October 6, 2024 • 38 mins
The team is joined by Australia’s finest detective Ron Iddles who offers his own unique insight on the handling of Amy’s case.
He discusses what actions police should be taking now, the difficulties associated with getting authorities to change their minds once they’re already fixed on a position, and his own battles with the ‘brotherhood’.
Don’t forget to please sign and share our petition https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-amy-help-refer-my-niece-s-case-to-office-of-director-of-public-prosecutions
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Hello, welcome to Conversations four and we have a very
special guest today. Ron Idle's the good Cop Victoria Police
forty two years thirty six as a detective twenty five
at the Homicide Squad, famous for the quote, well at
least I've quoted him a number of times. The answer
is always in the file.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Welcome Ron, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And we have Liam Bartlett here of course, and Tim
is away this week.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yeah, good Ael and Ron. Just to reiterate what Ellison
says there, Thanks very much for coming on board. Your
experience is absolutely second to none, mate, so we're very
pleased to have you here. And also obviously we're reminder
our listeners ol that Ron has been very much a
part of this case. His report was included in the
(01:16):
coronial inquest.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
That is correct, so you would have heard about We
heard a lot about Ron, particularly in episode ten. So
if you need to have a listen before you listen
to this conversations, check it out because it's a very
important aspect of this case. File Ron first question, how
did you get involved?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
I think it's as a result of the show that
I did with Good Cop. Amy's family contacted me asked
would I look at the inquest brief. They felt that
the investigation was poor, and eventually I agreed to do it,
and then their legal team had to get permission for
(01:59):
me to access some material from the current of course.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
What were your thoughts ro when you looked at the file?
And I guess caught up with everything that had happened.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
So I was sent the part of the Inquestbury and
some of the reviews that had taken place. So I
read all the file and then I could see that
there was a massive mistake made right from the start.
When you go to an incident where there's a shotgun involved,
you should treat it as a homicide in other words,
(02:32):
a murder or a manslaughter, and work back from that
premise to prove anything else. You don't deem it a
suicide from day one.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yes, so the default position on the bottom line, that
default position should have been something sinister, not something that
was innocent.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
That's correct, and then it might prove to be wrong.
But what you should do is you should call all
the services out, which would include your crime scene. You
call the pathologist out, you call a blood splatter expert out,
you call a ballistics person out, and you do all
the necessary measurement and that to determine whether the person
(03:14):
could have shot themselves or whether it's actually a homicide.
This case was determined in forty two minutes by the
detectives just saying, well, she's taken her own life.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yes, when you put it like that forty two minutes,
that really brings it home, doesn't it. Ron. I've got
to say, you know, one of the things I think
you're and I'm not blowing smoke here, but the Good
Cop show that you've been involved with and hosted one
of the best true crime shows on TV because you
make it simple, even for mugs like me. You know,
(03:47):
you break it down, break it down, break it down
all the way through an investigation. And I guess that's
what good detectives do, right. You know, it's not a
question of being the smartest person in the room. It's
a question of being thorough and absolutely looking at stuff.
Where the common sense alternative doesn't stack up. You know,
(04:11):
and when I look at this case and I read
your report to the coroner again, by breaking it down
like that, none of this makes sense. Would you agree
with that?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
None of it made sense? And it's a bit like
ABC Assume nothing, believe nothing, and check everything. Now, before
the two people that were at the house at the time,
that's David and Gareth, they had statements, taken him down
at the front gate, sitting in the back of a
police car. Now, before those statements were finished, the detective
(04:50):
that had already said it was a suicide. Now that's
impossible because you haven't even got a full detailed statement
from the two people who are present.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
It's disgraceful, really, I mean when you look at it,
I think though, when they obviously had the major crime
investigation and then the cold case review, what were your
thoughts as that transpired? Do you think that that was
enough or you know, where were you thinking the investigation
(05:21):
was going from there?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I think the Major Crime did a half reasonable job,
But the problem was you're already three or four days
behind because at that stage David and Gareth have been out. Joshua,
who was there earlier on it has been about you
don't know what they're doing in those three days leading
up to it. And the sad part is the crime
(05:45):
says planed up and no matter what you do, you
can never recreate that exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
That's true, but that seems to be something that that
resolved themselves too. Sorry it was watched at the beginning.
There's nothing we can do. We just have to leave
it as an open finding. Is that good enough or
is there still a way to redeem the situation? Do
you think?
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still
be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly
what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people.
I don't think I've ever been involved in a homicide
investigation where the person responsible has not told someone, So
(06:33):
it's about finding that person. Carl Williams, who was an
underworld figure in Melbourne who elderly died and was involved
in four or five murders, had this thing and he
said those who know don't talk, and those who talk
don't know. But in the end that was all proved wrong.
Those who knew always told someone.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Yeah, human nature isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's a rufic thing to cover up, and they
all always go ahead and tell someone.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
But Ron, let's put aside people's sense of loyalty, misguided loyalty.
Let's put that aside for a second. Just coming back
to that point about what evidence is available now, and
we know we've been through a whole stake of episodes
in this podcast trying to find the truth about Amy.
There is a lot of and not just circumstantial evidence.
(07:25):
To me as a layperson, there is a lot of
evidence in that room and around that room at the time,
regardless of the fact that it wasn't forensically protected, that
could still make a strong brief. Do you agree with
that point? Because I'm asking you because because you must
(07:46):
have had cases over the years where you've assembled what
you thought was a very strong brief and yet still
the DPP or the equivalent has knocked it back.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred.
I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to
the Director of probably Prosecutions and it's come back in
sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer,
and more so the reconstruction that you have done with
(08:21):
the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a
detective and I looked at the photos, and the right
hand is under the right leg, So the only way
that she could have pulled the trigger was with her
left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen
shotgun in the position that she was and get a
(08:44):
ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yes, exactly, Well, that's the thing, right. They decided she'd
used that to shield the barrel, so then they pretty
much dispensed with that theory and then went to the
right hand being used, and then they were trying to
find a way that the gun could have fallen in
that position and her hand could have gone under a buttock,
(09:10):
But of course in the end they couldn't prove that either.
So then it was the whole idea of the body
being moved. But there's still that attachment to the suicide
theory as opposed to just looking forward and saying, look,
what are the balance of probabilities. This is the brief.
Let's just put it to the DPP and let them decide.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Look, I think that I don't know what they've done
since the inquest. But what I'd be doing is who
is David's assay siate who are his friends who he's
been in contact with over the last three or four years.
You would go and speak to all Gareth's friends again,
because sometimes with the passage of time, people's relationship change,
(09:53):
and I think if you did that, you might actually
find someone who says, this is what he told me,
which is incant distant to what the account that he
gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And then
you couple that with all your evidence that you've found
and you put it to the Officer Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Ron here is there anything from a police level that
allows or doesn't allow the police to go to back
to David Simmons, back to the Gareth Price Joshua Brydon
and pull them in again for a formal interview separately.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
At this stage you would have to have new evidence.
