10 - Justice for Gwen

A new eyewitness comes forward casting a new light on what happened to Gwen as Sue makes an overwhelming case for a new Coronial Inquiry.

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-ten-credits/

---

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to an alleged suicide.
We urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline
on thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at www dot
lifeline dot org dot au.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Why can't we find out what happened?

Speaker 3 (00:32):
Why won't anyone help us?

Speaker 4 (00:36):
It was not suicide, There was someone else involved.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Shut in the Dark Episode ten. Soon after this podcast
past launched, we were contacted by a woman in Cans
with an incredible story to tell.

Speaker 5 (01:07):
Hello Allison.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
This is from her email.

Speaker 5 (01:10):
I write to you in regard to the above matter,
the sad death of Gwen Grover. I have information that
I feel will be of benefit to all concerned, and
may especially help Gwen's sister, Sue Cole. In October nineteen
eighty three, I was fourteen and attended Cannes State High
School with my younger sister. We lived in a house

(01:32):
on Moffatt Street, Cannes North, not far from the hockey fields.
The house has since been demolished. On most school days,
we would either bick to school or walk. On October fourteenth,
nineteen eighty three, my sister and I decided to skip school.
This was a very turbulent time in our lives for
many reasons, and looking back, I believe we were acting

(01:53):
out in some ways to our mother's knowledge. We were
attending school that day, so we got ready as we
normally would and left the house at the usual time
in order to not raise any suspicion about what we
had planned. Between eight and nine am on October fourteenth,
nineteen eighty three, as we made our way past the
hockey fields, heading in the direction of town, we spotted

(02:16):
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. I remember it
clearly because she looked so strange to me. She looked
very pale and was staring straight ahead. I remember her

(02:36):
being of a slight build. Something felt a little wrong.
I'm not sure in what way, but it was a
strong feeling I had. I tried to catch the woman's
eyes so I could ask if she was okay, but
she just kept staring straight ahead as if we weren't there.
So we continued on our way. Later that day, sometime
in the afternoon, probably around one pm, we decided to

(03:00):
head back home. As we approached the hockey fields heading north,
we could see the car was still parked in the
same spot as that morning. We neared the car and
looked inside. I distinctly remember seeing the same lady I
had seen that morning, but she was now slumped over
that front passenger seat, lying on her left side. It

(03:20):
appeared she was holding a rifle and there was blood present.
I told my sister not to look. The poor woman
was obviously dead, and upon realizing this, I ran to
the nearest house to raise the alarm. The nearest house
was a white, high set home situated on the intersection
of Rutherford and Lake Streets. I was met at the

(03:41):
front door by a young man. When I told him
there was a dead woman in the car at the
hockey fields and the police and ambulance should be called,
the young man basically told me he wanted no part
of it. He mentioned words to the effect of, we
don't want the police here, no way, and no, no, no.
Back to my sister and we quickly made our way

(04:02):
back home. It probably took us around ten minutes. We
had planned to tell our mother we had finished school
early that day because there was a sporting event, but
all of that was forgotten. We told our mother what
we had found and mentioned we had asked someone to
ring the police, but they had refused. We did not
have a telephone connected at that time, so my mother

(04:23):
had to go to our next door neighbor and ask
if she could use the phone to ring the police.
Upon returning home, my mother said the policeman told her
they knew about the body as someone else had just
called it in. The officer did not ask for any
other details at all, including our names or address. I
submit this information to you now as I have just

(04:44):
listened to your podcast, and I believe this information may
help Sue Cole and other members of Gwen Grover's family.
Gwen Grover was definitely parked in her car at the
hockey fields earlier that day, and she definitely was lying
on her left side across the front passenger seat deceased
when we found her. Over the years, I have sometimes

(05:06):
shared this story with friends. As you can understand, it
was quite traumatic and it was already a very troubled
time in my life. I try not to revisit that period,
and as such, I would like my name not to
be shared with anyone. Please keep me anonymous. I'm not
sure why my recollection may differ from another who has
provided statements, but I can tell you this is the truth.

(05:28):
This is how my involvement played out on that day,
and this is what I saw. I have never provided
any statements to anyone, because basically I didn't realize there
was a need. I hope that doesn't sound callous. It
isn't intended in that way. Only upon listening to your
podcast did I come to the conclusion that this input
may be valuable. I'm very sorry for the loss and

(05:51):
heartache that Gwen's family must feel. My heart truly goes
out to them kind regards Rebecca.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
Rebecca is not her real name. She told us she
wants to remain anonymous, as Can's is still a relatively
small community where everybody knows everyone, if not directly indirectly.
But she did say she was more than happy to
make a statement to police and agreed to discuss the
matter further with me over the phone. We have used

(06:20):
a voice actor to repeat what our new witness told me.

Speaker 5 (06:25):
Hello Rebecca speaking.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
It's Alison Sandy. How are you.

Speaker 5 (06:28):
I'm not too bad. Thanks Allison, how are you?

Speaker 2 (06:30):
I'm good. Thank you so much for taking my call
and for reaching out.

Speaker 1 (06:35):
You know, I know that it's never easy to do that,
and you're doing it.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
You're coming from a good place as well in your
in doing that, So thank you so much. I really
appreciate it.

Speaker 5 (06:46):
I basically feel like I had to say something. I
had to come forward after listening to your podcast because
I felt there was some how should I put it
on truths out there? And I felt that Gwen's family
deserve to know more. Hopefully what I knew would help them.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
Sounds of it and correct me if I'm wrong, but
it sounds like when you saw her the first time
that she once deceased then too.

Speaker 5 (07:08):
Well, I actually did think she was deceased then. That
went through my mind. I mean at fifteen, sorry, I
was fourteen and I was turning fifteen in December. I mean,
all sorts of things were going through my head. I
spoke about it later with my sister. We actually had
a bit of a conversation about it that day about
you know, do you think she was okay? It was
weird and I have thought about it a lot. That

(07:30):
first time I saw her. Was she actually deceased? Because
when I looked, I didn't actually think right in that
particular moment that she was deceased. It sort of came
to me as we passed the car, I thought, could
she Could this person be dead? But I think I
was too scared, And then I started thinking about it,
you know, over the years, and then thinking about it

(07:51):
again listening to your podcast, I thought, could she have
been Could she have been dead?

Speaker 6 (07:56):
Then?

Speaker 5 (07:56):
Because she was so pale and she was staring straight ahead,
and as I said, she didn't I was trying to
catch her eye. She didn't look at us, and I
would have thought that, you know, two teenage girls walking
past the car, or one of us was riding the
bike and one of us was walking. You know, we
were making a lot of noise and just being teenagers
in general. I would have thought that that would have

(08:17):
caught her attention or something. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
Yeah, no, it definitely sounds like it. Can you tell
me which side of the road it was, because I
still get confused. And when you walk past her, was
she on the left side of the right side of
the car, which was a windscreen in front, or were
you coming from behind.

Speaker 5 (08:35):
Yeah, so when we spotted the car. When I spotted
the car, it was parked on as you're heading north.
It was parked on the left side of the road
as you're heading towards the airport, and so the windscreen
was facing towards the airport, so we were approaching towards
she was facing. Gwen would have been facing us, and
we were on the wrong side of the road.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
Okay, do you remember whether the windows were open or shut.

Speaker 5 (08:59):
I've actually asked my sister there, so I recall them
being shut. My sister said that on the way home,
she was and this is going to sound horrible, but
she was sure that she saw flies around blood and
so from that I gathered that perhaps there was an
open window. But I do remember that she was really pale,
and she was sitting upright in the driver's side of

(09:19):
the car, behind the steering wheel, looking straight ahead, and
I just I have this memory of her having really
dark eyes. I don't know whether she had black eyes
or whether they looked darker, because she looked so pale
to me.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Rebecca claims Gwen was likely deceased and sitting bulked upright
in the driver's seat at the car that was before
nine am, which is what Craiglock claims he saw several
hours later. From here, their recollections appear to differ.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
Yeah, that makes sense because even the other blo Craig didn't,
I guess assume she was dead straight away, because that's
not what you usually would think, right. So then the
second time, can you describe this second time and where
you were the second time when you were walking, if
that's okay please?

