tim, you know where I'm coming from here,
because I've spent a long time here in Western Australia.
Among those authorities, you've spent more, in fact, you've had
a deeper dive around that judicial system in your work

(03:34):
with through the courts. Yeah, that's probably WA Police, you know,
the Attorney General's Office, you know, people who really are
the decision makers. And I'm still I'm still after all
these years, I'm amazed at the complete it's almost a
lack of care, you know, It's almost it's almost that's
the way it comes across. I might be being a

(03:56):
bit unfair, but it's it almost comes across as a
sort of personalized get stuffed. Yeah, that's that's in the
in the Ossie vernacular. That's the way it seems like,
what why can't somebody somewhere please just put their hand
up and say, look, you know what, we're going to
fix this.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
And there seems to be to me there's a there's
a trademark West Australian style of this type of case, right,
and you can go through them, going back, you know,
to the button and Beamish ones, and it starts with
a colonel like a core belief that the authority has
about a certain case and a refusal then to admit

(04:39):
or even countenance that that colonel at the start might
have been wrong.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Spot on. Once the blinkers go on, that's it. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
And what disappointed me this week, particularly reading the letter
that our Attorney General, John Quigley had sent to the
Wensley family and Anadavian particular are attorney General was involved
in one of those cases on the other side, which
involved a man, a vulnerable man, convicted of a murder

(05:09):
that he didn't commit. And it took journalistic skills like
yours and Allison's have been employed in the last year
or more to uncover that wrong. And then John Quickley,
when he was in opposition, joined that and fought so
hard to get that man released and he was eventually released. Now, John's,

(05:33):
you know, coming towards the end of his political career,
a career I think that's had got a lot to
say for it. Actually, I mean, he's been a very
reforming attorney general. He's appointed so many women to the bench,
which is you know, evened up that you know, long
held imbalance. But on this case, for whatever reason, he's

(05:53):
sticking to this dogma that I can't send it to
the DPP and the opposition is off the complete opposite
view that he can if he wants to, of course
he can. And that's just one piece of the puzzle,
you know, of a you know, a whole line of
refusals of just to listen to an opposing view or

(06:14):
at least countenance that, well, this is the like, this
is wrong. This is just clearly wrong on all facts.
And you know the physical evidence, the gun, Amy's hand,
you know, the crime scene, what the detectives did, like
all those little bits along the way or as you say,

(06:35):
your word, intransitident, just just a refusal to move.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
Well, the case you mentioned, let's stay on quickly for
a moment, Allison. Let's let's talk about the role of
the Attorney General, because This fascinates me, the point that
Tim's just raised about how how paralyzed he seems to be,
and especially given his background as as really somebody who
who does stand up, who has stood up in the past.
I mean, this guy remember years ago, Tim was the

(07:01):
lawyer for the police union. He was bulldog like in
his approach and on the case you mentioned the Andrew
Mallard case. It ended up getting Andrew Mallard, well a clearance.

Speaker 3 (07:13):
I mean the start of that investigation, there was timing.
I mean, it ended up that there was a palm
print that actually, you know they all missed and you know,
and pointed to the actual killer.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
Well, one single palm print, you know, that was the
as you say, that was the spark that ignited the
whole thing. There's a lot more. There's so many sparks
in this case. It's a raging bushfire. Yeah, I mean,
you know you have to what do we have to
do to turn the bloke's eyes towards the wrongfulness of
some of this stuff? I mean, it just makes me,
It makes me amazed, And I agree with your assessment

(07:46):
to a certain point. I think his career has been
marked by some decent stuff. Although I would argue that
the strength of that career came to a screeching halt,
and for the benefit of our recent states listeners and others,
screeching halt during COVID when Clive Palmer, the Ossie billionaire,
took out a case against the WA government, and on

(08:08):
the front page of our newspaper Tim there were text
messages from John Quigley, the Attorney General, to the Premier,
Mark McGowan, the then Premier, which were of a of
a shall we say John quickly describing his sex life
and other such things quite personally embarrassing. And I think
since then he's been completely newted in his effectiveness. He's

(08:30):
been turned into some sort of you know, Egyptian Eunich
and in this case, he in this case he just
refuses to do anything. And he can do a lot
of things. He can do a lot of things. But
what about the police commissioner. What do you think about
the commissioner's role in all this and the sort of
inaction Allison. And the reason I ask you that question
is because there's no reason for cole Blanche not to

(08:52):
do something. It's not as if he was commissioner at
the time. When when when this this appalling level of
invest mistigation. If I can even use that word, it
was so bad on the night Amy died took place.
Cole Blanche wasn't the commission he can he can rightly
say put up his hand and say, listen, that was terrible.
Things were done that were wrong, But I wasn't in charge.

(09:14):
Then I am now, and this is what's going to happen.
We're going to fix it.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
Do you think maybe it was because he signed that
letter of regret? Maybe? I mean, look, it's an error,
it's an unfortunate error, but we can move beyond that, right.
I mean that's with everything, right, everything's been pretty much
an error all this way. So it's a case of
just saying, yep, we're owning it. We're moving on, we're

(09:38):
moving forward. But I think with cole Blanche, when I
look at the Foy correspondence we got, it makes me
think that maybe that kind of attitude goes all the
way to the top.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
Well yeah, it's a failure of leadership. But that is leadership,
isn't it Just putting your hand up and saying, listen, guys,
we got a wrong. You don't have to say I
got it wrong. It wasn't, as I say again, it
wasn't cole Blanche in charge at the time. But he's
the leader now, and isn't that what leadership, Good leadership
is all about, saying listen, we're just going to right
these wrongs. It doesn't cost us anything. In fact, we

(10:14):
win more friends. We win more friends doing it the
proper way now by acknowledging that things weren't quite right.
But you know what, we're not going to put up
with anything else. Now, let's let's absolutely put this on
the road to redemption.

