June 13, 2025 • 58 mins
FROM THE ARCHIVES: At 23, Leisl Smith had her whole life in front of her. But her ex-boyfriend, James Scott Church, had other ideas. Six years after she went missing, he was charged with her murder. After a gruelling 13-week trial, there are still no answers. Why? Because Church took his own life a day before the verdict was due to be made public - locking the judge’s verdict away forever. Jerildene Cane is hoping to change that, and bring closure to her family.
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):
Hi, it's Gary jubilin here. I'm excited to announce I'll
be hosting a live podcast recording at the Factory Theater
in Sydney on the twenty seventh of November. Spend the
evening with myself and two special guests as we take
a deep dive into the world of crime and punishment.
You'll even be able to take part in a live
Q and A. I'll be there before and after the
show to have a chat. Tickets are available through the
(00:22):
link in the show notes, or visit the Eyecatch Killers
Instagram or Facebook group. I hope to see you there.
It's going to be raw and I reckon a lot
of fun. The public has had a long held fascination
with detectives. Detective see a side of life the average
person is never exposed to. I spent thirty four years
as a cop. For twenty five of those years I
(00:43):
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. 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 talked to. Some of the content and language might
be confronting. That's because no one who comes in the
(01:06):
contact of crime is left unchanged. Join me now as
I take you into this world. Welcome back to part
two of my chat with Geraldine Kine. Geraldine's younger sister,
Lisel Smith, disappeared on the New South Wales Central Coast
back in twenty twelve. After a lengthy investigation, a person
(01:28):
known to James Church was charged with Liesl's murder. In
Part one, we talked about the way that Geraldine became
aware of Lisel's disappearance and the impact it's had on her,
and bearing in mind this is over a six year
period that Part one Geraldine described. We're now going to
hear from Geraldine what it was like attending the trial
(01:49):
and what she learnt during the trial, and her version
of the unforeseen twist at the end of the trial
and how she dealt with that. We're also going to
discuss if there is any way Lisaal's family can find
out what happened to Lusel and get some form of justice. Geralone,
Welcome back, he Gary again. I apologize for discussing this
and dragging this up, but I think it's important that
(02:11):
people talk about their experiences, like your experience. So I
want people, and I was always at pains as a
homicide detective, if I want people to understand what families
are going through when people who have disappeared or people
have been murdered, and it's horrendous and unless you've been there,
I don't think you can fully fully appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
It wasn't on my bucket list of things to do.
Put it that way, I don't know anyone that would
have that as something to do on their bucket list. No,
as I said before, you know that sort of stuff
always happen to other people and you feel compassion and empathy,
and then you know, as you said, you know, go
into the next thing until you become those other people
(02:51):
and it happens to you. It's certainly not something that
I ever thought would happen to me, or that I
would have to explain to people. Even now, I don't
really talk about it. It's quite difficult. I tend to
(03:12):
talk about it with people that I've known for a
long time, so if I meet someone new, it's not
really something that I bring up.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
You know, it's just it's a hard, hard topic to
bring up, and sometimes people don't know how to deal
with you bringing the topic up, and it's almost what
do I say, Well.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. And
you know, I think a lot of people tend to
think that, you know, we want you to fix what's
gone on, and.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I don't necessarily have that expectation of anyone that I
talk to lisl about, but you know, sometimes I just
want people to listen or to recognize that, you know,
missing people affect everybody in society. It's not just you know,
the immediate families and their friends, but it is the
whole of society, you know. It's it's the fabric of
(04:04):
society that missing people, you know, affect. And as I
said to you in a previous conversation, you know, society.
I look at society as a bolt of fabric that's
got different weaves in it, and missing people are one
of those threads. And if you don't have that thread,
then that fabric pattern isn't complete. You're missing a thread.
(04:24):
It's you know, it's not like you can suddenly find
out it's a pulled thread and fix it up. And yep,
in some cases that happens. And I am so happy
for those families that do find their missing loved ones,
but there are also quite a number of us that don't,
and you know, realistically never will.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, it's hard, isn't it. It's very hard to come
to terms with that. We're going to talk about the
murder trial with Liesel's case. Before we do, just describe
the type of person Lisel was. She was twenty three
years old where she disappeared.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
She was her own person, she liked her own company.
She was just doing life like any other twenty three
year old, you know, making mistakes, you know, making good choices,
making bad choices, you know, working out what she wanted
to do as a job, whether that was for the
(05:21):
rest of her life or you know, for six months
until you know, she found something else she wanted to do.
You know, she was working, she was working it out,
you know, like any other twenty three most twenty three
year olds.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
You know, it's a great time of life, isn't it.
You're old enough to make the mistakes, but you've also
got some control on your life, and it's an exciting
time of life as twenty five now.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
I wouldn't mind being twenty three again, but that's never going.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
To happen if we work out the war and the
clock back. Yeah, I'll keep the wisdom.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I'll keep the wisdom, thanks, but I'll take the rewinding age.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I think we could sell that to a few people.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Oh, I'm sure we could.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Okay, experits of a murder trial and I've been to
countless murder trials and I've got to say they're emotionally
and physically draining. I'd never come out at the end
of a murder trial the same as I went into it.
And I'm just city a police officer involved on the perif.
I can't even fathom how much it drains. You been
(06:20):
a family member going through a murder trial? Do you
want to talk us through the whole process?
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So I got informed that I would be subpoenaed to
give evidence at the trial and got served with a
subpoena that was arranged. I was warned, which was good
because I could warn work that I was required because
I worked for State Health Service. There are requirements about
when I'm subpoena, like when I was subpoened that I
(06:47):
had to inform certain.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
People and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So I was forewarned and I spoke to the barristers
a couple of times before I got on the stand.
They did their best to me, which I found really helpful,
and they were very understanding that, you know, that's something
else that wasn't you know, it was never on my
bucket list. So I was always, you know, always worried
about going to coroner's court for work and not probably
(07:13):
have nothing to worry about that in that regard. So
they did their best to sort of prep what they
would ask and what they were going to question me about.
Obviously they couldn't tell me what the defense was going
to ask. They also had told me a few months
previously when this was moving through the courts. So as
you would know, with a homicide charge, it moves through
(07:35):
the local and the district courts first, and then an
application is made to the Supreme Court to have the
charge heard in the Supreme Court. All those unaware, it's
a very long process. And in the midst of this process,
COVID had hit, so we had a delay of I
think about six to eight months because everything just shut down,
which certainly didn't help.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
It adds to the trauma.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, it certainly didn't help because you want things to regress.
At the same time, it was a world wide pandemic,
so you know, yet something else that's out of your
control that you can't do anything about. And so I
knew that the judge was, you know, was pretty She
was strict but fair, and I have nothing but the
utmost praise for Justice Fullerton. So I was subpoened. I
(08:20):
couldn't listen to the first two weeks of the trial
because I was a.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Witness, which explain that to people, because again most people
don't get experience in her criminal courts, especially the murder trial.
But if you're a witness in a murder trial, regardless
of your relationship to the victim or your involvement, until
you've given evidence, you're excluded from the court. You can't
go in there and understood why you can't hear other
(08:46):
people give evidence before you give your evidence. But that
then itself can be very frustrating. I've been in charge
of murder investigations where I've had to sit I'm virtually
the last witness, so I've had to sit outside the
whole trial of matter that you've invested years in two
and not knowing what's going on. I'm mainly the police officer.
You're a family member. How frustrating was it sitting outside
(09:08):
while the murder trial for your sister was going on.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
I actually had.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
To do my evidence via AVL audio visual. I had
had some health problems and had required surgery and I
wasn't allowed to fly. So originally the defendants lawyer had
wanted me up in Sydney in person, so I don't
live in New South Wales, and there was a lot
of toing and frowing about me going up there, and
(09:33):
in the end I had to get a letter from
the specialist saying that I was not medically cleared to fly,
and Justice Fullerton went, that's it, She's doing it via
audio visual, which was done at one of the court
houses in the capital city I live in.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
The biggest issue was the dates.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Kept changing, so I think there was like one or
two dates. Initially we were given a date and then
that was changed because they didn't get through witnesses or
there was some sort of discussion between the barristers and
the judge and then it got changed again. And it
was frustrating because you know, we've got kids.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
I was trying to get time off work.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I'm trying to like a doctor's surgery. They line up
about ten patients that they know they can the same day,
in the same hour, and that's what they do with witnesses.
So I do understand. Yeah, your frustration. That is the
nature of the justice system in the courts always got
to have them.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, that was explained to me. That I wasn't left hanging.
I was explained we didn't get through everyone, you know,
evidence took longer today, and I was like, okay, cool,
and that I didn't have a problem with that necessarily
because I was kept in the loop of what was
going on, and I was like, yep, fine. And then
finally they cemented in a date and a time and
I had to basically sit in a room. The only
(10:47):
person who I could see was the judge and the
defense lawyer and the two barristers. I couldn't see the
defendant or anybody else in the courtroom, which in all
honesty was completely fine with me. I gave evidence. Justice
Fullerton was very thorough and there are a couple of
instances where I think.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
She realized that I.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Possibly not didn't quite understand what was being asked, and
so she clarified for me, which was very appreciated. I was.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
I gave evidence, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
For just under two hours, and the DPP were very good.
You know, they covered what they had said that they
would cover, so I was prepared for that. And then
the defense lawyer started and some of the questions that
he asked I just found completely in a and irrelevant.
But it's not my job to work out why he
(11:42):
was asking those questions. I answered as best as I could.
Towards the end, I got frustrated and didn't lose my temper,
but my frustration showed, and I remember sitting there, you know,
feeling like I'd run a marathon. I had tried to
keep myself calm, you know, and recognize that you know,
(12:06):
I'm doing this to help with my sister. You know,
I can't get emotional, I can't get frustrated. But he
kept hammering home one particular point, and in the end
I just turned around and snapped at him, for want
of a better word, and then that was the end
of questioning. I was excused. I remember just getting up
(12:26):
and going as soon as I was excused, because my
understanding was that once you're excused. If they want you
back in court, they have to recipoena you, so I
didn't want to give them any time to do that.
And then smart play, Yeah, I flared out of the Yeah.
In some ways, I felt a sense of relief and
like a way to being lifted off my shoulders because
(12:47):
I could now find out what was going on. I
could listen to the evidence. They had to apply to
the judge to get clearance for me to be able
to and she gave that. I think it was about
a week before I felt like I could sit there
and listen to what was being said in court.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
So they set up facility for an AVL for you
to listen to the form.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
They email you a link that you can link into
and they you know, you have to log in and
they obviously realize who it is and then off you go.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
That was horrendous.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
The thing that really got me is that they were
discussing Lisel and the things that were said about her,
in particular.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
By the defense.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I know that the defense lawyer was doing a job
that he was being paid to do, but it's still
not nice to hear certain things said, regardless of whether
they are true or not, about a family member, as
I'm sure you know people that have experienced this can appreciate.
