November 17, 2024 • 38 mins
The team discusses recent events bringing us closer to The Truth About Amy being realised. There’s lots more to come, so check out our website for the latest news and online packages The Truth About Amy podcast | 7NEWS
If you’re in Perth, please come along to the Silent March against domestic violence – details are here 34th March Against Domestic and Family Violence - Centre For Women's Safety and Wellbeing
And please wear pink for Amy!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Hello, Welcome to the tenth installment of Conversations and the
last one for the year.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Liam, Welcome Allison. It's been a long journey, hasn't it
it has.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I am in Perth with Liam and Tim. I saw
Tim earlier, but unfortunately Tim has got stuck in that
Rebello trial, which is fascinating, right.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
That is an interesting case Cracker.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Also the fact that the friends were stuffed up in
that case too.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
It's interesting, isn't it? But not as interesting as the
case that we've been looking at for all these past
weeks months. And we live in hope that the new team,
as they call it, the new investigative Team, the task
force that they've put into place, looking at the new
leads that they have. Now. I know there's been some
conjecture on this, even from within police ranks. There are
(01:17):
still some policemen I don't think police women, but I'm
willing to bet that there are still some policemen in
senior ranks who don't treat and are not treating, at
least mentally, some of these pieces of information as new
leads on Amy's case. Now, whether or not that is
(01:37):
a mental block that they have because they don't want
to for various reasons over the course of the journey,
because they're involved in the case on various levels, that's
a matter of conjecture. But can I just say to
you anyone, anyone with an investigative background who is not
treating the pieces of information that have been brought to
(01:58):
light through this podcast and through some of our very
loyal listeners and people who have been prepared to ring
crime stoppers and do the right thing after all these years,
give for whatever information they've had, whatever information they think
could be valuable to police to consider. If there are
still people who don't think they constitute solid new leads,
(02:23):
I'm sorry, but they're living on another planet.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well not just leads, but evidence.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I'm treating that as the same thing. It's a lead,
it's evidence, it's you know, it's material information, Allison.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yes, exactly. And I think it's just really important that
we look at everything. Yeah, I mean, we talk about
an open mind and open mind is an interesting conceptism
that when people say open mind, because I think anybody
who was involved with the case in the early stages
(02:54):
shouldn't be working on it now.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
No, I agree with that. I agree with that. I
think they have a lot of copy book in that sense.
I mean they've shown that they have a very narrow
view of what took place or the possibilities, permutations, combinations
of what may have happened may not have happened. So
I think let's just push them to the sideline. They
can spend their time happily thinking about other things. But
(03:18):
I think for Amy and for Amy's family, especially for
her two girls, we have to have an open mind.
As you say, it's an open book at this stage.
In fact, the coroner said it was an open finding,
so I think that's pretty consistent. So we know that
homicide is certainly on the table.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Yes, absolutely, Look, I've been speaking to other people as well,
legal people. One of them has talked about now and
a lot of our listeners up to finding the wood buyer,
right the wood buyer who Amy was sending all these
messages to David Simmons about getting back with the wood,
so that they could sell the wood to the wood buyer.
(03:58):
He was coming at three fifteen pm on that day, yes,
so she needed him to be home because that's when
she collects the kids, right, So the boys were home
by then. What did this wood buyer see when he
turned up? That's that's what I want to know. Because
he couldn't communicate with David Simmons, or he or she
it could have been a female couldn't communicate with him
(04:19):
because his phone wasn't working. That's why he was communicating
with Amy, and Amy's trying to get the message through.
So I think I think police should be looking for
this wood buyer.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Do you know if the wood buyer has ever been contacted?
I mean, has there ever been a statement, a formal
statement taken from the wood buyer? No? No, At the moment,
it's a complete mystery figure.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yes, it is a complete mystery figure. But I think
that new task force, if they're going to be doing
their job properly and comprehensively, they need to find this
wood buyer.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Wouldn't the wood buyer's number be on Amy's phone?
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Correct? I gather they still have it, I mean more
the family have it, but maybe they should be getting
hold of it because obviously, as you know, they missed
the photo with the bruises too.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Mainly they did they did that was in the case
of photos on her phone that we found and they
said they'd lost it. It's interesting, isn't it. There's a
few different things, and to be fair, I mean, there
may be different things. I'm hoping, fingers crossed, there maybe
a lot of different things that this new team, this
new task for us, is looking at behind the scenes
(05:21):
they don't want us to know about and they don't
want other people to be aware of at all. And
that's a good thing. That's you know, obviously an investigative
strategy that they may be employing that you know, you
can't discuss every aspect of the case. And we hope,
we hope there may be a range of initiatives that
that team is performing at the moment that is way
(05:45):
way beyond what our imagination can conjure up that would
be helpful. I mean, we do know, for example, we've
come into contact Allison, as you know, in the last
couple of days, we've come into contact with a couple
of people who were so of Amy's, were friends of Amy's,
and they have told us that the police have taken statements,
(06:07):
been back to them again. This new team has been
back to them, taken new statements from them because they
had contact with Amy in literally in the days that
before she died, and that was as late or as
recently as of second week as September, not that long
(06:27):
ago at all, so that's very heartening. I was really
heartened to hear that. I thought, Okay, well, they've been
doing the footwork. They've been knocking on the doors, going
to people, trying to get fresh background on what happened
in the hours and days leading up to Amy's death.
So that gives me some hope.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Another bit of information that I've come across in Perth
that I wasn't aware of until today is Shelley Stanley.
Them finding Shelley Stanley because she has more information.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Who is Shelley's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Shelley Stanley is the or friend, an old friend of Amy's.
She only knew Amy because her former partner was friends
with David Simmons. So what had happened is they used
to go out and I remember I don't know if
he recalled, but anyway, she remembers the way that he
(07:20):
used to talk to her and was quite defensive. She
put in a statement to police about that, and he
accused her when she was trying to defend Amy, he
accused her of being or lesbian or something, you know,
like it was that sort of yeah, she said, and
I don't I'm going to tell you. I'm going to
do it in two ways in cases legaled out. So
(07:42):
first of all, she told a story about what the
boys used to get up to involving hunting. Now, what
I can tell you is that I used to go
pig hunting with it with just a knife, the three
of them, so that that's already on the record. But
what I wasn't aware of is that they would film
themselves slaughtering the pigs and then head back home and
(08:03):
make the girls watch it with them while they bring beers.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Which is a bit their partners.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a bit strange, right.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Yeah, I wouldn't think that's that sort of a normal
fraught autternoon fair for most blokes.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
I think it's significant because we talked about domestic violence, right,
And the reason I think it's significant is because they
have evidence of domestic violence witnesses. Even on that day
that Amy was being you know it was in a
violent physical altercation with David Simmons.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Well, you know, again to be fair, I mean that's
what police look at, don't they. That's what they in
their investigative sort of template. They look at patterns of
behavior and they can come from character as well as actions,
can't they. So you know, it's all part of that
mosaic that makes up the you know, the whole, the
whole case. There's no question mark is there that it
(08:58):
was a coercive relationship. I mean we know that from
first hand evidence given from Amy's mum, from her closest friends,
from those people around her at various times over the
sort of the one two preceding years. So I don't think,
I don't think, you know, that's not a question mark
at all. The question is is how far does that
(09:20):
behavior go?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Speaking of David simmons behavior, we saw a bit of
it this week because this was the week. The reason
I am in Perth is I came to the court hearing.
