April 9, 2023 • 67 mins
The unspoken shame of Australia. The victims of brutal crimes overlooked by authorities. We detail the ways in which they failed Gwen.
Music credits:
Theme - Graveyard Song - Bob Cronk 1 https://open.spotify.com/album/2lb7R3Xgx4Q0gzLZ00pDgJ
For a full list of music used in this episode, please click here:
https://www.shotinthedark.com.au/episode-nine-credits/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to 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.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Why can't we find out what happened? Why won't anyone
help us?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
It was not suicide, There was someone else involved.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Shot in the Dark Episode nine. There is something rotten
in this country. Too often, women who are murdered are
dismissed as emotionally damaged, selfish and weak, declared suicidal without
(01:14):
the concrete proof of the manner in which they died.
Many having endured coercive control in toxic relationships, killed in
such a way as to suggest they died accidentally or
took their own lives. A common link in these deaths
(01:35):
is domestic violence. As evidenced in this podcast, These deaths
are determined as suicide even before any real investigation occurs.
Deaths resulting from falls from balconies and cliffs are all
too often written off as accidents or suicides, other scenes
(01:55):
as staged to look like suicides. The first twenty four
hours is essential in the investigation of these cases, which
is why police procedures worn against making assumptions, especially suicide,
so as to gather the crucial evidence pointing to the truth.
(02:17):
We've identified more than a dozen cases, and in every example,
the families have been left to do the investigation. In
one case, two women who were married to the same
man died in suspicious circumstances, yet were written off as accidents.
One fell into a waterfall and the other fell off
(02:38):
a yacht. Former homicide detective Gary Jublin's mantra throughout his
career has been treated as suspicious until it's proven otherwise,
especially as coroners rely heavily on and give much weight
to the police investigation and theory in these cases. To
(03:02):
give you an idea of how prevalent hidden homicides are,
here are just a few suspicious deaths, many of which
were ruled suicides or accidents where the family had to
fight for justice. Some are still fighting. Beginning in nineteen
eighty three with Gwen Grover, whom we believe was likely
(03:22):
murdered in Cans. Nineteen eighty four, Ellen Marie Goden also
in Cans. Twenty twelve, Carmel Brooks again in Cans, both
wives of killer Jerry Goden nineteen ninety one, Vicky Arnold
and Julianne Leigh also in North Queensland not far from
(03:46):
Cans at Athendon nineteen ninety six, Jeffrey Brooks in Southeast
Queensland two thousand and eight, Nicholas Salisse in Tasmania two
thousand and nine, Nadine Haig in Sydney two thousand and nine,
Flamey Corwell in Charleville twenty ten, Phoebe Hans Juck in
(04:11):
Melbourne twenty twelve, Bruce Schuler North Queensland also twenty twelve,
Sandrine Jordan and twenty thirteen Brianna Robinson, both in Southeast
Queensland twenty fourteen, Amy Wensley and Western Australia twenty fourteen,
(04:33):
Kurra Lee McLaughlin in Southeast Queensland twenty seventeen, Jade and
Penno Tomsett in Cans twenty eighteen, Seth Lurs also in
Cans twenty nineteen, Samuel Palm again in North Queensland. All
(04:55):
these cases treated as open and shut, five in Cans,
another eight in the State of Queensland. But they're just
the ones made public. There would be so many more.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
Yes, it's Howard Brown. I'm the victim's advocate and I
give full permission for this interview to be recorded.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Howard Brown is a former vice president of the Victim
of Crime's Assistance League. He helped found the league after
experiencing the traumatic death of a friend in nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
For most of us, it's a passion because we can't
undo the harm that's been done to us, but if
we can make that journey just a little bit easier
for the next new victims coming along. We said it
as being our responsibility because governments traditionally are really poor
(05:53):
at doing this.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
There's another issue that seems to have come to the
fore is a lot of TV deaths or murders or
homicides by partners are passed off for suicides. Is this
something that you have come across much in your I
guess career as a victim advocate.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Unfortunately, I have and my own view on this, and
this is Australia wide, so it's not something that is
particular to an individual state. This is a national disgrace,
to be perfectly frank with you, because the majority of
coronial inquiry is conducted in this country are done on
(06:34):
the presentation of evidence presented by police, and police normally
get to dictate exactly what evidence is put to a
coroner's court that is then interpreted the way the police
conveniently see the matter has developed, and so where suicide
(06:55):
is an option, police will take that easy option because
it then means that you're in, you're out, the file
has gone, and the matter is done with. And it
creates two problems. Firstly, it's disingenuous obviously for the victims
and for the victims' families. But secondly, we need to
(07:17):
develop a strategy to reduce DV deaths. And so unless
we expose every DV death and show the shortcomings of
the system and how the system has failed that particular victim,
we're never going to change the process. And if we
don't change the process, we're not going to reduce the
(07:39):
number of killings.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So how do you deal with this because there just
seems to be an unwillingness to change that. And obviously,
once a determination is made, it's hard to get the
police to change their mind. Is that your experience, Well.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Yes, it is, because unfortunately it's the nature of our
legal system. Regrettably, because especially in the criminal sphere. The
big problem that we have is that if police don't
do their job properly and you don't get the type
of outcome that you want when you seek to have
that system changed. The problem is the police see that
(08:15):
as being overly critical of them. And what they need
to understand is we're all human and so yes, we
do make mistakes. So let's just put our hand up
and say, hey, we made a mistake. Let's make sure
we don't make the same mistake again. But unfortunately, generally
speaking throughout Australia well as the world wide problem, really
(08:36):
police do not appreciate criticism, even when we're trying to
do it on a constructive.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Basis to improve the system.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, and then of course, on top of that, and
I've got to be honest, it's only a very small percentage,
but you do have a situation where there is an
element of corruption, and so you'll have a situation then
where it course of corruption. Police are never going to
accept that because they don't want to think one of
(09:05):
their own is a bad egg. And the problem is
there is corruption everywhere. So it's not just in police,
I mean it is everywhere. We even see it in
multinational companies. It is a fact of life. But when
you hold the responsibility for the safety and welfare of people,
then you've got to confront that upfront. And the introduction
(09:28):
of crime commissions and the various other agencies which are
supposed to oversee police, their response is in my view,
completely inadequate.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I guess the big issue, particularly with cold cases is
if the investigation wasn't done properly at the beginning, it's
hard to prove anything other than what the police determined anyway.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Well, I mean, using New South Wales as an example.
I'm not sure what the figures are in Queensland, but
in New South Wales we have five hundred unsolved homicides
five hundred.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And they're actually determined as homicides. They're actually called homicides.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
They're actually called homicides.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Imagine how many there would be that aren't caught homicides.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yeah, where we know that they are, but where coroners
have made a finding, say for example, of suicide. And
the problem is in using Sue Cole's case as an example.
My view is legally speaking, because of the paucity of detail,
the coroner was never in a position to hand down
a decision. It should have always been an open finding,
(10:34):
even on the balance of probabilities, which unfortunately is the
legal requirement in coronial inquiries. We don't have to prove
beyond reasonable doubt. It's on the balance of probabilities. But
even on the balance of probabilities, there was not sufficient
evidence to deliver or finding because there were too many unknowns.
And so when you have those unknowns, you can't make
(10:57):
a determination, so you must always hand down an opening finding.
And what was worse in suits case was that there
was evidence obviously that someone had not kept that firearm
to the provisions of the Firearms Act, and it should
have fallen to the coroner to have made recommendations that
(11:17):
they'd be charges laid for failing to secure a firearm,
for a start, and that never happened. And I see
this time and time again where recommendations should be made,
but they don't make them, and then they come back
with a finding which is not supported even on that
low requirement on the balance of probabilities. They come back
(11:40):
with a finding which is not supported in any way
by evidence.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Why is this such an issue these days? With all
government agencies, we have all these key targets and key
indicators and are we meeting those And so if we
finish up with coronial hearings with too many open verdicts,
then they're not meeting their key indicators. And so there
(12:06):
is an unwritten requirement to come back with some sort
of finding, whether it's satisfactory or not. And because each
individual case, the families who are affected are generally unknowledgeable
of how the system works, they just accept that decision
of the coroner even though they're not happy with it,
(12:28):
because they don't see a pathway to have that initial
decision overturned.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
How hard is it to get a decision overturned?
Speaker 4 (12:37):
It is extremely difficult and generally very expensive because under
normal circumstances, unless you can achieve ministerial intervention, so intervention
from either a police minister or an Attorney general, you
then have to pursue that yourself through the Supreme Court.
And so it's going to cross one hundred thousand dollars
(12:59):
and the average person just doesn't have access to that
type of money. And you know, the funny thing. One
of the things for me, in my thirty five years
as an advocate for victims of crime, I have been
paid for nine of those thirty five years. The rest
of the time I have done what I do pro boner.
(13:20):
There are very few idiots around like me who are
willing to take these things on on a pro boner basis,
because you have.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
To live how it has looked at Gwen's case and
has strong opinions about how it has been handled and
what should happen now. So I guess in the situation
with Sir, the most we can do is overturn that
position and get an open finding. It it would appear
in less more concrete evidence arrives that it would be
impossible to get a finding that it was homicide. And
(13:53):
the fact is, and as I look at the evidence,
Ken Soper, the prime suspect, was never considered a suspect
and he's now dead.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
The family deserve even if they cannot get justice for her,
they can at least get a decision which shows that
it was not suicide, even if it's by inference. So
if you come back with an open finding, it's no
longer suicide. And that is really important because we're talking
(14:23):
about we're talking about people's loved ones, families who lose
people under these most abusive circumstances deserve that same level
of respect, and unfortunately, our legal system it just denies
people of that. If we are going to allege that
we live in a civilized society, we should be treating
(14:47):
victims of crime in a civilized manner, and our legal
system does not do.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
That unless we do get political intervention. It is tough.
I mean, there might be someone who knows more information.
We definitely can determine that that. You know, they can't
say it with suicide, you know, I mean, it's convenient
for them to do that, and they keep saying, you
can't fake that scene. It's consistent with the evidence, with
the way that she was positioned and everything, but there's
(15:12):
so many anomalies, right, But.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
It is consistent with suicide, But it is equally consistent
with someone having shot Gwen and in staging the entire
scene to make it look like a suicide. And the
differences are negligible when you then look at what evidence
was presented at first instance and the sloppiness. As I said,
(15:35):
we're not even sure that the weapon that was provided
to the court is the actual weapon because for whatever reason,
the cops lost track of it. I mean, how the
hell does that happen.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
There's a lot of that question for so much of
this and.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You know you would know from speaking with Gary Jubilan, right,
And I have the utmost respect for Gary. You know,
I've known Gary for way too long.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
But Gary will.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Tell you now, as a season's investigator, he will talk
to you about the golden ours, and that is that
preservation of the crime scene, the collation of all the
evidence that is present at the crime scene at the
time and then preserving that. And if you don't start
from that base, it's like trying to build a thirty
(16:23):
five story building with a single foundation. The whole thing
is going to topple down. And that's exactly what's happened
in this case.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
But we're not all equal, Ali Howard, I mean you
see this with victims.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Well, no, no, we're not. And this is one of
the difficulties in Sue's case, for example, that there is
nothing in the chain of evidence which, as you pointed
rightly pointed out, indicated that Sopa was at any stage
even considered to be a suspect and his association with
(16:57):
her should have.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Immediately run alarm.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
Bells and had he been identified, well then other things
would have flown from it. So in other words, like
interviewing his first wife right and then finding out, yeah,
he said, I can easily do this. I just put
a gun in your mouth, pull the trigger and make
it look like suicide. And that's where all these things
go wrong, is that when you get slopping investigation, you
(17:23):
don't get a clear picture. And without a clear picture,
a coroner can't make a decision or a judge or
a jury. And where it becomes more difficult is when
you're talking about a criminal trial, where you do have
to prove beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, say the coroner
had come to the view that Gwen had been murdered.
The way that investigation was conducted, even if Soper was
(17:45):
still alive today, there is no way in the world
we would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
he did that because they just did not collect enough
evidence at the time because they were swapping.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
With that in mind, we're now going to review what
has happened and what action needs to be taken to
help fix a broken system. First, we can list the
failings of the nineteen eighty three police investigation into Gwngrover's death.
After being notified by a member of the public that
(18:22):
a body has been found. Police chose not to speak
to the person who found the body. Records show police
first on scene appeared to immediately assume suicide and ignored
the Queensland Police Manual regulations on how to process the scene.