And I guess the bier sense of injustice at that
(13:47):
point for me was that Liseel had no way of
defending herself against against.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
What was being said.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You know, in if any of half of what was
said was said in a public domain or on Facebook
or any other social media, you could go after someone
for defamation, you know, and what not, on slander and
everything else. And you know, this is in a criminal court,
and they can basically say what they like about the person,
(14:16):
you know, in this case, my.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Sister, And it is hard for loved ones that with
victims that And you've nailed the point. She's not there
to defend herself, so they can throw speculative comments up
about the type of person she is or things that
might have been done, and she's not there to defend
her self. So I can understand how painful that would
(14:39):
be for a loved one to watch that play out.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, it basically felt like it was a free for all,
you know, open slather on her, and that was really
frustrating and quite upsetting a number of times. Some of
the things that were said, especially by the defense defense lawyer,
and as I said, I understand he's got a job
to do. And that's from what I understand. That's whey
criminal court.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Is you know exactly well, it's an adversarial system and
that is the way that matters are adjudicated. Can I
just to put it in context so people understand, and
we won't go through all the evidence, but just in
context the basic summary of the trial. So in twenty twelve,
Lisal left house one day to drive to Tugara train station,
(15:25):
parked a car, and then a witness saw her getting
into another white uit. It was the last time she
was seen alive. She was a missing person for six years,
never found a body. Everything pointed to Jim Church, an
older neighbor who was a local horse trainer. Rumors were
Lisal had an affair with him, got pregnant, and he
killed her. Her body has not been found. Now that's
(15:47):
a very brief description of the type of allegation. It's
not going into the full facts of the matter, but
just so people when we're talking about understand what was
going on with this trial, because the trial ran for
our correct me if I'm wrong thirteen and a half
weeks seventy days. Yep, it was a judge alone trial.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yes, it was.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
My understanding, is that explained to you?
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, it basically meant that it was the judge and
the judge alone who heard all the evidence, heard all
the arguments, and you know, made rulings on what could
or couldn't be submitted and whatnot. There was no jury whatsoever.
My understanding is usually there's a choice. You can have
a judge and a jury, or you can have a
judge loan trial. The option, as far as I understood,
(16:30):
wasn't given in this case because of COVID, so, which
is to me, neither here nor there.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
So, Yeah, during the course of the trial, you're listening
to it. You've got over the time period where you
were excluded from the court, You've given your evidence, and
now you're starting to listen to the trial. How did
you think the trial was going.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I kept an open mind because as in as everyone
knows in this country, you know, you have the right
to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court
of law. And in some ways I wanted to listen
to bear witness for Lisel. That was how I felt,
and I wanted to hear what the evidence was with
(17:10):
my own ears. There are a number of witnesses that
were expert witnesses on like phone towers and roadworks and
you know all these other bits and pieces that were
crucial to the case for the DPP. And what I
found really good was that Justice Fullerton, if she wasn't
clear on something, she got the person who was in
(17:31):
the stand at the time to clarify so that she
completely understood what the evidence they were giving was about,
which I know was very helpful. As the trial progressed
and more and more witnesses were gone through, I started
forming my own opinion, and I think the crux of
it came towards the end when both my stepdad and
(17:54):
the defendant were called to give evidence along with By
this stage the police interviews with the defendant had been played.
I think they're about five or six. So you just
saw the only way to eliminate this thread was to
murder Lusel anyway.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
For what you don't know is that Lucil was never
bringing up.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That's a difference to me.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
We believe he murdered Lusel in the world right. We
believe that her remains are located in the Hunter and
we want to know where she is.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
I haven't murdered a run. I don't know where she is.
I certainly don't own a gun.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I've never murdered anyone. I said to the arrises for
the DPAP at one stage, I'm surprised they didn't hear
me yelling at the computer from interstate because I was
just so incredulous about what the defendant had said. You know,
in regards to Lisel, the way that he spoke about
her and the person he was with at the time,
(18:52):
who was apparently the love of his life was just disgusting,
you know. And the way that he presented himself in
court verse is what he said when he thought no
one was listening, was a very stark contrast.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
This was the covit evidence was gathered through listening devices
or phone taps.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yes, yes, so there were listening devices planted in his
parents house where there were conversations recorded between his parents
and his sister as well as him. They planted listening
devices in his I think his car and in his house,
and there had also been intercepts picked up between him
(19:31):
and other witnesses. So basically he had an outright asked
people to lie for him.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
To provide an alibi, but.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
He had said, oh, you know, you stick with the story,
and once those had been disproven, you know, my understanding
was that he really had nowhere to go with, you know,
explaining where he'd been. Phones had been turned off and
then turned on, and he was like, oh, but I was,
you know, at my girlfriend's house at the time, and
they said, okay, fine, you know, but she's wrung immobile
(20:00):
and you know, everyone's done the thing where, you know,
I can't find a mobile, can you ring it for me?
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
But she'd also rung his landline as well, and it
showed when they had telecommunication experts coming that he'd actually
turned his phone off until like one one point thirty
or something in the morning.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
It was on the crucial time.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
On the crucial time. The other thing was that up
until the nineteenth of August, he and Lisal I think,
in the course of four to six weeks or something
had exchanged nearly two thousand text messages. I think it
was like eighteen hundred, just over eighteen hundred, you know, contacts,
And the nineteenth of August came and went was literally like.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
It had dropped off a cliff.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
There was nothing. He didn't text her, he didn't message her,
he didn't ring her to find out if she was Okay,
you know, I know I'm not the only one that
messaged or tried to contact her. There was nothing from
his phone.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Okay, well, yeah, yeah, I think that's pretty telling. And
I look, and I'm talking in the general sense here,
want to clarify that. But if I'm looking and there's
just someone disappears and then the person that's meaning constant
contact doesn't contact, that person, makes you ask questions. Tell
(21:13):
me with the detail there, like the way that you're
describing it, and we should explain or disclaim here. This
is just the observations of a trial that your witnessed.
So we're not saying going through facts detail by detail.
We're just your observations. Seems to be a thorough investigation.
Let's wind it back when you're frustration with the police,
(21:36):
if the communication was better, like I would suggest, you're
looking at the investigation now and it was playing out
in the trial that you think, okay, well, they were
working on it. Does it change your view on your
dealing with the dealings with the police.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I think they'd obviously put a number of resources and
a lot of time into the investigation. At the trial,
they were there along with their wives, which I was
very appreciative of, given how much time that this has
taken up of their lives. You know, it wouldn't just
be it's not a nine to five job.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No should pushed that for a very long time.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So I was very appreciative that they came along to
see see the outcome. I don't I give credit to
how much work and resources was put in. I just
feel that if they had have explained that at the start,
you know, and just had that compassion and that empathy
in humanity, at least in their dealings with me. I
can't speak for their dealings with anybody else. Yeah, I
(22:34):
feel that I probably would have had a different view,
and I would have a different view now. I still
view it as you know, they really could have done
it better, and you know, not necessarily treated me with
key gloves, but not treated me the way that they did,
you know. I just I felt that that was unwarranted
and undeserved, and if they had have changed the way
(22:57):
or you know, approached the way that they interacted with
me on a different angle, and I guess expressed understanding.
You know that I was frustrated, you know what's going on,
and explained, as I said earlier, you know, we are working,
but we can't explain what we're doing at the moment.
I think things may have been a lot easier for
me to some degree in that I would have understand
understood that they were working. Yeah, at the trial, they
(23:21):
had put a lot of work into their case. You know,
proving time. You know how long it took to drive
from point A to point B. You know why it
was impossible that he said he was here when his
car was you know, he was at point C, when
his car was at point D, et cetera. And all
of a sudden, you know, the case was built around
circumstantial evidence that was quite strong.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Because there was no evidences presented where Liesl's body is.
That Lisel's body wasn't recovered, so there's no evidence presented there, No,
there's nothing. You're you've been watching the trial now for
ten eleven weeks. At the end of the trial, the
prosecution would have summed up and the defense would have
(24:04):
summed up and pulling together all the evidence that's gone by.
How did you feel did you were you when I
say confident, confident being they show me the result that
you were seeking would be that the person was convicted.
Were you confident that he would be found guilty?
Speaker 2 (24:21):
I will be honest and say I certainly hope that
he would be From my personal observations, I couldn't see
how any other verdict could be reached. You know, there
were huge gaps in things that he said, and the
way you know, he tried to explain certain things away
(24:42):
just made absolutely no logical sense. You know, it may
have made sense to him, but you know it certainly
didn't make sense to me. And from some of the
questions that the judge had asked, I got the impression
that she was trying to work out how it made
sense as well. I didn't know what the judge would
come to down with, and this was a discussion between
(25:03):
my husband and I. Actually he said, you know what
if he is found guilty, and I said, look, you
know I'm not the judge. I don't have that legal backing.
You know, she has nothing to do with the case.
And that's the whole point of the legal system in Australia.
You know, you bring forth your argument, you argue on
the basis of your evidence as to what you think
has happened, and then you know, the judge retires to
(25:26):
make a verdict on the basis of points of law
that you know they've spent god knows how long you know,
understanding and applying and that's what should happen. If it
had have come back not guilty, I would not have
necessarily agreed with her. But at the same point, I'm
not a Supreme Court judge. You know, I don't have
(25:48):
to apply the law, and in all honesty, I would
never want that responsibility because you're making judgments about people's
lives for all you know, intents and purposes. You're either
you know, sentencing them to jail for whatever period of
time you may deem relevant at some point, or you're
setting them free. And on the flip side, you know
(26:09):
you have a family, you know that may or not
agree with what you come up with. You know, that's
a huge responsibility.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Gerald. Just in what you've said there, I think you're
showing what a fair and objective person you are, even
when you're looking at a trial like that. So yeah,
it says a lot about a lot about you as
a person that you can offer that opinion when you're
talking about a murder trial relating to your sister. You
got notified that the verdict was going to be handed down,
(26:40):
and I think the date that was set was the
eighth of July twenty and twenty two. What went through
your mind when you knew a date was going to
be set, when the judge was going to come back
with a guilty or not guilty verdict?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Not a lot.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Initially, Funnily enough, we were we were driving coming up
to see my in laws when we got the I
think it.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Was a message to say that the judge had set
a date.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
We'd asked for a date because obviously, living into state,
we had to organize work schedules and flights and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
And I think I was just in shock.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
That, you know, at this stage it had been.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Just on a month.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Actually, I think it was a month to the day
when we got told that the judge was ready to
hand down her verdict. We duks for a week's notice
and she gave us five days. Originally I think it
was going to be forty eight hours. Yeah, in some
ways I wish it had a been forty eight hours,
but I don't necessarily think that would have changed anything
that happened afterwards, and so it was a mad scramble
(27:40):
to organize flights and whatnot. And I don't think I
actually processed anything, and I hadn't up until the day before,
I think, just because so much needed to be organized.
You know, I still had to go to work.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
You were going up there to see the judge handed
down the findings.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
That was y yep.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
I would not have missed that for the world. I
couldn't be there during the trial physically, you know, other responsibilities,
you know, during that thing called life. But I was
definitely going to be there for the verdict.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And then this roadblock, this thing that I've never heard
of in all my time in policing. At such a
crucial stage, you get notified that the person that was
charged with your sister's murder and had been the accused
in the thirteen and a half week trial, the judge
was going to hand down her findings on the eighth
(28:33):
of July, and on the seventh of July, he killed himself.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Yeah, I remember that phone call.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
I don't think I'll forget that as long as I live.
