December 19, 2025 • 35 mins
Justice was shockingly ripped from Leisl Smith’s family when her killer ended his own life. For more than 13 years, Jerildene Cane fought for answers over her little sister’s disappearance. And in September 2025, they finally got them when a coroner handed down her findings.
Jerildene joins Gary Jubelin on this bonus episode of I Catch Killers to reflect on the unprecedented decision, fighting the legal system and how her refusal to accept “no” might potentially change the law for other families.
Catch up on Jerildene’s past I Catch Killers podcast interviews. Part one is here, part two is here, and a bonus from the Coroner’s Court is here.
Want to hear more from I Catch Killers? Visit news.com.au.
Watch episodes of I Catch Killers on our YouTube channel here.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
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 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective sy aside of life, the average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Welcome to a bonus follow up episode of I Catch Killers.
Back in twenty twenty three, our guest Geraldine Kane reached
out to me to discuss the murder investigation of a sister,
Liesel Smith. Lisel Smith was just twenty three years old
when she vanished from the central coast of New South
Wales in twenty twelve. The police believed that she had
(01:08):
been murdered and that they knew who was responsible police
were in the process of getting answers for Liesl's family.
They had charged her partner, James Scott Church, with a murder,
and after a lengthy judge only trill that sat for
over sixty eight days, Justice Elizabeth Fulton indicated she would
hand down her verdict on the eighth of July twenty
(01:31):
twenty two. Geraldine and the family had waited ten years
for this moment, but the day they had been waiting
for was taken away from them when James Church took
his own life the day before the verdict was due
to be handed down. Geraldine was informed, due to this
the rigid legal system that seems to lack any compassion,
(01:51):
that the verdict could not be made available to the public.
That just added to the trauma of the family. I
always believed that if the law was broken or failed
the people is there to serve, it should be changed.
After meeting with Geraldine, I suggested that the simplest way
the hurdle could be overcome was for the matter to
be referred to the coroner and the coroner could deliver
(02:12):
a finding. This was without precedent, but to me it
seemed to be a simple fix on the back of
those discussions, Geraldine appeared on I Catch Killers and lobbied
in the media and with the law makers to see
if this could be achieved. It makes me very happy
to announce that Geraldine's efforts were rewarded. And on the
twenty ninth of September this year, Deputy State Coroner Harriet
(02:36):
Graham found that Liesel Smith was killed by a partner,
James Scott Church. So I thought they'd get Geraldine back
on the podcast to discuss the process and the impact
that it's had on her. Geraldine Kane, Welcome back to
I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Thanks Gary, Thanksgarving me.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Well, it's good to have you back here.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
But the circumstances that we'd probably we all be happier
if I wasn't speaking to you, But there's been Yeah,
it is what it is, isn't it. There's been some
developments on Lisel's case. Now I've explained to the audience
about the background to the situation, and can you just
(03:17):
tell us in your words what's occurred since we last
had you on the podcast and spoke to you at
the coroner's court I think was the last time I
saw you.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, So Coroner's finished and she went to basically think
over what had been presented to her, and she was
also taking some leave that had been pre planned a
while before, and then gave us a date that it
was on the date of my birthday. Actually that she
presented her findings, and basically she found that Jim Church
(03:53):
had killed Lisel, he was responsible for her death, and
that if Lisel's remains were ever found that she would
reopen the case because the manner of death could not
be ascertained, obviously, but she accepted the evidence that had
been put before her, and she also mentioned to the
(04:16):
ag there'd been a review I think it was twenty
twenty three, and a certain number of recommendations have not
been implemented, one of which was recommendation thirty four. My
understanding is that the coroner should not have to name
a person as having done an action that has caused
the death of another.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I might be wrong.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
It's all very much legal jargon and everything. But she
was not impressive. None of the recommendations have been implemented
from that review, and she also referred basically not our case,
but more the circumstances in terms of the issue of abatement,
which has been the biggest hurdle in terms of not
getting a verdict, has asked the AG to refer that
(05:00):
to the new South Wales Legal Commission four of you
to see whether there can be any sort of changes
to the law on specific circumstances such as what happened
with Lisal, which is what she can do.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, I've been through the findings of the coroner and
there's some significant things in there, and from a personal
point of view for yourself and your family, calling that
limbo situation of sitting through I think it was over
or sixty eight days hearing of a trial for the
person that was charged with murdering Lisel and then have
(05:35):
that person kill themselves on the virtual day that the
judge only it was a judge only trial was going
to hand down the verdict. How distressing that would have
been for the family because you battled. It was a
ten year battle to get it to that point basically,
and then you're left in limbo with no one being
accountable for what's happened to your sister.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Yeah, it was interesting because the detectives involved in the
coastal had different points of view as well, but the
current actually found that quite helpful. She said, because it
shows the amount of consideration that or the variance of
perspectives that is raised with term of abatement and how
that would apply. What I found really interesting was that
(06:20):
not one family member from the defendant, none of his friends,
nobody turned up to defend him or to say no,
the evidence you've presented his role and they had the
opportunity to do so.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
A nata kind you know, if everyone's saying, oh, he didn't.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Do it, where were they?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
And also on the thing and when we first met,
and this was the thing that I could tell was
your frustration, but that it was mine having a bit
more of an understanding about the legal system and about
what it takes to convict someone of murder or at
least have a murder trial. All the evidence had been presented,
(07:00):
any defense opportunity that was available to him, it could
have been taken during the trial, if I could understand,
it would be a completely different situation if he had
no opportunity to defend himself. But the system was set
up to allow him to defend himself.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Yeah, he had every availability to participate how he wanted to.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And then when we talk the abatement, I think we're
talking in legal terminology, we're talking about whether a decision
can be made in the absence of the accused person
when the person's passed away.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
So that's my understanding.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, and I think the coroner will touch on a
little bit later in the recommendations that the coroner has made.
But looking for legislation to be changed because clearly a
legal system should be there to serve the people that
represents and if justice is not done because of some
antiquated legal principle, maybe that's when changes should be done.
(08:00):
I'm look, I'm happy for you, and happy is a
funny word put when you're talking about the murder of
your sister, But I'm happy at least someone has been
identified as been responsible for the murder of Lisel.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
I think it just confirmed, especially after listening to all
the relevant evidence that was presented in coroners, because obviously
there's different ways that the courts are run, criminal versus coroners.