No crime scene was established and cordoned off. Only a
(18:46):
handful of photographs were taken. The body was removed less
than three hours after police arrived, indicating little or no
investigation was carried out. No attempt was made to locate
and interview the person who last saw Gwen alive. Police
allowed Gwen's body to be cremated three days after her death.
(19:10):
Fourteen days after she was cremated, police finally interviewed Ken Soper,
Gwen's recently a strange partner, seventeen days after her body
was discovered. The police interview with Ken Soper is missing
an entire page, leaving only one and a half pages
in evidence, with no explanation for the missing page. Ken
(19:32):
claims his sign interview was conducted by a female police officer,
yet it was signed by Constable ed Kinbacker. The female
cop has never been identified. The discrepancy has not been explained.
Ken claims he was interviewed by two plain clothes police
two days after Gwen died when he identified the rifle,
(19:54):
but no record of that conversation exists. The rifle used
Shuk Gwen was lost. It simply vanished and was never
tested by police. Items in the car, such as the
empty beer cans, were not tested for fingerprints. The notebooks
of the attending police, which must be stored and available
(20:16):
by law, were lost. The blood toxicology report indicating Gwen
had a blood alcohol level three times the legal driving limit,
was lost for thirty eight years.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
The original investigation back in nineteen eighty three was from
what I've seen, practically nonexistent, and as you would have seen,
from the time that the junior constable arrived on the
scene and the photographs were taken, it was determined to
be a suicide. In fact, the police officer who took
the photographs actually wrote suicide on the back of one
(20:53):
of them, so I think that that set the path
from there on in. Once suicide had been decided upon
by the police, there was really no other avenues looked at.
Despite all of the inconsistencies that occurred, not only in
the scene but in the events leading up to Gwen's
death and the people that were involved in her life
(21:13):
leading up to her death. So because there was no
investigation taken, there were no forensics done, there was no
test done for gunpowder residue, there was absolutely nothing. And
then with her being cremated, she died on the Friday
and was cremated on the Tuesday, it was virtually impossible
to try and make an educated opinion or an educated
(21:38):
judgment on what had actually happened and the circumstances of
her death back in nineteen eighty three. And then Gwen
was cremated, which just compounded our families shock and disbelief.
No one in our family had ever been cremated before,
and my mother was completely distraught because that was something
that did not align with her religions beliefs. So we
(22:01):
were trying to deal with not only the fact that
first of all Gwen was gone, but secondly that it
was getting viewed as a suicide. And then on top
of this, her body had been cremated very quickly, so
there was no way that we could try and look
any further into the circumstances of her death. At the time, them.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Wasn't even told that she was being made was it.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
No, We didn't hear that until my brother and father
contacted Cans and asked could her body be brought back
to New South Wales for her to be buried, and
that was when we were told that she'd been cremated.
And following this, my father also rang the Cans police
station and asked if there'd been an investigation into Gwen's
(22:48):
death and asked for some more information about the circumstances
surrounding it, and he was told that there was no
investigation necessary and in any case, it was too late
because her body or the evidence had been disposed of,
meaning that she'd been cremated. Some of the things that
were overlooked or not taken into consideration when Gwen was
(23:11):
found is that firstly, there was no door knock done
of the area. There was no from what I've seen
in the reports, and I can only go on the
information that's in these reports that I received under the
Freedom of Information Act. But from the reports that I've
received and from what I've read, the person who found
Gwen was never interviewed on the day. There was no
(23:34):
investigation or no door knock done of the area to
see if anyone had heard or seen anything. But as
we've since found out, the person who found Gwen on
the day actually found her in a completely different position
within the car to what she was photographed in in
the police photographs. Secondly, we can't tell from those photographs
(23:58):
what type of gun she's like ying across on the
front seat, so we to this day still do not
know what type of gun that is. And as you know,
there's been several different versions and statements given by her
ex partner, who at one stage had said that the
gun belonged to him and at a later stage said
(24:19):
it belonged to a friend of his.
Speaker 5 (24:21):
There was no investigation initially.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Former police detective Jerry Thornton is scathing of the initial
police investigation into Gwen's death. He says the fact that
it was forty years ago does not excuse officers simply
ignoring their own basic procedures at the time.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
It's the worst job I've ever seen. And then just
to cap it off, they seem to have the ability
to rub a bit of salt in at the end
when the Kenes Post or whatever it was coming out
and said the floor was littered with alcohol, kens and
b kens and cigarette butts, and it never was that
was wrong. There was never any evidence to say that
except what was in the original investigating officer's head. The
(25:00):
positioning of the gun is probably the big one for me,
Like it's only a small car, a gallant, and yet
she's allegedly holding the gun here and holding the gun
like that with a finger on the trigger, but the
gun somehow manages to go across the lap with the
steering wheel just there and down, not far off the door,
and a hend still tightly gripped around the barrel. I
(25:21):
would have thought with the gun shot shattering a brain,
as they said in the PM, that you lose all
muscle control, I would have thought the hen would have released.
But it seemed to be really gripped tightly around the
barrel still, so I would have thought that was worth exploring.
And the positioning of her feat was odd. And firstly
the positioning of the car for someone to commit suicide,
I thought it was really odd, like in a street,
(25:42):
seemed a bit odd near sporting fields. And I know
they're saying that they think it happened about midday. I
don't believe that that's something you should have been determined
at the time, but the first to fine wasn't spoken to,
so they've really lost that because he can't remember times
thirty eight years later. But I don't know how they
picked that time. He's supposed to work out time date place. Well,
(26:02):
we got the date. Apparently we've got the place. But
I just find that really odd that a female is
going to drive into a street like that and shot
herself in the.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
Head for at that time of day.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Yeah, well, that's the part I don't believe. And I
thought somewhere I read where it took them a long
time to extract her from the car.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Next, we can examine the failure to investigate Ken Soper.
Despite the fact when left Ken Soper days before her death,
he was not interviewed by police until more than two
weeks had passed. He was never treated as a suspect.
Despite admitting that the rifle used to shoot when was his,
(26:48):
no alibi was given or examined by police. Police failed
to check Ken SOPA's criminal conviction for child sex abuse,
or if they did, they ignored it. Police failed to
confirm the maker model of the rifle Ken claimed he
owned and was taken from his home Ken Soaper arranged
(27:09):
for Gwen to be cremated and paid for it just
three days after she died, destroying all the physical evidence.
Now to the failings of the twenty twenty investigation by
the Cold Case Team of the Queenside Police. Senior members
(27:29):
of the Cold Case Team, when first notified in twenty
nineteen of the decision to hold an inquest into Gwen
Grover's death, indicated in emails that it was a waste
of their time. The Cold Case Team, in their correspondence
appeared to treat Gwen's suicide as a foregone conclusion, despite
(27:50):
speaking with Ken Soaper's ex wife, Pamela. The Cold Case
Team did not include in their report any evidence of
Ken's alleged violent behavior towards her. The Cold Case Team
failed to report to the coroner ken Soaper's convictions for
child sex abuse. The Cold Case Team accepted ken Soaper's
(28:11):
contradictory new claim that the gun used in Gwen's death
was not his but belonged to a friend named Glenn Graham.
The Cold Case Team did not determine a time of
death and therefore could not verify Ken Soaper's alibi, yet
they ruled him above suspicion. The reconstruction used to demonstrate
(28:32):
that Gwen could have killed herself was completely flawed because
the make and model of the rifle was not known,
nor was Gwen's armspan, and no effort was made to
recreate her state of inebriation. The Queensland Police, in their
statement to us praise the record of the Cold Case
(28:52):
Team in working with families to solve historical cases. They
failed to answer our question about how many suspected sites
a team had investigated and changed to homicides.
Speaker 7 (29:04):
The Cold Case Investigation team investigation into the death of
Gwen Grover, at the direction of the State Coroner, was
undertaken professionally and in an impartial and objective manner. The
Cold Case Team's corresponsibility is to proficiently review cold cases
and investigations referred by the State Coroner. A considerable period
of time was allocated to this investigation, with extensive inquiries conducted.
(29:26):
A total of fifty three people were identified by the
Cold Case Team during the review. Seventeen of these people
were identified as deceased, and a further sixteen statements were
taken from twelve witnesses. A comprehensive forensic review was completed
and a thorough report to the coroner was submitted by
Cold case team.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
As for why the cold case team didn't tell the
coroner about ken Soaper's criminal history.
Speaker 7 (29:50):
The cold case team did conduct a criminal history check
on ken Soaper. No criminal histories of any witness were
provided to the state coroner. The details of ken Soap's
nineteen eighty one criminal history had been available to investigators
at the time of Gwen Grover's death in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Again, we are not told why ken Soaper's criminality was
kept from the coroner, just that it was. Similarly, when
we asked why investigators did not establish an alibi for
Ken Soaper.
Speaker 7 (30:17):
Cold Case Team investigators obtained a statement from Ken Soaper
on August seventeen, twenty twenty, where he provided the name
of an alibi. Although extensive inquiries were conducted to identify
the person, they could not be located.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
No, Ken did not provide the name of the person
supporting his alibi. He gave the name of a woman
he claimed to be drinking with at a hotel on
the night of Friday, October fourteenth, many hours after Gwen
had died. The name he gave was Snati Douglas. Police
could not find any person with that name, and they
simply didn't bother to pursue it. The police seemed to
(30:55):
be unaware that Ken Soaper's whereabouts when Gwen died have
never been questioned. We have posted the full statement from
the police at our website Shot in the Dark dot
com dot au.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
I don't really know where to begin there, but if
we start with Cansper's ex wife, as we now know,
she told the detectives many things about her life with
can when she was married to him that never came
out at the inquest and that were never mentioned. I
believe there were parts that were taken out of witness's
statements and twisted, if you like, for the want of
(31:31):
a better word, to suit their purposes. And if you
read the statements that were taken from people, their written statements,
and then you read the information that some of those
witnesses gave when they were on the stand at the inquest,
there were parts missing. There were different interpretations put on things.
But I think first and foremost the most concerning thing
(31:54):
is the amount of evidence that wasn't presented to the coroner,
or if it was presented to the core. He was
completely ignored. And one witness that I believe who should
have been given a starring role, if you want to
use that words, at the inquest is Craiglocke, the gentleman
who found Gwen in the car when he was such
(32:14):
a young man at the age of nineteen. But he
was given barely a couple of minutes at the inquest.
They brought him in via phone. They didn't ask him
to appear in person, and they couldn't get rid of
him fast enough. Pamela Soaper Ken Soper's second wife. I
know she's not Pamela Soper now, but that's how I'm
referring to her. She wasn't even brought in. As I
(32:36):
mentioned previously, there were large parts of her statement that
was left out.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Jerry Thornton, likewise, was at a loss to understand by
Pamela did not play a major role in the cold
case investigation and the inquest. Pamela sand that he was
violent and he could have got in her mouth once.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
She said that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
She didn't tell the cold case team that, but she
did say that they they was violent and none of
that appeared in the report. Now chances are she could
have said that she didn't want to give a statement.
But isn't that hard of that anyway? Is as you said,
that was normal procedure, as you say, to record it
and then provide that statement, or that we've got the
recording that could be a statement, or how does that work?
Speaker 5 (33:18):
I think if you're doing a comprehensive investigation, that should
have been recorded. Her refusal should have been recorded, whatever
she said should have been recorded and presented to the
court if she did say anything, Because it's not really
up to the police to decide. That's what Conna's are
full and Corona's can only make their decision on what
they're given. And if you're not giving him that were
they going to be limited?
Speaker 1 (33:42):
As for the certificate of blood analysis discovered by the
cold case team Sue is deeply suspicious. When Sue first
received documents held by the Queensland Police, there was no certificate.
It had been lost since nineteen eighty three, like the
notebooks of the police who did the original investigation. Then
(34:04):
miraculously it turned up just before the twenty twenty one
inquest thirty eight years later, showing that Gwen had a
blood alcohol reading of zero point one five eight, three
times the legal limit for driving, and the coroner relied
on this evidence to substantiate her finding that Gwen was
in an altered state, affected by alcohol so much that
(34:25):
it contributed to her suicide. We have examined the new
claim by Ken Soper that the rifle used to shoot
Gwen belonged not to him, but to his friend Glen Graham,
who emerged after nearly four decades to confirm this new
version to the Cold Case team. Here's what he said
(34:46):
in his statement.
