05 - The Inquest - Part 1

We examine in detail the evidence given to the Coroner in the 2021 inquest into the death of Gwen Grover.

 

Music:

 

Theme - Graveyard Song - Bob Cronk 1 

For this and more of Bob's music, please click here:

https://open.spotify.com/album/2lb7R3Xgx4Q0gzLZ00pDgJ

 

Click here for for a complete list of music used in this episode:

https://www.shotinthedark.com.au/episode-five-credits/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to an alleged suicide.
We urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline
on thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at www dot
lifeline dot org dot au. Why can't we find out

(00:32):
what happened?

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Why won't anyone help us?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
It was not suicide, There was someone else involved.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Shot in the dark? Episode five.

Speaker 4 (00:55):
Thank you everyone, Take a seat. Good morning. Just take
a seat, sir.

Speaker 5 (01:00):
All right.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
I'll start by taking appearances. Thank you, mister Crawfoot.

Speaker 6 (01:05):
If it please the court, my name is Crawfoot c
r Awfoot initial J. I appear as council assisting your honor.

Speaker 4 (01:14):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (01:14):
Miss Logan, May it please the court, my name is
Logan initials RG. I appear instructed by Townsville Community Law
for Suzanne Cole.

Speaker 4 (01:23):
All right, thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Tuesday October twelfth, twenty twenty one, thirty eight years after
the event, the first day of the coronial inquest into
the death of Gwen Grover begins at Cannes at nine
oh six am. The cans Courthouse on Sheridan Street is

(01:49):
just a short stroll to the water's edge in the
heart of the tropical coastal city. A relatively small number
of people have gathered in a courtroom. Inside, most people
are unaware the inquest is happening, or of the nineteen
eighty three death of a single mother who once lived
in this community. Sue Cole should have been elated. She

(02:15):
had led the effort by the family to have for
the first time her sister's case properly examined. But Sue
sat nervous and apprehensive, still reeling from what had just
occurred and which threatened to derail the entire hearing.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
We couldn't afford a legal team, so the coroner's office
pushed me towards the Towns For Legal Center, which was
legal aid. So they took on the case, and the
girl that was the solicitor up there was very nice.
She actually resigned after this.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Sue is referring to a former towns For solicitor by
the name of Karna Andrew. I tried to catch up
with Karna in her new job, but understandably, she declined
being interviewed for the podcast.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
And there was a queen's counsel up there called Josh
Trevino who was friends with the fellow Michael Murray at
the solicitor at the legals and he said, yeah, he
would take the case on for us. Now, as it
got closer to the inquest, two things happened. First of all,
Michael Murray pulled out the solicitor. He said his wife
was due to have a baby and he couldn't do it,

(03:25):
so he handed it onto Carina Andrews, the young female solicitor.
Josh Trevino then also pulled out and we were left
with a girl up there called Rochelle Logan, a barrister,
and Josh Trevino pulled out on the Friday night. I
had to be in kens on Monday morning for the
pre inquest briefing, so Rachelle Logan had the weekend to

(03:48):
get up to speed on the case.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
Two days to win just a lifetime of material. If
that wasn't bad enough, what Sue was told one day
before the inquest began left her shattered.

Speaker 3 (04:01):
Prior to that. On the Monday, when I landed in town,
I had to go around and have a meeting with
Rochelle and.

Speaker 5 (04:06):
She said to me.

Speaker 3 (04:07):
We sat down, she said, well, what do you want
out of this? And I said, well, obviously, I said
I want a finding of not suicide and a proper
investigation done into Gwen's dead And she said, well, I
can tell you now that's not going to happen. She said,
I've had coffee with Joe. This is Joe Crawford, the DPP,
and he said, to right, it's going to be ruled
a suicide. You're wasting your time. So before we even

(04:27):
walked into the courtroom it was already.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
Sue felt late. She was facing a potential show trial,
but she had little choice than to hope that her
hard work and that of her barrister, who had worked
feverishly to get across the details, would affect a meaningful outcome.
Karin and narrator Wilson laid out her plan for the proceedings.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
The purpose of the inquest, of course, is to reopen
and examine the circle stances surrounding Gwen's death, which happened,
as we know, many decades ago, and we'll hear more
about that. The process for the purpose of the family
is that mister Crawford is the council assisting this inquiry,
and that means that he will commence proceedings by asking
questions of each of the witnesses, and then other barristers

(05:17):
and legal representatives likewise will ask questions. At the end
of the proceedings, which I anticipate will be tomorrow afternoon,
I will call for submissions and that will be essentially
a roundup of the evidence through the perspective of each
of the representatives in the case that they represent.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
The first witness to be called Senior Sergeant Bevan mancdalow,
the police forensics expert who conducted ballistic tests on several
rifles to try to determine if it would have been
possible that Gwen pulled the trigger on herself. Counsel assisting
the coroner, Joe Crawford asked Senior Sergeant Magdalow about the

(05:54):
position of Gwen's body in her car.

Speaker 6 (05:56):
Would you agree with that on all of that evidence
to pear consistent with a self inflicted gunshot wound.

Speaker 7 (06:03):
There's in any of that material, there's nothing that stood
out to me as being not possible in that scenario,
if I can answer it that way, yes.

Speaker 8 (06:13):
The reference.

Speaker 1 (06:15):
The reenactment video with three test subjects was played to
the corked Mister Crawford asks if it is mechanically possible
for a woman about when size to fire one of
the test rifles used. The senior sergeant says he cannot
say what when could or couldn't do, but it was
mechanically possible. Sue's barrister, Rachelle Logan does her cross examination

(06:41):
and straightway highlights a major problem with the reenactment, namely
the rifles used.

Speaker 5 (06:47):
Okay, well, can I just take you to that?

Speaker 2 (06:49):
Then?

Speaker 5 (06:50):
How many are in your reference collection?

Speaker 7 (06:53):
I we so I identified thirty different firearms that may
fall with varying different features on them, but all the
like I can't specifically eliminate as possible firearms of the
from the scene images. So there were thirty of Sterling
maids sorry squires being a made Sterling Model twenties or

(07:15):
made Sterling Model twenties and the sport.

Speaker 9 (07:18):
Go type rifles.

Speaker 7 (07:19):
All of those are all twenty two long rifle caliber
and semi automatic in operation.

Speaker 5 (07:24):
And did you consider visiting, say, for example, a gunsmith,
to consider other twenty two long rifles?

Speaker 8 (07:31):
No?

Speaker 9 (07:31):
I didn't.

Speaker 5 (07:32):
Okay, would you accept that or be aware that there
are about seventy types of twenty two long rifles in existence?

Speaker 7 (07:40):
I seventy types of semi automatic twenty two's perhaps, yes,
I wouldn't be surprised if there's many more than that, Okay,
and the feature and as I said to my original report,
I can't eliminate the possibility of another firearm that shares
the same features that isn't in our weapons collection for

(08:01):
me to identify.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
He admits the rifle used could have been longer than
any he tested, and he had no idea of Gwen's
arm span. When miss Logan suggests that Senior Sergeant Magdialo's
re enactment and examinations cannot rule out the possibility of
suspicious activity, the coroner intervenes.

Speaker 5 (08:20):
So ultimately, your evidence is really confined to the limitations
of the evidence that you have before you.

Speaker 4 (08:26):
Well, the limitations, miss Logan, with respect amount to an
autopsy report, a police report, and other material that this
officer had regard to and applied his expertise. So what
are the limitations that you're referring to.