It just really cemented what I've come to. The conclusion
I come to during the criminal court was that you know,
(08:36):
he did it, you know, and I have to commend
the women that were his intimate partners that had been abused,
you know, quite extensively by Church, who submitted after David's
in support of the criminal child.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
It was never presented basically because.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
The DPP at the time felt that they had enough evidence,
which is fine, but because it was relevant in criminal
court as sorry in Coronis court, they looked at that
he was still perpetrating domestic violence, or rather violence against women,
because there's nothing domestic against about it against the partner
that he had when he died. So you know, I
(09:17):
just I take my hat off to these women that,
even under fear and you know, fear of their life
from him and the abuseit he perpetrated against them, stepped
up and provided evidence to show that he had a.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
History of it.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
He certainly had motive, and he had an extensive history
of violence against women and animals as well, which you know,
a huge red flags. So look, the thing for me
is that he can't appeal it. He can't say you
didn't do it. It confirms what majority of us believed, even
(09:52):
though we don't have a verdict. And I really hope
that the age takes on board what the Coron has
said and refers, you know, refers to as she's recommended,
and you know, stops another family from having to do this.
It's just, you know, it's not that it's not fair,
but there was no need for it. I don't think,
(10:16):
And I think if it can be prevented in the future,
as I said, you know, specifics with legislation and stuff,
then it should be you know, people shouldn't be forced
to go through this just because, as you said, there's
an antiquate, hated yeah law or reasoning that you know,
that's because it's always been the way.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Well that's not good enough never, you know, nor should
it be.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
And that was the frustration that was coming across with
you when you're explaining the situation to me when we
first met that you've constantly been told, well, this is
what we do. But the situation that presented yourself in
this particular case is a unique set of circumstances. It's
not going to happen very often, but it potentially could happen.
(10:58):
And by changing the legisla that it's not going to
open the floodgates. The world's not going to change. It
will just stop families like your family going through what
you've gone through before. And that's interesting when all the
evidence is presented at a coroner's inquest because it's an
inquisitorial so the rules of evidence differ from the adversarial
system that the criminal core is. But it just adds
(11:20):
to the weight of evidence against him.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I think it certainly supported the case that the DPP had.
It showed that, you know, as I said, there was
history and everything. I think the other thing in getting
the law change is that it acts as at a turrent.
If people that are considering doing the same thing know that, well,
you can do that, but this is what's going to
happen regardless. Then you can either take the chance what's
(11:49):
what gets said an appeal and you know, try and
do it that way, or you just get named and
that's it and you don't have any chance of running
an appeal. Then yeah, I honestly think it will, you know,
act as a terrent for people that are considering that
path to try and get out of.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Having to do time. That's just my personal opinion whether
that's the case or not.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I hadn't that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't even considered that.
I was thinking more of the anks that would cause
the families of loved ones. But yes, because it is
a way that people could take out to protect their
reputation knowing the inevitables coming, and well, if I'm no
longer here my reputation there'll still be an element of doubt.
(12:33):
So that's a very valid point, a very valid point,
and I think it's something that should should be considered.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
I think the two acting is a too terrent in
preventing anks for the family go hand in hand.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
There's innocent until presumed guilty, but at the same time
you know you shouldn't. That shouldn't be in the pursuit
of not causing a victim's family more angst than.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Needed, And it could be a case of a drag
a court matter out until someone passes by natural causes
rather than suicide. So it shows that there's no benefits
in delaying matters as well. So no, I think it's
a significant result that you've managed to get. Is it
a double edged sword in a way because the person
(13:18):
hasn't been held accountable why he's still on this earth
and you don't know the full details. Taught me through
it from a personal point of view, it's.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Been something that I've I've had to work out what
I'm happy with, would I've liked him to be held
accountable and be doing jail time, and you know, his
to him, his reputation in tatters. Yeah, you know, but
at the end of the day, as I said before,
it doesn't bring it back. It doesn't change what he did.
(13:51):
It doesn't mitigate the abuse that she went through, or
you know, the steps that he took off towards to
try and cover what he did. At the end of
the day, it doesn't change anything. Lisel's not here. I
can't do anything about that. Him being alive or not
doesn't change that. I guess the biggest thing that I
(14:14):
have felt was the best for me was that the
Corona has named him as contributing or causing Liesl's death,
rather and the fact that he can't do anything about it.
He's been named as causing the death of my sister.
He can't appeal it, His family can't do anything. They
certainly weren't interested in defending his reputation or defending his
(14:37):
character in coronial court. And you know that is forever
on the record now, and I think in the scheme
of things and the context of what's gone on, that
was probably the best outcome that we were going to
get and as I said, something you know said mentioned
before something was better than nothing.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
That's something, as you said, is quite substantial. You know.
It's it's not.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Necessarily set a precedent, but it's shown that what happened
was not okay. And so it provides, I guess, the
founding blocks of things to be built upon for that.
And if that's what's come of what's occurred, I'm okay
with that.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
As I said, it just doesn't change anything.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
One thing that you missed out on the opportunity in
a murder troll is a victim's impact statement that you
get up and you explain to the court what the
person's actions has caused in regards to your life and
the paint. What would you say that James Church now
if he was still alive.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
What I said in ConA is when I was allowed
to speak. You know, throughout the whole process, we had
no input into any of the decisions that were made,
and you know, yet we suffered the consequences. I didn't
decide to murder my sister because of a supposed event
that you know, and there was some conjecture about whether
(16:09):
Lisa was pregnant or not. I think she was, but
that's a separate thing. You know, I didn't ask for
any of this. You know, he had no right to
do what he did. And you know the ways that
that has impacted me and my family.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Some we've worked out, others.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
You know, I might never understand how it's affected me
or my perspective.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
You know, she had her life ahead of us, and to.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Think that someone felt that they had the right to
do that makes me so angry and upset.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
You know, who did he think he was to do that?
Speaker 4 (16:43):
You know, what gave him the right to abuse his partners,
you know, or commit violence against them? Like I don't
know whether I talk to him, I probably would just
refuse to acknowledge his existence in all honesty, Gary, because
I think acknowledge his existence in some ways legitimizes his behavior,
(17:04):
especially with what he did to my sister. And I
will never ever condone violence against another person, as much
as you might want to do something because you're frustrated,
thinking about it and carrying it out are too completely
opposite opposite things. You know, there's that no I know
what's wrong, and therefore I won't do it.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
But it's just.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Just he did something he didn't have the right to do,
and I will never understand why he thought he did.
