September 29, 2024 • 49 mins
The team is joined by radio legend and author Greg Cary who provides his unique take on Amy’s case and discusses how the power and impact of true crime podcasts could be better utilised by authorities.
Please sign our petition Petition · Justice for Amy: help refer my Niece's case to - Office of Director of Public Prosecutions - Australia · Change.org
Visit gregcary.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Hello, it's Allison Sandy. Welcome to Conversations three of the
Trips about Amy and I am joined today. Liam is
away at the moment, but we have Tim Clark and
radio legend and author Greg Carey.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Welcome, Hello, Alie, Hello Tim, lovely be part of it.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Morning, Greg, Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I just wanted to give a little bit of an
introduction to Greg. Greg obviously helped us out with the
Lady Banish's case as well. He's basically an oracle I
find on all these sorts of cases. He really provides
us with insight and just sound reasoning. And I think
that's one of the things. I mean, we all get
it what I do, and I does.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
We get a bit.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Emotional sometimes with it, but you're kind of like Tom Hagen,
the CONSTLIERI Godfather, you know, just keep it all very practical.
Speaker 6 (01:18):
They cut him out of Godfather three, remember I'm.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Still I mean, that's why Godfather three was doomed it
was never going to go anywhere, even though they had
that great line from Alpuccino about every.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
Time I tried to get out, drag me back in.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
And congratulations of what you've done with this podcast. I
think it's been magnificent, to be honest, Yeah, really really good.
You know, I can only comment obviously as somebody who's
listened to it all and really admired your work, and
I imagine, like everybody else's listened, just become frustrated and
annoyed and angered by a lot of what you've had
to deal with.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
So well done.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So, I mean, we can't say that this is something
that's iol in w A, is it. I mean w
A police seem to have a lot of power in
wa as don't do police in every state. But one
of the things I just thought I would just bring up,
just on the outset before we get into general impressions,
(02:17):
is the police commissioner. Do you know, Tim, whether the
police commissioner isn't it a political appointment or whether how
that works in w A.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, it's policing and politics. I mean they do go
hand in hand, don't they, Because law and order, the
reality of it not the TV show is always a
hot button political issue, and we have a state election
(02:47):
coming up here in March, so I'm sure that law
and order will rise to the top of the public
consciousness again. But ultimately the police, it is the police
Commissioner who is appointed by the Police Minister, and they
do have to have a very close working relationship and
(03:10):
so well, when when cole Blanche was appointed, it was
Paul Pappollia, the Police Minister who was you know, stood
by his side at that appointment. But then like any
other police force, there are those rivulets of of of
pressures and and and talk and pulling points that that
(03:33):
always go through. So from my understanding, cole Blanche is
liked in some quarters and he isn't in others in
terms of the police ranks. So whether that will will
play out during his next appointment, because the contracts, I
believe go for five years, we'll we'll have to wait
(03:56):
and see. But cole Blanche has been a very very
fourth right public figure. You might remember Greg even over there, Yes,
when that amazing morning unfolded when Cleo Smith was was
found alive, it was actually cole Blanche, not then commissioner,
but it was actually cole Blanche who did the very
(04:18):
early morning piece to camera that was then beamed around
the world announcing that this this this miracle had happened
and this girl had been found alive after all those
days and nights of of worry and searching. It was
cole Blanche that actually was you know, was was dragged
before a camera at four o'clock in the morning, and
and and and did the internal sort of colms that
(04:39):
was then sent out before Chris Dawson actually fronted a
media conference up in carav And that I was that
I was at later that day. So he's he's always
been very front and center of this of the since
Carlo Callahan resigned that the commissioner before last. He's always
been very front the center, very media savvy. But unfortunately,
al we've been told this week that he won't be
(05:02):
coming on to answer questions live unfortunately.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, I love this quote, Greg that you sent by
Ralph Waldo Emerson that an institution is only the lengthened
shadow of an individual. Tell me your thoughts in relation
to that quote, and I guess the police commissioner.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, well, I think it ties in with everything Timja
said I read that quote of Emerson's years ago. I've
always loved him as a writer and a thinker. And
the second part of the quote is that his character,
meaning the leader's character, determines the character of the organization,
that his shadow goes over the organization. And I think
at a time and we see it at close quarters
(05:43):
in the media, where bureaucracies and governments, all kinds of
institutions are getting increasingly defensive and bureaucratic, it's really important
that I think that you have leaders who are forth writers,
you said, Tim of the commissioner, and who were prepared
for their organizations to be reflective of their character. And
(06:04):
that's perhaps where we're missing good leadership in so many
areas right now. People are so defensive, and people are
so concerned about the occasional mistake that they're sometimes reluctant
to do the right thing. And that to me has
been one of the shadows, if you like, over this investigation,
that they seem to have been so busy to cover
(06:26):
their own bases that somehow other humanity.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Has got lost along the way.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
And I know Elie quote you love, and I do,
and probably Tim does as well, as from Michael Cromley's
character Harry Bosh either everybody counts or nobody counts, and
somewhere along the way here, I just think Amy got
lost and the bureaucracy kind of took over, and that's sad.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
And I think Greg the other thing that people have
spoken to me about, not necessarily by Amy's case, but
in other cases, is that because the intersection of police
and politics are so close, there is a danger that
ministers police ministers as politicians can be then very reluctant
(07:12):
to be seen to be critical of police forces because
a they are extremely important to societies and two cabinets
and to governments to have a functioning, high morale police force.
But then you walk a fine line as a senior
police minister or a politician in that if you're seen
(07:35):
to be too critical of the police, are you then,
whether it be on one particular case or just in general,
are you then seen to be undermining them and bashing
them and chipping away at the confidence of those at
the coal face who do an extraordinary difficult job. Where
I think we all I think we all accept, but
there are cases that come along inevitably that are not
(07:58):
handled the best, and it's when I find that there's
a reluctance to criticize or call out that is when
that is that is a danger because you know, every
organization needs to learn from their mistakes, and I think
in this particular case, there's been a distinct reluctance to
(08:19):
even accept mistakes were made, let alone learn from them.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
I wonder, Elie, because you've dealt with this as well
on the Lady Vanishes, the Marion Barter case, and others,
where that defensiveness comes from. Why are they reluctant to
admit mistakes? Why are they afraid to concede that occasionally?
You know, they make errors, as we all do. It
doesn't matter what organization people work in. We all as
individuals make mistakes, and those organizations make mistakes. But maybe
(08:47):
it gets back to what Tim was saying that they
feel they're losing face or whatever.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
When they do that.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
I just think it makes them more normal, doesn't it.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
Well?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Absolutely, I mean when I look at the Lady Vanishes,
it's kind of interesting how that transfer because it started
off with the police being so defensive. So the new
teams that were brought in with Glenn Brown, who took
over Missing Persons, he was like, no, they handled it
badly at the beginning. They didn't follow protocols and just
(09:15):
accepted it and said that this is what.
Speaker 5 (09:17):
We're doing to manage it.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
And in some respects WA police did that with this
one when the uniformed police went against the detectives, right
because the uniform police and so that what they actually
offered instead was to say, well, now we have a
phone number that they can call if junior police officers
want to argue that they don't accept the decision that
(09:42):
was made by their senior by the detectives in this case.
But isn't that kind of too late? And I still
don't think, I mean, the detectives involved with this really
only got to wrap over the knuckles when you look
at the findings of the internal investigation. So I don't know,
it's just like they try to keep everyone happy rather
(10:02):
than just saying, you know what, you guys stepped up here.
We're going to have to fix it and then move on.
But certainly the defense at the inquest the council representing
police was hell being on suicide there. So the old school,
I suppose, seems to still dominate in police forces now,
which is I think the issue.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
You too were much closer to it.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
But as a listener, and again I'm probably asking a
question the thousands who listened to it would be asking
why were.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
They so fixed on that opinion?
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I mean, I understand the early bungling and early bungling
can happen, but later bungling should sort that out. But
why were they so keen to hold on to that?
I would rather have thought they should have started from
the premise that it was a crime committed by somebody
else and then feed everything through that lens or that filter.
(10:54):
It seems to make a great deal more sense. And
fixating on this idea of suicide, what did you make
of that?
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Well? In Western Australia, Greg that we've talked about this
on previous episodes. In the history of the of the
major miscarriages of justice that we've had here, there's a
loose theme, or sometimes it's quite tight, in that the
police force over here do tend to sometimes on major cases,
(11:23):
get very blinkered and have tunnel vision to just one vision.
