August 20, 2025 • 51 mins
On the 1st of October, 2022, Luke Gilbert was shot and killed by members of the Queensland Police Service in Airlie Beach, Queensland.
After a coronial inquest that saw no justice for the Gilbert family, the pain of his loss was made heavier by an unjust system that offered no accountability, no closure, and no real answers.
In this emotional episode of Exhuming the Truth, I examine the final moments of Luke's life, the official narrative, and the unanswered questions that still haunt his loved ones.
We explore the Gilbert family's fight for justice by sharing the devastating outcome of a situation that could very well have been avoided.
Join us as we shed light on the injustice faced by the Gilberts while we ask, when lives are cut short by those in authority, who speaks for the silenced?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:16):
Welcome to Exhuming the Truth, the podcast where we delve into
the mysterious worlds of cold cases, missing persons, true
crime, and the fascinating science that is forensics.
I'm forensic scientist and criminologist Asha Walther, and
I am so thrilled to have you with me on this journey as we
dance in the shadows of the world of crime, shining a light
(00:37):
on scientific discovery while becoming another voice for those
who need it most. So grab a drink and get
comfortable while we jump into this episode together.
This podcast is recommended for persons over the age of 18 and
contains explicit content not suitable for minors.
We will be covering sensitive content that ranges from sexual
assault, physical, mental, social, and emotional abuse,
(01:01):
suicide, homicide, murder, attempted murder, and other
violent crimes, including crimesinvolving weapons and drugs.
This often extends to drug misuse and other harmful and
illegal activity. If you find any content to be
distressing, I have listed a number of resources that may be
able to help you in the podcast notes.
(01:22):
Hello and happy Tuesday, and thank you for being here and for
listening today. We have a really important
episode, but before we jump intothat, I just want to go through
a little bit of housekeeping. I've just had a couple of days
off because I had my best friendfly over from Melbourne, which
was really fun. We always cause absolute chaos
(01:44):
together, which is really nice and out of the ordinary because
life is very family and work orientated until she comes over
and I get to have a little bit of me time and a little bit of
fun I guess. So that was really nice.
So thank you so much to everyonebeing super patient with me over
those few days. There's so much going on right
(02:06):
now, so many new cases in the news, so many things coming up
like inquests and searches and things like that.
So I think we're going to be super busy and might even be
adding the occasional extra podcast here and there.
I'm thinking maybe 3-1 week and two the next, but I'll get your
(02:26):
feedback on that and see how we're going before I jump into
the next episode for today, I just wanted to say I watched a
movie last night. It was based on a dreary story
and I watched it on Prime. It was called The Sound of
Freedom, or maybe even just Sound of Freedom.
It was amazing. It was a great watch.
(02:49):
Very easy to watch, very distressing storyline.
Although it was a true story. Yeah, it it definitely made me
cry, and I'm not a huge crier, so yeah, it made me cry.
It's along the lines of human trafficking, particularly of
children, and that's one of the biggest violations of human
(03:09):
rights globally. So it sends a really important
message. There is kind of a silver lining
to the story and the man who is sort of the main character and
the work that he does is amazing.
So I do recommend watching that if you have time, but I'll leave
it short and sweet at that and we can get into this next
episode. That has taken me a lot of time
(03:32):
to get to where I want to have it.
And I think a large part of thatis obviously because it's a very
complex case and this is actually a case that has
obviously occurred and it has already been to the coroner's
court. So we are able to go into a bit
more detail with this one. So it will be a bit of a longer
episode. I hope you stick around and hear
(03:55):
all of it and then I'll let you know at the end how you can
help. And of course, where to find all
of the extra details of the Justice for Luke page, which is
run by Luke's mum and dad. So let's jump in and we'll start
by saying welcome to Justice forLuke Gilbert.
(04:16):
I'm going to do this episode a little differently to others for
a few reasons, but mostly because this story is different
to others in the sense that we don't have a missing person and
we don't have a cold case. We have someone who had their
whole life ahead of them, who died way too young and in a way
you would just never expect. I've said it before and I'll say
(04:38):
it again and likely again and again, that the media and
authorities have so much to answer for.
What is the justice system for if it's not to help us?
What I have experienced personally and professionally is
an unjust system. And in this case, I want to be
clear, we have a young man at 24years old with his whole life
(05:01):
ahead of him. No one is perfect.
No one has a clean history of just being the perfect model
citizen, whatever that may be. And I want you to consider this
when you listen to this story. How easy is it for us to
stereotype a person based on their gender, their age, and
whatever else we like to categorize them with?
(05:21):
The Internet is the absolute worst for it, and the comments
that people make we can only assume are from people who are
so perfect and have never put a foot wrong, so good for them.
I'm going to present this case as what you will see it for,
what the media will present it as, how the police want you to
hear it. And then I'm going to present it
(05:42):
to you again with the real storywith evidence that was excluded
from the reports and the media events.
So I've just typed his name intoGoogle, Luke Gilbert.
And I'm going to use basic OSINTto present this how the system
wants it presented. This is directly from 9 News and
(06:04):
I quote Man provoked QLD police into fatal shooting, Coroner
Fines Luke Bryan Gilbert, aged 24, was shot dead by two police
officers at 12:20 AM on the 1st of October 2022 at Airlie Beach
in Queensland. This article will tell you this.
(06:24):
Minutes before the shooting, Gilbert had left a nightclub
after consuming alcohol at various locations in the hours
beforehand. Gilbert proceeded to bump into
one of the officer's arms while they were patrolling the street.
After the officers asked if Gilbert was alright and what he
was holding underneath his jumper, he produced a folding
(06:44):
knife with a 8 centimeter blade and said shoot me idea.
Despite repeated directions to stop moving and drop the knife,
Gilbert increased the speed at which he approached the
officers, telling them fucking shoot me, fuck wit.
The two officers fired their handguns a total of five times,
with three bullets striking Gilbert in the upper right
(07:06):
chest, causing his rapid death despite the officer's attempt to
provide first aid. Now here's one from ABC News.
Again I have typed his name intoGoogle and this is what we have.
It is titled Coronial inquest hears police were forced to
fatally shoot Luke Gilbert in Airlie Beach Now this specific
(07:27):
article literally starts with and I quote.
A crime expert had told a coronial inquest the two police
officers who shot and killed a young man were forced to take
the action they did. Essentially, the coroner ruled
that Luke contributed to his owndeath by way of victim
precipitated homicide, which is basically when the victim's
(07:49):
behaviour or actions provoke or contribute to their own death,
essentially rendering Luke responsible.
Now, just to add, Associate Professor Amber McKinley was not
given statements by family. She was not given statements by
friends or workmates, by people who had previously been in
(08:11):
relationships with Luke or Luke's girlfriend at the time,
who had been with him all morning, afternoon and evening
of the day he was killed. When the barrister said you
didn't have that information, McKinley said.
I didn't know I was able to. Now, why would the coroner not
give her these statements? Is it because it would go
(08:34):
against the narrative that they were following?
That's something for you to think about while I tell you the
actual story. Let me reintroduce you to Luke
Bryan Gilbert, the first born child and son of Mr. and Mrs.
Gilbert, an older brother to a brother and a sister.
He was the first grandchild of his family.
He was born in Manchester, UK before moving to Australia where
(08:57):
his parents wanted to come for. And yes, this is absolutely
accurate. For a better and safer life with
more opportunities, let that onesink in.
Luke loved travelling. He liked camping, fishing, 4
wheel driving. He always remained in close
contact with his family even when he was travelling,
(09:19):
particularly when he travelled to Queensland.
His family remember him as a very loving son, a loving
brother and a loving friend. A friend of Luke's has described
him as being super dedicated to his family, saying that the
people Luke cherish the most would be his family.
He gave his whole heart to his family he loved dearly.
(09:39):
Luke's girlfriend at the time, Elizabeth Mellor, described Luke
as a caring, pretty quiet, very generous person.
She said he's different with everyone else than he is with
me. When I say this, I mean he is
just a little bit more standoffish and a little bit
quieter. She stated that he had a new job
and he worked hard at it. She also said that Luke was
(10:01):
making a really solid effort to do better in his life in the
more recent times before he was killed, Luke and his girlfriend
had started to attend church together and Luke was actually
baptized in September of 2022. So just to reiterate, Luke was
24. OK, The day he was shot and
killed by the Queensland Police was the 1st of October 2022 and
(10:25):
in 2022, prior to this incident,he was travelling Australia
before settling down in Queensland.
So he actually never got to go home.
He was living and working in Townsville and saving up for his
next trip and at the time he drove a Ute and he was typically
usually wearing workwear and that had included a utility
penknife which we would know here as like maybe a Milwaukee
(10:50):
knife or something like that with the little 7 centimetre
blades and you can clip them to your belt.
The day he was killed, he had actually travelled to Airlie
Beach to assist his girlfriend. She was having issues with her
car so she had contacted him, asked for help and he was on his
way to help her with that. After that was sorted, the pair
(11:10):
decided to go out to the pub just after midnight.
Now this is where it all went sideways.
So just after midnight, Luke allegedly walked past these two
cops. So there was obviously cops
patrolling the streets. He was about to cross the road
and he passed another two cops. Luke passed these two cops in
the most appropriate gap possible, but he had actually
(11:35):
brushed past one of the officers.
And as he did that, he said, excuse me, you know, to excuse
himself through not anything vile.
And one of the cops who we will go by as Murray, he responded
with no, no worries, mate. So Murray actually did later
(11:55):
admit to minimal contact in thatinteraction.
And that was the first interaction of the evening.
So as Luke continued on walking,he went past the second cop who
is Liam Forster and Liam Forsterwho says in his peripheral
vision he saw the prior interaction between Luke and
(12:15):
Murray, which we refer to as like that brush past, you know,
and excuse me. No worries mate.
So Forcer then allegedly called out to Luke for really no reason
at all, saying good on you mate.So we continued walking across
the road and ignored the comment.