And you know, the stress and the angst and the
pain and the impact that that has had on my family,
so my husband and my kids as well as you know,
my siblings and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
I don't think that will ever be able to be quantified.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
And I don't think something like that can be for
any family where a member or a.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Lot ofd ones gone missing, to be found murdered. I
just think it's something that's so.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Intangible and can't be measured or correlated or put in
put in a way that can be measured objectively. That's
what makes it so difficult to rest with while you're
going through the system. It's not like you can say
I had five of these and now I've got team
and now I've lost a lot sort of things. Yeah,
(18:21):
it's just it's hard to verbilize it. But I just
think that, you know, we're expected to pay for something
that we didn't necessarily want.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Or have any input in, and.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I just yeah, yeah, it's hard to put into words.
What would you say the families face with the battle
that you've had has been a battle for you to
get it to this point about your shame, resilience and
tenacity to continue and fight for Liesel's memory. What would
you advise families that might find themselves in similar situations
(19:00):
where they're battling the system, so to speak.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
You can only do what you can only do, you know,
I guess you know.
Speaker 4 (19:10):
I always hate it when people said, you know, time
heals time, doesn't you.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Know?
Speaker 2 (19:18):
And it is only one day at a time.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
You can't control other people's reactions or decisions. You can
only do your own. And if that's all that you
can manage, that's okay. And it doesn't matters whether you know,
I liken it to a marathon.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
You just keep plugging at it. If you take a
week off because that's what.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
You need to do for your mental health, and you
need to step away, that's okay.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
You know.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
It's you're not going to You're not going to forget them.
It's not going to fall apart. Whatever you're trying to achieve,
it's not going to go away. It will still be there.
If you need to take a step away, you know,
spend time with families that are there, and you know
your mental health is important, you know, because without that
(20:04):
you can't just you can't function.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, and sadly, I've seen too many families fighting for
justice in a whole range of different different forms. And
part of the advice I give them is if you've
got to step away, a step away, and you articulated
that very well, that you can step away and take
a break, and then when you rebuilt yourself, go for
(20:28):
it again. I also got advice from Mark and Fay Levison,
who had a battle with a system and had to
try something a little bit different.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Out of left field to recover their son.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
And Mark's words and I pass these words on to
a lot of people, just don't take no for an answer,
because I would imagine if if you just accepted what
the system told you, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Probably not. I mean, no is not the worst thing
that people can say. I've had no a number of
time and it's like, well, okay, you said no.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
That just means that I need to work out how
it can happen in a different way.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
There are ways to achieve results.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Let's I'll just take you briefly through the findings, because
it is good to hear it said publicly and the
findings to be published, and this is the findings from
the coroner in regards to Liesl's death. The person who
died was Liesel Smith. The date to death Liesel died
on the nine eighth of August twenty twelve, at some
time after two point two pm. Place of death. Liesel
(21:32):
died at or somewhere in the vicinity of the Central
Coast or Upper Hut regions of New South Wales. The
cause of death. Liesel's cause of death remains unknown. Manner
of death. Liesel's death was a homicide. She was killed
by James Scott Church. So you've got someone in the
(21:54):
judicial system actually saying he's responsible. So I would imagine
that it gives you some comfort, not closure, not timehells
or wounds, but it gives you some acknowledgment that at
least the person responsible has been held accountable in some way.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, it does, because I was thinking about this the
other day.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Funny enough, we've got someone named you know, I know personally,
I know who did it and it was him. And
I think about families where it's fifteen, twenty, twenty five,
thirty plus years and they're no closer to having an
answer in terms of what happened or who did it,
(22:38):
or you know, any sort of indication that things are
going to be they're.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Going to get some sort of answer.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
And I think in terms of that, compared to other people,
I don't.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Think we're incredibly lucky.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
I think the police did a fabulous job with what
they had to contend with. And I I just I
can't imagine being thirty years down the track and still
not knowing what the hell.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Happened to her like that. That would just be worst
nightmare sort of stuff.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
So I think we are incredibly fortunate that, yes, she
was missing, but there was circumstances that pointed to who
who did it based.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
On his own actions, amongst other things.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
And I always think of those that you know, didn't
have the opportunity that we did, I really just feel
for them.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
You know, it's very generous of you, given what yourself
and your family go through. You mentioned the police. That
coroner also mentioned the police, and again this is in
the coroner's conclusions, and I'll just read out what she
said about the police. I not only extend my gratitude
to them, but I formally commend the technive Sergeants Jones
(23:55):
Hayden and Erickson and miss Lawson for their work in
this enormous, multifaceted investigation which enabled the matter to proceed
the trial and ultimately which has enabled me to make
my factual findings in this court. I just from a
personal point of view, I like it when it's good
work of police that get results. I've got to say
(24:16):
when I met the police, when it was back at
the inquest, I met some of the police there and
I was impressed by how much they cared, which carries
a big carries a big thing in the way matters
are investigated. I until they genuinely cared, soquos to the
police and you have already acknowledged that.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
And the annework that they had to do and to
go back and recheck and you know, consistently go back
and make sure that you know what they'd found or
what was said to them was true, was just enormous.
