07 - The Injustice System - Shot In The Dark

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 want help us?

Speaker 3 (00:37):
It was not suicide?

Speaker 4 (00:39):
There was someone else involved.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Shot in the dark. Episode seven, The inquest is over.
The coroner has found that Gwen Grover died by suicide.
Here is when Sister Irene.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
The inquest itself. You know, we got nothing much about
when at all. It was just about, you know, where
the gun was found, how it was placed, and how
it possibly couldn't have happened like that. But it was
definitely like this, and oh it was unround. It was
so traumatizing. And the next morning I said to Sue,

(01:31):
see if we can get a flight out of here,
because there was that many police in that room.

Speaker 5 (01:36):
Where we were having the inquest.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
They lined up all along the back seat and we
had the front seat of the only two seats that
were there, and they all started cheering and yathooing before
we even got out the door. And I thought that
was very, very disrespectful, and I said to Sue, I said, well,
we'll leave. We'll leave in the morning if we can
get another flight. So we paid the extra to get

(01:59):
a fly out, and that missed mine.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Sue was left deflated, but not defeated.

Speaker 3 (02:08):
We all, as a family had such high hopes for
the inquest. We thought that finally we might be going
to get some sort of justice for our beloved sister.
And that's all this has ever been about, Allison. It's
not about trying to bad mouth the police, it's not
about trying to, you know, just kick up a big
fuss about nothing. All this has ever been about is

(02:31):
trying to get justice for Gwen. And we thought, finally
the truth will come out and we'll get that justice
that she so rightly deserves. But when I had to
sit in that courtroom for two days and I heard
the lies that were being told and I could see
that it was just going down the very path of
suicide when there was absolutely, to my mind, no evidence

(02:53):
pointing towards that, I was absolutely devastated.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
And She's not the only one.

Speaker 6 (03:00):
I would have thought that open finding here was certainly
on the cards.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Professor David Ranson is a forensic pathologist who studied medicine
in the United Kingdom in the nineteen eighties, then hospital
based pathology. He has degrees in medicine and law. Is
a semi retired Deputy director of the Victorian Institute of
Forensic Medicine, and he lectures at Monash University. As well

(03:27):
as being called in on numerous coronial inquests over the years,
he has also contributed to a number of podcasts.

Speaker 6 (03:36):
The case is interesting, and I mean I spoke to
Brian the other day and he sent me some of
those other photographs I hadn't seen, I think in the vehicle,
and of course there's that double exposure one which is
so difficult to try to split the two inches in
my brain, but it was just too hard in a way,
you know. I know that Prinst's date coronary who has

(03:58):
turned down the new and I suppose that's understandable in
the context of what was covered by the other inquis.
Other than that, I mean, the point is well made
that firearms are not a method of suicide that's common
in women. But I think that's just an issue around

(04:19):
access in a sense, access and availability in familiarity. So
it's going to be completely dependent on that. So it's
not that it never happens, it's just that it's rare comparatively.
But that may be a reflection of as I said,
access and familiarity, and overwhelmingly in certainly rural Australia, that
male access to firearms is of a high order and

(04:42):
therefore it becomes a chosen methodology. So that of itself
is sort of it goes to that broad social context
of likelihood, but it doesn't of itself prove anything specifically
in the individual case sites of election of shooting, and
this is where it gets into the nitty gritty of
those sorts of things. And we don't see a lot

(05:04):
of handgun cases if you look at handgun cases in
the US, where of course handguns are just everywhere. In
that sense, we don't get those so much of election
of self splittered injury or even homicide are really quite variable,
to be honest. I mean, the classic sites and suicide are, yes,
the temple and the mouth and the chin and things

(05:25):
that it depends a little bit on the weapon and
the context of how the weapons able to be manipulated
in the environment. Why would a person choose one or
the other. I don't really have an answer to that.
You do see all of those in the spectrum, so
it would depend, I think, very much on the particular circumstances.

(05:45):
The homicide is actually much more sort of variable. In
other words, it's sort of it hasn't got those sort
of particular predilection sides. I mean, you very rarely see
homicide with an intro oral or under the gin type arrangement.
I have seen one, but it's very unusual.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
Professor Ranson is careful not to criticize his professional colleagues
in Queensland, but he is clear that the poor investigations
done in the immediate wake of Gwen's death make it
extremely hard for experts to determine what actually happened. During
her closing submissions, Rachelle Logan, the lawyer representing Gwen's sister

(06:27):
Sue Cole, outlined some of those failings as she summed
up her case for an open finding.

Speaker 7 (06:33):
Can I start with the evidence of Officer Kinbacker. His
evidence was fair and it was balanced, but he has
a limited recollection of nineteen or fourteenth of October nineteen
eighty three, and this investigation. He assumes that there was
an investigation into the circumstances of Gwen's death. Your Honor
may recall I asked him this question woodsteps have been

(06:56):
taken to exclude a suspicious death?

Speaker 8 (06:59):
Answer? Yes, this is all speculative, of course.

Speaker 7 (07:03):
So the highest we have about the investigation being thorough,
and the highest we have about the investigation being detailed
in order to exclude anyone else having the motive or
the means to harm Gwen at the time is speculative.
We hope it would have been investigated for Gwen. But
the evidence that is before this court, and the evidence
that this Court can rely on, suggests that a suspicious

(07:27):
death investigation was not even considered. And there really are
two categories of evidence that can support my submission, And
the first is the evidence contained within the statement of
Officer Arthur Law, which is c. Eight Your Honor in
his notebook, Your Honor would note that the first word
he writes under the date fourteen October nineteen eighty three

(07:49):
is suicide, not apparent suicide or suspected suicide.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
We put the issues raised by Miss Logan in her
closing address to David Ransom for.

Speaker 6 (08:00):
Your point that's worth talking about. The question is does
that change the outcome of the case or not. And
the fact that procedures were not followed, I think is
an important issue, no question about that.

Speaker 5 (08:11):
But it's iterative fact. You put it like that.

Speaker 6 (08:14):
So you start with a ce you're going to scene
as a shooting and a car. You're thinking it could
be anything, it could be homicide accents. So it's so
all the way along that as you get there, you're
gathering more information and that issuative process goes on and
you start to modify your approach based on the information's
coming in. I don't know what the detective knew at
a particular point in time, or how much background was

(08:37):
coming to them, you know, even in ways that you
know has just been told to them by the dispatcher
or by people at the station or whatever like this.
So it may be issues that that where they're starting
to pick up knowledge and that iteratively changes their approach,
and that happens every day even today. In the case
you treated it as a suspicious death, you start the process,

(09:00):
you investigate if the death becomes less and less suspicious,
that you start closing off those avenues of things that
you would be doing.

Speaker 7 (09:08):
If it was a home side We also know from
looking at the photographs that it doesn't appear to be
a cordoned off crime scene, and there are people in
the background on the field nearby to the car. Officer
Kinbacker gave evidence about what they would have done if
they had suspected suicide, and he said in his evidence,
what should have been done was to question last known

(09:29):
associates and that would speak to her mental state, and
that should have been a priority. What was or wasn't done,
Officer Kinbacker said he has no recollection of it. He said,
the last person who last saw the suicide victim is
the most pertinent witness. But we know, your Honor, that
that was not done because the people who did see

(09:51):
her the day before she passed away was Duncan and Bet,
and they were not asked questions about this particular aspect,
and we know Sharon Will also not spoken to about
this particular aspect. We also know, your Honor that the
fellow who found her, mister Locke, he wasn't asked for
a statement at the time, and his evidence is crucial

(10:11):
because he plainly recalls that Gwen was sitting bolt upright
and he wasn't watching the car at all times. When
he ran back to the house to call police.

Speaker 6 (10:21):
It seems to me a lot hinges on the observational
issues of to see to the vehicle when first seen
by that person coming back from work and been seeing
to people upright, and certain positions and things like that,
and then the eventual position has described and shown the photographs, well,
it's partly shown the photographs, and I think from a

(10:41):
forensic point of view, and there's lots of other issues
the circumstantial in the case, I completely understand that are
very important. That discontinuity between those two descriptions is fundamental
to a lot of the sort of concerns that you.

Speaker 5 (10:57):
Might have from a forensic point of view.

Speaker 6 (11:00):
And I can't sort of clearly rationalize those two descriptions.
I mean, it is a long time ago, and of
course one of the challenges that is that that witness
was not properly interviewed at the time and followed up now,
you know, so we've got long term recall evidence as
opposed to a statement made at the time, and I

(11:22):
think that is certainly a really big deficit when it
comes to try to work out what's going on.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
Rachelle Logan also urged the coroner to consider the rifle
allegedly used in Gwen's death a rifle that disappeared from
the crime scene within days.

Speaker 7 (11:40):
The re enactment by Officer MANK Tallow was useful, but
it had its limitations. We do not know the exact
dimensions of the rifle used or alleged to be used.

Speaker 8 (11:51):
By Gwen, including the length.

Speaker 7 (11:53):
We do not know the weight of the rifle, and
we do not know the weight of the rifles used
in the tests. We do not know Gwen's arm span.
We do not know if she had the ability to
hold the gun like that. She has been described as
a slight woman. The evidence suggests that she hated guns,
she didn't like them, and she wasn't a gun user.

(12:15):
We were not given the opportunity to view feet placement
of the test subjects, and the evidence today by mister
Soper was that it was a single bolt action rifle. However,
Officer manket Loow only used semi automatic guns. An inference
can be drawn that the weapon used is a point
twenty two caliber rifle, but it must be acknowledged that

(12:36):
there is a limitation to that, being that the exact
gun was never located. We don't know if the rifle
on her lap was in operation at the time because
it wasn't tested. Not all the point twenty two's in
existence was considered by Manctlow, and the photo of the
gun on her lap was not compared to higher range weapons. Finally,

(12:57):
in my submission, there's limited weight or no weight to
the comment of Mandlow that it was self inflicted. He
is not or not he is not a pathologist, And
the question and answer asked by both myself and the
counsel assisting should not hold any weight.