Speaker 3 (10:30):
Do you think he would have been involved in signing
off on that on the new team in e Commas
it's been that's been put in place in w police
to investigate things that they say have come from crime stoppers.
I think so yeah, In which case, why wouldn't he
then publicly say, you know, come up to the public,

(10:54):
come on this podcast and say, look, I've done that
because A, I want to make sure that everything's done
right from now on. B there are valuable tipbits coming
forward that we think the need investigating properly and see
by association. You know, obviously, what you've done or what
the podcast has shown is that we made mistakes in
the past. I mean, as you say, Liam, leadership is

(11:16):
not just about bluff and bluster. It's all about also
about admitting mistakes and saying, you know, putting your hand
up and say, well, all we can do now is
try and make sure we do it right from here
on in. But for whatever reason he's been advised, you know,
he can't say anything publicly. He can just give us
the I think you called it in the email to me,
quite a vanilla or bay statement that they said confirming

(11:39):
that team had been put in place, and then you
know nothing more, which is yeah, again disappointing to me
and a little a little bit a little bit weak.
So I'll put it back on you too. What do
you feel like other vital bits of new information that
you've managed to flash out over the year in a
bit that you've been that you've been looking back into

(12:02):
Amy's case.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
For me, the most recent one, let's start with the
most recent, and that was the evidence. I'll call it evidence.
It's first person recount from the lady who rang crime
stoppers as a result of our original story and episode
one really and talked about Joshua Brydon. Now she's the

(12:27):
friend of Joshua Brighton's ex partner. Is that correct, Alison,
let me just get that right. She's the friends now.
To me, her first hand account as an ear witness
puts Joshua Brdon at the scene where let me put
it this way, it contradicts Joshua Brden's account completely as

(12:51):
we know, it completely contradicts it. I think that's significant.
I think it's I think it's fascinating. It's completely fascinating.
And to me, you know, if I was the detective
working on the case, that would be my first port
of call. I'd be dragging him in for a for
a formal sit down interview to say, look, this is

(13:14):
completely at odds with every statement you've made or what
you have told any measure of authority from day one,
how do you explain it? And putting that story, putting
that narrative under a bit of pressure, that for me
is the most is the most amazing thing. That's a
place to start. But that's also probably the most recent Allison,

(13:35):
would that be fair? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (13:36):
I think Joshua Brydon is the weak link in this
whole case, well, one of the weak links, I should say,
there's plenty, but I think that. And the timeline, right,
this is the one that we pointed out in episode twelve,
the timeline of where he talks about David Simmons putting
the kids and packing their clothes and toys in the car. Now,

(14:01):
that didn't happen until after Amy had the phone call
with her mother, which was about five o'clock, and Joshua
Bryden was supposed to be at least twelve minutes or
thirteen minutes gone by then, yes, and yet he recalled that.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
So it's it just doesn't Can I just say something there?
Let me just jump in there. Tim does this strike
he was weird because when I look at that timeline,
I've been back over it as recently as last night,
just four or five times. Now, that's a timeline constructed,
not by us. That timeline's constructed by Major crime. So

(14:36):
even leave out this other woman's evidence to us, who's
only recently phoned in to crime stoppers, But I mean,
just looking at that, well, why didn't somebody in major
crime look at that in the same way? And so
you hang on a minute that that doesn't fit, That
really doesn't fit.

Speaker 3 (14:53):
And that's you know, and that's not the only bit.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
No, no, But but I'm just saying, you know that
that's a relatively recent when I say recent in the
overall chronology of major crime, putting that together to somebody
somewhere in a police uniform to look at that timeline
and say, guys, that's not really it's not really adding up.

Speaker 3 (15:11):
And it's not just major crime. I mean, he gave
that same evidence to the coroner, so you know, sort
of the council assisting in the coroner or the coroner
herself could have could have gone away and did go
away for many many months to put together her inquest findings,
which were, you know, many dozens of pages. And then

(15:33):
there's you know, the other little things like David Simmons
supposedly firing a gun at a tree to get rid
of parrots while all this chaos is his life is
falling to pieces around him, and when that just makes
no logical sense to me. No, no, And he said

(15:53):
that various times he was questioned about it. He stuck
to that story. Why when your partner is in the
middle of leaving you, You've got kids in the car,
you've got people there, you've got lizard tank smashing, you've
got you know, a physical altercation, and then amid all this,
you supposedly fire a gun at a tree like that

(16:13):
just makes no sense. That's all logical sense, I mean,
you know. And so all right, you can take that
out of context and say, oh, well it's a little thing,
but it's not.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
It not only makes no sense, but it also doesn't
fit for me time wise in terms of just a
basic action, like to do it in a comfortable way
and then and then for me to get to the
end of the timeline where they make the call from
the Serpentine roadhouse. Now, now, if anybody's been out there

(16:47):
and had a look at the sort of distance we're
talking about, Allison, you have and I have, you will
know that to get to that Serpentine roadhouse from that
little house up the road, it's only up the road,
but it's a little bit of a drive. And you
look at the timeline again put together by Major Crime,

(17:07):
that's a very tight turnaround. You have to be jumping
in that car to know that. Okay, in the car,
let's go. We have to get to that roadhouse make
that call to Triple zero. That's got to happen very quickly.
I'm telling you physically, that's got to happen very quickly.
And that just does not make sense to me. That
whole thing doesn't make sense.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
And that's after Gareth has padded down Amy looking for
her phone, yep, and the whole argument about well, let's
go to the main house and David Simmons saying to Gareth, no, no,
that's not there.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
There's a lot of things going on. Yep. There's a
lot of conversations going on. There's a lot of panic,
no matter what, no matter what, even if you take
the suicide angle, there's a lot of panic. There's shock that,
there's a lot of emotions. There's a lot happening there
in that incredibly compressed timeline, which again I'll say again
does not makes sense. And anybody, anybody who looks at that,

(18:03):
I defy anybody who looks at that who's gone past
fourth grade education to make it make sense.