You can't just go and arrest a person that you've
already interviewed for the sake of another interview unless you've
got new material to put to them.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Can you ask them to do that voluntarily?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Yes, you could go to any one of those three
who were there on the day with David especially, you
could go back and put the matters that you're uncovered
as a result of your expert from America.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Listen, this is where I still go back again and again,
you know, to that terrible evening. I still can't get
my head around there. I mean, two detectives turn up
with three uniforms already there, and between the two experienced
detectives senior police, they create notes between the two of
them that don't even fill a page, a single page
(11:23):
of a four paper. I'm just I just it does
my head in that statistic ron. How do you feel
about that as a senior police officer.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Well, I've got to sadly agree with you. If I
was at that scene, I think you would find that
I would probably have twenty a four pages of notes.
I'm going to talk to the first uniform police there.
I'm going to take notes to that, You're going to
do a diagram of the scene. Then I'm going to
make phone calls because I know I want other services there.
(11:56):
I just think those two detectives just didn't want to
be there that night. They might add something else to
go to. It's as if well, let's just tick this
box and walk away and sadly, I think they got
it wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
The Brotherhood of the Police. And you were in the
police force for half a century, so you know about this.
And when mistakes are made, when people do muck up,
is there an issue sometimes with having them taken into account?
And I mean there was an internal investigation and you
(12:40):
saw that. Was it enough? And do you think that
there should have been a bit more of an open
mind at the inquest as to what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3 (12:50):
I think there was definitely should have been an open mind.
After I made my statement for the currents court, they
then got a superintendent to read report and to produce
a report. Now I listened to his evidence at the
Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It was
all done properly, although he can see the mistakes at
(13:13):
the crime scene, but he said, I can tell you
now she took her own life. Well, that is just
a closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in
forty two years I've had to go up against the
Brotherhood and not once has anyone ever apologized to me
(13:33):
order families that we got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
That's interesting. You would have seen with Larry Blandford, right,
he's created like a bit of a leper now because
he actually stood up and he's no longer an officer.
How often does it happen that uniform cops might do
that and is it seen as a bit of an
army mentality you don't question your superior when it comes
(13:57):
to the police force as well.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Look, I think it was difficult for those junior officers
on the night. They were quite to the point that
it wasn't a suicide, or she hadn't taken her own life,
or they wanted a lot of other things done and tested,
and I think they spoke your mind. But it's like
a hierarchy. So, Okay, you've got these detectives who are
(14:19):
they're far more experienced than we are. They're saying she
took her own life, so they have to accept that,
even though deep down they don't yes.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
On that level, Ron, If we just get your comments
on a couple of these things that relate to the
police directly from your experience from some of our listeners
that have made queries put comments on the Facebook page
for the Truth About Amy podcast. If you don't mind out,
I'll just go through a couple of these for Ron
on that exact subject. Debra is asking why the uniform
(14:53):
police who turned up couldn't go over the heads of
the detectives at the time. Can you explain that, ron.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
If they did, then there'd be consequences down the track.
They would be seen as not being loyal to a
senior officer.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Yeah, it would. It'd be very difficult, woudn't it. I mean,
you know, it's just like trying to go up against
your manager if you're in a big organization. It's a
difficult thing at that level, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
It is? And I was asked in twenty twelve to
review the murder of two policemen Silken Miller in Melbourne,
and I came to the conclusion that one of the
persons responsible wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Now.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
When I finished my report, I took it directly to
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now that's caused me no
end of grief. I've been ostracized. I'm now the evil one,
even though later on it was proved I was right,
and the young person charged, Jason Roberts, did twenty one
(15:55):
years and has been exonerated. You don't buck the system.
If you buck the system, you'll be offstra basically left
to your stone devices.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Yeah, even though, as you say, you've been proved to
be one hundred percent right in fact, to the point
where that particular person has now launched a multimillion dollar
lawsuit against the government. So yeah, maybe more people should
have listened to you earlier.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Well, it's just one of those things that if you
go against the hierarchy, you're considered basically as a black shirt.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Yeah, that's sad, right for doing the right thing. Shouldn't
that be respected?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Or it should be it should be respected, But I
haven't seen it change much over the last twenty twenty
five years.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Agreed. Well, here's another one on that level. This is
from Judy on the Facebook page. Judy wants to know
how the Premier in Wa, Roger Cook, and the state's
Attorney General John Quigley sleep at night and how they
would feel if it happened to one of their children,
And she goes on to say the Police Commissioner Cole
(16:58):
Blanche needs to step up. That's a fairly straightforward and
fair comment, don't you think, Ron It is?
Speaker 3 (17:05):
But I think the Premier wouldn't know the exact details.
The police minister would have an overall briefing. But I
think it's time the Chief Commissioner stood up and said, well, look,
let's put this to bed once and for all, let's
get all the available evidence, put it back before the
Director of Public Prosecutions, and let's get a decision made.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, yeah, very good point. I mean, I'd love to
see some of this stuff, things that we've been shaking
our head over, ol, I'd love to see. I'd love
to see a jury hear the same stuff in the
same order. But here's another one from Facebook. Ron Trisha
wants to know more about the missing door handle. Now
I'm intrigued by that as well. What did you think
(17:45):
of that? Ron?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I can't explain that, Like, the door handle's missing, was
it missing prior to that day? And then I've got
a vague recollection that could have been on the dressing table.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yes, well it was replaced. That's the funny thing, right,
the door handled turned back up afterwards, but at the
time it was missing on the inside. And that's just
so strange. I've always thought that was strange because if
Amy had taken it, she would have taken it from
the outside, because she wouldn't have wanted her daughters to
walk in on her if she had killed herself.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
Oh, that's right. But where she's located behind the door,
to me, it's like she's gone down there and she's
cowering like gotta rum up, as if something's going to
take place.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Yeah, I agree, there was another guy. Actually, I don't know.
And Liam's going through this too, and it's great. I
love that we've had so many people get back to
us on this. This is Paul. We kind of addressed
this a little bit, but it'd be good to get
a little bit more detail. And he's basically said he's
enjoying the listening to the podcast since the terrible injustice
has occurred, but he can't help but wonder about one
(18:51):
piece of evidence that doesn't make sense to him. If
Amy was right handed and someone was holding a shotgun
on or near her right temple, why was she not
trying to push the hourl away with her dominant hand.
Surely she uses her strongest arm in trying to save herself. Now,
my understanding, as I remember seeing in the room, and
you saw the pictures right that the door is on
(19:12):
her left, so it's coming in from there and her
left hand is closest. But yeah, it's just another thing
that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
No, I don't think any of that stuff makes sense.
It doesn't make sense after the fact either, with the
way the gun was handled by at least three people,
the way the ammunition was handled in it, taken out
of it all before police arrived. I mean, it just
all that stuff just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, and then when they were told to clean up,
I think I think there's been shells were thrown out.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yeah, well they weren't found again.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
No, that's yeah. Look, here's another one on that subject. Guys.