I mean, he kept changing his alibis, he kept changing
what he was saying. Everything had to be checked and
double checked again to make sure that you know, there
(24:57):
were no inconsistencies or discrepancies.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
As you know, you know, they can end up quite.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Digging in criminal court it was just it was phenomenal,
just you know, I have the utmost respect for the
work that they did.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And then towards the end with.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
The Coronial, in order to try and find where Lisa is,
they had a specialist do some geo mapping, but unfortunately
the area is still you know, based on the information
that they had, it still remains too large to sort
of pinpoint where she could be. And the terrain there
(25:33):
is just really rocky and scrubby and whatnot. But it
was just that extra effort, like they went back again
to try and you know, using the various techniques to
try and find her. And they didn't have to, you know,
they could have just done we've done that and we
can't find it. But they went back and tried again
and tried different ways, and you know, obviously technology has
(25:54):
improved a little bit.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
I'm still in.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Touch with one of them and have been told that
point they were up that way to touch base, which
I really really appreciate. Unfortunately, one of them has left
the force in part due to this investigation, and you know,
I just I take my hat off, you know, given
(26:17):
the dynamics and a few other things that they would
have had to deal with that. It would have made
investigating a lot more difficult, but they kept going, you know,
and to have a police officer or a detective rather
apologize for not finding his sister is confronting. And you know,
(26:39):
to be asked to forgive them for something that they
didn't do wrong is you know the.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Fact Gerald then that they say that tells me that
they care and they're the type of people that you
want on the case. They should take it personally and
that you know it can come as a cost, but
that brings a lot of peace to the families knowing
you've got people that are genuinely trying to find out
what happened. Hey guys, it's Gary jubilin here. Want to
(27:07):
get more out of I Catch Killers, then you should
head over to our new video feed on Spotify where
you can watch every episode of I Catch Killers. Just
search for I Catch Killers video in your Spotify app
and start watching today. The coroner also made a comment
about the legal team, and I know the nuances of
(27:29):
any court matter, whether it be a murder trial or
a coronial inquest, the standard can be set by the
team that presents it. So I'll just read what the
coroner said about the council assisting. Finally, I think my
counselor assisting team Gabriel Bashir, senior counsel Emma Sullivan and
Peter ava Jones, and they're instructing solicitors Elisa Wood and
(27:51):
Alex McShane and Vivian Way before them, who diligently assisted
me and insured the fair and efficient conduct of these proceedings.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
So that's good in itself.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
It sounds like you got the a team for the
inquest with the police and the council assisting, and it
does make a difference.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
So your experiences from.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
That they were fabulous.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
They kept in touch, whether it was by email, we
had casion, we had a few meetings. They explained sort
of what they were going to do, what they wanted
to include, what they would go through in presenting the
case to the coroner, explain why you know they wouldn't
do X, but they would.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Do why you know. They were just they were really lovely.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
They were very considerate of how this may be re
traumatizing for us, especially after what had happened.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
So was the coroner. I just I couldn't fault them.
It was very much an experience that I don't.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Want to repeat, but was made a lot easier by
by the way that they handled it, and you know
they have my gratitude for that.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Again, it pleases me to hear that, because that can
make a horrendous situation that little bit more bearable having
people like that. On the issue of changing the law.
This is from the Coroner's recommendation, so we'll just put
this out there too, that the Attorney General of New
South Wales refer to the New South Wales Law Reform
(29:19):
Commission arising from the facts in this case, the question
of whether the doctrine of abatement operating in the criminal
justice system should be reformed, for example, to consider whether
there may be proceedings in which verdicts can be delivered
in circumstances wherein accused dies during the currency of their trial,
and to consider in particular the operation of the doctrine
(29:41):
in circumstances where deliberations of a judge alone or jury
have concluded. A copy of these finders is to be
included with the referral. So again cudos to the Coroner,
Harriet Graham for making those recommendations, because clearly she saw
something that needed to be fixed. And hopefully those recommendations
(30:01):
will be put in the place I hope.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
So she did not sound very happy with the fact
that they had not been implemented, So hopefully they do
what they're supposed to. My understanding is that the curenter
does not make recommendations lightly, especially in a case like
this where there are potential and substantial, far reaching legal
(30:24):
ramifications and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And she sounded.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Extremely frustrated that the recommendations of the review had not
been implemented either. So I would assume, and I don't
use that word lightly, that if a similar case ever
came before her and nothing had been done, she would
have a lot more to say about the fact that
the recommendations that she had made had not been taken seriously.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
And I would not like to be the person in
the hot seat at that pointing to me.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Well, that's good, and that's why it's important to talk
about it, because sometimes the squeaky wheel is the one
that gets fixed, and if you keep it in people's faces,
keep the attention there. Just finishing off for and I
think you know what you've been through, but it tells
me that Lisa hasn't been forgotten. How would you like her,
(31:10):
your sister, to be remembered as what type of person
was she.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Personally?
Speaker 4 (31:17):
I'd like her to be remembered as just she could
have been anyone's sister, she could have been anyone's daughter,
anyone's cousin. She could have been basically the girl next
door that.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You grew up with.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
And as I said in Cornus Court, you know, I
didn't agree with all of her decisions. I don't have to,
but they were hers to make, and any one of
us have made any number of the same decisions and
not had the consequences that she did, you know, and unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
For her, she paid with her life.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
But you always think that it's not gonna you know,
it's not going to happen to you or one of
your siblings. I think, you know, a lot was said
about Lesaline Court. A lot of it was pretty horrendous
to hear and wasn't.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Very nice at all.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
But you know, she had away with animals, she loved animals.
She you know, was kind, she was sensitive, She was
someone who was trying to work out who she was,
you know, like any one of us. I guess the
biggest thing for me for her to be remembered as
is that. You know, she could have been any as
(32:29):
I said, anybody's daughter. You know, she could have been
your daughter or your sister. Don't forget that she's she
could have been any one of us. It was just
she happened to be my sister. You know, she happened
to be my kids, aren't I will always remember her
as a mischievous kid that got up to things that
(32:49):
she shouldn't. And you know that I got the brunt
over sometimes just you know, being a kid, and I
will treasure those, I really will. I wish I had
gotten to know her as an adult. Unfortunately that was
taken away. I don't know what she would have been like.
I speculate on that and I like to think that
she would have ended up being really lovely and you know,
(33:12):
gotten things together. But I'll never know, So you know,
I've only got what I've got to think of.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
She was who she was.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Well, I think you've demonstrated the love and your family
that you had for Lisel and the way that you
have fought as hard as you can appropriately to get
some form of justice, and like fol C thus too,
We've spoken a lot of times and over a long time,
(33:42):
and I know the battles in the emotional roller coaster
you've been on, and you should be very proud of
yourself on what you've done. And taking on the system
is not easy, and you took on the system. You
had to change the thinking and you got results and
you've paved the way for other people if they find
themselves in this situation. So full full credit to you,
(34:03):
and you can know that you've done everything you possibly
could do in memory of your sister.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Thanks go Well. It certainly didn't happen without your help,
that's for sure.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Oh I appreciate that now.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I was honored to help in any way I could,
or any little way that I could. So thanks for
reaching out to me, and you should be proud of yourself.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And yeah, well done.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Thanks going well.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
I'm happy for Geraldine and the family that they've been
given some answers for what happened to Lisa. It's good
when the legal system accept that laws are not always
perfect and acknowledged that sometimes they might need to be changed.
