December 9, 2024 • 39 mins
Twelve months after our last episode, Sue Cole and her siblings appear in the District Court to ask a judge to set aside the findings of the Coroner into the death of their sister Gwen Grover. You have a front row seat to this nail-biting drama that holds the key to getting justice for Gwen.
Theme - Graveyard Song - Bob Cronk 1 https://open.spotify.com/album/2lb7R3Xgx4Q0gzLZ00pDgJ
Unsafe Roads by Alexander Nakarada
Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/4923-unsafe-roads
License (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-license
Hidden Truth by Rafael Krux
Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/5296-hidden-truth
License (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-license
Artist website: https://www.orchestralis.net/
"Myst on the Moor" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Lights by Rafael Krux
Free download: https://filmmusic.io/song/5309-lights
License (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-license
Artist website: https://www.orchestralis.net/
"Urban Gauntlet" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
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 sensitive and disturbing information, as well as
details relating to an alleged suicide. We urge anyone struggling
with their emotions to contact Lifeline on one three one
one four or visit them at www dot lifeline dot
org dot au. Why can't we find out what happened?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Why won't anyone help us?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
It was not suicide, there was someone else involved.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Shot in the Dark, Episode twelve, Hellamy's man.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I do have a pleasure of being the help manager
on this It's the noon service, last time to day
up to Brisbane one hour and eleven minutes past.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Hello, it's Brian Seymour. I'm just boarding a plane in
Sydney to head to Brisbane to join Allison and Sue
at the District Court for what we hope will be
a major, long awaited turning point in this case. We're
about to take off. We'll catch up with everyone very soon.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Fucl time here in Brisbane. He is one thirty six
in the afternoon.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Made their time difference to that of Sydney, and we'll
be getting into the gates soon.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Everyone's safety in see've got.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
Fastest in the island.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Hello, Sue, how are you love?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
You to see you again.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
Brian.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
It's Friday, November eight, twenty twenty four, and I arrive
at the District Court in Brisbane on a hot and
humid morning. I'm here because Allison is busy with another investigation,
the hit podcast The Truth About Amy. It's been a
year since our last episode of Shot in the Dark.
During that time, Sue Cole, Gwen's sister has been working
(02:08):
with her lawyers in preparation for today. What's happening today, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Today we're getting a hearing in the District Court in
Brisbane where we hope to have the original findings of
the inquest in Cans overturned today. So it's been a
long battle, and I've been fighting this battle ever since
the inquest took place in Cans in twenty twenty one.
And as you know, Brian, there are a lot of
things there that I believe did not go well and
(02:35):
procedures weren't followed correctly. So hopefully today we're looking forward
to that being overturned and us finally getting things done
according to the policies and procedures that they should have
been done by in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Yeah, so it's the hearing today, so your lawyer will
get up and make the case. Is anyone making the
case against overturning the findings of Krona Narty will.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I believe that narrative Wilson has her legal team here,
and then we have the Attorney General, who is I
believe meant to be an impartial type person as well.
So I'm not exactly sure what's going to unfold in
the courtroom today, but you know, you're just looking forward
to as getting some sort of satisfactory outcome for Gwen
(03:21):
finally after all these.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Years, and that application is sealed, So I don't know
what's in it, but I guess we'll find out. Well,
maybe we'll find out during the hearing, depending on what
the judge and the lawyers talk about. Nathan Jarrow is
the judge? Is he in any way relevant to this?
Does it matter?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I really don't know anything about the judge other than
I read that he has a criminal law background, so
I'm hoping that's a good thing. Because, as you know,
we have our report from Professor Johannes Staflow, who is
kind of the leading eminent experts in his field in
these type of cases in Australia. And in fact highly
regarded worldwide. So I'm hoping that this particular judge, with
(04:02):
his criminal law background will have knowledge of Professor Deflow
and also be able to look at those reports critically
and analyze them in a professional and correct manner.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
And there's two main arguments as I understand it, for
overturning Coroner Wilson's findings. One that you have new evidence
that could affect the outcome of an inquest and that
should be taken into consideration in a new inquest. And secondly,
that there were errors of procedure or fact finding in
the twenty one in quest that mean that that should
(04:40):
be set aside and either a new inquest or that
it just should be set aside.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yes, yeah, absolutely, that's absolutely correct, first and foremost, as
our argument has been all the way through, Brian, there
is no evidence supporting the finding of suicide. Now, the
other side may argue that, well, there isn't enough evidence
to support the finding of homicide will Well, may that be,
but there certainly is no evidence that supports the finding
(05:07):
of suicide. And I think that this is a crucial
matter here that needs to be addressed in an open
court assessed by an independent.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Judge, certainly is things like you not hearing from a
biomechanical expert on whether or not it was possible for
Gwen to shoot herself with a rifle inside a car,
if that's where she was indeed shot, So things of
that nature that weren't considered. We had the ballistics expert
conduct some tests, but he's really not qualified to determine
whether or not Gwen could have fired upon herself.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
And in court he was a policeman who admitted in
court that his knowledge was very limited of these matters.
If you read that through the court transcripts, almost every
second question he was asked, he was saying, well, that's
not in my area of expertise or I'm not qualified
to answer that.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
So exactly. Another thing I've been thinking about coming up
here in the last few days from Sydney is just
how the coroner put a great store by the claim
that Gwen was so upset because she just discovered days
earlier her ex husband Duncan, from whom she was separated
in bed with her best friend Bet, and of course,
as we know that that didn't happen in that timeframe
(06:14):
at all, that's just completely wrong by their own accounts,
So in terms of her state of mind leaning towards
the finding of suicide, that's just flat out wrong and
that's just not what happened. So to me, there are
several things like that, and plus the new evidence the
young girls we spoken to who found Gwen first, we
believe sitting.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Up right, not to mention Ken Sober's ex wife, where
I have no reason to disbelieve Pamela's statement, but by
all accounts, he tried to do the exact same thing
to Pamela that I believe he did.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
To Gwen, and that evidence was not presented to Corona Wilson. Yeah,
so there appears on its face to be a good
case to have this overturned. I've got to ask you,
because you know, we've done a few of these investigations,
Alison and I, and you know there's a lot of
disappointment on the road to success. So I have to
ask you, how confident are you this morning that this
is going to go your way and you're going to
(07:05):
get on the next step towards justice for Gwen.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, the concerning thing is that in any case like this,
there's so many things that are out of the family's control.
I mean, I know what should happen, but once we
get in there, it will very much depend on how
his honor views things. And this is one of the
very concerning things, and one of the downfalls or the
pitfalls I believe of the current system is that there
(07:29):
are so many things that are beyond the family's control,
and there are so many things that we have absolutely
no saying at all. But I have full confidence in
our legal team. They put one hundred and fifty percent
effort in. I couldn't ask for anything more. They've been
absolutely amazing. So I know Gwen's here with this in
spirit today. So I'm just hoping that all the planets
(07:51):
will align and that we'll get the outcome that she
so rightly deserves, the outcome that she should have had
back in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
And just on that first of all, will we get
a decision today or will the judge reserve his decision
for a lot of time.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Well, once again, that's up to his honor, and I
believe that he may make a decision today, but it
will probably more than likely be he'll want to go away,
reflect on it, think about it, and then give us
a decision later on down the.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Track, okay, and then once that decision is made, assuming
it does go your way, So the findings of Coroner
Wilson a set aside and a new inquest is ordered.
That then begins a whole new step towards hopefully finding
justice for Gwen. And I hate to say it again,
but there is the chance that it could go the
(08:37):
same way as the first in quest. I mean you're
aware of all this, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Absolutely yes, And there have been cases in the past
in Australia that you would be right across Brian where
you know it's taken three in quests to get the
right result. But all I can say is now is
that my result is as strong today as it was
in nineteen eighty three, and I will continue to pursue
this while ever there's breath left in my body, which
all the way it goes today, you know, I might
(09:02):
be sort of picking up my Dolly and going home.