There's an email here from Mirian. Mirian says this probably
has been covered. But if Amy was going to use
a gun to kill herself, as she would use the
pink one she bought, as it was hers and she
(20:09):
knew how to use it. But apparently it was over
in the wardrobe or against another wall. That's correct, that's right,
she said. Marian said, I heard on the podcast she
was slumped against the wall by the door with another
gun with her right hand underneath her bum, which absolutely
doesn't add up, correct, Marion, Yep, we just discussed that.
Being a woman myself and a mum, i'd never leave
(20:30):
my children in a running car and go inside to
kill myself. Great point. You would hate to think your
child may find you if they got out of the
still running car and she had presents in the car
ready to leave, So it does not stack up seeing
how slight she was. Marian also suggests she wouldn't smash
the tank in the shed. She may have run past
angry and brushed against it, which made it tip and smash,
(20:51):
depending on what kind of stand it was. Look another
good set of comments from some of our listeners, and
they do pick up for obvious reusons. They pick up
on the important points. And again, surely a jury of
peers would also have many many questions wrong.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Oh absolutely, But I think the thing that the DPP
if they get, if they get the brief, is that
the new reconstruction and even the previous biomechanic, it's impossible
to shot herself. And to a lay person in the
jury twelve good people drawn from the community, trying to
(21:29):
picture themselves holding a four ten shotgun with one hand
and pulling the trigger doesn't make sense. Well, there's three
three classic things that you always look for, motive, opportunity,
and capability.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well, Here's an email from Mandy. She says, I can't
stop thinking about the motive I heard in a few
episodes ago, the comment that the coroner said there was
a lack of motive for murder. Unfortunately, he says, Mandy,
this was glossed over. I feel you could have focused
on this statement more. Amy had applied for compensation for
(22:07):
her neck injury following the accident, when Simmons was driving
the vehicle. How was that going to directly impact Simmons? Then,
Mandy points to the clear evidence Amy was clearly in
the process of leaving with the car engine running. Or
domestic abuse victims, This is the most dangerous time to leave.
Mandy goes on, but she makes some great points there.
I mean, again, Ron, you know, if you want to
(22:31):
find the evidence disregarding the fact that, as we've been
saying time and time again, the detectives made a terrible,
terrible mistake and the place was cleaned up, but there
is all this suggestion of associated evidence around the actual
scene that could be well and truly explored.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Absolutely, is there.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Many homicides that you've had to deal with, Ron that
involved or had a background of domestic violence?
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Oh? Absolutely, I think if you went back to the
nineteen eighties, the homicide squad was called the heavy Domestics.
In other words, the majority of murders that we went
to were domestic related. The truth is always in an
an investigation, you've actually got to go out and find it.
And at the moment, I don't think that's being done.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
There's another one from Leslie who says keep at it,
justice will come. Has anyone investigated other cases around the
time the two detectives attended. I mean, one of the
detectives is no longer in the police force and we're
not there to necessarily bring them down. But it is
one of those things, right that some people in the
(23:40):
police force don't have the motivation. Do you find that
with people that you've worked with that there would be
ones that you you know, there's good and bad in
every profession, right.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Yes, I think there's more good in the police force
than I won't say they're bad. I think they're lazy.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Yeah, sort of morale and the driver for motivation that
comes from the top, doesn't it wrong? I mean, this
is not you know, this is not a witch hunt
to pile in on those particular police officers who did
the wrong thing. We know, it's very clear cut. They
did the wrong thing. They were terrible. But let's move on,
(24:22):
you know's let's get justice for amy, for a family.
You know, let's just do the police work. Now. Let's
have somebody at the top say, look that that was wrong,
but this is now. Let's plant the flag and say
from today, from here, we're going to do some excellent
police work and we're going to right a few wrongs
and we're going to score a blow literally for justice.
(24:45):
As much as that sounds like a cliche, but that
has to come right from the top so that we
you know, we just we set the agenda that way.
That's leadership, isn't it wrong?
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Oh? Absolutely? Or it comes from the head of the
colcase innit that says, okay, Swan's a priority. It's been
raised in parliament. It's been going on now since twenty fourteen.
The only reason they got an in quest is they
went to the equivalent to iback, such time, we did
the right thing. Yes, we've made mistakes. Let's finish it
(25:17):
off completely, do as much as we can and if
we get there, we get there, and if we don't,
we don't. But we've done the best we can for
the family.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Exactly. I know some fantastic police officers over the years
who've done some brilliant work and they're motivated by all
the right things, yourself included, Ron, And I mean that's
what you know, that's what the public should be supporting
because we really need those people in the service generally.
(25:48):
I mean, but you know, we can take any industry.
You know, I know some shocking journalists. Fortunately none of
them are on this podcast. But that's just life, isn't it.
But but you just need some strong leadership to say, okay,
let's make this work. Let's get some.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Action, and you get everyone involved and each detective have
some ownership, and where you go it can't happen. I've
sold the case that was thirty two years old by
going back over so the answer is always there. You
just got to go and get the evidence.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Tell us about that one, Ryan, that was a great one.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
So that was a young sixteen year old girl in
Shepperton who went missing. She was found in a table
drain stabbed sixteen to eighteen times in nineteen eighty two.
Now again investigated in that made a mistake earlier on
and they believed it was a person, Paul Greg Bledhill.
(26:49):
They even actually charged him with the murder, and back
then it went to an inquest, which was the same
as a committal. The coroner found that there was insufficient
evidence and he was released. Now, young Johnas wanted to
do a story about it, and she wrote a story,
and I actually went to Shepherd and after I read
(27:09):
the file and publicly I said Greg Gladill could not
have done this. So there were mistakes earlier on, but
as a result of that being honest upfront, the information
came in and eventually I charged Stephen Bradley, who's now
doing thirty six years.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Did you get any flack for that, ron No.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
One of the things with that case is that the
original exhibits for some reason, had been destroyed, so I
didn't have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst
there had been someone that was already charged and released
and the exhibits were missing, we were still able to
build a case and get sufficient evidence for him to
(27:51):
stand his trial.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
That's a benefit of being treated like a homicide in
the first instance. I'm so glad though, that you are
willing to stand up and you are willing to do
what's right, no matter the repercussions. I think that's so important.
I think it should be applauded. I mean people like
you who stand up to the brotherhood. I mean you
(28:12):
wouldn't listen to the episode where we went through the
internal fois from senior police. Were you surprised by that?
Speaker 3 (28:18):
I was especially the comments of the ballistics man using
for our language. Now he in this matter. It had
completed his report before all the testing was done, and
he says there's no criminality because there's no fingerprints on
the gun. Well, that doesn't mean there's no criminality. So
it's sad with that attitude because you are getting senior
(28:41):
members of the police force basically saying we're going to
do nothing.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Yeah, that was in twenty twenty three as well, it's
only a year ago. So just for listeners, they were
arguing about getting that one million dollar reward and being
treated as a homicide and having you go with the
West saying that are they taking poetic license by calling
it a homicide and saying it was a botched investigation.
So there are still people in the police force they
(29:06):
don't even accept it was a botched investigation.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
And seen people.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
You don't have to be very smart to figure out
it was a botched investigation, notwithstanding the fact that that's
already been decided at a higher level than our Yeah,
the inquest. But again it shows you the mentality, doesn't it.