Geraldine is an example for all families battling a rigid
justice system, and sometimes you just got to keep fighting
(34:49):
to get the justice you're seeking. And as for James
church Well, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. His
actions destroyed live and he didn't even have the carriage
to be held accountable
Speaker 4 (35:11):
Mm hm
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective sy aside of life, the average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Welcome to a bonus follow up episode of I Catch Killers.
Back in twenty twenty three, our guest Geraldine Kane reached
out to me to discuss the murder investigation of a sister,
Liesel Smith. Lisel Smith was just twenty three years old
when she vanished from the central coast of New South
Wales in twenty twelve. The police believed that she had
(01:08):
been murdered and that they knew who was responsible police
were in the process of getting answers for Liesl's family.
They had charged her partner, James Scott Church, with a murder,
and after a lengthy judge only trill that sat for
over sixty eight days, Justice Elizabeth Fulton indicated she would
hand down her verdict on the eighth of July twenty
(01:31):
twenty two. Geraldine and the family had waited ten years
for this moment, but the day they had been waiting
for was taken away from them when James Church took
his own life the day before the verdict was due
to be handed down. Geraldine was informed, due to this
the rigid legal system that seems to lack any compassion,
(01:51):
that the verdict could not be made available to the public.
That just added to the trauma of the family. I
always believed that if the law was broken or failed
the people is there to serve, it should be changed.
After meeting with Geraldine, I suggested that the simplest way
the hurdle could be overcome was for the matter to
be referred to the coroner and the coroner could deliver
(02:12):
a finding. This was without precedent, but to me it
seemed to be a simple fix on the back of
those discussions, Geraldine appeared on I Catch Killers and lobbied
in the media and with the law makers to see
if this could be achieved. It makes me very happy
to announce that Geraldine's efforts were rewarded. And on the
twenty ninth of September this year, Deputy State Coroner Harriet
(02:36):
Graham found that Liesel Smith was killed by a partner,
James Scott Church. So I thought they'd get Geraldine back
on the podcast to discuss the process and the impact
that it's had on her. Geraldine Kane, Welcome back to
I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Thanks Gary, Thanksgarving me.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Well, it's good to have you back here.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
But the circumstances that we'd probably we all be happier
if I wasn't speaking to you, But there's been Yeah,
it is what it is, isn't it. There's been some
developments on Lisel's case. Now I've explained to the audience
about the background to the situation, and can you just
(03:17):
tell us in your words what's occurred since we last
had you on the podcast and spoke to you at
the coroner's court I think was the last time I
saw you.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, So Coroner's finished and she went to basically think
over what had been presented to her, and she was
also taking some leave that had been pre planned a
while before, and then gave us a date that it
was on the date of my birthday. Actually that she
presented her findings, and basically she found that Jim Church
(03:53):
had killed Lisel, he was responsible for her death, and
that if Lisel's remains were ever found that she would
reopen the case because the manner of death could not
be ascertained, obviously, but she accepted the evidence that had
been put before her, and she also mentioned to the
(04:16):
ag there'd been a review I think it was twenty
twenty three, and a certain number of recommendations have not
been implemented, one of which was recommendation thirty four. My
understanding is that the coroner should not have to name
a person as having done an action that has caused
the death of another.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I might be wrong.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
It's all very much legal jargon and everything. But she
was not impressive. None of the recommendations have been implemented
from that review, and she also referred basically not our case,
but more the circumstances in terms of the issue of abatement,
which has been the biggest hurdle in terms of not
getting a verdict, has asked the AG to refer that
(05:00):
to the new South Wales Legal Commission four of you
to see whether there can be any sort of changes
to the law on specific circumstances such as what happened
with Lisal, which is what she can do.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Yeah, I've been through the findings of the coroner and
there's some significant things in there, and from a personal
point of view for yourself and your family, calling that
limbo situation of sitting through I think it was over
or sixty eight days hearing of a trial for the
person that was charged with murdering Lisel and then have
(05:35):
that person kill themselves on the virtual day that the
judge only it was a judge only trial was going
to hand down the verdict. How distressing that would have
been for the family because you battled. It was a
ten year battle to get it to that point basically,
and then you're left in limbo with no one being
accountable for what's happened to your sister.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Yeah, it was interesting because the detectives involved in the
coastal had different points of view as well, but the
current actually found that quite helpful. She said, because it
shows the amount of consideration that or the variance of
perspectives that is raised with term of abatement and how
that would apply. What I found really interesting was that
(06:20):
not one family member from the defendant, none of his friends,
nobody turned up to defend him or to say no,
the evidence you've presented his role and they had the
opportunity to do so.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
A nata kind you know, if everyone's saying, oh, he didn't.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Do it, where were they?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
And also on the thing and when we first met,
and this was the thing that I could tell was
your frustration, but that it was mine having a bit
more of an understanding about the legal system and about
what it takes to convict someone of murder or at
least have a murder trial. All the evidence had been presented,
(07:00):
any defense opportunity that was available to him, it could
have been taken during the trial, if I could understand,
it would be a completely different situation if he had
no opportunity to defend himself. But the system was set
up to allow him to defend himself.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Yeah, he had every availability to participate how he wanted to.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And then when we talk the abatement, I think we're
talking in legal terminology, we're talking about whether a decision
can be made in the absence of the accused person
when the person's passed away.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
So that's my understanding.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, and I think the coroner will touch on a
little bit later in the recommendations that the coroner has made.
But looking for legislation to be changed because clearly a
legal system should be there to serve the people that
represents and if justice is not done because of some
antiquated legal principle, maybe that's when changes should be done.
(08:00):
I'm look, I'm happy for you, and happy is a
funny word put when you're talking about the murder of
your sister, But I'm happy at least someone has been
identified as been responsible for the murder of Lisel.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
I think it just confirmed, especially after listening to all
the relevant evidence that was presented in coroners, because obviously
there's different ways that the courts are run, criminal versus coroners.