I'll be carrying on forward until we get just some
sort of justice in some sort of form for Gwen.
I mean, we all know Ken Soper isn't here anymore,
by some mysterious set of circumstances. His motorcycle ended up
under a truck shortly after I appealed the findings of
the coroner. He is no longer here, and I'm no
(09:25):
expert in the law, but in a sense that has
made it so that he can't be held truly accountable.
But I believe any reasonable person who reads that file
or who reads that story knows what really happened to
Gwen on the fourteenth of October nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Well, to put it in terms of our laws that
we're very happy with, it appears to be open to
a coroner to make an open finding, and I think
it was in that first inquest as well, which is
not to say that the coroner wasn't within her rights
to make the finding that she did. But certainly, my opinion,
your conviction, and many of our listeners believe it should
have been an open finding, and that there is, hopefully,
following what happens today, the chance that one will eventually
(10:06):
be made. So good good.
Speaker 7 (10:08):
Luck, Sue really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Sue is here with her husband Rod, and just now
Sue's sister Irene and her brother Stan arrived for another inquist.
Speaker 8 (10:18):
I certainly am as long as it's here in Brisbane.
You don't want to help to go to Cans anymore.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
I'd like to because I do not red a.
Speaker 8 (10:26):
Verdict that happened in Cans and I find another spy
and everyone held accountable for what they've done.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
Stan Hanniford is here to support his siblings, including the
one who cannot be here today.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
I think that the judge's read the whole case, which
I hope has. I think you can underlate one decision.
I still round us an around Laren a lot of
the case after our lawyer to how.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Is I know you spoke to this in an early
episode of It's mod Dust. It's a couple of years
go now, But I wanted to ask you because we
know that when I read it, and many of our
listeners feel that this is no question that Gwen I
did not take her own life and the evidence doesn't
support finding that. She definitely give you. But I have
to ask you, as a brother, what do you think
(11:14):
do you still hold that conviction?
Speaker 6 (11:16):
Oh? Yeah, she's known well she did it well.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
You know the photo of the white handbag on top
of the passenger see the passage seat is so good blood.
There's a white handbag on top of it, that it's
Christine and clean and apparently Gwen shot herself and her
head fell on that handbag and she led out that
can't possibly have happened.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
It was the scene been. It's been someone else there President,
as Sue has found out. Now one person and the
kids are going past its seeing it happens. There's still
at witnesses seeing that. Then the next thing we say
that were laying the one whole in this stage.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
All right, let's go to court.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Thank you, thanks Brian, see you in there.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
In a courtroom on the seventh floor, Sue, Cole, Stan
and Irene sit in the public gallery as their lawyers
ask a judge to reconsider the coronial inquest that found
their sister took her own life. We have reconstructed parts
of the hearing from the court transcript.
Speaker 9 (12:25):
Good morning, This is the matter of Cole and Wilson.
I'll take appearances please.
Speaker 10 (12:30):
If it pleases the court. My name is Fardon of
King's Counsel. I appear with my learned friend mister Wallace,
where instructed by Caxton Legal Center. Appearing on a pro
bono basis for the applicant.
Speaker 9 (12:40):
Thanks Miss Farndon.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
May it please the Court, Hickey of Counsel, I appear
for the Attorney General as amicus curier, instructed by Crown law.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Amicus curier is Latin for friend of the Court, a
legal term for someone who is assisting the court but
is not a party to the proceedings. In this case,
the Department of the Attorney General of Queensland has engaged
Matthew Hickey, a KC or King's Council to argue against
Sue's application.
Speaker 10 (13:09):
As your Honor's aware. This is an application pursuant to
Section fifty of the Coroner's Act to set aside the
findings of the Northern Coroner in this matter and order
a new inquest.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Judge Nathan Jarrow is hearing this application in the District Court.
He is Queensland's first Indigenous judge and son in law
to form a Queensland Governor, Paul de Jersey. He looks
quite young and he leans forward through much of the hearing,
asking many questions.
Speaker 10 (13:35):
Yes, your honor, so the findings, specifically the ones that
are being sought to be set aside at the findings
under the heading how she died and the findings under
the heading cause of death, and.
Speaker 9 (13:45):
I cannot, for example, substitute I don't have the power
to substitute the findings.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
Your honor does not have the power to substitute the findings.
Your honor only has a power to set aside yes.
So the essence of the applicants argument is there wasn't
sufficient evidence to be able to arrive at a finding
of suicide. From our perspective, our purpose would be achieved
if it was possible for your Honor to simply cross
out words relating to suicide or self inflicted from the findings.
(14:15):
Whether your Honor has the power to do that pursuant
to the provision is perhaps a question.
Speaker 9 (14:20):
All right. And is it because of the subsequent report
that it leaves open another possible hypothesis that the injuries
were not self inflicted.
Speaker 10 (14:29):
It's not just the subsequent report. Okay, there's two limbs
to the argument.
Speaker 9 (14:33):
Is that the podcast No.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Judge Jarrow is referring to this podcast in which we've
uncovered new evidence not considered by coroner Wilson in her
twenty twenty one inquest.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
The two limbs to the argument to that, on the
evidence as it stood before the coroner, the finding was
not reasonably supported.
Speaker 9 (14:51):
Yes, all right.
Speaker 10 (14:52):
And then the second limb to the argument is that further,
essentially new evidence also casts doubt on the finding. But
we don't lie on the new evidence before your honor
could find that the finding was not reasonably supported by
the evidence.
Speaker 9 (15:06):
So how then did the coroner find how could she
have found that the injury was self inflicted? Surely there
was evidence of that from the inquest.
Speaker 10 (15:15):
Well, yes, I can take your honor to the parts
of the findings as to how her honor arrived at that.
There's really two separate parts to this. There's the physical
evidence in relation to the undisputed evidence that she dies
by way of a bullet wound to the head and
she was found seated in the car with a firearm
is a physical evidence, and our submission is that is
(15:37):
supportive of any number of theories. So there's that aspect
to the evidence. But then if I can take your
honor to your honor will see the heading Gwen's Life
the macroscopic view, Yes, and her Honor then goes on
to find under that heading and particularly a number of
bullet points over the next page. But the significant findings
from our perspective are findings in relation to the pssibility
(16:00):
that Gwen harbored some hope that her marriage would still
be reconciled. There were findings that she became aware at
a time close to her death that her ex husband
and friend were in a relationship together and that she
was in a relationship with another person Immediately preceding her
death by the name of Ken Soper, she moved in
(16:21):
with mister Soper. The evidence was, which is not controversial,
that they broke up and she moved out the day
before her death.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Listeners will know this is crucial. Coroner Wilson heard evidence
that Gwen caught her ex husband Duncan, in bed with
her best friend the day before she died, supposedly contributing
to a depressive state of mind in conjunction with her
leaving her boyfriend Ken Soper and moving into a Rundown
flat for her and her two young sons.
Speaker 10 (16:52):
Herna then goes on to make findings in relation to
the circumstances in that twenty four hour period prior to
her death, and that includes a summary of the evidence
of Sharon Macady, where her honor summarized the evidence being
that she recalled Gwen being distraught on the day that
she was moving, that she was upset to the point
that she vomited, that she was emotional and talking about
(17:16):
financial difficulties, concerns for the boys and paying rent. She
refers to the fact that missus Macarty referred to Gwen
telling her that Ken that's mister Soper had been showering
her with gifts and she wasn't comfortable and didn't think
it would be a long term relationship. And then she
provided an opinion that according to missus Macaty, she didn't
(17:37):
think that Gwen had gotten over her previous marriage, and
that it was the evening prior to this that Gwen
had caught her ex husband and friend in bed together.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Sharon Macady was a friend who helped Gwen move into
the flat. The big problem with her recollection of Gwen
catching her ex and her best friend in bed two
days before she died is that the evidence shows that's
not what happened. We've all heard from Duncan Grover and
the friend Betty, who are now married, that Gwen found
them together two years earlier, prompting her then to drive
(18:11):
two thousand kilometers with her boys from Cairns to her
hometown of Bogabrye. Betty confirmed this in her evidence at
the twenty twenty one inquest.