Speaker 6 (10:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (10:05):
So, on the way home, we noticed that the car
was still there in the same spot, and we sort
of remarked. My sister and I were saying, you know,
that's a bit odd that car's still there, and we're saying,
I hope that person's okay. I hope that lady's okay,
and we kind of I know, I had a feeling
of a stronger feeling as we were walking towards the
end of it, you know, there's something definitely wrong here.

(10:27):
So as I walked past the driver's side heading home,
so I walked by right beside the car, basically beside
the driver's side. I turned around and looked in and
I saw Gwen lying across, still in the driver's side
basically but lying across the passenger side, and I saw
a rifle. I'm pretty sure that she was holding the
rifle with one hand and saw blood. I didn't see

(10:48):
a huge amount of blood, but there was definitely blood there,
and I just told my sister not to look, and
of course she did. I think she was thirteen, would
have been thirteen at the time, and I don't think
my sister said a lot, but I said, we've got
to call someone, and that's when we went to the
or I went to the high set house on the corner.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
So I'm wondering whether that was Craig.

Speaker 5 (11:09):
I am two. I am too after listening to your podcast.
I mean, I can't be one hundred percent certain, but
I'm pretty sure that would have been Craig Craig Locke.
But when I explained that the police and the ambulance
needed to be called because we'd found a dead body
or dead lady in a car, I can't remember exactly
what I said. I remember there were actually two men there.

(11:30):
The man that I spoke to at the front door,
and there was a man behind him, and the man
at the front door said no way. He said, no,
we don't want the cops here. No, no, no, So
I sort of that's fine, turned around and I said,
I'll have to ask my mom. Go home and ask
my mom. The two men both I didn't really get
a good look at the second man because he was
sort of he was in the back room, whereas the

(11:52):
man I spoke to was at the front door. But
I thought he was young. Yeah, I thought he was
young as well.

Speaker 1 (11:58):
We have since confirmed that this second man was most
likely Craig Locke, and the other man who answered the
door must have been his brother. I then go on
to ask Rebecca about the amount of blood in the car,
because Locke said he doesn't remember there being much, and
the crime scene photos indicate that also.

Speaker 5 (12:15):
The first time I saw her, as I said, I
didn't look right in the car, but there was no blood.
I didn't see any blood anyway, because that would have really,
you know, I would have then thought, well, I need
to call someone, you know. It would have cemented what
was going on in my brain for you on the
right side, Yeah, yeah, I was definitely on the right side.

Speaker 2 (12:33):
Yes, so there's a chance she wouldn't have necessarily seen
And also, am I right surmising that the first one
but looked the second time.

Speaker 5 (12:43):
Yes, yeah, that's true.

Speaker 7 (12:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
What did you say to your mum when you got home?

Speaker 5 (12:46):
I can't really remember. I remember that we were pretty
agitated and that we we basically said that we had
I mean, I can't remember word for word, but we
said that we had found a lady in the car
and she was dead and we saw a gun in
the car, and that we'd been to somebody and asked
them a house close by and asked them to ring
the police. They'd refused, and so she said, well, I'll

(13:09):
go and ring them now, and so she had to
go next door because we didn't have the phone connected
to ring them. And then she came back and said,
the police have said that not to worry that somebody
else has just called it in. They already know about it.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
So maybe there was a delay. I'm thinking potentially Craig
didn't call them straight away. Maybe when you came by
that's when you called them.

Speaker 5 (13:32):
Yeah, that's one of my theories as well. Perhaps he
had seen her but not called the police immediately, and
maybe when you know, I went up there and I
said I'd seen her, maybe then he thought, well, I've
got to call them or something. I don't know all right,
Thank you so much, Thank you bye.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
The key detail here is the time of day. Rebecca
says she saw Gwen likely deceased in her car between
eight am and nine AMI's ken, Soapa did not have
an alibi. He went to work at eight thirty am
after Gwen died. Rebecca's recollection of seeing Gwen first sitting

(14:13):
up then laying down needs to be explained. Craig was
never sure about the time of day, but he must
have discovered Gwen's body sitting upright before Rebecca and her
sister came back the second time. When they found Gwen
lying down, craiglocked hold us and the inquest that he

(14:34):
immediately raced home to call police, but perhaps he did
not tell his brother at least at first. If Gwen
was sitting bolt upright when Craig saw her, but not
when Rebecca and her sister were returning home later that morning,
then the position must have changed sometime in between. According

(14:54):
to Craig, though there wasn't much time between when he
found her and raced home to call the police, just minutes,
unless he didn't call them straight away. I've tried to
talk to Craig about it again. But it seems he
and Rebecca are at odds over this, as he says
the only time he wasn't watching from the verandah was

(15:14):
when he was on the phone with the police. But remember,
Rebecca knocked on Craig's door and was told by a
man we believe was Craig's brother not to call the police.
Not long after, Rebecca's mother phoned the police, only to
be told that someone Craig had already reported the body.
Regardless of all of this, the evidence suggests that Gwen's

(15:37):
body was not originally in the position police photographed her in,
and therefore all the analysis at the inquest on the
basis that she was slumped over firmly grasping the gun
straight after being shot must be discarded. So what happened, Well,
if it was the killer, perhaps they had been watching

(15:59):
wondering why it was taking so long for her body
to be discovered. Maybe they came back to check the scene,
a very common trait among killers, and they moved the
body after realizing the way Gwen was posed did not
match with her being shot in the side of the head.
We may never know how or why Gwen moved, but

(16:19):
at the very least, the question must be asked and
properly investigated. As mentioned earlier, Rebecca is prepared to speak
to authorities. The question is are they prepared to speak
to her. This new evidence should be submitted to a
new inquest, along with the other new evidence we've discovered

(16:43):
about Ken Soaper's alleged violent behavior to his ex wife.

Speaker 2 (16:48):
How did you feel when you heard about hamel of
allegation that Ken Soaper held done.

Speaker 6 (16:53):
In her mouth?

Speaker 4 (16:54):
I felt absolutely sick. I felt sick, not only for
Pamela and what she had to go through, but it
just brought back the horror of what Gwen must have
gone through all over again. And the thing that stands
out to me about this is that we'd always been
told as a family, and I'm not sure whether the

(17:15):
story came from Can Sober or Duncan Grover or both
of them, that Gwen killed herself by putting a gun
between her legs and shooting herself up under the chin.
And in fact, as you would have seen in Duncan
Grover's statement, he claims that when he went to the morgue,
she had two black eyes and he asked that person
at the morgue his exact words at the inquest were,

(17:38):
what's with the black eyes? And that person said, well,
that's what happens when someone shoots themselves under the chin.
And Allison, I think in a way this was a
catalyst for when I started the reinvestigation back in twenty eighteen,
because when I received those scant reports that I did
under freedom of information and I saw that the gun

(17:59):
sh wound was in Gwen's left temple as opposed to
her shooting herself up under the chin, that was when
I knew that something was very wrong. But the position
that Craiglocke found her in is consistent with the story
that we've been given over the years about how Gwen
either put the gun in her mouth or put the

(18:20):
gun up under her chin and killed herself. And then
when I heard Pamela's story about that's what can Sopa
did to her, it was like a light bulb moment
I thought this all fits in together. Something obviously went wrong.
In my mind, something went wrong when he was trying
to shoot Gwen, and for what other reason, I don't know,

(18:40):
whether she turned her head or he took her by
surprise and shot her through the left temple. I don't know,
and I will never know what really happened, but that
all ties into me with the version of events we'd
been given so many years ago, with what he tried
to do with Pamela.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
When I spoke last year to Detective Damien Louhe, who
handled the Lin Dawson murder case, he said whenever he
wanted to find out new information, he'd do something with
the media. Queensland Police directed Sue not to talk to
the media. Had there been media interviews and appeals for information,

(19:20):
police would have likely been contacted by this witness too. Unfortunately,
the internal correspondence we received under right to information laws
indicate police were uninterested in new information. You will recall
Gwen did not leave a suicide note, another fact overlooked
or ignored by the police investigating her death. Sue's family

(19:45):
were not the only ones who thought someone else killed Gwen.
You might also recall that in her statement to the
cold case team, Sharon Macady, Gwen's friend with whom she
lived before Gwen and Ken Soaper got together, revealed this.