I was hoping to see the court hearing of the
allegations or the charges against David Simmons, one being the
most serious being assaulting a public officer, a police officer,
which he's pleaded not guilty to, also obstruct, which is
(09:44):
pleaded not guilty to. And there were two others which
he did I think was disorderly behavior and something else
a bit more minor that he has pleaded guilty to.
So lo and behold limb. We were down at the court.
I was down at the court very early, ready because
obviously last time we were there, he didn't necessarily expect
(10:04):
this last time, but he came quite early. So I
was there from seven point thirty waiting for him, and
he was due to be there by nine o'clock and
he didn't show up.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Didn't turn up, didn't turn up, no a no show.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yes, nobody is surprised about that, though.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well well, well yeah, okay, I'm still a bit surprised
because it's you know, it's a serious charge. It is
a serious charge, I mean, assaulting a public officer. And
last time he got a delay when we confronted him
last time, so this appearance was supposed to be that,
you know, sort of the ultimate appearance. So what happened
he didn't front were they court there.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Court doesn't like that, obviously. It's a waste of resources, time, money,
all that sort of thing. So they issued an arrest
warrant for him, and that would have been I don't
know about ten o'clock, eleven o'clock something like that. So
that was that. It was just like, even if he
did show up, it wouldn't proceed. So we were informed
of that and that was the case. So I stuck
around till about lunchtime, thinking, well, what's the point? I mean, yeah,
(11:05):
and by that stage everyone had kind of cleared off.
I wish I had stayed though, because it turns out
that he did turn up about two fifteen two thirty
that afternoon, and they just obviously withdrew the arrest warrant
and rescheduled it for the sixth of January.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
For the sixth of January, so they just push it forward.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, so he's got Christmas out.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So what happens in the interim, as you say, I mean,
very important. He's pled not guilty, But what happens to
public safety like this is, you know, forget David Simmons
for a while. I mean, this is another issue. I guess.
I don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole,
but that's the bench warrants. I mean, we're just treating
the court as a joke, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Well, there's no real ramifications, is there. And funnily enough,
I looked at some of his other charges which you
would have seen on as well, and some of those
include driving without a license, fraudulent number plates. You know,
different cook pretty minor comparatively, like we're not talking about
(12:11):
assault of public officer is a serious offense. But you know,
just bearing in mind that he pleaded not guilty. We
are aware that he has been convicted of assaulting a
police officer before, and he served nine months for that.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Certainly has well, let's just go through a few here
we go, no authority to drive, disqualified from holding or obtaining,
used an unlicensed vehicle on a road. See another offense.
Drove caused or permitted a vehicle with a forged, replica
or false plate to be driven on a road, Breach
of bail. As you say, assaulting the public officer, that's
the current charge. He's pled, not guilty. Obstructing public officers
(12:48):
not guilty, that's still to be decided. Disorderly behavior in public.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Yes, we saw in the next day driving a vehicle.
I don't know about the number plates, but we do
not he doesn't have a license, So straight away he's backbreaking,
aw incredible in everything that I can see, he is
untouchable incredible.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
So what do we got? Just coming back to the
sort of important leads that have been given that we
know of, that we know of, and as I say,
I hope there's some that we don't know of, but
the things that have been also communicated to us, Well,
let's go back to the Joshua Brdon information because surely
that's going to be a focal point for the new
(13:30):
team that's been put together to reinvestigate the case. Wouldn't
you think, just off the top of your head, that
information about Joshua Brdon that was given by a third
party is very interesting.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
It is. There are a couple of things with that one.
Joshua Brden maintains that he did not say anything like
this and that he wasn't there on the.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Night, so he insists it's just rubbish.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
But in this case, there is also a message to
the person who remembers him saying this, which says in
twenty eight says he recalls finding his best mate's wife,
who was like a sister to him, with her quote
head blown off.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Everything he said to the coroner and the police. He
wasn't supposed to be there. He's not there.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Yes, well, he maintains he wasn't there. But as we
pointed out in the timeline, there is issues with the
timeline because he says he recalls getting a message at
four forty seven or four forty eight from his mate
Kid when he was leaving, But then he also says
in his evidence that he saw David Simmons put the
(14:33):
girls in the car, but that didn't happen until after five.
Amy died around ten past five.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Yeah, the timeline doesn't make sense for him. But also
if he writes that in a message, that doesn't make
sense either. How can he not get that out of
his head? That visual picture of Amy as he puts it,
her head blown off if he's not there to see it.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
There is a lot of inconsistencies with the evidence. And yeah,
as would be in a lot of cases, right, I mean,
this isn't rare, no.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
No, this is where this is how cases go.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Well, that's right, but as you know, with briefs of evidence,
they'll do up a whole brief and then they'll put
a little cover sheet on the front and say dear
Director of Public Prosecutions, we believe there's enough evidence to
go forward, or we don't believe there's enough evidence to
go forward, and then that's it. How much power or
(15:29):
influence does that little cover letter have do you think?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Oh? I think a lot, Yeah, I think a lot.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
These to me are the indisputable facts, the factual based
evidence not circumstantial by three biomechanical experts in Amy's death
was highly consistent with her not killing herself and someone
else shooting her. Every crime reconstruction has limitations, but this
is also based on her capacity to shoot herself with
either hand and the people that were actually there, which
(16:04):
I still find quite troubling that more weight isn't given
to those three uniform police officers who were there first
on scene had an argument with the detectives, saying that
she wouldn't have been able to shoot herself like that
was there, you know. So I just still think and
that's been backed up by the biomechanical experts. So that's
(16:26):
new evidence that previously not considered. Photo of Amy with
bruises around her neck crimary construction by Scott rohder Renee
mckeirne's snitch message on Amy's anniversary with David Simmons, not
as a couple, but in his presence when she posted
on Rachel's Facebook page on the anniversary of Amy's death.
Suicideologist evidence on how likely or unlikely Amy's death was
(16:49):
a suicide, taking in all information of the pack car,
daughter strapped in the backseat, where she was found, method
of death, etc. A doctor or mental health expert providing
evidence to discuss how extensive the use of cetellopran is
and how common the docy Jamie was or uncommon. They
should also discuss the side effects of someone who suddenly
stops taking cetelepran and the effects of methamphetamine and excessive
(17:11):
alcohol use on a person's behavior. Statements from several witnesses
saying Bridon says he never forgot and also his message
in relation to that.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
That's significant, right, Oh yeah, yeah, well absolutely you'd think so,
will you? Now? Look, if people want to send us
a letter, what's the address?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
It is the Truth about Amy or one Word at
seven dot com dot AU.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Okay, So, Evelyn says, Hi, guys, I've been listening to
the podcast as episodes are released each week. Everlyn says
I was home when my father killed my mum. Pretty
horrific story.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
It is so that the home she's in is where
her father killed her mum.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
She says. We are about to hit the twenty three
year mark this Saturday, twenty third anniversary, and although a
lot of time has passed, I can tell you my
mom wasn't fighting my dad. She was begging. My mum
was pleading. She was offering the future graduations and weddings
of their kids, grandkids that have one day, whatever she
could to de escalate the situation. We know leaving is
(18:16):
the most dangerous time for a woman, and not only that,
but my mum and Amy both had kids they needed
to protect too. And thank you Evelyn for sharing that
with us. I can imagine it's been pretty difficult for
you for.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's so sad. Oh, Evelyn, thank you so much for
sharing that with us. And I am just horrified for
what has happened. And I'm glad that you're okay, and
I feel my condolence is to your mom. It's just
a horrible thing. And I find there's a bit of
double standard sometimes when you're interpreting the evidence that in
(18:54):
that case it's turned against Amy in a way that
fits the narrative as opposed to just what is more likely.