Forster then proceeded to say, OK, see you later tough guy.
(12:36):
Now the cop Murray claims to nothave heard Forster's comment
despite being closer in proximity to Forster than Luke
was. So that's a bit odd, but we'll
get back to that. But upon hearing that comment,
Luke then turned around and cameback to the curb and stood
still. So during this whole
interaction, there are body worncameras and they began recording
(12:58):
audio. At this point, Forster's body
worn camera records audio hearing force to say what's
that, what have you got there? At this time, Luke stood with
his hands free and he had his work pen knife clip to his belt,
which was not visible at that time.
In compliance, Luke proceeds to put his hands inside his pants
(13:21):
to retrieve the pen knife to show him as requested, as he
said. What's that?
What have you got there? So he did that.
He held it down by his side and stood still.
Murray and Forster agree in the inquest that Luke was complying
at this point in time. Murray pulls his gun and points
it toward Luke and Forster then follows suit.
So we've got two officers standing there holding their
(13:42):
guns out towards Luke who is presenting his utility knife
that he had clipped to his pantsthat was requested to be seen.
Then Forster shines his 1000 Lumens torch, which was attached
to his gun, in Luke's face, and they both start to walk
backwards. Now, when they're walking
backwards, they're kind of walking in a way to make Luke
(14:04):
follow them and go around the corner because they were
obviously on a strip and there was a corner there.
So they were walking backwards, like essentially luring him
around the corner. They repeatedly shouted at Luke
to drop the knife. And the first two officers that
Luke passed earlier. So you can remember I said he
passed two officers with no issues at all.
(14:25):
So they noticed that there was an interruption happening and
they came over and one of those officers was Constable Anthony
Parkinson. He also took his gun out of his
holster at this point. So now we have three officers
holding their guns at Luke. Luke had been drinking that day.
He was intoxicated, intoxicated at that point in time.
And his toxic reports show that he was three times over the
(14:47):
drink drive limit, you know, just to prove a point there.
Yes, he had been drinking. He'd been at the pub and this
was a bit of a drinking district.
Luke didn't drop the pen knife at this point in time and he had
said do it, shoot me then, fuckers.
He was referencing to the guns that the three police were
holding up to him. Now, as the cops proceeded to
(15:08):
walk backwards, Luke was walkingforwards towards them.
So we've got the cops walking backwards, Luke walking towards
them. Now he was not moving at any
speed at this point. Luke still had his pen knife by
his side and he was approximately measured around 15
feet away from the cops when he made that comment.
Now at this stage, the cops actually fired a volley of
(15:31):
bullets into the safe night precinct.
Only 18 seconds after Forster challenged Luke.
So this is a very, very quick interaction, 18 seconds and
they're firing shots now. The gap at the time between the
cops and Luke was bigger at the end of their interaction than it
was at the start. So if anybody's moving quicker
(15:52):
is very general maths. The police were actually moving
faster at a rate faster than what Luke was.
They had actually increased thatgap.
Murray allegedly then fired one bullet and Forster allegedly
fired 4 bullets and Forster had actually fired the first shot,
which then sparked Murray's fire.
(16:13):
Now three of these bullets hit Luke's chest and two hit cars.
No Ballistics report conducted into this case at all, but
forensics obviously had to attend and they indicated the
total number of bullets is not 5.
So we will come back to that. But I want to highlight that
(16:33):
now. Upon being shot in the chest
several times, Luke fell to the ground immediately upon being
hit and he was immediately laying unresponsive on the
ground, dead, slash dying. And then Forster points his gun
towards Luke and Murray says flip him, put his hands behind
his back before we search him. And they proceeded to handcuff
(16:54):
Luke. So he would have been faced down
unconscious or dying if not already dead.
And they've handcuffed it, handcuffed it, handcuffed him.
I'm so sorry. They arrested him.
They emptied his pockets. And then at 4 minutes it took
before any first aid was given. Now we have Constable Daniel
(17:15):
Simic. He was the 4th officer on scene
and he could not locate the medical kit.
He had no idea where it was and couldn't find it.
When he finally found it, he applied the chest seals
incorrectly. So the chest seals for chest
compressions and he, yeah, he put those on incorrectly.
(17:36):
So that rendered them useless. Then they moved the cuffs from
his back to his front even though he was entirely
unresponsive. It was 7 minutes or thereabouts
before police attempt to poorly administer CPR. 7 minutes.
Another officer then arrives on scene and this is a female
(17:56):
officer and she is the one who suggested removing the handcuffs
as Luke was now deceased. So here's the real story.
Then we have Ian Levers, who is key in this case as well.
So he's is or was the police union president at the time.
And he actually gave a press conference on the day that Luke
was killed in which he gave manyfalse statements to the media.
(18:19):
So I'm going to, I'm going to read you a little bit of that
first. I will read you a few lines from
his statement as he presented it.
Now these are a few statements as he said it.
OK, So he approached them and engaged them in conversation.
So he's talking about Luke approaching police officers and
engaging them in conversation, which is incorrect.
All of a sudden he pulled a knife from his hoodie, also
(18:42):
incorrect. He lunged at the office offices
also incorrect. Let me just say, in the middle
of this, might I add, there is absolutely no bias here.
I really try not to take any bias and I like to take facts as
they are, but when you have bodyworn camera footage, that's
pretty hard evidence. So I'm just going to throw that
out there. He also said he threatened the
(19:03):
officers. They had no other option.
Had Taser been an option, it would have been used.
They did all they could to resolve this matter peacefully.
No innocent person was put in danger.
They immediately rendered first aid.
He had substantial mental healthissues.
He had a criminal history. I can just summarise all of
these as like an incredible miscarriage of justice.
(19:25):
What is wrong with this statement?
You, you could be thinking that I hope you're not, but there's a
lot wrong with this statement. Well, let me walk you through
the issues here. And these aren't so much a
matter of an opinion. They've been proven to be
factual rebuttals. So let's talk about it.
Like I said, it's been through court and the body worn cameras
has been used as evidence. Now let's go to the statement
(19:48):
here. Approach them and engage them in
conversation. Luke actually walked past them
when he was crossing the road. There was no problem and also no
reason for Luke to engage in further conversation with any of
the cops that he passed until Forcer decided to make his
remark as Luke was walking away.Of course Luke did say excuse me
and that first officer said no worries so there was really no
(20:11):
issue at all. He also said all of a sudden he
pulled a knife from his hoodie. Luke was not wearing a hoodie.
So that's that. He also had his penknife clipped
to his pants. So when he was asked what he had
there, he had removed the penknife from his pants and
presented it to his side. He lunged at the officers.
(20:33):
There's video footage to argue this actually.
So he was not seen to lunge at the police at any point in time.
He threatened the officers well,as per the body worn camera
footage, he made no threats verbally and in regard to the
penknife, it remained by his side at all times and not to the
anterior of his body. So it was not held in front of
(20:55):
his body or waved around, you know, at the police officers or
anything like that. This is this one gets me.
This kills me. They had no other option.
OK, they had like they admit that they had other options for
a star and aside from their admission to these, there's
always other options before shooting to kill someone.
And don't tell me that shooting some someone in the chest
several times is not a shoot to kill.
(21:18):
Had a Taser been an option that would have been used.
That is just absolutely ridiculous.
They were at the optimal distance actually to use their
Taser if they needed it. There were several of them.
One of them could have used their Taser, or two of them, or
even 3, which they obviously feel they did need some sort of
assistance. There was zero attempt to use
the Taser. So I think that's really
(21:40):
ridiculous. And considering they actually
widened the gap or the distance between themselves and Luke in
the end, I wouldn't believe thatit would be such a rush to shoot
somebody. But anyway, they did all they
could to resolve this matter peacefully.
Well, they immediately drew their guns and pointed them at
Luke. There's nothing peaceful about
that. No innocent person put in
(22:01):
danger. Well that's interesting because
two bullets that were fired had actually hit two separate
vehicles. One was behind a Bush out of
sight of both offices and one was approximately 60 metres up
the street with tinted windows. So I would say that's putting
people in danger for sure. But I don't know.
I don't know their different definition.
(22:23):
Immediately rendered first aid. It was 4 minutes until any first
aid was given. Luke lay unresponsive, dying on
the pavement when they turned him over, handcuffed his arms
behind his back, arrested him, emptied his pockets, all before
giving first aid. It was approximately 7 minutes
(22:43):
before CPR was even attempted. The only reason that they
removed handcuffed handcuffed handcuffs was when they were
asked to do so by the female officer who said Luke was dead.
Had she not been on the scene and requested they be removed,
would they have been removed at all?
I honestly don't think so. He had substantial mental health
(23:03):
issues. Before I touch on that, I just
want to say that I don't think that gives any extra reason to
just shoot someone in the chest.I just don't.
I still think that Tasers and like shooting to disable, not
shooting to kill, and there are many, many other ways around
that. But anyway.
But As for his mental health, in2018, Luke actually had a close
(23:26):
friend of his pass away, which really impacted him emotionally.
So that's about as far as his mental health expands in
history. Well when he was suffering from
the ill mental health due to theloss of his friends, police were
involved for his welfare. He did have drink drive charges,
(23:46):
which is obviously not relevant to this situation, but it is
entirely relevant to the credibility of QPS.
Mind you. 4 minutes is plenty oftime to take life saving action.
In 4 minutes what can you do? You can fill a kettle, put it on
a stand, turn it on, wait for the water to boil, and make a
cup of tea. That's enough time to try and
(24:07):
save a life. You can also sit down and listen
to an entire song. 4 minutes here in this situation in Luke's
life would have been the difference between life and
death. And I believe it.
It's the length of your favoritesong.
It's enough time to apply pressure to a wound called 000
and potentially keep someone breathing until help arrives, or
(24:28):
at least give them the chance tomake it.