Speaker 8 (19:59):
My father I always thought Gwen didn't kill herself and
that someone should look into it. For many years, he
would say that he could not accept that Gwen would
shoot herself. He never really gave me a definite reason why,
but I do recall that he would say that, based
on the amount of beer bottles in the car, he
doubted Gwen could have drunk them all, implying that there
was more than one person in the car. He never

(20:21):
said how many beer bottles there was in the car though.
I'm not aware if my father ever contacted the police
about his concerns, but I know my father would not
have told me in any case, as he would have
kept that to himself if he did.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
Now we can list what we consider to be the
failings of the twenty twenty one coronial inquest. First, the
position of Gwen's body. Even before new witness Rebecca came forward. Craiglocke,
the man who found Gwen's body, described her as bolt upright,
as if she was driving the car, with the rifle

(20:59):
between her legs pointing straight up under her chin. Yet
the crime scene photos show Gwen slumped completely over with
the rifle across her lap, her right hand tightly gripping
the barrel. No explanation or reason for this discrepancy was
given in the findings. Now We have another very credible

(21:19):
witness in Rebecca, confirming the same thing, and she is
prepared to go on the record about this with authorities.
The position of the body must be resolved before a
finding of suicide can be made. The rifle that killed
Gwen has not been identified. We still do not know
what type of rifle was used to shoot Gwen Grover.

(21:42):
The ownership of the gun is unknown. We have conflicting
versions of who owned the rifle used in Gwen's death
and no way of knowing who owned the gun. The
time of death is unknown, making it impossible to determine
where other people were at the time Gwen died. The
time of death and the cur and as findings is
sometime prior to twelve noon, without any evidence as to

(22:04):
whether this was two hours prior or twelve hours prior,
which casts a completely different light on what may have happened,
and as we've now discovered, the time of Gwen's death
was likely much earlier. The coroner made much of Gwen's
mental state before she died, especially the claim that she
discovered her ex husband in bed with her best friend

(22:28):
two nights before she died. This, based on the evidence,
is completely wrong. The basis for this claim is the
evidence by Sharon Macarty, a young friend of Gwen's at
the time, who helped her move the day before she died.
As we have outlined, Miss Macarty's recollections are unreliable. She
was contradicted several times about when she was with Gwen

(22:49):
on the day she moved, and was mistaken on several
key parts of her account. Still, the coroner inexplicably preferred
to believe her testimony over that of anyone else's.

Speaker 9 (23:02):
It is possible that during this period in New South Wales,
Gwen harbored a perhaps secret hope that her marriage to
Duncan could be reconciled. Duncan moved in with Betty Potter
when Gwen moved away. Betty was a close friend to Gwen.
That sometime between March nineteen eighty three and twelve October
nineteen eighty three, after Gwen had returned to Cans with

(23:24):
the boys, she either became aware for the first time
of a relationship between Duncan and her friend Betty, or
was confronted by the reality of their relationship even if
she had already known. When one evening, perhaps under the
influence of alcohol, She attended Betty Potter's house, was invited in,
and saw Duncan in Betty's bed. Although the dates and

(23:45):
the details differ, the event is deposed to by Sharon
and corroborated by Betty and Duncan. Elizabeth Grover. Betty recalls
she and Duncan were together for six months prior to marriage. Therefore,
from about March nineteen eight I consider this probably about
the time Gwen learned of their relationship, or that it
was confirmed.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Again, this is clearly incorrect. Duncan never volunteered any date
of being discovered in Bett's bed, and he seemed to
indicate he was alone, though Gwen had told her sisters
that she found them in bed together, and Bett rejected
the notion that Gwen only found out about her and
Duncan days, weeks or a few months before her death,

(24:29):
which means her evidence does not support the coroner's preferred
version of events. We also checked the witness statements made
to the cold case team by Duncan and Bett on
August eighteenth, twenty twenty. Neither of them even mentioned their
relationship before Gwen died. As for Sharon mccartty's supporting version,

(24:50):
here is what Duncan Grover told us in episode three.
Sharon McCarty seemed to think that she was upset about
the breakup over you, but she seemed got the time
frame forrong And that's where the confusion was when I
was speaking with Set, because she thought that she'd just
broken up with you.

Speaker 10 (25:05):
Yeah, Sharon would release kenon Sharon was.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
This evidence establishes a fundamental flaw in the coroner's findings
as to Gwen's motivation for taking her own life. We
consider there is another major concern in her findings regarding
Ken Soaper's claim that a gun from his property was
taken in the hours before Gwen died. In paragraph one

(25:33):
hundred and seventy eight of her findings, Coroner Nearrator Wilson found.

Speaker 9 (25:37):
Ken Soper woke some time on fourteenth of October and
saw that his gun had been moved from the wardrobe.
He was confused, but thought nothing further of it and
went to work that day.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
So the coroner found that Ken woke up on October fourteen,
noticed his gun had been moved, then went to work.
And yet in the very next paragraph in her findings,
she appears to contradict self.

Speaker 9 (26:01):
I accept that evidence and therefore conclude that Gwen removed
the gun and ammunition from Ken Soper's house, to which
she had access, sometime on the morning of fourteenth of October,
likely after he departed for.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
Work, likely after he departed for work, after saying that
Ken noticed his gun had been moved before he went
to work. This is a crucial issue in Coroner Wilson's
findings as it effects both the time of death and
the alibi of Ken Soper. The coroner dismissed Ken Soper

(26:35):
as a potential suspect in her finding.

Speaker 9 (26:37):
Saying any suggestion that Ken Soper was somehow directly involved
in Gwen's death is debunked by the fact that Ken
Soper had no idea of Gwen's whereabouts from the time
she departed his Sturt Street home at six pm on
twelve October nineteen eighty three, or that she had set
up flat at one hundred and seventy seven Lake Street.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
That finding is based solely on the testimony of Ken Soaper.

Speaker 9 (27:00):
The coroner continues, Ken Soper has never been considered a suspect.
Any suggestion that he staged or was somehow involved in
Gwen's death was not seriously pursued at in quest.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
That is very true and deeply disturbing. Finally, the coroner declared.

Speaker 9 (27:17):
No alternate theory was pursued at in quest. I find
no other person contributed to or caused Gwen's death.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
But an alternative theory was put to the inquest by
Sue Cole that Ken Soper was responsible for Gwen's death.
However it was never pursued at the inquest. We believe
this is a major failing of the inquest and grounds
alone for the findings to be set aside. Hello, jeddter Fordham, Hi,

(27:50):
Judith Allison Sandy, how are you?

Speaker 6 (27:52):
Hi?

Speaker 1 (27:54):
Judith Fordham is a lawyer based in Perth in Western Australia.
She is an author, speaker and forensic expert who is
fascinated by this case.