Speaker 7 (18:22):
Okay and the time that Gwen walked in on you
and Duncan, was that before or after she went to Boglebrye.
She didn't walk in on Duncan and I she I
invited her in Okay? And was that before or after
she went to Boglebrye. That was before Okay, And then
she went away for a couple of years.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
I'm not sure how long it was.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
I think it was a yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:44):
And then she came back with the boys to Cans
And you and Gwen were friends, yes, And Gwen knew
of your relationship with Duncan. Yes when she arrived back
in Cans. Was there any animosity between you and her
about your relationship with Duncan?
Speaker 10 (19:00):
No?
Speaker 7 (19:00):
Was she upset about the relationship between you and Duncan?
Speaker 9 (19:04):
If she was, she never told me.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Did she seem to you to have moved on with
her life?
Speaker 9 (19:08):
Well, she said she. She said she loved Ken Sofa
and she loved her more than what she did her
habby Duncan.
Speaker 10 (19:18):
Our submission is that the evidence doesn't support those factual
findings and that therefore, seeks to underline the difficulty with
the ultimate findings. There was no suicide note there was
despite the evidence of distress that was talked about by
various witnesses, there was no evidence of any suicidal ideation
(19:39):
expressed to any of those witnesses. There was ample evidence
of her love for her two boys and her being
invested and caring for their future, and there were simply
no end of life arrangements made that would often proceed
the taking of one's own life. In this case, all
there is is evidendent of some distress the evening before
(20:02):
she died, in the context of a relationship breakdown, coupled
with the physical evidence of the scene.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Miss Varndon makes the point that there is no evidence
about Gwen's movements between ten thirty PM and the next
morning when her body was found sometime before noon, only
Ken Soaper's claim that Gwen entered his home and took
a gun from his cupboard.
Speaker 10 (20:25):
We've also drawn attention to, and really just to highlight
the gaps in relation to what was not recorded by
police back in nineteen eighty three. The photos depict Gwen's
handbag sitting on the pool of blood on the seat
next to her, which is just simply unexplained when it
must have been moved at some stage subsequently to her death,
(20:47):
which is not explained, whether that was by the police,
by a witness, it is one of the aspects about
which there is just simply no evidence. So ultimately you're
on the position is that whilst it's accepted that there
was also for those very same factors a paucity of
evidence implicating anybody else in Gwen's death, it can't be
(21:09):
the position and perhaps this is an error that her
honor has fallen into in terms of reverse engineering. Well,
there's no evidence that anyone else was involved, therefore this
was a suicide. In fact, it's our position that there
was no evidence that there was anyone else involved, or
insufficient evidence that there was anyone else involved, And there
was also insufficient evidence to be able to find that
(21:32):
it was a suicide.
Speaker 9 (21:34):
So what should the coroner have determined there about how
the cause of death arose?
Speaker 10 (21:39):
Well, the ultimate submission is that the only finding that
could properly be made on the evidence was that she
died by a bullet wound to the head. That it
was simply not possible to make any finding about who
had pulled the trigger.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
So then should I simply just set aside the finding
and not order another inquest.
Speaker 10 (21:59):
If the whole of If the finding is set aside,
then under the Coroner's Act they're obliged to go back
effectively and attempt to arrive at those findings.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
This is a key argument in the hearing. The judge
has three options. He can uphold the coroner's findings, set
them aside, or set them aside and order the inquest
be reopened. Ms Fandon argues the Coroner's Act states that
any new or reopened inquest may accept evidence or findings
that emerged in the earlier in quest, which includes Coroner
(22:41):
Wilson's findings about the circumstances leading up to Gwen's death.
More on that shortly. Now. She turns to the report
by Professor Johann Duflo, a consulting forensic pathologist engaged by
Sue's lawyers to examine the evidence.
Speaker 10 (22:58):
The point of Professor Duflow's report is that it cannot
be established whether it was a suicide or whether it
was by another mechanism, and in fact he favors that
it was more likely perhaps the alternative explanation of it
being somebody else. So there was a witness who gave
evidence at the inquest that they observed Gwen sitting in
(23:19):
an upright position with a rifle or a gun between
her legs and appeared to be deceased at the time.
And so this evidence was also another witness essentially coming
forward subsequently to the inquest indicating that her and her
sister had also seen her in an upright position.
Speaker 9 (23:37):
I see, so the witness did not that witness was
not call.
Speaker 10 (23:40):
I understood that she had listened to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (23:44):
Professor to Flow, in his report, queried the change in
the position of Gwen's body from upright in the driver's
seat to laying across the front seats in the handful
of photographs taken by police. He also mentions the lack
of a pathologist examining the scene, which should have been
done even in nineteen eighty three, and the feasibility of
(24:04):
Gwen shooting herself with a long rifle.
Speaker 10 (24:07):
And what your honor can see is what that tells
us then, is that this is a long armed rifle that,
in order to be self inflicted, would have been held
with the right hand. And the evidence is that Gwen
was right handed, held to her left side, with her
dominant hand somewhere around the barrel of the rifle and
her non dominant hand operating the trigger at some angle,
(24:30):
and Professor Duflow indicates that he can't rule that out
as being suicide. But ordinarily you would expect if there
was to be a suicide with a long rifle, it
would be through the mouth. Whilst there was a re
enactment completed, and whilst yes, Professor dou Flow accepts it
may have been physically possible, the evidence supports that that
(24:52):
is unlikely given the location of the injuries and the
handedness of the person operating the firearm.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Hi Allison here, I arrive in court as the matter
is well under way and join Brian at the media table.
It's time for Lawyer Matthew Hickey to present his case
against setting aside the findings of the inquest.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
The point to be noted at the outset, your honor,
is that it's not sufficient in order to identify things
that were missing from the evidence. If the evidence that
was present of itself is capable of supporting the finding.
To say it again, if there is sufficient evidence available
to support the finding the mere fact that there was
some evidence not adduced does not fatally undermine the finding
(25:40):
that was made. The second ground is that there's new
evidence that casts doubt on the finding. Your honor knows
what that is. Your honor has heard about that. It's
the evidence of Professor Duflo and the person who gave
that interview in the podcast.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
He's talking about the woman who approached us after listening
to the podcasts to say she and her sister when
they were teenagers, found Gwen's body in the car, confirming
she was sitting upright.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
The new evidence does not rise to the character which
car sufficient doubt or cogency upon the nature of the
findings as to make it appropriate case to reopen the
inquest or to set aside the findings by reference to
that particular evidence. It was not the coroner's function, and
it would be wrong for this court to determine that
the coroner erred by not having excluded the possibility of
(26:31):
someone else having killed Missus Grover. If the evidence that
was available to her was sufficient to satisfy her that,
in fact, she had died by a self inflicted gunshot wound.
It is not the coroner's job to explore every available
hypothesis and rule them out. Rather, the coroner's job is
to look at the evidence that's before them and find
(26:54):
facts by reference to the evidence on the balance of probabilities.
In that particular case.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Sharrow asked mister Hickey if it was necessary for coroner
Narrator Wilson to go beyond the finding of how she
died by gunshot, defining that she took her own life.
Mister Hickey says the coroner was duty bound to try
and if she was satisfied by the evidence, to make
the finding of suicide. And he says the new evidence
(27:21):
Professor de Flow's report is not compelling enough.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
The short point about that is this Professor Duflow says,
it's a possibility that someone else shot missus Grover. That's
as high as the evidence goes properly construed. In my
respectful submission, he does not go so far as to
say she did not kill herself. He does not go
so far as to scrutinize the evidence that was before
(27:45):
the coroner and say that's wrong for all of these reasons.