We were talking just off are there about the case
of Lloyd's Rainey, a senior barrister, top love level prosecutor
for the Odpp whose wife went missing. Her body was
eventually found in King's Park, which is the main green
(11:43):
space in the middle of Perth, and Lloyd was accused
of murdering his wife because of various issues, including marital
problems that they were having. That was eventually disapproved in
the court of law. Lloyd took the police to court
himself over defamation claims because one of the senior detectives
in the case fronted a press conference before Lloyd had
(12:06):
even been charged and said that he was the prime
and only suspect in this murder. Now, that could only
lead to one conclusion that that's all the police were
looking at. Right, So that's the rainy case. You've got
the Andrew Mallard case, which we discussed last week with
Liam again focused on one person. You've got the the
(12:26):
Clarmont case. For a long time, detectives on the Macro
Task Force were concentrated on a man called Lawnce Williams
who ended up being and when I say concentrated, I
mean years and years of surveillance on this public servant
who eventually turned out to be completely innocent. So there's
a history there, right. And then in this case, for
(12:48):
whatever reason that the two detectives that have turned up
have concluded suicide completely without any proper investigation, let's put
it that way. And since then that has been the
vision that it seems to me the wa police have
either had to stick to because that's what they early concluded,
(13:11):
or they wanted to stick to try and keep their
detectives from having been proved completely wrong. So there again,
there's that blinkers is that tunnel vision, even though, as
Alison and Liam have teased out over over many many weeks,
through many many episodes, that there is there was so
much more evidence to look at, and it's a much
(13:31):
broader picture than just Amy. Amy shot herself.
Speaker 7 (13:35):
We have the cars packed, the children are in the car, and.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Allison, I think in the last episode you made reference
to the phone call coming after the photo was taken,
but again the coroner seemed to place more weight on
that photo than the call coming after it and everything
else that Tim was was talking about. You know, at
a time one of the things I think that annoyed me,
(14:00):
and domestic violence was something I looked at for a
long time, and it's great that we're talking more about
it at the moment, but I don't think this investigation
was consistent or honored the understanding of domestic violence were
getting these days.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
To me, I mean, there was clearly a.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Background of the violence in this relationship.
Speaker 6 (14:21):
There's a violent crime. Now.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I'm not making any suggestions about it. I'm just saying
as a listener, it seemed to me that the investigator
or some of the investigators, and perhaps even the coroner
underestimated that aspect of the case.
Speaker 6 (14:36):
And then when you combine it all with that.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Telling that extraordinary biomechanical testimony to you guys from Scott Roper,
I mean, that was just compelling to listen to.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
It was really impressive stuff.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Well you've said it before, Alie, this scene in its
very early stages was never looked through the filter of
a violent relationship or domestic violence, was it?
Speaker 3 (15:12):
No?
Speaker 2 (15:12):
See, one of the things that sort of confused me too.
And we talk about new evidence, right, because that's the
whole basis of this is finding new evidence that can
be considered. First of all, the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions I don't believe has seen the brief
since twenty eighteen after those biomechanical reports come through, so
they haven't considered it in all that time following the
(15:36):
findings as well, because the coroner didn't refer it to
the DPP, so as a result they haven't seen the information.
And as we've also noted, even though there's new evidence,
Scott Rhoder's being probably the most dominant new evidence. But
you know, you've also got the photo of Amy that
(15:57):
was sent to Aaron of the bruises, which the police
didn't find at the time, even though we were able
to find it within twenty minutes. Other information that just
wasn't didn't seem to be given numbs. I suppose the
priority that it should have been or at least seen
as important, which is the whole basis of a coronial inquest.
(16:21):
And we find though, and particularly in cases like this,
that the very often several inquests. So anyway, Anna has
written to the officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions
or to the Director himself, Rob Owen, asking for a meeting,
and I guess the question also she's asking is whether
he can request a copy of the brief of evidence
(16:42):
so that he can make his own analysis, because only
relying on the police, which of course we've asked them
as well, whether after they've followed up all these this
new information this team has been put together to do
following our podcast, they'll then refer it to the Office
of the Director of Public Classificitions. But I mean, I
(17:04):
guess putting it in their hands again is just the
fear factor that everyone has, is that well, if they
don't have the appetite to see this one solved necessarily,
which we don't know. It's just that we're just going
upon all previous, previous evidence. We just need to, I
(17:25):
guess have some sort of backup that, you know, which
is why Anna, you know, put it to the age,
because I guess that's the other thing, right.
Speaker 5 (17:35):
You know, there's supposed to be a real.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Separation between politics and the law, right, and we can
understand that, right that that's really important. But as a family,
if the justice system seems to be letting you down,
you have to go to your politicians, right who represent you,
because they represent the people. And that's why she's appealed
to the Attorney General. And even though you General says
(18:00):
that they have that they're not allowed to direct the
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Of course, it's
just a case of can you just have a look
at this, you know, and just you don't make your
own determination. It's not a direction, right.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
How hard is that Once they circle the wagons, Once
those institutions of power start circling the wagons, what chance
does the average person have. And we see this on
a daily basis of people listening now will have their
own battles with bureaucracy in different institutions.
Speaker 6 (18:30):
It's so very hard to the individual.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
I think it was the Shadow Attorney General correct me
if I'm wrong, guys in one of your episodes, the
Shadow Attorney General over there, and I know what he meant.
He said, it's not up to the media to solve
these situations. And I know what he was saying. It
was more or less saying the police and politicians need
to do it. But perhaps that's to misunderstand the evolving
(18:55):
role of the media. Now, you guys are dealing with
this on a day to day basis. Now, I would
have thought there's enough evidence now in all the not
only podcasts, but other outlets as well. The media has
a key role in not just solving them, but helping
police to solve them. So again, if those authorities vested
with the responsibility. I'm doing that job either either can't
(19:20):
do it, don't want to do it, or require help
in doing it. And I would have thought there's an
increasing role for the media, and not only the media,
but to the many thousands of people podcasts like this
one reach, as it did in some of the other
famous ones.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
Well. As a journalist of too many years long standing, Greg,
You're not going to have any argument with me about
that point. I mean, these many cliches you can use,
including you know the classic one that you know, sunlight
is the best disinfectant, right, and you shine a light
on some of these cases. Well, I mean, you know,
(19:54):
just on a small scale, you see it every day
talk back radio. Someone rings in, I've got an issue
with my local council. It can sometimes take one or
two calls from a radio producer and low and behold,
there will be a council worker on your verge doing
something that you've been trying to do for three months yourself. Right,
So it works on that micro scale, but on a
(20:15):
macro scale in this case and other cases. I mean,
you know, we've all seen the impact of Headley Thomas's
amazing work in the in the podcast Realm for the
last few years, and Allison's own amazing work as well.
The podcast has become a new vehicle, or a recent
(20:35):
vehicle to dig deeper than you can in a six hundred,
eight hundred and twelve hundred word article, which you know,
has been my main medium for the last sort of
thirty years or so, because it just gives you time, right,
and I'm finding that people connect a little bit closer
(20:58):
or a little bit deeper when they're actually listening to
the people that are involved and even knowing this case
as I did, and then Alison asking me, you know,
to to help with the editorial, and then listening to
the first few episodes, you know, it just it just
brings it home in a way that that you know,
unfortunately the printed medium will never do. And you turn
(21:22):
it over to the public and say, well, what do
you what do you think? Oh, you know, you know, well,
I'm looking at the signatures on the on the petition
that that Anna launched a few weeks ago. It's up
to just over seven thousand now. And we know from
the listenership over the last weeks and weeks and weeks
there are many, many thousands of people that that I
think are not only listening to to Amy's story, but
(21:46):
are backing Amy's family in their in their quest for
the truth because.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
You con front of something similar, Ellie, didn't you When
you were doing The Lady Vanishes? And Tim was talking
about that emotional connection that radio has always it was
one of the things that attracted me to it as
a kid. I was emotionally attached to these voices on
the radio for all kinds of reasons. And podcasts now
have that capacity that a written police statement or a
(22:14):
bureaucratic statement, they simply don't have that kind of weight.
When you were doing The Lady Vanishes, it made that
connection to the extent that some of your listeners actually
made breakthroughs.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, well, we still get so many, even with this one,
not to the extent of Lady Vanishes, because I think
Lady Vanishes was just one of those unique ones because
it was international, and so many countries and places and
people are parochial by nature, right, so they sort of
like to be able to relate in some way to it.
(22:48):
Romance scams are quite a big deal, but also with
this one as well, with domestic violence, and when we
had lots of domestic violence victims reach out to us
as a result, and you want to help everyone, right,
and it's so hard. And you look at the bombar
our case as well in Western Australia recently, and there
(23:09):
was another one in Northern Territory where I think the
victim had made like two hundred calls or complaints to
police recently and then ended up being killed. I think
it's just being relatable as well and being able to
help as many people as possible. Being able to relate
it make it relatable. Obviously, people hate injustice. That's what
(23:30):
we ourselves. We hate injustice, and that's like our main focus.
Regardless of what you believe is the case here, there's
no doubt or there's no issue with believing that the
investigation was watched. You know that that seems to even
though we saw those emails or that information comes back
(23:53):
from ECOI where some police is still holding onto that whole. No, no,
we didn't make a mistakes sort of. So I think
that's I think the media has an extremely important role
in this in shining a light, giving a voice to
the voiceless, making all the aspects apparent so that people
(24:15):
can make their own judgment.
Speaker 6 (24:16):
See Ali that's a really important point.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
We came to hear what Tim has to say about
that too, because again, one of the things that as
a listener to this really concerned me was the nature
of the debate about the balance of probabilities and beyond
a reasonable doubt, both of which planned this. But I
don't know if it's a uniquely Western Australian thing, but
it just seemed to me that they're kind of upside
(24:41):
down a little bit. When I listened to what you
guys presented, I didn't have much that at all, let
alone a reasonable one, And when it came to a.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
Balance of probabilities about what happened, I think it.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
You know, again, it was pretty clear with the balance
of probabilities that a.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
W a thing or not.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Well, no it's not. I mean, they're they're two sort
of cornerstones of the justice system all over the world.