I want to talk about. The CPR delay timeline and its
impact because between zero to 1minutes the heart has just
stopped. So immediate CPR can keep
oxygenated blood flowing to the brain, which is essential and
survival chances are quite high with this early action.
Between minutes one to three brain cells begin to die.
(24:50):
OK, so CPR started now can stilldouble or triple-A person's
chance of survival. Then between minutes 4 to 6,
permanent brain damage can beginif no oxygen is getting back to
the brain. So every second starts to count.
Now then, we've got between minutes 7 to 10.
The chances of survival drop dramatically here, especially
without CPR or defib. So the brain damage from the
(25:13):
loss of oxygen is very likely and recovery is very uncertain
at this point in time. So every minute that passes
without CPR, a person's chances of survival drops 7 to 10%.
And after 10 minutes with no CPR, the chances of survival are
less than 5%. And that's huge, you guys.
And Ian Levers, as you can remember, stated, well, he
(25:36):
actually know this is a new comment that he said.
It is really important to look at this and analyse this.
It is so vital. And if there are any learnings
that we can gather from around Australia and look at other
coronial inquests that have taken place and overseas and see
what can be done. And I would just really, really
love to comment on that. OK.
So with all due respect to Mr. Levers, I think I can come up
(25:57):
with a few things that you, Mr. Levers and QPS can learn from
this from. Luke.
Given that in 2022 to 2023 NSW Police shot eight people,
Victoria Police shot one, SA Police shot one, WA Police shot
(26:18):
2, what do QPS do? How many people do QPS shoot?
14 That that's a high number 14 people.
I can also tell you based off myown work and my cases that were
current when I was writing this very episode all of the cases
that I had bar one were in Queensland.
(26:41):
Why is that Mister levers? Why were all my cases from
Queensland bar one the. QLD.
Human Rights Commission ruled QPS have been facing several
issues including systemic sexismand racism.
Just have a quick Google, you'llbe able to find it.
You can have a little search on the Internet about QPS and you
can find your own articles that speak for themselves.
(27:03):
And I will save the massive failure of the QLD Forensic
Services services for our upcoming episode on systemic
injustice in the Queensland Sunshine State.
Because I have a whole episode coming up on that, because the
very, very, very large majority of my cases and my families that
I work for, their incident happened in Queensland.
(27:27):
I'd like to, I'd like to know why that is.
And. While I let you.
Think about that. I want to talk about the legal
and ethical concerns behind this, because legally and
ethically, use of force must be reasonable and necessary.
And of course, for the safety ofthe officers, for the safety of
the person in question, and for the safety of the community.
(27:50):
OK, But handcuffing an unresponsive person typically
typically cannot be justified under these principles as they
pose no active threat or resistance.
Don't tell me that after shooting somebody in the chest
several times that has made themfall to the ground and be
unresponsive that that person isan active threat or that person
(28:13):
is likely to resist. The duty of care overrides
security in medical emergencies.That is a legal and ethical
concern. If a person is unresponsive, the
priority must be checking for breathing airway circulation and
administering first aid, not restraint.
I can't be any more clear about that.
(28:35):
Your duty of care overrides security in medical emergencies,
not to mention the potential breach of human rights.
In many jurisdictions, restraining a medically
vulnerable or unresponsive person can be seen as inhumane
or degrading treatment, especially if it delays life
saving care. Luke did not have to die from
(28:58):
this. You did not have to kill him
here. This did not have to happen.
And the police? Exceptions.
And there are exceptions for thepolice, but they look like this.
In rare situations, such as during tactical operations, law
enforcement may temporarily handcuff for officer safety.
OK. However, they are legally
(29:20):
required to check responsiveness, render aid, and
remove restraints as soon as it is safe.
This is always subject to internal and external review if
harm occurs. So the legal.
Framework for handcuffing and this is from the Police Powers
and Responsibilities Act 2000, also known as the PPRA.
(29:40):
So, police officers may use force, including handcuffs, if
it is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of the person
or others to prevent the person from escaping or prevent the
destruction of evidence. However, the use of handcuffs
must be proportionated to the situation.
Applying handcuffs to an unresponsive individual, someone
who is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, raises
(30:03):
significant legal and ethical concerns.
May I repeat? Significant legal and ethical
concerns. This is a person that was dying,
if not dead, and the QPS have handcuffed this man before
rendering first aid. Sorry.
(30:25):
They handcuffed him and then waited 4 minutes before trying
to render first aid because theydidn't think about that.
And then when they did think about that, they didn't even
know where their medical kit was.
Handcuffing an. Unresponsive person may be
considered excessive force as itis unlikely that such an
individual poses an immediate threat or risk of escape.
So this is just very black and white.
(30:46):
Now, the Criminal Code, which isfrom the 1899 in QLD, stipulates
that any use of force beyond what is justified by law is
unlawful. I I am highlighting that word in
yellow and I am making the letters bold.
Unlawful. Moreover, the Queensland Police
Service's Operational ProceduresManual, or the OPM, actually
(31:08):
emphasizes that any use of force, including handcuffing,
must be continuously assessed and justified based on the
individual's behaviour and the context of the situation.
Behaviour. Please, please talk to me about
Luke's behaviour when you handcuffed him when he was
unresponsive. This means that.
(31:29):
Officers are expected to evaluate the necessity of
restraints continually and had to remove them when they are no
longer required. I.
I'm sorry, like I have read overand over and over my script for
this case and it's taken me so long 'cause I wanted to get it
so right. Because it just so upsets me
(31:50):
that the family are going through this and that Luke had
to die in this situation and hadto be killed and they're just
surrounded by systemic injustice.
Yeah. Next I'm going to move into the
utility knife because this was, this came up as an issue.
Well, the Queensland police bought this up as an issue
(32:12):
actually. Well, they obviously had an
issue with it early on. Now, a utility knife, such as a
box cutter or a folding knife, the ones that you can sort sort
of like flick out, I think, I think people call them pocket
knives. Yeah.
They're lawful when used for legitimate purposes like work,
fishing and things like that. So that's under Section 51 of
the Weapons Act of 1990. So possessing a knife in a
(32:34):
public place is prohibited unless you have a reasonable
excuse. So if you were going to get
lunch or something and you've just been from work and you've
got that clipped to your pants, you're all good.
Now, a Category M weapon is something that includes knives
and devices specifically designed for concealment or as
weapons. So Category M weapons are
prohibited without special authorization.
(32:55):
For example, knives disguised aseveryday items like belt buckle
knives, flick knives, butterfly knives, anything like that.
Now possessing a. Category M weapon without that
authorization is illegal, regardless of the intent.
The coroner was informed with evidence by the family that it
was not a Category M knife. So they were aware of that it
(33:19):
was a utility knife. It does not fall under the
category M knife section at all.It's a very easy thing to look
up. Yet they still decided to
publish in the findings that it was.
Why is that? And also, while I'm on that
question, here's a few more questions that I have for QPS.
And you're probably thinking QPSaren't listening to your
(33:39):
podcast. I beg to differ because I do
have the paid feature on LinkedIn where I get to watch
you goes and looks at my profile.
And I will let you know that a lot of them are from QPS.
So I would love them to listen to this and have a a discussion
about these questions because what really could have been done
(34:01):
differently to make the situation safe and result in no
deaths. I would.
Honestly love them to answer that.
What happened to shoot to disable?
Why was it shoot to kill? What is the excuse, the
reasonable excuse for handcuffing a person who's
unresponsive? Unresponsive.
(34:21):
I can think of a few things thatwould have redirected this
situation honestly that wouldn'thave resulted in Luke's death.
I'm no police officer, nor do I have any interest to be one.
However, I don't find it appropriate to sarcastically
provoke an individual when you're a person whose job it is
to help people be safe. Or, you know, just be a regular
(34:44):
person and and not create a problem, that behaviour is
uncalled for. If Luke's interaction with the
police that night ended when he had accidentally brushed past
the first officer and apologizedas he did, then things would be
very different and I believe it 100% from here.
Implementing the use of a Taser before walking backward to Lula
Luke around a corner was definitely possible.
(35:05):
In my opinion. If it was possible to fire so
many rounds, you could have definitely used a Taser.
It wasn't like there was only one officer there, there were
several. If there were a genuine concern
regarding the utility knife, then this would be reasonable
using a Taser. And again, Luke would be here to
tell his side of the story today.
But he's not. He's dead and his parents are
(35:26):
fighting for his justice every single day and it's falling on
deaf ears. Why?
The Gilbert family very reasonably requests that the
review of the police conduct, ormore appropriately, misconduct,
be done by an unrelated body. They don't want the police
misconduct to be looked at by police.
They want somebody unbiased, unrelated to the police force to
(35:50):
look at this misconduct and callit for what it is.
This means that cops don't investigate cops.
This is fair. This gives a fair and unbiased
result. So many points of you were not
heard at this inquest. Luke was basically killed and
then killed a second time in theinquest by not allowing his side
of the story to be told, not allowing his girlfriend to
(36:10):
testify, not including essentialand relevant information
regarding the surrounding circumstances, not allowing
people's impact. Statements like this is so
important and it's just like a very basic human right.
It gives context to the situation.
You can't judge a situation based on one version of events
and that like is then reviewed by the people who work for that
(36:33):
version of events. Like, how is that justice?
I just don't get it. But before I go into the
executive summary of this case, I want to ask you a question
that I want you to consider you listening.
Not QPS, just you, an everyday listener.
What would you do if this was your child, your brother, your
(36:54):
partner? What would you do?
Help us. Help the Gilbert family get
justice for Luke and get justicefor themselves.
And get justice for. You who should be protected by
the police service, they should be protecting you and us and
(37:16):
them. Everybody.
This this shouldn't have happened.
Now I'm going to. Read to you this executive
summary that was sent to me by Luke's mum.
And it's got a lot of facts in here that are going to leave you
a little bit speechless. And it adds, again, a lot of
(37:38):
context to the actual story. So let's go.