That would be a very different kind of new evidence.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Mister Hickey argues that the lack of a suicide note
or end of life planning, and other things which might
weigh against the fining of suicide do not matter as
long as the coroner found sufficient grounds to make the finding.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
She did Your honor then sees reference to some evidence
of mister Locke. Mister Locke was the person who had
located Missus Grover deceased in the vehicle. What your Honor
sees is that mister Locke's recollection is that Missus Grover
was sitting upright like you would if driving, with a
rifle between her legs. So that's the first point of evidence,
(28:26):
is that Missus Grover is in the car with the
rifle between her legs.
Speaker 9 (28:30):
But the photographs conflict with that.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yes, well they may well, do your honor, but the
difficulty is there's no explanation for why the photographs do
or do not conflict. And again I'm not trying to
urge on your honor the correctness.
Speaker 9 (28:45):
So then that calls into question though the finding.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
It might call into question the acceptance of mister Locke's
evidence alone.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
As this is stated, it's hard not to consider that
the coroner never heard from the teenage girl who also
found Gwen sitting upright, corroborating Craiglocke's evidence. Mister Hickey runs
through some of the evidence the coroner did, consider the
cigarette ash and empty beer cans in the car, her
(29:14):
blood alcohol reading of zero point one point five, and
claims that Gwen drank too much, and her family's evidence
that they were not aware of her doing so.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Mister Hickey also points out that a re enactment was
done by a police ballistics expert, Senius Argent Magtealow, showing
it was mechanically possible for Gwen to have shot herself
in the car, though as you heard he himself admitted
this is not his area of expertise.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Then he repeats the finding that Gwen was upset because
she found Duncan and Betty together the night before she died.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Urna sees that some evidence to which her honor referred
from again Missus Mackardy, that Gwen appeared to never get
over her separation from Duncan and the subject came up
most times when they were together, and that Missus Grover
hated the thought of Duncan and Betty together. Urona sees
that Miss MacCarty had given evidence that on the evening
(30:15):
of twelve October. That's two days before missus Grover was found.
She had caught Duncan, her former husband, and Betty in
bed together, and miss Maggotty's evidence, Her Honor concluded, had
implied that that was the catalyst for Gwen's distress.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
On the thirteenth, Mister Hickey then refers to Gwen's final
words to her ex husband Duncan.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Then your Honor sees a further account given by Duncan
that she says, promise me, you'll look after the boys.
I said, yeah, no problem, of course I will. Gwen said, no,
I mean it. If anything happens to me, you'll look
after them. Now. Of course I paused there to observe
your Honor that, on one view, a statement of that
(31:00):
kind might well have suggested that missus Grover was fearful
for a life or apprehended that somebody was going to
do her some mischief. But equally, against the background of
all of the other evidence that I've taken your Honor
to that her Honor had regard to, it's explicable that
(31:20):
somebody who in fact did have suicidal ideation at that
particular point in time and intended to do themselves an
injury and was oppressing upon her husband her wish that
the boys be looked after. One can't be certain about
that either way, but again it's part of the matrix
of facts upon which your honor relies in this case.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Mister Hickey closes his submission by reminding the judge that
the currentis court is overwhelmed with work and the judge
should consider what public interest there is in reopening the inquest.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Mss Farndon rises to make a brief reply, making some
technic legal points and pointing out that under the Queensland
Coroner's guidelines there is a presumption against suicide. Here is
Miss Findon's final argument.
Speaker 10 (32:10):
My learned friend made the submission that if there is
any evidence that supports the finding, then essentially our application
rises and falls. The application, to be clear is grounded
in the evidence is that the finding cannot reasonably support
it by the evidence, rather than that there is no
evidence that could support the finding, which is a difference,
(32:32):
and specifically the finding which did make its way into
the ultimate findings that she was overwhelmed by the circumstances
of her life. The submission is that there is no
evidence that she was overwhelmed, there is evidence of some distress.
There is then the statement that missus Grover held out
some hope of reconciliation to Duncan upon her return to Cans.
(32:55):
There is no evidence to support that proposition, and the
state meant that he became intimately involved with her close
friend Betty caused her great suffering in so far as
that relies on a time proximate to her death. Again,
great suffering not being supported by the evidence. The only
evidence that can be relied upon to support those findings
(33:18):
is the evidence of missus Macadey, and it simply does
not reach the heights of the findings that have been
made about her being overwhelmed. Those were the submissions that
I wish to make in reply your honor.
Speaker 9 (33:31):
Thanks Miss Farndon. Well can I thank everyone for their assistance.
I will consider the matter.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
So just quickly, Stan, we've just come out of the court.
What's your initial reaction to what we've just heard?
Speaker 6 (33:45):
A very impressed I think we've got are a winner
with her judge. I think he's on outside and he
certainly was interested in the the evidence that wasn't brought
up again, so you know, I'm happy. I generally heppy,
I think you're wrong with it. I'm really keen to
see the outcome.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Of it, well know soon enough.
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Thank you very much, Brian. Yeah, I'm very impressed, very happy.
Good luck pressure.
Speaker 8 (34:13):
Thanks n I'm very well.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
It was really good.
Speaker 8 (34:17):
I got to see the mainly not the best part,
but I got to see these submissions by Hickey which
were really interesting.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
How did you find me sucit?
Speaker 2 (34:26):
I thought it.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Really interesting, and I am I'm nice to say I'm
much knowing to preempt anything.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
It sounded too positive, but I was.
Speaker 11 (34:32):
Very impressed with the attention that his honor gave to
the detail, and he really did seem to take it seriously.
So I certainly have a much better feeling today than
I had the day than I walked out of the
Cans Cool House.
Speaker 8 (34:48):
Yeah, I think the other thing is.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
Worth bringing up.
Speaker 8 (34:50):
But at the end, when mister Hickey pointed out, how
if the judge does overturn the decision, and if I
find he doesn't think he should go to an all
post because of you know, type resources and the costs
and everything and the public interest.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Bizarre, I know.
Speaker 8 (35:06):
But the thing that made me think more about this
is if the job was done properly in the first place,
this wouldn't be necessary. This hasn't been caused by hell,
this has been caused by authorities.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Right, Yeah, what I would say the public interests spec
served by coroners and judges more properly reviewing evidence and
making findings based on it. In fact, that it can
be supported kron of heal. So if they do their
job well in the first since everyone saves a lot
of time and money. And this is exactly the kind
of case that should go have another review becauseisly so
(35:39):
that other cases going forward do get the level of
scrutiny and justice so that they're not having to be redone.
Speaker 8 (35:47):
So yeah, in the words of Michael Bosh, it should
of course be a very popular TV series, important series.
Everyone matters or no one matters.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
I I can add to that with Martin Luther King's
famous quote where he said an injustice anywhere, visiting justice everywhere,
like justice say, Oh, it's only it's only when it's
telling a single matter. It's only when only a single mother,
it's only one who it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
They all matter, Everyone matters.
Speaker 8 (36:16):
But we also know the premise right of this will
be recorded and then the decision exactly then rely on
you know, I will quote with this decision, that will
will rely on others and hopefully prepare the same thing
happening right exactly.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
How you feeling, thanks, I'm well that's all I wanted
to know. But you've heard the lawyers make it hast
for and against. How's it going to go?
Speaker 5 (36:42):
It's how you go our definitely, And I thought that
judge was so small brilliant.
Speaker 8 (36:48):
I hope you feel this way in a month's time,
I will, I know.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
Thanks everyone, Thanks.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
For of course Judge Jaro may that coroner Wilson's findings
were correct and dismiss Sue's application that they be set aside.
We will know when he hands down his decision shortly.
Will this be a frustrating dead end for Sue, Stan
(37:16):
and Irene or will it be the decisive twist in
this incredible tale. Someone somewhere may know more about this case.
Perhaps one of our listeners may help find the information
that reveals the truth behind the death of Gwen Grover.
(37:41):
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 dot com dot au. If this podcast has raised
issues for you, please call Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen
(38:04):
or visit them at www dot lifeline dot org dot au.