You know, it's like the old adage about you know,
whether you win or lose, isn't it ron? You know,
it's like a grandmother's homily. You know, if you lose,
(29:32):
that's fine, but it's the way you lose. And again,
we're supposed to all be in this to have a win,
So let's forget about the losses and just make sure
we try and have the victory in other people's interests.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
You know, an investigation is a search for the truth
in accordance with the specifications of the law. So get
out there, try and find out what the truth is
and presented.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Yeah, exactly, And on that level, the correspond we've had
with the police, the recent correspondence, how back me up
on this because my interpretation, I think yours is the same,
is that this is certainly the way the WA police
have put it out there. This is the sort of
public perception that they want to create. So I'm hoping
(30:18):
this is the honest reaction, and this is true, but
it seems like there is a new team. In other words,
there is a new investigation into Amy's death. Is that
your interpretation as well?
Speaker 3 (30:31):
My understanding is that the cold case will relook at
it again and start from more basically scratched, but go
over it all and bring it to a conclusion.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
I hope.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
So, I hope that's what it is, because this is
what we ask the police when they got back to it.
Once investigated, 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? The answer is,
if new evidence relating to the death of Amy Wentz
is obtained during this investigation, it will be assessed by
the investigation team under the direction of the senior investigating officer.
(31:07):
If any new evidence indicates criminality or involvement by another
personal persons, it will be provided to the Officer of
the Director of Public Prosecutions for their review. So it's
very noncommittal to.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Me, that's a motherhood statement without saying what you're going
to do, but it's something and hopefully they can be
asked continually well where you're at, and they should be
in regular contact with the family.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yes, that's the thing, right, that's not happening. I mean Nancy,
I don't know when Nancy was last contacted. It's just
kind of crazy. And Anna has a family liaison officer
who sometimes gets back or does answer her questions, but
it just seems I don't know, it just doesn't seem
like enough, because I mean, it's obvious from our podcast
(31:54):
and the information that has been uncoveted to any line Freddie,
that there is information that should be considered by the ODPP,
particularly since as I know it, they haven't seen the
file since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
So the information and the reconstruction that you people have
done has that been passed on to the police.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
The name of Scott Rohada has been passed on to
the police, so hopefully they've made contact with him and
would consider him as part of that. Also, every single
person we've spoken to, a lot of people haven't appeared
on the podcast. All that information, all those people their
details have been invited to police with their permission, and
(32:37):
there's a lot of information there that would help the case.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Let's put that on the record again. In the case
of Scott Rhoda because obviously we went to a lot
of trouble to get him to be able to set
that up as a sendime to perfect scene Ron. So
it was a scale model of everything so he could
do an absolutely accurate analysis. I've said it before, but
(33:00):
I'll say it again. The police can have all our
camera tapes of all Scott's work. We filmed a whole lot.
They can study it back and forth to their heart's content.
You know, we're more than happy to muck in whatever
it takes. They can ring Scott personally, can have a
chat to him about it. But you know there's the trifecta.
You've now got not one independent expert, You've got three
(33:25):
separate independent biomechanical experts all saying not only does the
evidence not point to Amy Wensley shooting herself, but actually
the evidence points to someone else shooting her. How many
more people ron do you need? How many more independent
(33:45):
experts do you know?
Speaker 3 (33:46):
You can produce those three experts, and the defense are
then entitled to rebut it and call their own experts.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
When you went through the process of getting a referral
to the ODPP or providing a case, did you decide
that or did you have to send it up the
line ron to get permission. No.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
So when I the Michelle Buckingham case, I believed I
had sufficient evidence based on my experience, and I charged him.
I didn't have to send it to the Director of
Public Prosecutions. So you could get to the point in
this case. If the cold case believe that they had
a primer facy case, in other words, that all the
(34:25):
points for a homicide or a murder were covered, they
could make the decision themselves to charge and present.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Here's the problem, though, we saw that FOI and senior
people who weren't supportive of there being any other resolution
other than suicide. What happens if they don't do it?
I mean, is it like we just reliant on them
and their subjective opinion.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Well, you reliant solely on the police either to charge
or put the brief together and send it to the
Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Does the Director ever ask for briefs to be sent
to them.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Not that I'm aware of now, which.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Is why we went back to the whole thing with
the Attorney General. I mean the Attorney General We've asked
obviously in a petitioner and is asked on behalf of
the family in a petition to have it referred because
of this, I guess opposition from the police in the
past and currently according to the fied emails that we have,
(35:29):
and there is this whole idea that he wouldn't be
able to do that now. This is actually his comment
that brings me back to the correspondence that we got
from his office again who outlined to me it is
a matter of a subject of a police investigation and
it would not be appropriate for the attorney to comment.
The attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family. Police
(35:52):
can refer a brief of evidence for the Office of
the ODPP to assess whether the available evidence establishes a
prima facing case with reasonable prospects, but the attorney has
no role in that process. There is nothing in the
Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the attorney
to refer matters the ODBP. Of course, this is just
me saying this. There's nothing that that also which prevents
(36:13):
them from doing it. And then she goes under say
and it specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to
the DPP in respect of that of a particular case.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
But issuing directions is completely separate to referring matters.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
I know, I know, but they're clinging to that, as
Ron put it beautifully, a motherhood statement.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Well, that's just basically telling us and all our listeners
how to suck eggs in a very very bureaucratic way
and tying it up with a bow. Are you serious
that they don't have meetings at that level and discuss
various things.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
I mean, you know, I understand there has to be
a separation of powers. But the Attorney General in Victoria
at the time of the Jason Robertson incident became involved.
The Victoria police put a submission in. The defense put
a submission in on behalf of Jason roberts and initially
Martin Biller. The Attorney General made a decision that there
(37:08):
should be a retrial.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
Then he backed away from that and change the legislation
which meant that you had to have new and compelling evidence,
and eventually that was done. So they do have official meetings,
but most of the time there's that separation.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Well that's the point, Ron. The attorney general sets the
legislation right, So, for instance, go back a few months
to where John Quigley was rapping on about domestic violence
and this is sweet irony and they're helping victims of
domestic violence. Allison, guess what. He sets up the legislation
(37:44):
for his government to then put to Parliament. Well, where
do you reckon? You get some of those ideas on
what can work and what can't. There's a news flash.
He talks to his police commissioner. That's correct.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
They would have a meeting at the Department of Justice exactly.