I was at work, I think I was like two
hours into a shift. I was working in recovery at
this stage. I'd had to leave ICU because of the
stress of what was going on with the trial. And then,
you know, ic use a high acuity area. As I've mentioned,
I couldn't do both. I had nothing left, so I
moved to another area where I could use those skills,
(29:01):
but it wasn't, as you know, emotionally demanding.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
And I remember.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I had my phone in my pocket because we were
trying to organize flights and you know, and bits and pieces,
and it rang, and I remember pulling it out of
my pocket, out of my scrubs and thinking, oh, that
number looks odd and I don't know what it was,
but I was like, I've got to answer this. So
I worked, walked around the corner from the nurse's desk
(29:28):
where it was semi private, and answered the phone. And
it was the social worker attached to the case, and
she asked me if I was at worker at home.
I said, no, no, I'm at work, and she's like, oh,
there's been a development. And I remember saying he played guilty.
I mean I would have fallen over, you know, because
I was adamant that there was no way he was
going to change his PLA, which had been not guilty,
(29:50):
and he was very adamant that he hadn't done it
the entire way through the trial and she went no,
and I'm like, okay, so you know, I think I
said something else and she was like no. She said, look,
is there any way that you can get on a
video conference call? This was at about ten ten thirty
in the morning, and I said, I'm at work and
(30:13):
she said, oh, what time do you finish? And I
was like, well five, but like, what's going on? She said, Oh,
I don't really want to tell you. And I just said,
you've got to tell me. I said, like, I need
to focus for what I do. If you don't tell me,
I'm not going to be able to focus, and that
potentially puts, you know, my patients at risk because I'm
going to be wondering what's going on. And she said,
(30:35):
let me just dial in the two barristers. So she
did that and she said, oh. They got on the
phone and you know, asked me how it was and stuff,
and they said, oh, there's been a notification at the
defendant's house. There's been an ambulance and the police called
of a deceased body and I do believe the entire
(30:56):
word of mother f came out of my mouth loudly, understand.
And I remember just saying like, are you serious and
they said, yeah, we're waiting on confirmation. We can't get
in touch with your step dad. We're trying to at
the moment. And I was like okay, and they said,
(31:17):
you know, are you able to set something up so
that we can talk to you, you know, face to
face through zoom And I.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Said, leave it with me.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I'll have a chat to my bosses and I'll get
back in touch and they said yep. I walked around
to my in charge and said, I've got a codo
like our nursunit manager. So my big boss's office, I
remember walking in there and I saw one of the
other a and ums from anesthetics. So anesthetics is sitter recoveries.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
When you wake up.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
And I remember walking there and just asking where my
boss was because she knew, and I remember just shaking,
and they were like, oh, no, she's at a meeting.
And I'm like, can you please ring her? And I
think the look on my face they just went yeah, sure,
and they said, I do want me to tell her
what's about and I said, just tell her it's Geraldine
and she needs to come here, and so he very
kindly rang her. She turned up five minutes later. I
(32:11):
rang matt in that time. He had been in town
and was on the way home and basically did a YUI.
I was like, I can't drive home, Matthew if I
if I get into the car, I'm going to have
an accident. You know, I just I'm in no shape
to drive. So he did a UI and came back
in and my boss had come back at that point,
and I had quickly explained to her what had happened,
(32:31):
and I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm out for the shift,
and she was like, not a problem. My husband turned
up in theater cat booties and a theater gown that
was two sizes too small for him.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Because we're in theater you have to be in scrubs.
But you know, I just he just looked utterly ridiculous.
God love him.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
And she set up Microsoft teams and we had a
discussion with the barristers. They were in the midst of
going through all the legal cases in Australia where anything
like this had happened, and they were of the opinion
that as far as they knew, there was nothing, and
they ended up having to go back to British common law,
(33:09):
so back through Britain or the UK's legal cases as
well to see if any increased it and being sent there. Yep,
it's never happened before and as the law currently stands,
as was explained to us at the time and again
just before we got the verdict, they were pretty confident
that we would not get a verdict because the law
as it currently stands in New South Wales does not
(33:32):
allow for a verdict to be handed down where the
defendant has died, no matter what stage of the proceedings
you were in. So even though it was less than
twenty four hours that this occurred.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
The law was the law.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Now, so many things to unpack you that, how did
that make you feel that you weren't the verdict that
you've been waiting for, the decision getting some ants as
perhaps some answer is about what happened to your sister,
just taking the word from you like that, how did
it make you feel?
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Initially?
Speaker 2 (34:03):
I was hoping against hope that we would still get
a verdict because to me rationally it was like, well,
we've just been through a thirteen and a half week trial,
the evidence has been examined, the judge has already written
her verdict. You know, the defendant participated how he wanted
to within that trial, and you know, nothing was going
(34:24):
to change the verdict that she had written in you know,
twenty four hours before it was due to be handed down,
you know, and then I remember feeling really angry because
I felt like this was a final if you not
just to the family I grew up with, and the
judge and the legal system, but most of all to Lisel.
(34:48):
You know, he didn't want to be held accountable. He
didn't want to be held responsible, and you know, I
think he's a coward. He didn't want to face the prospect,
you know.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Of what.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
One of the possibilities was all, you know, and I
think it was a power play, you know, that he
still had control. He was out on bail the entire time,
apart from I think a couple of months where he
was held in remand. And the judge ruled that, you know,
because how long it was expected before we were to
go to trial and the length of the trial, that
it was unfair to keep him in jail. And it
(35:23):
was raised by the DPAP that they had considered asking
for him to be held in remand, but there was
no you know, there was no justifiable reason to put
him into remand. Prior to the trial. He turned up
every day. He you know, had surrendered his passport that
was part of the conditions. There was nothing to indicate
that he would not turn up to the verdict being read.
(35:46):
You know, they had no justifiable reason. I understand the logic,
you know, I just.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
I just remember.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Hoping against hope that there would be something that would
let us get a verdicts of what that verdict was,
the only thing that we didn't get is something called
a theory of tendency because, as the judge explained, if
she ruled us to whether it basically came down to
whether she accepted his or not his alibi, but his
(36:16):
version of events or not. And it was a very
short walk, as she said, from there to work out
whether she felt he was guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Right, So she didn't articulate that during the trial or
during her closing address.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, because it was so tied up with the verdict
that you yeah, so there were both things that we
didn't get.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
I I'll bring you back to earlier on in the podcast,
you said you have absolutely no criticism of the judge,
Justice Fulton in the matter, in the way that was
conducted the trial, not at all.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
If anything, I felt when she was reading out why
she couldn't give us a verdict, that she was as
empathetic and compassionate as she possibly could be. She recognized
that you know, a number of family had traveled from interstate,
and that she hoped She did say that she hoped
that we could understand that the law simply did not
(37:09):
allow her to give the verdict. I think, and this
is my personal observation from sitting in the courtroom, I
think she was just as frustrated and angry that this
had occurred as you know, as what everyone else was.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
I've got a quote from her from what she said
after it, and this is from Justice Fullton. Because of
mister Church's death yesterday, which brought his trial to an end,
I cannot announce my verdict today. I want to assure
Miss Smith's many friends and many members of her family
that the law simply does not allow me to publicly
announce it or to publish the very lengthy reasons which
(37:48):
were ready to be published clearly, I can hear the
frustration in her in what she's saying them, the empathy
and everything else that we've talked about to me, and
let's yeah, you're a very balanced and objective in what
you're saying. But you brought it back to the point
that it's been through the trial. The trial had finished
(38:08):
for all intents and purposes, and it was a verdict
to be handed down. The fact that it's never or
they couldn't find any law, common law or anything to
refer to and had to keep digging back. It is
such an unusual situation. I haven't seen it in my time.
The closest I've come to anything like this was a
(38:30):
person that I was looking at for his wife surprisingly
disappeared ten years before, and he reported it. Then his
business partner disappeared. I became involved in the investigation. When
he reported his business partner having disappeared. It looked suspicious
to me. That's the second person that's disappeared in his life.
(38:51):
Then the wife had disappeared ten years earlier. We started
investigating that matter. We charged him with some drug relay defences.
He skipped to into state. We brought him back and
we got a warrant and brought him back to New
South Wales. He was in custody, he was notified that
I was coming out to speak to him about the murders,
and he killed himself in prison and left a nate.
(39:15):
But there was I felt so bad for the family,
the wife's family, because they were looking for answers. They've
never found their loved one's body, and they were hoping
that if these charges, which looked like they were going
to be laid, might give them answers. And I know
how cheated they felt. But that matter was referred to
(39:37):
the coroner, or his death was referred to the coroner,
and from my memory that's going back probably fifteen or
more years, that the coroner made a comment that, based
on the information, the most likely likely scenario is that
he took his own life, but he was also involved
in the disappearance of the two people. Doesn't give you
(39:58):
a definitive answer that it helps to a degree. Is
that something that you think could work with your situation?
What recourse do you want?
Speaker 2 (40:06):
I think something at this point in time is better
than nothing. You know, thirteen and a half weeks of
a huge emotional impact that still has ramifications and consequences
on me and my family today. I remember when the
judge was reading this out. You know, I just sat
there and stared at her. I'm sure she thought I
was giving her a death stare, but I actually had tears.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Rolling down my face.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah, you know, I just something, you know, because at
this point we've got nothing. We've got nothing. We don't
have any idea where Leathal is. She could be anywhere
between the Central coasts and the Upper Hunter Valley. You
know that's a couple of hundred square kilometers.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Yeah, I just.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
I understand that.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
You know, he doesn't have the right to appeal because
of what he did. But as I said, you know,
something's better than nothing, and at the moment, you know,
anything's better than what we've got, which is nada.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And I believe his legal team spoke out on his
behalf and said, look, he shouldn't be the verdict hasn't
been handed down, so he's not a convicted murderer, and
pushed that aspect of it. You actually reached out to
the Attorney General, Mark Speakman at the time, and you've
got a response back, and you kindly pass that on
(41:25):
to me. I just might read out an extract from
that and this is response that the Attorney General gave
to an email sent on the ninth of July twenty
and twenty two. Please accept my deepest sympathy for the
tragic loss of your sister and the grief that you
and your family have endured. I understand the strong sense
(41:47):
of dissatisfaction you have experienced as a result of the
conclusion of proceedings. I also understand that you and your
family sat through many days of evidence hoping for an
outcome and the resolution to the matter that would bring
closure to your family and justice for the lease that
you would denied that opportunity is a matter about which
you have every right to feel aggrieved. I appreciate your
(42:08):
concerns about the current state of the law which preclude
the judge in this case from delivering her judgment. This
is a complex matter, and therefore I have to ask
the Department of Community and Justice to provide me with
advice on the legal and policy issues involved. I will
carefully consider the advice in determining whether any form is
any reform is appropriate to help me to consider the
(42:30):
issues further. I would welcome any input you have on
your experience in this case, and would ask you that
you please contact my executive assistant. That was a response
to an email that you sent to the Attorney General.
Getting that must have given you some comfort at the
time that it looks like they're at least looking into it,
they're taking your concerns seriously.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Yes and no.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
It's easy to say things and pass commiserations on when
you know these things haven't happened to you. And it's
easy to express that you understand someone's frustration, as we've
spoken about before, unless it's actually happened to you. I
don't think people quite understand the frustration, you know, when
(43:15):
people give you platitudes and then don't follow up with anything.