This podcast is brought to you by me presenter and
journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing, please
rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners find
us special thanks to my writer, producer Brian Seymour, Gwen's
(38:30):
sister and tireless campaigner for Justice Sue Cole, sound 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 4 (38:51):
When noway st swom the Pains.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.
This podcast contains sensitive and disturbing information, as well as
details relating to an alleged suicide. We urge anyone struggling
with their emotions to contact Lifeline on one three one
one four or visit them at www dot lifeline dot
org dot au. Why can't we find out what happened?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Why won't anyone help us?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
It was not suicide, there was someone else involved.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Shot in the Dark, Episode twelve, Hellamy's man.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I do have a pleasure of being the help manager
on this It's the noon service, last time to day
up to Brisbane one hour and eleven minutes past.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Hello, it's Brian Seymour. I'm just boarding a plane in
Sydney to head to Brisbane to join Allison and Sue
at the District Court for what we hope will be
a major, long awaited turning point in this case. We're
about to take off. We'll catch up with everyone very soon.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Fucl time here in Brisbane. He is one thirty six
in the afternoon.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Made their time difference to that of Sydney, and we'll
be getting into the gates soon.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Everyone's safety in see've got.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
Fastest in the island.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Hello, Sue, how are you love?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
You to see you again.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
Brian.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
It's Friday, November eight, twenty twenty four, and I arrive
at the District Court in Brisbane on a hot and
humid morning. I'm here because Allison is busy with another investigation,
the hit podcast The Truth About Amy. It's been a
year since our last episode of Shot in the Dark.
During that time, Sue Cole, Gwen's sister has been working
(02:08):
with her lawyers in preparation for today. What's happening today, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Today we're getting a hearing in the District Court in
Brisbane where we hope to have the original findings of
the inquest in Cans overturned today. So it's been a
long battle, and I've been fighting this battle ever since
the inquest took place in Cans in twenty twenty one.
And as you know, Brian, there are a lot of
things there that I believe did not go well and
(02:35):
procedures weren't followed correctly. So hopefully today we're looking forward
to that being overturned and us finally getting things done
according to the policies and procedures that they should have
been done by in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Yeah, so it's the hearing today, so your lawyer will
get up and make the case. Is anyone making the
case against overturning the findings of Krona Narty will.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I believe that narrative Wilson has her legal team here,
and then we have the Attorney General, who is I
believe meant to be an impartial type person as well.
So I'm not exactly sure what's going to unfold in
the courtroom today, but you know, you're just looking forward
to as getting some sort of satisfactory outcome for Gwen
(03:21):
finally after all these.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Years, and that application is sealed, So I don't know
what's in it, but I guess we'll find out. Well,
maybe we'll find out during the hearing, depending on what
the judge and the lawyers talk about. Nathan Jarrow is
the judge? Is he in any way relevant to this?
Does it matter?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I really don't know anything about the judge other than
I read that he has a criminal law background, so
I'm hoping that's a good thing. Because, as you know,
we have our report from Professor Johannes Staflow, who is
kind of the leading eminent experts in his field in
these type of cases in Australia. And in fact highly
regarded worldwide. So I'm hoping that this particular judge, with
(04:02):
his criminal law background will have knowledge of Professor Deflow
and also be able to look at those reports critically
and analyze them in a professional and correct manner.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
And there's two main arguments as I understand it, for
overturning Coroner Wilson's findings. One that you have new evidence
that could affect the outcome of an inquest and that
should be taken into consideration in a new inquest. And secondly,
that there were errors of procedure or fact finding in
the twenty one in quest that mean that that should
(04:40):
be set aside and either a new inquest or that
it just should be set aside.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yes, yeah, absolutely, that's absolutely correct, first and foremost, as
our argument has been all the way through, Brian, there
is no evidence supporting the finding of suicide. Now, the
other side may argue that, well, there isn't enough evidence
to support the finding of homicide will Well, may that be,
but there certainly is no evidence that supports the finding
(05:07):
of suicide. And I think that this is a crucial
matter here that needs to be addressed in an open
court assessed by an independent.
Speaker 4 (05:16):
Judge, certainly is things like you not hearing from a
biomechanical expert on whether or not it was possible for
Gwen to shoot herself with a rifle inside a car,
if that's where she was indeed shot, So things of
that nature that weren't considered. We had the ballistics expert
conduct some tests, but he's really not qualified to determine
whether or not Gwen could have fired upon herself.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
And in court he was a policeman who admitted in
court that his knowledge was very limited of these matters.
If you read that through the court transcripts, almost every
second question he was asked, he was saying, well, that's
not in my area of expertise or I'm not qualified
to answer that.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
So exactly. Another thing I've been thinking about coming up
here in the last few days from Sydney is just
how the coroner put a great store by the claim
that Gwen was so upset because she just discovered days
earlier her ex husband Duncan, from whom she was separated
in bed with her best friend Bet, and of course,
as we know that that didn't happen in that timeframe
(06:14):
at all, that's just completely wrong by their own accounts,
So in terms of her state of mind leaning towards
the finding of suicide, that's just flat out wrong and
that's just not what happened. So to me, there are
several things like that, and plus the new evidence the
young girls we spoken to who found Gwen first, we
believe sitting.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Up right, not to mention Ken Sober's ex wife, where
I have no reason to disbelieve Pamela's statement, but by
all accounts, he tried to do the exact same thing
to Pamela that I believe he did.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
To Gwen, and that evidence was not presented to Corona Wilson. Yeah,
so there appears on its face to be a good
case to have this overturned. I've got to ask you,
because you know, we've done a few of these investigations,
Alison and I, and you know there's a lot of
disappointment on the road to success. So I have to
ask you, how confident are you this morning that this
is going to go your way and you're going to
(07:05):
get on the next step towards justice for Gwen.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, the concerning thing is that in any case like this,
there's so many things that are out of the family's control.
I mean, I know what should happen, but once we
get in there, it will very much depend on how
his honor views things. And this is one of the
very concerning things, and one of the downfalls or the
pitfalls I believe of the current system is that there
(07:29):
are so many things that are beyond the family's control,
and there are so many things that we have absolutely
no saying at all. But I have full confidence in
our legal team. They put one hundred and fifty percent
effort in. I couldn't ask for anything more. They've been
absolutely amazing. So I know Gwen's here with this in
spirit today. So I'm just hoping that all the planets
(07:51):
will align and that we'll get the outcome that she
so rightly deserves, the outcome that she should have had
back in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
And just on that first of all, will we get
a decision today or will the judge reserve his decision
for a lot of time.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Well, once again, that's up to his honor, and I
believe that he may make a decision today, but it
will probably more than likely be he'll want to go away,
reflect on it, think about it, and then give us
a decision later on down the.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Track, okay, and then once that decision is made, assuming
it does go your way, So the findings of Coroner
Wilson a set aside and a new inquest is ordered.
That then begins a whole new step towards hopefully finding
justice for Gwen. And I hate to say it again,
but there is the chance that it could go the
(08:37):
same way as the first in quest. I mean you're
aware of all this, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Absolutely yes, And there have been cases in the past
in Australia that you would be right across Brian where
you know it's taken three in quests to get the
right result. But all I can say is now is
that my result is as strong today as it was
in nineteen eighty three, and I will continue to pursue
this while ever there's breath left in my body, which
all the way it goes today, you know, I might
(09:02):
be sort of picking up my Dolly and going home.
I'll be carrying on forward until we get just some
sort of justice in some sort of form for Gwen.
I mean, we all know Ken Soper isn't here anymore,
by some mysterious set of circumstances. His motorcycle ended up
under a truck shortly after I appealed the findings of
the coroner. He is no longer here, and I'm no
(09:25):
expert in the law, but in a sense that has
made it so that he can't be held truly accountable.