But I've got to go because I've got to go
and volunteer and was close.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
I know. Well, Ron, we want to thank you so
much for being part of this. This is invaluable and
I do believe that we keep pushing it and with
people like you on our side that I guess justice
will prevail hopefully or at least common sense.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Yes, Ron, thanks, thanks very much for being part of
the podcast and and and look the case overall. Really
appreciate your input. It's very valuable, as Allison says, thanks mate.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
No, thank you. All our listeners are also just a
reminder please sign our petition. It's in the show notes
or Google Amy Wensley and petition or change dot org
and you will find it. Thank you so much,
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot au.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Hello, welcome to Conversations four and we have a very
special guest today. Ron Idle's the good Cop Victoria Police
forty two years thirty six as a detective twenty five
at the Homicide Squad, famous for the quote, well at
least I've quoted him a number of times. The answer
is always in the file.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Welcome Ron, thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
And we have Liam Bartlett here of course, and Tim
is away this week.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Yeah, good Ael and Ron. Just to reiterate what Ellison
says there, Thanks very much for coming on board. Your
experience is absolutely second to none, mate, so we're very
pleased to have you here. And also obviously we're reminder
our listeners ol that Ron has been very much a
part of this case. His report was included in the
(01:16):
coronial inquest.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
That is correct, so you would have heard about We
heard a lot about Ron, particularly in episode ten. So
if you need to have a listen before you listen
to this conversations, check it out because it's a very
important aspect of this case. File Ron first question, how
did you get involved?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
I think it's as a result of the show that
I did with Good Cop. Amy's family contacted me asked
would I look at the inquest brief. They felt that
the investigation was poor, and eventually I agreed to do it,
and then their legal team had to get permission for
(01:59):
me to access some material from the current of course.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
What were your thoughts ro when you looked at the file?
And I guess caught up with everything that had happened.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
So I was sent the part of the Inquestbury and
some of the reviews that had taken place. So I
read all the file and then I could see that
there was a massive mistake made right from the start.
When you go to an incident where there's a shotgun involved,
you should treat it as a homicide in other words,
(02:32):
a murder or a manslaughter, and work back from that
premise to prove anything else. You don't deem it a
suicide from day one.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yes, so the default position on the bottom line, that
default position should have been something sinister, not something that
was innocent.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
That's correct, and then it might prove to be wrong.
But what you should do is you should call all
the services out, which would include your crime scene. You
call the pathologist out, you call a blood splatter expert out,
you call a ballistics person out, and you do all
the necessary measurement and that to determine whether the person
(03:14):
could have shot themselves or whether it's actually a homicide.
This case was determined in forty two minutes by the
detectives just saying, well, she's taken her own life.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yes, when you put it like that forty two minutes,
that really brings it home, doesn't it. Ron. I've got
to say, you know, one of the things I think
you're and I'm not blowing smoke here, but the Good
Cop show that you've been involved with and hosted one
of the best true crime shows on TV because you
make it simple, even for mugs like me. You know,
(03:47):
you break it down, break it down, break it down
all the way through an investigation. And I guess that's
what good detectives do, right. You know, it's not a
question of being the smartest person in the room. It's
a question of being thorough and absolutely looking at stuff.
Where the common sense alternative doesn't stack up. You know,
(04:11):
and when I look at this case and I read
your report to the coroner again, by breaking it down
like that, none of this makes sense. Would you agree
with that?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
None of it made sense? And it's a bit like
ABC Assume nothing, believe nothing, and check everything. Now, before
the two people that were at the house at the time,
that's David and Gareth, they had statements, taken him down
at the front gate, sitting in the back of a
police car. Now, before those statements were finished, the detective
(04:50):
that had already said it was a suicide. Now that's
impossible because you haven't even got a full detailed statement
from the two people who are present.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
It's disgraceful, really, I mean when you look at it,
I think though, when they obviously had the major crime
investigation and then the cold case review, what were your
thoughts as that transpired? Do you think that that was
enough or you know, where were you thinking the investigation
(05:21):
was going from there?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I think the Major Crime did a half reasonable job,
But the problem was you're already three or four days
behind because at that stage David and Gareth have been out. Joshua,
who was there earlier on it has been about you
don't know what they're doing in those three days leading
up to it. And the sad part is the crime
(05:45):
says planed up and no matter what you do, you
can never recreate that exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
That's true, but that seems to be something that that
resolved themselves too. Sorry it was watched at the beginning.
There's nothing we can do. We just have to leave
it as an open finding. Is that good enough or
is there still a way to redeem the situation? Do
you think?
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I think with further investigation, further publicity, it can still
be redeemed. There are people out there who know exactly
what happened, and it's a matter of locating those people.
I don't think I've ever been involved in a homicide
investigation where the person responsible has not told someone, So
(06:33):
it's about finding that person. Carl Williams, who was an
underworld figure in Melbourne who elderly died and was involved
in four or five murders, had this thing and he
said those who know don't talk, and those who talk
don't know. But in the end that was all proved wrong.
Those who knew always told someone.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Yeah, human nature isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, it's a rufic thing to cover up, and they
all always go ahead and tell someone.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
But Ron, let's put aside people's sense of loyalty, misguided loyalty.
Let's put that aside for a second. Just coming back
to that point about what evidence is available now, and
we know we've been through a whole stake of episodes
in this podcast trying to find the truth about Amy.
There is a lot of and not just circumstantial evidence.
(07:25):
To me as a layperson, there is a lot of
evidence in that room and around that room at the time,
regardless of the fact that it wasn't forensically protected, that
could still make a strong brief. Do you agree with
that point? Because I'm asking you because because you must
(07:46):
have had cases over the years where you've assembled what
you thought was a very strong brief and yet still
the DPP or the equivalent has knocked it back.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I've only lost three murder trials out of three hundred.
I've had a couple of briefs that have gone to
the Director of probably Prosecutions and it's come back in
sufficient evidence. In this case, I think the bio mechanic engineer,
and more so the reconstruction that you have done with
(08:21):
the expert from America is pretty telling stuff. I'm a
detective and I looked at the photos, and the right
hand is under the right leg, So the only way
that she could have pulled the trigger was with her
left hand. And if you try to hold a fourteen
shotgun in the position that she was and get a
(08:44):
ninety degree horizontal entry and exit, it's impossible.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yes, exactly, Well, that's the thing, right. They decided she'd
used that to shield the barrel, so then they pretty
much dispensed with that theory and then went to the
right hand being used, and then they were trying to
find a way that the gun could have fallen in
that position and her hand could have gone under a buttock,
(09:10):
But of course in the end they couldn't prove that either.
So then it was the whole idea of the body
being moved. But there's still that attachment to the suicide
theory as opposed to just looking forward and saying, look,
what are the balance of probabilities. This is the brief.
Let's just put it to the DPP and let them decide.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Look, I think that I don't know what they've done
since the inquest. But what I'd be doing is who
is David's assay siate who are his friends who he's
been in contact with over the last three or four years.
You would go and speak to all Gareth's friends again,
because sometimes with the passage of time, people's relationship change,
(09:53):
and I think if you did that, you might actually
find someone who says, this is what he told me,
which is incant distant to what the account that he
gave back in June two thousand and fourteen. And then
you couple that with all your evidence that you've found
and you put it to the Officer Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Ron here is there anything from a police level that
allows or doesn't allow the police to go to back
to David Simmons, back to the Gareth Price Joshua Brydon
and pull them in again for a formal interview separately.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
At this stage you would have to have new evidence.