If you've been here since the start, now's a good time to
pause me. Go make a coffee and sit back
down and we'll get into it. So pause now and then come back.
All right, so the coronial findings into Luke Gilwitz
death, which again was when he was killed by police on the 1st
(38:00):
of October 2022. The findings are.
Fundamentally flawed, They're factually inaccurate,
procedurally unfair, and they result in numerous miscarriages
of justice. We have been shown fraudulent
evidence, denial of Full disclosure, omission of relevant
(38:22):
and material facts, and the systemic failure of multiple
institutions to uphold their statutory and ethical duties.
Now .1 Failure to provide a considerable Ballistics
evidence. Pardon.
Like what do you mean this person was killed through
Ballistics? Why was there no Ballistics done
(38:44):
on this crime scene? Discrepancies in the number of
shots fired is a massive thing. There was reported variously as
like there was four shots. No, there was 5.
No, there was six. Well, there was a lack of
forensic accounting for each bullet.
Yet forensic photos show 6 shellcases and conflicting accounts
from officers involved, which then raise the questions and
(39:06):
concerns about whether the actual shooters or shooter and
sequence of events have been truthfully identified and
examined. But that's not giving any
context to anything that that crime scene should have been
dealt with immediately and correctly .2.
We have reliance on false and unchallenged witness statements.
(39:27):
Like we said earlier, several witness statements were
contradicted by video evidence that were admitted without the
opportunity for cross examination.
So these statements, some from persons with known ties to the
police officers who are involved, were relied upon in
preference to the clear and moreobjective CCTV evidence.
(39:47):
New witnesses have since come forward with information about
police following Luke and approaching witnesses before
Luke was killed. Oh, you guys.
Like it hurts my brain .3 Mischaracterisation of the
knife. As we said they categorised it
as a category M weapon, while the Milwaukee folding pen knife
found on Luke was incorrectly classified as a prohibited
(40:08):
weapon despite being sold legally as a controlled tool, a
utility tool. This mischaracterisation
prejudice prejudice findings andwas used to imply criminality
when none existed. They're just trying to pin
something on him. They're trying to make him out
to be something that he is not. To justify what they've done .4.
(40:29):
We have ignored evidence of prior relationship between the
Officer Forster and Luke's partner.
This is my favorite point. We have sworn statements
alleging prior contact and rejected romantic interest
between Constable Forster and Miss Mellor.
These were disregarded. Evidence of possible motive and
(40:49):
conduct unbecoming of a police officer was not investigated or
admitted into evidence. Evidence that Constable Foster
was watching Miss Smeller and Luke eat breakfast in a local
cafe hours before shooting and killing Luke has been covered up
and has been refused in the investigation.
(41:12):
There have been attempts by MissMueller to contact ethical
standards regarding her testimony and they have been
ignored. Yes, you can rewind.
And listen to that again. And yes, this is absolutely
correct information .5 False claims of no prior contact with
the deceased. Well here we go.
CCTV contradicts officer claims that they had no prior knowledge
(41:36):
of or interactions with Luke, but CCTV footage shows officers
observing and following Luke throughout the evening.
This evidence was omitted and when sections were used it was
misrepresented. 2 of the police officers were not even
questioned at the inquest and the evidence in the prosecution
of Constable Collins, who committed crimes against Luke at
(41:59):
the time of his death, has been withheld entirely from the
inquest and denied to the family.
The impact of his actions has also never been investigated .6
Withholding of vital CCTV footage Police failed to
disclose crucial footage showingLuke's final walk and officer's
actions. Requests for this footage have
(42:20):
been denied without justification.
Witnesses report seeing footage that has not been disclosed and
was reportedly forced to be deleted by Whitsunday's police
from the venue .7 Tampering withCCTV time and date stamps
Whitsunday's Regional Council cameras are known to carry time
stamps, yet those on the ones that were seen have been
(42:43):
removed. Therefore they can't be.
Matched to the body worn camera times.
Requests for original CCTV footage have been denied despite
being in the index to proof of evidence .8 is the admittance.
Admittance of flawed expert reports without procedural
fairness. Expert witnesses relied solely
(43:03):
on police supplied body worn camera footage, CCTV that has
been digitally altered and second hand medical records.
They were not given full balanced information again
context, nor were they made aware of inconsistencies in the
material provided. They failed to consult family
and all attempts to correct factually incorrect information
(43:26):
contained in the medical recordshave been ignored.
Shocking .9 false public statements by Queensland Police
representative. Wow, I'm losing it.
This is when you know that I'm going on a tangent.
But Ian Levers, who we spoke about earlier, his public
commentaries shortly after the incident violated coronial
(43:47):
guidelines and that can actuallyconstitute an attempt to pervert
the course of justice. So the coroner declined to
compel him to give evidence .10.Forgery of Form 1, which was a
consent to autopsy. A forged Form 1 by a
Whitsunday's police officer was used to conduct a full autopsy
against the family wishes Ethical Standards Command and
(44:09):
the coroner failed to act or investigate.
This violation is against Luke'shuman rights and obviously
against the family's wishes to no autopsy .11 collusion in
misrepresenting sequence of events.
Multiple parties like the policeand experts and legal reps
presented a uniform but factually inaccurate version of
(44:32):
the key 18 second interaction, which was actually contrary to
the CCTV footage. Then .12 is tampering with the
court transcripts and audio segments of inquest transcripts
and recordings have been alteredor omitted.
The legal reps declined to act on this, and they cited
promotions of prior lawyers. .13is the.
(44:53):
Violation of human rights The Human Rights Acts of 2019 in QLD
guarantees fairness and due process, which were denied.
A formal human rights complaint has been submitted in parallel,
which outlines the seven human rights violations in this case
alone. And the last point, .14 was the
failure of the Triple C oversight.
So the Triple C report is falsified with incorrect and
(45:15):
inconsistent information. The Triple C completed their
oversight into the ESC investigation after only four
days. They have failed to investigate
these facts or give answers whenthey were pointed out the issues
here. And so that's also going nowhere
now given the systemic nature ofthe issues and the multiple
(45:39):
institutions or pig bodies involved.
The family believe that the matter also warrants an
independent judicial or parliamentary inquiry to ensure
accountability and reform because of these following
findings that they've noted down.
They said one, contrary to the weight of available evidence, 2,
the product of procedural unfairness, 3 rely on
(46:00):
inadmissible or tainted evidence, 4 fail to consider
relevant and credible new material, and five, undermine
public confidence in the integrity of the coronial
system. I would like to see this be
reviewed independently and I would also actually like this to
go to a parliamentary inquiry. I think this is really important
and I think it's really important for the Queensland
Police system and I think it's important for a wider community.
(46:23):
I think this is a public safety issue and I think it should be
seen as a public safety issue. Obviously we're not All Saints
and like yes, Luke had been drinking.
Who has not been out on a night drinking?
Sorry, inappropriate timing. My alarm to pick my kids up from
school just started going off. That's how long I've been on
here for. But I do think this is a public
(46:45):
health and safety issue 100%. I think that it should
definitely be seen independently.
I also agree with the family that police should not
investigate police misconduct that should be done from a peak
unrelated body to the police service.
And I honestly think that there are not one, but numerous
avenues that could have been taken to have Luke still with us
(47:08):
today and have the family still have their son and brother and
boyfriend and friend. I, I think this is a huge
miscarriage of justice. And I'm really sad for them.
And I watch their page every dayand I see every day, every
single day they're posting photos, videos, they're talking,
(47:30):
they're writing, they're, they're putting their whole life
into this for justice for Luke. And like I said earlier, Luke
wasn't just killed once, He was killed twice.
They killed him again in that inquest, that and that inquest,
absolutely. Killed him.
And it killed his family. And you should be hurting from
(47:53):
hearing it too, because like I said, this is a public issue.
This is not just a Luke problem or Luke's family's problem.
This is all of our problems we all need.
To be acting. To help keep the community safe.
It could be anyone. Even if, you know, like, we all
make stupid decisions. We all, you know, have a drink
(48:15):
here and there. Well, maybe not all of us, but
like, we've all made dumb decisions.
Let's be honest. And can we even say that about
Luke here? Like, did he even really do
anything? Could could it be?
Could we flip the narrative on them and let the truth rule for
a second and just say that if Forster had not yelled out to
(48:38):
him again when he had already walked by, would Luke still be
alive? Yes, he would be.
That's the answer. That's the truth.
Would he ever still brush past that cop and said, excuse me,
Yes. Would that cop still be like, no
worries, mate. Yes, that would have been the
end of the interaction. Luke would still be here today.
(48:59):
That's where the problem lies, OK.
And the next problem lies with accountability.
And people need to be held accountable for Luke, for Luke's
family and for public safety. So I just want to say thank you
so much. If you stuck around and listened
to this episode, this is one that I'm going to continue to go
into, I think, because I would love to do all that I can to
(49:21):
help Luke's family. They work so hard for justice
and I think we can do great things as a community when we
come together and help each other out.
And I've I've seen it because you guys have done it.
We've organized search groups inother states.
Like you guys are awesome. I love and appreciate you all so
much and how we're creating a normal society out of what we're
(49:45):
doing here of people who who want the same thing.
We just want to be happy. We just want to be safe.
We don't want to lose people, you know, and we can work
together for justice for Luke and his family.
And you can help by sharing this.
You can share his name, talk to your friends about this, jump on
(50:07):
the pages for him. And they have a Facebook page.
They have a TikTok page. It's called Justice for Luke.
And yeah, update yourself. Have a listen.
There's some videos on there that are really insightful and
yeah, I hope you've enjoyed it here, obviously in a bit of a
somber way, but I hope that you've learnt something.
I hope that Luke's story is going to help us bring justice
(50:31):
and bring people closer together.
But yeah, I'm going to leave it there.
So thank you for joining us today.
I hope you have enjoyed it here.If you have, you can subscribe
to stay up to date on new episodes or you can find us on
Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.