Speaker 5 (08:38):
Well, your honor, I don't wish to get into oral submissions,
but there are limitations to the evidence from nineteen eighty three,
and they include other forensics that would be available.

Speaker 4 (08:49):
What are the other forensics that would be available?

Speaker 5 (08:51):
Okay? Well, What about the limitations of the photographs that
we have. There are some that are did you say
that they were overexposed or on top of each other?

Speaker 7 (09:00):
I believe one appears to be a double exposure or
two images superimposed.

Speaker 5 (09:05):
Yes, And we don't know exactly what gun was used,
for example, you'd accept that, correct, okay? And we don't
know that the gun that was located on her what
gun was located on her lap, and whether that matched
the bullet that was found correct, Yes, okay, thank you,
you're honor those other types of limitations I'm referring to.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
All Right, this exchange sets alarm bells ringing for sue.
One hour into the inquest, the Karina interrupts to question
the limitations of the evidence. To even a casual observer,
those limitations are obvious. The nineteen eighty three investigation was

(09:47):
inept and failed to adhere to police procedures as they
were mandated at the time. For a start, the gun
was never tested, and when missing, we don't even know
if the gun Gwen was seen holding in the crime
scene photographs was the same gun that fired the bullet
which killed her. After the morning, a German detective sergeant

(10:12):
Adam Denian takes the witness stand to outline the work
of his cold case team. Almost immediately, he reveals a
startling new piece of evidence about the gun allegedly used
in Gwen's death.

Speaker 6 (10:27):
In the course of your investigation, were you able to
identify what the chain of custody might have been with
that rifle?

Speaker 10 (10:33):
I believe from speaking with witnesses that it was seized
by police. It wasn't police custody or possession for a
short amount of time. I cannot tell you how long
that was. It was eventually returned to its owner, which
is mister Graham.

Speaker 9 (10:47):
I think it is. It's not, it was never.

Speaker 10 (10:50):
Initially we did believe it was mister Soaper's rifle, but
it turns out that is not the case.

Speaker 6 (10:56):
So did your best inquiries indicate that the firearm was
most slightly returned to mister Graham. Yes, somewhere in time,
sometime after the investigation.

Speaker 9 (11:04):
Sometime after Yes, Glenn's death. Yes.

Speaker 1 (11:09):
All of a sudden, after thirty eight years, the story
about the rifle has changed completely. Here's what Ken Soaper
told police in nineteen eighty three, on the.

Speaker 11 (11:19):
Morning of the thirty first of the tenth th eighty three,
I was shown by police a rifle which was used
by Gwen in the suicide. It was my rifle and
I had last seen it in the spare bedroom of.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
My home thirty seven years later. Ken Soaper's memory apparently
dramatically improved, and he told police this.

Speaker 11 (11:38):
In my original statement, there is a reference to one
of my rifles going missing from the wardrobe in my bedroom.
That statement lists that firearm as AER point three two five,
which is incorrect. The firearm that was taken was a
twenty two that belonged to Glenn Graham. I had been
in possession of it prior to Gwen's death and kept
it in a built in wardrobe in the main bedroom

(11:58):
at home with my other rifle. I am aware that
this is the rifle that was located with Gwen on
fourteen October nineteen eighty three, and I'm pretty sure the
police returned the rifle to Glenn's might didn't want anything
to do with it after Gwen's death. I don't know
what became of the rifle after that.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
Clearly, this new information would require the alleged owner of
the weapon responsible for Gwen's death to give evidence and
be cross examined, but Glenn Graham did not give evidence
at the inquest. Instead, his statement to the cold case
team was entered in evidence, including this claim.

Speaker 12 (12:36):
I used to own a point two to semi automatic
rifle and I would take it with us when we
went routshooting. After this trip in October of nineteen eighty two,
we all went back to Kenneth's house and I left
my rifle there at Kenneth's place in as Rare Shed.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
This all of a sudden seemingly solved the mystery of
the missing gun. It was left to Kenn's place one
year before's death, but not everyone is convinced, including retired
police officer Jerry Thornton.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
Thirty eight years later, he all of a sudden remembers
who owned the gun, and it was his mate Glen Graham. Now,
I don't know why you wouldn't remember that two weeks
after the event, but you do thirty eight years later.
So they go down that track that good Earl Glenn
loans in the gun, but then they don't call Glenn.

(13:27):
There's a witness. I think that's unforgivable. And apparently according
to South I've said, well, they thought he might be
suffering some brain injury. Well, surely that's up to the
court of decide. I don't understand how you can have
a cranial with the man who allegedly owns the gun,
saying that he give him the gun thirty eight years later,

(13:48):
just Defiow's belief that the safder's memory is really good
after thirty eight years. He can even remember, thirty eight
years later the little argument they had that caused her
to leave, and it was all about one of her
child children pushing in front of it go through a
door loock. He doesn't remember that back when it happens.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Consider this. Glen Graham said his rifle was a semi automatic.
Ken Soaper said the rifle gwhen used, was a bolt action.
The dates of the camping trip Sopah and Graham alleged
they took with Glenn and her boys do not align
with each other. Glenn claims he left his rifle in
ken shed in October nineteen eighty two, an entire year

(14:31):
before Gwen's death in October nineteen eighty three. Also, Ken
was very specific that the rifle was taken from his cupboard,
but Graham was adamant it was in his rear shed.
And now here is how coroner narrator Wilson summed up
the evidence.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
I can conclude and do find on the evidence that
one mister Soper was in possession of a twenty two
caliber firearm and ammunition at the time of Missus Grover's dewy,
and two the firearm belonged to Glen Graham, and three
Missus Grover had access to the firearm and the ammunition,
And four the firearm went missing from mister Soper's premises.

(15:11):
Whether the wardrobe or rear shed on the fourteenth of
October nineteen eighty.

Speaker 1 (15:15):
Three, whilst the coroner was able to make this conclusion,
we cannot.

Speaker 3 (15:24):
And in fact we don't even know who owned the gun,
because Sober has given six different versions of events of
what have taken over the time. One of the most
recent ones was he mentioned a man named Glen Graham
out of the blue. Now, there was no mention of
Glen Graham in nineteen eighty three, there was no mention
of Glen Graham in his statement at the inquest, But

(15:46):
in between, in one of the six different versions of
events he's given, he said the gun belonged to this
friend of his called Glen Graham. Now the cold case team,
and that's a whole other story for another day, the
cold case investigation. But the Cold Case team did apparently
ask Glen Graham some questions. I asked for Glen Graham

(16:10):
to be brought to the inquest so he could be questioned,
and that was refused as well. So nobody has ever
had the opportunity to question Glen Graham and ask him
for more information about the Gum Well.

Speaker 1 (16:27):
Despite the fact that Glen Graham was not called to
give evidence at the inquest, we managed to track him
down eventually. He was listed as living in a public
housing property in Townsville, but when we arrived it was vacant.
Fortunately the neighbors were home, and after a few phone calls,

(16:47):
we found Glen Graham at a nearby respite center.

Speaker 8 (16:50):
Yeah, thank Glenna wanted in.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yeah, he bore the hallmarks of a hard life. His
hair was unkempt, his face unshaven, fingers stained orange from
heavy smoking, and his teeth had brought it away. But
he was in good spirits and keen to chat at
length about the gun that allegedly killed Gwen. All did

(17:14):
please to talk to you at the time of the death.