And that's why I think it's really really important that
you have external experts, you have people who are qualified
in these areas rather than anyone, because it's not well
with everyone, right. Everyone has their own they're brought up
(19:17):
in a culture or an environment, and they have, whether
they like it or not, they have different ways that
they interpret things based on their own upbringing.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
And the trouble is too, that a lot of people
put themselves in this position. When they're thinking about it,
they think about what they would do, and that's really
that's tragically wrong, Alison, because that's the reason you need
these experts is because they are trained and proficient at
thinking about what that particular person physically is capable of
(19:49):
and also culturally mentally. You know, according to a lot
of things gender included would potentially do not do you
know what I mean? Not put your own template us
somebody externally. So there's a lot of different variables, isn't there,
Speaking of which you know, what I am looking forward
to down the track is to have a chat to
Laura Richards. She's a crime analyst of some note isn't
(20:12):
she based overseas, But she's been following this case.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yes, very closely, as she did with Marion Barter. And
she is amazing and she's very good in the criminal
behavioral and analytical sphere, in certainly with Rick Blum in
Marion Barter's case. You know, just the way you'd answer
questions and things like that, and as you always say,
no skin in the game, and that's really important too, write.
(20:38):
I really do find the external analysts and you know,
they're putting their name, their reputation, everything on the line.
They want to get it right and they have the
experience to do so that. You know, when I was
talking about the suicidologists, right, we can talk about you know,
police officers come across suicide all the time, right, so
(21:00):
do lots of us in journalism. But the reality is
these sociologists, like what Michael Barnes said, there are hundreds
of thousands of cases that they look at and the
same with Laura. So Laura is going to be amazing.
And you know her credibility, the involvement she's had with
(21:22):
you know, implementing or getting implemented coercive control laws in Australia.
I mean, she's just really a lot of influence.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
She's brilliant. I mean I think you know, she'd probably
be one of the best criminal behavioral analysts going around. Absolutely, So, No,
that'll be fascinating. I'm really looking forward to that. We
should mention again to that petition because it's really if
someone's listening and they haven't signed it, well.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
I was, I'm thinking maybe I was going to mention
that now that it is going to the DPP. Depending
on what happens there, we may need to like if
the DPP, who knows what's going to happen, right, Well,
that's the problem. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing that
we still have. But but there are different things that
will update on. What we do need to tell people about, though,
(22:11):
is the Silent March coming up organized by the Center
for Women's Safety in Perth on the twenty fifth of November,
the thirty fourth March against Domestic and Family Violence.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Yeah, I couldn't believe that the thirty fourth March. There's
no way I would have thought that would have been
as many as that. So it just goes to show you,
doesn't it. It's very much more on the radar now though. Yeah,
And absolutely, there'll be people there marching. I think they're
marching from basically the city, aren't they from Forest Place
up to Parliament House in Perth? So you know that's yeah,
(22:44):
as you say, twenty fifth of November. So that's going
to be a very good focal point for Amy's case
because a lot of Amy's family and friends and supporters
will be there and anyone is encouraged to come along
and wear pink support.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Amy, Amy's favorite color. You weren't here last week, Liam,
But Tom Percy said something to me I was not expecting,
or said something to both him and I should say,
and I was not expecting this about the domestic violence.
What he witnesses is that domestic violence is worse now
(23:20):
than it ever has been. And the reason he says
he believes that to be the case is methamphetamine.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Really his position that it's worse now than it's ever been.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yet his experienced being in the courts, obviously being legal
system for such a long time, he says it's worse
now than ever. See.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
That's that's disappointing, isn't it. I mean absolutely Tom sees
the worst of it coming and going in every walk
of life and with incredibly well well experienced Tom you know,
I mean, he really is up there in terms of
street behavior. So for him to say that's that's quite shocking,
isn't it. It's a terrible drug. I mean, it's not
(24:03):
many drugs that are good drugs, but that is a shocker,
isn't it? In terms of behavioral change, and you know,
getting the worst out of people. Meth is it's not
number one, it's certainly in the top three. That march
is organized by the Center for Women's Safety in Perth,
and yes, so just in case you want to get
(24:23):
in touch with them, But twenty fifth of November just
just another reminder that'll be good.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It will be good, so we'll send people out there. Also,
we'll obviously be covering if David Simmons turns up to
his new hearing into assaulting public officer allegedly in January,
the January the sixth, twenty five, so that there's that
coming up as well. And look, I have to say now, Liam,
(24:54):
as I look back and everything that's happened. I mean,
we launched on the twenty th June this year, it's
now November.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
It feels like, Look, I've got to say this the
whole sort of saga. And I think we touched on
this when we talked to Xanthi Mallet, because she made
the point that it's not a cold case in her
opinion and the way the whole definition of cold case goes.
I mean, I'm not trying to be technical here, Don't
(25:21):
get me wrong, I'm not being playing semantics. But what
was really interesting about her expression about that is that
it's not a case that has been decided and then
brought back up or do you know what I mean,
There's been no sort of it is fright from the start.
It has been a case with a huge question mark
on it, and it's quite fresh in terms of history.
(25:45):
It's twenty ten years old, so during that whole the
way it's been structured, it's not a cold case at all.
It's a current case and we know there's a current
team investigating it. So I just think it's amazing. Al
we've been going now since the twenty third of June,
so it's five solid months, five solid months, a lot
(26:05):
of episodes, structured episodes of the podcast, and then obviously
conversations like this where we have a chat and you know,
go back over a few bits and pieces and try
and sort of keep the home fires burning. But we've
still got a couple of episodes to come, going back
to a more structured podcast episode, how we can reintroduce
some of those new leads and new ideas and things
that have happened, some of those developments. But you see,
(26:28):
there's an amazing amount of water under the bridge already,
isn't there just in those five months.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
It feels like it's painfully slow. Said that, but it
really isn't when you look at what has actually happened
in that five months. I mean, we've gone from I
don't know if we've really had much, you know, sort
of flat fanfare from w plice and what they were doing.
(26:53):
But we did get you know, pretty early on, I
think it was, you know, that they would be reinvestigating
the new lead. So that was probably about a month
ago that they announced a team that would be reinvestigating
this case. So that's really significant. And then the team
turned into a task force. That's right, and now they're
(27:14):
going to provide a brief to the DVP, which was
obviously very big for us that that was going to happen.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Yeah, but you know, nothing happens in a vacuum, and
they haven't done anything without being pushed. Let's be honest,
and you can't have hundreds of thousands of people downloading
the podcast and saying yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, we
can see what you can see. We see the suspicions
that you see. We're not making it up. We don't
have to make it up. Truth is stranger than fiction.
(27:41):
And this case is a classic. This case is that cliche,
isn't it all over writ large? So the police really
had no choice. And don't get me wrong, I'm not
not giving them credit. I'll give them full credit when
the thing is finished, when it's fixed, when some charges
have been laid somewhere, because you know, bad thing should
not go unpunished, right, so the whole meaning of the
(28:03):
word justice. You know, let's let's be real about this,
so you know, let's talk about other cliches. The expression
kicking and screaming is perfect for this as well, because
that's what's happened. That's how we've got to this stage.