You can help us out by subscribing to our paid episodes
on Spotify only or making a direct donation to allow us to
(50:53):
help more families. You can also join in on the case
discussions and make a case request there on our Facebook
group. You can find the link to our
Facebook group in our podcast notes, and you can also take a
look at our current cases on ourwebsite.
But as always, stay curious, stay informed, and until next
time, trust your instincts and keep seeking the truth.
Welcome to Exhuming the Truth, the podcast where we delve into
the mysterious worlds of cold cases, missing persons, true
crime, and the fascinating science that is forensics.
I'm forensic scientist and criminologist Asha Walther, and
I am so thrilled to have you with me on this journey as we
dance in the shadows of the world of crime, shining a light
(00:37):
on scientific discovery while becoming another voice for those
who need it most. So grab a drink and get
comfortable while we jump into this episode together.
This podcast is recommended for persons over the age of 18 and
contains explicit content not suitable for minors.
We will be covering sensitive content that ranges from sexual
assault, physical, mental, social, and emotional abuse,
(01:01):
suicide, homicide, murder, attempted murder, and other
violent crimes, including crimesinvolving weapons and drugs.
This often extends to drug misuse and other harmful and
illegal activity. If you find any content to be
distressing, I have listed a number of resources that may be
able to help you in the podcast notes.
(01:22):
Hello and happy Tuesday, and thank you for being here and for
listening today. We have a really important
episode, but before we jump intothat, I just want to go through
a little bit of housekeeping. I've just had a couple of days
off because I had my best friendfly over from Melbourne, which
was really fun. We always cause absolute chaos
(01:44):
together, which is really nice and out of the ordinary because
life is very family and work orientated until she comes over
and I get to have a little bit of me time and a little bit of
fun I guess. So that was really nice.
So thank you so much to everyonebeing super patient with me over
those few days. There's so much going on right
(02:06):
now, so many new cases in the news, so many things coming up
like inquests and searches and things like that.
So I think we're going to be super busy and might even be
adding the occasional extra podcast here and there.
I'm thinking maybe 3-1 week and two the next, but I'll get your
(02:26):
feedback on that and see how we're going before I jump into
the next episode for today, I just wanted to say I watched a
movie last night. It was based on a dreary story
and I watched it on Prime. It was called The Sound of
Freedom, or maybe even just Sound of Freedom.
It was amazing. It was a great watch.
(02:49):
Very easy to watch, very distressing storyline.
Although it was a true story. Yeah, it it definitely made me
cry, and I'm not a huge crier, so yeah, it made me cry.
It's along the lines of human trafficking, particularly of
children, and that's one of the biggest violations of human
(03:09):
rights globally. So it sends a really important
message. There is kind of a silver lining
to the story and the man who is sort of the main character and
the work that he does is amazing.
So I do recommend watching that if you have time, but I'll leave
it short and sweet at that and we can get into this next
episode. That has taken me a lot of time
(03:32):
to get to where I want to have it.
And I think a large part of thatis obviously because it's a very
complex case and this is actually a case that has
obviously occurred and it has already been to the coroner's
court. So we are able to go into a bit
more detail with this one. So it will be a bit of a longer
episode. I hope you stick around and hear
(03:55):
all of it and then I'll let you know at the end how you can
help. And of course, where to find all
of the extra details of the Justice for Luke page, which is
run by Luke's mum and dad. So let's jump in and we'll start
by saying welcome to Justice forLuke Gilbert.
(04:16):
I'm going to do this episode a little differently to others for
a few reasons, but mostly because this story is different
to others in the sense that we don't have a missing person and
we don't have a cold case. We have someone who had their
whole life ahead of them, who died way too young and in a way
you would just never expect. I've said it before and I'll say
(04:38):
it again and likely again and again, that the media and
authorities have so much to answer for.
What is the justice system for if it's not to help us?
What I have experienced personally and professionally is
an unjust system. And in this case, I want to be
clear, we have a young man at 24years old with his whole life
(05:01):
ahead of him. No one is perfect.
No one has a clean history of just being the perfect model
citizen, whatever that may be. And I want you to consider this
when you listen to this story. How easy is it for us to
stereotype a person based on their gender, their age, and
whatever else we like to categorize them with?
(05:21):
The Internet is the absolute worst for it, and the comments
that people make we can only assume are from people who are
so perfect and have never put a foot wrong, so good for them.
I'm going to present this case as what you will see it for,
what the media will present it as, how the police want you to
hear it. And then I'm going to present it
(05:42):
to you again with the real storywith evidence that was excluded
from the reports and the media events.
So I've just typed his name intoGoogle, Luke Gilbert.
And I'm going to use basic OSINTto present this how the system
wants it presented. This is directly from 9 News and
(06:04):
I quote Man provoked QLD police into fatal shooting, Coroner
Fines Luke Bryan Gilbert, aged 24, was shot dead by two police
officers at 12:20 AM on the 1st of October 2022 at Airlie Beach
in Queensland. This article will tell you this.
(06:24):
Minutes before the shooting, Gilbert had left a nightclub
after consuming alcohol at various locations in the hours
beforehand. Gilbert proceeded to bump into
one of the officer's arms while they were patrolling the street.
After the officers asked if Gilbert was alright and what he
was holding underneath his jumper, he produced a folding
(06:44):
knife with a 8 centimeter blade and said shoot me idea.
Despite repeated directions to stop moving and drop the knife,
Gilbert increased the speed at which he approached the
officers, telling them fucking shoot me, fuck wit.
The two officers fired their handguns a total of five times,
with three bullets striking Gilbert in the upper right
(07:06):
chest, causing his rapid death despite the officer's attempt to
provide first aid. Now here's one from ABC News.
Again I have typed his name intoGoogle and this is what we have.
It is titled Coronial inquest hears police were forced to
fatally shoot Luke Gilbert in Airlie Beach Now this specific
(07:27):
article literally starts with and I quote.
A crime expert had told a coronial inquest the two police
officers who shot and killed a young man were forced to take
the action they did. Essentially, the coroner ruled
that Luke contributed to his owndeath by way of victim
precipitated homicide, which is basically when the victim's
(07:49):
behaviour or actions provoke or contribute to their own death,
essentially rendering Luke responsible.
Now, just to add, Associate Professor Amber McKinley was not
given statements by family. She was not given statements by
friends or workmates, by people who had previously been in
(08:11):
relationships with Luke or Luke's girlfriend at the time,
who had been with him all morning, afternoon and evening
of the day he was killed. When the barrister said you
didn't have that information, McKinley said.
I didn't know I was able to. Now, why would the coroner not
give her these statements? Is it because it would go
(08:34):
against the narrative that they were following?
That's something for you to think about while I tell you the
actual story. Let me reintroduce you to Luke
Bryan Gilbert, the first born child and son of Mr. and Mrs.
Gilbert, an older brother to a brother and a sister.
He was the first grandchild of his family.
He was born in Manchester, UK before moving to Australia where
(08:57):
his parents wanted to come for. And yes, this is absolutely
accurate. For a better and safer life with
more opportunities, let that onesink in.
Luke loved travelling. He liked camping, fishing, 4
wheel driving. He always remained in close
contact with his family even when he was travelling,
(09:19):
particularly when he travelled to Queensland.
His family remember him as a very loving son, a loving
brother and a loving friend. A friend of Luke's has described
him as being super dedicated to his family, saying that the
people Luke cherish the most would be his family.
He gave his whole heart to his family he loved dearly.
(09:39):
Luke's girlfriend at the time, Elizabeth Mellor, described Luke
as a caring, pretty quiet, very generous person.
She said he's different with everyone else than he is with
me. When I say this, I mean he is
just a little bit more standoffish and a little bit
quieter. She stated that he had a new job
and he worked hard at it. She also said that Luke was
(10:01):
making a really solid effort to do better in his life in the
more recent times before he was killed, Luke and his girlfriend
had started to attend church together and Luke was actually
baptized in September of 2022. So just to reiterate, Luke was
24. OK, The day he was shot and
killed by the Queensland Police was the 1st of October 2022 and
(10:25):
in 2022, prior to this incident,he was travelling Australia
before settling down in Queensland.
So he actually never got to go home.
He was living and working in Townsville and saving up for his
next trip and at the time he drove a Ute and he was typically
usually wearing workwear and that had included a utility
penknife which we would know here as like maybe a Milwaukee
(10:50):
knife or something like that with the little 7 centimetre
blades and you can clip them to your belt.
The day he was killed, he had actually travelled to Airlie
Beach to assist his girlfriend. She was having issues with her
car so she had contacted him, asked for help and he was on his
way to help her with that. After that was sorted, the pair
(11:10):
decided to go out to the pub just after midnight.
Now this is where it all went sideways.
So just after midnight, Luke allegedly walked past these two
cops. So there was obviously cops
patrolling the streets. He was about to cross the road
and he passed another two cops. Luke passed these two cops in
the most appropriate gap possible, but he had actually
(11:35):
brushed past one of the officers.
And as he did that, he said, excuse me, you know, to excuse
himself through not anything vile.
And one of the cops who we will go by as Murray, he responded
with no, no worries, mate. So Murray actually did later
(11:55):
admit to minimal contact in thatinteraction.
And that was the first interaction of the evening.
So as Luke continued on walking,he went past the second cop who
is Liam Forster and Liam Forsterwho says in his peripheral
vision he saw the prior interaction between Luke and
(12:15):
Murray, which we refer to as like that brush past, you know,
and excuse me. No worries mate.
So Forcer then allegedly called out to Luke for really no reason
at all, saying good on you mate.So we continued walking across
the road and ignored the comment.
Forster then proceeded to say, OK, see you later tough guy.
(12:36):
Now the cop Murray claims to nothave heard Forster's comment
despite being closer in proximity to Forster than Luke
was. So that's a bit odd, but we'll
get back to that. But upon hearing that comment,
Luke then turned around and cameback to the curb and stood
still. So during this whole
interaction, there are body worncameras and they began recording
(12:58):
audio. At this point, Forster's body
worn camera records audio hearing force to say what's
that, what have you got there? At this time, Luke stood with
his hands free and he had his work pen knife clip to his belt,
which was not visible at that time.