Speaker 6 (28:03):
I'm qualified in both science and law. I've got two
separate degrees. I've been a lawyer for I think I
tried to calculate it about thirty eight years or something.
I've been involved in quite a number of inquests in
different circumstances, and I'm currently working on about three cold

(28:28):
cases as well, because that's something that's I guess gained
my interest. I like to say to people, though they
haven't always been a lawyer, So I am actually a
normal person, and that's in advantage when you're involved in
criminal law, as I largely am. Knowing how people tick

(28:48):
is a very useful quality that you don't necessarily get
at law school. I mean, I was involved in a
television program and that I think sparked a lot of
people interest, including sus It was in relation to a
cold case. When I heard from Suso, my immediate reaction
was that she was logical, thoughtful, objective, and had, even

(29:14):
on our first conversation, some legitimate concerns about the quality
both of the original investigation and the inquest. So yes,
I got back to her. Unlike some people where I said, look,
I'm sorry, I just can't help you. I got back
to her, and everything I've read since persuades me that

(29:35):
she's done a phenomenal job and that her concerns are
quite legitimate concerns.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
Well, I guess, I mean, really, I just wanted to
get your thoughts, your initial thoughts upon looking at it,
at it and just with everything happening.

Speaker 6 (29:50):
Yeah, Well, I've got lots and lots and lots and
lots of thoughts. They're all pretty random, because you know,
there things that stand out is not making sense, and
things stand out that could have been followed through. And
then there's sort of just looking at the whole mood
of the inquest, which was extraordinary and well with the inquest,

(30:16):
the really strong impression I get, particularly from counsel assisting,
is the whole point of the inquest was to basically
shut through up. And that's not what any in quest
is supposed to be. An inquest is supposed to be
an inquiry into, you know, obviously identify a victim, that

(30:37):
sort of thing, but that's all you know, we know that,
but inquiry into how a death happened, cause of death,
and you know what can be learned from it, And
that the whole tone chuncelor assisting is supposed to be objective.
Counsel assisting and the police are all basically saying it

(30:59):
was suicide, and particularly the questions asked of Sue, well
now you accept it with suicide. Now do you accept
it with suicide? That was the whole tone of it
and which is quite wrong. And the coroner actually said
at one point during day one of the inquests, I
think just before lunch that she hopes that sort of
by the end she will be satisfied effective that it

(31:22):
was suicide. I mean, I'm sort of paraphrasing here, but
that's how I read it. And that sort of smacks
of the coroner having the outcome, you know, prejudged. She's
supposed to take all the evidence and then go away
and have a think about it and then decide what happened.

(31:43):
So it's just extraordinary. And I repeat that, I'm astounded
the way Sue was effectively cross examined at the inquest.
And yet, for example, mister Soper, who was named by
Sue in quest as a possible suspect, was treated ever

(32:06):
so gently. The inconsistencies in what he'd said over time
weren't put to him. Any sort of motive wasn't put
to him. I don't understand why Sue was treated almost
it's an exaggeration, but you know, treated as a I

(32:29):
don't know, an adverse person. I mean, it's the way
I would cross examine someone if I was trying to
shake them and persuade them to a particular point of view.
And I repeat, in quests are supposed to be open, objective,
and the evidence is meant to be put before the
coroner for the coroner to make a determination on all

(32:51):
the evidence. And again, why on earth wasn't the supposed
owner of the gun called to give evidence and there
were conclusions drawn that just weren't support her. I mean,
I could go on.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
Look, I mean they even say that that, you know,
we didn't consider anything suicide.

Speaker 6 (33:10):
Nothing other than suicide was considered right from the very beginning.
But also, as I said, the coroner effectively said to
Sue on the first day, just before the lunchtime, that
hopefully she'd be satisfied after the inquest. And that's not

(33:31):
the point of an inquest. An inquest is, like I said,
an objective inquiry into all possibilities and all angles. When
the coroner was addressed the end of the inquest by
counsel assisting, he basically said, oh, that nobody's put any
other scenario to any of the weaknesses. Well, hang on
a minute. That's his job. That's his job to look

(33:56):
at all scenarios, and the current's job to look at
all scenarios and then come up with a conclusion if
they can, a cause of death, if they can, if
not decided whether it's going to be an open finding
or not, and this one absolutely should have been an
open finding at the very least. I don't know whether

(34:18):
if further inquiries had been done and the two possible
suspects if it wasn't a suicide, had been more vigorously
cross examined and the issues with their evidence put to them.
I don't know, or if other inquiries have been made,
for example about an alibi witness. I don't know whether

(34:38):
in the end a finding might have been made that
it was in fact inflicted by someone other than Gwen.
But we don't know because we don't have the information.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
And it was never It never played out that way.

Speaker 6 (34:54):
It wasn't explored. It just wasn't explored. The whole aim
reading Betwe in the lines was to prove that it
was a suicide, and that was the tenor of the
address at the end of the case from the council assisting.
I mean his job is council assisting. That means to

(35:16):
provide the coroner with help not to have a view,
and to push it. I mean he can draw conclusions
from evidence, but there are so many things that are
simply not in evidence that have been taken as gospel.
It's not normal from the point of view at the
very least of the system. In other words, the coroner's staff.

(35:43):
And you know, I don't want to expose myself to
anything here, but you know that the tenor was that
we're out to prove its suicide. We're going to ask
questions that relate to that, and we're going to continue
asking the sister of the deceased whether she's satisfied now whether,

(36:07):
for example, she accepts that there are no inconsistencies where
she believes they're inconsistencies. She just doesn't do that. You
just gain information from people. You can ask her what
her series are, but it's for the coroner to decide
whether they're inconsistencies, and the coroner to decide whether there

(36:29):
are suspicious circumstances and whether or not. Let's pretend that
Sue was convinced in the end that it was a
suicide because of you know, all her questions have been answered.
I mean, that didn't happen. Let's pretend that still wouldn't
mean that that's what the coroner would decide. For example,

(36:50):
everyone's assumed, well, okay, she was shot through the temple
or left temple and I've had a look at where
they sad the exit wound was, and it seems that
it's an upward trajectory. Now that is consistent with it
being self inflicted, but it's also consistent with someone else

(37:12):
doing so. The coroner seems to have come to the
conclusion based upon a police officer's reading of the forensic
pathologist's report, that the projectile the bullet was found lodged
in her skull. Now that wasn't said in the forensic
pathology report. The forensic pathology report was a bit vague

(37:36):
about where. I said it was found near the wornd.
Now that could have been in her hair, It could
have been anywhere. Does that matter? Yet it matters because
saying that it was found lodged in her skull deals
with Sue's concern about why hasn't there been It's commonly
called blood spat blood splatter, but otherwise known as bloodstain

(38:00):
pat an analysis. In other words, why hasn't anybody looked,
for example, and taken photographs of the inside of the
car well? There really two questions, actually, vers there's no photographs,
so we don't know if there was bloodstain anyway. But secondly,
if there had been, it might tell us something about
where the shot came from and give us a lot

(38:21):
more information. But to deal with that, they're now saying, well,
the bullet didn't exit her skull. Well, then why is
the forensic spellers calling it an exit wound? I mean,
it doesn't make sense. And the two and two has
been put together and they've come up with five, and
that five allows us to say, well, bloodstain patterns wouldn't

(38:46):
have felt because there wouldn't have been any. We just
don't know that. And when you're looking at stuff like that,
how do you end up with bloodstaining on a seat
and then her handbag on top of it with no
blood on the handbag? Has she posts more autumn picked
a handbag up and put it on the seat. That's
just ridiculous. So who did The big witness that's missing

(39:09):
from this inquest is a forensic pathologist who would have
been able to interpret the original forensic pathology report and
would have been able to interpret a lot of the
evidence that's been and I say it in a mutual
sense amateuristly interpreted by the police. And when I say amateurs,

(39:33):
they're not experts, and they shouldn't be speaking about such things.
And the experiment, so called experiment to seeing whether using
the rifle with her non dominant hand her left hand,
has so many well, we have such a lack of

(39:54):
information and it simply doesn't match. So even what we
already know, the experiment is honestly close to useless. The
appropriate expert there to have called would have been a
biomechanical expert, not a police officer who decides, oh, this
is how we'll do it. We'll get somebody, you know,
one of our ad men workers, and we'll get a

(40:15):
couple of female police officers, and we'll find out if
they can do it with a gun, even though we
don't know if that's the gun. Why on earth did
they not call to give evidence the supposed owner of
the gun. Why were they just relied upon a statement
by him? And everyone's saying, and maybe I haven't read

(40:40):
it closely enough or something, but everyone's saying the gun
was returned to him. But there's no record of that,
there's no logs, there's no chain of custody, and I
can't find anybody, least of all the witness the supposed
owner of the gun. Who says he got the gun.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
We do have another new witness who also reports seeing
when at the time, as what she thought was that
she would have been deceased at this time in the morning,
so four hours earlier being upright as well with she
didn't see a gun or doesn't report seeing a gun

(41:21):
at the time because it was only glancing.