Speaker 3 (18:18):
And then you've got one of Amy's thoughts saying consistently
that she's seen one of these men bringing the bins
right now. She look this Obviously it's chaotic. There's there's guns,
there's dogs, there's people. Is like, you know, it's it's
getting dark. The emotion of all the things even a

(18:43):
young girl could mistakenly have seen, right, you know, it
could have been one person coming out with the house
when it wasn't fine. But to see a person dragging
a bin all that way, that that strikes me as
a core memory, you know what I mean, Like a

(19:03):
memory that you couldn't reconstruct. Of all the things you
could reconstruct, why would you reconstruct a bin.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
That's a great question.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
I thought the same when I was going through Joshua
Bryden's first statement. He made a point of saying Amy
asked us to take out the bins. Like you're going
through this, you're going through all this stuff about what
happened to Amy. Amy's dead, and yet you make a
point in your statement to say we took out the bins.

(19:34):
It just didn't make sense to me that you would
put that in.

Speaker 1 (19:37):
Why would you say that? Yeah, why would you say that?
Why would you say that? I mean, I don't only
talk about my wife telling me to put out the
bins of us in trouble.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
I'm sure you never asked. I always remember.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
So on that Tim, and I know the legalities around this.
The little girl's six years old when she says this,
so she can't be cross examined, be cross examly. But
so what so what I mean, why would a little
child make that sort of recollection up? You don't do it.
And I was amazed that the coroner actually didn't put

(20:12):
more weight on that. Now the coroner can turn around
and say whatever she likes about well that child. You
know that child's not going to be able to be
cross examined on it. So what so what isn't that
sort of isn't that contemporaneous evidence more important in helping
the coroner form an opinion at the end of the process.
I mean, let's just look at the facts of the case.

(20:33):
And that's the same with the police. I mean that
helps them does and it helps them create the narrative
and put the story together and think something fishy there, mate.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
And three things about that. One, the coroner's court is
not is not a criminal court. So Joshuah Briden could
have and I can't remember if you did, but there's
certainly the option that you can be you can get
a ladder of authority, you know, a latter of comfort
to say anything you say here can't using in a
criminal court, right, So there's that. So the coroner, any coroner,

(21:05):
can ask any question without compunction if they want to
be Okay, the daughter can't be called as a direct witness.
But whatever mister Briden or mister Price or mister Simmons
want to say about that, they had their own legal representation,
so they could be asked by their lawyer to counteract

(21:26):
anything that either the police lawyer or the councilor assistant
could have asked them. There that that's two things. And
see there's nothing to stop the police asking them about it,
but you know, and going back to it and you know,
convincing themselves, trying to convince themselves. But as you said,
there's so many there's so many strands in this case,

(21:48):
Liam and Allison just up in the air, just floating there,
just you know, you're trying to grip onto some sort
of solidity about what happened, and the questions that have
been asked or not asked over the years have just
left them all sort of you know, you know, just
floating there, just trying to be tied together in some

(22:10):
sort of solid way, and you just can't because either
people haven't been asked or quite frankly, we think it
appears that people.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
Have laid just a little bit of background on the
stuff that Naya put forward. This is Amy six year old.
So my understanding is that David Simmons only started talking
about shitting the gun after Naya said that she remembers
her dad cheating the dump, so then he brought that in.
But the other thing, the other massive piece of effort

(22:43):
evidence provided by Naya, which I still find astounding, was
completely ignored that and David Simmons going back to get
or trying to get Amy's phone and asking Larry Blampard
and Larry Blampet saying no, that obviously as well, but
out also seeing her father, Well, David Simmons isn't her father,

(23:04):
but at the time she caught him, Daddy go back
into the room with that shotgun, the black gun with
the Scott. So she goes into detail as to this gun, right,
which is the It isn't the twenty two, it's the
other one that was found in the water. She said
she saw David Simmons put that gun in the wardrobe,

(23:26):
which is where it was found. It was where it
was found, and again he said he didn't go back
into that room, And initially and then at the inquest
he said he didn't remember.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
Yeah, well it just another another thread. So reflections from
you two about the whole process. I mean, all right,
I'll start with you, Allison. What's it like being working
with the great legend Leam Bartlett.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Terrible on Monday?

Speaker 3 (23:56):
And you and you two have banged on about honesty
for three months, so I'm going to call you on it.
But seriously, what's it been like?

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Well, well, no, Tim, this is not my first rodeo
with Liam, so you know I was. I was going
in there with eyes wide open where you did. Obviously
the lady vanishes and we spent all that time in Europe,
so and we'd already talked about Liam and I we
were already talking about his next podcast, which is a
Cup of Concrete, which is you know, Liam giving you know,

(24:31):
his views, and anyone who's hung out with Liam you
never died wondering what Liam's thinking, you know. So it's
been it's been really good actually, and going to his
his neck of the words, he's Nahboro, he's hood and
then heading out a certain times. So that's a completely
different area from me. It's actually very beautiful.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
In the area. It is I wasn't.