I had a teleconference call with him shortly after that
that was organized. And you know, the Attorney General has
the ability to change legislation. Yes, I understand that. You know,
from a legal point, there needs to be a number
of considerations. You know, you don't want to create loopholes
(43:37):
where things have to go back to trial, you know,
especially if the legislation is made retrospective so that it
could apply to Liesl's case, which is what I would
be looking for. And that was all well and good,
But then I've heard absolutely nothing since that teleconference. I
have no idea what they've done. I have no idea
whether they've gone any further than that, you know, and
(43:58):
I think if it's happened once, it'll happen again. You know.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Thanks for listening. To learn more, visit iycatchkillers dot com
dot au. If you're a crimex plus subscriber, I hope
you're enjoying your early and add free access to this podcast.
We've got heaps of other great news series. One to
look out for at the moment is Shandy's Legacy, created
by the term behind your favorite podcast including The Teacher's
Pet and The Teachers Trial. Shandy's Legacy follows the hearings
(44:30):
into a major public inquiry into the Queensland DNA lab.
Listen early and ad free at crimex or wherever you
get your podcasts. Well, there's some counter arguments if they
made the legislation. I've been involved in legislation changes on
different matters. I've been involved in parable murders, double jeopardy legislation,
(44:51):
and I understand the arguments going backwards and forwards. Eventually
it was changed. But part of the argument for not
changing legislation. If we change this, the the sky is
going to fall everyone's It'll change the very structure of
our justice system. It was changed and it didn't happen.
This is such a rare occurrence. As the DPP identified
(45:12):
as said, they can't find case law on it because
we haven't seen it occur, and we're talking at the
end of the trial, not during the trial, at the
very end of the trial. If they made legislation that
covered that, I don't think it did even have to
be enacted on very often, but it would prevent what
you guys have been through with the situation here, simple
(45:36):
legislation change. I'm not a legal person, clearly, and I'm
not informed enough to know the changing legislation, But just
from an observational point of view, I can't see that
the sky would fall if they made a change to
find out what the verdict was going to be handed down,
given that the trial had already concluded, you followed up
with some letters, again still trying to get answers. There
(45:58):
was a new Attorney general. Can I'll just read out
some extracts of more communication that you had with the
now new Attorney General the day before we receive the
verdict mister Church committed suicide. This meant, as I'm sure
you are aware, that we're unable to hear the verdict handed
down as per the current legislation around this. Surely you
(46:19):
can emphasize how traumatic that was, especially after giving evidence,
along with everything pertaining to her disappearance over a decade
now and the ongoing trauma this continues to put us through.
We have no closure, We have nothing to me that
comes as a that's pleading on the emotions. Please help us.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
I haven't heard a response at all to that.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Well, you didn't finish off there. I spoke with your predecessor,
mister Mark Speakman, who indicated this would go to the
new South Wales Coroner. After thirteen and a half weeks
of criminal trial evidence put under the microscope and the
potential to have to reappear. I'm rather a gast disappointed
and frustrated, to say the least, not to mention there
has been nothing from your office, the coroner or the
(47:05):
DPP to indicate what is happening or moving forward. We
have no way of recourse. Again frustration, and you haven't
heard anything back.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
I haven't had a phone call, I haven't had a
text message, I haven't had an email. I've had absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1 (47:22):
I find it of interest there that they're mentioned in
the New South Wales Coroner. Now, I know we had
this discussion a few days ago. To me, and this
is a very simplistic plan, but I can't see why
the matter couldn't be referred to the New South Wales Coroner.
The coroner could get access to Justice Fulton's findings, review
(47:46):
that with all the other evidence that came out through
the trial, and perhaps make a finding on what happened
to Lisel. Now, the role of the coroner is to
investigate this where the cause is unknown, where there is
a reason to think that death may not be due
to natural causes, to determine the identity and the date,
(48:09):
place and circumstances of the death. To me, and again,
maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but that seems
to be a solution to this problem. Your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (48:19):
As I said, something's better than nothing. I mean, like
legislation would be great and I'd be rapped if it
was changed. You know that that would just be the
you know, the holy grail, I guess, And you know,
legislation is so specific, you know, it's it's there in
black and white. You know, it's very specific to make
(48:39):
sure that you know, you can't find loopholes. So I'm
sure that it could be done. Failing that, because you know,
as you said, they're worried the skyfall. I mean, never
mind that my sky has already fallen. But you know,
a coronial inquest I think would at least hold Jim
Church to accountability. It's not a conviction, but you know,
(49:05):
it's something, you know, and at this point in time,
you know we're most likely never going to find where
Lesa is, you know, and that's devastating, but at least
there would be some accountability, you know, in some sort
of respect from I guess, like a legal standpoint of view,
for want of a better phrase.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
Well, I think a legal point of view is that
at this point you've got zero. It's just up in
the air. It's like everything's been thrown up in the
air and the pieces haven't landed and no one's going
to comment on it, so you're just left wondering. I think,
if you know, if the best you could get is
through if a person is in charge with murder. It
(49:46):
goes before the coroner for the coroner to determine cause, manner,
and location, time of death, all the details around what's happened.
But I would hope then there's some accountability, some accountability
if the coroner came back with a finding, and if
we need to protect what justice Fulton, we can't just
hand it out to everyone because he doesn't have the
(50:09):
he's no longer here. Surely the system could set up
that the coroner could look at. It doesn't have to
make all the findings public, but just based on the
information that's contained there, make a very very informed decision.
Because this matter has already gone through the Supreme Court
as a murder trial as to what's happened to Lisel
and the other thing that I see another potential benefit
(50:33):
here if that is done, I think it would be
a good opportunity to call out to the media if
anyone knows anything that might have happened to Lisel. Given
the circumstances that someone that might have been loyal to
the accused, now the fact that James Church's deceased might
decide to come forward, that would be a great platform
(50:54):
to make an appeal and then my understanding, what every
family wants when a person's missing a suspected murder is
to be able to find the body and lay their
loved one with some respect and dignity.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
That would that would be nice. I don't think that
leasels remains are probably going to be found in my lifetime,
which is something that I really struggle with. You know,
she's my sister. I want her home wherever or however
(51:29):
that looks. And I think that if we have the
ability to get something from the coroner, I would take that.
You know, people talk about closure. I've had that mentioned
a lot of times to me over the course of this.
There will never be closure, you know. There's no such
thing as closure for anyone who's got a missing person
or a case such as this where you know you
(51:52):
don't know where where your loved one is. I think
there's just more questions. You know, Some questions get answered
and others don't, and you have to work out what's important,
which is sort of where I'm at as to which
question do you want answered? And so at this point
in time, you know, i'd take a coroner's in quest,
you know, and I would take whatever you know, the coroner,
(52:14):
you know, came up with on the basis of you know,
them examining the evidence from Justice Fullerton, because they would
at least allow you know, the ability to process, you know,
and knowing that in some way, you know, he was
held accountable. And I'm speaking from from my point of
view because of what I you know, observed and what
(52:36):
I think. But I just don't understand why, you know,
there's been such a lack of response. And as I said,
it's not a matter of if this happens again, it's
a matter of when, and no other families.
Speaker 3 (52:47):
Should go through this, ye you know, this.
Speaker 2 (52:50):
Has completely shattered what was left of the family I
grew up with. You know, it's certainly had an impact
on the way that you know, my immediate family, so
my husband and my kids, you don't interact and deal.
It's been extremely stressful. I've had to leave an area
of my career that I loved doing because emotionally, I
(53:12):
just I had nothing left, you know, which was something
that I didn't want to do, but there was no
other option for me. And you know, this is something
that I will be dealing with for the rest of
my life. And you know, at some point, I'm going
to have to explain to my daughter, you know, what's
(53:33):
happened to her aunt, because I'm sure with the Internet
that she'll come across it or something will get said
and she's going to have questions. And you know, fair enough,
what I don't understand is the lack of response from
the people that can do something about this. You know,
I've sent two letters. I know that there was quite
a bit of pressure, but I just don't understand how,
(53:57):
you know, there's a lack of consideration for responding. I
know that they're busy, but everyone's busy. You know, she
was my sister, she was she belonged to a family,
She was here, you know, and I'm sure that if
this ever happened to any person who you know, is
(54:17):
in politics or the legal system, you know, they'd move
heaven and to get something to happen. I mean, you've
seen it with the police force, for example. You know,
something happens like one of your own, happens to one
of your own, and you guys do everything you can
to work out what happened, and quite rightly, you know, yeah,
I just feel that because it's not one of their own,
(54:41):
that you know, in some regards it doesn't have as
big of an impact, and I'm sure it matters to them,
but it doesn't matter as much as if it was
one of their family members.
Speaker 3 (54:52):
You know, the law of the laws.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
That we have are supposed to reflect society's values and
what society holds up as the standard, as an and
as being important and the failed they don't. You know,
I understand that the way that the legal system is
geared is that you're innocent to proven guilty, and as
I said, you know, I get that, but at the
(55:15):
same time, I think there needs to be in a
case like this, a consideration for the victim's family and
for the person who you know, bore the brunt of
what happened, which in this case is Leesel.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
You know, she deserves better than apathy, which.
Speaker 2 (55:30):
Is essentially how I feel that you know, I've gotten
at this point.
Speaker 3 (55:35):
You know, they're just apathetic. It's sort of.
Speaker 2 (55:38):
While it was in the media, it was important and
oh my gosh, we've got to do something. And now
because it's not front page news anymore, it it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
Well, sadly, I've seen it too many times, and you
hit on some very good points there. The justice systems
there to serve the community, and everyone should be treated
equal in the justice system. There shouldn't be a disparity
bit about what resources or what things have done because
of who the victim is. It shouldn't shouldn't come into it.
(56:10):
When you reached out to me to ask, I ask
if I could help. I can't bring any skills as
a homicide detective to the table, but what I can do,
and you have done it. I've just given you a
platform to talk, and I hope people are listening. I
hope the policy makers are listening to your account of it,
because no one could accuse you have been going off
(56:32):
just angry and bitter, and you'll never be satisfied. You
have been so reasonable, so open, and you've articulated your
positions so clearly. I hope people do listen to this
and push to make a change, because why you deserve
an answer. Your family deserves an answer, lethal deserves an answer,
and I think she'd be very proud of what you're
(56:55):
doing in her memory and keep fighting to get justice
for it. Credit for coming on and telling us your story.
Speaker 3 (57:04):
Thank you, Garry. It's much appreciated.
Speaker 1 (57:07):
Okay, we'll be in touch and let's find out if
people do actually get back to you that have told
you that they will get back to you. Let's see
if they get back to you now, no worries, Thank you, cheers.
I reckon we can get justice for Lisel here. I
don't think it's that hard. They could even make a
legislative change and hand down the findings of Justice Fulton
(57:30):
after trial has been completed, or another way that I
think is a very simple way, refer the matter to
the coroner, give the coroner access to Justice Fulton's findings,
and then the coroner can hand down the decision on
what has happened to Lisal Smith. I really appreciate Geraldine
Caine coming on the show, and I hope it helps.