Speaker 8 (34:47):
After this trip in October of nineteen eighty two, we
all went back to Kenneth's house and I left my
rifle there at Kenneth's place in his rear shed. I
can't remember the exact date, but I was at home
and Kenneth's came around. He asked me if I had
seen Gwen and told me that they had an argument
where she had then left in her car. Kenneth asked
(35:09):
me if I would keep an eye up for Gwen,
and I told him I would drive around to go
find her. I drove around to a few friends' houses,
don't remember their names, but no one had seen her.
The next day, I spoke with Kenneth again and he
was starting to really worry as she had not come home.
Later that same day, I was talking to a friend
(35:29):
and they told me that Gwen had been found and
she had shot herself. I was later told by Kenneth
that she had taken my point two to two from
the rear shed, and it was my gun that she
had used to shoot herself. I stayed friends with Kenneth
for a long time, and in nineteen ninety six I
(35:49):
left Cann's and moved to Townsville. I haven't spoken to
Kenneth since.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
This version of events actually contradicts the version that Ken,
Soaper and the pul these investigators presented to the coroner.
According to Glenn, Ken told him that he had argued
with Gwen and she had left. He was worried and
asked him to search for her. In fact, Ken gave
evidence that he and Gwen had split. He did not
expect her to come back. She was not missing, she
(36:18):
had taken the boys. Their relationship, according to him, was over.
Why would Ken be starting to really worry as she
had not come home when he knew she would not
be returning. That's the question Sue's lawyer might have put
to Glen Graham on the witness stand, but he was
never called to give evidence. Your recall we spoke to
(36:43):
Glen Graham about Gwen's death. The way he tells it,
Gwen was nicer to him than Ken was. He recalls
when he went on a trip with them once and
they had a little disagreement about whether Glenn could have
a beer or not.
Speaker 6 (36:56):
She added me, Glenna wanted them, Yeah, he can't have
any beer. They might be She's just might be it too.
And there he bought him along, so you can have
a beer.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
But ultimately Glenn believed the best of his friend. When
he heard of Gwen's death, what did he tell you?
Speaker 2 (37:14):
He said that they had a.
Speaker 6 (37:16):
Big balmi and she hopped in her car and took
off to beg back a few hours. Came out to
me next night. Every single Win said you won't see
her anymore. It's why she built ahead of my twenty two.
I felt like hurting. I was going to try her
(37:39):
as match as I could. I say that in a
bunt way that hurt him. Moving in the girls, I
only to please hear because they're trying to find out
the story why she disappeared. And if I knew about
(37:59):
her shooting herself, but yeah, she took my rible to
do it.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
You may remember Soper told the Inquest when he was
under oath that he and Gwen never fought. But according
to Glenn Graham, Ken and Gwen fought all the time.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
What did they fight about? Anything?
Speaker 6 (38:17):
And everything?
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Were they as firing as with Pamela as Pamela? And
was it good live wing for a little while before
and then what happened? Was he just two cent in
his ways or something? I think so she didn't keep
the house for meat enough that.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
He had a mad day. He come back, come back
and take out fight, so it could be you know
around he didn't slept her ear. They get full their
argument fights.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Pamela said he was violent.
Speaker 6 (38:49):
When never saw him being violent to anyone.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
So just yelling yeah, So why don't you get your
gun back?
Speaker 6 (38:57):
Because police had it? How do you know they can?
Just told me and they were I went over and
kicked away his going my gun wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Why didn't you go to get it from the cop shop.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
I didn't want them to know it was Michah. The
band makers charted me with Aiding and becking inventing him,
aid her, I would never let anyone shoot themselves with
my rights.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Now, you mentioned though, that she really loved her kids
and they were the number one that's why she was
leaving Kemp because he said they had an argument with
one of her sons.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
So why if she's putting her kids first, would she
shoot herself.
Speaker 6 (39:43):
I don't know that the time for them to fat
the argument and everything else. I never came into it.
But she had already had my rival in the car.
She was planning to do a long time.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
So you know that's what Ken told you. She was
badly the night before that she went.
Speaker 6 (40:04):
And got the rifle and she put it in Kending
notes she had rifle.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
You weren't there, though, You're just going on what Ken said. Okay,
so the whole thing of that happening.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Did you know that if they'd breake him up before
this happened. No, As you hear, Glenn changed some things
from his police statement when he spoke to us, claiming
his gun, which he said was stored in ken shed,
not his bedroom cupboard, was taken by Gwen and put
(40:38):
in the boot of her car, as she had planned
to shoot herself for some time, contradicting Ken's contradictory claims,
first that he had put the rifle in the boot
of Gwen's car, which was what he told her family
at the funeral, then that the rifle was taken in
the early morning before he woke up on the day
Gwen died. Glenn says he didn't seek the return of
(41:02):
his rifle as he was worried about being charged with
aiding and abetting a suicide, which checked as common sense
will tell you that was not a valid concern, And
he says he didn't know Ken and Gwen had broken
up when she left, which, if true, means Ken lied
to him. Most tellingly, Glenn confirms his gun was never
(41:24):
returned by police, and the sole source of his claim
that it was his gun was Ken Soper. In fact,
Glen Graham has no firsthand knowledge that his gun was
used in Gwen's death. It was just what Ken told him.
This means that Glenn's contradictory evidence cannot be relied on
to confirm the rifle that went missing was his, or
(41:46):
that he was even involved. The way he and Ken
suddenly remembered thirty eight years after the eventides actually haunt
you because you always look for an answer for the family.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
This was a savage attack, an ho rufic crime.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
That would not just be a little bit of blood,
that be a lot.
Speaker 4 (42:15):
That this wasn't random. I think this is somebody she knows.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Ron Iddles, dubbed Australia's best homicide detective and known as
the Good Cocknes Ron has his own streaming series Homicide
with Ron Iddles, You've Done Something. He also donates his
time and expertise to help members of the public trying
to solve cases the police can't or won't. He agrees
(42:42):
to help sue and here is his written opinion on
the death of Gwen Grover.
Speaker 9 (42:47):
Having read all the material, and I assume there is
only one statement I do not have, is that of
the ballistics expert. This was clearly deemed a suicide right
from the start, as can be seen from the notes
of Arthur Law who attended on fourteen Octive nineteen eighty three.
Kinbacker wrote down considered the angle of the shot, which
is very basic. No tests were carried out on her hands,
(43:07):
firearm measurements etc. I would have expected to have seen
a statement from a member of the cold case unit
as to what he did. In particular, what happened to
the firearm from the car. It should have been tested
to make sure it was the weapon which actually fired
the bullet. There should be an entry in a property
book or exhibit book somewhere than a date and signature
as to who it was returned to. Craiglock states the
(43:30):
rifle was between her legs, facing up vertical. If so,
then that does not explain the angle of the shot.
His description would mean she was shot under the chin.
The photographs attached to Kinbacker's statement make it more confusing.
Photo fourteen looks like her hand has been placed on
the barrel. To shoot herself, she would have had to
hold the barrel to her left temple and pull the trigger.
(43:51):
I would have expected her hand to be in a
different position and not holding the gun. There is no
blood apparent on the end of the barrel. Again, you
would think there should be. A biomechanics engineer should have
been consulted to give an expert opinion. Why is there
no apparent blood on the handbag? Again, looks like it's
been placed over the top of the blood. My expert
(44:11):
opinion is homicide cannot be ruled out.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
Ron makes the good point that Gwen's handbag appears in
the crime scene photograph to be free of blood, as
though placed on top of the blood. He is also
critical of ed Kinbacker and the other police who arrived
at the scene. Now, as promised, he is the rest
of my very candid conversation with ed Kinbacker from when
(44:39):
we caught up in Cans. Just a reminder, some of
the audio is not great.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
The gun went missing, as you're not and look at
the gun. Look the gun would have been returned. But
see the problem is we have no records. You don't
know what happened because the records and which called fred
At tied the records. The records don't.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
Exist, belong to Glen Graham and you said he never
saw it again, well who knows.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
But the records and guard to how that gun was
disposed of, and I've searched for them in preparation for
the coroner's hearing no longer exist. It's forty years ago.
Those records were disposed of entirely consistent by assume. It
may not be because stations had moved and that sort
of stuff. So they moved from that's the old station
and sufiskit lost in transit, so you can't say. So
(45:22):
we can't say what happened to the garden, but presumer,
but we had it and it was friends and soon
the bullet was friendly exam.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
We then moved back on to Ken Soper.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
But none of the.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Alibis check out, like because it's various alibis. One that
he was asleep, one that he was at the railway
hotel the next night with someone that.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
They you can't possibly be built this in forty years
later or by some miracle. We're just talking about the system.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
No, no, do you remember the do you know the
story about Laney Corwell. You know how they put it
down as an accident. Everyone said it was an accident.
This is in Charleible. This is the one that Jerry
Thornton solved. And he was told don't go near the
best you against a coronial.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
And then.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Yeah, but on what I'm saying is everyone said, don't
touch it. It was just an accident. And then which
had a conviction, Laney Cardwell in Charlieville. And then oh
that's the that's the guy who killed his wife. Yeah yeah, yeah,
he did langer on the head. But again they only
had photos and you know.
Speaker 2 (46:22):
It's not the same because hanging is actually quite probably No,
this wasn't hanging.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
This was the falling out of the tree. Wow, okay,
he said he should fell out of a tree, but
actually he banger on the head with a nine.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Yeah. Well, I said that's going to provide inconsistent PM injuries.
It's going to be inconsistent.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
But at the time police said it was definitely an accident.
It was only because he kept pushing it and got.
Speaker 2 (46:43):
Well, they didn't because the police officer had had the
wherewith the wall to keep going, so the police didn't
miss it. The police actually saulted it. But it was
on the basis of one individual being diligent.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
Yeah, and that's exactly why he was discouraged from his
bosses to keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
I had of you, but he didn't, but they're allowed
him to continue. Well, no, he did know he solved it,
and he solved it because the system and the organizations
are allowing to solve it. You know, people don't say
no if one if the bosses wanted to stop it,
that would have stoped.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
He got it funded by the insurance company. That was
the only way that he was.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
In some aspects maybe the expert evidence potentially, Well, they
paid for it. They paid for the investigation. Not they
wouldn't have paid for all the police investigation they did.
He did it in his own time. But look, but
he might agree.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Well, he came to the coronal inquest here, like he
is advised on this, and he's advised on here, so
he's part of the expert You've got Gary Dublin.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
As well, Gary Jubilin, for God's sake, Garry.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
Jubilan Bush, it's actually I catch killers. But okay, I'm
not interested.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
Because you'd need the difficulty is you need the facts
at the time. The cold case investigator rarely would, but
he had the cold case team. Look at this, the
cold case team who would have done being spectacular work.
Look at what they have solved. Look at what that
team has solved in the past seven or eight years
since they have got that team up and running. That's
(48:08):
brilliant work. They solved the Sphere Creek murder, which was
an error at the time, which should have been solved
at the time. They have solved numerous matters. These people
are not incompetent. So the cold case team, who have
been producing spectacular wholly professional results reviewed this. But now
they come to this same conclusion. The conclusion is safe.
(48:31):
The girl committed suicide. And as I will reiteriate, I'm
not the business of covering marks. What do I have
to cover the actions of a junior constable. I'm not
the business of saying And I have admitted in the
coroner's court that my work was deficient. It should have
been supervised more closely and those issues addressed. It wasn't.
And and what you also cannot reconstruct that what the
(48:55):
police actions were independent to me? You don't know. I
don't know. I didn't even know there were detective sloving around.
Speaker 1 (49:02):
The KA is making a decision based on the information there, right, so.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
From the cold case team, not from what I did.
But the cold case team also they interviewed many men,
they did, they interviewed panelic.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yet they left out all about the fact that she
said he was a violent man and that But.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Why would they do that because the police have some
bias to cover this up. It's a fantasy that.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
She's absolutely she said, I told the cold case team
that he was a violent man, and then she went
on to tell me that he would have gune in amount.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
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. It
is nonsensical.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
I was speaking to her for a couple of minutes
and she told me straight away, well, it.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
Is nonsensical the proposition that a cold case team would
you know, and they know that Kenzappers, you know, Sue
is putting the finger at him, and that any of
an information if someone's providing, if his potential violence, it's
whighly irrelevant. And to suggests the would leave it out
is ludicrous, is ludicrous because why protecting me, protecting the organization?
(50:11):
It is dumb. If it is a dumb proposition.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
If I could find out why, why didn't make it?