It just really cemented what I've come to. The conclusion
I come to during the criminal court was that you know,
(08:36):
he did it, you know, and I have to commend
the women that were his intimate partners that had been abused,
you know, quite extensively by Church, who submitted after David's
in support of the criminal child.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
It was never presented basically because.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
The DPP at the time felt that they had enough evidence,
which is fine, but because it was relevant in criminal
court as sorry in Coronis court, they looked at that
he was still perpetrating domestic violence, or rather violence against women,
because there's nothing domestic against about it against the partner
that he had when he died. So you know, I
(09:17):
just I take my hat off to these women that,
even under fear and you know, fear of their life
from him and the abuseit he perpetrated against them, stepped
up and provided evidence to show that he had a.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
History of it.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
He certainly had motive, and he had an extensive history
of violence against women and animals as well, which you know,
a huge red flags. So look, the thing for me
is that he can't appeal it. He can't say you
didn't do it. It confirms what majority of us believed, even
(09:52):
though we don't have a verdict. And I really hope
that the age takes on board what the Coron has
said and refers, you know, refers to as she's recommended,
and you know, stops another family from having to do this.
It's just, you know, it's not that it's not fair,
but there was no need for it. I don't think,
(10:16):
And I think if it can be prevented in the future,
as I said, you know, specifics with legislation and stuff,
then it should be you know, people shouldn't be forced
to go through this just because, as you said, there's
an antiquate, hated yeah law or reasoning that you know,
that's because it's always been the way.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Well that's not good enough never, you know, nor should
it be.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
And that was the frustration that was coming across with
you when you're explaining the situation to me when we
first met that you've constantly been told, well, this is
what we do. But the situation that presented yourself in
this particular case is a unique set of circumstances. It's
not going to happen very often, but it potentially could happen.
(10:58):
And by changing the legisla that it's not going to
open the floodgates. The world's not going to change. It
will just stop families like your family going through what
you've gone through before. And that's interesting when all the
evidence is presented at a coroner's inquest because it's an
inquisitorial so the rules of evidence differ from the adversarial
system that the criminal core is. But it just adds
(11:20):
to the weight of evidence against him.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I think it certainly supported the case that the DPP had.
It showed that, you know, as I said, there was
history and everything. I think the other thing in getting
the law change is that it acts as at a turrent.
If people that are considering doing the same thing know that, well,
you can do that, but this is what's going to
happen regardless. Then you can either take the chance what's
(11:49):
what gets said an appeal and you know, try and
do it that way, or you just get named and
that's it and you don't have any chance of running
an appeal. Then yeah, I honestly think it will, you know,
act as a terrent for people that are considering that
path to try and get out of.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Having to do time. That's just my personal opinion whether
that's the case or not.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I hadn't that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't even considered that.
I was thinking more of the anks that would cause
the families of loved ones. But yes, because it is
a way that people could take out to protect their
reputation knowing the inevitables coming, and well, if I'm no
longer here my reputation there'll still be an element of doubt.
(12:33):
So that's a very valid point, a very valid point,
and I think it's something that should should be considered.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
I think the two acting is a too terrent in
preventing anks for the family go hand in hand.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You know.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
There's innocent until presumed guilty, but at the same time
you know you shouldn't. That shouldn't be in the pursuit
of not causing a victim's family more angst than.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Needed, And it could be a case of a drag
a court matter out until someone passes by natural causes
rather than suicide. So it shows that there's no benefits
in delaying matters as well. So no, I think it's
a significant result that you've managed to get. Is it
a double edged sword in a way because the person
(13:18):
hasn't been held accountable why he's still on this earth
and you don't know the full details. Taught me through
it from a personal point of view, it's.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Been something that I've I've had to work out what
I'm happy with, would I've liked him to be held
accountable and be doing jail time, and you know, his
to him, his reputation in tatters. Yeah, you know, but
at the end of the day, as I said before,
it doesn't bring it back. It doesn't change what he did.
(13:51):
It doesn't mitigate the abuse that she went through, or
you know, the steps that he took off towards to
try and cover what he did. At the end of
the day, it doesn't change anything. Lisel's not here. I
can't do anything about that. Him being alive or not
doesn't change that. I guess the biggest thing that I
(14:14):
have felt was the best for me was that the
Corona has named him as contributing or causing Liesl's death,
rather and the fact that he can't do anything about it.
He's been named as causing the death of my sister.
He can't appeal it, His family can't do anything. They
certainly weren't interested in defending his reputation or defending his
(14:37):
character in coronial court. And you know that is forever
on the record now, and I think in the scheme
of things and the context of what's gone on, that
was probably the best outcome that we were going to
get and as I said, something you know said mentioned
before something was better than nothing.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
That's something, as you said, is quite substantial. You know.
It's it's not.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Necessarily set a precedent, but it's shown that what happened
was not okay. And so it provides, I guess, the
founding blocks of things to be built upon for that.
And if that's what's come of what's occurred, I'm okay
with that.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Yeah, I understand.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
As I said, it just doesn't change anything.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
One thing that you missed out on the opportunity in
a murder troll is a victim's impact statement that you
get up and you explain to the court what the
person's actions has caused in regards to your life and
the paint. What would you say that James Church now
if he was still alive.
Speaker 4 (15:48):
What I said in ConA is when I was allowed
to speak. You know, throughout the whole process, we had
no input into any of the decisions that were made,
and you know, yet we suffered the consequences. I didn't
decide to murder my sister because of a supposed event
that you know, and there was some conjecture about whether
(16:09):
Lisa was pregnant or not. I think she was, but
that's a separate thing. You know, I didn't ask for
any of this. You know, he had no right to
do what he did. And you know the ways that
that has impacted me and my family.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Some we've worked out, others.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
You know, I might never understand how it's affected me
or my perspective.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
You know, she had her life ahead of us, and to.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Think that someone felt that they had the right to
do that makes me so angry and upset.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
You know, who did he think he was to do that?
Speaker 4 (16:43):
You know, what gave him the right to abuse his partners,
you know, or commit violence against them? Like I don't
know whether I talk to him, I probably would just
refuse to acknowledge his existence in all honesty, Gary, because
I think acknowledge his existence in some ways legitimizes his behavior,
(17:04):
especially with what he did to my sister. And I
will never ever condone violence against another person, as much
as you might want to do something because you're frustrated,
thinking about it and carrying it out are too completely
opposite opposite things. You know, there's that no I know
what's wrong, and therefore I won't do it.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
But it's just.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
Just he did something he didn't have the right to do,
and I will never understand why he thought he did.