Speaker 8 (17:18):
No, because Ken wouldn't bring me into it.

Speaker 1 (17:22):
So you didn't tell them that it was your gun.

Speaker 8 (17:25):
And why not I don't know, but I know it
was my gun. Matt killed it.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
And when police did finally speak to you last year,
what did they.

Speaker 8 (17:38):
Ask They asked me questions about the relationships. Who's gun,
it's wood or was it's mine? It's that way, you're
not in con trouble. We did get trying to find
some truth of everything. You can, to your knowledge know
any of the costs. He was going with her cop

(18:02):
back time.

Speaker 1 (18:03):
Oh yeah, he dated a yeah, and that was before.

Speaker 8 (18:09):
When now that was after Gwen. He started to start
before a driver. He can get that pop in my
back seat, he said, I can't drive on my letter.
My license said one year. Girls, I had to do it.
That drove this car.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
Was that when they went a relationship, Well, that's how
they got in a relationship.

Speaker 8 (18:29):
Let's how they got in a rage relationship. He had
hum schools friends after Gwenn.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
Okay, when wasn't piece of going not necessary?

Speaker 8 (18:40):
Was most times she was except when he got another boy.
She'd take off. He take takes off, comes around in
one place and stays she pulled up in his full drive.
He came over and another vehicle or another boy, but
by garage. She went to his mother's place, which was

(19:03):
for next door to more plaze. You think Ken total
then he dispects off there when he's in the mood.
Only when I think then gave will for work or
something like that.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
So Glen Graham claims it was his rifle that when used,
although there is no evidence he identified it from the
crime scene photos and there is no evidence from police,
but they returned it to him at the time. He
completely relied on his mate Ken say so as the
Ken not mentioning the gun was Glenn's at the time

(19:45):
to protect him. We are simply to protect him from
what it simply doesn't make sense. And Glen Graham claims
that Ken was dating a female police officer after Gwen's death.
More on that later. Graham also told me that Ken

(20:08):
and Gwen fought often back. At the inquest, Detective Sergeant
Adam Dennian, the head of the cold case team, was
cross examined by SU's barrister, Rachelle Logan, who was troubled
by Ken Soper's conflicting version of events.

Speaker 5 (20:26):
In his first statement, he said that he was shown
a rifle and it was his rifle and it had
last been seen in the spare bedroom. And then in
the second statement he says it was Glenn Graham's rifle. Yes,
and he kept it in the main bedroom. Yeah, again,
did you inquire about that.

Speaker 10 (20:43):
Well, it's his recollection. And again that his first statements
like what one page a bit over one page long. Again,
I'm not going to comment on how statements were taken
back in the day, but you know, I try to
listen as much information as I can and I'm not
particularly going to question him on whether it was the
main bedroom or a spare bedroom.

Speaker 5 (21:04):
It's an inconsistency though in his evidence.

Speaker 10 (21:07):
Well it's also forty years I would expect there to
be inconsistencies in his evidence.

Speaker 5 (21:13):
Okay, because of those inconsistencies or discrepancies, did you ever
consider ventilating that, given that he was an ex boyfriend,
that he was worth investigating as a person of interest.

Speaker 10 (21:24):
Well, there was no evidence to suggest that he needed
to be treated as a person of interest or if
you want to go as far as a suspect. If
I'd thought that, I would have warned him and cautioned
him before I spoke to him at all, and I
would have recorded it.

Speaker 5 (21:39):
That's before taking the statement, though, But as a result
of taking the statement.

Speaker 10 (21:43):
If I think someone's a suspect, I'll caution them straight
away and then I'll start talking to them. That's what
I need to do.

Speaker 5 (21:49):
Yeah, I appreciate what you have to My question, though,
relates to after the statement is given. So you're saying
you would have cautioned him during the statement taking, before all.

Speaker 10 (22:00):
The statement taking, and if I was going to caution him,
I would have recorded it electronically, like I'm required to do.

Speaker 5 (22:07):
I'm not saying that you've done anything wrong. I'm just
saying I'm just asking. Really, I'm just trying to work
out if you had considered him a suspect as a
result or a person of interest as a result of
the discrepancies within his statement, what would you have done?

Speaker 9 (22:22):
Well?

Speaker 5 (22:22):
I didn't, Okay, all right now, mister Soper. He said
that he was at the Railway Hotel at the time
of Gwen's death. Yes, and he gave you the name
of a woman, yes, yes, Okay. Did you try to
corroborate that alibi?

Speaker 10 (22:36):
Yes?

Speaker 9 (22:37):
I couldn't identify her though.

Speaker 5 (22:39):
Couldn't identify her? Did you do a search of the birth's,
deaths and marriages?

Speaker 9 (22:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (22:44):
Can you just refresh me of her name?

Speaker 9 (22:46):
Yes, I can.

Speaker 10 (22:47):
Her name is surname Douglas doug Lass, first name Snati, Snati.
There was nothing came back from birth, death's marriages, Okay.

Speaker 5 (23:00):
In relation to the gun, I just want to move
onto the gun then found in Gwen's possession. I appreciate
your comments previously, but I just want to ask you this,
was mister Graham ever shown the best picture of the
gun in situ to be able to comment on whether
he could identify it.

Speaker 10 (23:17):
No, I certainly haven't. And again it's not police procedure
to show incident seeing photos like that to witnesses.

Speaker 5 (23:23):
Okay, So that would be no. Then if I asked
that in relation to Duncan Grover, correct, okay. And there
were no photographs located of the gun laid out by itself? No, okay.

Speaker 10 (23:36):
The five photographs from the five negatives is all that
there is as far as I'm aware, there.

Speaker 5 (23:42):
Is a hypothesis consistent that it was a self inflicted gunshot.
Would you accept that there is a hypothesis consistent with
the available evidence that it is the wound was inflicted
in suspicious circumstances.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Here, Karen and narrator Wilson interrupts.

Speaker 4 (23:57):
You'll have to be more clear than that, miss Logan.

Speaker 5 (24:00):
What does that mean? Well? Is there? Would you can
you comment on this? Would you accept that there is
a hypothesis available on the evidence that you have gathered
and investigated and are aware of, that the gunshot wound
could have been inflicted in suspicious circumstances?

Speaker 10 (24:16):
No, I don't think so. If I had thought that,
I would have included it in my report.

Speaker 5 (24:21):
Is your comment and view limited by the passage of
time because evidence has well, we don't know what evidence occurred,
was gathered, and we don't know what witnesses were there.

Speaker 10 (24:30):
Well, like an only form an opinion on what I
have at hand, which is outlined in my report, And
my opinion stands that there is nothing I've been able
to together that changes my opinion from the original decision
that it was a suicide.

Speaker 9 (24:45):
Yeah, that's probably about all I can say.

Speaker 5 (24:48):
Would you accept this that there were failings and flaws
of the investigation into the death of Gwen in nineteen
eighty three.

Speaker 9 (24:55):
No, I can't comment on that, okay.

Speaker 5 (24:58):
You don't know if a full investigation was.

Speaker 9 (25:00):
No, I can't comment on that.

Speaker 5 (25:02):
Okay, And you can't comment on the investigation at all
in nineteen eighty three, that's correct.

Speaker 10 (25:07):
No, I can comment on the five or six documents
that I was able to elicit from the offices of
the state coroner. But on the basis of that, if
that was the only investigation that was conducted, yeah, it's wanting,
but I cannot comment as to whether or not more
was done. And from my inquiries it appears that more

(25:28):
was done. It's just that we're not able to provide
evidence of that because document retention things aren't there.