Well that's why you speakt to Tara Campboll, Yeah, yeah
I will. But I'm just I've said expect to the people.
This went on for some time, but this.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
One, this one, you're on the wrong end of the horse. Unfortunately.
That's the simple fact. I'm not saying that what reputation
do we have to pretend? Well, none, But because I
was a junior constable, the most junior person there, and
the last man stands to me. It doesn't reflect badly
on you. It does though it should because I was
both statements with efficient end of story. But but you
were junior. There should have been somebody else higher up
(50:47):
doing this job. You know, of course he woulds and
if there from him, but you don't know. You don't
know because the records what they did or didn't do.
I don't know. I wasn't privy to and you don't know,
and nor was it possible to reconstructles. Those people are dead,
so you can't. I get that.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
I get that, but the same that the Dawson case
is forty years old too, and they've got a conviction
out of that.
Speaker 2 (51:11):
Yeah, so you know, like it can happen, right, But
that was always enormous cloud over her. The police would
have always suspected him.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
The point is maybe there should have been an enormous
cloud over this one too. Towards the end of the interview,
I offered to lead this recording off the podcast.
Speaker 2 (51:27):
Because you know you're you're upset, and no, I'm not upset.
I have a very strong opinion. Yeah, yeah, that's I
have a very opinion. I'm quite happy for you to
use it because I'm telling you you're running a dead horse.
It's like me, do you have any for me to
have music? Yeah, it's up to you. I don't care
because you're wrong and well and I want you to
(51:48):
play you're wrong. Yeah you do. That's you're wrong. Yeah,
And that's in the basis of forty years investigation experience
of major crime to say, is there a problem and
it isn't about me protecting the reputation of a one
year old constable, the most senior person in the team.
To convict someone of a murder is not a simple thing.
(52:10):
You have to have a very strong case. And no,
it's not ideal because it's difficult process. Families are grieving,
you know, they're grieving, they're upset, they're going to take
offense at a whole potential range of things. When police
are just going about their business and what has to occur.
You can't please all the people all the time despite
(52:31):
your best efforts. Yeah, I get that. It is that simple.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
But I do think that the system is you know,
there should be maybe a victims of Crime team or
something that deal with.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
The families because the families.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
I've got so many families now that have just all
come to me, and just like we will treated badly,
we will treat it badly. No, everyone makes us out
like we're crazy, and I think if they had somebody
just listening to them, you know, that's for the realities.
Speaker 2 (52:54):
Some are crazy. The simple fact is some are. Yeah,
you're trying to keep you is entirely rational. Will hold
rational views. Some people are fixated. Some people believe the
earth is flat despite all evidence. I've dealt with a
lot of their flat earthers out of it, like you.
I've dealt with a lot of nutters in this world.
They're not nutters, no, But people do get unhealthy fixations.
(53:16):
They do get unhealthy fixations you, and that can be
done without a mental health problem. It is just they
find meaning in obtaining and following a particular belief that
they have now, regardless of what everyone tells them. People
will believe the earth is flat. People believe literally the
(53:36):
Bible is true, and they will go to their grave
saying that. So the fact that someone holds an opinion
does not make that the Holy Grail, and it doesn't
make it independently truth. It is merely personal opinion of
one individual that may be irrational or may irrational, and
unfortunately Zeus has borderline into it in a ration position
(54:01):
that is now a mission that she is retired and
she's now I've got a passion to bring justice to
something where there is no just cause. It is that civil,
It is that simple. Yeah, I get it.
Speaker 1 (54:17):
I mean just on the outside looking in, though, I mean,
kens is a I mean, I know it's bigger now,
but back then it wasn't that big. Right eighty three
a very tight community. Everyone knows everybody, you know, and.
Speaker 2 (54:28):
And that can't be ignored. So if any member of
an associate of the victim of this had concerns, they
would have spoken. Nothing happens in this town without everyone knowing,
and particularly in regard to homicides, you cross the line.
People don't stay stilled. They talk to the cops and say, look,
(54:50):
there are concerns about this. Where was it? That happens
every day of the week. It is a murder is
a different thing.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
I guess with Ken Sober though, I mean, he was
treated quite you know, like the fact that he was
never a suspect and things like that.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
It's just kind of like we just because there has
to be a reason for to be a suspect suddenly
become a suspect because you stuck to them day or
that you're a the spouse usually does, or they're de
facto or no. No, I mean it depends entirely on
the circumstances.
Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah, 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 window, I would have thought
everyone just needed.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
To be in a look in the benefit of hindsight,
and everyone is experts and one hundred percent clarity with
the benefit of high sea everyone has that. And frankly,
anyone looking at this, Okay, there should have been more,
possibly not in the eyes crossing the tease, had attention
to them, because my error should never stoop through that system.
In that statement, end of storm. But as I say,
(55:54):
is the end conclusion wrong that she committed suicide. No,
it is merely a procedural processes that failed. What it
was was a failure of appropriate supervision. That's what it is.
And there's no more than that. So and and people
can see that, no one, No one can see No
(56:14):
one says this is a glowing example of it of
it of a template investigation, it wasn't. But because we
can't reconstruct what actually was done independent of me, and
clearly the fact that I didn't even know the tectors
were personal. I don't even where he saw that in
a witness save enough the Cold Case had revealed that.
(56:36):
So it was stuff happening in depend on what I
have knowledge of it. So what they did and what
conquiries they made to form a conclusion that this was
a safe finding, I don't know. You don't know those people.
Are there the records that relate to what they did?
No longer I get that.
Speaker 1 (56:54):
I just I guess for that reason, I just don't
know why the current I didn't say it was open.
Speaker 2 (56:58):
And I know what you're saying.
Speaker 10 (57:00):
You know, because the Cold Case team has conducted an
independent movie and that's and you've had forensic people I'm
sure in that cold case look at the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (57:11):
And form the same conclusion. The conclusion is not the
Cold Case team is not here to protect Kimbaker. It
isn't here to protect the reputation of police or the
organization of forty years ago. No one will say it
was temp plain perfect ever, But is the.
Speaker 1 (57:26):
Conclusion wrong well, we'll say you had three barristers or
something at the time as well, like you had the
you know, there was the union, Yeah, the union.
Speaker 2 (57:34):
Yet there was a un which represents yeah, I know
ian Yeah. And then you've got the organization. Yeah, you know,
because the organization is there to protect this reputation. Yeah,
and that no, well it's not it's it's there to
protect this reputation when things are being pointed at it
that are rock. The organization is a learning organization that
(57:57):
is happy to admit forty years ago, Hey, perfect becau.
How does that effect now? It doesn't affect now. Don't
look at your process. Look said, there's no, there's no
point in the organization. And look at the police services
are constantly going back themselves and reviewing these matters with
a view to seeing what can be done. Were errors,
(58:18):
so they're self reflecting. That isn't a problem. Look at
the dB inquiry though, You've got to put it in
the context of the job. Yeah, you go do that job. No,
go do a DV job every day of the week
and do it and see how you put on their hat,
walking their shoes. They don't. It's not the police themselves.
They don't have enough resources, you know, like it's just
(58:43):
so you wait until this new legislation comes in in
regard to or as of behavior. Yeah, yeah, a loss
of control. Yeah, when you when you are criminalizing and
making subject criminal complain human interaction, given interaction, it's going
to be a knight man unknown, it's going to be
(59:05):
an absolute night man. Yeah. But yeah, when when when
police people can walk in the shoes, the people doing
this day and day out, those uniform girls are doing it,
and the aggressive nature of it and the tough nature
of it, and then all that falls out of those
things and at the risk, yeah, at the risk you
go do it. But oh there you go, and then
(59:26):
point fingers at them. I guess you goes. They're very
easy for every organization is looking for a scapegoat to
point the scapegoat finger at the cops because they're an
easy target.
Speaker 1 (59:34):
That's not our experience. There are no easy targets. There
is only the truth and the will to seek it out.
Retired Detective Senior Sergeant Ed Kinbacker again tells us that
it is ludicrous to suggest Ken Soper could have killed Gwen.
(59:59):
You might re call in episode two and in episode seven,
Kinbacker told us that if when was a victim of
foul play, one would have to come up with a
credible theory. Given the lack of evidence, that's not difficult.
For instance, Kinbacker said there was a lot of blood
in the car when Gwen was found, but neither Locke's
evidence nor the crime scene photos support this, and he
(01:00:23):
said the car was littered with bottles and cans, as
well as cigarette butts and a mountain of ash, but
the photos show only two bottles upturned in the center console.
There was none at all in view in a wider
shot showing the entire driver's side of the car. It's
worth noting the brief of evidence provided to Sue Cole
(01:00:44):
doesn't include the actual photos, just black and white photocopies.
She's applied for the actual photos under right to information
laws but was denied by QPS. As Jerry Thornton said,
if police have nothing to why is Gwen's next of
kin being denied key evidence like this. The matter is
(01:01:07):
currently before the Queensland Information Commissioner. In short, the theory
of murder could have been ruled out if it was
ever tested. If the rifle was examined for ballistics, or fingerprints,
or the beer cans, or even the interior of the car.
(01:01:27):
Gwen's body was cremated within days, Well before her a
strange partner was interviewed, destroying the most valuable criminal evidence
from the scene. The possibility of someone else's involvement was
never entertained by police or the coroner in nineteen eighty three,
twenty twenty twenty one, or even now. On that basis alone,
(01:01:51):
Gwen's death cannot be written off as suicide. What's more,
Ken Sober is clearly an unreliable witness, yet his contradictory
accounts weren't even scrutinized. You would have thought at the
inquest authorities would have at least been skeptical, but they weren't. Instead,
(01:02:12):
they were apologetic for the inconvenience of having to make
him answer questions about the death of his ex partner
almost forty years later, and seemingly annoyed that Gwen's family
just can't let it go.
Speaker 3 (01:02:26):
I've never believed that Gwen committed suicide, and I believe
he killed her. There's a number of reasons. First and
foremost the way that he kept changing his story, and
this is not just my opinion, if you look at
the statements that he's given over the years, and you
read the transcripts from the inquest, he'll see this at
least six different versions of the events leading up to
(01:02:47):
Gwen's death and help his whereabouts and the events after
Gwen's death. And in addition to that, he was a
self confessed gunfrik who prided himself on having many many weapons.
And now, of course, as we know, his second wife,
the lady that he was married to before Gwen, went
through similar circumstances as what I believe Gwen was going
(01:03:11):
through with him leading up to her death.
Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
Next week, an eyewitness comes forward with new information that
undermines the whole basis of evidence relied upon in the inquest.
Speaker 11 (01:03:24):
As we made our way past the hockey fields, heading
in the direction of town, we spotted a small green
car parked on the side of the road facing towards
the airport. Even though it was almost forty years ago,
I clearly remember passing the car and seeing a woman
sitting in the driver's seat.
Speaker 1 (01:03:40):
In our final episode, we lay out the new evidence
and the overwhelming case for a new coronial inquiry. Are
you able to tell was was he?
Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
A violent man. Oh, he was incredibly violent. He was
a horrible, horrible man. You know, this is something that
I don't.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
Talk about to anybody.
Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
He was found guilty of indecent.
Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
Dealing with.
Speaker 1 (01:04:13):
And reveal powerful new allies in sues fight for justice.
Speaker 12 (01:04:19):
It's a story that needs to be told and increasingly
with hearing from Queenslanders who want to know that they
get justice for loved ones. And I don't think that's
too much to ask.
Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
And from beyond the grave, a haunting tribute to Gwen.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
Gwen was a beautiful person and as her younger sister,
she was the big sister that every little girl t himself.
I'm sorry, what the stuff for a minute?
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
Sorry?
Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
Sorry, Someone somewhere may know more about this case. Perhaps
(01:05:36):
one of our listeners may help find the information that
reveals the truth behind the death of Gwen Grover. If
you know something or have a suggestion, please email us
at Shot in the Dark at seven dot com dot
Au or leave us an anonymous tip at shot Inthdark
(01:05:56):
dot com dot au. If this podcast has raised issues
for you, please call Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen or
visit them at www dot lifeline dot org dot au.
This podcast is brought to you by me presenter and
(01:06:18):
journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing, please
rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners find
us special thanks to my writer, producer Brian Seymour, Gwen's
sister and tireless campaigner for justice Sue Cole, sound designer
(01:06:40):
Mark Wright, graphics Jason Blamford. Before Our theme music is
by Bob Kronk the First and there is a link
to his music on Spotify in the show notes.