You can't just go and arrest a person that you've
already interviewed for the sake of another interview unless you've
got new material to put to them.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Can you ask them to do that voluntarily?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Yes, you could go to any one of those three
who were there on the day with David especially, you
could go back and put the matters that you're uncovered
as a result of your expert from America.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Listen, this is where I still go back again and again,
you know, to that terrible evening. I still can't get
my head around there. I mean, two detectives turn up
with three uniforms already there, and between the two experienced
detectives senior police, they create notes between the two of
them that don't even fill a page, a single page
(11:23):
of a four paper. I'm just I just it does
my head in that statistic ron. How do you feel
about that as a senior police officer.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Well, I've got to sadly agree with you. If I
was at that scene, I think you would find that
I would probably have twenty a four pages of notes.
I'm going to talk to the first uniform police there.
I'm going to take notes to that, You're going to
do a diagram of the scene. Then I'm going to
make phone calls because I know I want other services there.
(11:56):
I just think those two detectives just didn't want to
be there that night. They might add something else to
go to. It's as if well, let's just tick this
box and walk away and sadly, I think they got
it wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
The Brotherhood of the Police. And you were in the
police force for half a century, so you know about this.
And when mistakes are made, when people do muck up,
is there an issue sometimes with having them taken into account?
And I mean there was an internal investigation and you
(12:40):
saw that. Was it enough? And do you think that
there should have been a bit more of an open
mind at the inquest as to what happened to Amy?
Speaker 3 (12:50):
I think there was definitely should have been an open mind.
After I made my statement for the currents court, they
then got a superintendent to read report and to produce
a report. Now I listened to his evidence at the
Currenter's court and he said everything was done. It was
all done properly, although he can see the mistakes at
(13:13):
the crime scene, but he said, I can tell you
now she took her own life. Well, that is just
a closed mind. And I've got to tell you, in
forty two years I've had to go up against the
Brotherhood and not once has anyone ever apologized to me
(13:33):
order families that we got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
That's interesting. You would have seen with Larry Blandford, right,
he's created like a bit of a leper now because
he actually stood up and he's no longer an officer.
How often does it happen that uniform cops might do
that and is it seen as a bit of an
army mentality you don't question your superior when it comes
(13:57):
to the police force as well.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Look, I think it was difficult for those junior officers
on the night. They were quite to the point that
it wasn't a suicide, or she hadn't taken her own life,
or they wanted a lot of other things done and tested,
and I think they spoke your mind. But it's like
a hierarchy. So, Okay, you've got these detectives who are
(14:19):
they're far more experienced than we are. They're saying she
took her own life, so they have to accept that,
even though deep down they don't yes.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
On that level, Ron, If we just get your comments
on a couple of these things that relate to the
police directly from your experience from some of our listeners
that have made queries put comments on the Facebook page
for the Truth About Amy podcast. If you don't mind out,
I'll just go through a couple of these for Ron
on that exact subject. Debra is asking why the uniform
(14:53):
police who turned up couldn't go over the heads of
the detectives at the time. Can you explain that, ron.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
If they did, then there'd be consequences down the track.
They would be seen as not being loyal to a
senior officer.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Yeah, it would. It'd be very difficult, woudn't it. I mean,
you know, it's just like trying to go up against
your manager if you're in a big organization. It's a
difficult thing at that level, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
It is? And I was asked in twenty twelve to
review the murder of two policemen Silken Miller in Melbourne,
and I came to the conclusion that one of the
persons responsible wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Now.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
When I finished my report, I took it directly to
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now that's caused me no
end of grief. I've been ostracized. I'm now the evil one,
even though later on it was proved I was right,
and the young person charged, Jason Roberts, did twenty one
(15:55):
years and has been exonerated. You don't buck the system.
If you buck the system, you'll be offstra basically left
to your stone devices.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Yeah, even though, as you say, you've been proved to
be one hundred percent right in fact, to the point
where that particular person has now launched a multimillion dollar
lawsuit against the government. So yeah, maybe more people should
have listened to you earlier.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Well, it's just one of those things that if you
go against the hierarchy, you're considered basically as a black shirt.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Yeah, that's sad, right for doing the right thing. Shouldn't
that be respected?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Or it should be it should be respected, But I
haven't seen it change much over the last twenty twenty
five years.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Agreed. Well, here's another one on that level. This is
from Judy on the Facebook page. Judy wants to know
how the Premier in Wa, Roger Cook, and the state's
Attorney General John Quigley sleep at night and how they
would feel if it happened to one of their children,
And she goes on to say the Police Commissioner Cole
(16:58):
Blanche needs to step up. That's a fairly straightforward and
fair comment, don't you think, Ron It is?
Speaker 3 (17:05):
But I think the Premier wouldn't know the exact details.
The police minister would have an overall briefing. But I
think it's time the Chief Commissioner stood up and said, well, look,
let's put this to bed once and for all, let's
get all the available evidence, put it back before the
Director of Public Prosecutions, and let's get a decision made.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, yeah, very good point. I mean, I'd love to
see some of this stuff, things that we've been shaking
our head over, ol, I'd love to see. I'd love
to see a jury hear the same stuff in the
same order. But here's another one from Facebook. Ron Trisha
wants to know more about the missing door handle. Now
I'm intrigued by that as well. What did you think
(17:45):
of that? Ron?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I can't explain that, Like, the door handle's missing, was
it missing prior to that day? And then I've got
a vague recollection that could have been on the dressing table.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yes, well it was replaced. That's the funny thing, right,
the door handled turned back up afterwards, but at the
time it was missing on the inside. And that's just
so strange. I've always thought that was strange because if
Amy had taken it, she would have taken it from
the outside, because she wouldn't have wanted her daughters to
walk in on her if she had killed herself.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
Oh, that's right. But where she's located behind the door,
to me, it's like she's gone down there and she's
cowering like gotta rum up, as if something's going to
take place.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Yeah, I agree, there was another guy. Actually, I don't know.
And Liam's going through this too, and it's great. I
love that we've had so many people get back to
us on this. This is Paul. We kind of addressed
this a little bit, but it'd be good to get
a little bit more detail. And he's basically said he's
enjoying the listening to the podcast since the terrible injustice
has occurred, but he can't help but wonder about one
(18:51):
piece of evidence that doesn't make sense to him. If
Amy was right handed and someone was holding a shotgun
on or near her right temple, why was she not
trying to push the hourl away with her dominant hand.
Surely she uses her strongest arm in trying to save herself. Now,
my understanding, as I remember seeing in the room, and
you saw the pictures right that the door is on
(19:12):
her left, so it's coming in from there and her
left hand is closest. But yeah, it's just another thing
that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
No, I don't think any of that stuff makes sense.
It doesn't make sense after the fact either, with the
way the gun was handled by at least three people,
the way the ammunition was handled in it, taken out
of it all before police arrived. I mean, it just
all that stuff just doesn't make sense at all to me.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, and then when they were told to clean up,
I think I think there's been shells were thrown out.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Yeah, well they weren't found again.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
No, that's yeah. Look, here's another one on that subject. Guys.