But I believe any reasonable person who reads that file
or who reads that story knows what really happened to
Gwen on the fourteenth of October nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Well, to put it in terms of our laws that
we're very happy with, it appears to be open to
a coroner to make an open finding, and I think
it was in that first inquest as well, which is
not to say that the coroner wasn't within her rights
to make the finding that she did. But certainly, my opinion,
your conviction, and many of our listeners believe it should
have been an open finding, and that there is, hopefully,
following what happens today, the chance that one will eventually
(10:06):
be made. So good good.
Speaker 7 (10:08):
Luck, Sue really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Sue is here with her husband Rod, and just now
Sue's sister Irene and her brother Stan arrived for another inquist.
Speaker 8 (10:18):
I certainly am as long as it's here in Brisbane.
You don't want to help to go to Cans anymore.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
I'd like to because I do not red a.
Speaker 8 (10:26):
Verdict that happened in Cans and I find another spy
and everyone held accountable for what they've done.
Speaker 4 (10:35):
Stan Hanniford is here to support his siblings, including the
one who cannot be here today.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
I think that the judge's read the whole case, which
I hope has. I think you can underlate one decision.
I still round us an around Laren a lot of
the case after our lawyer to how.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Is I know you spoke to this in an early
episode of It's mod Dust. It's a couple of years
go now, But I wanted to ask you because we
know that when I read it, and many of our
listeners feel that this is no question that Gwen I
did not take her own life and the evidence doesn't
support finding that. She definitely give you. But I have
to ask you, as a brother, what do you think
(11:14):
do you still hold that conviction?
Speaker 6 (11:16):
Oh? Yeah, she's known well she did it well.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
You know the photo of the white handbag on top
of the passenger see the passage seat is so good blood.
There's a white handbag on top of it, that it's
Christine and clean and apparently Gwen shot herself and her
head fell on that handbag and she led out that
can't possibly have happened.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
It was the scene been. It's been someone else there President,
as Sue has found out. Now one person and the
kids are going past its seeing it happens. There's still
at witnesses seeing that. Then the next thing we say
that were laying the one whole in this stage.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
All right, let's go to court.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Thank you, thanks Brian, see you in there.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
In a courtroom on the seventh floor, Sue, Cole, Stan
and Irene sit in the public gallery as their lawyers
ask a judge to reconsider the coronial inquest that found
their sister took her own life. We have reconstructed parts
of the hearing from the court transcript.
Speaker 9 (12:25):
Good morning, This is the matter of Cole and Wilson.
I'll take appearances please.
Speaker 10 (12:30):
If it pleases the court. My name is Fardon of
King's Counsel. I appear with my learned friend mister Wallace,
where instructed by Caxton Legal Center. Appearing on a pro
bono basis for the applicant.
Speaker 9 (12:40):
Thanks Miss Farndon.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
May it please the Court, Hickey of Counsel, I appear
for the Attorney General as amicus curier, instructed by Crown law.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Amicus curier is Latin for friend of the Court, a
legal term for someone who is assisting the court but
is not a party to the proceedings. In this case,
the Department of the Attorney General of Queensland has engaged
Matthew Hickey, a KC or King's Council to argue against
Sue's application.
Speaker 10 (13:09):
As your Honor's aware. This is an application pursuant to
Section fifty of the Coroner's Act to set aside the
findings of the Northern Coroner in this matter and order
a new inquest.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Judge Nathan Jarrow is hearing this application in the District Court.
He is Queensland's first Indigenous judge and son in law
to form a Queensland Governor, Paul de Jersey. He looks
quite young and he leans forward through much of the hearing,
asking many questions.
Speaker 10 (13:35):
Yes, your honor, so the findings, specifically the ones that
are being sought to be set aside at the findings
under the heading how she died and the findings under
the heading cause of death, and.
Speaker 9 (13:45):
I cannot, for example, substitute I don't have the power
to substitute the findings.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
Your honor does not have the power to substitute the findings.
Your honor only has a power to set aside yes.
So the essence of the applicants argument is there wasn't
sufficient evidence to be able to arrive at a finding
of suicide. From our perspective, our purpose would be achieved
if it was possible for your Honor to simply cross
out words relating to suicide or self inflicted from the findings.
(14:15):
Whether your Honor has the power to do that pursuant
to the provision is perhaps a question.
Speaker 9 (14:20):
All right. And is it because of the subsequent report
that it leaves open another possible hypothesis that the injuries
were not self inflicted.
Speaker 10 (14:29):
It's not just the subsequent report. Okay, there's two limbs
to the argument.
Speaker 9 (14:33):
Is that the podcast No.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Judge Jarrow is referring to this podcast in which we've
uncovered new evidence not considered by coroner Wilson in her
twenty twenty one inquest.
Speaker 10 (14:44):
The two limbs to the argument to that, on the
evidence as it stood before the coroner, the finding was
not reasonably supported.
Speaker 9 (14:51):
Yes, all right.
Speaker 10 (14:52):
And then the second limb to the argument is that further,
essentially new evidence also casts doubt on the finding. But
we don't lie on the new evidence before your honor
could find that the finding was not reasonably supported by
the evidence.
Speaker 9 (15:06):
So how then did the coroner find how could she
have found that the injury was self inflicted? Surely there
was evidence of that from the inquest.
Speaker 10 (15:15):
Well, yes, I can take your honor to the parts
of the findings as to how her honor arrived at that.
There's really two separate parts to this. There's the physical
evidence in relation to the undisputed evidence that she dies
by way of a bullet wound to the head and
she was found seated in the car with a firearm
is a physical evidence, and our submission is that is
(15:37):
supportive of any number of theories. So there's that aspect
to the evidence. But then if I can take your
honor to your honor will see the heading Gwen's Life
the macroscopic view, Yes, and her Honor then goes on
to find under that heading and particularly a number of
bullet points over the next page. But the significant findings
from our perspective are findings in relation to the pssibility
(16:00):
that Gwen harbored some hope that her marriage would still
be reconciled. There were findings that she became aware at
a time close to her death that her ex husband
and friend were in a relationship together and that she
was in a relationship with another person Immediately preceding her
death by the name of Ken Soper, she moved in
(16:21):
with mister Soper. The evidence was, which is not controversial,
that they broke up and she moved out the day
before her death.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Listeners will know this is crucial. Coroner Wilson heard evidence
that Gwen caught her ex husband Duncan, in bed with
her best friend the day before she died, supposedly contributing
to a depressive state of mind in conjunction with her
leaving her boyfriend Ken Soper and moving into a Rundown
flat for her and her two young sons.
Speaker 10 (16:52):
Herna then goes on to make findings in relation to
the circumstances in that twenty four hour period prior to
her death, and that includes a summary of the evidence
of Sharon Macady, where her honor summarized the evidence being
that she recalled Gwen being distraught on the day that
she was moving, that she was upset to the point
that she vomited, that she was emotional and talking about
(17:16):
financial difficulties, concerns for the boys and paying rent. She
refers to the fact that missus Macarty referred to Gwen
telling her that Ken that's mister Soper had been showering
her with gifts and she wasn't comfortable and didn't think
it would be a long term relationship. And then she
provided an opinion that according to missus Macaty, she didn't
(17:37):
think that Gwen had gotten over her previous marriage, and
that it was the evening prior to this that Gwen
had caught her ex husband and friend in bed together.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Sharon Macady was a friend who helped Gwen move into
the flat. The big problem with her recollection of Gwen
catching her ex and her best friend in bed two
days before she died is that the evidence shows that's
not what happened. We've all heard from Duncan Grover and
the friend Betty, who are now married, that Gwen found
them together two years earlier, prompting her then to drive
(18:11):
two thousand kilometers with her boys from Cairns to her
hometown of Bogabrye. Betty confirmed this in her evidence at
the twenty twenty one inquest.
Speaker 7 (18:22):
Okay and the time that Gwen walked in on you
and Duncan, was that before or after she went to Boglebrye.