Speaker 2 (24:54):
I wasn't. You know. I suppose when you're going in
there for such a negative thing, you expect it to
be horrible, right, but it's actually surprisingly beautiful and going
to the house and meeting the different people. Yeah, So
Liam and I did a lot of that. I got
him lost one day. I took a wrong turn. It

(25:15):
was all of a sudden. I think that's down that
road actually where David Simmons crashed the car with Amy.
I think that was the road.

Speaker 1 (25:22):
I actually it literally led me astray.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
But no, Liam is amazing, And I'm saying that. I'm
saying that with all honesty because I just you know,
everyone's got their You know that they've got it. You
don't have to prerep or anything like that. What Lim's doing,
it's going to be one hundred percent. So you just
don't have to worry about limb.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
You just I worry about it.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
I need somebody to worry about me, all right.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
And so you've doped all the mean players?

Speaker 1 (25:55):
Yeah, yeah, what goes through.

Speaker 3 (25:56):
Your mind when you're about to walk, say to a
Gareth Price and that that that footage on Spotlight that
anyone hasn't seen each let's just go back and it's
an extraordinary just interaction, all caught on camera. What goes
through your mind when you're preparing to do a door
knock like that.

Speaker 1 (26:16):
I think the biggest thing is you just don't want to.
You don't want to, you don't want them to walk away,
you know. That's the biggest thing. It's the It's the availability,
you know, because you've got so many things going on
in your head that you want to ask. There are
so many questions. In this case is just a classic example.
I mean, there are so many different facets. We've only
just touched on a few, you know, in the last

(26:38):
half an hour, but there are so many things you
and you want that time. That time is so precious
to him, you know. And you know that because of
the nature of these characters involved, and they're all they're
all pretty much I've got to say, over the years,
they're all pretty much the same type of character. At
the end of the day, despite how tough and rough
and you know, buff they might look, tendency is for

(27:00):
them to turn and walk, run or hide. So that's
the biggest thing. It's just the availability. I mean, Garet's
an interesting example because he decided he just wanted to talk.
I don't know whether that was some substance talking for
him or what having. I haven't seen his evidence at

(27:21):
the coroner's quest. Yeah, it was very much the same
type of.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
Stream of consciousness type of narrative that did he once
he opened his mouth, it seemed like he couldn't stop.
But finding the use the same word, finding the little
colonel's in there. Finding what was useful was the tricky
bit there. And it was a little bit the same
with the interview you did with him. I mean, you know,

(27:48):
he went from you know, wanting you to leave to
offering you a cup of coffee. But then you know,
when you pressed him a little bit, you know, he
didn't bully him or anything. You just ask firm but
fair questions. The trauma of it all seemed to bubble
to the surface. That's what That's what That's what hit me.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
Yeah, I think you'd spot on that there was a
troubled soul there, There's no doubt about that. But it
was a bit like hurting cats y. Yeah, he's clearly
got things going on subconsciously under the surface, you know,
more than he'd care to admit. I think, And I'm
still not sure. I got the impression very clearly that

(28:29):
he still wasn't talking freely, if I can put it
that way.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
But also with David Simmons, though you know, that was
obviously a totally different interview, how did you find that?

Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, that again, unfortunately, that was there wasn't enough time
and space there, you know, because he was preoccupied in
going to court for his nth appearance over another matter.
So he was preoccupied. And he doesn't like a camera.
Not many people do, I've got to say. But he
just didn't want to be there, did he.

Speaker 3 (29:01):
Yeah, that was apparent. And as you say, it's physical
space as well. I mean so the third the third
interview did literally on a doorstep, sort of through a
door and then through Brighton's father. But yeah, look, having
tried to interview people on those steps countless times, the

(29:21):
sliding doors don't help you. The security guards can't help you.
The only advantage of that is that there is only
one way in and out of Perth Magistrates Call, and
it's all glass frontage, so you could see them coming,
but they can also see you waiting, so it can
can turn into a bit of a cat and mouse stalemate.
Burrow as we call them in the business, when they

(29:41):
just wait at the cafe and hope the camera men
will go away, which they sometimes do after four o'clock,
you know, when shift changes and all that. But yeah, Simmons, Yeah, again,
just evasive. That's the way he comes across this way.
He came across at the at the inquest so evasive
that he didn't turn up for the first day.

Speaker 1 (30:01):
I can't believe that. I still can't believe. I still
struggle with that. I also struggle with the lady who
was with him at the court when we tried to
talk to him on both those occasions within the space
of what hour and a half two hours. How do
you get people who hang around these other people without
it and actually turn around to you when you're trying

(30:23):
to ask a question.

Speaker 3 (30:24):
I think it is a combination of loyalty. You know,
family loyalty goes a long way, particularly in Western Australia
and particularly in certain parts of Western Australia, and definitely
an indigenous families. You know that loyalty is beaked in
to borrow a phrase from Justice League, albeit misguided layl

(30:45):
sometimes yes sometimes or you can be and then there
is we're going back to our original point, there's an
intransigence that people don't want to believe that they've been wrong.
And when you've when you've stuck by someone's side for
so long, and then it starts to look like you

(31:05):
might have been misguided, misled, whatever, it takes a long time.
It can't take a long time to let go of
that belief that that you'd hail for so long and
it's being told or being presented with evidence that shows
you might have back wrong horse here.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
Yeah, yeah, I expect.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
That from family, but I don't expect it from police.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
Well, police are a family and they do stick together.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Particularly I meant in terms of David Simmons, like the
bench weren't for example, when you didn't turn up that
the police opposed the breat bench warrant. And when David
Simmons did turn up, not to the same court, not
to the actual court, but by video link, they didn't
ask any questions of him. I mean, that's just phenomenal.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
That bothered me at the time. I just thought that
was the warrant. I could I could sort of, I
could sort of see because you know, if you go,
if you know, if you're barge in, bag him up.
You know, he spends the night in custody. Whatever is
he Is he going to be any is he going
to answer any questions? Is he going to be in
any fit state? Too? You know, so I could sort

(32:16):
of see that. But when they did get him there, Look,
it wasn't a Bartlet interrogation, let me put it that way.
There was there was questions that weren't asked. There were
questions that were asked, you know, with answers sort of
built into them. It was it was very it was
a very strange last couple of days to that in quest.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
But why did they do that? Tim?