There's an email here from Mirian. Mirian says this probably
has been covered. But if Amy was going to use
a gun to kill herself, as she would use the
pink one she bought, as it was hers and she
(20:09):
knew how to use it. But apparently it was over
in the wardrobe or against another wall. That's correct, that's right,
she said. Marian said, I heard on the podcast she
was slumped against the wall by the door with another
gun with her right hand underneath her bum, which absolutely
doesn't add up, correct, Marion, Yep, we just discussed that.
Being a woman myself and a mum, i'd never leave
(20:30):
my children in a running car and go inside to
kill myself. Great point. You would hate to think your
child may find you if they got out of the
still running car and she had presents in the car
ready to leave, So it does not stack up seeing
how slight she was. Marian also suggests she wouldn't smash
the tank in the shed. She may have run past
angry and brushed against it, which made it tip and smash,
(20:51):
depending on what kind of stand it was. Look another
good set of comments from some of our listeners, and
they do pick up for obvious reusons. They pick up
on the important points. And again, surely a jury of
peers would also have many many questions wrong.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Oh absolutely, But I think the thing that the DPP
if they get, if they get the brief, is that
the new reconstruction and even the previous biomechanic, it's impossible
to shot herself. And to a lay person in the
jury twelve good people drawn from the community, trying to
(21:29):
picture themselves holding a four ten shotgun with one hand
and pulling the trigger doesn't make sense. Well, there's three
three classic things that you always look for, motive, opportunity,
and capability.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well, Here's an email from Mandy. She says, I can't
stop thinking about the motive I heard in a few
episodes ago, the comment that the coroner said there was
a lack of motive for murder. Unfortunately, he says, Mandy,
this was glossed over. I feel you could have focused
on this statement more. Amy had applied for compensation for
(22:07):
her neck injury following the accident, when Simmons was driving
the vehicle. How was that going to directly impact Simmons? Then,
Mandy points to the clear evidence Amy was clearly in
the process of leaving with the car engine running. Or
domestic abuse victims, This is the most dangerous time to leave.
Mandy goes on, but she makes some great points there.
I mean, again, Ron, you know, if you want to
(22:31):
find the evidence disregarding the fact that, as we've been
saying time and time again, the detectives made a terrible,
terrible mistake and the place was cleaned up, but there
is all this suggestion of associated evidence around the actual
scene that could be well and truly explored.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Absolutely, is there.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Many homicides that you've had to deal with, Ron that
involved or had a background of domestic violence?
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Oh? Absolutely, I think if you went back to the
nineteen eighties, the homicide squad was called the heavy Domestics.
In other words, the majority of murders that we went
to were domestic related. The truth is always in an
an investigation, you've actually got to go out and find it.
And at the moment, I don't think that's being done.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
There's another one from Leslie who says keep at it,
justice will come. Has anyone investigated other cases around the
time the two detectives attended. I mean, one of the
detectives is no longer in the police force and we're
not there to necessarily bring them down. But it is
one of those things, right that some people in the
(23:40):
police force don't have the motivation. Do you find that
with people that you've worked with that there would be
ones that you you know, there's good and bad in
every profession, right.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Yes, I think there's more good in the police force
than I won't say they're bad. I think they're lazy.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Yeah, sort of morale and the driver for motivation that
comes from the top, doesn't it wrong? I mean, this
is not you know, this is not a witch hunt
to pile in on those particular police officers who did
the wrong thing. We know, it's very clear cut. They
did the wrong thing. They were terrible. But let's move on,
(24:22):
you know's let's get justice for amy, for a family.
You know, let's just do the police work. Now. Let's
have somebody at the top say, look that that was wrong,
but this is now. Let's plant the flag and say
from today, from here, we're going to do some excellent
police work and we're going to right a few wrongs
and we're going to score a blow literally for justice.
(24:45):
As much as that sounds like a cliche, but that
has to come right from the top so that we
you know, we just we set the agenda that way.
That's leadership, isn't it wrong?
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Oh? Absolutely? Or it comes from the head of the
colcase innit that says, okay, Swan's a priority. It's been
raised in parliament. It's been going on now since twenty fourteen.
The only reason they got an in quest is they
went to the equivalent to iback, such time, we did
the right thing. Yes, we've made mistakes. Let's finish it
(25:17):
off completely, do as much as we can and if
we get there, we get there, and if we don't,
we don't. But we've done the best we can for
the family.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Exactly. I know some fantastic police officers over the years
who've done some brilliant work and they're motivated by all
the right things, yourself included, Ron, And I mean that's
what you know, that's what the public should be supporting
because we really need those people in the service generally.
(25:48):
I mean, but you know, we can take any industry.
You know, I know some shocking journalists. Fortunately none of
them are on this podcast. But that's just life, isn't it.
But but you just need some strong leadership to say, okay,
let's make this work. Let's get some.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Action, and you get everyone involved and each detective have
some ownership, and where you go it can't happen. I've
sold the case that was thirty two years old by
going back over so the answer is always there. You
just got to go and get the evidence.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Tell us about that one, Ryan, that was a great one.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
So that was a young sixteen year old girl in
Shepperton who went missing. She was found in a table
drain stabbed sixteen to eighteen times in nineteen eighty two.
Now again investigated in that made a mistake earlier on
and they believed it was a person, Paul Greg Bledhill.
(26:49):
They even actually charged him with the murder, and back
then it went to an inquest, which was the same
as a committal. The coroner found that there was insufficient
evidence and he was released. Now, young Johnas wanted to
do a story about it, and she wrote a story,
and I actually went to Shepherd and after I read
(27:09):
the file and publicly I said Greg Gladill could not
have done this. So there were mistakes earlier on, but
as a result of that being honest upfront, the information
came in and eventually I charged Stephen Bradley, who's now
doing thirty six years.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Did you get any flack for that, ron No.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
One of the things with that case is that the
original exhibits for some reason, had been destroyed, so I
didn't have exhibits. So whilst there were mistakes made, whilst
there had been someone that was already charged and released
and the exhibits were missing, we were still able to
build a case and get sufficient evidence for him to
(27:51):
stand his trial.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
That's a benefit of being treated like a homicide in
the first instance. I'm so glad though, that you are
willing to stand up and you are willing to do
what's right, no matter the repercussions. I think that's so important.
I think it should be applauded. I mean people like
you who stand up to the brotherhood. I mean you
(28:12):
wouldn't listen to the episode where we went through the
internal fois from senior police. Were you surprised by that?
Speaker 3 (28:18):
I was especially the comments of the ballistics man using
for our language. Now he in this matter. It had
completed his report before all the testing was done, and
he says there's no criminality because there's no fingerprints on
the gun. Well, that doesn't mean there's no criminality. So
it's sad with that attitude because you are getting senior
(28:41):
members of the police force basically saying we're going to
do nothing.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Yeah, that was in twenty twenty three as well, it's
only a year ago. So just for listeners, they were
arguing about getting that one million dollar reward and being
treated as a homicide and having you go with the
West saying that are they taking poetic license by calling
it a homicide and saying it was a botched investigation.
So there are still people in the police force they
(29:06):
don't even accept it was a botched investigation.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
And seen people.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
You don't have to be very smart to figure out
it was a botched investigation, notwithstanding the fact that that's
already been decided at a higher level than our Yeah,
the inquest. But again it shows you the mentality, doesn't it.