In compliance, Luke proceeds to put his hands inside his pants
(13:21):
to retrieve the pen knife to show him as requested, as he
said. What's that?
What have you got there? So he did that.
He held it down by his side and stood still.
Murray and Forster agree in the inquest that Luke was complying
at this point in time. Murray pulls his gun and points
it toward Luke and Forster then follows suit.
So we've got two officers standing there holding their
(13:42):
guns out towards Luke who is presenting his utility knife
that he had clipped to his pantsthat was requested to be seen.
Then Forster shines his 1000 Lumens torch, which was attached
to his gun, in Luke's face, and they both start to walk
backwards. Now, when they're walking
backwards, they're kind of walking in a way to make Luke
(14:04):
follow them and go around the corner because they were
obviously on a strip and there was a corner there.
So they were walking backwards, like essentially luring him
around the corner. They repeatedly shouted at Luke
to drop the knife. And the first two officers that
Luke passed earlier. So you can remember I said he
passed two officers with no issues at all.
(14:25):
So they noticed that there was an interruption happening and
they came over and one of those officers was Constable Anthony
Parkinson. He also took his gun out of his
holster at this point. So now we have three officers
holding their guns at Luke. Luke had been drinking that day.
He was intoxicated, intoxicated at that point in time.
And his toxic reports show that he was three times over the
(14:47):
drink drive limit, you know, just to prove a point there.
Yes, he had been drinking. He'd been at the pub and this
was a bit of a drinking district.
Luke didn't drop the pen knife at this point in time and he had
said do it, shoot me then, fuckers.
He was referencing to the guns that the three police were
holding up to him. Now, as the cops proceeded to
(15:08):
walk backwards, Luke was walkingforwards towards them.
So we've got the cops walking backwards, Luke walking towards
them. Now he was not moving at any
speed at this point. Luke still had his pen knife by
his side and he was approximately measured around 15
feet away from the cops when he made that comment.
Now at this stage, the cops actually fired a volley of
(15:31):
bullets into the safe night precinct.
Only 18 seconds after Forster challenged Luke.
So this is a very, very quick interaction, 18 seconds and
they're firing shots now. The gap at the time between the
cops and Luke was bigger at the end of their interaction than it
was at the start. So if anybody's moving quicker
(15:52):
is very general maths. The police were actually moving
faster at a rate faster than what Luke was.
They had actually increased thatgap.
Murray allegedly then fired one bullet and Forster allegedly
fired 4 bullets and Forster had actually fired the first shot,
which then sparked Murray's fire.
(16:13):
Now three of these bullets hit Luke's chest and two hit cars.
No Ballistics report conducted into this case at all, but
forensics obviously had to attend and they indicated the
total number of bullets is not 5.
So we will come back to that. But I want to highlight that
(16:33):
now. Upon being shot in the chest
several times, Luke fell to the ground immediately upon being
hit and he was immediately laying unresponsive on the
ground, dead, slash dying. And then Forster points his gun
towards Luke and Murray says flip him, put his hands behind
his back before we search him. And they proceeded to handcuff
(16:54):
Luke. So he would have been faced down
unconscious or dying if not already dead.
And they've handcuffed it, handcuffed it, handcuffed him.
I'm so sorry. They arrested him.
They emptied his pockets. And then at 4 minutes it took
before any first aid was given. Now we have Constable Daniel
(17:15):
Simic. He was the 4th officer on scene
and he could not locate the medical kit.
He had no idea where it was and couldn't find it.
When he finally found it, he applied the chest seals
incorrectly. So the chest seals for chest
compressions and he, yeah, he put those on incorrectly.
(17:36):
So that rendered them useless. Then they moved the cuffs from
his back to his front even though he was entirely
unresponsive. It was 7 minutes or thereabouts
before police attempt to poorly administer CPR. 7 minutes.
Another officer then arrives on scene and this is a female
(17:56):
officer and she is the one who suggested removing the handcuffs
as Luke was now deceased. So here's the real story.
Then we have Ian Levers, who is key in this case as well.
So he's is or was the police union president at the time.
And he actually gave a press conference on the day that Luke
was killed in which he gave manyfalse statements to the media.
(18:19):
So I'm going to, I'm going to read you a little bit of that
first. I will read you a few lines from
his statement as he presented it.
Now these are a few statements as he said it.
OK, So he approached them and engaged them in conversation.
So he's talking about Luke approaching police officers and
engaging them in conversation, which is incorrect.
All of a sudden he pulled a knife from his hoodie, also
(18:42):
incorrect. He lunged at the office offices
also incorrect. Let me just say, in the middle
of this, might I add, there is absolutely no bias here.
I really try not to take any bias and I like to take facts as
they are, but when you have bodyworn camera footage, that's
pretty hard evidence. So I'm just going to throw that
out there. He also said he threatened the
(19:03):
officers. They had no other option.
Had Taser been an option, it would have been used.
They did all they could to resolve this matter peacefully.
No innocent person was put in danger.
They immediately rendered first aid.
He had substantial mental healthissues.
He had a criminal history. I can just summarise all of
these as like an incredible miscarriage of justice.
(19:25):
What is wrong with this statement?
You, you could be thinking that I hope you're not, but there's a
lot wrong with this statement. Well, let me walk you through
the issues here. And these aren't so much a
matter of an opinion. They've been proven to be
factual rebuttals. So let's talk about it.
Like I said, it's been through court and the body worn cameras
has been used as evidence. Now let's go to the statement
(19:48):
here. Approach them and engage them in
conversation. Luke actually walked past them
when he was crossing the road. There was no problem and also no
reason for Luke to engage in further conversation with any of
the cops that he passed until Forcer decided to make his
remark as Luke was walking away.Of course Luke did say excuse me
and that first officer said no worries so there was really no
(20:11):
issue at all. He also said all of a sudden he
pulled a knife from his hoodie. Luke was not wearing a hoodie.
So that's that. He also had his penknife clipped
to his pants. So when he was asked what he had
there, he had removed the penknife from his pants and
presented it to his side. He lunged at the officers.
(20:33):
There's video footage to argue this actually.
So he was not seen to lunge at the police at any point in time.
He threatened the officers well,as per the body worn camera
footage, he made no threats verbally and in regard to the
penknife, it remained by his side at all times and not to the
anterior of his body. So it was not held in front of
(20:55):
his body or waved around, you know, at the police officers or
anything like that. This is this one gets me.
This kills me. They had no other option.
OK, they had like they admit that they had other options for
a star and aside from their admission to these, there's
always other options before shooting to kill someone.
And don't tell me that shooting some someone in the chest
several times is not a shoot to kill.
(21:18):
Had a Taser been an option that would have been used.
That is just absolutely ridiculous.
They were at the optimal distance actually to use their
Taser if they needed it. There were several of them.
One of them could have used their Taser, or two of them, or
even 3, which they obviously feel they did need some sort of
assistance. There was zero attempt to use
the Taser. So I think that's really
(21:40):
ridiculous. And considering they actually
widened the gap or the distance between themselves and Luke in
the end, I wouldn't believe thatit would be such a rush to shoot
somebody. But anyway, they did all they
could to resolve this matter peacefully.
Well, they immediately drew their guns and pointed them at
Luke. There's nothing peaceful about
that. No innocent person put in
(22:01):
danger. Well that's interesting because
two bullets that were fired had actually hit two separate
vehicles. One was behind a Bush out of
sight of both offices and one was approximately 60 metres up
the street with tinted windows. So I would say that's putting
people in danger for sure. But I don't know.
I don't know their different definition.
(22:23):
Immediately rendered first aid. It was 4 minutes until any first
aid was given. Luke lay unresponsive, dying on
the pavement when they turned him over, handcuffed his arms
behind his back, arrested him, emptied his pockets, all before
giving first aid. It was approximately 7 minutes
(22:43):
before CPR was even attempted. The only reason that they
removed handcuffed handcuffed handcuffs was when they were
asked to do so by the female officer who said Luke was dead.
Had she not been on the scene and requested they be removed,
would they have been removed at all?
I honestly don't think so. He had substantial mental health
(23:03):
issues. Before I touch on that, I just
want to say that I don't think that gives any extra reason to
just shoot someone in the chest.I just don't.
I still think that Tasers and like shooting to disable, not
shooting to kill, and there are many, many other ways around
that. But anyway.
But As for his mental health, in2018, Luke actually had a close
(23:26):
friend of his pass away, which really impacted him emotionally.
So that's about as far as his mental health expands in
history. Well when he was suffering from
the ill mental health due to theloss of his friends, police were
involved for his welfare. He did have drink drive charges,
(23:46):
which is obviously not relevant to this situation, but it is
entirely relevant to the credibility of QPS.
Mind you. 4 minutes is plenty oftime to take life saving action.
In 4 minutes what can you do? You can fill a kettle, put it on
a stand, turn it on, wait for the water to boil, and make a
cup of tea. That's enough time to try and
(24:07):
save a life. You can also sit down and listen
to an entire song. 4 minutes here in this situation in Luke's
life would have been the difference between life and
death. And I believe it.
It's the length of your favoritesong.
It's enough time to apply pressure to a wound called 000
and potentially keep someone breathing until help arrives, or
(24:28):
at least give them the chance tomake it.
I want to talk about. The CPR delay timeline and its
impact because between zero to 1minutes the heart has just
stopped. So immediate CPR can keep
oxygenated blood flowing to the brain, which is essential and
survival chances are quite high with this early action.
Between minutes one to three brain cells begin to die.
(24:50):
OK, so CPR started now can stilldouble or triple-A person's
chance of survival. Then between minutes 4 to 6,
permanent brain damage can beginif no oxygen is getting back to
the brain. So every second starts to count.