Speaker 5 (25:35):
When you say, from your inquiries it appears that more
was done, did you just say that, yes, yep, okay,
I didn't mishear that. What from your inquiries have you
been able to ascertain was done?

Speaker 2 (25:47):
Then?

Speaker 9 (25:47):
Well?

Speaker 10 (25:48):
I think Ken Soper mentions that he attended the police
station and he was shown the gun there, or ore
that the Craiglocke says that he was he was brought
back to the crime scene and that there were detectctives there.
Now there's clearly other people involved in that. I've made
inquiries to try and ascertain who the other police that
are involved in this investigation were. I've asked for to

(26:11):
ascertain if there are any rosters from back in the day.
All of those documents don't exist, so I can't follow
up those inquiries any further.

Speaker 5 (26:20):
Okay, okay. Did you say that you thought that Locke
was taken back to the crime scene, yes, okay, or.

Speaker 10 (26:26):
At least he mentioned to me that there were detectives there. Now,
whether that was from looking from his own house down
the road, or he was actually taken back, I could
be mistaken about that, but he mentioned the fact that
detectives were at the scene.

Speaker 5 (26:40):
Yes, well, I can take you to the report. Then
at page fifteen, thank you. Just the third last sentence
starts with a short time later and then no police
officers spoke to the witness and this was the first
time the witness had provided a version to investigators. Yes, okay,
So he wasn't taken back to the scene, like I.

Speaker 10 (26:59):
Said, I could have been mistaken about the fact that
he was taken back to the scene. But as I said,
his version of me is that there was clearly another
police officer there on a motorbike and the detectives were
at the scene, but we had no record of that.

Speaker 9 (27:15):
There's that's not recorded.

Speaker 10 (27:18):
That the one photograph that we have with a marked
what appears to be a marked police vehicle behind the
deceased person's vehicle. Generally speaking, police don't get in incidents
seeing photographs for obvious reasons. But like I said, I've
made inquiries to try and ascertain who those police officers
would have been, and I'm unable to do that.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
The lack of interest in ken sopen now and in
nineteen eighty three is startling given that almost all women
killed by a gunshot are murdered by their partners. According
to a nineteen ninety nine study by the Australian Institute
of Criminology, ninety percent of female homicide victims in Australia

(28:06):
were killed by an intimate partner as a result of
domestic violence, often arguments and desertion, with firearms the third
most used weapon. One crucial piece of evidence is the
time of Gwen's death. We don't know what time Gwen died.
She was last reportedly seen the previous evening at ten

(28:29):
thirty pm. The police record says that they were contacted
at one pm the next day, and that Gwen died
sometime before noon. The post mortem examination says nothing about
the time of death. In one crime scene photo, we
can see children playing in the background next to the

(28:51):
car in which Gwen died. It seems highly unlikely she
would have parked there in daylight to shoot herself. After
the lunch break, it was time for Sue Cole to
give evidence. She agreed to read her own words from
the official transcript as she was questioned by counsel assisting

(29:15):
the coroner, Joe Crawford.

Speaker 6 (29:18):
With the benefit then of mister Graham's statement, you know,
the owner of the rifle, who does identify it as
a point two two? Does that alleviate the concern that
potentially there was an error for whatever reason, that it
was described as a point three two five in nineteen
eighty three, but it was always a point twenty two
that was in question.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Well, if I may say, by his own admission, mister
Graham was a very close friend of mister Sopers.

Speaker 6 (29:43):
Well, I'm not asking you to comment on that aspect. Yes,
But I mean, would it be fair then to say
that you have concern that perhaps there's an element of
collusion between the witnesses in this case.

Speaker 3 (29:54):
Not intentional, but with mister Graham being a very close
friend of mister Sopers. Perhaps if if this is situation
was put to mister Graham that you know, mate, do
you remember that it was your gun or do you
remember that it was this gun? Mister Graham may have
wanting to be a good friend to mister Soper, but
has agreed with that.

Speaker 6 (30:12):
But there is evidence from Officer Denny in this morning
that the firearm was in fact returned to mister Graham
as the rightful owner. So would that alleviate any concern
that there's been some sort of collusion at some stage.

Speaker 3 (30:25):
Well, unless we could actually hear from mister Graham, which
unfortunately I don't think we're going to hear from him
in this hearing. You know, there's still I have to
be honest, there is still that element of doubt in
my mind.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
In fact, there is no record of the police handing
the rifle used to kill Gwen back to Glen Graham,
who did not make that claim in his witness statement
to the cold case team, and when I caught up
with him last year, he confirmed he never saw that
gun again.

Speaker 7 (30:54):
Why don't you get.

Speaker 8 (30:55):
Your gun back because the police have it? How do
you know that? Kenda told me there I went over
and kicked towards going with my gun.

Speaker 9 (31:03):
Wasn't me?

Speaker 8 (31:04):
Why didn't you don't? I didn't want them to know
it was Micah. Then makeel chat me with Aiden Macking.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
Hmmm. Interesting. As noted before, Graham only believed it was
his rifle because ken Soaper told him so. As he
explained in his witness statement.

Speaker 12 (31:24):
I was later told by Kenneth that she had taken
my twenty two from the rear shed and it was
my gun that she had used to shoot herself.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Back on the witness stand, mister Crawford questions soon about
the gun used in Gwen's death.

Speaker 6 (31:36):
If we stay on that particular issue. Officer Magtalow gave
very clear evidence this morning about the steps that he
took to identify the firearm within the photos that were
taken from the scene, and was confident to narrow it
down to three possibilities and ultimately came to the conclusion
that it was more likely one than the others. Do
you continue to have any concerns in light of that evidence?

Speaker 3 (31:59):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 6 (32:00):
What are those concerns.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Those concerns are that we can't establish beyond doubt what
the gun was that Gwen was lying across in the car.
That's my concerns, and it's with no disrespect to the
court or any of the police experts. But you've asked
my concerns, and that's my concern.

Speaker 6 (32:18):
Yes, And you've also you've used a form of words
in your answer. You've said beyond doubt. Do you appreciate
or has it been explained to you that the nature
of the coronial jurisdiction does not run on beyond reasonable doubt? Yes,
I do, thank you. The next point that was raised
was you stated that she was right handed, yet, according

(32:39):
to the coroner's report, supposedly shot herself through the left
temple with a long barrel rifle. Does not seem physically possible. Again,
if we go back to that re enactment video that
was composed, that was put together by Officer mactalow, would
you accept that it is physically possible for a person
of small stature to prop the gun and to pull

(32:59):
the trigger within that confined space.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
Well, with respect, we don't know how long Gwen's arm was.
I know We've seen the three people in the video
being able to reach the trigger, but we don't know
how long. I don't know how long Gwen's arm was,
and I don't know exactly how long the barrel of
the rifle was, because correct me if I'm wrong. We
don't know exactly which one of the rifles it was.

Speaker 6 (33:23):
One of the other comments that you raised with the
Attorney General was that it's rare for a female to
use a rifle to commit suicide.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
That was independent research I had done.