Speaker 6 (13:12):
To be honest, a homicide situation with the fire and
can be almost anywhere. People can suddenly look away at
the time and they think they're being threatened as part
of a sort of defensive measure. So you could get
all kinds of things, to be honest, including the back
of the head and things like that. The construction of
the vehicle, that is somebody sitting in a driver's seat,

(13:34):
and let's just say that the rifle is either down
through the legs or into one size slightly, you know,
without specifying that has to be in a particular way.
It's very easy to get a temple injury because all
you ought to do is essentially turn your head and
place the barrel, and you might use your dominant hand
to hold a barrel to position it where you wanted it.

(13:54):
The fact that the entrance is less temple with the
partial exit, it's not a full in that sense, a
partial exit on the right parietal and the priitle is
sort of further back than the temple and sort of higher.
So I'm sort of guessing, as there's no pictures or
or really detailed description in the report to say what
that is. It's just a generic anatomical sort of description.

(14:17):
So that again would fit with someone not having their
head actually turned at right angles the weapon, but just
slightly with it pointing slightly backwards. So certainly feasible if
somebody was sitting there and turning their head and using
the right hand hold it in left hand to press
the trigger.

Speaker 5 (14:35):
So that's perfect feat.

Speaker 6 (14:36):
While is not clear is how you then give to
that second position whenst the body is photographed in the vehicle.

Speaker 7 (14:41):
Can I make this point before I move on from
mancdalo's evidence, your honor, is that about the re enactment.
The evidence, the forensic evidence is that the muzzle was
on or near her head and that's accepted, and there
was a circular wound, and Mangdalo said in his evidence
yesterday that is consistent with a straight shot. But when

(15:03):
your on a watches the video, all the test subjects
have the opening of the barrel on an angle against
the side of their.

Speaker 6 (15:10):
Head, the gripping of the barrel, and again that's not
really described in the sort of detail that helps you
work those things out. But you can get cadabaric spasm,
you know, instantaneous rygermortis, whatever you want to call it,
and it's one of those topics that lives in the
forensic literature, and there are a few cases which would

(15:32):
appear to demonstrate that it occurs, but it's not something
that's seen all time. Everyone says, oh, yes, we always
see that sort of thing.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
This is another anomaly in Gwen's death. It is called
cadaveric spasm or instantaneous riga mortis. This occurs when a
person under extreme physical duress dies suddenly or violently and
their hand is frozen in a death group even while

(16:07):
the rest of their body is limp due to the
cessation of nerve activity following the death of the brain.
The important thing to know is that cadaverex spasm is
not just rare, it is exceedingly rare and should have
rung alarm bells when police first laid eyes on Gwen's
lifeless hand tightly gripping the barrel of the rifle. A

(16:30):
twenty twelve study by the Institute of Legal Medicine and
forensic scientist sim Berlin and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine,
titled the Occurrence of cadaverix Spasm is a Myth, warned
against leaping to conclusions, especially in the case of apparent
gun suicides.

Speaker 9 (16:49):
Suicide Gun related deaths must always be carefully investigated, allowing
for the presence of stage scenes. Where there has been
a homicide, the finding of a tight gripped gun would
raise suspicion of manipulation of the scene. Gunshot residue investigations
would clearly be of value.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
Gwen's hand is seen tightly gripping the rifle in a
way these researchers say does not happen firmly gripping before
rigamorris has set in, raising the possibility that her death
scene was staged. As the researchers say.

Speaker 9 (17:25):
There is no recognized pathaphysiological basis for the process of
cadaverick spasm. It is interesting to note that with the
increased reporting of excitable delirium, where there is well documented
violent physical activity and often quoted precipitate for instantaneous rigor,
we have not been able to find any reference to

(17:46):
the phenomenon of cadaverick spasm. The German literature has denied
the veracity of the concept of cadaverick spasm for a
long period, and maybe it's time for the English speaking
world of death investigators to similarly refrain from using the term.

Speaker 6 (18:03):
It's actually quite rare, and that may be a fact
that massive muscle tension at the time of death is
actually quite a rare event. There are good descriptions that
have been seen where people have drowned and been clutch
at the river bank and they've got tight grass, you know,
in their tightly clenched their fists, which is probably some
of the best descriptions we have of cadgoric spasm. There

(18:25):
are other people who said, look, it's actually so rare.
How often does it occur? And is it really an
entity that you can sort of rely upon? And I think,
you know, we don't know the answer to that really.
I mean, I think there's good examples that have been
well demonstrated, so it probably does occur, but it probably
occurs far more rarely than people think, and there is

(18:46):
certainly a technical scientific mechanism for wider cause.

Speaker 1 (18:49):
We wanted to talk further to Professor Ranson about the
rifle and the way it appeared in the crime scene photographs.
Sue is also part of the call.

Speaker 10 (18:57):
It's just a question I wanted to ask, if you
don't mind. The two retired detectives, Jerry Thornton and Ron
Eddles sort of looked at everything for me, and Jerry
actually asked if I could ask you this question as well.

Speaker 6 (19:12):
Ron Eddles very well, I've worked wrong for years.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
Lovely Ron wrote me up and record as well.

Speaker 5 (19:19):
Well.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
They're two big concerns.

Speaker 11 (19:21):
With the well, they had lots of concerns.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
But picking out was the main ones.

Speaker 10 (19:26):
The pet was, which you have covered, you know, very extensively.
Boris thinking is that the hand gripped tightly around the barrel,
which you know, Ron and Jerry felt book developed the
stage and they put it there.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
The other question that they had was that if Gwen
had the gun you know, coming.

Speaker 10 (19:46):
Up to the left temple and she shot herself. Was
how in the small confined to that car, she then
ended up sort of lying over the gun and the
barrel pointing back in.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
The opposite direction.

Speaker 5 (19:58):
It was almost like the gun sort of you know,
and which.

Speaker 6 (20:03):
Well, it depends where you believe the gun was originally,
and it depends on that first witnesses statement.

Speaker 5 (20:07):
That's why I'm getting.

Speaker 6 (20:08):
I mean, that first witness statement doesn't really fit with
those other observations you've got from the photographs and the description.
It's a it's an inconsistency that I can't explain. It
just gets an inconsistency the gripping the barrel issue. As
I said, I'm I don't know that I draw that
to being necessarily staging. There are other you know, there

(20:29):
is another reason well how and why that could occur,
But I can't be definitive about that. The issue around
the position sort of underneath and this goes to the
first description again. So if the gun was saying had
it's the butt of the gun in the passenger well,
for example, across the passenger seat, and then the shot

(20:49):
is fired and then the person slumps. You could see
how the person could be over the top of the gun.
But that assumes that that positioning. Remember that the two
to two is not going to impart a lot of
energy to somebody, so they're not going to sort of
be shot and sort of shoot the body move across
in the opposite you know, away from the gun sort
of thing. That doesn't happen to it is a very

(21:10):
little energy of a kinetic type that's going to be
picked up by a person. Contrary to all the TV
movies and things like that. You know, people don't bounce
around when they're shot, so you don't have to explain
it why she's that way when she the bullets via
the other way sort of thing. So I think that
if the gun's in the right position, and it may

(21:31):
be almost more of a natural position to have the
butt of the gun to the side, if you're going
to shoot yourself in the temple, for example, and then
you collapse and you sort of go on top of
it like that, all I say is that that's not impossible,
and it would be one of the explanations for how
the body got into that position. The difficulty, you always
is that first initial description, that's not how she was

(21:54):
with the gun.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
In her closing, some Rachelle Logan turns to Gwen's emotional
state in the days and hours before her death, something
that was described in very different terms by those who
knew and saw her last.

Speaker 7 (22:15):
Now, with respect to Gwen's state of mind at the time,
missus Cole gave evidence, and your honor would find that
she was measured and reasonable and she made fair concessions
despite being robustly examined by the council, assisting about her
impression of the evidence and for her motivation to proceed
with the inquest. She was asked to speak and answer

(22:37):
to difficult scenarios and answered them with reasonable concessions. She
gave evidence that Gwen went back to Bogle Briy in
nineteen eighty. She recalled the dates with great clarity and
can recall it because of the Debutante Ball. She said
that Gwen lived with her for two years. She said
that Gwen was a loving and good mother. She would
do what she could for the boys, and your honor

(22:59):
would find that from that evidence that Gwen did put
the needs before her kids, needs before her own. It
was a shock to the family to learn of the
suicide finding and They did all they did at the
time to find out more information, but they hit dead ends.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
These are crucial points. Sue Cole lived with Gwen for
two years before she returned to Cannes and died in
less than a year. She knew her habits and her
state of mind inside and out, and her version of
events has not changed. Unlike some others.

Speaker 7 (23:33):
Your Honor can rely on the evidence of the dates
and circumstances of missus Cole. Over the evidence and the
dates with respect to Sharon Macadee in my submission, your
Honor could not find her to be credible and reliable.
Your Honor could find that the passage of time has
this particular witness confused, and the conversations that occurred when
she accepted that, well, she accepted that the conversations that

(23:55):
she had about Duncan and Bet did not occur on
the day before Gwen passed away. Her reliabilities also diminished
because she did say that she knew Gwen four ten years.
Then she did change that evidence to four years. And
of course she also said that she had she can't
recall when she had that conversation about Duncan and Bet.

(24:17):
She said that she helped her move, but we know
from Duncan that the final load was done by him.
She also said that there was from early afternoon to evening,
and your Honor knows from Duncan and Bet that they
were there until around four or five o'clock.

Speaker 8 (24:32):
There are clear factual disputes.