Speaker 6 (01:06:55):
When Away.
Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Alone, The Pains
Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Annual Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Why can't we find out what happened? Why won't anyone
help us?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
It was not suicide, There was someone else involved.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Shot in the Dark Episode nine. There is something rotten
in this country. Too often, women who are murdered are
dismissed as emotionally damaged, selfish and weak, declared suicidal without
(01:14):
the concrete proof of the manner in which they died.
Many having endured coercive control in toxic relationships, killed in
such a way as to suggest they died accidentally or
took their own lives. A common link in these deaths
(01:35):
is domestic violence. As evidenced in this podcast, These deaths
are determined as suicide even before any real investigation occurs.
Deaths resulting from falls from balconies and cliffs are all
too often written off as accidents or suicides, other scenes
(01:55):
as staged to look like suicides. The first twenty four
hours is essential in the investigation of these cases, which
is why police procedures worn against making assumptions, especially suicide,
so as to gather the crucial evidence pointing to the truth.
(02:17):
We've identified more than a dozen cases, and in every example,
the families have been left to do the investigation. In
one case, two women who were married to the same
man died in suspicious circumstances, yet were written off as accidents.
One fell into a waterfall and the other fell off
(02:38):
a yacht. Former homicide detective Gary Jublin's mantra throughout his
career has been treated as suspicious until it's proven otherwise,
especially as coroners rely heavily on and give much weight
to the police investigation and theory in these cases. To
(03:02):
give you an idea of how prevalent hidden homicides are,
here are just a few suspicious deaths, many of which
were ruled suicides or accidents where the family had to
fight for justice. Some are still fighting. Beginning in nineteen
eighty three with Gwen Grover, whom we believe was likely
(03:22):
murdered in Cans. Nineteen eighty four, Ellen Marie Goden also
in Cans. Twenty twelve, Carmel Brooks again in Cans, both
wives of killer Jerry Goden nineteen ninety one, Vicky Arnold
and Julianne Leigh also in North Queensland not far from
(03:46):
Cans at Athendon nineteen ninety six, Jeffrey Brooks in Southeast
Queensland two thousand and eight, Nicholas Salisse in Tasmania two
thousand and nine, Nadine Haig in Sydney two thousand and nine,
Flamey Corwell in Charleville twenty ten, Phoebe Hans Juck in
(04:11):
Melbourne twenty twelve, Bruce Schuler North Queensland also twenty twelve,
Sandrine Jordan and twenty thirteen Brianna Robinson, both in Southeast
Queensland twenty fourteen, Amy Wensley and Western Australia twenty fourteen,
(04:33):
Kurra Lee McLaughlin in Southeast Queensland twenty seventeen, Jade and
Penno Tomsett in Cans twenty eighteen, Seth Lurs also in
Cans twenty nineteen, Samuel Palm again in North Queensland. All
(04:55):
these cases treated as open and shut, five in Cans,
another eight in the State of Queensland. But they're just
the ones made public. There would be so many more.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
Yes, it's Howard Brown. I'm the victim's advocate and I
give full permission for this interview to be recorded.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Howard Brown is a former vice president of the Victim
of Crime's Assistance League. He helped found the league after
experiencing the traumatic death of a friend in nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
For most of us, it's a passion because we can't
undo the harm that's been done to us, but if
we can make that journey just a little bit easier
for the next new victims coming along. We said it
as being our responsibility because governments traditionally are really poor
(05:53):
at doing this.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
There's another issue that seems to have come to the
fore is a lot of TV deaths or murders or
homicides by partners are passed off for suicides. Is this
something that you have come across much in your I
guess career as a victim advocate.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Unfortunately, I have and my own view on this, and
this is Australia wide, so it's not something that is
particular to an individual state. This is a national disgrace,
to be perfectly frank with you, because the majority of
coronial inquiry is conducted in this country are done on
(06:34):
the presentation of evidence presented by police, and police normally
get to dictate exactly what evidence is put to a
coroner's court that is then interpreted the way the police
conveniently see the matter has developed, and so where suicide
(06:55):
is an option, police will take that easy option because
it then means that you're in, you're out, the file
has gone, and the matter is done with. And it
creates two problems. Firstly, it's disingenuous obviously for the victims
and for the victims' families. But secondly, we need to
(07:17):
develop a strategy to reduce DV deaths. And so unless
we expose every DV death and show the shortcomings of
the system and how the system has failed that particular victim,
we're never going to change the process. And if we
don't change the process, we're not going to reduce the
(07:39):
number of killings.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So how do you deal with this because there just
seems to be an unwillingness to change that. And obviously,
once a determination is made, it's hard to get the
police to change their mind. Is that your experience, Well.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Yes, it is, because unfortunately it's the nature of our
legal system. Regrettably, because especially in the criminal sphere. The
big problem that we have is that if police don't
do their job properly and you don't get the type
of outcome that you want when you seek to have
that system changed. The problem is the police see that
(08:15):
as being overly critical of them. And what they need
to understand is we're all human and so yes, we
do make mistakes. So let's just put our hand up
and say, hey, we made a mistake. Let's make sure
we don't make the same mistake again. But unfortunately, generally
speaking throughout Australia well as the world wide problem, really
(08:36):
police do not appreciate criticism, even when we're trying to
do it on a constructive.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Basis to improve the system.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, and then of course, on top of that, and
I've got to be honest, it's only a very small percentage,
but you do have a situation where there is an
element of corruption, and so you'll have a situation then
where it course of corruption. Police are never going to
accept that because they don't want to think one of
(09:05):
their own is a bad egg. And the problem is
there is corruption everywhere. So it's not just in police,
I mean it is everywhere. We even see it in
multinational companies. It is a fact of life. But when
you hold the responsibility for the safety and welfare of people,
then you've got to confront that upfront. And the introduction
(09:28):
of crime commissions and the various other agencies which are
supposed to oversee police, their response is in my view,
completely inadequate.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I guess the big issue, particularly with cold cases is
if the investigation wasn't done properly at the beginning, it's
hard to prove anything other than what the police determined anyway.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Well, I mean, using New South Wales as an example.
I'm not sure what the figures are in Queensland, but
in New South Wales we have five hundred unsolved homicides
five hundred.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And they're actually determined as homicides. They're actually called homicides.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
They're actually called homicides.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Imagine how many there would be that aren't caught homicides.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yeah, where we know that they are, but where coroners
have made a finding, say for example, of suicide. And
the problem is in using Sue Cole's case as an example.
My view is legally speaking, because of the paucity of detail,
the coroner was never in a position to hand down
a decision. It should have always been an open finding,
(10:34):
even on the balance of probabilities, which unfortunately is the
legal requirement in coronial inquiries. We don't have to prove
beyond reasonable doubt. It's on the balance of probabilities. But
even on the balance of probabilities, there was not sufficient
evidence to deliver or finding because there were too many unknowns.
And so when you have those unknowns, you can't make
(10:57):
a determination, so you must always hand down an opening finding.
And what was worse in suits case was that there
was evidence obviously that someone had not kept that firearm
to the provisions of the Firearms Act, and it should
have fallen to the coroner to have made recommendations that
(11:17):
they'd be charges laid for failing to secure a firearm,
for a start, and that never happened. And I see
this time and time again where recommendations should be made,
but they don't make them, and then they come back
with a finding which is not supported even on that
low requirement on the balance of probabilities. They come back
(11:40):
with a finding which is not supported in any way
by evidence.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Why not?
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Why is this such an issue these days? With all
government agencies, we have all these key targets and key
indicators and are we meeting those And so if we
finish up with coronial hearings with too many open verdicts,
then they're not meeting their key indicators. And so there
(12:06):
is an unwritten requirement to come back with some sort
of finding, whether it's satisfactory or not. And because each
individual case, the families who are affected are generally unknowledgeable
of how the system works, they just accept that decision
of the coroner even though they're not happy with it,
(12:28):
because they don't see a pathway to have that initial
decision overturned.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
How hard is it to get a decision overturned?
Speaker 4 (12:37):
It is extremely difficult and generally very expensive because under
normal circumstances, unless you can achieve ministerial intervention, so intervention
from either a police minister or an Attorney general, you
then have to pursue that yourself through the Supreme Court.
And so it's going to cross one hundred thousand dollars
(12:59):
and the average person just doesn't have access to that
type of money. And you know, the funny thing. One
of the things for me, in my thirty five years
as an advocate for victims of crime, I have been
paid for nine of those thirty five years. The rest
of the time I have done what I do pro boner.
(13:20):
There are very few idiots around like me who are
willing to take these things on on a pro boner basis,
because you have.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
To live how it has looked at Gwen's case and
has strong opinions about how it has been handled and
what should happen now. So I guess in the situation
with Sir, the most we can do is overturn that
position and get an open finding. It it would appear
in less more concrete evidence arrives that it would be
impossible to get a finding that it was homicide. And
(13:53):
the fact is, and as I look at the evidence,
Ken Soper, the prime suspect, was never considered a suspect
and he's now dead.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
The family deserve even if they cannot get justice for her,
they can at least get a decision which shows that
it was not suicide, even if it's by inference. So
if you come back with an open finding, it's no
longer suicide. And that is really important because we're talking
(14:23):
about we're talking about people's loved ones, families who lose
people under these most abusive circumstances deserve that same level
of respect, and unfortunately, our legal system it just denies
people of that. If we are going to allege that
we live in a civilized society, we should be treating
(14:47):
victims of crime in a civilized manner, and our legal
system does not do.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
That unless we do get political intervention. It is tough.
I mean, there might be someone who knows more information.
We definitely can determine that that. You know, they can't
say it with suicide, you know, I mean, it's convenient
for them to do that, and they keep saying, you
can't fake that scene. It's consistent with the evidence, with
the way that she was positioned and everything, but there's
(15:12):
so many anomalies, right, But.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
It is consistent with suicide, But it is equally consistent
with someone having shot Gwen and in staging the entire
scene to make it look like a suicide. And the
differences are negligible when you then look at what evidence
was presented at first instance and the sloppiness. As I said,
(15:35):
we're not even sure that the weapon that was provided
to the court is the actual weapon because for whatever reason,
the cops lost track of it. I mean, how the
hell does that happen.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
There's a lot of that question for so much of
this and.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You know you would know from speaking with Gary Jubilan, right,
And I have the utmost respect for Gary. You know,
I've known Gary for way too long.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
But Gary will.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
Tell you now, as a season's investigator, he will talk
to you about the golden ours, and that is that
preservation of the crime scene, the collation of all the
evidence that is present at the crime scene at the
time and then preserving that. And if you don't start
from that base, it's like trying to build a thirty
(16:23):
five story building with a single foundation. The whole thing
is going to topple down. And that's exactly what's happened
in this case.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
But we're not all equal, Ali Howard, I mean you
see this with victims.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Well, no, no, we're not. And this is one of
the difficulties in Sue's case, for example, that there is
nothing in the chain of evidence which, as you pointed
rightly pointed out, indicated that Sopa was at any stage
even considered to be a suspect and his association with
(16:57):
her should have.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Immediately run alarm.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
Bells and had he been identified, well then other things
would have flown from it. So in other words, like
interviewing his first wife right and then finding out, yeah,
he said, I can easily do this. I just put
a gun in your mouth, pull the trigger and make
it look like suicide. And that's where all these things
go wrong, is that when you get slopping investigation, you
(17:23):
don't get a clear picture. And without a clear picture,
a coroner can't make a decision or a judge or
a jury. And where it becomes more difficult is when
you're talking about a criminal trial, where you do have
to prove beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, say the coroner
had come to the view that Gwen had been murdered.
The way that investigation was conducted, even if Soper was
(17:45):
still alive today, there is no way in the world
we would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
he did that because they just did not collect enough
evidence at the time because they were swapping.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
With that in mind, we're now going to review what
has happened and what action needs to be taken to
help fix a broken system. First, we can list the
failings of the nineteen eighty three police investigation into Gwngrover's death.
After being notified by a member of the public that
(18:22):
a body has been found. Police chose not to speak
to the person who found the body. Records show police
first on scene appeared to immediately assume suicide and ignored
the Queensland Police Manual regulations on how to process the scene.
No crime scene was established and cordoned off. Only a
(18:46):
handful of photographs were taken. The body was removed less
than three hours after police arrived, indicating little or no
investigation was carried out. No attempt was made to locate
and interview the person who last saw Gwen alive. Police
allowed Gwen's body to be cremated three days after her death.