Speaker 3 (32:36):
I don't I couldn't. I can't. I couldn't work that out.
I couldn't work that out them. I don't know. But
what I do remember is Anna Davy just the you
could just feel the frustration, you know, already built up
over seven odd years of trying to you know, advocate

(32:57):
for her niece and just you know, a lot of
people put a lot of stock in in quests because
they are public and a lot of people, you know,
I'm not just in Western Australia. A lot of people
come out of in quests disappointed, because they they very
rarely bring the answers that people that families hope too.
But this one, this one, I felt that Anna's frustration

(33:22):
and anger and was was was justified.

Speaker 1 (33:25):
I'm fascinated by your observations. Can we just stay with
this for a minute, because this is really interesting because Allison,
as you know, Tim has been to a whole heap
of these like you know, this has these for breakfast,
these inquests and no. But I'm fascinated by your observation, Tim,
because because I got that feeling just reading the coronial summary,
you know, reading the whole sort of decision at the

(33:47):
end of the day by Corona Linton, I mean, and
that stayed with me. But you were there, you were
in the room to sort of witness this, you know.
And this is how many years after the after Amy's death?
How many it was far.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Twenty twenty one? Yeah, so it was twenty twenty one.

Speaker 1 (34:03):
Seven years, so seven years afterward, seven years afterward, and
they're still banging on about suicide. And the Currenter seems
to be from all the official notes that I read,
seems to be still very user friendly on the suicide angle.
And then in the end saying you know what, I
can't quite go there. I'm a bit I'm almost frightened

(34:25):
to say, yes, it was suicide. So you know what
I'll do. I'll make an open finding. I'll make an
open finding. So this will sort of partly please the police,
but this will also partly please the family. But it's
not really it's not a finding. It's a two bull
each way. And there you go and all over, guys.
So if you've got any new evidence, see you, see
you next year, a year after. I mean, you know,

(34:49):
I just can't. I can't wrap my head around that.
So that's why I'm fascinated to hear your take on it,
because it backs up, It backs up. Not that I
need that reinforcement, but you know what I mean, because
you were there and you sort of witness the atmosphere
as well, because it's all part of it, isn't It's
not just the words on paper. It's all part of it.
And also I can't can I just go back again?

(35:10):
And I don't want to bang on, but I just
want to go back again because throughout my career I've
read a lot of the sort of psychoanalysis on eyewitnesses,
witness accounts. Tim I'm sure you've done the same thing,
probably read the same sort of books and papers, academic papers.
One of the things people say, people who are experts

(35:31):
in this sort of psychological field and areas of forensic psychiatry,
one of the things they constantly refer back to is
the concept of contemporaneous notes, especially with the passage of time,
even more so, the emphasis is on contemporaneous notes. And
they say, to find out what really happened, the best

(35:52):
way is not to rely on the witnesses or the
cross examinations five, six, seven years later, ten years later,
whatever it is. It's to go back and have a
look at the source notes, the contemporaneous notes of the
day in question, or the night in question, whatever it
may be. And I think all the experts agree with that.
And if you go back to that night, to the
immediacy of that night, and you look at those notes,

(36:16):
you look at those three uniforms that turned up, you know, Roberts, Dixon, Blanford,
they all say, and we can go ahead and quote
them now, I won't bore you with the details because
it's been through our episodes. They all say they were
highly suspicious. This looked highly suspicious. This did not look
anything like a suicide. They make various references the way

(36:39):
Constable Roberts found her, the way Constable Dixon observed the
other people who were present, the way Constable Blandford interacted
with them, and what he saw in that bedroom, all
the contemporaneous notes. It's only when Wiedeman and Kirkman, who
were since found to be derelict in their duty, it's

(37:00):
when they get there that that changes. None of those
three uniforms, none of them, not one of them until
they got to the coroner's court seven years later, were
ever formally interviewed by any of those coppers. And that's
an absolute disgrace.

Speaker 3 (37:23):
That staggers me. They're police officers for craaky Moses. I mean,
it's not like you wouldn't be able to find them.
It's not like they weren't willing to come forward. They
were desperate. They were desperate to give their view of
the events of that night, and which was evident when
they finally got to the coroner's court. They were apologetic

(37:44):
to Amy's family, They cried, they physically interacted with Anna,
hugged it after they'd finished giving their their evidence. So
for that to be the first and as you say, Liam,
so you've got it's logic, isn't it. The closer you
are to the day, the better your memory is going

(38:04):
to be. And that's core principle throughout the you know,
the entire justice system, and whenever and whatever crime or
court case I'm reporting on, the closer you are to
the source, the first statement you give is always going
to be you would think, more accurate than the second, third,
and fourth.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
Yeah, you don't have to go to Oxford to figure
that out.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
Well, and I've just you know, having sat through the
Reynolds and Heans defamation just recently, the contemporaneous notes of
Fiona Brown about what happened in that week after Brittany
came forward. They hold so much weight now because Justice Lea,
in his defamation judgment on Bruce Luhrman said, that's it,

(38:49):
that's what happened, That's what I believe happened that day.
Because that is a highly competent chief of staff public
servant for twenty plus years writing contemporaneous notes not an
hour after that meeting, So of course that I'm going
to trust that rather than what everyone else says, spot
on spot.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
On maybe we need to lobby for justice.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Leep, he's a man in high demand. He was in
Western Australia this weekend talking about funny enough, how courts
should not be doing as many suppression unders as they
are lim But that's another.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
Podcast for that's a great podcast. There's another podcast.