Speaker 7 (24:35):
In my submission, Your Honor couldn't accept her evidence because
she's also inconsistent with the evidence of Duncan. Duncan was
clear that there was no separational trial period. He corroborates
what Sue says about Gwen leaving in nineteen eighty. He
said that their relationship was amicable, and Gwen knew about
the relationship about Duncan and Bet.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
You might recall the suggestion made to the coroner several
times that one of the reasons Gwen may have taken
her own life was that she was distraught over the
end of her marriage to Duncan Grover and his relationship
with her friend Bet. That has been conclusively shown to
be untrue, as Gwen left her husband three years prior

(25:22):
to her death in part because she had discovered his
relationship with Bet.

Speaker 7 (25:28):
There cannot, in my submission, be a finding that she
was distressed about the relationship between Duncan and Bet. She
had commenced divorce proceedings, she was engaged to mister Soper, she.

Speaker 8 (25:39):
Was trying for another baby.

Speaker 7 (25:41):
His evidence is all so important with respect to this.
She didn't like guns, and if she did use one
when they were married, he had to help her hold one.
He said, she would have known how to load the
rifle because she would have been able to work out
where the bullet goes, and she would have been able
to work out what bullet goes in which gun, because

(26:02):
that's obvious in my submission. That may be obvious to
someone who uses guns, but not obvious to a woman
who doesn't. He was surprised when he heard that this
was a suspected suicide. Bet gave evidence, and she says
that she helped move Gwen, not Sharon. She gave evidence
and it was established in evidence that she started that

(26:23):
relationship with Duncan in nineteen eighty. That has been corroborated
by Duncan and that has been corroborated by Sue.

Speaker 8 (26:31):
She did give.

Speaker 7 (26:32):
Evidence that Gwen was stressed about the move, but your
honor would accept that the word stressed is different to
the word or the meaning of being upset.

Speaker 8 (26:42):
She did say that it was out of character.

Speaker 7 (26:44):
Gwen was a loving mother to her boys, and she
provided no indication of self harm. She also said she
was never asked any questions by police around the time
of her death.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
It is true that people take their own lives to
the shock and surprise of their love wares, who sometimes
describe it as totally out of character. However, there are
recognized warning signs that a person may be suicidal, such
as extreme mood swings, withdrawing from friends, and having a
preoccupation with death, none of which was true of Gwen.

Speaker 7 (27:21):
Your Honor heard evidence by various witnesses yesterday about suicide statistics,
modus operandi, for example, of women who commit suicide. In
my submission, no weight should be given to that at all,
and that is because this court does not have objective
statistics and peer reviewed studies before it.

Speaker 8 (27:39):
It's not it does not have expert opinion.

Speaker 7 (27:43):
It was all anecdotes and vague references to unknown studies.
Your Honor could not place any weight on that evidence.
But what your Honor does have is evidence of people
who knew her and who loved her, and who spent
time with her.

Speaker 8 (27:56):
And it was surprising, and it was shocking.

Speaker 7 (27:59):
To them that it was that they were told that
she committed suicide. She was a mother who loved her
two boys. She loved them and she protected them. The
evidence yesterday was that she was a fighter and she
was a batler. Your honor could also consider a strange
aspect to the evidence that she would have committed suicide
in a vehicle near a school when she had a

(28:21):
home on the Esplanade only a short distance away. October
is a hot month in Cans. It doesn't make sense
that she'd be sitting smoking with the windows up.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
The distance from Gwen's flat on the Esplanade to the
hockey fields where she was found is four hundred and
fifty meters less than half a kilometer or just over
a quarter of a mile away, and a one minute
drive by car. If, as the police contend, she drove
to Ken Soper's house and stole his rifle and ammunition

(28:57):
while he slept. Remember Ken says he noticed the rifle
out of place when he woke up that day. Why
would when then return to a spot so close to
her flat to park, drink beer, smoke cigarettes, then shoot
herself next to a hockey field used by children the
same age as her boys.

Speaker 7 (29:16):
Can I also add this, Your Honor, he gave evidence
of when he saw her to identify her body. He
gave evidence that she had raccoon eyes. There's been no
one to explain the particular cause of this, but raccoon
eyes is consistent your Honor could find with bruised eyes.

Speaker 8 (29:33):
He also wasn't asked.

Speaker 7 (29:35):
Questions by police about the interaction with Gwen the day before.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
Raccoon eyes is the term Duncan news to describe the
heavily bruised eyes Gwen had when he identified her body
at the Margue. It refers to a person with two
black eyes, making them resemble a raccoon. It can occur
when there is a skullf fracture, which Gwen did have
as a result of the bullet entry wound in her

(30:04):
left temple, but Sue has always been uncomfortable with that explanation.
She wonders if Gwen was assaulted prior to her death,
another possibility that was not even raised at the inquest.

Speaker 7 (30:18):
In relation to mister Soper, at best, he can be
considered as a witness whose credibility and reliability is reduced
He accepts that there are discrepancies in his evidence, but
he cannot explain those aside from distress. His movements at
the time. They've never been accounted for. He was upset
that their relationship had ended your honor. He did have

(30:40):
access to guns, they had recently broken up. His whereabouts
is not clear. We do not submit that this court
makes an adverse finding against anyone.

Speaker 8 (30:50):
We simply make.

Speaker 7 (30:51):
We simply ask the court to make a finding that
the investigation at the time of her death was lacking.
Perhaps the authorities at the time would have come to
the same conclusion self inflicted, but we just don't know
that because there was no investigation about people who may
have had the means or motive or opportunity.

Speaker 6 (31:11):
There are major failures from that basic process. What I'm
saying is that as you go onto investigation as avenues
that closed over, your investigation process changes.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Has But you know, even like just you know, like
basic stuff. They even saying that we usually get the gun,
why didn't they get the gun? You know, things like
that about where did the gun go?

Speaker 6 (31:32):
I agree, I've got the same problem in the other case,
I've got a queen and the gun went busy.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
So I mean that's the problem. Then, So how can
you make any firm determination on the cause of death
when all there are all these blanks?

Speaker 5 (31:46):
Well, okay, the cause, it's the circumstances of death. It's
the manner of death you're worried about.

Speaker 6 (31:50):
Here, Just just get the words of course death straightforward.
Manner of death is the problem. And once you've got
on the coroner. And this is why we have legal
coroners not medical coroners, because it'd be very easy for me,
as they medit, to go down and say, oh, yeah,
well I've seen this sort of thing, blah blah blah. Yeah,
I think it's probably suicide given X, Y and Z.
But a kura looks at it from a much broader

(32:12):
perspective and from a legal perspective. So they're going to
take all the information, the social issues, the emotional issues
that are going on the time, and use all of
those integrat into a finding. Quite often, the forensic pathology
does not give you the magic answer.

Speaker 5 (32:25):
It simply says, this is possible, this is possible, this
is possible.

Speaker 6 (32:28):
People often think, you know the friends, it gives you
the final determination.

Speaker 5 (32:32):
It doesn't what.

Speaker 6 (32:33):
It gives you a range of possibilities, and it either
refutes or confirms various.

Speaker 5 (32:39):
Suspicions at best.

Speaker 6 (32:42):
So a kurra has then faced with the totality of
the evidence block, and that includes people's thoughts, their emotions
about what they their interpretation of what they heard on
a particular night when they heard a row or whatever
it is, and they indicate all of that. Now, depending
on how reliable all those statements are, they will give

(33:02):
more weight to some of than others. And they often
give far more weight to the pathologist or the initial
detective who went to the scene because they have that
sort of expert knowledge looking at the problem. They will
give perhaps less weight to a discussion about whether someone
drank alcohol a lot, or didn't bring alcohol a lot,
or was emotionally distressed, or what was emotionally stressed if.

Speaker 7 (33:24):
There was evidence to support a conclusion that there was
no investigation at the time, and we have limited evidence
to piece together today, in my submission, it cannot be
said that the remaining evidence is enough to establish a
finding today that it was a self inflicted injury. In
my submission, what the court ought to do is to
make an open finding as to the circumstances of Gwen's death.

(33:47):
We cannot say that suspicious circumstances were even explored before
resting on self inflicted because that investigation wasn't done and
there is limited evidence today to draw upon the evidence
of In the absence of evidence, the Court cannot conclude
in its findings that it was self inflicted. It is

(34:08):
respectfully submitted to the Court that, due to the passage
of time, the indicators about suspicious circumstances was not considered
in nineteen eighty three, and the circumstances of her death.

Speaker 8 (34:20):
Ought to be open.

Speaker 7 (34:21):
Gwen Grover did deserve an open mind in nineteen eighty three,
Your honor, Missus Cole and her family deserve that now,
thank you.

Speaker 6 (34:31):
I would have thought that open finding here was certainly
on the cuts, you know, And I think that's probably
what you're saying, and I think it's what probably are
the place people saying, well, you know, we just don't
have a soulvis to know it.

Speaker 5 (34:41):
But Akurin is.

Speaker 6 (34:43):
Going to look at that, and I'm just not all
some colors would give an open finding in that situation.
Others might turn around and say, well, I'm actually I
am sufficiently convinced by the multiplicity of these comments and
the emotional circumstances and the trauma of what was just
going on to say that this person was at such
a high risk that that probably does explain. I'm not

(35:04):
trying to justify it. I'm just simply saying that's how
a coroner could look at that.

Speaker 1 (35:09):
I just don't know how they could given the circumstances
that I guess that's my point of view.

Speaker 5 (35:13):
Yeah, No, I get that. I get that.

Speaker 6 (35:15):
I mean, and you're not saying this is necessarily homicide.
You're saying there's insufficient basis for the current to come
that conclusion.

Speaker 5 (35:23):
I completely get that. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
I mean you look at the Julian lay and the
Biggy Arnold situation for.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
Example, that I was involved in that one as well.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
Yeah, so this is what I'm saying. I would have thought,
particularly in the wake of that where the coroner got
it wrong twice before the third inquest.

Speaker 5 (35:40):
Yeah. Well I gave evidence of the third inquest on
that matter.