Speaker 6 (41:22):
So had somebody then shifted her, wrapped her hand around
the barrel if that is possible, and pushed her over
to the side and placed a handbag on top of
the well? No, hang on, has she been pushed over
to the side. That would explain the blood on the seat.
She'd have to be laying there for a while, and

(41:47):
the blood would have had to have come out of
the entrance wound. That makes sense. But then what on
earth is the handbag doing there? So I think, adding
to what you've just told me to what we know,
we simply at this stage can't explain it. Nothing fits

(42:07):
except that it's unlikely I would have thought that there
was no human intervention.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
Absolutely, so I guess that's the other thing. So you've
got also the timeframe, because, as you might recall, the
coroner said that the timeframe was when one of the
suspects was at work that even though there's this massive window,
but she just made this assumption that it happened while
he was at work.

Speaker 6 (42:34):
Well, our time frame starts from the fact that the
witness saw her at a certain time, and then they
simply worked back and said, oh, well, she must have
been dead for about an hour, So that takes us
to twelve o'clock. But there's no reason to say that,
and I again would be wanting to look more closely

(42:55):
at the post mortem changes. They say her body was refrigerated,
and yet there are early signs of decomposition, both abdominal,
which is where decomposition normally starts because we have so
much bacteria in our gut, that's why that happens, but
also some reddening which could have been decomposition as well.

(43:17):
So again, a forensic pathologist could comment on that. Now,
they wouldn't be able to give you a time of death,
but they might be able to say that the time
of death was earlier than what's been assumed, or different
from what's been assumed. I don't know, but you'd need
to know the conditions under which she'd been kept and

(43:38):
at what temperature. Instead of just saying refrigerated in order
to get a better idea. But I think a better
idea could have been gained from the evidence that exists now.
And when we're talking about alibis and so forth. This
person that was said to have been Soaper's alibi, the female,

(43:58):
They just looked her up and said, oh, we can't
find her in a database, but surely there are more
things you could do. You could look at perhaps immigration records,
you could look at airport records, depending upon what was
available at the time. It just seems to me there
wasn't a huge effort made to find this person. And

(44:19):
if she was his girlfriend, are there other people who've
seen her? Can we find out, for example, whether he
actually had a girlfriend and whether she pissed it or
whether she's simply been conjured up as a matter of convenience.
I mean, you don't need to find her to find
that out. You just need to find people who you

(44:39):
know may have regularly drunk with them. Oh and speaking
about drinking, yes, when had obviously had a few drinks.
But point one five is a pretty common reading depending
upon and she was a slight woman, but if not
an extraordinary narrowly high reading she wouldn't have been legal

(45:03):
to drive if she was, as many people say, someone
who did drink although you know, was not an alcoholic.
How good was she it functioning? Then? Does it have
to be that she would have been shaky and unable
to get it together or what? Has she been well controlled?

(45:23):
We don't know the answer to that either. I thought
it was odd for the current and fay, oh, that
was three times the legal limit. That's that's not here
nor there. What matters is what effect that blood alcohol
content would have had on her. Doesn't matter what the
legal limit was. We're interested in her behavior and how
she was. I'd like to know why her hands weren't swabbed,

(45:48):
because back then I'm sure they had the technology to
at least see whether there was a possibility of gunshot
residue on her hands, or if they were swabbed, where's
the information. I'd like to know whether anyone looked at
the contents of the handbag, if that was in fact
her handbag with gone. Now the things that really stand out, though,

(46:08):
were why were certain witnesses not called, in particular Glen
Graham and an expert forensic pathologist, rather than relying on opinions,
for example, from the ballistics expert that the gunshot was
self inflicted. That is why outside his expertise, and he
should never have said it. That's what really stands out

(46:32):
to me. I don't think that this inquest was satisfactory
and I don't think it achieved anything at all in
terms of coming up with objective findings because of the
lack of interest by the various parties in considering alternative series.

(46:57):
And each alternate series should have been explored, and the
two possible suspects should have been cross examined as possible suspects,
if only to exclude them. But they weren't even tested.
And if they're not tested, then whatever evidence they've given

(47:20):
is worthy of it awful lot less weight. Let me
point you because I've found the piece where the coroner
said on the first day and it was just prior
to adjournment for the day. Actually, she said to Sue
up she'd given her evidence things like and you'll find
it at page one four if you want to look
for it. She said, pursue. I trust, having heard the

(47:43):
evidence you have to date and will continue tomorrow, that
you will, notwithstanding the outcome may not be expected. Or
perhaps even move you in any way to a different position.
If that is the case and we haven't heard all
the evidence, then your family will understand your sister's death

(48:04):
has been taken very seriously, including a full cold case review.
I'm just summarizing now. That to me reads like the
current saying I hope that you'll be all right with
a suicide finding after tomorrow, having not heard the evidence. Now,
I know she said she'd heard the evidence, but that's
flagging that. So she then goes on to say, as

(48:25):
you've heard today, Sergeant Manctelow, he was the ballistics person.
Dennian and so Fort have undertaken a very significant forensic review,
scientific review of the material that's available. There was so much,
particularly Dennian, he not qualified to do any scientific review
and he hasn't ballistics. Yes, he's qualified to talk about that,

(48:49):
but not about cause of death. She then goes on
to say it's been a very difficult process. It's been
thirty eight years, and then the says things about hold
your loved ones tight. Now, I'm sorry, I read that
as the sort of comment that would normally be made

(49:09):
at the end of an inquest when there's a finding
given that is not what a family had hoped for,
but this is being given. Said halfway through.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
We agree, which brings us to the present and the
options ahead.

Speaker 6 (49:23):
For Sue, She's really got two options. One is just
to say the system's beaten me. You know, it's all
too hard. I have my own beliefs, but I'll never
succeed against the system, or to try again for yet
another inquest. There was no inquest to start with, then

(49:44):
there was an inquest. She's certainly pushing it uphill to
get a second inquest. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

Speaker 1 (49:53):
The Attorney General in Queensland, Shannon Phantaman, would not be
interviewed for the podcast, but did meet with Sue on
April thirteenth, twenty twenty three.