That team has been set up because they've been pushed
into it kicking and screaming, and some of them are
(28:23):
still screaming rather than concentrating on the brief, but that's
you know, that's another story.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
The proof is in the pudding, though, isn't it. Because
we all sit here now, aren't we. We're kind of
sitting here with clenched fists, and just is it going
to be done properly? That's that's the problem, to be
able to put your faith wholeheartedly in that. Obviously, we've
got evidence that was there at the time that wasn't
interrogated properly. So there's also that it's not just a
(28:50):
new evidence, and that's frustrating because if it's not interrogated properly,
and the same with this new evidence, then you have
to find more new evidence because they say, oh, no,
we looked at that, and we're like, nah.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
No, it's the application now, that's what you're talking about.
And I think that it's just the general sense of
the public, you know, being let up the garden path,
and people get it. They get it. Even the hierarchy
at the police headquarters they don't give people enough credit
for just injecting a bit of common sense and looking
at the case and going something's not right there. Mate.
(29:24):
It doesn't pass the pub test. I mean just a
few days ago, you know, you and I have been
to you, and I've been to a pub where Amy
used to work, right in the heartland of where we're talking,
all the local community, and those people still now they've
got signs up in support of her. They've got even
a little shrine there for Amy. You know, it's lovely.
(29:45):
I mean, they've got supportive posters up for the podcast
to try to show that they support, you know. I mean,
it's not about us, it's not about you and me.
It's just I'm just saying, you know, they are trying
to do everything they can at their level to show
support because guess what, all the people who are running
the place, people who are working at the place, people
who come in to have a drink, they get it,
(30:07):
and they read all about the bits and pieces over
the years they knew her. It's not difficult. So if
the application to this case is made right, and then
after the interrogation as you put it, you know, for
bits and pieces, and the whole thing is teased out
properly as it should have been in the first place,
then if someone turns around say you know what, it's
(30:29):
a genuine mystery, then maybe people will say, okay, well
we can see what you know, you can plainly see
what you've done and how you've done it, and you
know you've clearly given this the right application. But don't
treat us like idiots and then pretend that it's a
conclusion that suits your you know, the sort of tail
(30:52):
wagging the dog, so you can put the file in
the bottom drawer and wash your hands and say that's it,
tick the box, case closed, because that just wouldn't be right.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
You know, for the first time, when we went out
to Armadale for the first time, I actually understood a
little bit more about what this environment where the way
Amy lived. The interesting thing was is that even though
everyone was upset and emotional and outraged, they weren't surprised either, right,
(31:33):
either are our listeners. They're not surprised. And that's sad.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's sad. It is sad because that area has been
plagued by a high crime rate over the past years
for both petty theft and breaking enters. And I guess
you know, you could say minor assaults, you know, crimes
related to sort of violent acts in one way or
the other, and I think you know you tend to
(32:00):
so it's the boiling frog argument. Doesn't it. You grow
up in that environment, you just tend to think, oh, well,
you know, that's just what we get. That's sort of
how it rolls. And if police turn up at the
odd event and you know, they don't necessarily do their
homework as they should have, it's sort of like, oh yeah, okay,
that's a volume argument because they're jaded and they don't
really want to be there as well, and so on
(32:22):
and so forth, and that's the atmosphere that you sort
of then think, oh, well, you know, we probably we
sort of we get what we deserve, but it shouldn't
be like that at all. And that's been if we
go full circle to when we first started the podcast,
you know, in the first couple of episodes, where we
explored that didn't we that sort of concept.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Even when those two officers were wrapped over the knuckles,
they were told that they did the wrong thing, but
there wasn't a lot of weight given even though they
did the wrong thing. The implication was that it would
have been the same outcome anyway, hadn't they not done
the wrong thing, because it was su sight well.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
I think it was a deep Hopefully it's not around
as much now, but who knows. That's another argument. That's
another podcast, I think, And I think there's a bit
of an Ingrain culture among you know, certainly among certain
members of major crime in Western Australia twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen,
twenty thirteen. Look at those that particular period. You know,
(33:21):
there was a lot of people who were doing their
utmost to make sure they were all looked after internally.
But you know, if there were external problems, the shutters
would come down and that would be the end of it.
Quite a few cases out that you could go through
actually to mention problems with around about that time. Okay,
it's interesting, but as I say, that's an another story.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
It is. And look, I know I usually do these
for an hour and I've lost track of time, but
I just every time you talk about this, it gives
me another question. But one of the things, Yes, so
with the inquest, you've got to remember also they went
into that in quest with the whole idea that Amy
shot herself with the left hand, but then of course
with the with the burn mark that came from the
(34:02):
muzzle because it was plastic or whatever remnants and remember
lock Art's principles. We'll get back to that, So which
shows that you know that that was with the muzzle
and that she couldn't have used that, And so then
they go straight to the right hand. Why don't you
consider the point that she just didn't do it. Yeah, yeah,
that's the other issue with that.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
Well, that's what I'm saying about the end justifying the means.
You know, it's the tail wagon the dog, and I
think that's the way they've done this whole thing. It's
like playing snakes and ladders, but backwards, isn't it. Everything
sort of tried. They try to make it fit. Yeah,
we know that the two detectives. It took five years,
but they they were found to be negligent in their duty.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Yeah, negligent in your duty, but not wrong. So my
I guess my concern with that is they were negligent
in their duty by calling off the forensics, but the
result of them calling off the forensics isn't different to
what the result would have been anyway. That is the
impression that you're left with when you look at what happened.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yeah, but it's wheeze all words, isn't it. Because if
you're negligent, you haven't done your job. Properly. That's what
that means. So if you haven't done your job properly,
and the job is to figure out whether there's a
murder scene or what's happened, the whole thing goes up
in smoke. This comes back to the whole point of
how important a good police service is because when things
(35:24):
go wrong, you are absolutely one hundred percent reliant upon them.
You are so dependent. And I'm talking about all of us,
you know, every one of us. If we haven't forbid
found ourselves in that situation, we are beholden to, you know,
to their actions and their and their serviceability and their
concept of duty and loyalty. You know, we are literally
(35:48):
sort of left, you know, there's nobody else. That's it.
That's it. That's sort of the start and the end
when those people turn up.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
But it's not all. I it's not a case of
that's that's the end. We can't get justice now, Oh no,
not at all.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
I mean, that's that's that's it. It's just a lot
more difficult. Yeah, but that's no, it's no solace is
it to Amy's family.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Well, on that note, I want to thank you Liam
and Tim. You're out there and we will speak to
you soon. I feel like I'm, you know, speaking to
somebody who's a long way away. But you're only at
court at the Rebellau case, which is fascinating.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Yeah, that's an amazing case. But Tim spends most of
his time down at the Supreme Court. I don't know
if his family ever gets to see him, but he's
been he's been great for us.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Oh he has well, he does. They do shut the
court sometimes so he has to come home.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Oh really, really, I thought one of those camp stretches
down there. He's believable.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
He is. No, he's amazing. And we'll obviously continue working
with Tim on this. But like with anything that this important,
this big, it takes a lot of people. You don't
work in a silo.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
No, exactly, exactly. Well, Well done to you well for
continuing to portion directing traffic in it, because it's not easy.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
I've got to keep going like there's no you know,
we'll be back in the new year with season two,
and we have a few more standalone episodes which are
coming up, which they're going to be absolutely fantastic, really
really strong. So I'll be calling you to do some
more voice before the end of the year I am,
but they're really good and of course Laura Richards so
(37:25):
we'll catch up with her soon. So thank you and
wishing everybody all our listener it's a very wonderful festive season.
As I said, you'll have more episodes after this, but
I'm just going to say goodbye because obviously the conversations
is a bit more, you know, talking directly to you.