Speaker 6 (25:09):
I'm in the interpretation over the.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
Prioritization of the Yeah, well, I don't know, I don't.
I don't think it is and I mean I think
I think you've your analysis, as Greg is the same
as as is a lot of people's, and there you know,
anyone who listened to last week's episode and sortably, I'm
talking about his still disbelief some of the questions that
(25:36):
were asked during the inquest and the conclusions that were
that would that were drawn from the answers to those questions, Again,
there's there's a reasonable doubt, would there be, Well you'll
never know, Well we might know, we never know, And
that's if Robert oh in the O d p P
(25:58):
decides yeah, okay, well we'll ask for that file to
be sent over to my office and I might spend
a couple of hours or a couple of days reading it. Well,
it's ultimately it would ultimately then be up to that
office to decide a what are the ballots of probabilities?
And then be if we did put this before a
(26:19):
jury or a judge, could we prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Speaker 3 (26:22):
But the jury would have to say, wouldn't I I
think again, a lot of people were just like the
idea of the jury having essay on all of this,
not a politician, not a DPP, a jury.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Yeah. Well that's the whole point, right, I Mean, we
still have the juris system for a reason, because the
justice system all over the world has decided that's the
best system that we have twelve or fourteen of sixteen
of your peers that are drawn from all aspects of
life or walks of life, all measures of experience, and
they bring it all together in two rooms, the courtroom
(26:55):
and the jury room, and then come to a verdict.
In this case, I'm not sure, because we do have
the power to have trials by judge alone in this
case if there are reasons for it, one of them
being lots of pre trial publicity, so you know, but yeah,
I mean, you'd hope it would even get you know,
(27:15):
at this point, we're just hoping it would get to
the point where the office of the DPP have a
look at it. Let alone, let alone the next step, right, because.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
That's not unique either, arely is it? I mean you
think back to and again, I guess we all approach
these things with a different mindset. I'm thinking back to
the case of Chris Dawson and the NET SIMS and
the reluctance at that stage way back when the NETT
went missing to lay charges. You know, as you listen
(27:48):
to what information they had then, I can't understand the
reluctance of the DPP not to have laid charges then
and to pursue different avenues of investigation. Then I get
really annoyed, guys when I often hear people say things
were different then in.
Speaker 7 (28:04):
The eighties or the nineties or the seventies.
Speaker 6 (28:06):
When I was around in the.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Seventies, eighties and nineties and things weren't different, then we
lose the idea of domestic violence. Now, community attitudes have
caught up a little bit in some senses, but a
lot of what was around then is also around now,
and I just.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
Don't like that idea of them.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
I don't know, rationalizing certain behaviors either then or now.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
You're absolutely right. I mean, I watched a documentary on
the Yorkshire Ripper, who's a notorious probably one of the
most notorious UK serial killers, and it goes to two
of the points we've discussed this morning. The tunnel vision
that the police had then about the fact that he
was killing prostitutes and prostitutes were not worth investigating, and
(28:53):
the fact that he actually wasn't just killing prostitutes. He
attacked young women. He detacked girls from school girls in it,
so called innocent victims. And it was the outrage, the
growing outrage that so many women could be killed up
one after the other that eventually brought about changing the
squad that investigated. And then it was you know, a
(29:14):
bobby on the beat that actually just happened across him.
And that was you know, that was in the in
the in the eighties, seventies and eighties in the UK.
So the attitudes then were exactly the same, why are
we dying? Why are women dying on the streets? Why
why can't you catch this guy? And it was the
same in the nineties with the Claremont case here and
(29:35):
so many others. Amy's case is twenty fourteen, I mean,
so it's the police can't even go well, you know,
it was different back then, No, it wasn't. It's ten
years ago, guys, and attitudes of you know, they've moved
on a bit, but not you know, women dying of
gunshot wounds to the head have always been a shocking
(29:57):
to the community then and now now.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I'm just putting this out there and I think we
all kind of agree. We know, we've been in the
media for a long time and we know.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
That all lives aren't equal.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
You touching upon the prostitutes being the victims with the
Yorkshire Ripper, right and not seeming to matter as much,
but in Amy's case there was that whole. I just feel,
this is my opinion, if Amy had been middle class,
if it had been an affluent suburb in Perth, if
(30:33):
she had been white, I feel it would have been
created differently. That's just my opinion, and I guess that's
something that Sharon of Seeing touched upon as well. There
was this whole basis that it was considered at some
stage that Amy was indigenous. I mean, obviously David Simmons
is indigenous. She's actually a quarter tie. But whether or
(30:56):
not that would matter either because she's not, you know,
a white Australian and the circumstances, whether or not there
were some prejudgment, and you know that these things are
always subjective, right when people come into a scene, that
there is prejudgment of the circumstances in a lot of cases,
and some are treated more carefully than others.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Well, it's an interesting month to ponder whether if Amy's
body had been found in a bedroom in Clermont or
Cottislow or Pepermint Grove or one of the more affluent
western suburbs of Perth, rather than in a pretty ramshackle
sort of bedroom on a property in Serpentine. What would
have been the reaction. I mean, you would assume there
(31:40):
would be different officers, right, maybe more experienced, maybe more
open minded. Who knows, and it's a it's a question
that's asked all over the world. I would surmise whether
there is Well, what's the buzzphrase two tier policing, I
think was the phrase that has been kicking around in
(32:01):
the UK recently. You know, whether some chromes are different
or treated differently to others, or chrome scenes are treated
different to others. Again, I'm pretty sure that if you
ask the police straight out, they'd absolutely deny it, But
whether that makes it true or not is another matter.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
They might even deny it in good faith, and they
might even believe they're right, and they might have acted
in a way that they believe was right. But there's
so much institutionalization of these things, isn't there. And there's
enough I mean, in this case Ali and Tim, you'd
have to be in the minds of the investigators an
all concerned, But there's enough evidence around the world just
(32:40):
to prove the point you're making.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
It's just a fact.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Just with that, I mean, I think the difference Obviously
we had the uniform officers who were just fantastic, and
we're right in there. And this is the problem with
them being I guess junior, so we're obviously not casting
that shadow in relation to their reaction. But I think
the difference and this is where it comes back with
(33:04):
Christopher Dawson to Chris Dawson lind Sim's murder. They have
a champion in the police there, high up, Gamien Loom,
and that makes a difference too, Right, It's just having
somebody who is invested in a play in a position
where they can do something.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Well. I'm sure Greg has experienced it on that side
of the country, but yeah, having someone on your side,
even one person can open within, you know, the walls,
can you know, it can help immeasurably. But it's finding
that person. Getting someone to listen can be the hard part.
(33:44):
And as we've seen for weeks and weeks and weeks
and heard from Anna, it's not like she hasn't tried
for more than ten years now to just try and
get that one person, you know, in terms of high
up in the hierarchy, to say yeah, okay, look I'm
(34:05):
on your side and leave it with me. And I'll
see what I can do. There's been lots of little
people like you and me, Allison, sort of banging the
drum and trying to push the barrow along. But yeah,
I mean you're right. Sometimes you just need someone high
up to say, yeah, okay, you got me.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Even when the police do get passionately involved, and I
mean that can lead to all kinds of internal divisions
and problems, Ali and Tim from over there, you might
have followed it as well. The case of the tragication
little William Tyrrell Gosh and the Spider Man outfit heartbreaking.
But even now opinions are divided, and we have one
(34:51):
of the senior police who Ali, I think you know,
who had very strong ideas on who did and didn't
do it. Yeah, and you know that proved to be wrong.
But he was passionate. I admired his passion. I admired
his passion to be doing the right thing. Now, whether
he was right or wrong, that's yeah for others.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
To be so.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
One or two things he was quite confident about certainly
weren't true. So but I think you start with the passion,
if you if you start with that idea that you
know everybody does count. We're really going to try and
sort the truth here, and if that means having a
few fights within the force and with the press and
taking some criticism, and because none of that stuff matters
(35:31):
in the end, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
That's right, That's the whole thing, right, The politics doesn't
matter if you.
Speaker 5 (35:38):
Just look at what your what your role is.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
You know about justice and you know there to serve
and represent the people and ensure their safety. So just
on that, I've put a couple of questions to the
Police Commissioner. He hasn't got back to me yet, but
it hasn't been twenty four hours yet, so I'm not
going to hold them to that. But these are the
questions to the Police Commissioner following up the information that's
been provided into Amy Wensley's case the team that's doing that,
(36:06):
So once investigative, will the brief of evidence be updated
and passed on to the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions to consider if not, why not, how long
will this take and who makes that decision? So I
we'll obviously update you in further conversations as to what
those answers are. And yeah, I think that's the whole
(36:28):
thing is from our side of things, we need to
just keep that pressure on.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
We'll keep the petition going.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Also, just a reference Peter Collier, who were talking about
before Greg, So he's the actually the shadow Police Minister.
People were saying, well, why didn't we put it to
the Police Minister rather than the AG? Right, Well, I
guess the reason we put it to the AG was
in relation to the ODPP and what he could do.