Now then, we've got between minutes 7 to 10.
The chances of survival drop dramatically here, especially
without CPR or defib. So the brain damage from the
(25:13):
loss of oxygen is very likely and recovery is very uncertain
at this point in time. So every minute that passes
without CPR, a person's chances of survival drops 7 to 10%.
And after 10 minutes with no CPR, the chances of survival are
less than 5%. And that's huge, you guys.
And Ian Levers, as you can remember, stated, well, he
(25:36):
actually know this is a new comment that he said.
It is really important to look at this and analyse this.
It is so vital. And if there are any learnings
that we can gather from around Australia and look at other
coronial inquests that have taken place and overseas and see
what can be done. And I would just really, really
love to comment on that. OK.
So with all due respect to Mr. Levers, I think I can come up
(25:57):
with a few things that you, Mr. Levers and QPS can learn from
this from. Luke.
Given that in 2022 to 2023 NSW Police shot eight people,
Victoria Police shot one, SA Police shot one, WA Police shot
(26:18):
2, what do QPS do? How many people do QPS shoot?
14 That that's a high number 14 people.
I can also tell you based off myown work and my cases that were
current when I was writing this very episode all of the cases
that I had bar one were in Queensland.
(26:41):
Why is that Mister levers? Why were all my cases from
Queensland bar one the. QLD.
Human Rights Commission ruled QPS have been facing several
issues including systemic sexismand racism.
Just have a quick Google, you'llbe able to find it.
You can have a little search on the Internet about QPS and you
can find your own articles that speak for themselves.
(27:03):
And I will save the massive failure of the QLD Forensic
Services services for our upcoming episode on systemic
injustice in the Queensland Sunshine State.
Because I have a whole episode coming up on that, because the
very, very, very large majority of my cases and my families that
I work for, their incident happened in Queensland.
(27:27):
I'd like to, I'd like to know why that is.
And. While I let you.
Think about that. I want to talk about the legal
and ethical concerns behind this, because legally and
ethically, use of force must be reasonable and necessary.
And of course, for the safety ofthe officers, for the safety of
the person in question, and for the safety of the community.
(27:50):
OK, But handcuffing an unresponsive person typically
typically cannot be justified under these principles as they
pose no active threat or resistance.
Don't tell me that after shooting somebody in the chest
several times that has made themfall to the ground and be
unresponsive that that person isan active threat or that person
(28:13):
is likely to resist. The duty of care overrides
security in medical emergencies.That is a legal and ethical
concern. If a person is unresponsive, the
priority must be checking for breathing airway circulation and
administering first aid, not restraint.
I can't be any more clear about that.
(28:35):
Your duty of care overrides security in medical emergencies,
not to mention the potential breach of human rights.
In many jurisdictions, restraining a medically
vulnerable or unresponsive person can be seen as inhumane
or degrading treatment, especially if it delays life
saving care. Luke did not have to die from
(28:58):
this. You did not have to kill him
here. This did not have to happen.
And the police? Exceptions.
And there are exceptions for thepolice, but they look like this.
In rare situations, such as during tactical operations, law
enforcement may temporarily handcuff for officer safety.
OK. However, they are legally
(29:20):
required to check responsiveness, render aid, and
remove restraints as soon as it is safe.
This is always subject to internal and external review if
harm occurs. So the legal.
Framework for handcuffing and this is from the Police Powers
and Responsibilities Act 2000, also known as the PPRA.
(29:40):
So, police officers may use force, including handcuffs, if
it is reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of the person
or others to prevent the person from escaping or prevent the
destruction of evidence. However, the use of handcuffs
must be proportionated to the situation.
Applying handcuffs to an unresponsive individual, someone
who is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, raises
(30:03):
significant legal and ethical concerns.
May I repeat? Significant legal and ethical
concerns. This is a person that was dying,
if not dead, and the QPS have handcuffed this man before
rendering first aid. Sorry.
(30:25):
They handcuffed him and then waited 4 minutes before trying
to render first aid because theydidn't think about that.
And then when they did think about that, they didn't even
know where their medical kit was.
Handcuffing an. Unresponsive person may be
considered excessive force as itis unlikely that such an
individual poses an immediate threat or risk of escape.
So this is just very black and white.
(30:46):
Now, the Criminal Code, which isfrom the 1899 in QLD, stipulates
that any use of force beyond what is justified by law is
unlawful. I I am highlighting that word in
yellow and I am making the letters bold.
Unlawful. Moreover, the Queensland Police
Service's Operational ProceduresManual, or the OPM, actually
(31:08):
emphasizes that any use of force, including handcuffing,
must be continuously assessed and justified based on the
individual's behaviour and the context of the situation.
Behaviour. Please, please talk to me about
Luke's behaviour when you handcuffed him when he was
unresponsive. This means that.
(31:29):
Officers are expected to evaluate the necessity of
restraints continually and had to remove them when they are no
longer required. I.
I'm sorry, like I have read overand over and over my script for
this case and it's taken me so long 'cause I wanted to get it
so right. Because it just so upsets me
(31:50):
that the family are going through this and that Luke had
to die in this situation and hadto be killed and they're just
surrounded by systemic injustice.
Yeah. Next I'm going to move into the
utility knife because this was, this came up as an issue.
Well, the Queensland police bought this up as an issue
(32:12):
actually. Well, they obviously had an
issue with it early on. Now, a utility knife, such as a
box cutter or a folding knife, the ones that you can sort sort
of like flick out, I think, I think people call them pocket
knives. Yeah.
They're lawful when used for legitimate purposes like work,
fishing and things like that. So that's under Section 51 of
the Weapons Act of 1990. So possessing a knife in a
(32:34):
public place is prohibited unless you have a reasonable
excuse. So if you were going to get
lunch or something and you've just been from work and you've
got that clipped to your pants, you're all good.
Now, a Category M weapon is something that includes knives
and devices specifically designed for concealment or as
weapons. So Category M weapons are
prohibited without special authorization.
(32:55):
For example, knives disguised aseveryday items like belt buckle
knives, flick knives, butterfly knives, anything like that.
Now possessing a. Category M weapon without that
authorization is illegal, regardless of the intent.
The coroner was informed with evidence by the family that it
was not a Category M knife. So they were aware of that it
(33:19):
was a utility knife. It does not fall under the
category M knife section at all.It's a very easy thing to look
up. Yet they still decided to
publish in the findings that it was.
Why is that? And also, while I'm on that
question, here's a few more questions that I have for QPS.
And you're probably thinking QPSaren't listening to your
(33:39):
podcast. I beg to differ because I do
have the paid feature on LinkedIn where I get to watch
you goes and looks at my profile.
And I will let you know that a lot of them are from QPS.
So I would love them to listen to this and have a a discussion
about these questions because what really could have been done
(34:01):
differently to make the situation safe and result in no
deaths. I would.
Honestly love them to answer that.
What happened to shoot to disable?
Why was it shoot to kill? What is the excuse, the
reasonable excuse for handcuffing a person who's
unresponsive? Unresponsive.
(34:21):
I can think of a few things thatwould have redirected this
situation honestly that wouldn'thave resulted in Luke's death.
I'm no police officer, nor do I have any interest to be one.
However, I don't find it appropriate to sarcastically
provoke an individual when you're a person whose job it is
to help people be safe. Or, you know, just be a regular
(34:44):
person and and not create a problem, that behaviour is
uncalled for. If Luke's interaction with the
police that night ended when he had accidentally brushed past
the first officer and apologizedas he did, then things would be
very different and I believe it 100% from here.
Implementing the use of a Taser before walking backward to Lula
Luke around a corner was definitely possible.
(35:05):
In my opinion. If it was possible to fire so
many rounds, you could have definitely used a Taser.
It wasn't like there was only one officer there, there were
several. If there were a genuine concern
regarding the utility knife, then this would be reasonable
using a Taser. And again, Luke would be here to
tell his side of the story today.
But he's not. He's dead and his parents are
(35:26):
fighting for his justice every single day and it's falling on
deaf ears. Why?
The Gilbert family very reasonably requests that the
review of the police conduct, ormore appropriately, misconduct,
be done by an unrelated body. They don't want the police
misconduct to be looked at by police.
They want somebody unbiased, unrelated to the police force to
(35:50):
look at this misconduct and callit for what it is.
This means that cops don't investigate cops.
This is fair. This gives a fair and unbiased
result. So many points of you were not
heard at this inquest. Luke was basically killed and
then killed a second time in theinquest by not allowing his side
of the story to be told, not allowing his girlfriend to
(36:10):
testify, not including essentialand relevant information
regarding the surrounding circumstances, not allowing
people's impact. Statements like this is so
important and it's just like a very basic human right.
It gives context to the situation.
You can't judge a situation based on one version of events
and that like is then reviewed by the people who work for that
(36:33):
version of events. Like, how is that justice?
I just don't get it. But before I go into the
executive summary of this case, I want to ask you a question
that I want you to consider you listening.
Not QPS, just you, an everyday listener.
What would you do if this was your child, your brother, your
(36:54):
partner? What would you do?
Help us. Help the Gilbert family get
justice for Luke and get justicefor themselves.
And get justice for. You who should be protected by
the police service, they should be protecting you and us and
(37:16):
them. Everybody.
This this shouldn't have happened.
Now I'm going to. Read to you this executive
summary that was sent to me by Luke's mum.
And it's got a lot of facts in here that are going to leave you
a little bit speechless. And it adds, again, a lot of
(37:38):
context to the actual story. So let's go.
If you've been here since the start, now's a good time to
pause me. Go make a coffee and sit back
down and we'll get into it. So pause now and then come back.
All right, so the coronial findings into Luke Gilwitz
death, which again was when he was killed by police on the 1st
(38:00):
of October 2022. The findings are.
Fundamentally flawed, They're factually inaccurate,
procedurally unfair, and they result in numerous miscarriages
of justice. We have been shown fraudulent
evidence, denial of Full disclosure, omission of relevant
(38:22):
and material facts, and the systemic failure of multiple
institutions to uphold their statutory and ethical duties.