So thank you for your support. We can't do this
(37:47):
without you, and come down to the March, the Silent
March on the twenty fifth of November. We're pink in
support for Amy.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Thank you, and just a final word, wishing the new
investigative team looking at this case a safe and prosperous
and I mean that in every sense of the word.
A prosperous new year. I think so
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):
Hello, Welcome to the tenth installment of Conversations and the
last one for the year.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Liam, Welcome Allison. It's been a long journey, hasn't it
it has.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I am in Perth with Liam and Tim. I saw
Tim earlier, but unfortunately Tim has got stuck in that
Rebello trial, which is fascinating, right.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
That is an interesting case Cracker.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Also the fact that the friends were stuffed up in
that case too.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
It's interesting, isn't it? But not as interesting as the
case that we've been looking at for all these past
weeks months. And we live in hope that the new team,
as they call it, the new investigative Team, the task
force that they've put into place, looking at the new
leads that they have. Now. I know there's been some
conjecture on this, even from within police ranks. There are
(01:17):
still some policemen I don't think police women, but I'm
willing to bet that there are still some policemen in
senior ranks who don't treat and are not treating, at
least mentally, some of these pieces of information as new
leads on Amy's case. Now, whether or not that is
(01:37):
a mental block that they have because they don't want
to for various reasons over the course of the journey,
because they're involved in the case on various levels, that's
a matter of conjecture. But can I just say to
you anyone, anyone with an investigative background who is not
treating the pieces of information that have been brought to
(01:58):
light through this podcast and through some of our very
loyal listeners and people who have been prepared to ring
crime stoppers and do the right thing after all these years,
give for whatever information they've had, whatever information they think
could be valuable to police to consider. If there are
still people who don't think they constitute solid new leads,
(02:23):
I'm sorry, but they're living on another planet.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well not just leads, but evidence.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I'm treating that as the same thing. It's a lead,
it's evidence, it's you know, it's material information, Allison.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yes, exactly. And I think it's just really important that
we look at everything. Yeah, I mean, we talk about
an open mind and open mind is an interesting conceptism
that when people say open mind, because I think anybody
who was involved with the case in the early stages
(02:54):
shouldn't be working on it now.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
No, I agree with that. I agree with that. I
think they have a lot of copy book in that sense.
I mean they've shown that they have a very narrow
view of what took place or the possibilities, permutations, combinations
of what may have happened may not have happened. So
I think let's just push them to the sideline. They
can spend their time happily thinking about other things. But
(03:18):
I think for Amy and for Amy's family, especially for
her two girls, we have to have an open mind.
As you say, it's an open book at this stage.
In fact, the coroner said it was an open finding,
so I think that's pretty consistent. So we know that
homicide is certainly on the table.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Yes, absolutely, Look, I've been speaking to other people as well,
legal people. One of them has talked about now and
a lot of our listeners up to finding the wood buyer,
right the wood buyer who Amy was sending all these
messages to David Simmons about getting back with the wood,
so that they could sell the wood to the wood buyer.
(03:58):
He was coming at three fifteen pm on that day, yes,
so she needed him to be home because that's when
she collects the kids, right, So the boys were home
by then. What did this wood buyer see when he
turned up? That's that's what I want to know. Because
he couldn't communicate with David Simmons, or he or she
it could have been a female couldn't communicate with him
(04:19):
because his phone wasn't working. That's why he was communicating
with Amy, and Amy's trying to get the message through.
So I think I think police should be looking for
this wood buyer.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Do you know if the wood buyer has ever been contacted?
I mean, has there ever been a statement, a formal
statement taken from the wood buyer? No? No, At the moment,
it's a complete mystery figure.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yes, it is a complete mystery figure. But I think
that new task force, if they're going to be doing
their job properly and comprehensively, they need to find this
wood buyer.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Wouldn't the wood buyer's number be on Amy's phone?
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Correct? I gather they still have it, I mean more
the family have it, but maybe they should be getting
hold of it because obviously, as you know, they missed
the photo with the bruises too.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Mainly they did they did that was in the case
of photos on her phone that we found and they
said they'd lost it. It's interesting, isn't it. There's a
few different things, and to be fair, I mean, there
may be different things. I'm hoping, fingers crossed, there maybe
a lot of different things that this new team, this
new task for us, is looking at behind the scenes
(05:21):
they don't want us to know about and they don't
want other people to be aware of at all. And
that's a good thing. That's you know, obviously an investigative
strategy that they may be employing that you know, you
can't discuss every aspect of the case. And we hope,
we hope there may be a range of initiatives that
that team is performing at the moment that is way
(05:45):
way beyond what our imagination can conjure up that would
be helpful. I mean, we do know, for example, we've
come into contact Allison, as you know, in the last
couple of days, we've come into contact with a couple
of people who were so of Amy's, were friends of Amy's,
and they have told us that the police have taken statements,
(06:07):
been back to them again. This new team has been
back to them, taken new statements from them because they
had contact with Amy in literally in the days that
before she died, and that was as late or as
recently as of second week as September, not that long
(06:27):
ago at all, so that's very heartening. I was really
heartened to hear that. I thought, Okay, well, they've been
doing the footwork. They've been knocking on the doors, going
to people, trying to get fresh background on what happened
in the hours and days leading up to Amy's death.
So that gives me some hope.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Another bit of information that I've come across in Perth
that I wasn't aware of until today is Shelley Stanley.
Them finding Shelley Stanley because she has more information.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Who is Shelley's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Shelley Stanley is the or friend, an old friend of Amy's.
She only knew Amy because her former partner was friends
with David Simmons. So what had happened is they used
to go out and I remember I don't know if
he recalled, but anyway, she remembers the way that he
(07:20):
used to talk to her and was quite defensive. She
put in a statement to police about that, and he
accused her when she was trying to defend Amy, he
accused her of being or lesbian or something, you know,
like it was that sort of yeah, she said, and
I don't I'm going to tell you. I'm going to
do it in two ways in cases legaled out. So
(07:42):
first of all, she told a story about what the
boys used to get up to involving hunting. Now, what
I can tell you is that I used to go
pig hunting with it with just a knife, the three
of them, so that that's already on the record. But
what I wasn't aware of is that they would film
themselves slaughtering the pigs and then head back home and
(08:03):
make the girls watch it with them while they bring beers.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Which is a bit their partners.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a bit strange, right.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Yeah, I wouldn't think that's that sort of a normal
fraught autternoon fair for most blokes.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
I think it's significant because we talked about domestic violence, right,
And the reason I think it's significant is because they
have evidence of domestic violence witnesses. Even on that day
that Amy was being you know it was in a
violent physical altercation with David Simmons.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Well, you know, again to be fair, I mean that's
what police look at, don't they. That's what they in
their investigative sort of template. They look at patterns of
behavior and they can come from character as well as actions,
can't they. So you know, it's all part of that
mosaic that makes up the you know, the whole, the
whole case. There's no question mark is there that it
(08:58):
was a coercive relationship. I mean we know that from
first hand evidence given from Amy's mum, from her closest friends,
from those people around her at various times over the
sort of the one two preceding years. So I don't think,
I don't think, you know, that's not a question mark
at all. The question is is how far does that
(09:20):
behavior go?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Speaking of David simmons behavior, we saw a bit of
it this week because this was the week. The reason
I am in Perth is I came to the court hearing.
I was hoping to see the court hearing of the
allegations or the charges against David Simmons, one being the
most serious being assaulting a public officer, a police officer,
which he's pleaded not guilty to, also obstruct, which is
(09:44):
pleaded not guilty to. And there were two others which
he did I think was disorderly behavior and something else
a bit more minor that he has pleaded guilty to.