Speaker 4 (50:02):
We discussed not only Gwen's case, but also the nature
of Gwen's death in the bigger picture, in that we
did discuss TV cases as a whole and how sadly
things haven't really changed that much since Gwen died almost
forty years ago. I think one of the main points

(50:26):
that came out of it as well is that we
agreed that the most dangerous time for women and families
in situations like Gwen's and other young women who are
victims of domestic violence is the time after they leave.
So the time after they leave their partner or their husband,
or whoever it may be, is the dangerous period in

(50:50):
that if the partner or the husband is going to
take even more violent action, that's when it will happen.
And I believe that's when it happened with Gwenet after
she left him. It was a short time after she
left him that she died, and to me, that's the
crux of the whole issue. She explained that unlike with

(51:10):
the first inquest, when an Attorney General can instruct for
there to be a coronial inquest or a coronial investigation
held in subsequent inquest, that the Attorney General doesn't have
the power to instruct the coroner to hold a new
inquest or to hold a new coronial investigation. But as

(51:31):
an alternative to that, she has offered to organize some
pro bono legal advice for me to make an application
to the District Court and for me to also discuss
with these lawyers the best options from here, whether it
is once again for them to write let us back
to the coroner with the new evidence that come forward

(51:53):
since the last inquest, or whether we go down the
pathway of applying to the district court. So I'll be
completely guy ed by the legal advice that I get
and I will have a list of questions for them
when I go there, and that will be one of them, like, really,
where do we go from here? Is our best legal
pathway to go straight to the district court with that
application or is it to go back to the coroner

(52:15):
yet again with the latest new evidence and ask if
the coroner will consider a new inquest for Gwen.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
Opposition leader David chris A fully says the Attorney General
should at least refer back to the state coroner to reconsider.
Sue says she'll ask a legal aid team about that too.

Speaker 11 (52:34):
It's a story that needs to be told and increasingly
we're 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. It's important that we take the
time to listen, to reflect and give every opportunity for
people to get justice after families who have been through

(52:57):
so much.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
Is it a surprise to you to know there are
so many of them? We know of at least eighteen
across the nation, most of them in Queensland that have
been deemed either suicide or accident, but actually have suspicious
circumstances that are either proven or probable for a homicide.

Speaker 11 (53:12):
And we've been contacted by several and we always take
the time to sit and listen and reflect and give
them every opportunity to have their say. And I genuinely
believe that your podcast is going to be a powerful
tool for people to be able to have that platform
to try and drive change. And I think the least

(53:33):
we can do as community leaders is to listen and
give people the opportunity to have their say. No one
wins when governments don't listen and close the door. No
one wins when we just assume that every institution and
body of government always gets it right. That's not the case,
and mistakes can be made and the only thing worse

(53:56):
than making a mistake is to perpetuate it by not listening.
And it's important that we do that and give people
the platform they need to be heard.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
Does the ag need to act.

Speaker 11 (54:06):
Definitely, And we're happy to ask questions on behalf of
individuals and just the system as a whole, and I
might say that some of the failings of the lab
in more recent times will lead to many families questioning
whether or not they have had justice for their loved ones.

Speaker 1 (54:26):
He is referring to the forensic DNA testing laboratory in Queensland,
which was found to be riddled with catastrophic failures, casting
doubts on hundreds, if not thousands of cases over many years.
It came to light thanks to the podcast Shandy's Story,
produced by Hedley Thomas.

Speaker 11 (54:43):
And again, that's something that we have been dogged in
our pursuit of because at the heart of every good
justice system involves individuals being able to know that the
arms of justice are well resourced and open minded to
get that justice. And we've pursued that issue hard because

(55:03):
it matters. It matters to Queenslanders to know that every
person matters and that every Queenslander should be heard.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Will you support another inquest into this.

Speaker 11 (55:14):
We'll be asking questions and I've listened to Sue this
morning and it's clear that she has unanswered questions. And
I think the very least I can do is make
sure that those in the decision making arms of state
are given that information. And that she's given every chance

(55:35):
to get the justice she deserves, as we will with
other Queenslanders who raise their concerns with us. I'm always
a big believer of doing all you can to get
an individual justice, but also to make sure that your
system is set up so that people get the justice
they deserve and good governments listen, and I'm determined to

(55:57):
be an opposition that does the same.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
When we began looking into this case, one overwhelming challenge
loomed over the investigation. For Sue Cole to succeed in
her goal to have the findings of the twenty twenty
one coronial inquest set aside and a new inquest established,
we would need two things, new evidence that was not

(56:22):
considered at the twenty twenty one inquest and identified failings
in the process, and findings of that inquest. We have both. First,
the new evidence, Pamela, ken Sofa's ex wife claims he
was violent towards her. She claims ken threatened her by

(56:44):
putting a rifle in her mouth. Pamela, upon hearing of
Gwen's death, says she thought that ken Sofa probably did it.
This is a major development and on its own we
believe constitutes a case to hold a new inquiry. And
there's more. In nineteen eighty two, just a few months

(57:05):
before he met Gwen, ken Sober was convicted on two
counts of sexually abusing a girl under the age of fourteen. Here,
ex wife Kamela details her claims to us something she
was not called to do at the inquest.

Speaker 7 (57:21):
Knowing him at the time, I said to whom ever
I was talking to, well, she wouldn't have just done that.
Either he did it or he.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
Caused her to do it. Was he a violent man?

Speaker 7 (57:34):
Oh, he was incredibly violent. He was a horrible, horrible man.
And you know this is something that I don't talk
about ever to anybody. He was found guilty of indecent
dealing with.

Speaker 1 (57:56):
Surely if the coroner had heard this evidence at the inquest,
it might have substantially changed the outcome. Ken's widow, Stella
said Pamela made up child sex abuse allegations against him,
but he was convicted in court and he did not
appeal that conviction. Did the police, both the original investigators

(58:17):
and the cold case team know that Gwen's partner was
a convicted child sex offender. If not, why not did
they know his ex wife accused him of being violent
and threatened her with a rifle. Cold case detectives said
they spoke to Pamela.

Speaker 7 (58:36):
Eight years He fashedly a few times, which was you know,
like I said, you think, well, dealing with it yourself.
It's not it's not something that you you think you're
just going to put up with it. But when I
realized it was directly to the kids, not just indirectly,
that's that's when I left.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
And did he ever threaten you to shoot you or anything?

Speaker 8 (59:01):
Oh?

Speaker 7 (59:01):
He once put a rafle in the mouth.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
Yes, Oh my gosh.

Speaker 7 (59:05):
So that's why I thought, well, you know, with that,
I didn't know her name, but I thought, well, you know,
he's either done it to her or he's forced her
into it in some way.

Speaker 1 (59:20):
Pamela said she did not volunteer this information to them
when they first called, and they did not question her
about her relationship with Ken. The only note they made
in their report to the coroner was that Pamela did
not want to give evidence. Sue Cole said even if

(59:40):
she could forgive police for not investigating Ken Sopra in
nineteen eighty three, she assumed they would take a hard
look at him in twenty twenty, and what.

Speaker 2 (59:49):
About the child sex conviction of Ken Sopa. They seemed
that it wasn't a factor.

Speaker 4 (59:55):
Well, once again, I was utterly and completely shocked and
disgusted and appalled when I heard that, not only that
it was completely covered up and has never come to light,
but surely that should have been taken into consideration as
a mark of his character at the inquest at least.

(01:00:16):
And as we know, not only did that happen back
in that era, but that was also at the same
time that he put the rifle in Pamela's mouth and
threatened to kill her. So surely, if we want to
look at the whole picture, and we want to present
every bit of evidence that we have, which I would
think is what should have happened to the coroner, then

(01:00:36):
surely that should have been made obvious to her. But
there was no mention of that back in nineteen eighty three.
And I've read in one of their statements that the
police in nineteen eighty three were aware of that pedophile conviction,
And then of course they were definitely aware of it
in twenty twenty, because I've seen in the latest lot

(01:00:57):
of reports I received under freedom of infant that they'd
run criminal history checks on everyone that they were speaking
to in twenty twenty, and they came to the fore
as well when they were checking on can Sober. So
it's absolutely appalling and unbelievable to me that these type

(01:01:17):
of facts can be totally ignored and written over, and
yet they've dredged up every single minute negative thing that
they can about Gwen, and even if it wasn't negative,
they've managed to put a negative spin on it to
try and bower her character. So the whole situation to

(01:01:40):
me is just not only a gross miscarriage of justice,
it's just absolutely disgusting and sickening.

Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
As her sister well as you know, the background checks
criminal convictions never made it to the partner.

Speaker 4 (01:01:54):
No, no, And I can't help but wonder if all
of this information and that we now know was available
at the time, such as him threatening Pamela and putting
a rifle in her mouth, his pedophile convictions, the fact
that he's changed his statements so many times. I mean,
the person that he gave as an alibi is either

(01:02:16):
a nonexistent person or there was no attempt made to
find her like surely these even as a lay person,
I would consider that these are key factors that should
have been taken into account, and all of this should
have been presented to the coroner so that she had
the full and complete picture to base.

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
Her judgment on. How certain that.

Speaker 4 (01:02:38):
I am, as certain as I can be. I know
in my heart of hearts that Gwen would never have
killed herself. But even all of thatwithstanding, even if Gwen
wasn't my sister, and I just read these reports as
someone completely removed from the case, I would look at
it and I would know that there was something very,

(01:02:59):
very wrong there.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
Then there's the floral tribute from QPS when Ken Soper died.
On Facebook, Stella Soper, Ken's widow, posted a picture on
February thirteenth, twenty twenty two, of the flowers delivered to
her after Ken Soper died in a traffic accident. She
captioned it quote, the police brought me flowers for Ken.

Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
Yeah they did.

Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
Here's what Stella told us in episode four.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
He wasn't friends with the police, but you know, they
just they were the police who were there with the accident,
and it wasn't the police. He didn't have any friends
who were police. But they were the ones who were there,
and they came up that night, not all of the
stuff that goes on, and then they came back one
day with some flowers. Yes, just being thoughtful. I mean

(01:03:51):
I didn't know them and he didn't know them.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
But yeah, yeah, Why did Queensland Police send flowers to
Ken Soper's widow after he died in a traffic accident?
Is this standard practice? We asked the Queensland Police Service
several questions. Do police send flowers or gifts to the
families of victims of fatal traffic accidents attended by police?

(01:04:18):
How often does this occur? How often did this occur
in twenty twenty two, the year Ken Soaper died. Here
is the police response.

Speaker 12 (01:04:28):
The Queensland Police Service has no record of flowers being
sent to Ken Soaper's widow. There is no Queensland Police
Service policy on sending flowers and or gifts to the
next of kin of traffic fatality victims. The Queensland Police
Service has no record of flowers sent to next of
kin of traffic fatality victims in twenty twenty two.

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
So the police do not send flowers to victims of
traffic accidents and they did not send any flowers in
twenty twenty two, yet we have a photo with comments
praising Can's police for sending flowers for Ken Soper. In
episode three, Duncan Grover, Gwen's ex husband, told us that

(01:05:13):
he understood Ken Soper, Gwen's estranged boyfriend, paid for Gwen's cremation.

Speaker 10 (01:05:19):
Yeah. I don't know. Actually he organized with if Ken
organized it appear or.

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
He paid for it though, didn't it.

Speaker 10 (01:05:30):
Yeah, yeah, I think he. I think he organized it
as far as asking it understood. I had nothing to
do with the organization of it, and he told me
that I was going to take the ashes back to
n O'Brien and bury them in a family plot there.
We went down for the funeral. It's what they did now.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
When was cremated on October eighteenth, nineteen eighty three, three
days after she was found why rush Ken Soper claimed
he was told by a police officer friend on the
fifteenth or sixteenth that Gwen had died.

Speaker 9 (01:06:08):
It was a day or so.

Speaker 13 (01:06:09):
After Gwen's death Saturday, the fifteenth of October nineteen eighty
three or Sunday the sixteenth of October nineteen eighty three.
I heard from my mother that Gwen was dead, and
so I went to Dale Kendall's house to ask her
whether it was true. Dale was a police officer I
knew at the time, and the only police officer I
knew on a personal basis. Dale told me that she
didn't know about Gwen, and then she contacted the police

(01:06:32):
station and confirmed that Gwen was dead and that they
wanted to speak to me.

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
So the day after he supposedly learned of Gwen's death,
Ken Soper, according to Duncan Grover, organized and paid for
her cremation before he was interviewed by police about her death,
nearly two weeks after all that physical evidence went up
in smoke. We should also mention Ken Soper's claim that

(01:07:02):
he had asked Gwen to marry him and that they
were trying for a baby, a claim that no one
else was questioned about by police or at the inquest.
Sue told us that Ken and Gwen's planned to have
a child was news to her.

Speaker 4 (01:07:16):
She told us that she was engaged to Ken sober
they came down to New South Wales and they visited
my parents, and I believe that's when she announced to
my parents that they had intended getting married and that
they were engaged. I never heard any news about her
trying to have a baby. She never mentioned that to me,
and I don't believe she ever mentioned that to my

(01:07:38):
parents or anyone else in the family. The first I
heard of that was when Ken Soper mentioned that at
the inquest.

Speaker 1 (01:07:49):
Remember Sharon mckaty claims Gwen told her the relationship with
Ken would be short term, which seems to contradict Ken
Soaper's claim they were planning to start a family. Why
would can make that up? Perhaps to create the impression
that he was devoted to Gwen and therefore was unlikely
to harm her. We previously pointed out the coincidence in

(01:08:13):
the name given to the Queensland Police col Case Team
investigation Operation Sierra Storm, which is the name of a
female character on the reality show Below Deck, which also
featured a crewmate who lives in Cairns. We've since learned
that's just a coincidence, as police operations are named at random,
with the prefix word assigned by year. In twenty nineteen,

(01:08:38):
Sierra was the prefix given to operation names, meaning Storm
was chosen at random, which makes sense and is it
relief to Sue Cole. One of the key criticisms raised
mainly by former police officer Ed Kinbacker, is that if
when was murdered, we would need to provide a scenario
that fits the evidence. Well, we have one. In nineteen

(01:09:03):
eighty three, Ken Soaper had a history of controlling, violent
behavior towards his ex wife, Pamela. He had recently been
convicted of sexually abusing a very young girl. After a
six month relationship with Gwen Grover, she abruptly left him,
taking her two sons with her. Pamela says Ken was

(01:09:27):
extremely violent and controlling of her every move. She described
escaping from him, how he stalked her and even tried
to snatch the youngest child. Now just months later, Ken
Soper was angry at Gwen for doing the same thing
leaving him. He told the coroner he was engaged to

(01:09:48):
marry Gwen and they were trying for a baby. Then
suddenly she was gone. Did they have a huge fight?
Maybe Gwen discovered something about Ken caused her to flee,
Like his conviction for sexually abusing a child, It was
certainly something much more controversial than Ken's claim that she

(01:10:10):
was upset at him for scolding her son David for
pushing past Gwen to get into the house. Why was
that considered so plausible given they fought often, and this
time Gwen was pulling the pin for good, meaning he
must have said or done something that she could not
forgive or forget. On Thursday, October thirteenth, the day after

(01:10:35):
Gwen left him, Gwen arranged to collect some of her
belongings from Ken's house. Perhaps she suggested they meet at
the hockey fields, which was close to her new flat
and neutral ground, or perhaps he invited her over to
his house to discuss their relationship. Panicked and upset, Gwen
dropped their boys at their father's house, asking him to

(01:10:57):
take care of them in case something happened to her. Again,
if Gwen was going to take her own life, wouldn't
she have said something to her sisters, who she was
much closer to. That comment to Duncan implies she feared
something would happen to her, rather than she was seriously
contemplating suicide. Now, we already have evidence that Ken lied

(01:11:28):
several times at the inquest and was never questioned about
where he was on Thursday night. Perhaps later that night,
Ken Soaper met with Gwen at his home, or where
Gwen had driven a car. Maybe she went to collect
the rest of her belongings. Maybe they argued, Gwen got

(01:11:48):
back in her car to lead, and Ken shot her
through the passenger window. That's even if she died in
the car at all. Regardless of what ed Kinbacker says
about minute blood droplets, there isn't much blood visible at
all in the photos, except on the seat, which ron

(01:12:08):
Iddall's pointed out was under her handbag, which doesn't appear
to have any blood on it. Or perhaps when Gwen
arrived at his house, Can either placed his loaded rifle
in the boot of Gwen's car, or he knew that
loaded rifle was already in the boot, as he later
told a person at Gwen's wake, Sorry, mate, it's my fault.