(19:10):
Fourteen days after she was cremated, police finally interviewed Ken Soper,
Gwen's recently a strange partner, seventeen days after her body
was discovered. The police interview with Ken Soper is missing
an entire page, leaving only one and a half pages
in evidence, with no explanation for the missing page. Ken
(19:32):
claims his sign interview was conducted by a female police officer,
yet it was signed by Constable ed Kinbacker. The female
cop has never been identified. The discrepancy has not been explained.
Ken claims he was interviewed by two plain clothes police
two days after Gwen died when he identified the rifle,
(19:54):
but no record of that conversation exists. The rifle used
Shuk Gwen was lost. It simply vanished and was never
tested by police. Items in the car, such as the
empty beer cans, were not tested for fingerprints. The notebooks
of the attending police, which must be stored and available
(20:16):
by law, were lost. The blood toxicology report indicating Gwen
had a blood alcohol level three times the legal driving limit,
was lost for thirty eight years.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
The original investigation back in nineteen eighty three was from
what I've seen, practically nonexistent, and as you would have seen,
from the time that the junior constable arrived on the
scene and the photographs were taken, it was determined to
be a suicide. In fact, the police officer who took
the photographs actually wrote suicide on the back of one
(20:53):
of them, so I think that that set the path
from there on in. Once suicide had been decided upon
by the police, there was really no other avenues looked at.
Despite all of the inconsistencies that occurred, not only in
the scene but in the events leading up to Gwen's
death and the people that were involved in her life
(21:13):
leading up to her death. So because there was no
investigation taken, there were no forensics done, there was no
test done for gunpowder residue, there was absolutely nothing. And
then with her being cremated, she died on the Friday
and was cremated on the Tuesday, it was virtually impossible
to try and make an educated opinion or an educated
(21:38):
judgment on what had actually happened and the circumstances of
her death back in nineteen eighty three. And then Gwen
was cremated, which just compounded our families shock and disbelief.
No one in our family had ever been cremated before,
and my mother was completely distraught because that was something
that did not align with her religions beliefs. So we
(22:01):
were trying to deal with not only the fact that
first of all Gwen was gone, but secondly that it
was getting viewed as a suicide. And then on top
of this, her body had been cremated very quickly, so
there was no way that we could try and look
any further into the circumstances of her death. At the time, them.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Wasn't even told that she was being made was it.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
No, We didn't hear that until my brother and father
contacted Cans and asked could her body be brought back
to New South Wales for her to be buried, and
that was when we were told that she'd been cremated.
And following this, my father also rang the Cans police
station and asked if there'd been an investigation into Gwen's
(22:48):
death and asked for some more information about the circumstances
surrounding it, and he was told that there was no
investigation necessary and in any case, it was too late
because her body or the evidence had been disposed of,
meaning that she'd been cremated. Some of the things that
were overlooked or not taken into consideration when Gwen was
(23:11):
found is that firstly, there was no door knock done
of the area. There was no from what I've seen
in the reports, and I can only go on the
information that's in these reports that I received under the
Freedom of Information Act. But from the reports that I've
received and from what I've read, the person who found
Gwen was never interviewed on the day. There was no
(23:34):
investigation or no door knock done of the area to
see if anyone had heard or seen anything. But as
we've since found out, the person who found Gwen on
the day actually found her in a completely different position
within the car to what she was photographed in in
the police photographs. Secondly, we can't tell from those photographs
(23:58):
what type of gun she's like ying across on the
front seat, so we to this day still do not
know what type of gun that is. And as you know,
there's been several different versions and statements given by her
ex partner, who at one stage had said that the
gun belonged to him and at a later stage said
(24:19):
it belonged to a friend of his.
Speaker 5 (24:21):
There was no investigation initially.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Former police detective Jerry Thornton is scathing of the initial
police investigation into Gwen's death. He says the fact that
it was forty years ago does not excuse officers simply
ignoring their own basic procedures at the time.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
It's the worst job I've ever seen. And then just
to cap it off, they seem to have the ability
to rub a bit of salt in at the end
when the Kenes Post or whatever it was coming out
and said the floor was littered with alcohol, kens and
b kens and cigarette butts, and it never was that
was wrong. There was never any evidence to say that
except what was in the original investigating officer's head. The
(25:00):
positioning of the gun is probably the big one for me,
Like it's only a small car, a gallant, and yet
she's allegedly holding the gun here and holding the gun
like that with a finger on the trigger, but the
gun somehow manages to go across the lap with the
steering wheel just there and down, not far off the door,
and a hend still tightly gripped around the barrel. I
(25:21):
would have thought with the gun shot shattering a brain,
as they said in the PM, that you lose all
muscle control, I would have thought the hen would have released.
But it seemed to be really gripped tightly around the
barrel still, so I would have thought that was worth exploring.
And the positioning of her feat was odd. And firstly
the positioning of the car for someone to commit suicide,
I thought it was really odd, like in a street,
(25:42):
seemed a bit odd near sporting fields. And I know
they're saying that they think it happened about midday. I
don't believe that that's something you should have been determined
at the time, but the first to fine wasn't spoken to,
so they've really lost that because he can't remember times
thirty eight years later. But I don't know how they
picked that time. He's supposed to work out time date place. Well,
(26:02):
we got the date. Apparently we've got the place. But
I just find that really odd that a female is
going to drive into a street like that and shot
herself in the.
Speaker 6 (26:12):
Head for at that time of day.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Yeah, well, that's the part I don't believe. And I
thought somewhere I read where it took them a long
time to extract her from the car.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Next, we can examine the failure to investigate Ken Soper.
Despite the fact when left Ken Soper days before her death,
he was not interviewed by police until more than two
weeks had passed. He was never treated as a suspect.
Despite admitting that the rifle used to shoot when was his,
(26:48):
no alibi was given or examined by police. Police failed
to check Ken SOPA's criminal conviction for child sex abuse,
or if they did, they ignored it. Police failed to
confirm the maker model of the rifle Ken claimed he
owned and was taken from his home Ken Soaper arranged
(27:09):
for Gwen to be cremated and paid for it just
three days after she died, destroying all the physical evidence.
Now to the failings of the twenty twenty investigation by
the Cold Case Team of the Queenside Police. Senior members
(27:29):
of the Cold Case Team, when first notified in twenty
nineteen of the decision to hold an inquest into Gwen
Grover's death, indicated in emails that it was a waste
of their time. The Cold Case Team, in their correspondence
appeared to treat Gwen's suicide as a foregone conclusion, despite
(27:50):
speaking with Ken Soaper's ex wife, Pamela. The Cold Case
Team did not include in their report any evidence of
Ken's alleged violent behavior towards her. The Cold Case Team
failed to report to the coroner ken Soaper's convictions for
child sex abuse. The Cold Case Team accepted ken Soaper's
(28:11):
contradictory new claim that the gun used in Gwen's death
was not his but belonged to a friend named Glenn Graham.
The Cold Case Team did not determine a time of
death and therefore could not verify Ken Soaper's alibi, yet
they ruled him above suspicion. The reconstruction used to demonstrate
(28:32):
that Gwen could have killed herself was completely flawed because
the make and model of the rifle was not known,
nor was Gwen's armspan, and no effort was made to
recreate her state of inebriation. The Queensland Police, in their
statement to us praise the record of the Cold Case
(28:52):
Team in working with families to solve historical cases. They
failed to answer our question about how many suspected sites
a team had investigated and changed to homicides.
Speaker 7 (29:04):
The Cold Case Investigation team investigation into the death of
Gwen Grover, at the direction of the State Coroner, was
undertaken professionally and in an impartial and objective manner. The
Cold Case Team's corresponsibility is to proficiently review cold cases
and investigations referred by the State Coroner. A considerable period
of time was allocated to this investigation, with extensive inquiries conducted.
(29:26):
A total of fifty three people were identified by the
Cold Case Team during the review. Seventeen of these people
were identified as deceased, and a further sixteen statements were
taken from twelve witnesses. A comprehensive forensic review was completed
and a thorough report to the coroner was submitted by
Cold case team.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
As for why the cold case team didn't tell the
coroner about ken Soaper's criminal history.
Speaker 7 (29:50):
The cold case team did conduct a criminal history check
on ken Soaper. No criminal histories of any witness were
provided to the state coroner. The details of ken Soap's
nineteen eighty one criminal history had been available to investigators
at the time of Gwen Grover's death in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Again, we are not told why ken Soaper's criminality was
kept from the coroner, just that it was. Similarly, when
we asked why investigators did not establish an alibi for
Ken Soaper.
Speaker 7 (30:17):
Cold Case Team investigators obtained a statement from Ken Soaper
on August seventeen, twenty twenty, where he provided the name
of an alibi. Although extensive inquiries were conducted to identify
the person, they could not be located.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
No, Ken did not provide the name of the person
supporting his alibi. He gave the name of a woman
he claimed to be drinking with at a hotel on
the night of Friday, October fourteenth, many hours after Gwen
had died. The name he gave was Snati Douglas. Police
could not find any person with that name, and they
simply didn't bother to pursue it. The police seemed to
(30:55):
be unaware that Ken Soaper's whereabouts when Gwen died have
never been questioned. We have posted the full statement from
the police at our website Shot in the Dark dot
com dot au.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
I don't really know where to begin there, but if
we start with Cansper's ex wife, as we now know,
she told the detectives many things about her life with
can when she was married to him that never came
out at the inquest and that were never mentioned. I
believe there were parts that were taken out of witness's
statements and twisted, if you like, for the want of
(31:31):
a better word, to suit their purposes. And if you
read the statements that were taken from people, their written statements,
and then you read the information that some of those
witnesses gave when they were on the stand at the inquest,
there were parts missing. There were different interpretations put on things.
But I think first and foremost the most concerning thing
(31:54):
is the amount of evidence that wasn't presented to the coroner,
or if it was presented to the core. He was
completely ignored. And one witness that I believe who should
have been given a starring role, if you want to
use that words, at the inquest is Craiglocke, the gentleman
who found Gwen in the car when he was such
(32:14):
a young man at the age of nineteen. But he
was given barely a couple of minutes at the inquest.
They brought him in via phone. They didn't ask him
to appear in person, and they couldn't get rid of
him fast enough. Pamela Soaper Ken Soper's second wife. I
know she's not Pamela Soper now, but that's how I'm
referring to her. She wasn't even brought in. As I
(32:36):
mentioned previously, there were large parts of her statement that
was left out.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Jerry Thornton, likewise, was at a loss to understand by
Pamela did not play a major role in the cold
case investigation and the inquest. Pamela sand that he was
violent and he could have got in her mouth once.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
She said that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
She didn't tell the cold case team that, but she
did say that they they was violent and none of
that appeared in the report. Now chances are she could
have said that she didn't want to give a statement.
But isn't that hard of that anyway? Is as you said,
that was normal procedure, as you say, to record it
and then provide that statement, or that we've got the
recording that could be a statement, or how does that work?
Speaker 5 (33:18):
I think if you're doing a comprehensive investigation, that should
have been recorded. Her refusal should have been recorded, whatever
she said should have been recorded and presented to the
court if she did say anything, Because it's not really
up to the police to decide. That's what Conna's are
full and Corona's can only make their decision on what
they're given. And if you're not giving him that were
they going to be limited?
Speaker 1 (33:42):
As for the certificate of blood analysis discovered by the
cold case team Sue is deeply suspicious. When Sue first
received documents held by the Queensland Police, there was no certificate.
It had been lost since nineteen eighty three, like the
notebooks of the police who did the original investigation. Then
(34:04):
miraculously it turned up just before the twenty twenty one
inquest thirty eight years later, showing that Gwen had a
blood alcohol reading of zero point one five eight, three
times the legal limit for driving, and the coroner relied
on this evidence to substantiate her finding that Gwen was
in an altered state, affected by alcohol so much that
(34:25):
it contributed to her suicide. We have examined the new
claim by Ken Soper that the rifle used to shoot
Gwen belonged not to him, but to his friend Glen Graham,
who emerged after nearly four decades to confirm this new
version to the Cold Case team. Here's what he said
(34:46):
in his statement.
Speaker 8 (34:47):
After this trip in October of nineteen eighty two, we
all went back to Kenneth's house and I left my
rifle there at Kenneth's place in his rear shed. I
can't remember the exact date, but I was at home
and Kenneth's came around. He asked me if I had
seen Gwen and told me that they had an argument
where she had then left in her car. Kenneth asked
(35:09):
me if I would keep an eye up for Gwen,
and I told him I would drive around to go
find her. I drove around to a few friends' houses,
don't remember their names, but no one had seen her.