Speaker 6 (33:32):
Yes, you heard the evidence of Officer Denny in this morning,
with his experience in criminal investigations, in particular in relation
to matters involving suicide. That's really there's no pattern or
assumptions that might be made about how a person might
commit suicide or when or other circumstances. Would you agree
with that, Yes.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
But I was surprised to hear him say that because
studies as recently as last year by military experts in
the US have clearly stated that it's very rare. Statistics
show it's very rare for women to shoot themselves, and
even more rare for them to shoot themselves in the face.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
This is an odd contention given the fact that suicide
records in Australia prove conclusively that female self inflicted gunshot
suicides are and were rare in nineteen eighty three, apart
from when we couldn't find another firearm suicide in Cans
that year. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, nine

(34:36):
out of ten firearm deaths are male and eighty five
percent of firearms suicides are male.

Speaker 6 (34:42):
We touched on this idea or a theory that might
be open. If you don't accept that Gwen took her
own life, that another person committed that act. Who do
you say is it?

Speaker 9 (34:52):
It is?

Speaker 3 (34:53):
Am I able to say that without risk of defamation.

Speaker 6 (34:56):
Well, this is in theory. You're saying that there's another
theory that the co which should consider and if the
courts to achieve its purpose in exploring these issues, and
out of fairness for any witnesses that might be able
to come, who do you say did it?

Speaker 9 (35:09):
Well?

Speaker 3 (35:09):
Given the inconsistencies and the reports that I have read,
it has led me to believe that it may have
been mister Soper, given the inconsistencies in both his original
reports and his most recent report.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
Mister Crawford had spent much of his time up to
this point suggesting to Sue that Gwen did take her
own life and that the evidence pointed to that. Sue
disagreed and rebutted every point made. There had been almost
no probing of the possibility that Gwen's death was suspicious,
and now that she had named Ken Sopra as a

(35:45):
possible suspect, mister Crawford set about quizzing Sue on why
she suspected him. Sue pointed out, how can Soper's story
changed between nineteen eighty three and twenty twenty, from the
type of gun he had, where it was kept, and
who it belonged to, to the argument that caused Gwen
to leave recalled not at the time, but thirty seven

(36:07):
years later, and so on. Sue would not be swayed
by claims her sister had clearly stolen a rifle and
ammunition she didn't know how to use from her a
strange partner, driven to a hockey field where children play,
got drunk, and shot herself in the head.

Speaker 6 (36:24):
Finally, I would like to return to this issue. You
expressed a view that you considered mister Soper to have
had involvements either caused or contributed to the death of
your sister Gwen. Why do you say he would.

Speaker 3 (36:36):
Do that, possibly because she was leaving him.

Speaker 6 (36:38):
Would you accept on the evidence that she had already
left him at that stage, Yes, that she had already
set herself up with a new unity that she was
moving into with the boys, So it was already done.

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Yes, And we're still not sure whether that was two
days prior or over a week prior.

Speaker 6 (36:57):
So it's your view that mister Soaper didn't want Gwen
to leave and so that when she left, he has
shot her.

Speaker 3 (37:03):
That's one possible explanation. I'm not accusing mister Sober, but
that's some of the doubts that are in my mind.

Speaker 6 (37:10):
You said one possible explanation. Are there any other possible
explanations in your mind?

Speaker 3 (37:15):
There could be many possible explanations. It could have been,
I don't know, a random thing, someone that she didn't know.
But I'm just you know, from my perspective as a
family member. You know, I'm always asked what my concerns were,
and that is what my concerns were. That there was
someone else involved.

Speaker 6 (37:33):
And the other possibility is that Gwen took her own life.

Speaker 11 (37:37):
That day.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
Well, of course that has to be we have to
account for that as a possibility as well, because we
don't have deffinity proof otherwise.

Speaker 6 (37:44):
And it's the more likely possibility of all of them,
isn't it.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
I don't believe so, knowing my sister, but you know,
I can only base my feelings and my opinions on
the Gwen that I knew, and as her being my.

Speaker 6 (37:57):
Sister, you're on Those are my questions now.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
Cron and narrator Wilson asked mister Crawford to question Sue
about the emotional pressure Gwen was under what she called stresses.

Speaker 6 (38:09):
Would you accept that, notwithstanding some passage of time in
relation to the events with Duncan and Bet, combined with
the breakdown of the relationship with Ken, that those might
have been stresses? And when I say that, I mean
things that were affecting her around the time of her death.
Do you accept that that's possible?

Speaker 3 (38:27):
I accept that it would have been a source of
stress for her. But Gwen was a very strong person.
She was very resilient.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
She was a.

Speaker 3 (38:35):
Fighter, and her love for her boys, you know, had
time and time again carried her through tough times. So
whilst obviously clearly any breakup of any relationship is a
is a source of stress for someone. She had moved on,
she found them a unit to live in. She was
getting the boys' rooms ready for them to sleep in

(38:57):
that night, which was the reason she had taken them
over to their their father's house to stay, because the
unit that she was moving into, I believe was very dirty,
So she was cleaning the unit, getting it ready for
the boys for that night. And that's the type of
thing I can envisage Gwen doing, and I've seen her
do it. When she came to Boglebright, she had to

(39:18):
move into an old house and she scrubbed it from
ceiling to floor, and I believe this is what she
would have been doing with the unit as well. She
would have been making it a clean, comfortable home for
the boys. And I never saw her falter or complain
or be overwhelmed by the task of being a sole parent.
She just took that in her stride as she took

(39:41):
everything else in her stride.

Speaker 6 (39:43):
Do you accept, though, that your observations of your sister
Gwen are limited to those occasions when she came back
to visit in New South Wales.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
I lived with Gwen for almost two years from nineteen
eighty to nineteen eighty two, when she left Duncan Grover,
and she was a sole parent the boys in Boga Bright,
so I did see her like all day during that time.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
Mister Crawford then reads from Duncan Grover's statement about a
conversation he had with Gwen the day before she died.

Speaker 6 (40:12):
I think it would have been around four or five o'clock.
It was after I'd finished working a case Bet and
I went around to Gwen's place and picked up the
boys as Gwen had asked if I could look after
them that night. Whilst we were at Gwen's she said
to me, promise you'll look after the boys. I said, yeah,
no problem, of course I will. Gwen said, no, I

(40:33):
mean it, Promise me if anything happens to me, you'll
look after them. She seemed to say this more seriously,
and I said, of course I will. Nothing's going to
happen to you. That's the last conversation that Duncan had
with Gwen before her death. The next day, on the
fourteenth of October. Would you accept, with reference to that
particular statement, that Gwen's love for her boys might also

(40:56):
extend to ensuring that they were looked after because she
knew that she was wanting to complete to complete suicide
at that time.

Speaker 3 (41:04):
I can only comment on that statement from Duncan Grover
based on my knowledge of Duncan Grover and Gwen and
their relationship at that time, and what I saw transpiring
and happening between them when I lived with Gwen for
those two years, and based on my experiences with Gwen
and the things that I saw taking place, I have

(41:25):
difficulty believing that statement because I know that when Gwen
lived in Bogabriye, Duncan Grover did not attempt to financially
help her or support the boys in any way at all.
Duncan Grover made it clear by his actions and his
words when he was married to Gwen. I believe to
myself and to other family members that he had no

(41:47):
interest in the children or his own boys. He did
not choose to spend time with them during the time
that Gwen was in Bogarriche No, he showed no interest
in the boys. So, given the nature of their break
and given how I knew Gwen as my sister, I
honestly believe Duncan Grover would probably be one of the
last people Gwen were asked to look after her boys,

(42:10):
because she knew based on previous events, that he would
not look after them, and if you look at what
took place after her death, it would appear that he
did not.