(36:56):
There is that reminder that the Police Minister is close,
presumably to the Police Commissioner. Obviously he's politely declined to
answer any questions on this podcast anyway. So yeah, it's
it's really just trying to find that just somebody, somebody
(37:16):
as as as Liam pointed out last week, to be accountable.
Speaker 6 (37:20):
They're all way too close to each other. The problems
is a problem.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
I mean, I'm sure it's the same in Queenslanka. There's
only there's only you know, so many people in those
in those high positions. The current Attorney General, John Quigley,
has been around politics and police and police unions for
a large part of the last three decades. Cole Blanche,
the current Commissioner, has been an assistant Commissioner. He's also
(37:46):
worked closely with the a FP and National Intelligence sort
of you know, on those those bigger investigations involving drugs
and international So you know, there's only so many people
that that can reach that achelon right, and by the
time you get there, you all know each other, and
you all know each other's politics, and you will probably
(38:07):
know each other's paccadillos and the things that that you know,
the investigations that you concentrate on, and so yeah, it
can it can be that closeness that can become a barrier,
and then trying to break in as we are we're
just talking about and trying to trying to get into
that circle can be it can be difficult too.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Yes, we had the case of the Queensland Forensic Lab
over here as a related to the case of Shandy Blackburn,
and I think that was a good example of the
kind of thing we're talking about that we both talk
about in a sense that it's understandable that people have
grown up through the Midia and they get to know
each other and it's good that they can cooperate. I
(38:50):
think the problem becomes when when the average citizen doesn't
have the kind of entree that they do.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
I think absolutely absolutely, He's.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Just got to get it back to the fundamentals.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Still your role, you're what you're meant to do. And
I do love that Peter Collyett sort of jumped out
at it because I mean, being the shadow Police minister,
you know, he's he's putting it up to the police
as well, right, I mean obviously he's concentrated in quickly,
but he's accepting that the police have not handled this
case properly, which is brave. Whenever anyone says brave, you're
(39:27):
going to be oh no, it's like in yes, minister.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Right, says brave minister?
Speaker 7 (39:35):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (39:37):
What have I done it?
Speaker 2 (39:40):
So, you know, I'm really appreciative for him for you know,
sticking up, just standing. And I guess that the big
test will come right when you're in power.
Speaker 5 (39:49):
Will you still be able to do that? I hope.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
So that's what the great politicians do. I mean the
politicians we remember, the politicians who achieve great things. They're
the ones who do that kind of thing. You know.
In Australia, think just in in my time, I think
Bob Hawk, I think Paul Keating, I think John Howard.
Speaker 6 (40:08):
These were people at different points of view about all.
Speaker 7 (40:10):
Manner of things, but you were never in any doubt
about what.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
They thought and they were prepared to go out there
and argue their case. Is not always popular, but I
think people come to respect that, I really do.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
And being seen to be invert come is interfering in
the in the justice system. You know, there obviously there
is that separation of powers that are that are vitally important.
But you know, there also comes a point where you know,
a quiet word can go a long way. It doesn't
have to be done, you know, in a public, showy
(40:46):
type of way. Even though the government has offered a
million dollar reward right for for information that might lead
to the solving or the you know, the truth, and
that was a government decision, so they're invested in monetary terms.
They've offered this money to anyone to come forward, so
(41:13):
by extension, they obviously want to see it, see the
truth come up themselves. And it's worth a million bucks
to them, or were worth a million dollars to someone.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
That was interesting. I could see what they were trying
to do. There's obviously somebody they hope knows or somebody
has heard somebody or seeing something or whatever. But what
went through in my mind when I heard that a
million dollars for anybody with any information just listen to
the podcast. You've got everything you need right there.
Speaker 6 (41:44):
Just listen to all of that.
Speaker 5 (41:45):
I think.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Also, I mean, that's all well and good and appreciative
of it. Obviously Sally Laden was pushing that for Marion
a million dollar reward into her case big time, and
so it is good. But it's also very passive, isn't it.
It's not a real active effort to do something. I
mean referring it to the ODPP, right, that is something
(42:09):
that means something because I mean, again, no one's directing
the ODPP. If you just say, hey, have a look
at this, is there anything there? You know? And then
it still comes down to somebody else making that decision, right,
But I mean that to me shows a lot more
dumption and an absolute commitment, because it's just like crossing
(42:31):
your t's and dotting your eyes, right.
Speaker 5 (42:33):
I just want to make sure.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
I want to make sure that we're on the right
track here and that this isn't getting lost along the way,
because you know, we've got a situation where there will
be people's noses out of joint if it is solved,
potentially because it could prove those in power. I mean,
somebody's got to be wrong regardless of the outcome. So
(42:56):
you know, it's not worrying about people's feelings.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
And again it's they're coming from the right place. They
won't care if they're wrong or you know, it's knows
Is that a joint. I mean, that's that's their job.
They're doing. Hopefully they're doing the best they can. We're
all wrong, occasionally, learn from it, move on, try to
get it right.
Speaker 4 (43:15):
Yeah, that function of the reward has always intrigued me because, yes,
it's a it's a very large carrot to dangle in
front of anyone who might have that piece of information.
But at the other end of the process, as a journalist,
try and get any information out of the police about
a whether they that that reward was ever claimed and
(43:38):
or awarded to anyone, and B you will never ever
find find out who was was that was that person
and you know, unless they become a star witness in
a in a in a trial or something and you
can join those dots. So yeah, it's it's it's an
interesting sort of way of a gaining publicity for a
(44:02):
case and be hopefully prompting someone to come forward.
Speaker 8 (44:08):
But yeah, whether they work or not, it's very hard
to very hard to conclude because you never get to
run that circle off really in terms of public information.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Yes, that's true. I mean I can understand not finding
out who they are. But you you know I have
tried to FOI I think at least once. Just you
know how much of these awards are actually awarded.
Speaker 5 (44:34):
I don't recall having much success.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
But look, I just wanted to say a few things
to our listeners out there. If you have any questions,
please send us an email to the Truth about Amy
at seven spelled out seven dot com dot au. I'll
put it in the show notes obviously. As always, please
sign and share our petition. That link will be in
(44:58):
the show notes too, But if you if you want,
just google change dot org and Amy Wensley or Justice
for Amy and that will be there. And you know,
I mean, help us get justice for Amy. I mean,
I think this isn't a wasted investment, a wasted investment
of time or money or resources or efforts by everybody
(45:20):
involved to us, the people in in you know, just
signing a petition, but also the authorities in you know,
allocating resources to get this get this result. And I
want to thank you both, Tim and Greg. Thank you
so much. Is there anything either of you would want
to say in relation to you know, we've covered up
(45:43):
on a lot of this and I think it's so important,
But is there anything I have missed that you think
we need to include.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
It's been a pleasure to be part of it. I
think you've done an outstanding job. There are all kinds
of important issues at work in this investigation and I
think you're doing it really well.
Speaker 7 (46:02):
So well done, and thanks for having me as part
of it.
Speaker 6 (46:04):
I enjoyed it.
Speaker 4 (46:04):
Yeah, lovely to chat. Greg, thanks for joining us as always,
and thanks for Alison for just keeping pushing, sending letters,
doing everything we can to try and try and get
some justice for Amy's family.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
And if you like books, check out A Fascinating Investigation
or An Absence of Certainty, both by Greg Carey, both
stellar books. So don't miss Size and King your book
as well, would you because I haven't got that one
in front of me.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
So it's called The Enigma of the Dark, The Case
of the Claimont Killer. It was based well. It was
written about the case of Bradley Robert Edwards, who was
eventually convicted of being the man who stalked and terrorized
that western suburb of Perth in the early nineties. Covered
(47:00):
the case for a long time before he was arrested.
I certainly covered it after seven months of trial, hearings
attended every day, and yeah, there's some insight there into
the process that that that got him into court, which
was basically the longest and most expensive police investigation in
Australian history. So if you want to hear more of me,
(47:25):
there is an audio version, but there is also a
printed version too, So so yeah, it was it was
a labor. It was a labor of love at times,
but just the labor other times. But it's one of
those cases that is imbued in Western Australian people and
certainly in the justice system. And we've spent much of
(47:49):
the morning sort of gently criticizing the w A Police
and there were there are criticisms of the w A
Police in the book as well, but ultimately it was
an amazing piece of investigative work that that got justice
for the families of two of those girls that went
missing and they're still searching for the third, so so yeah,
(48:15):
check it out if you if you're interested in in
that case, it's called Enigma of the Dark.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
I'll order that for us, Gregg, I need to do
that already. I just got distracted.
Speaker 4 (48:25):
Yes, what do they say in in all good bookshops
and some bad ones as well.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Just just just on that and thanks for the plug.
Speaker 6 (48:33):
Eli.
Speaker 3 (48:34):
If you if you are interested in those books, maybe
just come to my website.
Speaker 6 (48:37):
Not if you want to inscribe or whatever.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Great Carey dot com, Great Cary'scary with the c a
r Y dot com.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
Wonderful. I'm just in such a illustrious company, so thank
you so much. I see very privileged that between both
of you and obviously Liam and all our guests, it's
just it's just a real honor to be working on
something so important.
Speaker 5 (48:58):
So thank you so much.