The next day, I spoke with Kenneth again and he
was starting to really worry as she had not come home.
Later that same day, I was talking to a friend
(35:29):
and they told me that Gwen had been found and
she had shot herself. I was later told by Kenneth
that she had taken my point two to two from
the rear shed, and it was my gun that she
had used to shoot herself. I stayed friends with Kenneth
for a long time, and in nineteen ninety six I
(35:49):
left Cann's and moved to Townsville. I haven't spoken to
Kenneth since.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
This version of events actually contradicts the version that Ken,
Soaper and the pul these investigators presented to the coroner.
According to Glenn, Ken told him that he had argued
with Gwen and she had left. He was worried and
asked him to search for her. In fact, Ken gave
evidence that he and Gwen had split. He did not
expect her to come back. She was not missing, she
(36:18):
had taken the boys. Their relationship, according to him, was over.
Why would Ken be starting to really worry as she
had not come home when he knew she would not
be returning. That's the question Sue's lawyer might have put
to Glen Graham on the witness stand, but he was
never called to give evidence. Your recall we spoke to
(36:43):
Glen Graham about Gwen's death. The way he tells it,
Gwen was nicer to him than Ken was. He recalls
when he went on a trip with them once and
they had a little disagreement about whether Glenn could have
a beer or not.
Speaker 6 (36:56):
She added me, Glenna wanted them, Yeah, he can't have
any beer. They might be She's just might be it too.
And there he bought him along, so you can have
a beer.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
But ultimately Glenn believed the best of his friend. When
he heard of Gwen's death, what did he tell you?
Speaker 2 (37:14):
He said that they had a.
Speaker 6 (37:16):
Big balmi and she hopped in her car and took
off to beg back a few hours. Came out to
me next night. Every single Win said you won't see
her anymore. It's why she built ahead of my twenty two.
I felt like hurting. I was going to try her
(37:39):
as match as I could. I say that in a
bunt way that hurt him. Moving in the girls, I
only to please hear because they're trying to find out
the story why she disappeared. And if I knew about
(37:59):
her shooting herself, but yeah, she took my rible to
do it.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
You may remember Soper told the Inquest when he was
under oath that he and Gwen never fought. But according
to Glenn Graham, Ken and Gwen fought all the time.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
What did they fight about? Anything?
Speaker 6 (38:17):
And everything?
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Were they as firing as with Pamela as Pamela? And
was it good live wing for a little while before
and then what happened? Was he just two cent in
his ways or something? I think so she didn't keep
the house for meat enough that.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
He had a mad day. He come back, come back
and take out fight, so it could be you know
around he didn't slept her ear. They get full their
argument fights.
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Pamela said he was violent.
Speaker 6 (38:49):
When never saw him being violent to anyone.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
So just yelling yeah, So why don't you get your
gun back?
Speaker 6 (38:57):
Because police had it? How do you know they can?
Just told me and they were I went over and
kicked away his going my gun wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Why didn't you go to get it from the cop shop.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
I didn't want them to know it was Michah. The
band makers charted me with Aiding and becking inventing him,
aid her, I would never let anyone shoot themselves with
my rights.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Now, you mentioned though, that she really loved her kids
and they were the number one that's why she was
leaving Kemp because he said they had an argument with
one of her sons.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
So why if she's putting her kids first, would she
shoot herself.
Speaker 6 (39:43):
I don't know that the time for them to fat
the argument and everything else. I never came into it.
But she had already had my rival in the car.
She was planning to do a long time.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
So you know that's what Ken told you. She was
badly the night before that she went.
Speaker 6 (40:04):
And got the rifle and she put it in Kending
notes she had rifle.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
You weren't there, though, You're just going on what Ken said. Okay,
so the whole thing of that happening.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Did you know that if they'd breake him up before
this happened. No, As you hear, Glenn changed some things
from his police statement when he spoke to us, claiming
his gun, which he said was stored in ken shed,
not his bedroom cupboard, was taken by Gwen and put
(40:38):
in the boot of her car, as she had planned
to shoot herself for some time, contradicting Ken's contradictory claims,
first that he had put the rifle in the boot
of Gwen's car, which was what he told her family
at the funeral, then that the rifle was taken in
the early morning before he woke up on the day
Gwen died. Glenn says he didn't seek the return of
(41:02):
his rifle as he was worried about being charged with
aiding and abetting a suicide, which checked as common sense
will tell you that was not a valid concern, And
he says he didn't know Ken and Gwen had broken
up when she left, which, if true, means Ken lied
to him. Most tellingly, Glenn confirms his gun was never
(41:24):
returned by police, and the sole source of his claim
that it was his gun was Ken Soper. In fact,
Glen Graham has no firsthand knowledge that his gun was
used in Gwen's death. It was just what Ken told him.
This means that Glenn's contradictory evidence cannot be relied on
to confirm the rifle that went missing was his, or
(41:46):
that he was even involved. The way he and Ken
suddenly remembered thirty eight years after the eventides actually haunt
you because you always look for an answer for the family.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
This was a savage attack, an ho rufic crime.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
That would not just be a little bit of blood,
that be a lot.
Speaker 4 (42:15):
That this wasn't random. I think this is somebody she knows.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Ron Iddles, dubbed Australia's best homicide detective and known as
the Good Cocknes Ron has his own streaming series Homicide
with Ron Iddles, You've Done Something. He also donates his
time and expertise to help members of the public trying
to solve cases the police can't or won't. He agrees
(42:42):
to help sue and here is his written opinion on
the death of Gwen Grover.
Speaker 9 (42:47):
Having read all the material, and I assume there is
only one statement I do not have, is that of
the ballistics expert. This was clearly deemed a suicide right
from the start, as can be seen from the notes
of Arthur Law who attended on fourteen Octive nineteen eighty three.
Kinbacker wrote down considered the angle of the shot, which
is very basic. No tests were carried out on her hands,
(43:07):
firearm measurements etc. I would have expected to have seen
a statement from a member of the cold case unit
as to what he did. In particular, what happened to
the firearm from the car. It should have been tested
to make sure it was the weapon which actually fired
the bullet. There should be an entry in a property
book or exhibit book somewhere than a date and signature
as to who it was returned to. Craiglock states the
(43:30):
rifle was between her legs, facing up vertical. If so,
then that does not explain the angle of the shot.
His description would mean she was shot under the chin.
The photographs attached to Kinbacker's statement make it more confusing.
Photo fourteen looks like her hand has been placed on
the barrel. To shoot herself, she would have had to
hold the barrel to her left temple and pull the trigger.
(43:51):
I would have expected her hand to be in a
different position and not holding the gun. There is no
blood apparent on the end of the barrel. Again, you
would think there should be. A biomechanics engineer should have
been consulted to give an expert opinion. Why is there
no apparent blood on the handbag? Again, looks like it's
been placed over the top of the blood. My expert
(44:11):
opinion is homicide cannot be ruled out.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
Ron makes the good point that Gwen's handbag appears in
the crime scene photograph to be free of blood, as
though placed on top of the blood. He is also
critical of ed Kinbacker and the other police who arrived
at the scene. Now, as promised, he is the rest
of my very candid conversation with ed Kinbacker from when
(44:39):
we caught up in Cans. Just a reminder, some of
the audio is not great.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
The gun went missing, as you're not and look at
the gun. Look the gun would have been returned. But
see the problem is we have no records. You don't
know what happened because the records and which called fred
At tied the records. The records don't.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
Exist, belong to Glen Graham and you said he never
saw it again, well who knows.
Speaker 2 (44:59):
But the records and guard to how that gun was
disposed of, and I've searched for them in preparation for
the coroner's hearing no longer exist. It's forty years ago.
Those records were disposed of entirely consistent by assume. It
may not be because stations had moved and that sort
of stuff. So they moved from that's the old station
and sufiskit lost in transit, so you can't say. So
(45:22):
we can't say what happened to the garden, but presumer,
but we had it and it was friends and soon
the bullet was friendly exam.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
We then moved back on to Ken Soper.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
But none of the.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Alibis check out, like because it's various alibis. One that
he was asleep, one that he was at the railway
hotel the next night with someone that.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
They you can't possibly be built this in forty years
later or by some miracle. We're just talking about the system.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
No, no, do you remember the do you know the
story about Laney Corwell. You know how they put it
down as an accident. Everyone said it was an accident.
This is in Charleible. This is the one that Jerry
Thornton solved. And he was told don't go near the
best you against a coronial.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
And then.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Yeah, but on what I'm saying is everyone said, don't
touch it. It was just an accident. And then which
had a conviction, Laney Cardwell in Charlieville. And then oh
that's the that's the guy who killed his wife. Yeah yeah, yeah,
he did langer on the head. But again they only
had photos and you know.
Speaker 2 (46:22):
It's not the same because hanging is actually quite probably No,
this wasn't hanging.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
This was the falling out of the tree. Wow, okay,
he said he should fell out of a tree, but
actually he banger on the head with a nine.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Yeah. Well, I said that's going to provide inconsistent PM injuries.
It's going to be inconsistent.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
But at the time police said it was definitely an accident.
It was only because he kept pushing it and got.
Speaker 2 (46:43):
Well, they didn't because the police officer had had the
wherewith the wall to keep going, so the police didn't
miss it. The police actually saulted it. But it was
on the basis of one individual being diligent.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
Yeah, and that's exactly why he was discouraged from his
bosses to keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
I had of you, but he didn't, but they're allowed
him to continue. Well, no, he did know he solved it,
and he solved it because the system and the organizations
are allowing to solve it. You know, people don't say
no if one if the bosses wanted to stop it,
that would have stoped.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
He got it funded by the insurance company. That was
the only way that he was.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
In some aspects maybe the expert evidence potentially, Well, they
paid for it. They paid for the investigation. Not they
wouldn't have paid for all the police investigation they did.
He did it in his own time. But look, but
he might agree.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Well, he came to the coronal inquest here, like he
is advised on this, and he's advised on here, so
he's part of the expert You've got Gary Dublin.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
As well, Gary Jubilin, for God's sake, Garry.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
Jubilan Bush, it's actually I catch killers. But okay, I'm
not interested.
Speaker 2 (47:48):
Because you'd need the difficulty is you need the facts
at the time. The cold case investigator rarely would, but
he had the cold case team. Look at this, the
cold case team who would have done being spectacular work.
Look at what they have solved. Look at what that
team has solved in the past seven or eight years
since they have got that team up and running. That's
(48:08):
brilliant work. They solved the Sphere Creek murder, which was
an error at the time, which should have been solved
at the time. They have solved numerous matters. These people
are not incompetent. So the cold case team, who have
been producing spectacular wholly professional results reviewed this. But now
they come to this same conclusion. The conclusion is safe.
(48:31):
The girl committed suicide. And as I will reiteriate, I'm
not the business of covering marks. What do I have
to cover the actions of a junior constable. I'm not
the business of saying And I have admitted in the
coroner's court that my work was deficient. It should have
been supervised more closely and those issues addressed. It wasn't.
And and what you also cannot reconstruct that what the
(48:55):
police actions were independent to me? You don't know. I
don't know. I didn't even know there were detective sloving around.
Speaker 1 (49:02):
The KA is making a decision based on the information there, right, so.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
From the cold case team, not from what I did.
But the cold case team also they interviewed many men,
they did, they interviewed panelic.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yet they left out all about the fact that she
said he was a violent man and that But.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Why would they do that because the police have some
bias to cover this up. It's a fantasy that.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
She's absolutely she said, I told the cold case team
that he was a violent man, and then she went
on to tell me that he would have gune in amount.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
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. It
is nonsensical.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
I was speaking to her for a couple of minutes
and she told me straight away, well, it.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
Is nonsensical the proposition that a cold case team would
you know, and they know that Kenzappers, you know, Sue
is putting the finger at him, and that any of
an information if someone's providing, if his potential violence, it's
whighly irrelevant. And to suggests the would leave it out
is ludicrous, is ludicrous because why protecting me, protecting the organization?
(50:11):
It is dumb. If it is a dumb proposition.
Speaker 1 (50:14):
If I could find out why, why didn't make it?
Well that's why you speakt to Tara Campboll, Yeah, yeah
I will. But I'm just I've said expect to the people.
This went on for some time, but this.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
One, this one, you're on the wrong end of the horse. Unfortunately.