(57:52):
And I hope the people that said they're going to
get back to Geraldine and the family do get back
to Geraline. Let's hope we can find some justice for
Lui and that n
Hi, it's Gary jubilin here. I'm excited to announce I'll
be hosting a live podcast recording at the Factory Theater
in Sydney on the twenty seventh of November. Spend the
evening with myself and two special guests as we take
a deep dive into the world of crime and punishment.
You'll even be able to take part in a live
Q and A. I'll be there before and after the
show to have a chat. Tickets are available through the
(00:22):
link in the show notes, or visit the Eyecatch Killers
Instagram or Facebook group. I hope to see you there.
It's going to be raw and I reckon a lot
of fun. The public has had a long held fascination
with detectives. Detective see a side of life the average
person is never exposed to. I spent thirty four years
as a cop. For twenty five of those years I
(00:43):
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. 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 talked to. Some of the content and language might
be confronting. That's because no one who comes in the
(01:06):
contact of crime is left unchanged. Join me now as
I take you into this world. Welcome back to part
two of my chat with Geraldine Kine. Geraldine's younger sister,
Lisel Smith, disappeared on the New South Wales Central Coast
back in twenty twelve. After a lengthy investigation, a person
(01:28):
known to James Church was charged with Liesl's murder. In
Part one, we talked about the way that Geraldine became
aware of Lisel's disappearance and the impact it's had on her,
and bearing in mind this is over a six year
period that Part one Geraldine described. We're now going to
hear from Geraldine what it was like attending the trial
(01:49):
and what she learnt during the trial, and her version
of the unforeseen twist at the end of the trial
and how she dealt with that. We're also going to
discuss if there is any way Lisaal's family can find
out what happened to Lusel and get some form of justice. Geralone,
Welcome back, he Gary again. I apologize for discussing this
and dragging this up, but I think it's important that
(02:11):
people talk about their experiences, like your experience. So I
want people, and I was always at pains as a
homicide detective, if I want people to understand what families
are going through when people who have disappeared or people
have been murdered, and it's horrendous and unless you've been there,
I don't think you can fully fully appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
It wasn't on my bucket list of things to do.
Put it that way, I don't know anyone that would
have that as something to do on their bucket list. No,
as I said before, you know that sort of stuff
always happen to other people and you feel compassion and empathy,
and then you know, as you said, you know, go
into the next thing until you become those other people
(02:51):
and it happens to you. It's certainly not something that
I ever thought would happen to me, or that I
would have to explain to people. Even now, I don't
really talk about it. It's quite difficult. I tend to
(03:12):
talk about it with people that I've known for a
long time, so if I meet someone new, it's not
really something that I bring up.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
You know, it's just it's a hard, hard topic to
bring up, and sometimes people don't know how to deal
with you bringing the topic up, and it's almost what
do I say, Well.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. And
you know, I think a lot of people tend to
think that, you know, we want you to fix what's
gone on, and.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I don't necessarily have that expectation of anyone that I
talk to lisl about, but you know, sometimes I just
want people to listen or to recognize that, you know,
missing people affect everybody in society. It's not just you know,
the immediate families and their friends, but it is the
whole of society, you know. It's it's the fabric of
(04:04):
society that missing people, you know, affect. And as I
said to you in a previous conversation, you know, society.
I look at society as a bolt of fabric that's
got different weaves in it, and missing people are one
of those threads. And if you don't have that thread,
then that fabric pattern isn't complete. You're missing a thread.
(04:24):
It's you know, it's not like you can suddenly find
out it's a pulled thread and fix it up. And yep,
in some cases that happens. And I am so happy
for those families that do find their missing loved ones,
but there are also quite a number of us that don't,
and you know, realistically never will.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, it's hard, isn't it. It's very hard to come
to terms with that. We're going to talk about the
murder trial with Liesel's case. Before we do, just describe
the type of person Lisel was. She was twenty three
years old where she disappeared.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
She was her own person, she liked her own company.
She was just doing life like any other twenty three
year old, you know, making mistakes, you know, making good choices,
making bad choices, you know, working out what she wanted
to do as a job, whether that was for the
(05:21):
rest of her life or you know, for six months
until you know, she found something else she wanted to do.
You know, she was working, she was working it out,
you know, like any other twenty three most twenty three
year olds.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
You know, it's a great time of life, isn't it.
You're old enough to make the mistakes, but you've also
got some control on your life, and it's an exciting
time of life as twenty five now.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
I wouldn't mind being twenty three again, but that's never going.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
To happen if we work out the war and the
clock back. Yeah, I'll keep the wisdom.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I'll keep the wisdom, thanks, but I'll take the rewinding age.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
I think we could sell that to a few people.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Oh, I'm sure we could.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Okay, experits of a murder trial and I've been to
countless murder trials and I've got to say they're emotionally
and physically draining. I'd never come out at the end
of a murder trial the same as I went into it.
And I'm just city a police officer involved on the perif.
I can't even fathom how much it drains. You been
(06:20):
a family member going through a murder trial? Do you
want to talk us through the whole process?
Speaker 2 (06:26):
So I got informed that I would be subpoenaed to
give evidence at the trial and got served with a
subpoena that was arranged. I was warned, which was good
because I could warn work that I was required because
I worked for State Health Service. There are requirements about
when I'm subpoena, like when I was subpoened that I
(06:47):
had to inform certain.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
People and whatnot.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So I was forewarned and I spoke to the barristers
a couple of times before I got on the stand.
They did their best to me, which I found really helpful,
and they were very understanding that, you know, that's something
else that wasn't you know, it was never on my
bucket list. So I was always, you know, always worried
about going to coroner's court for work and not probably
(07:13):
have nothing to worry about that in that regard. So
they did their best to sort of prep what they
would ask and what they were going to question me about.
Obviously they couldn't tell me what the defense was going
to ask. They also had told me a few months
previously when this was moving through the courts. So as
you would know, with a homicide charge, it moves through
(07:35):
the local and the district courts first, and then an
application is made to the Supreme Court to have the
charge heard in the Supreme Court. All those unaware, it's
a very long process. And in the midst of this process,
COVID had hit, so we had a delay of I
think about six to eight months because everything just shut down,
which certainly didn't help.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
It adds to the trauma.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah, it certainly didn't help because you want things to regress.
At the same time, it was a world wide pandemic,
so you know, yet something else that's out of your
control that you can't do anything about. And so I
knew that the judge was, you know, was pretty She
was strict but fair, and I have nothing but the
utmost praise for Justice Fullerton. So I was subpoened. I
(08:20):
couldn't listen to the first two weeks of the trial
because I was a.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Witness, which explain that to people, because again most people
don't get experience in her criminal courts, especially the murder trial.
But if you're a witness in a murder trial, regardless
of your relationship to the victim or your involvement, until
you've given evidence, you're excluded from the court. You can't
go in there and understood why you can't hear other
(08:46):
people give evidence before you give your evidence. But that
then itself can be very frustrating. I've been in charge
of murder investigations where I've had to sit I'm virtually
the last witness, so I've had to sit outside the
whole trial of matter that you've invested years in two
and not knowing what's going on. I'm mainly the police officer.
You're a family member. How frustrating was it sitting outside
(09:08):
while the murder trial for your sister was going on.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
I actually had.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
To do my evidence via AVL audio visual. I had
had some health problems and had required surgery and I
wasn't allowed to fly. So originally the defendants lawyer had
wanted me up in Sydney in person, so I don't
live in New South Wales, and there was a lot
of toing and frowing about me going up there, and
(09:33):
in the end I had to get a letter from
the specialist saying that I was not medically cleared to fly,
and Justice Fullerton went, that's it, She's doing it via
audio visual, which was done at one of the court
houses in the capital city I live in.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
The biggest issue was the dates.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Kept changing, so I think there was like one or
two dates. Initially we were given a date and then
that was changed because they didn't get through witnesses or
there was some sort of discussion between the barristers and
the judge and then it got changed again. And it
was frustrating because you know, we've got kids.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
I was trying to get time off work.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I'm trying to like a doctor's surgery. They line up
about ten patients that they know they can the same day,
in the same hour, and that's what they do with witnesses.
So I do understand. Yeah, your frustration. That is the
nature of the justice system in the courts always got
to have them.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, that was explained to me. That I wasn't left hanging.
I was explained we didn't get through everyone, you know,
evidence took longer today, and I was like, okay, cool,
and that I didn't have a problem with that necessarily
because I was kept in the loop of what was
going on, and I was like, yep, fine. And then
finally they cemented in a date and a time and
I had to basically sit in a room. The only
(10:47):
person who I could see was the judge and the
defense lawyer and the two barristers. I couldn't see the
defendant or anybody else in the courtroom, which in all
honesty was completely fine with me. I gave evidence. Justice
Fullerton was very thorough and there are a couple of
instances where I think.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
She realized that I.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Possibly not didn't quite understand what was being asked, and
so she clarified for me, which was very appreciated. I was.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
I gave evidence, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
For just under two hours, and the DPP were very good.
You know, they covered what they had said that they
would cover, so I was prepared for that. And then
the defense lawyer started and some of the questions that
he asked I just found completely in a and irrelevant.
But it's not my job to work out why he
(11:42):
was asking those questions. I answered as best as I could.
Towards the end, I got frustrated and didn't lose my temper,
but my frustration showed, and I remember sitting there, you know,
feeling like I'd run a marathon. I had tried to
keep myself calm, you know, and recognize that you know,
(12:06):
I'm doing this to help with my sister. You know,
I can't get emotional, I can't get frustrated. But he
kept hammering home one particular point, and in the end
I just turned around and snapped at him, for want
of a better word, and then that was the end
of questioning. I was excused. I remember just getting up
(12:26):
and going as soon as I was excused, because my
understanding was that once you're excused. If they want you
back in court, they have to recipoena you, so I
didn't want to give them any time to do that.
And then smart play, Yeah, I flared out of the Yeah.
In some ways, I felt a sense of relief and
like a way to being lifted off my shoulders because
(12:47):
I could now find out what was going on. I
could listen to the evidence. They had to apply to
the judge to get clearance for me to be able
to and she gave that. I think it was about
a week before I felt like I could sit there
and listen to what was being said in court.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
So they set up facility for an AVL for you
to listen to the form.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
They email you a link that you can link into
and they you know, you have to log in and
they obviously realize who it is and then off you go.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
That was horrendous.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
The thing that really got me is that they were
discussing Lisel and the things that were said about her,
in particular.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
By the defense.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I know that the defense lawyer was doing a job
that he was being paid to do, but it's still
not nice to hear certain things said, regardless of whether
they are true or not, about a family member, as
I'm sure you know people that have experienced this can appreciate.