Speaker 6 (42:21):
Can I now ask you to consider this aspect of
the witness Miss Sharon Macadee. On the day before Gwen died,
I went to Gwen's new place with my husband, Ken
and my then young child. We arrived around mid morning
and stayed about till nine ten pm that night. So
at about nine to ten o'clock the night before Gwen

(42:41):
was found deceased, she'd been helping Gwen move out of
Ken Soper's house and into the new place at the Esplanade.
Gwen told me on the previous night she'd gone round
to Betty's place to see Betty. She told her that
she broke up with Ken and she was moving her
stuff to a new place she'd found on the Esplanadine Cans.
When she arrived at Betty's place, she caught Duncan Grover

(43:04):
and Betty in bed together. Is it possible your recollection
of the timing of the commencement of the relationship between Sorry,
the timing of the detection of the relationship between Ken
and Elizabeth might be incorrect.

Speaker 3 (43:18):
I don't believe so, mister Crawford, because the dates that
Gwen came to boglebri in nineteen eighty were such an
integral part of my life at that time with events
that were happening. I was sixteen, I had just started
my first full time job. Gwen arrived there just before
my dead ball. I clearly remember that if being nineteen

(43:39):
eighty when she arrived in Boglebright, and when I read
miss mcadee's statement, I was very concerned about that because
I believe that she's clearly got the years mixed up.
I am as sure in my mind as I can
be about anything it was nineteen eighty when Gwen moved
to Boglebright, and that when she moved to Boglebright it

(43:59):
was because she had left Duncan Grover after she came
home and found him in bed with the woman who
is now Bet Grover.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
As you've heard in a previous episode, we spoke with
Sharon mcady who told us there was a lot she
didn't remember and acknowledge. She couldn't put the times together,
even though Sharon is the one who got a Times
mixed up. It is Sue Cole being pursued on the
witness stand over her very firm memories of when Gwen
left her husband Duncan after finding him in bed with

(44:28):
her best friend. Mister Crawford continues to press suit to
admit she is wrong.

Speaker 6 (44:33):
If we read Miss mcarty's statements, what she's saying is
this conversation that she's had with Gwen when she's found
out about Betty and Duncan, is that it's the night before,
so she's helping her to move on the thirteenth, So effectively,
she's talking about another conversation with Gwen that she had
on the twelfth. Would you accept a proposition because of

(44:55):
Gwen's death, that might be a detail that Miss mcadey
was more likely to remember.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
Well, I can't speak for Ms mcady, but I know
it was nineteen eighty when Gwen moved back to Boglebriye,
and I know that she moved back there after her
marriage broke down when she came home and found him
in bed with bet Grover in nineteen eighty.

Speaker 6 (45:16):
If we continue on, Miss maccardy describes Gwen as being upset.
I would say that she was very distraught distraught in
relation to having found Duncan and Bet together. During the
day when we were moving, she was visibly devastated and
would cough then vomit regularly. This went on throughout the
day and right up till when we left at about

(45:38):
nine to ten pm. We had to leave because I
needed to get my young child home and to Bet.
Before we left, I could tell Gwen was very distraught
and she was being very insistent that we stay longer
and have a drink with her. That was unusual, as
Gwen was generally very happy with her own company. Do
you accept that aspect of Miss maccartty's evidence, as in

(46:00):
terms of your sister Gwen's character.

Speaker 3 (46:02):
That there might have been an occasion when she was
incredibly distraught and indeed that would have been out of
character for her. I can only speak on how I
knew Gwen as my sister, and I have never seen
her drink alcohol in excess, and I have never seen
her distraught, So therefore I can only draw on my
own experience with Gwen, and I have never personally seen

(46:26):
her in either of those situations.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Again. Corona Wilson starts speaking, asking Sue numerous questions about
the time frame of Gwen returning to Boglebry then moving
to Cans. She also asked Sue is she ever told
the police cold case team about her theory that Ken
Soper may have killed Gwen. Sue says she did. Next

(46:53):
question Sue is Stephen Hollins, the barrister representing the Queensland
Police Service, and Detective Senior sarde Ed Kinbacker, the police
officer who did the initial investigation into Gwen's death.

Speaker 13 (47:07):
Just in relation to Gwen's death, it occurred about thirty
eight years ago, So why have you left it so
long to raise it with the authorities in terms of
his inquests and what we're going through now.

Speaker 3 (47:17):
Yes, I have discussed with family members over the years,
and we were always under the understanding that there'd been
a full investigation into Gwen's death after she died. My
father called the Cans police station a few days after
she died and was told that you know that it
had been investigated and was told and in any case,

(47:38):
you're wasting your time because all the evidence has been destroyed,
meaning her body. But it's weighed on my mind so
heavily over the years, and none of us are getting
any younger, that I decided that before I got too old,
that I would really just like to try and see
some evidence myself to hopefully set my mind at rest
before I died as to what had happened to her.

(48:00):
So that was when I made an application under the
right to information in those documents.

Speaker 13 (48:05):
You made mention in your letter to the Attorney General,
page thirty one, that is Exhibit D one, where Grover
and Soper both boasted of having a friend in the
cans Police.

Speaker 9 (48:16):
Where did that information come from?

Speaker 3 (48:18):
That came from family members after Gwen died? It was
actually my older sister who is now deceased.

Speaker 1 (48:24):
Sue is referring to her elder sister, Lillian, who died
in twenty nineteen.

Speaker 13 (48:30):
Right she told that to you, did she?

Speaker 1 (48:32):
Yes? Yes?

Speaker 9 (48:33):
Okay?

Speaker 13 (48:34):
Did she give you the name of the police officer?

Speaker 9 (48:37):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (48:37):
She did?

Speaker 9 (48:38):
Who was it?

Speaker 3 (48:39):
She said? His name was Kinbacker.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
For the record, Detective Senior Sergeant Ed Kinbacker has repeatedly
denied having a friendship with Ken Soper. Likewise, Soper, before
he died, also denied the pair were friends. Finally, Sue's lawyer,
Rachelle Logan gets to ask her questions, and she goes

(49:05):
straight to the destruction of the evidence, namely the swift
cremation of Gwen's body.

Speaker 5 (49:11):
Well, perhaps I can ask her. Do you recall speaking
to your parents about Gwen's cremation?

Speaker 3 (49:17):
No, the first I heard of it was after the event,
after she had been cremated, and my mother was just
completely distraught because that was not something that was aligned
with her religious beliefs.

Speaker 5 (49:29):
Okay, was there ever a discussion about cremation? Did you
ever have a discussion with Gwen about a cremation?

Speaker 8 (49:35):
No?

Speaker 5 (49:36):
Okay, miss Cole. What do you want out of this process?

Speaker 3 (49:39):
I would like there to be a full reinvestigation into
the circumstances of Gwen's death, given the new reports that
we have today, It's an unfortunate fact of life that
when someone dies and it is a suspected suicide, there's
still a stigma attached to that. And since Gwen's death,
she's been on the receiving end of you know, rumor, innuendo,

(50:01):
her name being spoken of in perhaps you know, not
very nice terms, particularly in a rural community. And you know,
the Gwen that I know was a completely devoted mother.
She loved her boys, she put their welfare above everything else,
and I would just I would just dearly like the

(50:22):
opportunity to see justice for her finally after all this time.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
At this point, Sue's time on the witness stand has
come to an end, but before she is excused, the
coroner narrator Wilson has something to say to Sue.