That's the simple fact. I'm not saying that what reputation
do we have to pretend? Well, none, But because I
was a junior constable, the most junior person there, and
the last man stands to me. It doesn't reflect badly
on you. It does though it should because I was
both statements with efficient end of story. But but you
were junior. There should have been somebody else higher up
(50:47):
doing this job. You know, of course he woulds and
if there from him, but you don't know. You don't
know because the records what they did or didn't do.
I don't know. I wasn't privy to and you don't know,
and nor was it possible to reconstructles. Those people are dead,
so you can't. I get that.
Speaker 1 (51:06):
I get that, but the same that the Dawson case
is forty years old too, and they've got a conviction
out of that.
Speaker 2 (51:11):
Yeah, so you know, like it can happen, right, But
that was always enormous cloud over her. The police would
have always suspected him.
Speaker 1 (51:18):
The point is maybe there should have been an enormous
cloud over this one too. Towards the end of the interview,
I offered to lead this recording off the podcast.
Speaker 2 (51:27):
Because you know you're you're upset, and no, I'm not upset.
I have a very strong opinion. Yeah, yeah, that's I
have a very opinion. I'm quite happy for you to
use it because I'm telling you you're running a dead horse.
It's like me, do you have any for me to
have music? Yeah, it's up to you. I don't care
because you're wrong and well and I want you to
(51:48):
play you're wrong. Yeah you do. That's you're wrong. Yeah,
And that's in the basis of forty years investigation experience
of major crime to say, is there a problem and
it isn't about me protecting the reputation of a one
year old constable, the most senior person in the team.
To convict someone of a murder is not a simple thing.
(52:10):
You have to have a very strong case. And no,
it's not ideal because it's difficult process. Families are grieving,
you know, they're grieving, they're upset, they're going to take
offense at a whole potential range of things. When police
are just going about their business and what has to occur.
You can't please all the people all the time despite
(52:31):
your best efforts. Yeah, I get that. It is that simple.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
But I do think that the system is you know,
there should be maybe a victims of Crime team or
something that deal with.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
The families because the families.
Speaker 1 (52:42):
I've got so many families now that have just all
come to me, and just like we will treated badly,
we will treat it badly. No, everyone makes us out
like we're crazy, and I think if they had somebody
just listening to them, you know, that's for the realities.
Speaker 2 (52:54):
Some are crazy. The simple fact is some are. Yeah,
you're trying to keep you is entirely rational. Will hold
rational views. Some people are fixated. Some people believe the
earth is flat despite all evidence. I've dealt with a
lot of their flat earthers out of it, like you.
I've dealt with a lot of nutters in this world.
They're not nutters, no, But people do get unhealthy fixations.
(53:16):
They do get unhealthy fixations you, and that can be
done without a mental health problem. It is just they
find meaning in obtaining and following a particular belief that
they have now, regardless of what everyone tells them. People
will believe the earth is flat. People believe literally the
(53:36):
Bible is true, and they will go to their grave
saying that. So the fact that someone holds an opinion
does not make that the Holy Grail, and it doesn't
make it independently truth. It is merely personal opinion of
one individual that may be irrational or may irrational, and
unfortunately Zeus has borderline into it in a ration position
(54:01):
that is now a mission that she is retired and
she's now I've got a passion to bring justice to
something where there is no just cause. It is that civil,
It is that simple. Yeah, I get it.
Speaker 1 (54:17):
I mean just on the outside looking in, though, I mean,
kens is a I mean, I know it's bigger now,
but back then it wasn't that big. Right eighty three
a very tight community. Everyone knows everybody, you know, and.
Speaker 2 (54:28):
And that can't be ignored. So if any member of
an associate of the victim of this had concerns, they
would have spoken. Nothing happens in this town without everyone knowing,
and particularly in regard to homicides, you cross the line.
People don't stay stilled. They talk to the cops and say, look,
(54:50):
there are concerns about this. Where was it? That happens
every day of the week. It is a murder is
a different thing.
Speaker 1 (54:59):
I guess with Ken Sober though, I mean, he was
treated quite you know, like the fact that he was
never a suspect and things like that.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
It's just kind of like we just because there has
to be a reason for to be a suspect suddenly
become a suspect because you stuck to them day or
that you're a the spouse usually does, or they're de
facto or no. No, I mean it depends entirely on
the circumstances.
Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah, 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 window, I would have thought
everyone just needed.
Speaker 2 (55:29):
To be in a look in the benefit of hindsight,
and everyone is experts and one hundred percent clarity with
the benefit of high sea everyone has that. And frankly,
anyone looking at this, Okay, there should have been more,
possibly not in the eyes crossing the tease, had attention
to them, because my error should never stoop through that system.
In that statement, end of storm. But as I say,
(55:54):
is the end conclusion wrong that she committed suicide. No,
it is merely a procedural processes that failed. What it
was was a failure of appropriate supervision. That's what it is.
And there's no more than that. So and and people
can see that, no one, No one can see No
(56:14):
one says this is a glowing example of it of
it of a template investigation, it wasn't. But because we
can't reconstruct what actually was done independent of me, and
clearly the fact that I didn't even know the tectors
were personal. I don't even where he saw that in
a witness save enough the Cold Case had revealed that.
(56:36):
So it was stuff happening in depend on what I
have knowledge of it. So what they did and what
conquiries they made to form a conclusion that this was
a safe finding, I don't know. You don't know those people.
Are there the records that relate to what they did?
No longer I get that.
Speaker 1 (56:54):
I just I guess for that reason, I just don't
know why the current I didn't say it was open.
Speaker 2 (56:58):
And I know what you're saying.
Speaker 10 (57:00):
You know, because the Cold Case team has conducted an
independent movie and that's and you've had forensic people I'm
sure in that cold case look at the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (57:11):
And form the same conclusion. The conclusion is not the
Cold Case team is not here to protect Kimbaker. It
isn't here to protect the reputation of police or the
organization of forty years ago. No one will say it
was temp plain perfect ever, But is the.
Speaker 1 (57:26):
Conclusion wrong well, we'll say you had three barristers or
something at the time as well, like you had the
you know, there was the union, Yeah, the union.
Speaker 2 (57:34):
Yet there was a un which represents yeah, I know
ian Yeah. And then you've got the organization. Yeah, you know,
because the organization is there to protect this reputation. Yeah,
and that no, well it's not it's it's there to
protect this reputation when things are being pointed at it
that are rock. The organization is a learning organization that
(57:57):
is happy to admit forty years ago, Hey, perfect becau.
How does that effect now? It doesn't affect now. Don't
look at your process. Look said, there's no, there's no
point in the organization. And look at the police services
are constantly going back themselves and reviewing these matters with
a view to seeing what can be done. Were errors,
(58:18):
so they're self reflecting. That isn't a problem. Look at
the dB inquiry though, You've got to put it in
the context of the job. Yeah, you go do that job. No,
go do a DV job every day of the week
and do it and see how you put on their hat,
walking their shoes. They don't. It's not the police themselves.
They don't have enough resources, you know, like it's just
(58:43):
so you wait until this new legislation comes in in
regard to or as of behavior. Yeah, yeah, a loss
of control. Yeah, when you when you are criminalizing and
making subject criminal complain human interaction, given interaction, it's going
to be a knight man unknown, it's going to be
(59:05):
an absolute night man. Yeah. But yeah, when when when
police people can walk in the shoes, the people doing
this day and day out, those uniform girls are doing it,
and the aggressive nature of it and the tough nature
of it, and then all that falls out of those
things and at the risk, yeah, at the risk you
go do it. But oh there you go, and then
(59:26):
point fingers at them. I guess you goes. They're very
easy for every organization is looking for a scapegoat to
point the scapegoat finger at the cops because they're an
easy target.
Speaker 1 (59:34):
That's not our experience. There are no easy targets. There
is only the truth and the will to seek it out.
Retired Detective Senior Sergeant Ed Kinbacker again tells us that
it is ludicrous to suggest Ken Soper could have killed Gwen.
(59:59):
You might re call in episode two and in episode seven,
Kinbacker told us that if when was a victim of
foul play, one would have to come up with a
credible theory. Given the lack of evidence, that's not difficult.
For instance, Kinbacker said there was a lot of blood
in the car when Gwen was found, but neither Locke's
evidence nor the crime scene photos support this, and he
(01:00:23):
said the car was littered with bottles and cans, as
well as cigarette butts and a mountain of ash, but
the photos show only two bottles upturned in the center console.
There was none at all in view in a wider
shot showing the entire driver's side of the car. It's
worth noting the brief of evidence provided to Sue Cole
(01:00:44):
doesn't include the actual photos, just black and white photocopies.
She's applied for the actual photos under right to information
laws but was denied by QPS. As Jerry Thornton said,
if police have nothing to why is Gwen's next of
kin being denied key evidence like this. The matter is
(01:01:07):
currently before the Queensland Information Commissioner. In short, the theory
of murder could have been ruled out if it was
ever tested. If the rifle was examined for ballistics, or fingerprints,
or the beer cans, or even the interior of the car.
(01:01:27):
Gwen's body was cremated within days, Well before her a
strange partner was interviewed, destroying the most valuable criminal evidence
from the scene. The possibility of someone else's involvement was
never entertained by police or the coroner in nineteen eighty three,
twenty twenty twenty one, or even now. On that basis alone,
(01:01:51):
Gwen's death cannot be written off as suicide. What's more,
Ken Sober is clearly an unreliable witness, yet his contradictory
accounts weren't even scrutinized. You would have thought at the
inquest authorities would have at least been skeptical, but they weren't. Instead,
(01:02:12):
they were apologetic for the inconvenience of having to make
him answer questions about the death of his ex partner
almost forty years later, and seemingly annoyed that Gwen's family
just can't let it go.
Speaker 3 (01:02:26):
I've never believed that Gwen committed suicide, and I believe
he killed her. There's a number of reasons. First and
foremost the way that he kept changing his story, and
this is not just my opinion, if you look at
the statements that he's given over the years, and you
read the transcripts from the inquest, he'll see this at
least six different versions of the events leading up to
(01:02:47):
Gwen's death and help his whereabouts and the events after
Gwen's death. And in addition to that, he was a
self confessed gunfrik who prided himself on having many many weapons.
And now, of course, as we know, his second wife,
the lady that he was married to before Gwen, went
through similar circumstances as what I believe Gwen was going
(01:03:11):
through with him leading up to her death.
Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
Next week, an eyewitness comes forward with new information that
undermines the whole basis of evidence relied upon in the inquest.
Speaker 11 (01:03:24):
As we made our way past the hockey fields, heading
in the direction of town, we spotted a small green
car parked on the side of the road facing towards
the airport. Even though it was almost forty years ago,
I clearly remember passing the car and seeing a woman
sitting in the driver's seat.
Speaker 1 (01:03:40):
In our final episode, we lay out the new evidence
and the overwhelming case for a new coronial inquiry. Are
you able to tell was was he?
Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
A violent man. Oh, he was incredibly violent. He was
a horrible, horrible man. You know, this is something that
I don't.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
Talk about to anybody.
Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
He was found guilty of indecent.
Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
Dealing with.
Speaker 1 (01:04:13):
And reveal powerful new allies in sues fight for justice.
Speaker 12 (01:04:19):
It's a story that needs to be told and increasingly
with hearing from Queenslanders who want to know that they
get justice for loved ones. And I don't think that's
too much to ask.
Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
And from beyond the grave, a haunting tribute to Gwen.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
Gwen was a beautiful person and as her younger sister,
she was the big sister that every little girl t himself.
I'm sorry, what the stuff for a minute?
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
Sorry?
Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
Sorry, Someone somewhere may know more about this case. Perhaps
(01:05:36):
one of our listeners may help find the information that
reveals the truth behind the death of Gwen Grover. If
you know something or have a suggestion, please email us
at Shot in the Dark at seven dot com dot
Au or leave us an anonymous tip at shot Inthdark
(01:05:56):
dot com dot au. If this podcast has raised issues
for you, please call Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen or
visit them at www dot lifeline dot org dot au.
This podcast is brought to you by me presenter and
(01:06:18):
journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing, please
rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners find
us special thanks to my writer, producer Brian Seymour, Gwen's
sister and tireless campaigner for justice Sue Cole, sound designer
(01:06:40):
Mark Wright, graphics Jason Blamford. Before Our theme music is
by Bob Kronk the First and there is a link
to his music on Spotify in the show notes.
Speaker 6 (01:06:55):
When Away.
Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Alone, The Pains
Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Annual Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.