Speaker 6 (35:43):
Yeah, and was re enactment and signing with someone with
Tony Anford and the current at the time. Yeah, it
was at Barnes, wasn't it.

Speaker 1 (35:59):
In the final days of twenty twenty two, Sue Cole
received a tranch of documents under Queensland's Right to Information laws.
They contained reports, witness statements and correspondence, including emails. Hearts
have been redacted, which you'll recognize as being beat out.

(36:21):
One striking feature is how the emails sent by members
of the Queensland Police Cold Case Team, which was charged
with compiling a brief of evidence for the coroner, revealed
they had clearly decided that Gwen's death was a suicide
and they would not be wasting time looking into any
other possible causes of death. The subject line in several

(36:43):
emails sent between October twenty twenty and January twenty twenty
one was Grover suicide review, not Grover death review. Sometimes
the subject line read re investigation into the suicide of
Gen Grover discussion. The cold case team also routinely referred
to Gwen's death as a suicide. Here are some examples.

(37:07):
Detective Tara Kentwell, writing in an email dated June thirtieth,
twenty twenty one.

Speaker 12 (37:13):
As discussed seeking approval for myself and DC Adam Denin
to travel to Canes from the eleventh to the twelfth
of August twenty twenty one for the PIC for Operation
Sierras Storm in quest regarding the suicide of Gwen Grover.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
Kent Well again August tenth, twenty twenty one.

Speaker 12 (37:32):
Myself and DC Adam Denean from Homicide Investigation Unit are
the principal investigators in the review of Gwen Grover's suicide,
Operation Sierra's.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
Storm, and again in an email dated September twenty eighth,
twenty twenty one.

Speaker 12 (37:46):
Seeking approval for the following travel to Cans for the
coronial inquest in relation to the suicide of Gwen Grover.

Speaker 1 (37:53):
In relation to the suicide of Gwen Grover, that does
not instill confidence that other possible causes of death were
front of mind for investigators. And yet when Detective Kentwell
emailed Sue coll on August twenty sixth, twenty twenty she
used very different language.

Speaker 12 (38:10):
We've completed the review of Gwen's death at the request
of the State Coroner and are required to report our
findings directly to the state Coroner.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
No mention of the words suicide to Sue. One thing
that stands out is the name for the investigation chosen
by the cold case team, Operation Sierra Storm. That is
an unusual name in our experience. For instance, in the
Lady Vanish's case, police created Operation Jurunga to investigate the

(38:39):
disappearance of Marion Barter. The Australian military uses a random
word generator and ten thousand names to select their operation names.
New South Wales police reportedly use a program called Eaglely,
which generates five random names for the lead detective to
choose from. But we did a bit of research on
Sierra Storm is what we found.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
I'm pretty thick scanned, but at the same time I
need to have positivity around me.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
That is the voice of Sierra Storm, one of the
cast of the reality show Below Deck. She appeared in
season four as one of the crew on a luxury yacht.
Viewers online have been critical of Sierra, describing her as
dumb and ditzie and annoying, which is how Sue Cole
feels she was sometimes treated by Queensland Police. Of course,

(39:28):
it could be a random coincidence, like the fact that
one of Sierra's crewmates on the yacht, Lauren Burchill, lives
you guessed it in Cans. The Right to Information documents
revealed that Tara Kentwell was well annoyed by Sue's desire
to be kept informed of the investigation into her sister's death.

(39:52):
In an email to Sue dated August twenty fifth, twenty twenty,
Kentwell wrote, can.

Speaker 12 (39:56):
I please request your assistance to refrain from contacting our
investigators directly querying the status of the investigation. It is
my understanding the state Coroner's office will make contact with
you on receipt of the coronial report.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
That surprised Sue, who responded by email.

Speaker 3 (40:14):
I was a little perplexed by your requests that I
not contact the investigators, as both Adam Denine and David
Roliston gave me their email addresses and said to contact
them with questions or information. My contact with them to
date has largely been to pass on information regarding two
separate people who our family hoped could be important witnesses

(40:38):
and have some additional information regarding Gwen's life and situation
leading up to her death. Given your below instruction, should
I refrain from passing on any information in future. It
certainly has not been my intention to cause any unnecessary
duress or hinder the investigation in any way, and I

(41:01):
apologize if this is how it appeared.

Speaker 1 (41:04):
Regards Sue, clearly miffed Tara Kentwell broke back.

Speaker 8 (41:09):
Hi, Sue, No apology is required.

Speaker 12 (41:11):
We're very appreciative of the information you've provided us thus far,
and it most definitely assisted us in progressing our review
into Gwen's death. But we are not in a position
to answer your questions such as I just wanted to
check in asking if you have any feedback so far
on how Gwen's case is progressing. Also, have you been
able to get up to Cans yet to question Grover
and Soper.

Speaker 1 (41:32):
This Kurt reply is significant because those sorts of questions
are precisely the questions one would expect from a next
of kin in this type of case, and one's police
routinely do and should answer. We can compare Detective Campwell's
dislike of Sue's questions to her warm engagement with one
of the witnesses in the investigation her colleague in Cairn's

(41:55):
ed Kinbacker Friday.

Speaker 12 (41:56):
The fourteenth of August twenty twenty. Good morning, I just
wanted to give you a quick update Regrover ds, Mark
Brand and DC Adam Denean from my office. Wilby and
Canes next Monday to Wednesday to conduct some final inquiries.
They are self sufficient, so I won't need you to
come to the station. From there, I will come and
see you and get your statements so we finalize the file.

(42:18):
Are you around in the coming weeks to catch up?
Kind regards?

Speaker 1 (42:21):
Remember the cold Case team was charged with investigating the
death of Gwen Grover and the nineteen eighty three police investigation,
which makes this email, sent in July twenty twenty seem
very odd.

Speaker 12 (42:34):
Hi, Ed, can you please give me a call when
you have time. I've been tasked a file from the
coroner regarding Gwen Grover and wanted to touch base with
you before we start on it. Kind regards, Tara kent Well.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Why would an investigate a touch base with a person
she's supposed to investigate before the investigation begins. By January
twenty twenty one, Detective kent Well was happily updating Detective
Senior Sergeant Edkim Back up on the state of the
investigation and other witnesses. At the same time, she was
telling Sue not to bother her with questions.

Speaker 12 (43:08):
Monday, the twenty first of January twenty twenty one, Good morning,
hope all is good with you, just for your info.
Byron Work gave us a hand on the weekend to
get a statement signed Ree Grover as per below, This
was the last statement we needed and we will submit
our report today regards Tara.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
This email included a chain of emails between officers and
the cold case team discussing a witness by name and
sharing plans and thoughts about their statement. Tara and Ed's
cozy communications are in stark contrast to the way Sue
was being frozen out, and in our experience, seems an
odd way of dealing with a person who is under investigation.

(43:48):
One possible reason for Kentwell's apparent frustration with Sue might
be her apparent lack of enthusiasm when she first learned
that there was going to be an inquest into Gwen's
death and that her team was going to have to
launch an investigation. On April twenty third, twenty twenty, Detective
Kentwell emailed her superior this.

Speaker 12 (44:09):
We're fortunate to have been given this treasure by the
state coroner.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Followed by a smiley face emoji. Two weeks earlier, on
April eighth, twenty twenty, Detective Senior Sergeant Tara Kentwell was
first informed by email that the Attorney General had ordered
a coronial inquest beheld into the death of Gwen Grover
and that her cold case team would create Operation Sierra

(44:34):
Storm to investigate. This was her reaction, so with five
exclamation marks implying a lack of enthusiasm and the impression
that the task was just a waste of time, we
wrote to Queensland Police asking them about these matters. We
will provide their responses during the next few episodes and

(44:57):
post the full response at Shot in the Day dot
com dot au. Of Tara Kentwell's apparent lack of enthusiasm,
Queensland Police told us quote. A review of the email
in its entirety reveals the comment intended no malice and
in no way indicated the investigation was a waste of time.

(45:20):
During this period, all QPS members were heavily involved in
the response to the COVID nineteen pandemic. While acknowledging the
importance of the COVID response, the reply of PSI was
an indication of frustration at not being able to respond
to this and other investigations due to the ongoing nature

(45:40):
of the QPS response to a worldwide pandemic. It's worth
noting we've got the entire email and it doesn't mention
the pandemic or any other investigations. Similarly, the police said
this about Kentwell's email about being given.

Speaker 12 (45:57):
This treasure by the State Coroner DSS.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Kent Well confirms the term treasure is meant literally in
this context, and she feels extremely fortunate to hold such
a meaningful position where she can support the QPS in
finding resolution for families of murder victims. The smiley face
emoji corroborates her words. Yes, the police are claiming that,

(46:22):
far from being sarcastic and critical, the detective Senior Constable
was grateful for the honor of being handed a thirty
seven year old case requiring her to investigate her colleagues,
which she viewed as a beautiful treasure to be cherished.
This was Sue's reaction.