And you know, the stress and the angst and the
pain and the impact that that has had on my family,
so my husband and my kids as well as you know,
my siblings and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
I don't think that will ever be able to be quantified.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
And I don't think something like that can be for
any family where a member or a.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Lot ofd ones gone missing, to be found murdered. I
just think it's something that's so.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Intangible and can't be measured or correlated or put in
put in a way that can be measured objectively. That's
what makes it so difficult to rest with while you're
going through the system. It's not like you can say
I had five of these and now I've got team
and now I've lost a lot sort of things. Yeah,
(18:21):
it's just it's hard to verbilize it. But I just
think that, you know, we're expected to pay for something
that we didn't necessarily want.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Or have any input in, and.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
I just yeah, yeah, it's hard to put into words.
What would you say the families face with the battle
that you've had has been a battle for you to
get it to this point about your shame, resilience and
tenacity to continue and fight for Liesel's memory. What would
you advise families that might find themselves in similar situations
(19:00):
where they're battling the system, so to speak.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
You can only do what you can only do, you know,
I guess you know.
Speaker 4 (19:10):
I always hate it when people said, you know, time
heals time, doesn't you.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Know?
Speaker 2 (19:18):
And it is only one day at a time.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
You can't control other people's reactions or decisions. You can
only do your own. And if that's all that you
can manage, that's okay. And it doesn't matters whether you know,
I liken it to a marathon.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
You just keep plugging at it. If you take a
week off because that's what.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
You need to do for your mental health, and you
need to step away, that's okay.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
You know.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
It's you're not going to You're not going to forget them.
It's not going to fall apart. Whatever you're trying to achieve,
it's not going to go away. It will still be there.
If you need to take a step away, you know,
spend time with families that are there, and you know
your mental health is important, you know, because without that
(20:04):
you can't just you can't function.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Yeah, and sadly, I've seen too many families fighting for
justice in a whole range of different different forms. And
part of the advice I give them is if you've
got to step away, a step away, and you articulated
that very well, that you can step away and take
a break, and then when you rebuilt yourself, go for
(20:28):
it again. I also got advice from Mark and Fay Levison,
who had a battle with a system and had to
try something a little bit different.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Out of left field to recover their son.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
And Mark's words and I pass these words on to
a lot of people, just don't take no for an answer,
because I would imagine if if you just accepted what
the system told you, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Probably not. I mean, no is not the worst thing
that people can say. I've had no a number of
time and it's like, well, okay, you said no.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
That just means that I need to work out how
it can happen in a different way.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
There are ways to achieve results.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Let's I'll just take you briefly through the findings, because
it is good to hear it said publicly and the
findings to be published, and this is the findings from
the coroner in regards to Liesl's death. The person who
died was Liesel Smith. The date to death Liesel died
on the nine eighth of August twenty twelve, at some
time after two point two pm. Place of death. Liesel
(21:32):
died at or somewhere in the vicinity of the Central
Coast or Upper Hut regions of New South Wales. The
cause of death. Liesel's cause of death remains unknown. Manner
of death. Liesel's death was a homicide. She was killed
by James Scott Church. So you've got someone in the
(21:54):
judicial system actually saying he's responsible. So I would imagine
that it gives you some comfort, not closure, not timehells
or wounds, but it gives you some acknowledgment that at
least the person responsible has been held accountable in some way.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, it does, because I was thinking about this the
other day.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Funny enough, we've got someone named you know, I know personally,
I know who did it and it was him. And
I think about families where it's fifteen, twenty, twenty five,
thirty plus years and they're no closer to having an
answer in terms of what happened or who did it,
(22:38):
or you know, any sort of indication that things are
going to be they're.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Going to get some sort of answer.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
And I think in terms of that, compared to other people,
I don't.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Think we're incredibly lucky.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
I think the police did a fabulous job with what
they had to contend with. And I I just I
can't imagine being thirty years down the track and still
not knowing what the hell.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Happened to her like that. That would just be worst
nightmare sort of stuff.
Speaker 4 (23:11):
So I think we are incredibly fortunate that, yes, she
was missing, but there was circumstances that pointed to who
who did it based.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
On his own actions, amongst other things.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
And I always think of those that you know, didn't
have the opportunity that we did, I really just feel
for them.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
You know, it's very generous of you, given what yourself
and your family go through. You mentioned the police. That
coroner also mentioned the police, and again this is in
the coroner's conclusions, and I'll just read out what she
said about the police. I not only extend my gratitude
to them, but I formally commend the technive Sergeants Jones
(23:55):
Hayden and Erickson and miss Lawson for their work in
this enormous, multifaceted investigation which enabled the matter to proceed
the trial and ultimately which has enabled me to make
my factual findings in this court. I just from a
personal point of view, I like it when it's good
work of police that get results. I've got to say
(24:16):
when I met the police, when it was back at
the inquest, I met some of the police there and
I was impressed by how much they cared, which carries
a big carries a big thing in the way matters
are investigated. I until they genuinely cared, soquos to the
police and you have already acknowledged that.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
And the annework that they had to do and to
go back and recheck and you know, consistently go back
and make sure that you know what they'd found or
what was said to them was true, was just enormous.
I mean, he kept changing his alibis, he kept changing
what he was saying. Everything had to be checked and
double checked again to make sure that you know, there
(24:57):
were no inconsistencies or discrepancies.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
As you know, you know, they can end up quite.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
Digging in criminal court it was just it was phenomenal,
just you know, I have the utmost respect for the
work that they did.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And then towards the end with.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
The Coronial, in order to try and find where Lisa is,
they had a specialist do some geo mapping, but unfortunately
the area is still you know, based on the information
that they had, it still remains too large to sort
of pinpoint where she could be. And the terrain there
(25:33):
is just really rocky and scrubby and whatnot. But it
was just that extra effort, like they went back again
to try and you know, using the various techniques to
try and find her. And they didn't have to, you know,
they could have just done we've done that and we
can't find it. But they went back and tried again
and tried different ways, and you know, obviously technology has
(25:54):
improved a little bit.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
I'm still in.