Now .1 Failure to provide a considerable Ballistics
evidence. Pardon.
Like what do you mean this person was killed through
Ballistics? Why was there no Ballistics done
(38:44):
on this crime scene? Discrepancies in the number of
shots fired is a massive thing. There was reported variously as
like there was four shots. No, there was 5.
No, there was six. Well, there was a lack of
forensic accounting for each bullet.
Yet forensic photos show 6 shellcases and conflicting accounts
from officers involved, which then raise the questions and
(39:06):
concerns about whether the actual shooters or shooter and
sequence of events have been truthfully identified and
examined. But that's not giving any
context to anything that that crime scene should have been
dealt with immediately and correctly .2.
We have reliance on false and unchallenged witness statements.
(39:27):
Like we said earlier, several witness statements were
contradicted by video evidence that were admitted without the
opportunity for cross examination.
So these statements, some from persons with known ties to the
police officers who are involved, were relied upon in
preference to the clear and moreobjective CCTV evidence.
(39:47):
New witnesses have since come forward with information about
police following Luke and approaching witnesses before
Luke was killed. Oh, you guys.
Like it hurts my brain .3 Mischaracterisation of the
knife. As we said they categorised it
as a category M weapon, while the Milwaukee folding pen knife
found on Luke was incorrectly classified as a prohibited
(40:08):
weapon despite being sold legally as a controlled tool, a
utility tool. This mischaracterisation
prejudice prejudice findings andwas used to imply criminality
when none existed. They're just trying to pin
something on him. They're trying to make him out
to be something that he is not. To justify what they've done .4.
(40:29):
We have ignored evidence of prior relationship between the
Officer Forster and Luke's partner.
This is my favorite point. We have sworn statements
alleging prior contact and rejected romantic interest
between Constable Forster and Miss Mellor.
These were disregarded. Evidence of possible motive and
(40:49):
conduct unbecoming of a police officer was not investigated or
admitted into evidence. Evidence that Constable Foster
was watching Miss Smeller and Luke eat breakfast in a local
cafe hours before shooting and killing Luke has been covered up
and has been refused in the investigation.
(41:12):
There have been attempts by MissMueller to contact ethical
standards regarding her testimony and they have been
ignored. Yes, you can rewind.
And listen to that again. And yes, this is absolutely
correct information .5 False claims of no prior contact with
the deceased. Well here we go.
CCTV contradicts officer claims that they had no prior knowledge
(41:36):
of or interactions with Luke, but CCTV footage shows officers
observing and following Luke throughout the evening.
This evidence was omitted and when sections were used it was
misrepresented. 2 of the police officers were not even
questioned at the inquest and the evidence in the prosecution
of Constable Collins, who committed crimes against Luke at
(41:59):
the time of his death, has been withheld entirely from the
inquest and denied to the family.
The impact of his actions has also never been investigated .6
Withholding of vital CCTV footage Police failed to
disclose crucial footage showingLuke's final walk and officer's
actions. Requests for this footage have
(42:20):
been denied without justification.
Witnesses report seeing footage that has not been disclosed and
was reportedly forced to be deleted by Whitsunday's police
from the venue .7 Tampering withCCTV time and date stamps
Whitsunday's Regional Council cameras are known to carry time
stamps, yet those on the ones that were seen have been
(42:43):
removed. Therefore they can't be.
Matched to the body worn camera times.
Requests for original CCTV footage have been denied despite
being in the index to proof of evidence .8 is the admittance.
Admittance of flawed expert reports without procedural
fairness. Expert witnesses relied solely
(43:03):
on police supplied body worn camera footage, CCTV that has
been digitally altered and second hand medical records.
They were not given full balanced information again
context, nor were they made aware of inconsistencies in the
material provided. They failed to consult family
and all attempts to correct factually incorrect information
(43:26):
contained in the medical recordshave been ignored.
Shocking .9 false public statements by Queensland Police
representative. Wow, I'm losing it.
This is when you know that I'm going on a tangent.
But Ian Levers, who we spoke about earlier, his public
commentaries shortly after the incident violated coronial
(43:47):
guidelines and that can actuallyconstitute an attempt to pervert
the course of justice. So the coroner declined to
compel him to give evidence .10.Forgery of Form 1, which was a
consent to autopsy. A forged Form 1 by a
Whitsunday's police officer was used to conduct a full autopsy
against the family wishes Ethical Standards Command and
(44:09):
the coroner failed to act or investigate.
This violation is against Luke'shuman rights and obviously
against the family's wishes to no autopsy .11 collusion in
misrepresenting sequence of events.
Multiple parties like the policeand experts and legal reps
presented a uniform but factually inaccurate version of
(44:32):
the key 18 second interaction, which was actually contrary to
the CCTV footage. Then .12 is tampering with the
court transcripts and audio segments of inquest transcripts
and recordings have been alteredor omitted.
The legal reps declined to act on this, and they cited
promotions of prior lawyers. .13is the.
(44:53):
Violation of human rights The Human Rights Acts of 2019 in QLD
guarantees fairness and due process, which were denied.
A formal human rights complaint has been submitted in parallel,
which outlines the seven human rights violations in this case
alone. And the last point, .14 was the
failure of the Triple C oversight.
So the Triple C report is falsified with incorrect and
(45:15):
inconsistent information. The Triple C completed their
oversight into the ESC investigation after only four
days. They have failed to investigate
these facts or give answers whenthey were pointed out the issues
here. And so that's also going nowhere
now given the systemic nature ofthe issues and the multiple
(45:39):
institutions or pig bodies involved.
The family believe that the matter also warrants an
independent judicial or parliamentary inquiry to ensure
accountability and reform because of these following
findings that they've noted down.
They said one, contrary to the weight of available evidence, 2,
the product of procedural unfairness, 3 rely on
(46:00):
inadmissible or tainted evidence, 4 fail to consider
relevant and credible new material, and five, undermine
public confidence in the integrity of the coronial
system. I would like to see this be
reviewed independently and I would also actually like this to
go to a parliamentary inquiry. I think this is really important
and I think it's really important for the Queensland
Police system and I think it's important for a wider community.
(46:23):
I think this is a public safety issue and I think it should be
seen as a public safety issue. Obviously we're not All Saints
and like yes, Luke had been drinking.
Who has not been out on a night drinking?
Sorry, inappropriate timing. My alarm to pick my kids up from
school just started going off. That's how long I've been on
here for. But I do think this is a public
(46:45):
health and safety issue 100%. I think that it should
definitely be seen independently.
I also agree with the family that police should not
investigate police misconduct that should be done from a peak
unrelated body to the police service.
And I honestly think that there are not one, but numerous
avenues that could have been taken to have Luke still with us
(47:08):
today and have the family still have their son and brother and
boyfriend and friend. I, I think this is a huge
miscarriage of justice. And I'm really sad for them.
And I watch their page every dayand I see every day, every
single day they're posting photos, videos, they're talking,
(47:30):
they're writing, they're, they're putting their whole life
into this for justice for Luke. And like I said earlier, Luke
wasn't just killed once, He was killed twice.
They killed him again in that inquest, that and that inquest,
absolutely. Killed him.
And it killed his family. And you should be hurting from
(47:53):
hearing it too, because like I said, this is a public issue.
This is not just a Luke problem or Luke's family's problem.
This is all of our problems we all need.
To be acting. To help keep the community safe.
It could be anyone. Even if, you know, like, we all
make stupid decisions. We all, you know, have a drink
(48:15):
here and there. Well, maybe not all of us, but
like, we've all made dumb decisions.
Let's be honest. And can we even say that about
Luke here? Like, did he even really do
anything? Could could it be?
Could we flip the narrative on them and let the truth rule for
a second and just say that if Forster had not yelled out to
(48:38):
him again when he had already walked by, would Luke still be
alive? Yes, he would be.
That's the answer. That's the truth.
Would he ever still brush past that cop and said, excuse me,
Yes. Would that cop still be like, no
worries, mate. Yes, that would have been the
end of the interaction. Luke would still be here today.
(48:59):
That's where the problem lies, OK.
And the next problem lies with accountability.
And people need to be held accountable for Luke, for Luke's
family and for public safety. So I just want to say thank you
so much. If you stuck around and listened
to this episode, this is one that I'm going to continue to go
into, I think, because I would love to do all that I can to
(49:21):
help Luke's family. They work so hard for justice
and I think we can do great things as a community when we
come together and help each other out.
And I've I've seen it because you guys have done it.
We've organized search groups inother states.
Like you guys are awesome. I love and appreciate you all so
much and how we're creating a normal society out of what we're
(49:45):
doing here of people who who want the same thing.
We just want to be happy. We just want to be safe.
We don't want to lose people, you know, and we can work
together for justice for Luke and his family.
And you can help by sharing this.
You can share his name, talk to your friends about this, jump on
(50:07):
the pages for him. And they have a Facebook page.
They have a TikTok page. It's called Justice for Luke.
And yeah, update yourself. Have a listen.
There's some videos on there that are really insightful and
yeah, I hope you've enjoyed it here, obviously in a bit of a
somber way, but I hope that you've learnt something.
I hope that Luke's story is going to help us bring justice
(50:31):
and bring people closer together.
But yeah, I'm going to leave it there.
So thank you for joining us today.
I hope you have enjoyed it here.If you have, you can subscribe
to stay up to date on new episodes or you can find us on
Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.
You can help us out by subscribing to our paid episodes
on Spotify only or making a direct donation to allow us to
(50:53):
help more families. You can also join in on the case
discussions and make a case request there on our Facebook
group. You can find the link to our
Facebook group in our podcast notes, and you can also take a
look at our current cases on ourwebsite.
But as always, stay curious, stay informed, and until next
time, trust your instincts and keep seeking the truth.
Popular Podcasts
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.