Speaker 4 (46:42):
Alison, when I read that, I felt sick and IDAs
broke down in tears. Now to Hi gwhen spoken about
in those terms by people who are not only supposed
to be professionals, but are supposed to be the people
who are sworn to serve and protect us and stand

(47:03):
between us and the bad people of the world if
you like. To hear them speaking to about her and
about her death and her reports in such derogatory terms.
It was just heartbreaking. And it really was a watershed
moment to me, because even though I've been exposed to

(47:24):
the reports that have been covered up, the facts that
have been covered up in Gwen's investigation, in Gwen's in quest,
I was still naive enough to think that these people
cared about Gwen and cared about what had happened to her.
But when I read that statement, and there wasn't just

(47:45):
that email, as you and I both know, there were
other emails in those freedom of information reports as well,
which clearly nobody thought would ever see the light of day.
It's just really driven home to me that we really
can't expect any help whatsoever, Like what we as a

(48:05):
family don't do probably won't be done. And I know
it's not just me going through this battle for a
loved one, Alison. I know firsthand that there are many
many other families out there like me who are fighting
this battle on a daily basis, because if we don't

(48:26):
fight for our loved ones, no one else will. No
one else will, the reports will stay covered up, the
lies will keep getting told, and the world will be
none the wiser as to what really happened and what
the circumstances were surrounding these people's death. And this is
not just about Gwen. Of course, Gwen's my first and

(48:48):
foremost priority, and I will do anything anything I can
to see the truth come out and to try and
get justice for Gwen. But I know that this is
also for all the other families out there that are trying,
and all the other people that perhaps haven't had the
opportunity of someone like you listening to them, or don't

(49:10):
have the strength to try and take a stand and
fight for their families. I'm hoping that if we can
get the truth out there about what happened to Gwen,
other people will perhaps have the courage to stand up
and say, you know, this has happened to my loved
one as well. Like it's not a one off situation.
This is happening over and over again, and there's a

(49:33):
systemic failure there. It's not just a one off situation.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
And there's more. On January twenty third, twenty twenty one,
another Cold Case Team member, Detective Senior Constable David Rolliston
emailed this to his senior colleague Mark brand.

Speaker 13 (49:51):
Just a thought, maybe we get to comment on how
much big Gwen might drink in the usual session, how
drunk would she get and what type of drunk she was? Happy, sad, angry? Also,
could she still operate while drunk or fall into a heap?
This addresses the family thought that if she was so drunk,
she couldn't have operated a gun.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
A go.

Speaker 5 (50:15):
This is test subject number one.

Speaker 1 (50:17):
You'll recall the cold case team did commission a re
enactment they say demonstrated that Gwen could have fired a rifle.
Yet even the officer conducting the tests admitted he didn't
know Gwen's armspan, let alone the make or model of
the rifle, and none of the three tests subjects were inebriated.
To simulate the lack of coordination when must have had

(50:39):
when she died.

Speaker 5 (50:39):
Can you push it all the way where would?

Speaker 1 (50:42):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (50:43):
Test subject is indicated that you can do that.

Speaker 1 (50:45):
Just one day before sending that email, Detective Senior Constable
Rollistone emailed the same senior officer summing up an interview
he had just completed with a witness summary.

Speaker 13 (50:57):
Is was with Gwen on the day before she died,
helping her to move from to a new place on
the esplanade. Said she was very distraught, vomiting during the
day as she caught in bed the night before. She
feels that this, on top of the split and he
moving into a bad new residence plus money issues, caused
her to be in a heightened state and would have

(51:19):
definitely committed suicide.

Speaker 14 (51:21):
Cheers.

Speaker 13 (51:22):
Elvis is leading the building.

Speaker 1 (51:25):
While this appears to be self congratulatory due to his
ability to bag a decisive statement from a witness supporting
the theory Gwen killed herself. Detective Seeing a Constable Rolliston
is getting ahead of himself. That statement, clearly from Sharon Macadey,
Gwen's younger friend, was, as you've already heard, riddled with inaccuracies,

(51:46):
such as her assertion that Gwen had caught Duncan and
Bet in bed together two nights before she died, when
that actually happened three years earlier. Detective Seeing a Constable
David Rolliston seems quite cavalier in his email, which is
surprising especially when you consider he anticipated Gwen's family would
make a right to information request, As he told a colleague.

(52:08):
In this email dated January twenty second, twenty twenty one.

Speaker 13 (52:13):
I strongly suspect that the family will make a freedom
of information request for the coronial report and investigation documents
at some point.

Speaker 1 (52:22):
These emails confirmed the pattern of police searching for confirmation
of a suicide rather than hunting fresh evidence of a homicide,
which is what they were specifically requested to do by
the State Coroner Terry Ryan. We discovered an email Ryan
wrote to the Queensland Assistant Commissioner of Police, Peter Fleming
on April seventh, twenty twenty.

Speaker 15 (52:44):
I consider that Miss Grover's death should be treated as
a suspected homicide, which would benefit from the specialist skills
of officers within the Cold Case investigation team. As the
attquacy of the Queensland Police Service investigation will likely be
an issue at the inquest into the death, it's important
that it is thoroughly investigated and to the extent possible,

(53:05):
Miss Grover's family is assured that the investigation is addressing
their specific concerns.

Speaker 1 (53:10):
If only the Assistant Commissioner and the Cold case team
had taken that direction to heart.

Speaker 16 (53:16):
Good evening, Queensland's police Commissioner is pushing to have state
lines redrawn to ease the pressure on choked border crossings
and communities.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
Queensland, like the rest of the world, was grappling with
the COVID nineteen pandemic and lockdowns, putting more pressure on
police as they were drafted into help with quarantines and patrols.
But that does not explain the long delay of the
handing over of the cold case team's report to the coroner.
Sue was told their review into Gwen's death was completed

(53:47):
in August of twenty twenty, but come January twenty twenty one,
five months later, the coroner still had not received it.
Another three months passed before finally barrat Kentwell.

Speaker 5 (54:00):
Advised Sue that her.

Speaker 1 (54:02):
Cold case team had finished its report and sent it
to the coroner. But even that was bungled, as this
email from Sue reveals.

Speaker 3 (54:10):
Saturday, April seventeenth, twenty twenty one, Hi, Tara, Following your
phone call on the fourteenth of April twenty twenty one,
during which you informed me you completed your report and
investigation on the first of February twenty twenty one, I
spoke with at the Northern Coroner's office on Friday morning,

(54:33):
the sixteenth of April twenty twenty one. She has only
just received your file slash brief slash report for your
information that had been sent to the wrong office, hence
the lengthy delay in her receiving it. Regards Sue Coal.

Speaker 1 (54:51):
The Right to information documents also contain an article from
the cans Post newspaper in twenty nineteen headlined.

Speaker 7 (54:58):
Cann's police facing internally investigation over confidential document dumping.

Speaker 5 (55:03):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
The article by journalist Grace Mason details how officers inadvertently
throughout filing cabinets full of case files. The error spotted
by staff at the commercial waste facility where it was sent.
That might help explain the missing documents in this case,
such as the notebooks of officers Kimbacker and Hunkean from

(55:25):
the time when Gwen died, though this kind of mix
up doesn't explain other missing material, such as the second
page of Ken Soaper's original statement to police, comprising half
of the entire statement, which is simply not in the file,
or the long lost toxicology report showing Gwen's blood alcohol reading,

(55:46):
which miraculously resurface just before the Coronal inquiry after being
missing for nearly forty years. The Right to Information documents
shed sunlight on the crime scene photographs taken where Gwen's
body was found. Queensland Police had refused to release them.

(56:07):
Only copies appear in the documents tended to the coroner.

Speaker 17 (56:11):
Good afternoon, Michael spoke to Brett Devine about this matter.
I have advised him cold case work taking over a
review of the death. Brett did say he had possessions
Slash access to the original scene photographs as Eddie Kinbacker
went to photos at Cannes station and had staff located
at the original negatives shows the deceased had possession of
a twenty two caliber rifle at the scene.

Speaker 1 (56:39):
Towards the end of the last year, I decided to
speak one last time with Detective Senior Sergeant Ed Kinbacker,
now retired. I wasn't satisfied with our initial phone conversation
when I began this investigation, and his witness statement and
evidence at the inquest are remarkable more for what they
omit and don't cover. So I drove through the suburbs

(57:02):
of cans to a house just minutes away from the
home of Ken Sofa parked in the street and walked
towards the man I was looking for. Please note in
some places the audio is affected by strong wind noise.
Hired Alison Sandy. We spoke on the phone a little
while ago from the seven Network, because I remember I

(57:23):
said I was going to be here for the.

Speaker 5 (57:24):
Memorial of Gwen Rover. Oh, you're here for that.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
I just wanted to let you know what we're running,
because I wanted to give you the opportunity.

Speaker 14 (57:33):
The product is the product of a woman who is
grieving and has unresolved grief issues. These people have that
occasionally and they have a fixation and unfortunately, no matter
what she's told, she will always have an opinion.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
The inquest wasn't fair, though the inquest it wasn't It
wasn't fair because there was an assumption that Gwen Rover
died at a time when Ken was at work. His
alibi was never checked out.

Speaker 14 (57:58):
He was never You if you don't know what was
done or what wasn't done, because it is you don't
you don't know. You don't know because you don't know
what was done independent of me and the other people.
Whould run a one detectives, You don't know, and it's
impossible to rebuild.

Speaker 5 (58:15):
That's the problem.

Speaker 14 (58:16):
It's impossible to say what was or wasn't done in
the absence of information, because there were detectives running around
unknownst to me.

Speaker 5 (58:23):
God knows what they did.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
Actually, it is possible to learn what was and was
not done. Ken Soper's alibi was never checked out. How
do we know? Because Ken Soper told investigators and the
coroner himself he was not questioned on his whereabouts. If
he was, it was never included in his initial police interview.
There was no mention of where Ken Soper was on

(58:47):
the evening of Thursday, October thirteenth through to the time
Gwen died. He claimed to be at a bar the
night after Gwen died with a woman whom police confirmed
was never identified or spoken to the police, and the
coroner relied on Ken Soaper's word solely to establish his alibi.

(59:09):
As she can hear ed, Kinbacker was immediately defensive, and
he repeatedly attacked Sue as some kind of hysterical conspiracy
theorist for questioning the investigation into her sister's death. Not
so long ago, my team and I might have been
persuaded by that kind of strident denial. But after what
we uncovered in the Lady Vanishers, we've learned to rely

(59:30):
on the evidence, which in this case was poorly handled.
It was never treated as a crime scene, though it was.

Speaker 14 (59:39):
Investigator there. It was treated like any other superstide.

Speaker 1 (59:43):
Yeah, as a suicide, but it wasn't treated as a potentiorrect.
The police handle said he'd got a treat and it wasn't.

Speaker 5 (59:53):
Report.

Speaker 11 (59:55):
Report, and it'll tell you, okay, well.