Speaker 4 (25:57):
Touch with one of them and have been told that
point they were up that way to touch base, which
I really really appreciate. Unfortunately, one of them has left
the force in part due to this investigation, and you know,
I just I take my hat off, you know, given
(26:17):
the dynamics and a few other things that they would
have had to deal with that. It would have made
investigating a lot more difficult, but they kept going, you know,
and to have a police officer or a detective rather
apologize for not finding his sister is confronting. And you know,
(26:39):
to be asked to forgive them for something that they
didn't do wrong is you know the.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Fact Gerald then that they say that tells me that
they care and they're the type of people that you
want on the case. They should take it personally and
that you know it can come as a cost, but
that brings a lot of peace to the families knowing
you've got people that are genuinely trying to find out
what happened. Hey guys, it's Gary jubilin here. Want to
(27:07):
get more out of I Catch Killers, then you should
head over to our new video feed on Spotify where
you can watch every episode of I Catch Killers. Just
search for I Catch Killers video in your Spotify app
and start watching today. The coroner also made a comment
about the legal team, and I know the nuances of
(27:29):
any court matter, whether it be a murder trial or
a coronial inquest, the standard can be set by the
team that presents it. So I'll just read what the
coroner said about the council assisting. Finally, I think my
counselor assisting team Gabriel Bashir, senior counsel Emma Sullivan and
Peter ava Jones, and they're instructing solicitors Elisa Wood and
(27:51):
Alex McShane and Vivian Way before them, who diligently assisted
me and insured the fair and efficient conduct of these proceedings.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
So that's good in itself.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
It sounds like you got the a team for the
inquest with the police and the council assisting, and it
does make a difference.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
So your experiences from.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
That they were fabulous.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
They kept in touch, whether it was by email, we
had casion, we had a few meetings. They explained sort
of what they were going to do, what they wanted
to include, what they would go through in presenting the
case to the coroner, explain why you know they wouldn't
do X, but they would.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Do why you know. They were just they were really lovely.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
They were very considerate of how this may be re
traumatizing for us, especially after what had happened.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
So was the coroner. I just I couldn't fault them.
It was very much an experience that I don't.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Want to repeat, but was made a lot easier by
by the way that they handled it, and you know
they have my gratitude for that.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Again, it pleases me to hear that, because that can
make a horrendous situation that little bit more bearable having
people like that. On the issue of changing the law.
This is from the Coroner's recommendation, so we'll just put
this out there too, that the Attorney General of New
South Wales refer to the New South Wales Law Reform
(29:19):
Commission arising from the facts in this case, the question
of whether the doctrine of abatement operating in the criminal
justice system should be reformed, for example, to consider whether
there may be proceedings in which verdicts can be delivered
in circumstances wherein accused dies during the currency of their trial,
and to consider in particular the operation of the doctrine
(29:41):
in circumstances where deliberations of a judge alone or jury
have concluded. A copy of these finders is to be
included with the referral. So again cudos to the Coroner,
Harriet Graham for making those recommendations, because clearly she saw
something that needed to be fixed. And hopefully those recommendations
(30:01):
will be put in the place I hope.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
So she did not sound very happy with the fact
that they had not been implemented, So hopefully they do
what they're supposed to. My understanding is that the curenter
does not make recommendations lightly, especially in a case like
this where there are potential and substantial, far reaching legal
(30:24):
ramifications and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And she sounded.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Extremely frustrated that the recommendations of the review had not
been implemented either. So I would assume, and I don't
use that word lightly, that if a similar case ever
came before her and nothing had been done, she would
have a lot more to say about the fact that
the recommendations that she had made had not been taken seriously.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
And I would not like to be the person in
the hot seat at that pointing to me.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Well, that's good, and that's why it's important to talk
about it, because sometimes the squeaky wheel is the one
that gets fixed, and if you keep it in people's faces,
keep the attention there. Just finishing off for and I
think you know what you've been through, but it tells
me that Lisa hasn't been forgotten. How would you like her,
(31:10):
your sister, to be remembered as what type of person
was she.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
Personally?
Speaker 4 (31:17):
I'd like her to be remembered as just she could
have been anyone's sister, she could have been anyone's daughter,
anyone's cousin. She could have been basically the girl next
door that.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You grew up with.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
And as I said in Cornus Court, you know, I
didn't agree with all of her decisions. I don't have to,
but they were hers to make, and any one of
us have made any number of the same decisions and
not had the consequences that she did, you know, and unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
For her, she paid with her life.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
But you always think that it's not gonna you know,
it's not going to happen to you or one of
your siblings. I think, you know, a lot was said
about Lesaline Court. A lot of it was pretty horrendous
to hear and wasn't.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Very nice at all.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
But you know, she had away with animals, she loved animals.
She you know, was kind, she was sensitive, She was
someone who was trying to work out who she was,
you know, like any one of us. I guess the
biggest thing for me for her to be remembered as
is that. You know, she could have been any as
(32:29):
I said, anybody's daughter. You know, she could have been
your daughter or your sister. Don't forget that she's she
could have been any one of us. It was just
she happened to be my sister. You know, she happened
to be my kids, aren't I will always remember her
as a mischievous kid that got up to things that
(32:49):
she shouldn't. And you know that I got the brunt
over sometimes just you know, being a kid, and I
will treasure those, I really will. I wish I had
gotten to know her as an adult. Unfortunately that was
taken away. I don't know what she would have been like.
I speculate on that and I like to think that
she would have ended up being really lovely and you know,
(33:12):
gotten things together. But I'll never know, So you know,
I've only got what I've got to think of.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
She was who she was.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Well, I think you've demonstrated the love and your family
that you had for Lisel and the way that you
have fought as hard as you can appropriately to get
some form of justice, and like fol C thus too,
We've spoken a lot of times and over a long time,
(33:42):
and I know the battles in the emotional roller coaster
you've been on, and you should be very proud of
yourself on what you've done. And taking on the system
is not easy, and you took on the system. You
had to change the thinking and you got results and
you've paved the way for other people if they find
themselves in this situation. So full full credit to you,
(34:03):
and you can know that you've done everything you possibly
could do in memory of your sister.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
Thanks go Well. It certainly didn't happen without your help,
that's for sure.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
Oh I appreciate that now.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I was honored to help in any way I could,
or any little way that I could. So thanks for
reaching out to me, and you should be proud of yourself.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And yeah, well done.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Thanks going well.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
I'm happy for Geraldine and the family that they've been
given some answers for what happened to Lisa. It's good
when the legal system accept that laws are not always
perfect and acknowledged that sometimes they might need to be changed.
Geraldine is an example for all families battling a rigid
justice system, and sometimes you just got to keep fighting
(34:49):
to get the justice you're seeking. And as for James
church Well, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. His
actions destroyed live and he didn't even have the carriage
to be held accountable
Speaker 4 (35:11):
Mm hm
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.