And I guess the bier sense of injustice at that
(13:47):
point for me was that Liseel had no way of
defending herself against against.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
What was being said.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
You know, in if any of half of what was
said was said in a public domain or on Facebook
or any other social media, you could go after someone
for defamation, you know, and what not, on slander and
everything else. And you know, this is in a criminal court,
and they can basically say what they like about the person,
(14:16):
you know, in this case, my.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Sister, And it is hard for loved ones that with
victims that And you've nailed the point. She's not there
to defend herself, so they can throw speculative comments up
about the type of person she is or things that
might have been done, and she's not there to defend
her self. So I can understand how painful that would
(14:39):
be for a loved one to watch that play out.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Yeah, it basically felt like it was a free for all,
you know, open slather on her, and that was really
frustrating and quite upsetting a number of times. Some of
the things that were said, especially by the defense defense lawyer,
and as I said, I understand he's got a job
to do. And that's from what I understand. That's whey
criminal court.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Is you know exactly well, it's an adversarial system and
that is the way that matters are adjudicated. Can I
just to put it in context so people understand, and
we won't go through all the evidence, but just in
context the basic summary of the trial. So in twenty twelve,
Lisal left house one day to drive to Tugara train station,
(15:25):
parked a car, and then a witness saw her getting
into another white uit. It was the last time she
was seen alive. She was a missing person for six years,
never found a body. Everything pointed to Jim Church, an
older neighbor who was a local horse trainer. Rumors were
Lisal had an affair with him, got pregnant, and he
killed her. Her body has not been found. Now that's
(15:47):
a very brief description of the type of allegation. It's
not going into the full facts of the matter, but
just so people when we're talking about understand what was
going on with this trial, because the trial ran for
our correct me if I'm wrong thirteen and a half
weeks seventy days. Yep, it was a judge alone trial.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yes, it was.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
My understanding, is that explained to you?
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yeah, it basically meant that it was the judge and
the judge alone who heard all the evidence, heard all
the arguments, and you know, made rulings on what could
or couldn't be submitted and whatnot. There was no jury whatsoever.
My understanding is usually there's a choice. You can have
a judge and a jury, or you can have a
judge loan trial. The option, as far as I understood,
(16:30):
wasn't given in this case because of COVID, so, which
is to me, neither here nor there.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
So, Yeah, during the course of the trial, you're listening
to it. You've got over the time period where you
were excluded from the court, You've given your evidence, and
now you're starting to listen to the trial. How did
you think the trial was going.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I kept an open mind because as in as everyone
knows in this country, you know, you have the right
to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court
of law. And in some ways I wanted to listen
to bear witness for Lisel. That was how I felt,
and I wanted to hear what the evidence was with
(17:10):
my own ears. There are a number of witnesses that
were expert witnesses on like phone towers and roadworks and
you know all these other bits and pieces that were
crucial to the case for the DPP. And what I
found really good was that Justice Fullerton, if she wasn't
clear on something, she got the person who was in
(17:31):
the stand at the time to clarify so that she
completely understood what the evidence they were giving was about,
which I know was very helpful. As the trial progressed
and more and more witnesses were gone through, I started
forming my own opinion, and I think the crux of
it came towards the end when both my stepdad and
(17:54):
the defendant were called to give evidence along with By
this stage the police interviews with the defendant had been played.
I think they're about five or six. So you just
saw the only way to eliminate this thread was to
murder Lusel anyway.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
For what you don't know is that Lucil was never
bringing up.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That's a difference to me.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
We believe he murdered Lusel in the world right. We
believe that her remains are located in the Hunter and
we want to know where she is.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
I haven't murdered a run. I don't know where she is.
I certainly don't own a gun.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
I've never murdered anyone. I said to the arrises for
the DPAP at one stage, I'm surprised they didn't hear
me yelling at the computer from interstate because I was
just so incredulous about what the defendant had said. You know,
in regards to Lisel, the way that he spoke about
her and the person he was with at the time,
(18:52):
who was apparently the love of his life was just disgusting,
you know. And the way that he presented himself in
court verse is what he said when he thought no
one was listening, was a very stark contrast.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
This was the covit evidence was gathered through listening devices
or phone taps.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yes, yes, so there were listening devices planted in his
parents house where there were conversations recorded between his parents
and his sister as well as him. They planted listening
devices in his I think his car and in his house,
and there had also been intercepts picked up between him
(19:31):
and other witnesses. So basically he had an outright asked
people to lie for him.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
To provide an alibi, but.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
He had said, oh, you know, you stick with the story,
and once those had been disproven, you know, my understanding
was that he really had nowhere to go with, you know,
explaining where he'd been. Phones had been turned off and
then turned on, and he was like, oh, but I was,
you know, at my girlfriend's house at the time, and
they said, okay, fine, you know, but she's wrung immobile
(20:00):
and you know, everyone's done the thing where, you know,
I can't find a mobile, can you ring it for me?
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
But she'd also rung his landline as well, and it
showed when they had telecommunication experts coming that he'd actually
turned his phone off until like one one point thirty
or something in the morning.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
It was on the crucial time.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
On the crucial time. The other thing was that up
until the nineteenth of August, he and Lisal I think,
in the course of four to six weeks or something
had exchanged nearly two thousand text messages. I think it
was like eighteen hundred, just over eighteen hundred, you know, contacts,
And the nineteenth of August came and went was literally like.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
It had dropped off a cliff.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
There was nothing. He didn't text her, he didn't message her,
he didn't ring her to find out if she was Okay,
you know, I know I'm not the only one that
messaged or tried to contact her. There was nothing from
his phone.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Okay, well, yeah, yeah, I think that's pretty telling. And
I look, and I'm talking in the general sense here,
want to clarify that. But if I'm looking and there's
just someone disappears and then the person that's meaning constant
contact doesn't contact, that person, makes you ask questions. Tell
(21:13):
me with the detail there, like the way that you're
describing it, and we should explain or disclaim here. This
is just the observations of a trial that your witnessed.
So we're not saying going through facts detail by detail.
We're just your observations. Seems to be a thorough investigation.
Let's wind it back when you're frustration with the police,
(21:36):
if the communication was better, like I would suggest, you're
looking at the investigation now and it was playing out
in the trial that you think, okay, well, they were
working on it. Does it change your view on your
dealing with the dealings with the police.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I think they'd obviously put a number of resources and
a lot of time into the investigation. At the trial,
they were there along with their wives, which I was
very appreciative of, given how much time that this has
taken up of their lives. You know, it wouldn't just
be it's not a nine to five job.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No should pushed that for a very long time.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
So I was very appreciative that they came along to
see see the outcome. I don't I give credit to
how much work and resources was put in. I just
feel that if they had have explained that at the start,
you know, and just had that compassion and that empathy
in humanity, at least in their dealings with me. I
can't speak for their dealings with anybody else. Yeah, I
(22:34):
feel that I probably would have had a different view,
and I would have a different view now. I still
view it as you know, they really could have done
it better, and you know, not necessarily treated me with
key gloves, but not treated me the way that they did,
you know. I just I felt that that was unwarranted
and undeserved, and if they had have changed the way
(22:57):
or you know, approached the way that they interacted with
me on a different angle, and I guess expressed understanding.
You know that I was frustrated, you know what's going on,
and explained, as I said earlier, you know, we are working,
but we can't explain what we're doing at the moment.
I think things may have been a lot easier for
me to some degree in that I would have understand
understood that they were working. Yeah, at the trial, they
(23:21):
had put a lot of work into their case. You know,
proving time. You know how long it took to drive
from point A to point B. You know why it
was impossible that he said he was here when his
car was you know, he was at point C, when
his car was at point D, et cetera. And all
of a sudden, you know, the case was built around
circumstantial evidence that was quite strong.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Because there was no evidences presented where Liesl's body is.
That Lisel's body wasn't recovered, so there's no evidence presented there, No,
there's nothing. You're you've been watching the trial now for
ten eleven weeks. At the end of the trial, the
prosecution would have summed up and the defense would have
(24:04):
summed up and pulling together all the evidence that's gone by.
How did you feel did you were you when I
say confident, confident being they show me the result that
you were seeking would be that the person was convicted.
Were you confident that he would be found guilty?
Speaker 2 (24:21):
I will be honest and say I certainly hope that
he would be From my personal observations, I couldn't see
how any other verdict could be reached. You know, there
were huge gaps in things that he said, and the
way you know, he tried to explain certain things away
(24:42):
just made absolutely no logical sense. You know, it may
have made sense to him, but you know it certainly
didn't make sense to me. And from some of the
questions that the judge had asked, I got the impression
that she was trying to work out how it made
sense as well. I didn't know what the judge would
come to down with, and this was a discussion between
(25:03):
my husband and I. Actually he said, you know what
if he is found guilty, and I said, look, you
know I'm not the judge. I don't have that legal backing.
You know, she has nothing to do with the case.
And that's the whole point of the legal system in Australia.
You know, you bring forth your argument, you argue on
the basis of your evidence as to what you think
has happened, and then you know, the judge retires to
(25:26):
make a verdict on the basis of points of law
that you know they've spent god knows how long you know,
understanding and applying and that's what should happen. If it
had have come back not guilty, I would not have
necessarily agreed with her. But at the same point, I'm
not a Supreme Court judge. You know, I don't have
(25:48):
to apply the law, and in all honesty, I would
never want that responsibility because you're making judgments about people's
lives for all you know, intents and purposes. You're either
you know, sentencing them to jail for whatever period of
time you may deem relevant at some point, or you're
setting them free. And on the flip side, you know
(26:09):
you have a family, you know that may or not
agree with what you come up with. You know, that's
a huge responsibility.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Gerald. Just in what you've said there, I think you're
showing what a fair and objective person you are, even
when you're looking at a trial like that. So yeah,
it says a lot about a lot about you as
a person that you can offer that opinion when you're
talking about a murder trial relating to your sister. You
got notified that the verdict was going to be handed down,
(26:40):
and I think the date that was set was the
eighth of July twenty and twenty two. What went through
your mind when you knew a date was going to
be set, when the judge was going to come back
with a guilty or not guilty verdict?
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Not a lot.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Initially, Funnily enough, we were we were driving coming up
to see my in laws when we got the I
think it.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Was a message to say that the judge had set
a date.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
We'd asked for a date because obviously, living into state,
we had to organize work schedules and flights and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
And I think I was just in shock.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
That, you know, at this stage it had been.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Just on a month.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Actually, I think it was a month to the day
when we got told that the judge was ready to
hand down her verdict. We duks for a week's notice
and she gave us five days. Originally I think it
was going to be forty eight hours. Yeah, in some
ways I wish it had a been forty eight hours,
but I don't necessarily think that would have changed anything
that happened afterwards, and so it was a mad scramble
(27:40):
to organize flights and whatnot. And I don't think I
actually processed anything, and I hadn't up until the day before,
I think, just because so much needed to be organized.
You know, I still had to go to work.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
You were going up there to see the judge handed
down the findings.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
That was y yep.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
I would not have missed that for the world. I
couldn't be there during the trial physically, you know, other responsibilities,
you know, during that thing called life. But I was
definitely going to be there for the verdict.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And then this roadblock, this thing that I've never heard
of in all my time in policing. At such a
crucial stage, you get notified that the person that was
charged with your sister's murder and had been the accused
in the thirteen and a half week trial, the judge
was going to hand down her findings on the eighth
(28:33):
of July, and on the seventh of July, he killed himself.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Yeah, I remember that phone call.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
I don't think I'll forget that as long as I live.