Speaker 5 (59:57):
I've read the report and it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (59:59):
Treated anything suspicious.

Speaker 14 (01:00:01):
The only thing you have.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
Is that look at the angle of.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
The book.

Speaker 5 (01:00:06):
And what and what does a rise from that?

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
Nothing?

Speaker 5 (01:00:09):
It does.

Speaker 14 (01:00:10):
It's consistent. The angle is consistent with the way ships
in a car.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
But the guy founder was never interviewed. I mean, and
everyone says that's the first rule, right, but you've got
to interview The first you did.

Speaker 14 (01:00:21):
Was it wasn't you don't know he told us that,
but there was a guy well maybe you know this
is this is a difficulty doing it what forty years later?
Forty years diff what pe to do with the time,
and I don't know what they do. Always the most
junior individual then to suggest that I have lawedge what investigation.

Speaker 1 (01:00:44):
Look, I mean, we just have to agree, but I
just want to let you know why we're doing it.
I mean, you've seen the Julian from the Vicky Arnold
one that was three like a murder suicide until three
and then they said it was a double homicide.

Speaker 5 (01:00:55):
You want, well, I'm not here covering something up. No.

Speaker 1 (01:00:59):
I you said you don't remember a lot of.

Speaker 14 (01:01:02):
It anyway, forty years ago and.

Speaker 5 (01:01:05):
Blows into one thousand of these things I've done in
my career.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Again, it's worth remembering there are very few gun suicides
in Cans, particularly women using rifles. Statistically, ed Kinbacker can
only have worked a handful of such cases, not one thousand,
and this must have been one of just a handful,
and likely the first such case he worked. But you're

(01:01:29):
junior as well. You were just starting out. I mean
when I was starting out. You know, you're being governed
by other people above you, so you're just doing But
I'm just saying that, I'm not blaming you.

Speaker 5 (01:01:46):
That's good.

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
But the investigation wasn't.

Speaker 11 (01:01:50):
You don't know.

Speaker 14 (01:01:51):
You don't know, and it's impossible to say what was done.
It's impossible to say the people who were there.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
The thing is what I.

Speaker 14 (01:02:00):
Would think, I was there on day one, and then
I must have been away, and that's why they delay
in into doing by shit, it's created. Yeah, the most
lord was sent up by a competent of apology her.
The reality is, this is a fantasy. This is a
fantasy by and this is a direct quote. This is
a fantasy by a direct by a woman who has

(01:02:22):
grieving issues that should be resolved through psychological counseling. That
is the simple equation here. She has a fixation. And
it is appalling, appalling to allege an individual is suspect
from murder by a baseless assumption on no basis. It's palling,

(01:02:42):
particularly to publicize and put that person's name.

Speaker 5 (01:02:47):
Into the community as a potential murderer.

Speaker 14 (01:02:49):
This is an appalling thing to do on thin information
and like no information, You know, what have you got
so far? The people that wouldn't kill herself, people around
a homicide victim, so that every day of the week
it is, It is ridiculous. People in crisis do weird
things every day of the week that are inconsistent with
their prime behaviors. You probably gave to a homicide in

(01:03:11):
Australia where that occurs, and the family would say that,
So this is.

Speaker 5 (01:03:15):
This is the difficult one is this.

Speaker 14 (01:03:20):
Is that this is an industry that's become in the
media and you're trying to dreach for this stuff up
for commercial purposes and this is for commercial purpose.

Speaker 5 (01:03:32):
This is you know this, that's the difficulty.

Speaker 14 (01:03:37):
You're here for a commercial purpose, you're being paid, you
made the business you are in.

Speaker 1 (01:03:41):
Is I don't choose these these stories lightly though, like
we have oh yeah, well well, I mean there's so
many anomalies though it's.

Speaker 14 (01:03:50):
Not there's not there is no anomalies, not the single anomaly, nothing, okay,
there is nothing in the crime scene inconsistent with the
cause of death. You cannot and I have been to
many chrome scenes and I know what blood does and
how difficult a substance it is to fake.

Speaker 5 (01:04:10):
It gets everywhere.

Speaker 14 (01:04:12):
You cannot move a body, fake chrome scene in the
manner this was done without leaving dramatic evidence.

Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
He couldn't do it. But there's no evidence other than
those by photos. That's a problem, like where we're going
on those by banking. But look, it doesn't matter. The
other police have said, like ron Idles aka the good cop,
a highly regarded former detective who has an impeccable record
solving cold cases and is now retired and living in cams.

Speaker 5 (01:04:43):
Was he there? Was he kindless investigation?

Speaker 14 (01:04:45):
Probably interested in right Eddle's opinion, It's like any other amateur,
not an amateur, but a person just needing an experience.
I'm looking at something, but he has no knowledge of
His opinion is irrelevant.

Speaker 5 (01:04:56):
What is irrelevant is the opinion of the people who
are present at the time. And I can't say it
was experienced. I was came in one year's experience, and
the reality is I shouldn't have been hearing.

Speaker 14 (01:05:06):
I wouldn't have let I wouldn't let the junior constantle
in that situation, for that situation reporting that you'd pay.

Speaker 5 (01:05:12):
Attention to what they were doing.

Speaker 14 (01:05:14):
Okay, so the word failure is in process. No one's
denying that. That's been admitted in the corenders here every day.

Speaker 5 (01:05:20):
Of the week.

Speaker 1 (01:05:21):
So it was adequate though, like I don't think you
could say it was adequate.

Speaker 14 (01:05:25):
But the thing is you don't know, you don't know,
and I don't know what was done by other people
surrounding this thing.

Speaker 5 (01:05:31):
In the days following but I.

Speaker 1 (01:05:33):
Don't know that. But on the evidence that was presented, well.

Speaker 14 (01:05:35):
Forget the evidence presented, because the evidence forty years later
cannot be rebuilt as to what occur.

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
Simple, but even Kansas Soper statement was like there was
a missing page or something. It didn't make sense. There
was like a gap.

Speaker 14 (01:05:50):
Yeah, I think so says that a female took your
statement and looks like I concluded it.

Speaker 5 (01:05:56):
Well, I'm not sure. I don't recall. Yeah, I don't recall.
But it's definitely my signature. There's no question it's my signature.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
But I guess that's the problem. Look, as I said,
but no, no, no, I look, and this is this
is why I'm.

Speaker 11 (01:06:11):
Sort of jumping up and down, because this is based on.

Speaker 5 (01:06:15):
It's not the business of getting.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
It's not what I mean. I'm not blaming, as I said,
like that's the whole thing. It doesn't. It is not
a question of it's an initial of the system.

Speaker 5 (01:06:26):
It's not a question of blame. Well.

Speaker 18 (01:06:27):
Look if if there is fault, well, look the situation
is this there, Okay, there were deficients of process that
has been admitted. You know, the most junior person.

Speaker 14 (01:06:43):
Prepared to report that they shouldn't have to do with
and there and there were some aspects that should have
had greater attention, particularly in description of fire arms, where
we're not particularized in a statement simple, but is there
a confusion in regarden that what government is? The answer
is no, is there an inconsistent facts? So despite the
fact that there are problems with process, is the conclusion wrong?

(01:07:08):
And I say the conclusion is not wrong on good basis,
And it's the crime scene, and it's my memory of
the crime scene, the photographs and particular and in particular
which hasn't been highlighted, there was she sat, clearly, she
sat smoking.

Speaker 5 (01:07:23):
In the car for quite some period of time. There
was a bunch of bucks on the ground and there
was also alcohol cans.

Speaker 14 (01:07:31):
So what the clear conclusion was that the cigarette It
is the clear and the photographs.

Speaker 5 (01:07:37):
But it's sort of clear in my memory that she
was in that car for a long time thinking about it. Yeah,
and try to shooting herself.

Speaker 14 (01:07:44):
She was in the car and why the cigarettes minimum
of an hour, you know, and so she's had there,
she said there and thought about it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:50):
She could have been waiting for someone wants to say,
we don't know what she was thinking, but you can't.

Speaker 14 (01:07:55):
But she's what you have to do is stop. Okay, Well,
if someone's faked it, how have they done it? How
have they done it?

Speaker 12 (01:08:03):
So?

Speaker 5 (01:08:04):
How have they done it?

Speaker 14 (01:08:06):
You can't do You would be entirely unfamiliar with the
product of gunshot wounds in crime sceeds, blood goes everywhere.

Speaker 5 (01:08:13):
It is impossible. It didn't come out, but the blood.

Speaker 14 (01:08:17):
But the blood when it hits your face, but that
bullet hits you, it's push, it's micro.

Speaker 5 (01:08:22):
Drop lets go everywhere.

Speaker 14 (01:08:24):
You're touttally unfamiliar with how this works in the real world,
and you cannot fake it.

Speaker 5 (01:08:30):
You cannot fake what's there. That's the problem.

Speaker 14 (01:08:33):
You can't go and murder someone that pop them in
that position, and the position happens to match the trajectory
of where that buller goes through her head entirely consistently
with the reconstruction and how it would have occurred.

Speaker 5 (01:08:44):
It's just fact. It is fanciful and it is wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:08:46):
There wasn't much blood in the photos anyway. It doesn't
look like that was much.

Speaker 5 (01:08:50):
No, there was.

Speaker 11 (01:08:51):
There was blood all through the seats where she's slumped
over it.

Speaker 5 (01:08:53):
It's all gone through the seats.

Speaker 14 (01:08:56):
Basically, the blood goes everywhere, it goes down, so she
shot us if she stopped, don't and just blobble over
the seats. You can see in the photos some of that.

Speaker 5 (01:09:05):
Some of that blood.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
So yeah, will Craig Lot said that when he will
because he couldn't have seen her if she was over,
that's the whole thing.

Speaker 5 (01:09:13):
He wouldn't have seen her.