Speaker 6 (49:00):
Under his aust I get h
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Hello, it's Allison Sandy. Welcome to Conversations three of the
Trips about Amy and I am joined today. Liam is
away at the moment, but we have Tim Clark and
radio legend and author Greg Carey.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Welcome, Hello, Alie, Hello Tim, lovely be part of it.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Morning, Greg, Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I just wanted to give a little bit of an
introduction to Greg. Greg obviously helped us out with the
Lady Banish's case as well. He's basically an oracle I
find on all these sorts of cases. He really provides
us with insight and just sound reasoning. And I think
that's one of the things. I mean, we all get
it what I do, and I does.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
We get a bit.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Emotional sometimes with it, but you're kind of like Tom Hagen,
the CONSTLIERI Godfather, you know, just keep it all very practical.
Speaker 6 (01:18):
They cut him out of Godfather three, remember I'm.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Still I mean, that's why Godfather three was doomed it
was never going to go anywhere, even though they had
that great line from Alpuccino about every.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
Time I tried to get out, drag me back in.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
And congratulations of what you've done with this podcast. I
think it's been magnificent, to be honest, Yeah, really really good.
You know, I can only comment obviously as somebody who's
listened to it all and really admired your work, and
I imagine, like everybody else's listened, just become frustrated and
annoyed and angered by a lot of what you've had
to deal with.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
So well done.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So, I mean, we can't say that this is something
that's iol in w A, is it. I mean w
A police seem to have a lot of power in
wa as don't do police in every state. But one
of the things I just thought I would just bring up,
just on the outset before we get into general impressions,
(02:17):
is the police commissioner. Do you know, Tim, whether the
police commissioner isn't it a political appointment or whether how
that works in w A.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Well, it's policing and politics. I mean they do go
hand in hand, don't they, Because law and order, the
reality of it not the TV show is always a
hot button political issue, and we have a state election
(02:47):
coming up here in March, so I'm sure that law
and order will rise to the top of the public
consciousness again. But ultimately the police, it is the police
Commissioner who is appointed by the Police Minister, and they
do have to have a very close working relationship and
(03:10):
so well, when when cole Blanche was appointed, it was
Paul Pappollia, the Police Minister who was you know, stood
by his side at that appointment. But then like any
other police force, there are those rivulets of of of
pressures and and and talk and pulling points that that
(03:33):
always go through. So from my understanding, cole Blanche is
liked in some quarters and he isn't in others in
terms of the police ranks. So whether that will will
play out during his next appointment, because the contracts, I
believe go for five years, we'll we'll have to wait
(03:56):
and see. But cole Blanche has been a very very
fourth right public figure. You might remember Greg even over there, Yes,
when that amazing morning unfolded when Cleo Smith was was
found alive, it was actually cole Blanche, not then commissioner,
but it was actually cole Blanche who did the very
(04:18):
early morning piece to camera that was then beamed around
the world announcing that this this this miracle had happened
and this girl had been found alive after all those
days and nights of of worry and searching. It was
cole Blanche that actually was you know, was was dragged
before a camera at four o'clock in the morning, and
and and and did the internal sort of colms that
(04:39):
was then sent out before Chris Dawson actually fronted a
media conference up in carav And that I was that
I was at later that day. So he's he's always
been very front and center of this of the since
Carlo Callahan resigned that the commissioner before last. He's always
been very front the center, very media savvy. But unfortunately,
al we've been told this week that he won't be
(05:02):
coming on to answer questions live unfortunately.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Well, I love this quote, Greg that you sent by
Ralph Waldo Emerson that an institution is only the lengthened
shadow of an individual. Tell me your thoughts in relation
to that quote, and I guess the police commissioner.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, well, I think it ties in with everything Timja
said I read that quote of Emerson's years ago. I've
always loved him as a writer and a thinker. And
the second part of the quote is that his character,
meaning the leader's character, determines the character of the organization,
that his shadow goes over the organization. And I think
at a time and we see it at close quarters
(05:43):
in the media, where bureaucracies and governments, all kinds of
institutions are getting increasingly defensive and bureaucratic, it's really important
that I think that you have leaders who are forth writers,
you said, Tim of the commissioner, and who were prepared
for their organizations to be reflective of their character. And
(06:04):
that's perhaps where we're missing good leadership in so many
areas right now. People are so defensive, and people are
so concerned about the occasional mistake that they're sometimes reluctant
to do the right thing. And that to me has
been one of the shadows, if you like, over this investigation,
that they seem to have been so busy to cover
(06:26):
their own bases that somehow other humanity.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Has got lost along the way.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
And I know Elie quote you love, and I do,
and probably Tim does as well, as from Michael Cromley's
character Harry Bosh either everybody counts or nobody counts, and
somewhere along the way here, I just think Amy got
lost and the bureaucracy kind of took over, and that's sad.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
And I think Greg the other thing that people have
spoken to me about, not necessarily by Amy's case, but
in other cases, is that because the intersection of police
and politics are so close, there is a danger that
ministers police ministers as politicians can be then very reluctant
(07:12):
to be seen to be critical of police forces because
a they are extremely important to societies and two cabinets
and to governments to have a functioning, high morale police force.
But then you walk a fine line as a senior
police minister or a politician in that if you're seen
(07:35):
to be too critical of the police, are you then,
whether it be on one particular case or just in general,
are you then seen to be undermining them and bashing
them and chipping away at the confidence of those at
the coal face who do an extraordinary difficult job. Where
I think we all I think we all accept, but
there are cases that come along inevitably that are not
(07:58):
handled the best, and it's when I find that there's
a reluctance to criticize or call out that is when
that is that is a danger because you know, every
organization needs to learn from their mistakes, and I think
in this particular case, there's been a distinct reluctance to
(08:19):
even accept mistakes were made, let alone learn from them.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
I wonder, Elie, because you've dealt with this as well
on the Lady Vanishes, the Marion Barter case, and others,
where that defensiveness comes from. Why are they reluctant to
admit mistakes? Why are they afraid to concede that occasionally?
You know, they make errors, as we all do. It
doesn't matter what organization people work in. We all as
individuals make mistakes, and those organizations make mistakes. But maybe
(08:47):
it gets back to what Tim was saying that they
feel they're losing face or whatever.
Speaker 6 (08:51):
When they do that.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
I just think it makes them more normal, doesn't it.
Speaker 6 (08:54):
Well?
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Absolutely, I mean when I look at the Lady Vanishes,
it's kind of interesting how that transfer because it started
off with the police being so defensive. So the new
teams that were brought in with Glenn Brown, who took
over Missing Persons, he was like, no, they handled it
badly at the beginning. They didn't follow protocols and just
(09:15):
accepted it and said that this is what.
Speaker 5 (09:17):
We're doing to manage it.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
And in some respects WA police did that with this
one when the uniformed police went against the detectives, right
because the uniform police and so that what they actually
offered instead was to say, well, now we have a
phone number that they can call if junior police officers
want to argue that they don't accept the decision that
(09:42):
was made by their senior by the detectives in this case.
But isn't that kind of too late? And I still
don't think, I mean, the detectives involved with this really
only got to wrap over the knuckles when you look
at the findings of the internal investigation. So I don't know,
it's just like they try to keep everyone happy rather
(10:02):
than just saying, you know what, you guys stepped up here.
We're going to have to fix it and then move on.
But certainly the defense at the inquest the council representing
police was hell being on suicide there. So the old school,
I suppose, seems to still dominate in police forces now,
which is I think the issue.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
You too were much closer to it.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
But as a listener, and again I'm probably asking a
question the thousands who listened to it would be asking
why were.
Speaker 6 (10:32):
They so fixed on that opinion?
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I mean, I understand the early bungling and early bungling
can happen, but later bungling should sort that out. But
why were they so keen to hold on to that?
I would rather have thought they should have started from
the premise that it was a crime committed by somebody
else and then feed everything through that lens or that filter.
(10:54):
It seems to make a great deal more sense. And
fixating on this idea of suicide, what did you make
of that?
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Well? In Western Australia, Greg that we've talked about this
on previous episodes. In the history of the of the
major miscarriages of justice that we've had here, there's a
loose theme, or sometimes it's quite tight, in that the
police force over here do tend to sometimes on major cases,
(11:23):
get very blinkered and have tunnel vision to just one vision.
We were talking just off are there about the case
of Lloyd's Rainey, a senior barrister, top love level prosecutor
for the Odpp whose wife went missing. Her body was
eventually found in King's Park, which is the main green
(11:43):
space in the middle of Perth, and Lloyd was accused
of murdering his wife because of various issues, including marital
problems that they were having. That was eventually disapproved in
the court of law. Lloyd took the police to court
himself over defamation claims because one of the senior detectives
in the case fronted a press conference before Lloyd had
(12:06):
even been charged and said that he was the prime
and only suspect in this murder. Now, that could only
lead to one conclusion that that's all the police were
looking at. Right, So that's the rainy case. You've got
the Andrew Mallard case, which we discussed last week with
Liam again focused on one person. You've got the the
(12:26):
Clarmont case. For a long time, detectives on the Macro
Task Force were concentrated on a man called Lawnce Williams
who ended up being and when I say concentrated, I
mean years and years of surveillance on this public servant
who eventually turned out to be completely innocent. So there's
a history there, right. And then in this case, for
(12:48):
whatever reason that the two detectives that have turned up
have concluded suicide completely without any proper investigation, let's put
it that way. And since then that has been the
vision that it seems to me the wa police have
either had to stick to because that's what they early concluded,
(13:11):
or they wanted to stick to try and keep their
detectives from having been proved completely wrong. So there again,
there's that blinkers is that tunnel vision, even though, as
Alison and Liam have teased out over over many many weeks,
through many many episodes, that there is there was so
much more evidence to look at, and it's a much
(13:31):
broader picture than just Amy. Amy shot herself.