(01:12:29):
I left the rifle in the boot of the car.
I borrowed Gwen's car to go shooting and left the
rifle in the boot. He then convinced Ghen to take
a drive with him. Then there is also the possibility
that they had arranged by phone to meet at the
hockey fields that night, where they parked on Lake Street

(01:12:51):
talking and drinking beers and smoking. Perhaps they argued, maybe
Gwen threatened to tell people about his child sex offenses.
Sopa lost his temper and punched Gwen in the face,
knocking her unconscious. And maybe those raccoon eyes were actually
caused by him hitting her, not the gunshot, or maybe

(01:13:13):
it was both. This has never been clarified. Dawn was approaching.
Maybe it was then that Sopa retrieved his rifle from
the boot of the car and shot Gwen fatally in
the head, which was at an angle as when either
recoiled in terror or her head was tilted to the

(01:13:34):
side as she was unconscious after being punched. The recoil
from the shot made Gwen's slump over, blood spilling from
the wound in her head onto the passenger seat. Realizing
he was still holding the rifle, Soper panicked and possibly drunk.
He staged her body, sitting her bolt upright with the

(01:13:55):
rifle between her legs, pointed up under a chin to
make it look like she killed herself, even though that
was not where the bullet entered her head. He hurriedly
left the scene on foot, returning home, where he showered, dressed,
and went to work as if nothing had happened. None

(01:14:26):
of this is impossible. Because his alibi was never checked out,
nor his various versions of events questioned. The reason we
cannot be more exact about what might have happened is
because of the terrible investigation done by police. They simply
ignored the possibility that Gwen may have been killed and
did not collect vital evidence. What little crucial evidence they

(01:14:50):
did collect was lost or destroyed, and the coroner ruled
this investigation was adequate, which appears to be just based
on the assas sumption that it was handled properly, just
the records confirming that were lost. So where to now?

(01:15:12):
When you look at the circumstantial evidence, it actually suggests
Gwen more likely died due to the actions of another
person rather than by her own hand. On this basis,
we agree with Sue that the findings of Coroner Nerator
Wilson should be set aside and a new coronial inquest
be called so that all the evidence can be considered.

(01:15:36):
That means seriously considering an alternative to suicide and allowing
people like Pamela and Rebecca to appear as witnesses. As
noted in episode eight, Police Minister Mark Ryan has referred
the Queensland Police Cold Case Team's investigation into the death
of Gwen Grover to the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission

(01:15:56):
for Assessment and Queensland Police and the Coroner should make
a formal apology to Sue Cole and the family of
Gwen Grover for the inadequacies of the investigations and the
inquiry into her death. Listeners who have also followed The
Lady Vanish's podcast will notice many similarities in the way

(01:16:20):
Gwen's sister Sue Cole and Marion's daughter Sally Laden were
treated by authorities. Upon alerting them to their concerns. Both
were treated with contempt and told their pursuit of any
other theory than what police had decided was futile. As

(01:16:43):
you've heard throughout this podcast, their cases are not isolated.
Coercive control needs to be taken seriously by Australian authorities,
and a victim's domestic violence history must be investigated when
they suddenly die or go miss Most of all, their

(01:17:04):
families need to be interviewed and their opinions taken seriously
before a conclusion is reached. People make mistakes, that's understandable,
but when those mistakes are perpetuated because of arrogance embarrassment
or simply a belief that investigating an alternative is a
waste of time that's unforgivable. Hidden homicides are real victims

(01:17:30):
and their families deserve justice. And we have another development.
A plaque has been placed on Lake Street in cans
where Gwen was found, courtesy of the hockey club, and

(01:17:52):
Can's Council will plant a tree on that side, a
living reminder of a life tragically cut short and a
death which authorities just didn't want to know about.

Speaker 4 (01:18:05):
Now, it's not the policy of Can's Council to allow
roadside memorials, but in this instance, because the hockey fields
is privately owned, the gentleman who's the general manager there
has been very helpful and I sent the plaque to
him and he's actually attached to it on the fence
in the location where Gwen's car was located. And we're

(01:18:26):
also planning a memorial for Gwen for the fortieth anniversary
of the death this October.

Speaker 1 (01:18:54):
The music you were hearing was written and performed by
Gwen Grover's nephew and old son Jack. He named it Truth.

Speaker 4 (01:19:15):
Gwen was a beautiful person and as her younger sister,
she was the big sister.

Speaker 14 (01:19:22):
That every little girl train himself. I'm sorry, but the
stuff from an it sorry sorry.

Speaker 4 (01:19:35):
She was kind and selfless, and she was the sort
of person who I've never known to put her own
needs not only before her boy's needs, but before other
people's needs as well. She had very little in the
way of worldly possessions, but she was always the first
one to offer to share anything that she had. You'll

(01:19:58):
see in Bett Grover's original statement that prior to her
beginning a relationship, if that's what you want to call
it with Duncan Grover, when she was married to her
original husband and living in Brisbane and her original husband
left her and her children, gwendrove from Cannes to Brisbane
to rescue her and the children and take them back

(01:20:20):
up to Can's with her. And that's the type of
person that Gwen was. If there was someone in need,
it didn't matter whether they were five minutes away or
a two day drive away, she'd be the first person
there to try and help. She would do anything under
the sun for my parents, and she would do anything
for her family. She was one of the most selfless people.

Speaker 14 (01:20:42):
I have ever met, and every day I have little
memories of things that she did and how completely selfless
she was. And I'll try and live up to the
sort of person that she was in my own life
and as a mother to my own son. And I
know in my heart of hearts, Gwen would never have

(01:21:04):
left those boys without a mother. Never.

Speaker 4 (01:21:07):
You know, when I was three or four years old,
I can remember seeing her with a jigsaw spread out
on the table and a missing piece and she would
cut out the piece to fit into that jigsaw. And
little things like that are things that I still do
today that Gwen taught me. So she loved her jigsaw puzzles.
She loved music when was a quintessential girl of the

(01:21:29):
late sixties. She loves all the bands of the time,
the Beatles, she loved Elvis, and I can still see
her listening to her music and dancing around the house
in a miniskirts to the music.

Speaker 14 (01:21:42):
That she loved.

Speaker 4 (01:21:52):
This is not about publicity. This is not about me
jumping up and getting on television. And I'm sure the
other families out there are the same. We just want
the truth to come out about our loved ones and hopefully,
please God, there to be justice in the end for them.
So that they can rest and that we know that

(01:22:12):
we've done everything for them that we possibly can.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
This marks the end of our ten episode story about
Gwen Grover, but it's also just the beginning. As events
continue to unfold, we will keep you updated and we
hope very soon to achieve the justice that Sue and
her family have been striving for. Until then, thank you

(01:22:45):
for your interest and support. Someone somewhere may know more

(01:23:08):
about this case. Perhaps one of our listeners may help
find the information that reveals the truth behind the death
of Gwen Grover. If you know something or have a suggestion,
please email us at Shot in the Dark at seven
dot com dot au or leave us an anonymous tip

(01:23:29):
at Shotinthdark 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

(01:23:51):
presenter and journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing,
please rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners
find us special Thanks to my writer producer Brian Seymour.
Gwen's sister and tireless campaigner for justice, Sue Cole, sound

(01:24:13):
designer 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 12 (01:24:31):
St Swow the Pains and Shot in the Dark is
a seven News production.