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
He said, you were sitting belt upright and the window
was down, which is why he leaned in and said,
and you were right mate, And then he goes, oh, no,
you're not. You know, you know what I mean, Like,
that's a pretty and I know that. Everyone says and
you probably as well. You remember something in your mind
a certain way. It doesn't mean it was like that.

Speaker 5 (01:09:32):
No, No, one entirely agree.

Speaker 14 (01:09:34):
What's what your memory is and what he can be
unreliable because because you know, I've been the com seeds
and I don't see things.

Speaker 5 (01:09:40):
Yeah, major concepts.

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
So but no, that applies to everyone, that applies to you,
that applies to him. Why would you lean over if
the window wasn't open, you know, and.

Speaker 14 (01:09:51):
Say but then but then, but then you're suggesting someone
else's moved her and all this sort of stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:09:55):
But this is fantasy.

Speaker 14 (01:09:56):
It is It is reconstruction of events that have no
evidential basis.

Speaker 5 (01:10:01):
What you have is a series of photogruns.

Speaker 14 (01:10:04):
And then you can't just go explanating a series of
facts to suit a theory when there's no basis to it.

Speaker 5 (01:10:10):
He can't just polut facts out.

Speaker 1 (01:10:12):
Of Again, this is completely wrong. These plot facts are
not being pulled from nowhere as ed Kinbacker claims. They
are the facts that were never gathered in evidence by
he and his colleagues. Craiglock discovered the body and was
not interviewed. That alone is hugely compromising to the investigation.

(01:10:36):
If police had questioned him in the hours after When's death,
they would have been compelled to treat the scene as
a suspicious death given the change in the position of
her body, Not to mention the police handbook says they
are supposed to treat it as a suspicious death anyway.

Speaker 14 (01:10:53):
Looking speculate aliens come on the shop on the on
the with as much reliability as what you're doing. It
is the product of a woman who is grieving and
needs grieving counseling and has a fixation now Unfortunately she
has convinced you that.

Speaker 5 (01:11:08):
There is some merit in it on the basis of fantasy.

Speaker 14 (01:11:12):
It is absolute conjecture without the slightest evidence to support
it in the list, and it is, as I say,
a point to point the finger at a person who
is innocent and drag their name through the mud.

Speaker 1 (01:11:25):
Just to clarify something here, ed Kinbacker is referring to
Ken Soper, whose name has featured in our investigation, not
because we want to drag it through the mud, but
because he wasn't investigated properly, as he was never considered
a suspect, because nothing other than suicide was ever contemplated,
not in nineteen eighty three, nor thirty eight years later

(01:11:49):
when the cold case team took over. Any evidence to
the contrary was simply ignored a forty years later, when.

Speaker 14 (01:11:56):
He cannot reconstruct the events with ny level of satisfac
it's impossible. It's impossible, and also so apart from the
fact that the scene is consistent.

Speaker 5 (01:12:08):
A homicide doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Speaker 14 (01:12:11):
If anyone suspected a problem, they talked to the cops.
No one around this girl ever said hey, there's a problem. Well,
the brother said he did, and to us they did.
And for families, if they have a concern, they concerns
should be raised at the time. They never no one
contacted can see of the no one contacted me.

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
They said they did, and they has a record of
he got into touch with the solicitor there and then
they did research up but the body had already been
cremated and so.

Speaker 5 (01:12:40):
There's no there's no evidentess a police been contacted with concerns. Yea.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
They spoke to the police as well as the solicitor.
Then once they spoke to the police, then they got
on too soliciten. This is the brother and the dad, right,
the dad's you know, sadly he's no longer with us.

Speaker 14 (01:12:54):
No, it's and this and this is what But but
as I said, should be a current padpoint. She conducted
the investigation and then the difficulty is the difficulty the
grave made a whole series that complains about Tara. Tara
is an totally independent person and comes.

Speaker 19 (01:13:11):
To the same conclusion that there's that this is their
detailed investigation at the direction of the coroner comes to
the same conclusion Grover and accepted simply doesn't want to
listen to any facts or conclusion inconsistent with her belief.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
That is it.

Speaker 11 (01:13:28):
That will never change, That will never change. No one
will ever convince her otherwise.

Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
I get that, And I'm just saying that it won't
change the other side either like it.

Speaker 5 (01:13:37):
You know, another thing will change.

Speaker 14 (01:13:39):
They have they have a fixation, they have a mission
from God, and they will pursue.

Speaker 5 (01:13:44):
And she is pursuing it. And I say it is flawed.

Speaker 14 (01:13:48):
It is a product of something that is psychological as
opposed to anything that is relevant or causes me concerned
in regard that investigation. Simple quite she requires counselor not
a podcast to pot fingers in appropriate way at a
person who is innocent.

Speaker 5 (01:14:08):
That is wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
You don't know that is I know that is wrong.

Speaker 11 (01:14:12):
That scene is in controvertal in contribute.

Speaker 5 (01:14:15):
You cannot fake it. You cannot fake it. You can't
face out a see it is. That is that simpoint.

Speaker 14 (01:14:21):
And I've been doing this for forty years out a
major homicide investigation. I've done for forty years, most of
which ninety ftio percent we solved.

Speaker 1 (01:14:31):
And you don't know you can't have a perfect you know,
you know.

Speaker 14 (01:14:35):
I don't have a perfect confession record, But haven't we
solved the notified the individual.

Speaker 1 (01:14:39):
I'm sure you've done that. We have definitely done more.
And like as a senior detective when you're you know,
in this system, that works better because you're in charge
as opposed to being one year out nobody.

Speaker 14 (01:14:51):
I don't not dispute there are procedural errors, and I
made errors through a lack of experience in regard toicularizing
certain things. And there was a little of confusion, particularly
in the firearms in the documents that shouldn't have occurred. However,
the confusion does not exist in reality. What was presented

(01:15:12):
to him was the twenty two, which he identified. This
is ken sober So he identified a twenty two. Twenty
two was used the twenty two ball that we removed
from a head.

Speaker 1 (01:15:20):
He said it was a mouser first in his first statement, No.

Speaker 14 (01:15:23):
He had a number of firearms, and there was confusions
in regard to guns. He had a number of firearms,
one of much of a larger color on my much
larger color twenty two was used.

Speaker 1 (01:15:32):
And then he said that it didn't belong to him,
It belonged to Glenn Graham. After all that, so that
came but.

Speaker 5 (01:15:37):
That's what those minor inconsistencies.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
I heard it at a chat.

Speaker 14 (01:15:43):
My bottom line is there he had guns, and the
gun that was used was removed from his house.

Speaker 5 (01:15:48):
When how.

Speaker 1 (01:15:50):
As I said, I just wanted to I just wanted
to put it online. This is like, we're doing it
and we're not saying that he We're just presenting it
so people can just I mean, that's what mysteries are.

Speaker 5 (01:16:01):
Right, It is not a mystery. You're creating a mystery.

Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
You say that you are.

Speaker 14 (01:16:07):
Creating a You're getting an egg and you're whipping it
ed or froth from zero and also on no good basis.

Speaker 5 (01:16:14):
Well, you know, it is that simple.

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
The gun went missing, the body was cremated within three days.

Speaker 14 (01:16:20):
It's the families responsibility, not for polices. That's no consequence.
The police had nothing to do with that speed. It's
got nothing to do.

Speaker 1 (01:16:29):
If they treated it like it was suspicious, it was
more suspicious.

Speaker 14 (01:16:33):
And I alluded to the fact in my report that
the trajectory was critical to determining exactly this question was
she shot in circumstances.

Speaker 11 (01:16:42):
Other than it? And lo and behold that it was paid.

Speaker 14 (01:16:46):
Attention to the trajectory was established and the trajectory is
entirely consistent with the angle that would have occurred.

Speaker 5 (01:16:52):
Has she d the.

Speaker 14 (01:16:53):
Firearm in the course of a suicide, So that is
one of your hate to flawd this whole debate.

Speaker 5 (01:16:59):
It is consistent.

Speaker 14 (01:17:00):
So what you're going to have to say is the
perpetrator dropped her in that location entially with her cooperation.

Speaker 5 (01:17:06):
She isn't bound, she has no injury, and then.

Speaker 14 (01:17:10):
And then had long behold when the police fired her,
and reconstruct the events, it's consistent.

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
It's impossible she would have been dead. Impossible she would
have been dead by that state.

Speaker 20 (01:17:19):
But then but then then how does how does your
criminal genius and I sat to suspect so for as
a criminal genius, reconstruct this event to be intially consistent.
So he shoots her elsewhere, puts her in the car,
and that wound injury which the gun would have had
to be held like you know, you know, not horizontally,
but at it's a very significant angle.

Speaker 5 (01:17:40):
It's fantasy. It is to we're outside of the car.

Speaker 11 (01:17:44):
It is absolute fantasy.

Speaker 5 (01:17:47):
It's the problem your crime scene fixed for itself.

Speaker 1 (01:17:49):
If we had that gune, if we had the gun,
and if we knew.

Speaker 14 (01:17:53):
The car was the car reconstruction was done with the
same gun with the same car. It is entirely poss
so you're foffing an egg into a moring.

Speaker 1 (01:18:04):
Listening to Ed, you might think he's made a compelling
point that there's no way another person could have killed
Gwen and staged the killing because of the blood splatters
and angle of the entry of the fatal wound. Sadly,
it would have been very easy to kill Gwen and
leave her holding a rifle as though she had killed herself.
The angle of entry is easily explained by Gwen tilting

(01:18:26):
her head away from the rifle being held by her killer.
Everything else would have appeared exactly the same. If Gwen
did know her killer, that would explain why there were
no signs of a struggle and why she was not bound.
If only the police had thought to test the empty
beer cans for fingerprints, perhaps they might have solved a

(01:18:48):
possible homicide in a matter of days. Then there's a
reconstruction done by Queensland Police to show that a woman
could fire a rifle in the same model car Gwen's,
but that has no value in determining whether or not
when was murdered as those conducting the tests did not
even entertain the notion. So Ken's alibi was never checked out.