Speaker 7 (13:35):
We have the cars packed, the children are in the car, and.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Allison, I think in the last episode you made reference
to the phone call coming after the photo was taken,
but again the coroner seemed to place more weight on
that photo than the call coming after it and everything
else that Tim was was talking about. You know, at
a time one of the things I think that annoyed me,
(14:00):
and domestic violence was something I looked at for a
long time, and it's great that we're talking more about
it at the moment, but I don't think this investigation
was consistent or honored the understanding of domestic violence were
getting these days.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
To me, I mean, there was clearly a.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Background of the violence in this relationship.
Speaker 6 (14:21):
There's a violent crime. Now.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I'm not making any suggestions about it. I'm just saying
as a listener, it seemed to me that the investigator
or some of the investigators, and perhaps even the coroner
underestimated that aspect of the case.
Speaker 6 (14:36):
And then when you combine it all with that.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Telling that extraordinary biomechanical testimony to you guys from Scott Roper,
I mean, that was just compelling to listen to.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
It was really impressive stuff.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Well you've said it before, Alie, this scene in its
very early stages was never looked through the filter of
a violent relationship or domestic violence, was it?
Speaker 3 (15:12):
No?
Speaker 2 (15:12):
See, one of the things that sort of confused me too.
And we talk about new evidence, right, because that's the
whole basis of this is finding new evidence that can
be considered. First of all, the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions I don't believe has seen the brief
since twenty eighteen after those biomechanical reports come through, so
they haven't considered it in all that time following the
(15:36):
findings as well, because the coroner didn't refer it to
the DPP, so as a result they haven't seen the information.
And as we've also noted, even though there's new evidence,
Scott Rhoder's being probably the most dominant new evidence. But
you know, you've also got the photo of Amy that
(15:57):
was sent to Aaron of the bruises, which the police
didn't find at the time, even though we were able
to find it within twenty minutes. Other information that just
wasn't didn't seem to be given numbs. I suppose the
priority that it should have been or at least seen
as important, which is the whole basis of a coronial inquest.
(16:21):
And we find though, and particularly in cases like this,
that the very often several inquests. So anyway, Anna has
written to the officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions
or to the Director himself, Rob Owen, asking for a meeting,
and I guess the question also she's asking is whether
he can request a copy of the brief of evidence
(16:42):
so that he can make his own analysis, because only
relying on the police, which of course we've asked them
as well, whether after they've followed up all these this
new information this team has been put together to do
following our podcast, they'll then refer it to the Office
of the Director of Public Classificitions. But I mean, I
(17:04):
guess putting it in their hands again is just the
fear factor that everyone has, is that well, if they
don't have the appetite to see this one solved necessarily,
which we don't know. It's just that we're just going
upon all previous, previous evidence. We just need to, I
(17:25):
guess have some sort of backup that, you know, which
is why Anna, you know, put it to the age,
because I guess that's the other thing, right.
Speaker 5 (17:35):
You know, there's supposed to be a real.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Separation between politics and the law, right, and we can
understand that, right that that's really important. But as a family,
if the justice system seems to be letting you down,
you have to go to your politicians, right who represent you,
because they represent the people. And that's why she's appealed
to the Attorney General. And even though you General says
(18:00):
that they have that they're not allowed to direct the
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Of course, it's
just a case of can you just have a look
at this, you know, and just you don't make your
own determination. It's not a direction, right.
Speaker 3 (18:14):
How hard is that Once they circle the wagons, Once
those institutions of power start circling the wagons, what chance
does the average person have. And we see this on
a daily basis of people listening now will have their
own battles with bureaucracy in different institutions.
Speaker 6 (18:30):
It's so very hard to the individual.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
I think it was the Shadow Attorney General correct me
if I'm wrong, guys in one of your episodes, the
Shadow Attorney General over there, and I know what he meant.
He said, it's not up to the media to solve
these situations. And I know what he was saying. It
was more or less saying the police and politicians need
to do it. But perhaps that's to misunderstand the evolving
(18:55):
role of the media. Now, you guys are dealing with
this on a day to day basis. Now, I would
have thought there's enough evidence now in all the not
only podcasts, but other outlets as well. The media has
a key role in not just solving them, but helping
police to solve them. So again, if those authorities vested
with the responsibility. I'm doing that job either either can't
(19:20):
do it, don't want to do it, or require help
in doing it. And I would have thought there's an
increasing role for the media, and not only the media,
but to the many thousands of people podcasts like this
one reach, as it did in some of the other
famous ones.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
Well. As a journalist of too many years long standing, Greg,
You're not going to have any argument with me about
that point. I mean, these many cliches you can use,
including you know the classic one that you know, sunlight
is the best disinfectant, right, and you shine a light
on some of these cases. Well, I mean, you know,
(19:54):
just on a small scale, you see it every day
talk back radio. Someone rings in, I've got an issue
with my local council. It can sometimes take one or
two calls from a radio producer and low and behold,
there will be a council worker on your verge doing
something that you've been trying to do for three months yourself. Right,
So it works on that micro scale, but on a
(20:15):
macro scale in this case and other cases. I mean,
you know, we've all seen the impact of Headley Thomas's
amazing work in the in the podcast Realm for the
last few years, and Allison's own amazing work as well.
The podcast has become a new vehicle, or a recent
(20:35):
vehicle to dig deeper than you can in a six hundred,
eight hundred and twelve hundred word article, which you know,
has been my main medium for the last sort of
thirty years or so, because it just gives you time, right,
and I'm finding that people connect a little bit closer
(20:58):
or a little bit deeper when they're actually listening to
the people that are involved and even knowing this case
as I did, and then Alison asking me, you know,
to to help with the editorial, and then listening to
the first few episodes, you know, it just it just
brings it home in a way that that you know,
unfortunately the printed medium will never do. And you turn
(21:22):
it over to the public and say, well, what do
you what do you think? Oh, you know, you know, well,
I'm looking at the signatures on the on the petition
that that Anna launched a few weeks ago. It's up
to just over seven thousand now. And we know from
the listenership over the last weeks and weeks and weeks
there are many, many thousands of people that that I
think are not only listening to to Amy's story, but
(21:46):
are backing Amy's family in their in their quest for
the truth because.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
You con front of something similar, Ellie, didn't you When
you were doing The Lady Vanishes? And Tim was talking
about that emotional connection that radio has always it was
one of the things that attracted me to it as
a kid. I was emotionally attached to these voices on
the radio for all kinds of reasons. And podcasts now
have that capacity that a written police statement or a
(22:14):
bureaucratic statement, they simply don't have that kind of weight.
When you were doing The Lady Vanishes, it made that
connection to the extent that some of your listeners actually
made breakthroughs.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah, well, we still get so many, even with this one,
not to the extent of Lady Vanishes, because I think
Lady Vanishes was just one of those unique ones because
it was international, and so many countries and places and
people are parochial by nature, right, so they sort of
like to be able to relate in some way to it.
(22:48):
Romance scams are quite a big deal, but also with
this one as well, with domestic violence, and when we
had lots of domestic violence victims reach out to us
as a result, and you want to help everyone, right,
and it's so hard. And you look at the bombar
our case as well in Western Australia recently, and there
(23:09):
was another one in Northern Territory where I think the
victim had made like two hundred calls or complaints to
police recently and then ended up being killed. I think
it's just being relatable as well and being able to
help as many people as possible. Being able to relate
it make it relatable. Obviously, people hate injustice. That's what
(23:30):
we ourselves. We hate injustice, and that's like our main focus.
Regardless of what you believe is the case here, there's
no doubt or there's no issue with believing that the
investigation was watched. You know that that seems to even
though we saw those emails or that information comes back
(23:53):
from ECOI where some police is still holding onto that whole. No, no,
we didn't make a mistakes sort of. So I think
that's I think the media has an extremely important role
in this in shining a light, giving a voice to
the voiceless, making all the aspects apparent so that people
(24:15):
can make their own judgment.
Speaker 6 (24:16):
See Ali that's a really important point.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
We came to hear what Tim has to say about
that too, because again, one of the things that as
a listener to this really concerned me was the nature
of the debate about the balance of probabilities and beyond
a reasonable doubt, both of which planned this. But I
don't know if it's a uniquely Western Australian thing, but
it just seemed to me that they're kind of upside
(24:41):
down a little bit. When I listened to what you
guys presented, I didn't have much that at all, let
alone a reasonable one, And when it came to a.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
Balance of probabilities about what happened, I think it.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
You know, again, it was pretty clear with the balance
of probabilities that a.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
W a thing or not.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Well, no it's not. I mean, they're they're two sort
of cornerstones of the justice system all over the world.