Speaker 3 (39:24):
Yeah, But as you say, gone back to the Coroner's Court,
the Coroner's Act in this state, they have some of
the most swinging powers that any judicial officer can use.
They can subpoena people, they can lock people up for
not giving evidence. They can do a lot of things.
But at the end of the day, their remit is
to find a cause of death. And they often say

(39:47):
I can't lay blame personally, but I can refer to
another authority, be at the DPP or the police or whatever.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
That's so important.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
But as you say, in this case, for whatever reason,
Sarah Linton, who I've sat through many of her in
quests and I've always found a very empathetic, very sympathetic person.
In this case, I feel that she gave too much
weight to the wrong pieces of evidence, let's put it

(40:18):
that way, And particularly the episode two episodes ago where
you went through the forensic analysis experts. Two separate ones,
never met each other, didn't consult with each other, came
up with exactly the same.

Speaker 1 (40:33):
Finding, incredible, one from Perth, one from Sydney.

Speaker 3 (40:35):
Exactly the same find, which was simple Amy could not
have shot herself exactly.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
Then we brought the expert over from the US and
what a surprise, he came up with the same conclusion.
So there's three independent experts.

Speaker 3 (40:48):
Yeah, so going back to the coronial, you've got that
didn't have your crimecy an expert. But two out of
three ain't bad, I think meat Love one said, then
you've got the three police officers that first came up,
and then you've got all those gaps in the timeline.

Speaker 1 (41:04):
Yeah, well that's it. This is the holy trinity for me.
You've got the timelines by major crime, you've got the
contemporaneous notes by the three uniforms who turn up first
and foremost and see everything fresh. And the third one,
the third part of that trifector is the left hand
right hand. So the left hand's got a burnmark on it.

(41:26):
But the burnmark forensically has been proven to come from
the muzzle, not the trigger, so she can't have pulled
the trigger with a left hand impossible from the forensic
scientific you know analysis, not not my opinion, just scientific analysis.
She's sitting on a right hand, sitting on a right hand,

(41:48):
so she can't pull it with a left hand, can't
pull it with a right hand. I mean, I know. Look,
I've been watching the Paralympic Games last two weeks and
they can do some amazing things. You know, seriously, So
those three things together combined, tim.

Speaker 3 (42:04):
And words matter, right even though the coroner can't, you know,
it's not like Colombo, and you know she can ask
one more question right at the end and then you
can come to a conclusion. But words matter, and the
weight of a coroner's words matter a lot to authorities
because it costs a lot of money to put in
quest on. The coroner's office is a very well funded

(42:26):
branch of the judicial system in this state. If Sarah
Linton had had been stronger in her analysis of all
the elements that we've just gone through, that I believe
might have triggered a stronger response from other authorities quicker,

(42:50):
and you know, Mike might not have meant that. Anna
Davy all those years later, felt like she needs did
another way to get the case reinvestigated. You know when
she started talking to you guys.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
Can I say something about Anna, because I think the
family obviously has made a massive difference, and Anna being
the one who got the ball rolling straight away. One
of the things I find with a lot of families
that come to us with cases is that often they'll
leave it too late. Where she was on it straight away,

(43:29):
straight away, So we got the magic crime investigation of
call case. I mean, really, Anna has been the driving
force behind all of this. None of this would have
come about if she hadn't got on there and just
went I mean, it's just incredible. But one other thing
I wanted to bring up with a little bit of
discussion before we close up, because I can't believe there's
so much to talk about. But in those FI documents,

(43:52):
now this I didn't put in it. We didn't have
in the podcast. On page twenty two of those documents
we got back from WA Police, there's an interesting comment
in relation to the million dollar rewards in twenty twenty
three that they brought out, and the person one of
the people working on it said, our two big issues
where the standard of our coronial files and FDB family

(44:13):
domestic violence. They're going to say the case study I
did related to the death of Amy Wensley and a
poor initial response led to criticism of WA police and
individual officers in the Coronial Court. This year's theme will
be welfare, culture and leadership, leaders in times of adversity Leadership.

(44:34):
So I just thought, there's a cup of concrete, cup
of concrete.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Watch out of that podcast. Cup of concrete. It's going
to be big, Allison. So you spot on at leadership.
So Anna has shown enormous leadership Anna Davy. I mean,
I totally agree with you, and Tim does two. You know,
she's a gem. She's one out of the pack. If
you ever get in trouble, tell you what if anyone
ever takes me down a lonely fush tray which they

(45:01):
made shallow, shallow, shallow grave, I wish Anna was my
auntie or sister or unbelievable to have in your corner
as an advocate. Incredible. But moving on to that comment
in the FOI docs that's from the police what twenty
twenty three. So I'm going to completely contradict myself now
about the coroner because it doesn't matter now, does it.

(45:22):
It doesn't matter the open finding in twenty twenty one,
because we moved on three years later, it's not an
open finding anymore.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
Because that's true.

Speaker 1 (45:30):
It's a homicide inquiry.