I was at work, I think I was like two
hours into a shift. I was working in recovery at
this stage. I'd had to leave ICU because of the
stress of what was going on with the trial. And then,
you know, ic use a high acuity area. As I've mentioned,
I couldn't do both. I had nothing left, so I
moved to another area where I could use those skills,
(29:01):
but it wasn't, as you know, emotionally demanding.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
And I remember.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I had my phone in my pocket because we were
trying to organize flights and you know, and bits and pieces,
and it rang, and I remember pulling it out of
my pocket, out of my scrubs and thinking, oh, that
number looks odd and I don't know what it was,
but I was like, I've got to answer this. So
I worked, walked around the corner from the nurse's desk
(29:28):
where it was semi private, and answered the phone. And
it was the social worker attached to the case, and
she asked me if I was at worker at home.
I said, no, no, I'm at work, and she's like, oh,
there's been a development. And I remember saying he played guilty.
I mean I would have fallen over, you know, because
I was adamant that there was no way he was
going to change his PLA, which had been not guilty,
(29:50):
and he was very adamant that he hadn't done it
the entire way through the trial and she went no,
and I'm like, okay, so you know, I think I
said something else and she was like no. She said, look,
is there any way that you can get on a
video conference call? This was at about ten ten thirty
in the morning, and I said, I'm at work and
(30:13):
she said, oh, what time do you finish? And I
was like, well five, but like, what's going on? She said, Oh,
I don't really want to tell you. And I just said,
you've got to tell me. I said, like, I need
to focus for what I do. If you don't tell me,
I'm not going to be able to focus, and that
potentially puts, you know, my patients at risk because I'm
going to be wondering what's going on. And she said,
(30:35):
let me just dial in the two barristers. So she
did that and she said, oh. They got on the
phone and you know, asked me how it was and stuff,
and they said, oh, there's been a notification at the
defendant's house. There's been an ambulance and the police called
of a deceased body and I do believe the entire
(30:56):
word of mother f came out of my mouth loudly, understand.
And I remember just saying like, are you serious and
they said, yeah, we're waiting on confirmation. We can't get
in touch with your step dad. We're trying to at
the moment. And I was like okay, and they said,
(31:17):
you know, are you able to set something up so
that we can talk to you, you know, face to
face through zoom And I.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Said, leave it with me.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I'll have a chat to my bosses and I'll get
back in touch and they said yep. I walked around
to my in charge and said, I've got a codo
like our nursunit manager. So my big boss's office, I
remember walking in there and I saw one of the
other a and ums from anesthetics. So anesthetics is sitter recoveries.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
When you wake up.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
And I remember walking there and just asking where my
boss was because she knew, and I remember just shaking,
and they were like, oh, no, she's at a meeting.
And I'm like, can you please ring her? And I
think the look on my face they just went yeah, sure,
and they said, I do want me to tell her
what's about and I said, just tell her it's Geraldine
and she needs to come here, and so he very
kindly rang her. She turned up five minutes later. I
(32:11):
rang matt in that time. He had been in town
and was on the way home and basically did a YUI.
I was like, I can't drive home, Matthew if I
if I get into the car, I'm going to have
an accident. You know, I just I'm in no shape
to drive. So he did a UI and came back
in and my boss had come back at that point,
and I had quickly explained to her what had happened,
(32:31):
and I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm out for the shift,
and she was like, not a problem. My husband turned
up in theater cat booties and a theater gown that
was two sizes too small for him.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Because we're in theater you have to be in scrubs.
But you know, I just he just looked utterly ridiculous.
God love him.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
And she set up Microsoft teams and we had a
discussion with the barristers. They were in the midst of
going through all the legal cases in Australia where anything
like this had happened, and they were of the opinion
that as far as they knew, there was nothing, and
they ended up having to go back to British common law,
(33:09):
so back through Britain or the UK's legal cases as
well to see if any increased it and being sent there. Yep,
it's never happened before and as the law currently stands,
as was explained to us at the time and again
just before we got the verdict, they were pretty confident
that we would not get a verdict because the law
as it currently stands in New South Wales does not
(33:32):
allow for a verdict to be handed down where the
defendant has died, no matter what stage of the proceedings
you were in. So even though it was less than
twenty four hours that this occurred.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
The law was the law.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Now, so many things to unpack you that, how did
that make you feel that you weren't the verdict that
you've been waiting for, the decision getting some ants as
perhaps some answer is about what happened to your sister,
just taking the word from you like that, how did
it make you feel?
Speaker 3 (34:03):
Initially?
Speaker 2 (34:03):
I was hoping against hope that we would still get
a verdict because to me rationally it was like, well,
we've just been through a thirteen and a half week trial,
the evidence has been examined, the judge has already written
her verdict. You know, the defendant participated how he wanted
to within that trial, and you know, nothing was going
(34:24):
to change the verdict that she had written in you know,
twenty four hours before it was due to be handed down,
you know, and then I remember feeling really angry because
I felt like this was a final if you not
just to the family I grew up with, and the
judge and the legal system, but most of all to Lisel.
(34:48):
You know, he didn't want to be held accountable. He
didn't want to be held responsible, and you know, I
think he's a coward. He didn't want to face the prospect,
you know.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Of what.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
One of the possibilities was all, you know, and I
think it was a power play, you know, that he
still had control. He was out on bail the entire time,
apart from I think a couple of months where he
was held in remand. And the judge ruled that, you know,
because how long it was expected before we were to
go to trial and the length of the trial, that
it was unfair to keep him in jail. And it
(35:23):
was raised by the DPAP that they had considered asking
for him to be held in remand, but there was
no you know, there was no justifiable reason to put
him into remand. Prior to the trial. He turned up
every day. He you know, had surrendered his passport that
was part of the conditions. There was nothing to indicate
that he would not turn up to the verdict being read.
(35:46):
You know, they had no justifiable reason. I understand the logic,
you know, I just.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
I just remember.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Hoping against hope that there would be something that would
let us get a verdicts of what that verdict was,
the only thing that we didn't get is something called
a theory of tendency because, as the judge explained, if
she ruled us to whether it basically came down to
whether she accepted his or not his alibi, but his
(36:16):
version of events or not. And it was a very
short walk, as she said, from there to work out
whether she felt he was guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Right, So she didn't articulate that during the trial or
during her closing address.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, because it was so tied up with the verdict
that you yeah, so there were both things that we
didn't get.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
I I'll bring you back to earlier on in the podcast,
you said you have absolutely no criticism of the judge,
Justice Fulton in the matter, in the way that was
conducted the trial, not at all.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
If anything, I felt when she was reading out why
she couldn't give us a verdict, that she was as
empathetic and compassionate as she possibly could be. She recognized
that you know, a number of family had traveled from interstate,
and that she hoped She did say that she hoped
that we could understand that the law simply did not
(37:09):
allow her to give the verdict. I think, and this
is my personal observation from sitting in the courtroom, I
think she was just as frustrated and angry that this
had occurred as you know, as what everyone else was.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
I've got a quote from her from what she said
after it, and this is from Justice Fullton. Because of
mister Church's death yesterday, which brought his trial to an end,
I cannot announce my verdict today. I want to assure
Miss Smith's many friends and many members of her family
that the law simply does not allow me to publicly
announce it or to publish the very lengthy reasons which
(37:48):
were ready to be published clearly, I can hear the
frustration in her in what she's saying them, the empathy
and everything else that we've talked about to me, and
let's yeah, you're a very balanced and objective in what
you're saying. But you brought it back to the point
that it's been through the trial. The trial had finished
(38:08):
for all intents and purposes, and it was a verdict
to be handed down. The fact that it's never or
they couldn't find any law, common law or anything to
refer to and had to keep digging back. It is
such an unusual situation. I haven't seen it in my time.
The closest I've come to anything like this was a
(38:30):
person that I was looking at for his wife surprisingly
disappeared ten years before, and he reported it. Then his
business partner disappeared. I became involved in the investigation. When
he reported his business partner having disappeared. It looked suspicious
to me. That's the second person that's disappeared in his life.
(38:51):
Then the wife had disappeared ten years earlier. We started
investigating that matter. We charged him with some drug relay defences.
He skipped to into state. We brought him back and
we got a warrant and brought him back to New
South Wales. He was in custody, he was notified that
I was coming out to speak to him about the murders,
and he killed himself in prison and left a nate.
(39:15):
But there was I felt so bad for the family,
the wife's family, because they were looking for answers. They've
never found their loved one's body, and they were hoping
that if these charges, which looked like they were going
to be laid, might give them answers. And I know
how cheated they felt. But that matter was referred to
(39:37):
the coroner, or his death was referred to the coroner,
and from my memory that's going back probably fifteen or
more years, that the coroner made a comment that, based
on the information, the most likely likely scenario is that
he took his own life, but he was also involved
in the disappearance of the two people. Doesn't give you
(39:58):
a definitive answer that it helps to a degree. Is
that something that you think could work with your situation?
What recourse do you want?
Speaker 2 (40:06):
I think something at this point in time is better
than nothing. You know, thirteen and a half weeks of
a huge emotional impact that still has ramifications and consequences
on me and my family today. I remember when the
judge was reading this out. You know, I just sat
there and stared at her. I'm sure she thought I
was giving her a death stare, but I actually had tears.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Rolling down my face.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah, you know, I just something, you know, because at
this point we've got nothing. We've got nothing. We don't
have any idea where Leathal is. She could be anywhere
between the Central coasts and the Upper Hunter Valley. You
know that's a couple of hundred square kilometers.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Yeah, I just.
Speaker 3 (40:52):
I understand that.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
You know, he doesn't have the right to appeal because
of what he did. But as I said, you know,
something's better than nothing, and at the moment, you know,
anything's better than what we've got, which is nada.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And I believe his legal team spoke out on his
behalf and said, look, he shouldn't be the verdict hasn't
been handed down, so he's not a convicted murderer, and
pushed that aspect of it. You actually reached out to
the Attorney General, Mark Speakman at the time, and you've
got a response back, and you kindly pass that on
(41:25):
to me. I just might read out an extract from
that and this is response that the Attorney General gave
to an email sent on the ninth of July twenty
and twenty two. Please accept my deepest sympathy for the
tragic loss of your sister and the grief that you
and your family have endured. I understand the strong sense
(41:47):
of dissatisfaction you have experienced as a result of the
conclusion of proceedings. I also understand that you and your
family sat through many days of evidence hoping for an
outcome and the resolution to the matter that would bring
closure to your family and justice for the lease that
you would denied that opportunity is a matter about which
you have every right to feel aggrieved. I appreciate your
(42:08):
concerns about the current state of the law which preclude
the judge in this case from delivering her judgment. This
is a complex matter, and therefore I have to ask
the Department of Community and Justice to provide me with
advice on the legal and policy issues involved. I will
carefully consider the advice in determining whether any form is
any reform is appropriate to help me to consider the
(42:30):
issues further. I would welcome any input you have on
your experience in this case, and would ask you that
you please contact my executive assistant. That was a response
to an email that you sent to the Attorney General.
Getting that must have given you some comfort at the
time that it looks like they're at least looking into it,
they're taking your concerns seriously.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Yes and no.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
It's easy to say things and pass commiserations on when
you know these things haven't happened to you. And it's
easy to express that you understand someone's frustration, as we've
spoken about before, unless it's actually happened to you. I
don't think people quite understand the frustration, you know, when
(43:15):
people give you platitudes and then don't follow up with anything.