Speaker 6 (25:09):
I'm in the interpretation over the.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
Prioritization of the Yeah, well, I don't know, I don't.
I don't think it is and I mean I think
I think you've your analysis, as Greg is the same
as as is a lot of people's, and there you know,
anyone who listened to last week's episode and sortably, I'm
talking about his still disbelief some of the questions that
(25:36):
were asked during the inquest and the conclusions that were
that would that were drawn from the answers to those questions, Again,
there's there's a reasonable doubt, would there be, Well you'll
never know, Well we might know, we never know, And
that's if Robert oh in the O d p P
(25:58):
decides yeah, okay, well we'll ask for that file to
be sent over to my office and I might spend
a couple of hours or a couple of days reading it. Well,
it's ultimately it would ultimately then be up to that
office to decide a what are the ballots of probabilities?
And then be if we did put this before a
(26:19):
jury or a judge, could we prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Speaker 3 (26:22):
But the jury would have to say, wouldn't I I
think again, a lot of people were just like the
idea of the jury having essay on all of this,
not a politician, not a DPP, a jury.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Yeah. Well that's the whole point, right, I Mean, we
still have the juris system for a reason, because the
justice system all over the world has decided that's the
best system that we have twelve or fourteen of sixteen
of your peers that are drawn from all aspects of
life or walks of life, all measures of experience, and
they bring it all together in two rooms, the courtroom
(26:55):
and the jury room, and then come to a verdict.
In this case, I'm not sure, because we do have
the power to have trials by judge alone in this
case if there are reasons for it, one of them
being lots of pre trial publicity, so you know, but yeah,
I mean, you'd hope it would even get you know,
(27:15):
at this point, we're just hoping it would get to
the point where the office of the DPP have a
look at it. Let alone, let alone the next step, right, because.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
That's not unique either, arely is it? I mean you
think back to and again, I guess we all approach
these things with a different mindset. I'm thinking back to
the case of Chris Dawson and the NET SIMS and
the reluctance at that stage way back when the NETT
went missing to lay charges. You know, as you listen
(27:48):
to what information they had then, I can't understand the
reluctance of the DPP not to have laid charges then
and to pursue different avenues of investigation. Then I get
really annoyed, guys when I often hear people say things
were different then in.
Speaker 7 (28:04):
The eighties or the nineties or the seventies.
Speaker 6 (28:06):
When I was around in the.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Seventies, eighties and nineties and things weren't different, then we
lose the idea of domestic violence. Now, community attitudes have
caught up a little bit in some senses, but a
lot of what was around then is also around now,
and I just.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
Don't like that idea of them.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
I don't know, rationalizing certain behaviors either then or now.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
You're absolutely right. I mean, I watched a documentary on
the Yorkshire Ripper, who's a notorious probably one of the
most notorious UK serial killers, and it goes to two
of the points we've discussed this morning. The tunnel vision
that the police had then about the fact that he
was killing prostitutes and prostitutes were not worth investigating, and
(28:53):
the fact that he actually wasn't just killing prostitutes. He
attacked young women. He detacked girls from school girls in it,
so called innocent victims. And it was the outrage, the
growing outrage that so many women could be killed up
one after the other that eventually brought about changing the
squad that investigated. And then it was you know, a
(29:14):
bobby on the beat that actually just happened across him.
And that was you know, that was in the in
the in the eighties, seventies and eighties in the UK.
So the attitudes then were exactly the same, why are
we dying? Why are women dying on the streets? Why
why can't you catch this guy? And it was the
same in the nineties with the Claremont case here and
(29:35):
so many others. Amy's case is twenty fourteen, I mean,
so it's the police can't even go well, you know,
it was different back then, No, it wasn't. It's ten
years ago, guys, and attitudes of you know, they've moved
on a bit, but not you know, women dying of
gunshot wounds to the head have always been a shocking
(29:57):
to the community then and now now.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
I'm just putting this out there and I think we
all kind of agree. We know, we've been in the
media for a long time and we know.
Speaker 5 (30:07):
That all lives aren't equal.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
You touching upon the prostitutes being the victims with the
Yorkshire Ripper, right and not seeming to matter as much,
but in Amy's case there was that whole. I just feel,
this is my opinion, if Amy had been middle class,
if it had been an affluent suburb in Perth, if
(30:33):
she had been white, I feel it would have been
created differently. That's just my opinion, and I guess that's
something that Sharon of Seeing touched upon as well. There
was this whole basis that it was considered at some
stage that Amy was indigenous. I mean, obviously David Simmons
is indigenous. She's actually a quarter tie. But whether or
(30:56):
not that would matter either because she's not, you know,
a white Australian and the circumstances, whether or not there
were some prejudgment, and you know that these things are
always subjective, right when people come into a scene, that
there is prejudgment of the circumstances in a lot of cases,
and some are treated more carefully than others.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Well, it's an interesting month to ponder whether if Amy's
body had been found in a bedroom in Clermont or
Cottislow or Pepermint Grove or one of the more affluent
western suburbs of Perth, rather than in a pretty ramshackle
sort of bedroom on a property in Serpentine. What would
have been the reaction. I mean, you would assume there
(31:40):
would be different officers, right, maybe more experienced, maybe more
open minded. Who knows, and it's a it's a question
that's asked all over the world. I would surmise whether
there is Well, what's the buzzphrase two tier policing, I
think was the phrase that has been kicking around in
(32:01):
the UK recently. You know, whether some chromes are different
or treated differently to others, or chrome scenes are treated
different to others. Again, I'm pretty sure that if you
ask the police straight out, they'd absolutely deny it, But
whether that makes it true or not is another matter.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
They might even deny it in good faith, and they
might even believe they're right, and they might have acted
in a way that they believe was right. But there's
so much institutionalization of these things, isn't there. And there's
enough I mean, in this case Ali and Tim, you'd
have to be in the minds of the investigators an
all concerned, But there's enough evidence around the world just
(32:40):
to prove the point you're making.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
It's just a fact.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Just with that, I mean, I think the difference Obviously
we had the uniform officers who were just fantastic, and
we're right in there. And this is the problem with
them being I guess junior, so we're obviously not casting
that shadow in relation to their reaction. But I think
the difference and this is where it comes back with
(33:04):
Christopher Dawson to Chris Dawson lind Sim's murder. They have
a champion in the police there, high up, Gamien Loom,
and that makes a difference too, Right, It's just having
somebody who is invested in a play in a position
where they can do something.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Well. I'm sure Greg has experienced it on that side
of the country, but yeah, having someone on your side,
even one person can open within, you know, the walls,
can you know, it can help immeasurably. But it's finding
that person. Getting someone to listen can be the hard part.
(33:44):
And as we've seen for weeks and weeks and weeks
and heard from Anna, it's not like she hasn't tried
for more than ten years now to just try and
get that one person, you know, in terms of high
up in the hierarchy, to say yeah, okay, look I'm
(34:05):
on your side and leave it with me. And I'll
see what I can do. There's been lots of little
people like you and me, Allison, sort of banging the
drum and trying to push the barrow along. But yeah,
I mean you're right. Sometimes you just need someone high
up to say, yeah, okay, you got me.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Even when the police do get passionately involved, and I
mean that can lead to all kinds of internal divisions
and problems, Ali and Tim from over there, you might
have followed it as well. The case of the tragication
little William Tyrrell Gosh and the Spider Man outfit heartbreaking.
But even now opinions are divided, and we have one
(34:51):
of the senior police who Ali, I think you know,
who had very strong ideas on who did and didn't
do it. Yeah, and you know that proved to be wrong.
But he was passionate. I admired his passion. I admired
his passion to be doing the right thing. Now, whether
he was right or wrong, that's yeah for others.
Speaker 6 (35:10):
To be so.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
One or two things he was quite confident about certainly
weren't true. So but I think you start with the passion,
if you if you start with that idea that you
know everybody does count. We're really going to try and
sort the truth here, and if that means having a
few fights within the force and with the press and
taking some criticism, and because none of that stuff matters
(35:31):
in the end, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
That's right, That's the whole thing, right, The politics doesn't
matter if you.
Speaker 5 (35:38):
Just look at what your what your role is.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
You know about justice and you know there to serve
and represent the people and ensure their safety. So just
on that, I've put a couple of questions to the
Police Commissioner. He hasn't got back to me yet, but
it hasn't been twenty four hours yet, so I'm not
going to hold them to that. But these are the
questions to the Police Commissioner following up the information that's
been provided into Amy Wensley's case the team that's doing that,
(36:06):
So once investigative, will the brief of evidence be updated
and passed on to the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions to consider if not, why not, how long
will this take and who makes that decision? So I
we'll obviously update you in further conversations as to what
those answers are. And yeah, I think that's the whole
(36:28):
thing is from our side of things, we need to
just keep that pressure on.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
We'll keep the petition going.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Also, just a reference Peter Collier, who were talking about
before Greg, So he's the actually the shadow Police Minister.
People were saying, well, why didn't we put it to
the Police Minister rather than the AG? Right, Well, I
guess the reason we put it to the AG was
in relation to the ODPP and what he could do.