She didn't walk in on Duncan and I she I
invited her in Okay? And was that before or after
she went to Boglebrye. That was before Okay, And then
she went away for a couple of years.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
I'm not sure how long it was.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
I think it was a yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:44):
And then she came back with the boys to Cans
And you and Gwen were friends, yes, And Gwen knew
of your relationship with Duncan. Yes when she arrived back
in Cans. Was there any animosity between you and her
about your relationship with Duncan?
Speaker 10 (19:00):
No?
Speaker 7 (19:00):
Was she upset about the relationship between you and Duncan?
Speaker 9 (19:04):
If she was, she never told me.
Speaker 7 (19:05):
Did she seem to you to have moved on with
her life?
Speaker 9 (19:08):
Well, she said she. She said she loved Ken Sofa
and she loved her more than what she did her
habby Duncan.
Speaker 10 (19:18):
Our submission is that the evidence doesn't support those factual
findings and that therefore, seeks to underline the difficulty with
the ultimate findings. There was no suicide note there was
despite the evidence of distress that was talked about by
various witnesses, there was no evidence of any suicidal ideation
(19:39):
expressed to any of those witnesses. There was ample evidence
of her love for her two boys and her being
invested and caring for their future, and there were simply
no end of life arrangements made that would often proceed
the taking of one's own life. In this case, all
there is is evidendent of some distress the evening before
(20:02):
she died, in the context of a relationship breakdown, coupled
with the physical evidence of the scene.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Miss Varndon makes the point that there is no evidence
about Gwen's movements between ten thirty PM and the next
morning when her body was found sometime before noon, only
Ken Soaper's claim that Gwen entered his home and took
a gun from his cupboard.
Speaker 10 (20:25):
We've also drawn attention to, and really just to highlight
the gaps in relation to what was not recorded by
police back in nineteen eighty three. The photos depict Gwen's
handbag sitting on the pool of blood on the seat
next to her, which is just simply unexplained when it
must have been moved at some stage subsequently to her death,
(20:47):
which is not explained, whether that was by the police,
by a witness, it is one of the aspects about
which there is just simply no evidence. So ultimately you're
on the position is that whilst it's accepted that there
was also for those very same factors a paucity of
evidence implicating anybody else in Gwen's death, it can't be
(21:09):
the position and perhaps this is an error that her
honor has fallen into in terms of reverse engineering. Well,
there's no evidence that anyone else was involved, therefore this
was a suicide. In fact, it's our position that there
was no evidence that there was anyone else involved, or
insufficient evidence that there was anyone else involved, And there
was also insufficient evidence to be able to find that
(21:32):
it was a suicide.
Speaker 9 (21:34):
So what should the coroner have determined there about how
the cause of death arose?
Speaker 10 (21:39):
Well, the ultimate submission is that the only finding that
could properly be made on the evidence was that she
died by a bullet wound to the head. That it
was simply not possible to make any finding about who
had pulled the trigger.
Speaker 9 (21:54):
So then should I simply just set aside the finding
and not order another inquest.
Speaker 10 (21:59):
If the whole of If the finding is set aside,
then under the Coroner's Act they're obliged to go back
effectively and attempt to arrive at those findings.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
This is a key argument in the hearing. The judge
has three options. He can uphold the coroner's findings, set
them aside, or set them aside and order the inquest
be reopened. Ms Fandon argues the Coroner's Act states that
any new or reopened inquest may accept evidence or findings
that emerged in the earlier in quest, which includes Coroner
(22:41):
Wilson's findings about the circumstances leading up to Gwen's death.
More on that shortly. Now. She turns to the report
by Professor Johann Duflo, a consulting forensic pathologist engaged by
Sue's lawyers to examine the evidence.
Speaker 10 (22:58):
The point of Professor Duflow's report is that it cannot
be established whether it was a suicide or whether it
was by another mechanism, and in fact he favors that
it was more likely perhaps the alternative explanation of it
being somebody else. So there was a witness who gave
evidence at the inquest that they observed Gwen sitting in
(23:19):
an upright position with a rifle or a gun between
her legs and appeared to be deceased at the time.
And so this evidence was also another witness essentially coming
forward subsequently to the inquest indicating that her and her
sister had also seen her in an upright position.
Speaker 9 (23:37):
I see, so the witness did not that witness was
not call.
Speaker 10 (23:40):
I understood that she had listened to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (23:44):
Professor to Flow, in his report, queried the change in
the position of Gwen's body from upright in the driver's
seat to laying across the front seats in the handful
of photographs taken by police. He also mentions the lack
of a pathologist examining the scene, which should have been
done even in nineteen eighty three, and the feasibility of
(24:04):
Gwen shooting herself with a long rifle.
Speaker 10 (24:07):
And what your honor can see is what that tells
us then, is that this is a long armed rifle that,
in order to be self inflicted, would have been held
with the right hand. And the evidence is that Gwen
was right handed, held to her left side, with her
dominant hand somewhere around the barrel of the rifle and
her non dominant hand operating the trigger at some angle,
(24:30):
and Professor Duflow indicates that he can't rule that out
as being suicide. But ordinarily you would expect if there
was to be a suicide with a long rifle, it
would be through the mouth. Whilst there was a re
enactment completed, and whilst yes, Professor dou Flow accepts it
may have been physically possible, the evidence supports that that
(24:52):
is unlikely given the location of the injuries and the
handedness of the person operating the firearm.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Hi Allison here, I arrive in court as the matter
is well under way and join Brian at the media table.
It's time for Lawyer Matthew Hickey to present his case
against setting aside the findings of the inquest.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
The point to be noted at the outset, your honor,
is that it's not sufficient in order to identify things
that were missing from the evidence. If the evidence that
was present of itself is capable of supporting the finding.
To say it again, if there is sufficient evidence available
to support the finding the mere fact that there was
some evidence not adduced does not fatally undermine the finding
(25:40):
that was made. The second ground is that there's new
evidence that casts doubt on the finding. Your honor knows
what that is. Your honor has heard about that. It's
the evidence of Professor Duflo and the person who gave
that interview in the podcast.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
He's talking about the woman who approached us after listening
to the podcasts to say she and her sister when
they were teenagers, found Gwen's body in the car, confirming
she was sitting upright.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
The new evidence does not rise to the character which
car sufficient doubt or cogency upon the nature of the
findings as to make it appropriate case to reopen the
inquest or to set aside the findings by reference to
that particular evidence. It was not the coroner's function, and
it would be wrong for this court to determine that
the coroner erred by not having excluded the possibility of
(26:31):
someone else having killed Missus Grover. If the evidence that
was available to her was sufficient to satisfy her that,
in fact, she had died by a self inflicted gunshot wound.
It is not the coroner's job to explore every available
hypothesis and rule them out. Rather, the coroner's job is
to look at the evidence that's before them and find
(26:54):
facts by reference to the evidence on the balance of probabilities.
In that particular case.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Sharrow asked mister Hickey if it was necessary for coroner
Narrator Wilson to go beyond the finding of how she
died by gunshot, defining that she took her own life.
Mister Hickey says the coroner was duty bound to try
and if she was satisfied by the evidence, to make
the finding of suicide. And he says the new evidence
(27:21):
Professor de Flow's report is not compelling enough.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
The short point about that is this Professor Duflow says,
it's a possibility that someone else shot missus Grover. That's
as high as the evidence goes properly construed. In my
respectful submission, he does not go so far as to
say she did not kill herself. He does not go
so far as to scrutinize the evidence that was before
(27:45):
the coroner and say that's wrong for all of these reasons.
That would be a very different kind of new evidence.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Mister Hickey argues that the lack of a suicide note
or end of life planning, and other things which might
weigh against the fining of suicide do not matter as
long as the coroner found sufficient grounds to make the finding.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
She did Your honor then sees reference to some evidence
of mister Locke. Mister Locke was the person who had
located Missus Grover deceased in the vehicle. What your Honor
sees is that mister Locke's recollection is that Missus Grover
was sitting upright like you would if driving, with a
rifle between her legs. So that's the first point of evidence,
(28:26):
is that Missus Grover is in the car with the
rifle between her legs.