So lo and behold limb. We were down at the court.
I was down at the court very early, ready because
obviously last time we were there, he didn't necessarily expect
(10:04):
this last time, but he came quite early. So I
was there from seven point thirty waiting for him, and
he was due to be there by nine o'clock and
he didn't show up.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Didn't turn up, didn't turn up, no a no show.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yes, nobody is surprised about that, though.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well well, well yeah, okay, I'm still a bit surprised
because it's you know, it's a serious charge. It is
a serious charge, I mean, assaulting a public officer. And
last time he got a delay when we confronted him
last time, so this appearance was supposed to be that,
you know, sort of the ultimate appearance. So what happened
he didn't front were they court there.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Court doesn't like that, obviously. It's a waste of resources, time, money,
all that sort of thing. So they issued an arrest
warrant for him, and that would have been I don't
know about ten o'clock, eleven o'clock something like that. So
that was that. It was just like, even if he
did show up, it wouldn't proceed. So we were informed
of that and that was the case. So I stuck
around till about lunchtime, thinking, well, what's the point? I mean, yeah,
(11:05):
and by that stage everyone had kind of cleared off.
I wish I had stayed though, because it turns out
that he did turn up about two fifteen two thirty
that afternoon, and they just obviously withdrew the arrest warrant
and rescheduled it for the sixth of January.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
For the sixth of January, so they just push it forward.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, so he's got Christmas out.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
So what happens in the interim, as you say, I mean,
very important. He's pled not guilty, But what happens to
public safety like this is, you know, forget David Simmons
for a while. I mean, this is another issue. I guess.
I don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole,
but that's the bench warrants. I mean, we're just treating
the court as a joke, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Well, there's no real ramifications, is there. And funnily enough,
I looked at some of his other charges which you
would have seen on as well, and some of those
include driving without a license, fraudulent number plates. You know,
different cook pretty minor comparatively, like we're not talking about
(12:11):
assault of public officer is a serious offense. But you know,
just bearing in mind that he pleaded not guilty. We
are aware that he has been convicted of assaulting a
police officer before, and he served nine months for that.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Certainly has well, let's just go through a few here
we go, no authority to drive, disqualified from holding or obtaining,
used an unlicensed vehicle on a road. See another offense.
Drove caused or permitted a vehicle with a forged, replica
or false plate to be driven on a road, Breach
of bail. As you say, assaulting the public officer, that's
the current charge. He's pled, not guilty. Obstructing public officers
(12:48):
not guilty, that's still to be decided. Disorderly behavior in public.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Yes, we saw in the next day driving a vehicle.
I don't know about the number plates, but we do
not he doesn't have a license, So straight away he's backbreaking,
aw incredible in everything that I can see, he is
untouchable incredible.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
So what do we got? Just coming back to the
sort of important leads that have been given that we
know of, that we know of, and as I say,
I hope there's some that we don't know of, but
the things that have been also communicated to us, Well,
let's go back to the Joshua Brdon information because surely
that's going to be a focal point for the new
(13:30):
team that's been put together to reinvestigate the case. Wouldn't
you think, just off the top of your head, that
information about Joshua Brdon that was given by a third
party is very interesting.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
It is. There are a couple of things with that one.
Joshua Brden maintains that he did not say anything like
this and that he wasn't there on the.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Night, so he insists it's just rubbish.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
But in this case, there is also a message to
the person who remembers him saying this, which says in
twenty eight says he recalls finding his best mate's wife,
who was like a sister to him, with her quote
head blown off.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Everything he said to the coroner and the police. He
wasn't supposed to be there. He's not there.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Yes, well, he maintains he wasn't there. But as we
pointed out in the timeline, there is issues with the
timeline because he says he recalls getting a message at
four forty seven or four forty eight from his mate
Kid when he was leaving, But then he also says
in his evidence that he saw David Simmons put the
(14:33):
girls in the car, but that didn't happen until after five.
Amy died around ten past five.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Yeah, the timeline doesn't make sense for him. But also
if he writes that in a message, that doesn't make
sense either. How can he not get that out of
his head? That visual picture of Amy as he puts it,
her head blown off if he's not there to see it.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
There is a lot of inconsistencies with the evidence. And yeah,
as would be in a lot of cases, right, I mean,
this isn't rare, no.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
No, this is where this is how cases go.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Well, that's right, but as you know, with briefs of evidence,
they'll do up a whole brief and then they'll put
a little cover sheet on the front and say dear
Director of Public Prosecutions, we believe there's enough evidence to
go forward, or we don't believe there's enough evidence to
go forward, and then that's it. How much power or
(15:29):
influence does that little cover letter have do you think?
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Oh? I think a lot, Yeah, I think a lot.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
These to me are the indisputable facts, the factual based
evidence not circumstantial by three biomechanical experts in Amy's death
was highly consistent with her not killing herself and someone
else shooting her. Every crime reconstruction has limitations, but this
is also based on her capacity to shoot herself with
either hand and the people that were actually there, which
(16:04):
I still find quite troubling that more weight isn't given
to those three uniform police officers who were there first
on scene had an argument with the detectives, saying that
she wouldn't have been able to shoot herself like that
was there, you know. So I just still think and
that's been backed up by the biomechanical experts. So that's
(16:26):
new evidence that previously not considered. Photo of Amy with
bruises around her neck crimary construction by Scott rohder Renee
mckeirne's snitch message on Amy's anniversary with David Simmons, not
as a couple, but in his presence when she posted
on Rachel's Facebook page on the anniversary of Amy's death.
Suicideologist evidence on how likely or unlikely Amy's death was
(16:49):
a suicide, taking in all information of the pack car,
daughter strapped in the backseat, where she was found, method
of death, etc. A doctor or mental health expert providing
evidence to discuss how extensive the use of cetellopran is
and how common the docy Jamie was or uncommon. They
should also discuss the side effects of someone who suddenly
stops taking cetelepran and the effects of methamphetamine and excessive
(17:11):
alcohol use on a person's behavior. Statements from several witnesses
saying Bridon says he never forgot and also his message
in relation to that.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
That's significant, right, Oh yeah, yeah, well absolutely you'd think so,
will you? Now? Look, if people want to send us
a letter, what's the address?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
It is the Truth about Amy or one Word at
seven dot com dot AU.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Okay, So, Evelyn says, Hi, guys, I've been listening to
the podcast as episodes are released each week. Everlyn says
I was home when my father killed my mum. Pretty
horrific story.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
It is so that the home she's in is where
her father killed her mum.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
She says. We are about to hit the twenty three
year mark this Saturday, twenty third anniversary, and although a
lot of time has passed, I can tell you my
mom wasn't fighting my dad. She was begging. My mum
was pleading. She was offering the future graduations and weddings
of their kids, grandkids that have one day, whatever she
could to de escalate the situation. We know leaving is
(18:16):
the most dangerous time for a woman, and not only that,
but my mum and Amy both had kids they needed
to protect too. And thank you Evelyn for sharing that
with us. I can imagine it's been pretty difficult for
you for.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's so sad. Oh, Evelyn, thank you so much for
sharing that with us. And I am just horrified for
what has happened. And I'm glad that you're okay, and
I feel my condolence is to your mom. It's just
a horrible thing. And I find there's a bit of
double standard sometimes when you're interpreting the evidence that in
(18:54):
that case it's turned against Amy in a way that
fits the narrative as opposed to just what is more likely.