(36:56):
There is that reminder that the Police Minister is close,
presumably to the Police Commissioner. Obviously he's politely declined to
answer any questions on this podcast anyway. So yeah, it's
it's really just trying to find that just somebody, somebody
(37:16):
as as as Liam pointed out last week, to be accountable.
Speaker 6 (37:20):
They're all way too close to each other. The problems
is a problem.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
I mean, I'm sure it's the same in Queenslanka. There's
only there's only you know, so many people in those
in those high positions. The current Attorney General, John Quigley,
has been around politics and police and police unions for
a large part of the last three decades. Cole Blanche,
the current Commissioner, has been an assistant Commissioner. He's also
(37:46):
worked closely with the a FP and National Intelligence sort
of you know, on those those bigger investigations involving drugs
and international So you know, there's only so many people
that that can reach that achelon right, and by the
time you get there, you all know each other, and
you all know each other's politics, and you will probably
(38:07):
know each other's paccadillos and the things that that you know,
the investigations that you concentrate on, and so yeah, it
can it can be that closeness that can become a barrier,
and then trying to break in as we are we're
just talking about and trying to trying to get into
that circle can be it can be difficult too.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Yes, we had the case of the Queensland Forensic Lab
over here as a related to the case of Shandy Blackburn,
and I think that was a good example of the
kind of thing we're talking about that we both talk
about in a sense that it's understandable that people have
grown up through the Midia and they get to know
each other and it's good that they can cooperate. I
(38:50):
think the problem becomes when when the average citizen doesn't
have the kind of entree that they do.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
I think absolutely absolutely, He's.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Just got to get it back to the fundamentals.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Still your role, you're what you're meant to do. And
I do love that Peter Collyett sort of jumped out
at it because I mean, being the shadow Police minister,
you know, he's he's putting it up to the police
as well, right, I mean obviously he's concentrated in quickly,
but he's accepting that the police have not handled this
case properly, which is brave. Whenever anyone says brave, you're
(39:27):
going to be oh no, it's like in yes, minister.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Right, says brave minister?
Speaker 7 (39:35):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (39:37):
What have I done it?
Speaker 2 (39:40):
So, you know, I'm really appreciative for him for you know,
sticking up, just standing. And I guess that the big
test will come right when you're in power.
Speaker 5 (39:49):
Will you still be able to do that? I hope.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
So that's what the great politicians do. I mean the
politicians we remember, the politicians who achieve great things. They're
the ones who do that kind of thing. You know.
In Australia, think just in in my time, I think
Bob Hawk, I think Paul Keating, I think John Howard.
Speaker 6 (40:08):
These were people at different points of view about all.
Speaker 7 (40:10):
Manner of things, but you were never in any doubt
about what.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
They thought and they were prepared to go out there
and argue their case. Is not always popular, but I
think people come to respect that, I really do.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
And being seen to be invert come is interfering in
the in the justice system. You know, there obviously there
is that separation of powers that are that are vitally important.
But you know, there also comes a point where you know,
a quiet word can go a long way. It doesn't
have to be done, you know, in a public, showy
(40:46):
type of way. Even though the government has offered a
million dollar reward right for for information that might lead
to the solving or the you know, the truth, and
that was a government decision, so they're invested in monetary terms.
They've offered this money to anyone to come forward, so
(41:13):
by extension, they obviously want to see it, see the
truth come up themselves. And it's worth a million bucks
to them, or were worth a million dollars to someone.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
That was interesting. I could see what they were trying
to do. There's obviously somebody they hope knows or somebody
has heard somebody or seeing something or whatever. But what
went through in my mind when I heard that a
million dollars for anybody with any information just listen to
the podcast. You've got everything you need right there.
Speaker 6 (41:44):
Just listen to all of that.
Speaker 5 (41:45):
I think.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Also, I mean, that's all well and good and appreciative
of it. Obviously Sally Laden was pushing that for Marion
a million dollar reward into her case big time, and
so it is good. But it's also very passive, isn't it.
It's not a real active effort to do something. I
mean referring it to the ODPP, right, that is something
(42:09):
that means something because I mean, again, no one's directing
the ODPP. If you just say, hey, have a look
at this, is there anything there? You know? And then
it still comes down to somebody else making that decision, right,
But I mean that to me shows a lot more
dumption and an absolute commitment, because it's just like crossing
(42:31):
your t's and dotting your eyes, right.
Speaker 5 (42:33):
I just want to make sure.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
I want to make sure that we're on the right
track here and that this isn't getting lost along the way,
because you know, we've got a situation where there will
be people's noses out of joint if it is solved,
potentially because it could prove those in power. I mean,
somebody's got to be wrong regardless of the outcome. So
(42:56):
you know, it's not worrying about people's feelings.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
And again it's they're coming from the right place. They
won't care if they're wrong or you know, it's knows
Is that a joint. I mean, that's that's their job.
They're doing. Hopefully they're doing the best they can. We're
all wrong, occasionally, learn from it, move on, try to
get it right.
Speaker 4 (43:15):
Yeah, that function of the reward has always intrigued me because, yes,
it's a it's a very large carrot to dangle in
front of anyone who might have that piece of information.
But at the other end of the process, as a journalist,
try and get any information out of the police about
a whether they that that reward was ever claimed and
(43:38):
or awarded to anyone, and B you will never ever
find find out who was was that was that person
and you know, unless they become a star witness in
a in a in a trial or something and you
can join those dots. So yeah, it's it's it's an
interesting sort of way of a gaining publicity for a
(44:02):
case and be hopefully prompting someone to come forward.
Speaker 8 (44:08):
But yeah, whether they work or not, it's very hard
to very hard to conclude because you never get to
run that circle off really in terms of public information.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Yes, that's true. I mean I can understand not finding
out who they are. But you you know I have
tried to FOI I think at least once. Just you
know how much of these awards are actually awarded.
Speaker 5 (44:34):
I don't recall having much success.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
But look, I just wanted to say a few things
to our listeners out there. If you have any questions,
please send us an email to the Truth about Amy
at seven spelled out seven dot com dot au. I'll
put it in the show notes obviously. As always, please
sign and share our petition. That link will be in
(44:58):
the show notes too, But if you if you want,
just google change dot org and Amy Wensley or Justice
for Amy and that will be there. And you know,
I mean, help us get justice for Amy. I mean,
I think this isn't a wasted investment, a wasted investment
of time or money or resources or efforts by everybody
(45:20):
involved to us, the people in in you know, just
signing a petition, but also the authorities in you know,
allocating resources to get this get this result. And I
want to thank you both, Tim and Greg. Thank you
so much. Is there anything either of you would want
to say in relation to you know, we've covered up
(45:43):
on a lot of this and I think it's so important,
But is there anything I have missed that you think
we need to include.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
It's been a pleasure to be part of it. I
think you've done an outstanding job. There are all kinds
of important issues at work in this investigation and I
think you're doing it really well.
Speaker 7 (46:02):
So well done, and thanks for having me as part
of it.
Speaker 6 (46:04):
I enjoyed it.
Speaker 4 (46:04):
Yeah, lovely to chat. Greg, thanks for joining us as always,
and thanks for Alison for just keeping pushing, sending letters,
doing everything we can to try and try and get
some justice for Amy's family.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
And if you like books, check out A Fascinating Investigation
or An Absence of Certainty, both by Greg Carey, both
stellar books. So don't miss Size and King your book
as well, would you because I haven't got that one
in front of me.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
So it's called The Enigma of the Dark, The Case
of the Claimont Killer. It was based well. It was
written about the case of Bradley Robert Edwards, who was
eventually convicted of being the man who stalked and terrorized
that western suburb of Perth in the early nineties. Covered
(47:00):
the case for a long time before he was arrested.
I certainly covered it after seven months of trial, hearings
attended every day, and yeah, there's some insight there into
the process that that that got him into court, which
was basically the longest and most expensive police investigation in
Australian history. So if you want to hear more of me,
(47:25):
there is an audio version, but there is also a
printed version too, So so yeah, it was it was
a labor. It was a labor of love at times,
but just the labor other times. But it's one of
those cases that is imbued in Western Australian people and
certainly in the justice system. And we've spent much of
(47:49):
the morning sort of gently criticizing the w A Police
and there were there are criticisms of the w A
Police in the book as well, but ultimately it was
an amazing piece of investigative work that that got justice
for the families of two of those girls that went
missing and they're still searching for the third, so so yeah,
(48:15):
check it out if you if you're interested in in
that case, it's called Enigma of the Dark.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
I'll order that for us, Gregg, I need to do
that already. I just got distracted.
Speaker 4 (48:25):
Yes, what do they say in in all good bookshops
and some bad ones as well.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Just just just on that and thanks for the plug.
Speaker 6 (48:33):
Eli.
Speaker 3 (48:34):
If you if you are interested in those books, maybe
just come to my website.
Speaker 6 (48:37):
Not if you want to inscribe or whatever.
Speaker 3 (48:39):
Great Carey dot com, Great Cary'scary with the c a
r Y dot com.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
Wonderful. I'm just in such a illustrious company, so thank
you so much. I see very privileged that between both
of you and obviously Liam and all our guests, it's
just it's just a real honor to be working on
something so important.
Speaker 5 (48:58):
So thank you so much.
Speaker 6 (49:00):
Under his aust I get h
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