Speaker 5 (50:37):
Miss Cole.

Speaker 4 (50:38):
I'd like to thank you very much for being courageous
enough to provide, being available and to provide evidence. I
absolutely accept from what I've heard today and understand, having
now been involved in your sister's coronial investigation for a
period of time, the distress that it's brought to you
and to your family, And I trust that, having heard

(50:58):
all of the evidence that you have today and will
continue tomorrow, that you will notwithstanding that the outcome may
not be as expected or perhaps even move you in
any way to a different position. And if that is
the case, and we haven't heard all of the evidence
by any stretch whatsoever, that at least you and your
family understand that and take some comfort from the fact

(51:21):
that your sister's death has been taken very seriously and
that the full forces of all available authorities have been
galvanized in order to better understand the circumstances of Gwen's death,
including a full cold case review, which is a very
significant undertaking by the Queensland Police.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
When Sue heard the coroner utter those.

Speaker 4 (51:41):
Words, notwithstanding that the outcome may not be as expected,
or perhaps even move you in any way to a
different position.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
She was reminded of the discussion between her barrister and
the barrister representing the police and Ed Kinbacker that the
outcome of the inquest had already been decided when nearly
halfway through the hearing, and the possibility that Gwen met
with voul play has barely rated a mention except to
shoot down the possibility. It is time for Detective Senior

(52:14):
Sergeant Ed Kimbacker to take the witness stand. Counsel assisting
the coroner, Joe Crawford, spends just ten minutes questioning kim Backer,
establishing that he was a junior officer in nineteen eighty three,
that he suggested the angle of the fatal bullet be
looked at, and that he believes he took the much
maligned statement from Ken Soper he was not asked why

(52:36):
he did not secure the crime scene, why he didn't
find the person who called police after discovering the body,
and why he did not consider the death as suspicious
and seek immediately to interview Gwen's partner. Sue's barrister then
began her questions.

Speaker 5 (52:56):
Officer, you would agree that things now, while circumstances get invested,
gated in a different way to when they were investigated
in nineteen eighty three. We have developed.

Speaker 14 (53:05):
Look, of of course, Yes.

Speaker 5 (53:07):
I'm wondering this, and I ask you this, is there
a possibility that when the police attended the scene in
nineteen eighty three they saw a woman surrounded by some
beer bottles with a gun in the car with a
gunshot wound to her head, they made an assumption that
it was suicide and made no further inquiries.

Speaker 14 (53:26):
No, look, I wouldn't agree with that. There's a whole
This report I did for the coroner on the first
day indicates that there is an open mind. My talk
about the trajectory of that injury and its relevance to
the future direction of the investigation demonstrates clearly that there
is no closed mind or preconceptions. Albeit I say the
scene does tend to speak for itself very loudly. Still,

(53:48):
despite that, I took the steps of making that statement
for the quite specific conclusion of drawing the pathologist's attention
to it directly to confirm that aspect of it.

Speaker 5 (53:57):
Can you recall in nineteen eighty three how many detectives
there were at the time.

Speaker 14 (54:02):
No, I had limited contact with the detectives. I was
too early. I was merely a constable but relatively small number,
ten to fifteen max.

Speaker 5 (54:10):
You know, it's apparent from your evidence in your statements
that you recall that you think that detectives involved higher
up than you would have followed procedures in place.

Speaker 14 (54:21):
If look, it's a rule of thumb, and it always
has been that if there is a firearm involved in
an incident, investigators attend. It's like an ironclad rule. And
particularly this type of event, investigators in the much less
busy environment of CANS would have attended. I have no
recollection of them. The only reason I can say that
any attended because a witness does recall recalls them attending.

(54:45):
But that would have been normal course of events for
detectives to attend.

Speaker 5 (54:48):
You know, is that because do you say that because
the witness describes plane clothes, police officers, and marked and
unmarked cars.

Speaker 14 (54:55):
Correct.

Speaker 5 (54:56):
Okay, So essentially, though you can't say, because of the
passage of time and you your specific involvement, what steps
were taken in any investigation?

Speaker 14 (55:04):
No, well, it would appear it appears I was absent
from the report of the events and that sixteen day
gap until the statement taken from Soper. There's no real
explanation for that sixteen day gap other than I was
absent or away. I didn't attend the post mortem. Hunkin
attended the post mortem, so it appears I really haven't
had any involvement. So I suspect I haven't been at

(55:27):
work for quite a batch of time in the days
immediately following. But that speculation. All this is speculation.

Speaker 5 (55:33):
Yes, yes, Do you think steps would have been taken
to exclude a suspicious death back then?

Speaker 14 (55:38):
Look, I would assume that hunkn and arguably investigators made
some efforts with a view to clarifying the circumstances.

Speaker 5 (55:44):
Do you consider whether an investigation would include speaking to
family and friends about well the deceased's movements prior to
her death.

Speaker 14 (55:52):
What would have been and should have been done? Would
have would be the interview with the last no one
associates with her, which I think was spoken to, but
more with the friends. What was her mental state? You know,
that type of thing that arguably should have been a priority.
It would have been normal business today and I and
I don't know what was or wasn't done. That may

(56:13):
well have been done, But did I do it. I
have no recollection of it, and nor do I believe
I was present, But that would have been I believe
the last person to see a suicide victim is obviously
a critical individual in the chain of events because they
are the person who are most likely to provide information
regarding their state of mind.

Speaker 5 (56:30):
Okay, did you make a comment before, Well, you didn't
agree with me when I suggested perhaps there was a
possibility that police just wrote it off as soon as
they saw it as a suicide without doing any investigation.

Speaker 14 (56:43):
No, I disagree with that.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
Miss Logan then takes him to paperwork from another police
officer named Arthur Law, who wrote a note on the
photograph that the death was a suicide and listed ed
Kinbacker as the investigator.

Speaker 5 (56:56):
So what does that mean, do you think?

Speaker 14 (56:58):
Well, I assume that Law assumes I was the investigator.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
Next, Ed Kinbacker is asked about the pile of cigarette
ash in Gwen's car that he mentioned in his initial report,
which cannot be seen in the crime scene photographs.

Speaker 5 (57:12):
Do you have that recollection.

Speaker 14 (57:14):
That is my mental recollection as opposed. Yes, that's my
clear This is things of this thing. And this is
why I say I'm very comfortable with this is because
there was this pile of ash on It's interesting. I
refer to ash in that form four the original the
original report on the day I refer to as ash.
In this document, I refer to it as cigarettes. But

(57:36):
that is my visual memory. And if anything I have
learned over forty years is the difference between memory and photographs.
It's huge, it is huge. I have attended major incidents
where you don't see what's in the photograph. Upon reviewing them,
you don't see it. And what I can say is
my mental memory, and this is the risk of memory generally,
and the vagary of memory, particularly over a distance. My

(57:58):
memory is of a pile of ash and cigarette butts.
The butts must have been somewhere, and it isn't necessarily
because I've looked at the photograph today. Actually in regard
to the specific point. And it's unclear in the image
that I've seen, which is merely a copy, so it
might be the original might be more clearer, And it
depends entirely on what the and probably got to be

(58:20):
careful in that the image what I'm seeing is appears
to be just ash like ashes from the floor of
the carpet, or it appears to be And that probably
depends on what angle I saw it at and what photographer.
Is there a difference, I don't know. I don't know,
but it depends if there's a photograph of the floor
above looking directly down onto it, because those angle differences

(58:42):
make some difference. But all I can say is is
what my memory is? My memory of the event, Yes,
and the vagaries of that over the span of time
is of a pile, and I see ash, I see
cigarette butts in amongst that. Mentally in that's what I see.