And that's why I think it's really really important that
you have external experts, you have people who are qualified
in these areas rather than anyone, because it's not well
with everyone, right. Everyone has their own they're brought up
(19:17):
in a culture or an environment, and they have, whether
they like it or not, they have different ways that
they interpret things based on their own upbringing.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
And the trouble is too, that a lot of people
put themselves in this position. When they're thinking about it,
they think about what they would do, and that's really
that's tragically wrong, Alison, because that's the reason you need
these experts is because they are trained and proficient at
thinking about what that particular person physically is capable of
(19:49):
and also culturally mentally. You know, according to a lot
of things gender included would potentially do not do you
know what I mean? Not put your own template us
somebody externally. So there's a lot of different variables, isn't there,
Speaking of which you know, what I am looking forward
to down the track is to have a chat to
Laura Richards. She's a crime analyst of some note isn't
(20:12):
she based overseas, But she's been following this case.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Yes, very closely, as she did with Marion Barter. And
she is amazing and she's very good in the criminal
behavioral and analytical sphere, in certainly with Rick Blum in
Marion Barter's case. You know, just the way you'd answer
questions and things like that, and as you always say,
no skin in the game, and that's really important too, write.
(20:38):
I really do find the external analysts and you know,
they're putting their name, their reputation, everything on the line.
They want to get it right and they have the
experience to do so that. You know, when I was
talking about the suicidologists, right, we can talk about you know,
police officers come across suicide all the time, right, so
(21:00):
do lots of us in journalism. But the reality is
these sociologists, like what Michael Barnes said, there are hundreds
of thousands of cases that they look at and the
same with Laura. So Laura is going to be amazing.
And you know her credibility, the involvement she's had with
(21:22):
you know, implementing or getting implemented coercive control laws in Australia.
I mean, she's just really a lot of influence.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
She's brilliant. I mean I think you know, she'd probably
be one of the best criminal behavioral analysts going around. Absolutely, So, No,
that'll be fascinating. I'm really looking forward to that. We
should mention again to that petition because it's really if
someone's listening and they haven't signed it, well.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
I was, I'm thinking maybe I was going to mention
that now that it is going to the DPP. Depending
on what happens there, we may need to like if
the DPP, who knows what's going to happen, right, Well,
that's the problem. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing that
we still have. But but there are different things that
will update on. What we do need to tell people about, though,
(22:11):
is the Silent March coming up organized by the Center
for Women's Safety in Perth on the twenty fifth of November,
the thirty fourth March against Domestic and Family Violence.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Yeah, I couldn't believe that the thirty fourth March. There's
no way I would have thought that would have been
as many as that. So it just goes to show you,
doesn't it. It's very much more on the radar now though. Yeah,
And absolutely, there'll be people there marching. I think they're
marching from basically the city, aren't they from Forest Place
up to Parliament House in Perth? So you know that's yeah,
(22:44):
as you say, twenty fifth of November. So that's going
to be a very good focal point for Amy's case
because a lot of Amy's family and friends and supporters
will be there and anyone is encouraged to come along
and wear pink support.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Amy, Amy's favorite color. You weren't here last week, Liam,
But Tom Percy said something to me I was not expecting,
or said something to both him and I should say,
and I was not expecting this about the domestic violence.
What he witnesses is that domestic violence is worse now
(23:20):
than it ever has been. And the reason he says
he believes that to be the case is methamphetamine.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Really his position that it's worse now than it's ever been.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yet his experienced being in the courts, obviously being legal
system for such a long time, he says it's worse
now than ever. See.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
That's that's disappointing, isn't it. I mean absolutely Tom sees
the worst of it coming and going in every walk
of life and with incredibly well well experienced Tom you know,
I mean, he really is up there in terms of
street behavior. So for him to say that's that's quite shocking,
isn't it. It's a terrible drug. I mean, it's not
(24:03):
many drugs that are good drugs, but that is a shocker,
isn't it? In terms of behavioral change, and you know,
getting the worst out of people. Meth is it's not
number one, it's certainly in the top three. That march
is organized by the Center for Women's Safety in Perth,
and yes, so just in case you want to get
(24:23):
in touch with them, But twenty fifth of November just
just another reminder that'll be good.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
It will be good, so we'll send people out there. Also,
we'll obviously be covering if David Simmons turns up to
his new hearing into assaulting public officer allegedly in January,
the January the sixth, twenty five, so that there's that
coming up as well. And look, I have to say now, Liam,
(24:54):
as I look back and everything that's happened. I mean,
we launched on the twenty th June this year, it's
now November.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
It feels like, Look, I've got to say this the
whole sort of saga. And I think we touched on
this when we talked to Xanthi Mallet, because she made
the point that it's not a cold case in her
opinion and the way the whole definition of cold case goes.
I mean, I'm not trying to be technical here, Don't
(25:21):
get me wrong, I'm not being playing semantics. But what
was really interesting about her expression about that is that
it's not a case that has been decided and then
brought back up or do you know what I mean,
There's been no sort of it is fright from the start.
It has been a case with a huge question mark
on it, and it's quite fresh in terms of history.
(25:45):
It's twenty ten years old, so during that whole the
way it's been structured, it's not a cold case at all.
It's a current case and we know there's a current
team investigating it. So I just think it's amazing. Al
we've been going now since the twenty third of June,
so it's five solid months, five solid months, a lot
(26:05):
of episodes, structured episodes of the podcast, and then obviously
conversations like this where we have a chat and you know,
go back over a few bits and pieces and try
and sort of keep the home fires burning. But we've
still got a couple of episodes to come, going back
to a more structured podcast episode, how we can reintroduce
some of those new leads and new ideas and things
that have happened, some of those developments. But you see,
(26:28):
there's an amazing amount of water under the bridge already,
isn't there just in those five months.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
It feels like it's painfully slow. Said that, but it
really isn't when you look at what has actually happened
in that five months. I mean, we've gone from I
don't know if we've really had much, you know, sort
of flat fanfare from w plice and what they were doing.
(26:53):
But we did get you know, pretty early on, I
think it was, you know, that they would be reinvestigating
the new lead. So that was probably about a month
ago that they announced a team that would be reinvestigating
this case. So that's really significant. And then the team
turned into a task force. That's right, and now they're
(27:14):
going to provide a brief to the DVP, which was
obviously very big for us that that was going to happen.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Yeah, but you know, nothing happens in a vacuum, and
they haven't done anything without being pushed. Let's be honest,
and you can't have hundreds of thousands of people downloading
the podcast and saying yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, we
can see what you can see. We see the suspicions
that you see. We're not making it up. We don't
have to make it up. Truth is stranger than fiction.
(27:41):
And this case is a classic. This case is that cliche,
isn't it all over writ large? So the police really
had no choice. And don't get me wrong, I'm not
not giving them credit. I'll give them full credit when
the thing is finished, when it's fixed, when some charges
have been laid somewhere, because you know, bad thing should
not go unpunished, right, so the whole meaning of the
(28:03):
word justice. You know, let's let's be real about this,
so you know, let's talk about other cliches. The expression
kicking and screaming is perfect for this as well, because
that's what's happened. That's how we've got to this stage.
That team has been set up because they've been pushed
into it kicking and screaming, and some of them are
(28:23):
still screaming rather than concentrating on the brief, but that's
you know, that's another story.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
The proof is in the pudding, though, isn't it. Because
we all sit here now, aren't we. We're kind of
sitting here with clenched fists, and just is it going
to be done properly? That's that's the problem, to be
able to put your faith wholeheartedly in that. Obviously, we've
got evidence that was there at the time that wasn't
interrogated properly. So there's also that it's not just a
(28:50):
new evidence, and that's frustrating because if it's not interrogated properly,
and the same with this new evidence, then you have
to find more new evidence because they say, oh, no,
we looked at that, and we're like, nah.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
No, it's the application now, that's what you're talking about.