Speaker 9 (28:30):
But the photographs conflict with that.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Yes, well they may well, do your honor, but the
difficulty is there's no explanation for why the photographs do
or do not conflict. And again I'm not trying to
urge on your honor the correctness.
Speaker 9 (28:45):
So then that calls into question though the finding.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
It might call into question the acceptance of mister Locke's
evidence alone.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
As this is stated, it's hard not to consider that
the coroner never heard from the teenage girl who also
found Gwen sitting upright, corroborating Craiglocke's evidence. Mister Hickey runs
through some of the evidence the coroner did, consider the
cigarette ash and empty beer cans in the car, her
(29:14):
blood alcohol reading of zero point one point five, and
claims that Gwen drank too much, and her family's evidence
that they were not aware of her doing so.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Mister Hickey also points out that a re enactment was
done by a police ballistics expert, Senius Argent Magtealow, showing
it was mechanically possible for Gwen to have shot herself
in the car, though as you heard he himself admitted
this is not his area of expertise.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Then he repeats the finding that Gwen was upset because
she found Duncan and Betty together the night before she died.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Urna sees that some evidence to which her honor referred
from again Missus Mackardy, that Gwen appeared to never get
over her separation from Duncan and the subject came up
most times when they were together, and that Missus Grover
hated the thought of Duncan and Betty together. Urona sees
that Miss MacCarty had given evidence that on the evening
(30:15):
of twelve October. That's two days before missus Grover was found.
She had caught Duncan, her former husband, and Betty in
bed together, and miss Maggotty's evidence, Her Honor concluded, had
implied that that was the catalyst for Gwen's distress.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
On the thirteenth, Mister Hickey then refers to Gwen's final
words to her ex husband Duncan.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Then your Honor sees a further account given by Duncan
that she says, promise me, you'll look after the boys.
I said, yeah, no problem, of course I will. Gwen said, no,
I mean it. If anything happens to me, you'll look
after them. Now. Of course I paused there to observe
your Honor that, on one view, a statement of that
(31:00):
kind might well have suggested that missus Grover was fearful
for a life or apprehended that somebody was going to
do her some mischief. But equally, against the background of
all of the other evidence that I've taken your Honor
to that her Honor had regard to, it's explicable that
(31:20):
somebody who in fact did have suicidal ideation at that
particular point in time and intended to do themselves an
injury and was oppressing upon her husband her wish that
the boys be looked after. One can't be certain about
that either way, but again it's part of the matrix
of facts upon which your honor relies in this case.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Mister Hickey closes his submission by reminding the judge that
the currentis court is overwhelmed with work and the judge
should consider what public interest there is in reopening the inquest.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Mss Farndon rises to make a brief reply, making some
technic legal points and pointing out that under the Queensland
Coroner's guidelines there is a presumption against suicide. Here is
Miss Findon's final argument.
Speaker 10 (32:10):
My learned friend made the submission that if there is
any evidence that supports the finding, then essentially our application
rises and falls. The application, to be clear is grounded
in the evidence is that the finding cannot reasonably support
it by the evidence, rather than that there is no
evidence that could support the finding, which is a difference,
(32:32):
and specifically the finding which did make its way into
the ultimate findings that she was overwhelmed by the circumstances
of her life. The submission is that there is no
evidence that she was overwhelmed, there is evidence of some distress.
There is then the statement that missus Grover held out
some hope of reconciliation to Duncan upon her return to Cans.
(32:55):
There is no evidence to support that proposition, and the
state meant that he became intimately involved with her close
friend Betty caused her great suffering in so far as
that relies on a time proximate to her death. Again,
great suffering not being supported by the evidence. The only
evidence that can be relied upon to support those findings
(33:18):
is the evidence of missus Macadey, and it simply does
not reach the heights of the findings that have been
made about her being overwhelmed. Those were the submissions that
I wish to make in reply your honor.
Speaker 9 (33:31):
Thanks Miss Farndon. Well can I thank everyone for their assistance.
I will consider the matter.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
So just quickly, Stan, we've just come out of the court.
What's your initial reaction to what we've just heard?
Speaker 6 (33:45):
A very impressed I think we've got are a winner
with her judge. I think he's on outside and he
certainly was interested in the the evidence that wasn't brought
up again, so you know, I'm happy. I generally heppy,
I think you're wrong with it. I'm really keen to
see the outcome.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Of it, well know soon enough.
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Thank you very much, Brian. Yeah, I'm very impressed, very happy.
Good luck pressure.
Speaker 8 (34:13):
Thanks n I'm very well.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
It was really good.
Speaker 8 (34:17):
I got to see the mainly not the best part,
but I got to see these submissions by Hickey which
were really interesting.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
How did you find me sucit?
Speaker 2 (34:26):
I thought it.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Really interesting, and I am I'm nice to say I'm
much knowing to preempt anything.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
It sounded too positive, but I was.
Speaker 11 (34:32):
Very impressed with the attention that his honor gave to
the detail, and he really did seem to take it seriously.
So I certainly have a much better feeling today than
I had the day than I walked out of the
Cans Cool House.
Speaker 8 (34:48):
Yeah, I think the other thing is.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
Worth bringing up.
Speaker 8 (34:50):
But at the end, when mister Hickey pointed out, how
if the judge does overturn the decision, and if I
find he doesn't think he should go to an all
post because of you know, type resources and the costs
and everything and the public interest.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Bizarre, I know.
Speaker 8 (35:06):
But the thing that made me think more about this
is if the job was done properly in the first place,
this wouldn't be necessary. This hasn't been caused by hell,
this has been caused by authorities.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Right, Yeah, what I would say the public interests spec
served by coroners and judges more properly reviewing evidence and
making findings based on it. In fact, that it can
be supported kron of heal. So if they do their
job well in the first since everyone saves a lot
of time and money. And this is exactly the kind
of case that should go have another review becauseisly so
(35:39):
that other cases going forward do get the level of
scrutiny and justice so that they're not having to be redone.
Speaker 8 (35:47):
So yeah, in the words of Michael Bosh, it should
of course be a very popular TV series, important series.
Everyone matters or no one matters.
Speaker 5 (35:58):
I I can add to that with Martin Luther King's
famous quote where he said an injustice anywhere, visiting justice everywhere,
like justice say, Oh, it's only it's only when it's
telling a single matter. It's only when only a single mother,
it's only one who it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
They all matter, Everyone matters.
Speaker 8 (36:16):
But we also know the premise right of this will
be recorded and then the decision exactly then rely on
you know, I will quote with this decision, that will
will rely on others and hopefully prepare the same thing
happening right exactly.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
How you feeling, thanks, I'm well that's all I wanted
to know. But you've heard the lawyers make it hast
for and against. How's it going to go?
Speaker 5 (36:42):
It's how you go our definitely, And I thought that
judge was so small brilliant.
Speaker 8 (36:48):
I hope you feel this way in a month's time,
I will, I know.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
Thanks everyone, Thanks.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
For of course Judge Jaro may that coroner Wilson's findings
were correct and dismiss Sue's application that they be set aside.
We will know when he hands down his decision shortly.
Will this be a frustrating dead end for Sue, Stan
(37:16):
and Irene or will it be the decisive twist in
this incredible tale. Someone somewhere may know more about this case.
Perhaps one of our listeners may help find the information
that reveals the truth behind the death of Gwen Grover.
(37:41):
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 dot com dot au. If this podcast has raised
issues for you, please call Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen
(38:04):
or visit them at www dot lifeline dot org dot au.
This podcast is brought to you by me presenter and
journalist Alison Sandy. If you like what you're hearing, please
rate and review our podcast. It helps other listeners find
us special thanks to my writer, producer Brian Seymour, Gwen's
(38:30):
sister and tireless campaigner for Justice Sue Cole, sound 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 4 (38:51):
When noway st swom the Pains.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Shot in the Dark is a seven News production.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.