Speaker 3 (45:31):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1 (45:32):
We know that from the million dollar reward and the
new team that's investigating now. But can I just say this, Tim,
one more thing. Can I just say this, don't underestimate.
This is coming full circle back to the comments you
made at the start of this podcast. Don't underestimate the
lack of quality of leadership in a paramilitary organization such

(45:54):
as a police force especially. And I'm sad to say
this because I'm a proud West Dozzie the West Australian
Police Force, because their track record in leadership is appalling.
And I mean that in a very personalized way because
I've had the experience our previous police commissioner, who is
now the governor, God bless him. I had an experience

(46:18):
with a TV interview where I asked him some difficult
questions that were not unreasonable, but they were difficult face
to face. He did not like being questioned at all,
to the extent where he then proceeded to ban me
from appearing on a radio program. I was hosting and

(46:41):
helped to influence a lot of his senior officers not
to go on that program either, because hard questions are
just off the radar. So what I'm saying is, don't
underestimate the pettiness of a response, even from people who
are charged with duties in very high places. And I'm
not suggesting Cold Blanche is of a similar petty, immature nature.

(47:03):
I'm not saying that necessarily, and I certainly hope that's
not the case, But I'm just saying, don't underestimate the
power of the personal in holding up important investigations such
as this.

Speaker 3 (47:16):
Well, from my outside perspective, the police force is obviously,
as you say, paramilitary, charged with protecting and investigating, but
they are also a massive bureaucracy. And what we all
know of massive bureaucracies are there are shifting sands, there
are political polls, there are power plays, there are clashing personalities,

(47:40):
and I think all of those have come into play
in this case, unfortunately for Anna, because for whatever reason,
where their old mate was just going on leave like
it might you know what, And that really gets my
goat Liam that all this ten years, it seems to me,
was because one Copper didn't want to do the paperwork

(48:04):
because he was going on and leave the next day.
And from that simple human error, all this can flow
and which is disappointing in itself, right w A police,
You're right, the higher up you go in bureaucracies, the
less leaders like to be questioned hard. And you know,

(48:28):
you can take any bureaucracy for that, and s policing
in particular because they're not used to it, if for one,
and it can expose those leaders to those shifting sands,
personality clashes, ambition, whatever. So from what I've seen of
cole Blant at his time, he's he's not afraid to

(48:49):
front the media. He has his particular investigations and and
Area's investigation that he that he that he that he
obviously enjoys and likes and and funds. And I hope
that he would would be big enough and brave enough
to come on here on this podcast in the next

(49:10):
six or seven weeks when we do these conversations and
answer some of those questions, because they're still unanswered, and
that's after ten years, that that has to be seen
as a lack of something from WA police.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
That's the bottom line.

Speaker 2 (49:25):
Well, that's what leadership is. Right now, I just want
to say one other thing. After that million dollar reward
was announced or wars being organized, Craig, who was the
officer in charge of the Special Crime scored homicide. Again
this wasn't in the podcast now. He wrote back and said,
as part of these emails we got under fy we

(49:46):
don't classify as debt as either a homicide or a suicide,
but an open investigation into her death. At present, we
have not received any information that can assist us in
the investigation into the death Amy. The investigation roomain, it's
open and in line with the current fighting, will remain open.

Speaker 1 (50:04):
Well, that's right. I mean, here's on news flash. Sometimes
you need to actually go out, get out of the
office to find the evidence. You can't just sit there
and wait for the crime stoppers extension to ring. So
hopefully this new team when they say a new team,
because this is a very sort of obtuse sort of
you know, it's not a task force, it's a team,

(50:24):
new team, and it was there an old team. I
don't really think so. So a new team, are they
actively proactively investigating? Are they actually going out and doing
such as what we did and we talked about Tim
knocking on the door and saying, excuse me, excuse me, David,
we'd like to have a word, mate. That's a genuine question.

(50:47):
I mean, I'm not being a smart ass. I'm actually
asking a genuine question. But hopefully somebody somewhere doesn't have
already a glass jaw that can just talk about the
case openly and try to find you know, and try
to help us put the public pressure on finding the
actual truth. It's not really asking too much.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
So all they have to do is compile a new
brief put it to the dp.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
Well, there's been briefs, and Tim, you'll back me up
on this. There's been briefs given to the TPP that
look a lot shallower than this one, which have resulted
in a trial.

Speaker 3 (51:25):
And again, I hate to go back to it, but
the DPP is also under its own pressures. But they
are bound by the law, right and so it's pretty
black and white for the DPP. If they don't think
there is a case there, then they can go back
to the police and say there's not enough. And then

(51:48):
the police can go Okay, we'll keep looking, or the
police will go, well we've done and We've chased on
every lead and you know we've done everything we can.
So's that's not a one, one time deal. You don't
just get to go do the DPP once and so
you know, it's it's a it's an ongoing thing. I mean,
you know Clearmont, they had they had DPP people sat

(52:10):
in the same office as the police and as the prosecutor,
all working together, so to get that case together right,
ready for a whatever it might be a trial or
or you know, a sentencing or whatever it would have
turned out. And that happens all the time. John quickly
for whatever is and says, no, I'm not going to
direct the police to do it. I haven't got the

(52:32):
power to direct the police to do it, of course,
But you know, a lunch maybe with with Rob Owens
and a new team leader from Operation Mix or whatever
they're calling it. Now, you know you can you can
talk about these things. Surely you can talk about these things.

Speaker 1 (52:49):
Does he have a Google calendar stick it in that?
I mean, that's that's exactly right, That's exactly right. When
they have a round table. So guys, okay, how else
do we strategize the Well, what sort of approach are
we making at the moment. What are we actually doing?
What are we doing with this new team? How many
people on it? You know, who are we talking to?
Are you know? If we chase down all the leads,

(53:10):
can we go back and interview the same people again?
Can we call them in for another another chat? Can
we go back and cross reference various statements that have
been made in the past. I mean, there's a million
things you can do, right Can we.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Check the veracity of Joshua Bryan's timeline of whether it
was there or not?