Speaker 11 (01:19:12):
Hey, but there was no necessity to it. There's no
necessity because it was not under suspicion. It's a suicide, a.

Speaker 1 (01:19:20):
Suspicious set like an you know, like in that verse
twenty four hours, you're supposed to interview everyone. You're supposed
to interview the person who found and you're supposed to
interview the next to king. You know, those sorts of things.
There's no knowledge, you know. I'm just saying, like that's
what the police like.

Speaker 14 (01:19:34):
The thing is you don't know, but you don't know
what was done, and I don't know what was done.
There was a body, I know, a stenior person on
top of a report, right, Yeah, so there are there
is a whole body.

Speaker 5 (01:19:44):
Of people and there were detectives running around. So who
those people spoke to and what they did I have
no idea.

Speaker 14 (01:19:51):
Okay, there was entirely separate to me, not necessarily, but
they would have put ketty in their record on the
occurrent sheets okay, the occurrent sheets from the CEI, but
there would be but they gained their lost See, they
would have said, Okay, this is what we did when
we tended this, and there's an occurrence sheet record. But
it's like if vice Staf attended suicide, I did a

(01:20:11):
little record.

Speaker 5 (01:20:12):
We attended what we did.

Speaker 1 (01:20:13):
But that type one, I guess is that all the
records were there, you know what I mean, I've got
the records up.

Speaker 14 (01:20:19):
There, and you can't you can't talk conclusions because records
don't need this.

Speaker 5 (01:20:22):
And then you can't take Ken did this well.

Speaker 14 (01:20:25):
Because it's basically it is appalling to suggest someone murdered
someone on a baseless allegation.

Speaker 5 (01:20:31):
That is an appalling thing to do.

Speaker 14 (01:20:34):
It is and this guy has got nothing to do
with this, and to drake him same of the month this.

Speaker 5 (01:20:38):
Way is a boor.

Speaker 1 (01:20:40):
You know, he had a criminal conviction though, so what
against a minor and you.

Speaker 5 (01:20:45):
Know you can look at anyone in the community and
do that.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
Just about let's pause here. I just told ed that
Ken Soaper was a convicted pedophile and he said, so what.
Pedophiles are rare in the community, and part of their
criminal behavior is convincing people they are laurabiding, caring people

(01:21:10):
even as they carry on their abuse. The instant dismissal
of Ken's offending is quickly followed up with another slap down,
But his ex wife Pamela said that he's stuck a
gun in a mouth.

Speaker 5 (01:21:22):
Doesn't have any deer stances, know. And the thing is,
you've got to say, well, hell has he done this?
He does he do it? It's crazy, it's crazy. You
can't fake that scene.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
That seems to be ed Kinbucker's main argument. You can't
fake that scene. Yet nobody alive can remember it, and
there are no records which properly capture it. The fact
that this scene was never properly processed by investigators makes
it impossible to say that it was not faked, and
we can show how it may have been. Back to

(01:21:55):
ed who seems certain that Ken Sofa was not capable,
let alone culpable, of this crime, even though his possible
involvement was never explored, as this discussion confirms. And they
interviewed Panela, yet they left out all about the fact
that she said he was a violent man, and that more.

Speaker 14 (01:22:13):
Would they do that because the police have some bias
to cover this up.

Speaker 5 (01:22:18):
It's a fantasy that he's absolutely he said.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
I told the cold case team that he was a
violent man, and then she went on to tell me
that it would have gun in a mouth.

Speaker 14 (01:22:27):
Well, that would be that would have been wholly relevant
evidence that I would be absolutely amazed. And I don't
believe that an independent team would hide that information.

Speaker 5 (01:22:37):
It is nonsensical.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
I was speaking to her for a couple of minutes,
and she told me straight away, well, it.

Speaker 14 (01:22:42):
Is nonsensical the proposition that a cold case team would
you know, and they know that Ken Zippers, you know,
Grover Sue is pointing the finger at him, and that
any relevant information if someone's providing, if his potential violence
is high, irrelevant, And to suggests the would leave it
out is ludicrous. Is ludicrous because why protecting me, protecting

(01:23:04):
the organization? It is done?

Speaker 5 (01:23:06):
If there is a dumb proposition.

Speaker 1 (01:23:08):
If I could find out why it's done, why didn't
make it.

Speaker 5 (01:23:10):
Well that's why I expect the Tarry capball.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
Yeah, yeah, I will.

Speaker 5 (01:23:13):
But I'm just I've said expect to the people.

Speaker 1 (01:23:16):
A lot of people is an example, A lot of
people just say that this should have been an open finding.
It shouldn't have been.

Speaker 21 (01:23:21):
No, no, I know, because all that is doing is
inappropriately assuaging a family on no good basis on no
good basis.

Speaker 5 (01:23:31):
I think there is a good basis.

Speaker 14 (01:23:33):
I mean, well, but to hive, you've got a point
to the evidence, the actual physical evidence.

Speaker 22 (01:23:37):
And then you've got to say that how that scene
was constructed, and hell it was done, and then look
to this scene information which is inconsistent with the conclusion NA,
And you've got competent crime scene investigator, it's independent on
me forming that conclusion.

Speaker 5 (01:23:56):
Whose job was at ten crime sects?

Speaker 11 (01:23:58):
And if there was a blood smear somewhere inconsistent.

Speaker 14 (01:24:01):
Was there a cloud of blood from a bullet wound
inconsistent with how she was and where we've got it?
It's obvious, and it is bread and butcher investigation, bread
and butter.

Speaker 5 (01:24:13):
Yeah, you know that this.

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
I just had no one else other than you saying
like that that investigation was adequate.

Speaker 11 (01:24:20):
Who else is there?

Speaker 5 (01:24:22):
But you know you do not. That is not correct.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
The coroner, as I said, but the current she only
assumed she assumed a time of death. For goodness sake,
that was the time that Ken was at work. How
can you make that assumption. There's a big window.

Speaker 5 (01:24:38):
Look, it wasn't long, you know, I've been a lot
of clime scenes. It wasn't lengthy. Yeah, her time and death.
But I couldn't say it's very veriable. No current, No
pathologist will give you a scene a time. No, no, no,
but che did that CHA might put into a window.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
Well she put it. She just made it when it
was at work, and I was just like, yeah, but.

Speaker 5 (01:24:58):
That's that's window, and that probably enough an a window.

Speaker 1 (01:25:02):
It wasn't an eight hour because we're talking about they
got it at midday, right, that's when Lock walked five,
So he was at work maybe eight thirty that day.
So she's saying in.

Speaker 5 (01:25:12):
Yeah, it's yeah, it's it's it's really unclear.

Speaker 1 (01:25:17):
Exactly it is unclear. Especially in the coroner's findings. Coroner
narrator Wilson says that Gwen's movements after ten pm the
previous night cannot be known, that she probably drove to
Ken's house after he left for work to get his gun,
even though Ken himself noticed his guns moved before he

(01:25:38):
went to work. And then the coroner admits she had
no idea when Gwen died, saying.

Speaker 16 (01:25:44):
I find that Gwen Lorraine Grover, a thirty two year
old woman, died sometime prior to twelve noon on fourteen
October nineteen eighty three at Lake Street, approximately one hundred
and twenty five meters south of the Rutherford Street intersection
Can's north from cerebral destruction caused by a self inflicted
bullet wound to the head.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
So according to the coroner, we do not know the
time of death, only that when was last seen at
ten thirty pm the previous night. I guess that's where
we totally disagree. I just don't think it's so straightforward
as like you can you know within that twenty four
hour we know. I would have thought everyone just needed
to be in.

Speaker 14 (01:26:25):
The benefit of hindsight, and everyone is experts and one
hundred percent claier the benefit of hindsight. Everyone has that,
and frankly, anyone looking at this, okay, there shouldn't been well,
positly not in the eyes crossing the teas had attention
to them.

Speaker 11 (01:26:40):
Because my error should never st improve that system.

Speaker 5 (01:26:43):
In that statement, end of storm.

Speaker 14 (01:26:45):
But as I say, is the end conclusion wrong that
you give it the suicide. No, it is merely procedural
processes that failed. But is the conclusion unsafe?

Speaker 1 (01:26:58):
No, that it's the end of the story. Edkin Backer says,
and for four years it was. Now we've unearthed a
new story with a different ending, one that could have
and should have been told when Gwen died. Our discussion
lasted more than an hour and canvassed quite a few

(01:27:21):
other issues, which will return to in an upcoming episode.
But one thing is certain. While there may not be
enough evidence to condemn Sober, the lacking investigations mean there
certainly isn't enough to exonerate him either. Coming up, new

(01:27:55):
documents raised concerns Gwen's ashes were actually those belonging to
someone else, and other families of victims speak out about
how difficult it is to get justice for their loved ones.

Speaker 5 (01:28:10):
We were you know, we were trust the police going out.

Speaker 6 (01:28:14):
The police did bority figgure they know us to be
an expert, then I us going on.

Speaker 11 (01:28:18):
Don't talk to the press.

Speaker 5 (01:28:19):
That can hit the brief. Okay, we didn't win.

Speaker 1 (01:28:22):
You know better, 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.

(01:28:42):
If you know something or have a suggestion, please email
us at shot in the Dark at seven dot com
dot au 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

(01:29:03):
eleven fourteen or visit them at www dot lifeline dot
org dot au. 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

(01:29:24):
other listeners find us special thanks to my writer, producer
Brian Seymour, Gwen's sister and tireless campaigner for Justice Sue Cole,
sound designer Mark Wright, graphics Jason Blamford. Before our theme

(01:29:45):
music is by Bob Kronk the First and there is
a link to his music on Spotify in the show notes.

Speaker 5 (01:29:52):
When away such swoll

Speaker 1 (01:30:00):
Alsen Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.

All Episodes

07 - The Injustice System

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}07 - The Injustice System