Speaker 5 (58:56):
So would you make the concession or that there is
a possibility that you've let another memory bleed into that
particular image.

Speaker 14 (59:04):
Well, look, it depends. I'd have to look at that
image and say, does that image cover the entire floor
that I saw from a potentially different angle. I don't know,
so it's surprising there was a very limited number of
photographs taken. I think there was only about five or six.
Normally now there'd be many hundreds. Perhaps, Yes, that's right,
there'd be many. So does the photograph actually show what

(59:26):
I saw from whatever angle I looked at? Maybe? I
don't know. All I can tell you is what my
memory is. But what was significant from this whole cigarette
and ash question is that where led to the conclusion
that she sat in the car for quite some period
of time prior to the act occurring, and that the
ash and that were timely to the event, because what
I talk about in the statement was that the ash

(59:47):
could not have been in If that vehicle had been
moved with the ash there, it would have been scattered
all over the place, simply the vehicle dynamics would have
disturbed it and destroyed it. Ash is a very fragile thing.
So therefore, that ash deposition is consistent with the half
hour hour two hours that she may have been in
that car smoking prior to the act occurring.

Speaker 5 (01:00:07):
You keep referring to ash, but as I read it,
you're talking about cigarettes here, So what do you mean?

Speaker 8 (01:00:12):
I know, but.

Speaker 14 (01:00:14):
Let's on the day of the report, I referred to ash. Yes,
and I'm referring and I'm now referring to cigarettes, to
cigarette butts. I'm only talking about butts. I'm not talking
about cigarettes. I'm talking about the cigarette butt. That's my
mental image of a little pile.

Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
And your mental image there. You say it's on the
driver's side. What do you mean by that?

Speaker 14 (01:00:33):
Where are you? Where are you look in the footwell
of the car? You know? You know, So she's sitting
there just ashing onto the floor basically and discarding what
she's using.

Speaker 5 (01:00:42):
Okay, I understand that during the course of this proceedings
and the investigation prior to it, have you had opportunity
to review or consider all of the evidence that has
been collated from the nineteen eighty three investigation as we
have it, everything that we've got. Have you had have
you considered?

Speaker 10 (01:01:00):
Yes?

Speaker 14 (01:01:00):
Yes, I've reflected upon it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
Yes.

Speaker 5 (01:01:02):
It's limited, isn't it.

Speaker 9 (01:01:03):
It's it.

Speaker 14 (01:01:04):
The whole document picture is very patchy, in fact quite
limited from what must have existed at the time. For example,
there must have been a report to the coroner that
summarized the entire thing that the coroner relied on, well,
that file is missing. That's a critical document effectively, But
at the end of the day, there are no witnesses
to what occurred. We must rely on the scene as
it presents itself to tell the story, and I think

(01:01:26):
it tells its.

Speaker 5 (01:01:27):
Story, okay. But essentially, though, you'd accept that we just
don't know what evidence was compiled at the time of
the investigation. If there was one.

Speaker 14 (01:01:35):
The investigation at the time, I suspect it was limited.
You're possibly correct that there particularly post the post mortem
examination and the consistent track of that wound with the
what the scene tells us would be expected to be
that there would have been general satisfaction of the investigators
that this was a suicide, okay, and that therefore that
limited and naturally limited the scope of the inquiry. This

(01:01:57):
wasn't a murder where you would get hundreds of statements
and in view everyone potentially involved. So once a conclusion
was formed to a satisfactory standard, or what they assume
was a satisfactory standard, the investigation would conclude, the report
would be forwarded to the coroner, and at the end
of the day the coroner accepted whatever information was provided.

Speaker 5 (01:02:15):
But we just don't know what information was provided. No,
I don't know, Okay, thank you, officer.

Speaker 1 (01:02:22):
Finally, the lawyer acting for the Queensland Police Service Union
and for ed Kinbacker, Steve Hollins, asked him about Ken
Soper and Duncan Grover.

Speaker 13 (01:02:32):
Detective Kimbacker, You've already been asked this question, but I'll
ask again. Do you know Duncan Grover or Ken Soper?

Speaker 14 (01:02:40):
No?

Speaker 13 (01:02:41):
Okay, Well, you would have met them at the time
of the investigation. But have you had anything to do
with them since then?

Speaker 14 (01:02:47):
I don't recall meeting them at the time. No, but
I didn't know them before and I've never met them since.

Speaker 13 (01:02:53):
Okay, you don't engage with them socially or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:56):
No, Day one of the inquest is over and Sue
is completely drained. She had built up hope that finally
a forensic and detailed examination of the circumstances around Gwen's
death would take place.

Speaker 3 (01:03:22):
It's so difficult to try and stay professional and impartial,
like you don't want to come across like a ranting,
bitter family member. But when you start talking about it, like,
your emotions just take over and you're reliving. I'm reliving
being in that courtroom and them all standing and applauding
him and slapping him on the back, and you know,

(01:03:44):
I'm reliving walking in there, and the entire back row
was filled with cops and Union reps. They're all sitting
with their arms fold and they orders turned and stared
at me like it was just pure and uter intimidation
and bullying tactics, you know, And we were there, like,
you know, I was like a land to the wolves.

Speaker 8 (01:04:03):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
We just walked into a dead set a bush and
that's all there was to it, you know, with like
Kinbaker showed up with you know, I think he had
three barrister as. He had Ian leavers, the top Union
Radby had solicitors, he had the whole crew.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
Coming up. Gwen's ex husband takes the stand.

Speaker 6 (01:04:28):
It's a yes or no. Do you have a recollection
of Gwen walking in on you and Betty together?

Speaker 9 (01:04:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:04:33):
Yeah, I think Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:04:36):
I was in bed and she turned up late at
night with a few beers under a belt and walked
straight in and goes to.

Speaker 3 (01:04:41):
The bedroom and said, oh, there you are and turned
around and walked out.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
That was it, And a strange boyfriend, Ken Soper reveals
he and Gwen had big plans for a life together.

Speaker 5 (01:04:55):
Were you and Gwen engaged to be married?

Speaker 11 (01:04:57):
Yes, that's correct. Yeah, yeah, we were planning to get
married yes, yeah, but she wasn't divorced though, Eh.

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
You had asked for her hand in marriage, correct, yes, okay,
and you were trying for a baby, is that right?

Speaker 11 (01:05:10):
That's correct. Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
Someone somewhere may know more about this case. Perhaps one
of our listeners may help find the information that reveals
the truth behind the death of Gwen Grover. If you
know something or have a suggestion, please email us at
Shot in the Dark at seven dot com dot au

(01:05:38):
or leave us an anonymous tip at shot in the
Dark dot com dot au. If this podcast has raised
issues for you, please call Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen
or visit them at www dot lifeline dot org dot au.

(01:06:00):
This podcast is brought to you by me presenter and
journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing, please
rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners find
us special Thanks to my writer producer Brian Seymour, Gwen's
sister and tireless campaigner for justice, Sue Cole, Sound designer

(01:06:25):
Mark Wright Graphics Jason Blamford before our theme music is
by Bob Kronk the First and there is a link
to his music on Spotify in the show notes.

Speaker 9 (01:06:40):
When away, such Swirm the

Speaker 1 (01:06:47):
Pains and Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.