Speaker 1 (53:27):
You think you think, given the information that we've had
in recent weeks, you think that would be the first thing,
As I say, but there are so many There are
so many. This is a grab bag of inconsistencies this case.
And we've heard it on this podcast time and time
again from other people much more learned than ourselves, that

(53:48):
they have been high profile cases which have resulted in
a conviction around Australia, which have been taken and briefed
and double briefed, and charges have been with less material
than is on the table right now in Amy's case.

Speaker 2 (54:05):
The family is better.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
We've all said something, but I just wanted to again
pay tribute to Anna, because without hearing, none of this
would have happened. I know it's a cliche, but it's true.
She came up to me and another journalist actually, who
were the only two on the first morning of Amy's
in quest, because I'd never heard and I keep going

(54:30):
back to that after seven years, I'd never heard of
this case until that first day of that in quest.
And we went and myself and I'll give him a
name check David Webber from the ABC. Yeah, good friend,
great journo, old schools, a bit like yourself, good load,
Dave yea. And we sat there and listened to the
opening and looked at each other and went at this

(54:52):
before well where's this being? Where's this come from? And
we listened and we listened, and then we were stood
up side the court at lunch time saying the same thing,
and Anna being Anna, just came straight up to us
put her hand out. Hello, I'm Anna, I mean Amy's niece.
Can I talk to you about her? For five minutes

(55:14):
and went he of course, I rang the desk and
I said, this is this inquest, man, this is this
is something. This is something weirds going on here, and
you know, you you try and boil three three hours
of evidence down into you know, a two minute phone
call your news desk, trying to squeeze it in. And
I said, look, I'm I'm just going to stick with
it this this week because this is interesting and disturbing

(55:37):
and confronting and a little bit troubling. That's what I did.
Wrote a feature on the for the Sunday paper, and
Anna being Anna, rang me and said, thank you, thank me,
thank me. I've been there a week. She've been doing
it seven years and she was thanking me. So that's
the that's the measure of the woman, and the measure

(55:58):
of the care that she has for Amy and her
family and for the truth.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
Yeah, that's that's a quality character, isn't it so good?

Speaker 2 (56:09):
As Anna said, she had to do it because Nancy couldn't.
Nancy was broken. She had to step up. And those
little girls six and four, you know, So that's that's
who we're doing for, and they deserve the truth.

Speaker 1 (56:24):
I agree. I totally agree. They're a lovely family. And
the girls. I'll tell you what the Asseid test is.
If you meet the girls now as teenagers, aren't they Allison?
You'll back me up on this. I mean there's such lovely, balanced,
intelligent girls. The family has done an amazing job of
nurturing that development since that tragedy of their mum dying

(56:48):
like that. I mean, that's just yeah, it's quite extraordinary actually,
and that's the measure. That's the measure of the whole family.
But but you know, coming back full circle, that's the
other thing about John Quigley, our state's attorney general. He says,
and this will be an issue, tim this is going
to be a big issue. Here's another newsflash for the government.

(57:11):
Roger cooks out in about just yesterday on the virtually
on the Hustings. It's the sort of phantom election campaigns
because they've got to go to the polls next it's
next March, next March, so that's a very short space
of time with the Christmas break, it's not very far away.
So this is and you know, one of the things
they will campaign very strongly on. You can see it

(57:31):
rip large already. You don't have to be nostrodamus to
figure this out. Domestic violence and support for domestic violence victims.
And I'm saying to John Quigley right now, John, if
you think mate that you're going to get up on
the hustings and bang the drum on behalf of the

(57:52):
government even though he's leaving. If you think you're going
to say, hey, listen, we're doing all we can for
domestic violence victims. And you've got the case of Amy
Wensley sitting here steering you in the face, which you
refuse to do anything about. You've got another thing coming
because you will be called out on it and your
government will suffer as a result. It's as simple as that.
It's going to be. It's going to be a very

(58:15):
very touchy subject.

Speaker 3 (58:16):
And there's always another Attorney General coming. There has to
be an Attorney general. So whomever is going to be
moving into that office there might have a burning file
in their inbox when they get there.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
Maybe not make the same mistake twice, but there's still
a lot of time for him to take some action,
do something to him, hope.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
So I hope it doesn't take that long. I hope
it doesn't take that long. All right, Well, thank you
so much. I think. Look, we've got so much to discuss.
Tom person is going to join us again, our counselor
who's an end Yes, so it'll be good to catch
up with him. So Laura Richard's the criminal analyst, famous international.
She's going to be joining us on this program as well.

(59:00):
There's a few other names that I'm just cross referencing
at the moment. So I hope everyone's enjoyed this our
first conversations and look forward to setting you boys again.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
So well, very hard for anyone to say no to you, Allison.
So who knows who's coming up?

Speaker 3 (59:16):
Amen? How did I end up here?

Speaker 2 (59:20):
No?

Speaker 3 (59:20):
I mean it's all serious, thoroughly enjoyed listening. I've been
a listener, you know. I've been getting the the episodes
slightly earlier than everyone else, but I've been looking forward
to everyone. So thank you for involving me. Thank you
for the conversation this morning. And yeah, just let's just hope,
hope that we can keep the pressure on and get

(59:42):
to the truth.

Speaker 1 (59:43):
Thank you, Thank you Tim for all your hard work,
and Allison you especially for coordinating everything and pushing and
pushing and pushing because that's what we need on this
So thank you.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Team Epic, Team Eppet always is it has to be.

Speaker 3 (59:54):
We'll speak next week and to only be her again