You know, it's like the old adage about you know,
whether you win or lose, isn't it ron? You know,
it's like a grandmother's homily. You know, if you lose,
(29:32):
that's fine, but it's the way you lose. And again,
we're supposed to all be in this to have a win,
So let's forget about the losses and just make sure
we try and have the victory in other people's interests.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
You know, an investigation is a search for the truth
in accordance with the specifications of the law. So get
out there, try and find out what the truth is
and presented.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Yeah, exactly, And on that level, the correspond we've had
with the police, the recent correspondence, how back me up
on this because my interpretation, I think yours is the same,
is that this is certainly the way the WA police
have put it out there. This is the sort of
public perception that they want to create. So I'm hoping
(30:18):
this is the honest reaction, and this is true, but
it seems like there is a new team. In other words,
there is a new investigation into Amy's death. Is that
your interpretation as well?
Speaker 3 (30:31):
My understanding is that the cold case will relook at
it again and start from more basically scratched, but go
over it all and bring it to a conclusion.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
I hope.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
So, I hope that's what it is, because this is
what we ask the police when they got back to it.
Once investigated, 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? The answer is,
if new evidence relating to the death of Amy Wentz
is obtained during this investigation, it will be assessed by
the investigation team under the direction of the senior investigating officer.
(31:07):
If any new evidence indicates criminality or involvement by another
personal persons, it will be provided to the Officer of
the Director of Public Prosecutions for their review. So it's
very noncommittal to.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Me, that's a motherhood statement without saying what you're going
to do, but it's something and hopefully they can be
asked continually well where you're at, and they should be
in regular contact with the family.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yes, that's the thing, right, that's not happening. I mean Nancy,
I don't know when Nancy was last contacted. It's just
kind of crazy. And Anna has a family liaison officer
who sometimes gets back or does answer her questions, but
it just seems I don't know, it just doesn't seem
like enough, because I mean, it's obvious from our podcast
(31:54):
and the information that has been uncoveted to any line Freddie,
that there is information that should be considered by the ODPP,
particularly since as I know it, they haven't seen the
file since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
So the information and the reconstruction that you people have
done has that been passed on to the police.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
The name of Scott Rohada has been passed on to
the police, so hopefully they've made contact with him and
would consider him as part of that. Also, every single
person we've spoken to, a lot of people haven't appeared
on the podcast. All that information, all those people their
details have been invited to police with their permission, and
(32:37):
there's a lot of information there that would help the case.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Let's put that on the record again. In the case
of Scott Rhoda because obviously we went to a lot
of trouble to get him to be able to set
that up as a sendime to perfect scene Ron. So
it was a scale model of everything so he could
do an absolutely accurate analysis. I've said it before, but
(33:00):
I'll say it again. The police can have all our
camera tapes of all Scott's work. We filmed a whole lot.
They can study it back and forth to their heart's content.
You know, we're more than happy to muck in whatever
it takes. They can ring Scott personally, can have a
chat to him about it. But you know there's the trifecta.
You've now got not one independent expert, You've got three
(33:25):
separate independent biomechanical experts all saying not only does the
evidence not point to Amy Wensley shooting herself, but actually
the evidence points to someone else shooting her. How many
more people ron do you need? How many more independent
(33:45):
experts do you know?
Speaker 3 (33:46):
You can produce those three experts, and the defense are
then entitled to rebut it and call their own experts.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
When you went through the process of getting a referral
to the ODPP or providing a case, did you decide
that or did you have to send it up the
line ron to get permission. No.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
So when I the Michelle Buckingham case, I believed I
had sufficient evidence based on my experience, and I charged him.
I didn't have to send it to the Director of
Public Prosecutions. So you could get to the point in
this case. If the cold case believe that they had
a primer facy case, in other words, that all the
(34:25):
points for a homicide or a murder were covered, they
could make the decision themselves to charge and present.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
Here's the problem, though, we saw that FOI and senior
people who weren't supportive of there being any other resolution
other than suicide. What happens if they don't do it?
I mean, is it like we just reliant on them
and their subjective opinion.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Well, you reliant solely on the police either to charge
or put the brief together and send it to the
Director of Public Prosecutions.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Does the Director ever ask for briefs to be sent
to them.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Not that I'm aware of now, which.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Is why we went back to the whole thing with
the Attorney General. I mean the Attorney General We've asked
obviously in a petitioner and is asked on behalf of
the family in a petition to have it referred because
of this, I guess opposition from the police in the
past and currently according to the fied emails that we have,
(35:29):
and there is this whole idea that he wouldn't be
able to do that now. This is actually his comment
that brings me back to the correspondence that we got
from his office again who outlined to me it is
a matter of a subject of a police investigation and
it would not be appropriate for the attorney to comment.
The attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family. Police
(35:52):
can refer a brief of evidence for the Office of
the ODPP to assess whether the available evidence establishes a
prima facing case with reasonable prospects, but the attorney has
no role in that process. There is nothing in the
Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the attorney
to refer matters the ODBP. Of course, this is just
me saying this. There's nothing that that also which prevents
(36:13):
them from doing it. And then she goes under say
and it specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to
the DPP in respect of that of a particular case.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
But issuing directions is completely separate to referring matters.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
I know, I know, but they're clinging to that, as
Ron put it beautifully, a motherhood statement.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Well, that's just basically telling us and all our listeners
how to suck eggs in a very very bureaucratic way
and tying it up with a bow. Are you serious
that they don't have meetings at that level and discuss
various things.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
I mean, you know, I understand there has to be
a separation of powers. But the Attorney General in Victoria
at the time of the Jason Robertson incident became involved.
The Victoria police put a submission in. The defense put
a submission in on behalf of Jason roberts and initially
Martin Biller. The Attorney General made a decision that there
(37:08):
should be a retrial.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
Then he backed away from that and change the legislation
which meant that you had to have new and compelling evidence,
and eventually that was done. So they do have official meetings,
but most of the time there's that separation.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Well that's the point, Ron. The attorney general sets the
legislation right, So, for instance, go back a few months
to where John Quigley was rapping on about domestic violence
and this is sweet irony and they're helping victims of
domestic violence. Allison, guess what. He sets up the legislation
(37:44):
for his government to then put to Parliament. Well, where
do you reckon? You get some of those ideas on
what can work and what can't. There's a news flash.
He talks to his police commissioner. That's correct.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
They would have a meeting at the Department of Justice exactly.
But I've got to go because I've got to go
and volunteer and was close.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
I know. Well, Ron, we want to thank you so
much for being part of this. This is invaluable and
I do believe that we keep pushing it and with
people like you on our side that I guess justice
will prevail hopefully or at least common sense.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Yes, Ron, thanks, thanks very much for being part of
the podcast and and and look the case overall. Really
appreciate your input. It's very valuable, as Allison says, thanks mate.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
No, thank you. All our listeners are also just a
reminder please sign our petition. It's in the show notes
or Google Amy Wensley and petition or change dot org
and you will find it. Thank you so much,
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