And I think that it's just the general sense of
the public, you know, being let up the garden path,
and people get it. They get it. Even the hierarchy
at the police headquarters they don't give people enough credit
for just injecting a bit of common sense and looking
at the case and going something's not right there. Mate.
(29:24):
It doesn't pass the pub test. I mean just a
few days ago, you know, you and I have been
to you, and I've been to a pub where Amy
used to work, right in the heartland of where we're talking,
all the local community, and those people still now they've
got signs up in support of her. They've got even
a little shrine there for Amy. You know, it's lovely.
(29:45):
I mean, they've got supportive posters up for the podcast
to try to show that they support, you know. I mean,
it's not about us, it's not about you and me.
It's just I'm just saying, you know, they are trying
to do everything they can at their level to show
support because guess what, all the people who are running
the place, people who are working at the place, people
who come in to have a drink, they get it,
(30:07):
and they read all about the bits and pieces over
the years they knew her. It's not difficult. So if
the application to this case is made right, and then
after the interrogation as you put it, you know, for
bits and pieces, and the whole thing is teased out
properly as it should have been in the first place,
then if someone turns around say you know what, it's
(30:29):
a genuine mystery, then maybe people will say, okay, well
we can see what you know, you can plainly see
what you've done and how you've done it, and you
know you've clearly given this the right application. But don't
treat us like idiots and then pretend that it's a
conclusion that suits your you know, the sort of tail
(30:52):
wagging the dog, so you can put the file in
the bottom drawer and wash your hands and say that's it,
tick the box, case closed, because that just wouldn't be right.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
You know, for the first time, when we went out
to Armadale for the first time, I actually understood a
little bit more about what this environment where the way
Amy lived. The interesting thing was is that even though
everyone was upset and emotional and outraged, they weren't surprised either, right,
(31:33):
either are our listeners. They're not surprised. And that's sad.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
It's sad. It is sad because that area has been
plagued by a high crime rate over the past years
for both petty theft and breaking enters. And I guess
you know, you could say minor assaults, you know, crimes
related to sort of violent acts in one way or
the other, and I think you know you tend to
(32:00):
so it's the boiling frog argument. Doesn't it. You grow
up in that environment, you just tend to think, oh, well,
you know, that's just what we get. That's sort of
how it rolls. And if police turn up at the
odd event and you know, they don't necessarily do their
homework as they should have, it's sort of like, oh yeah, okay,
that's a volume argument because they're jaded and they don't
really want to be there as well, and so on
(32:22):
and so forth, and that's the atmosphere that you sort
of then think, oh, well, you know, we probably we
sort of we get what we deserve, but it shouldn't
be like that at all. And that's been if we
go full circle to when we first started the podcast,
you know, in the first couple of episodes, where we
explored that didn't we that sort of concept.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Even when those two officers were wrapped over the knuckles,
they were told that they did the wrong thing, but
there wasn't a lot of weight given even though they
did the wrong thing. The implication was that it would
have been the same outcome anyway, hadn't they not done
the wrong thing, because it was su sight well.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
I think it was a deep Hopefully it's not around
as much now, but who knows. That's another argument. That's
another podcast, I think, And I think there's a bit
of an Ingrain culture among you know, certainly among certain
members of major crime in Western Australia twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen,
twenty thirteen. Look at those that particular period. You know,
(33:21):
there was a lot of people who were doing their
utmost to make sure they were all looked after internally.
But you know, if there were external problems, the shutters
would come down and that would be the end of it.
Quite a few cases out that you could go through
actually to mention problems with around about that time. Okay,
it's interesting, but as I say, that's an another story.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
It is. And look, I know I usually do these
for an hour and I've lost track of time, but
I just every time you talk about this, it gives
me another question. But one of the things, Yes, so
with the inquest, you've got to remember also they went
into that in quest with the whole idea that Amy
shot herself with the left hand, but then of course
with the with the burn mark that came from the
(34:02):
muzzle because it was plastic or whatever remnants and remember
lock Art's principles. We'll get back to that, So which
shows that you know that that was with the muzzle
and that she couldn't have used that, And so then
they go straight to the right hand. Why don't you
consider the point that she just didn't do it. Yeah, yeah,
that's the other issue with that.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
Well, that's what I'm saying about the end justifying the means.
You know, it's the tail wagon the dog, and I
think that's the way they've done this whole thing. It's
like playing snakes and ladders, but backwards, isn't it. Everything
sort of tried. They try to make it fit. Yeah,
we know that the two detectives. It took five years,
but they they were found to be negligent in their duty.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Yeah, negligent in your duty, but not wrong. So my
I guess my concern with that is they were negligent
in their duty by calling off the forensics, but the
result of them calling off the forensics isn't different to
what the result would have been anyway. That is the
impression that you're left with when you look at what happened.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yeah, but it's wheeze all words, isn't it. Because if
you're negligent, you haven't done your job. Properly. That's what
that means. So if you haven't done your job properly,
and the job is to figure out whether there's a
murder scene or what's happened, the whole thing goes up
in smoke. This comes back to the whole point of
how important a good police service is because when things
(35:24):
go wrong, you are absolutely one hundred percent reliant upon them.
You are so dependent. And I'm talking about all of us,
you know, every one of us. If we haven't forbid
found ourselves in that situation, we are beholden to, you know,
to their actions and their and their serviceability and their
concept of duty and loyalty. You know, we are literally
(35:48):
sort of left, you know, there's nobody else. That's it.
That's it. That's sort of the start and the end
when those people turn up.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
But it's not all. I it's not a case of
that's that's the end. We can't get justice now, Oh no,
not at all.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
I mean, that's that's that's it. It's just a lot
more difficult. Yeah, but that's no, it's no solace is
it to Amy's family.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Well, on that note, I want to thank you Liam
and Tim. You're out there and we will speak to
you soon. I feel like I'm, you know, speaking to
somebody who's a long way away. But you're only at
court at the Rebellau case, which is fascinating.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Yeah, that's an amazing case. But Tim spends most of
his time down at the Supreme Court. I don't know
if his family ever gets to see him, but he's
been he's been great for us.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Oh he has well, he does. They do shut the
court sometimes so he has to come home.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Oh really, really, I thought one of those camp stretches
down there. He's believable.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
He is. No, he's amazing. And we'll obviously continue working
with Tim on this. But like with anything that this important,
this big, it takes a lot of people. You don't
work in a silo.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
No, exactly, exactly. Well, Well done to you well for
continuing to portion directing traffic in it, because it's not easy.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
I've got to keep going like there's no you know,
we'll be back in the new year with season two,
and we have a few more standalone episodes which are
coming up, which they're going to be absolutely fantastic, really
really strong. So I'll be calling you to do some
more voice before the end of the year I am,
but they're really good and of course Laura Richards so
(37:25):
we'll catch up with her soon. So thank you and
wishing everybody all our listener it's a very wonderful festive season.
As I said, you'll have more episodes after this, but
I'm just going to say goodbye because obviously the conversations
is a bit more, you know, talking directly to you.
So thank you for your support. We can't do this
(37:47):
without you, and come down to the March, the Silent
March on the twenty fifth of November. We're pink in
support for Amy.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Thank you, and just a final word, wishing the new
investigative team looking at this case a safe and prosperous
and I mean that in every sense of the word.
A prosperous new year. I think so
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com