I had a teleconference call with him shortly after that
that was organized. And you know, the Attorney General has
the ability to change legislation. Yes, I understand that. You know,
from a legal point, there needs to be a number
of considerations. You know, you don't want to create loopholes
(43:37):
where things have to go back to trial, you know,
especially if the legislation is made retrospective so that it
could apply to Liesl's case, which is what I would
be looking for. And that was all well and good,
But then I've heard absolutely nothing since that teleconference. I
have no idea what they've done. I have no idea
whether they've gone any further than that, you know, and
(43:58):
I think if it's happened once, it'll happen again. You know.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Thanks for listening. To learn more, visit iycatchkillers dot com
dot au. If you're a crimex plus subscriber, I hope
you're enjoying your early and add free access to this podcast.
We've got heaps of other great news series. One to
look out for at the moment is Shandy's Legacy, created
by the term behind your favorite podcast including The Teacher's
Pet and The Teachers Trial. Shandy's Legacy follows the hearings
(44:30):
into a major public inquiry into the Queensland DNA lab.
Listen early and ad free at crimex or wherever you
get your podcasts. Well, there's some counter arguments if they
made the legislation. I've been involved in legislation changes on
different matters. I've been involved in parable murders, double jeopardy legislation,
(44:51):
and I understand the arguments going backwards and forwards. Eventually
it was changed. But part of the argument for not
changing legislation. If we change this, the the sky is
going to fall everyone's It'll change the very structure of
our justice system. It was changed and it didn't happen.
This is such a rare occurrence. As the DPP identified
(45:12):
as said, they can't find case law on it because
we haven't seen it occur, and we're talking at the
end of the trial, not during the trial, at the
very end of the trial. If they made legislation that
covered that, I don't think it did even have to
be enacted on very often, but it would prevent what
you guys have been through with the situation here, simple
(45:36):
legislation change. I'm not a legal person, clearly, and I'm
not informed enough to know the changing legislation, But just
from an observational point of view, I can't see that
the sky would fall if they made a change to
find out what the verdict was going to be handed down,
given that the trial had already concluded, you followed up
with some letters, again still trying to get answers. There
(45:58):
was a new Attorney general. Can I'll just read out
some extracts of more communication that you had with the
now new Attorney General the day before we receive the
verdict mister Church committed suicide. This meant, as I'm sure
you are aware, that we're unable to hear the verdict handed
down as per the current legislation around this. Surely you
(46:19):
can emphasize how traumatic that was, especially after giving evidence,
along with everything pertaining to her disappearance over a decade
now and the ongoing trauma this continues to put us through.
We have no closure, We have nothing to me that
comes as a that's pleading on the emotions. Please help us.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
I haven't heard a response at all to that.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Well, you didn't finish off there. I spoke with your predecessor,
mister Mark Speakman, who indicated this would go to the
new South Wales Coroner. After thirteen and a half weeks
of criminal trial evidence put under the microscope and the
potential to have to reappear. I'm rather a gast disappointed
and frustrated, to say the least, not to mention there
has been nothing from your office, the coroner or the
(47:05):
DPP to indicate what is happening or moving forward. We
have no way of recourse. Again frustration, and you haven't
heard anything back.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
I haven't had a phone call, I haven't had a
text message, I haven't had an email. I've had absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1 (47:22):
I find it of interest there that they're mentioned in
the New South Wales Coroner. Now, I know we had
this discussion a few days ago. To me, and this
is a very simplistic plan, but I can't see why
the matter couldn't be referred to the New South Wales Coroner.
The coroner could get access to Justice Fulton's findings, review
(47:46):
that with all the other evidence that came out through
the trial, and perhaps make a finding on what happened
to Lisel. Now, the role of the coroner is to
investigate this where the cause is unknown, where there is
a reason to think that death may not be due
to natural causes, to determine the identity and the date,
(48:09):
place and circumstances of the death. To me, and again,
maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but that seems
to be a solution to this problem. Your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (48:19):
As I said, something's better than nothing. I mean, like
legislation would be great and I'd be rapped if it
was changed. You know that that would just be the
you know, the holy grail, I guess, And you know,
legislation is so specific, you know, it's it's there in
black and white. You know, it's very specific to make
(48:39):
sure that you know, you can't find loopholes. So I'm
sure that it could be done. Failing that, because you know,
as you said, they're worried the skyfall. I mean, never
mind that my sky has already fallen. But you know,
a coronial inquest I think would at least hold Jim
Church to accountability. It's not a conviction, but you know,
(49:05):
it's something, you know, and at this point in time,
you know we're most likely never going to find where
Lesa is, you know, and that's devastating, but at least
there would be some accountability, you know, in some sort
of respect from I guess, like a legal standpoint of view,
for want of a better phrase.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
Well, I think a legal point of view is that
at this point you've got zero. It's just up in
the air. It's like everything's been thrown up in the
air and the pieces haven't landed and no one's going
to comment on it, so you're just left wondering. I think,
if you know, if the best you could get is
through if a person is in charge with murder. It
(49:46):
goes before the coroner for the coroner to determine cause, manner,
and location, time of death, all the details around what's happened.
But I would hope then there's some accountability, some accountability
if the coroner came back with a finding, and if
we need to protect what justice Fulton, we can't just
hand it out to everyone because he doesn't have the
(50:09):
he's no longer here. Surely the system could set up
that the coroner could look at. It doesn't have to
make all the findings public, but just based on the
information that's contained there, make a very very informed decision.
Because this matter has already gone through the Supreme Court
as a murder trial as to what's happened to Lisel
and the other thing that I see another potential benefit
(50:33):
here if that is done, I think it would be
a good opportunity to call out to the media if
anyone knows anything that might have happened to Lisel. Given
the circumstances that someone that might have been loyal to
the accused, now the fact that James Church's deceased might
decide to come forward, that would be a great platform
(50:54):
to make an appeal and then my understanding, what every
family wants when a person's missing a suspected murder is
to be able to find the body and lay their
loved one with some respect and dignity.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
That would that would be nice. I don't think that
leasels remains are probably going to be found in my lifetime,
which is something that I really struggle with. You know,
she's my sister. I want her home wherever or however
(51:29):
that looks. And I think that if we have the
ability to get something from the coroner, I would take that.
You know, people talk about closure. I've had that mentioned
a lot of times to me over the course of this.
There will never be closure, you know. There's no such
thing as closure for anyone who's got a missing person
or a case such as this where you know you
(51:52):
don't know where where your loved one is. I think
there's just more questions. You know, Some questions get answered
and others don't, and you have to work out what's important,
which is sort of where I'm at as to which
question do you want answered? And so at this point
in time, you know, i'd take a coroner's in quest,
you know, and I would take whatever you know, the coroner,
(52:14):
you know, came up with on the basis of you know,
them examining the evidence from Justice Fullerton, because they would
at least allow you know, the ability to process, you know,
and knowing that in some way, you know, he was
held accountable. And I'm speaking from from my point of
view because of what I you know, observed and what
(52:36):
I think. But I just don't understand why, you know,
there's been such a lack of response. And as I said,
it's not a matter of if this happens again, it's
a matter of when, and no other families.
Speaker 3 (52:47):
Should go through this, ye you know, this.
Speaker 2 (52:50):
Has completely shattered what was left of the family I
grew up with. You know, it's certainly had an impact
on the way that you know, my immediate family, so
my husband and my kids, you don't interact and deal.
It's been extremely stressful. I've had to leave an area
of my career that I loved doing because emotionally, I
(53:12):
just I had nothing left, you know, which was something
that I didn't want to do, but there was no
other option for me. And you know, this is something
that I will be dealing with for the rest of
my life. And you know, at some point, I'm going
to have to explain to my daughter, you know, what's
(53:33):
happened to her aunt, because I'm sure with the Internet
that she'll come across it or something will get said
and she's going to have questions. And you know, fair enough,
what I don't understand is the lack of response from
the people that can do something about this. You know,
I've sent two letters. I know that there was quite
a bit of pressure, but I just don't understand how,
(53:57):
you know, there's a lack of consideration for responding. I
know that they're busy, but everyone's busy. You know, she
was my sister, she was she belonged to a family,
She was here, you know, and I'm sure that if
this ever happened to any person who you know, is
(54:17):
in politics or the legal system, you know, they'd move
heaven and to get something to happen. I mean, you've
seen it with the police force, for example. You know,
something happens like one of your own, happens to one
of your own, and you guys do everything you can
to work out what happened, and quite rightly, you know, yeah,
I just feel that because it's not one of their own,
(54:41):
that you know, in some regards it doesn't have as
big of an impact, and I'm sure it matters to them,
but it doesn't matter as much as if it was
one of their family members.
Speaker 3 (54:52):
You know, the law of the laws.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
That we have are supposed to reflect society's values and
what society holds up as the standard, as an and
as being important and the failed they don't. You know,
I understand that the way that the legal system is
geared is that you're innocent to proven guilty, and as
I said, you know, I get that, but at the
(55:15):
same time, I think there needs to be in a
case like this, a consideration for the victim's family and
for the person who you know, bore the brunt of
what happened, which in this case is Leesel.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
You know, she deserves better than apathy, which.
Speaker 2 (55:30):
Is essentially how I feel that you know, I've gotten
at this point.
Speaker 3 (55:35):
You know, they're just apathetic. It's sort of.
Speaker 2 (55:38):
While it was in the media, it was important and
oh my gosh, we've got to do something. And now
because it's not front page news anymore, it it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
Well, sadly, I've seen it too many times, and you
hit on some very good points there. The justice systems
there to serve the community, and everyone should be treated
equal in the justice system. There shouldn't be a disparity
bit about what resources or what things have done because
of who the victim is. It shouldn't shouldn't come into it.
(56:10):
When you reached out to me to ask, I ask
if I could help. I can't bring any skills as
a homicide detective to the table, but what I can do,
and you have done it. I've just given you a
platform to talk, and I hope people are listening. I
hope the policy makers are listening to your account of it,
because no one could accuse you have been going off
(56:32):
just angry and bitter, and you'll never be satisfied. You
have been so reasonable, so open, and you've articulated your
positions so clearly. I hope people do listen to this
and push to make a change, because why you deserve
an answer. Your family deserves an answer, lethal deserves an answer,
and I think she'd be very proud of what you're
(56:55):
doing in her memory and keep fighting to get justice
for it. Credit for coming on and telling us your story.
Speaker 3 (57:04):
Thank you, Garry. It's much appreciated.
Speaker 1 (57:07):
Okay, we'll be in touch and let's find out if
people do actually get back to you that have told
you that they will get back to you. Let's see
if they get back to you now, no worries, Thank you, cheers.
I reckon we can get justice for Lisel here. I
don't think it's that hard. They could even make a
legislative change and hand down the findings of Justice Fulton
(57:30):
after trial has been completed, or another way that I
think is a very simple way, refer the matter to
the coroner, give the coroner access to Justice Fulton's findings,
and then the coroner can hand down the decision on
what has happened to Lisal Smith. I really appreciate Geraldine
Caine coming on the show, and I hope it helps.
(57:52):
And I hope the people that said they're going to
get back to Geraldine and the family do get back
to Geraline. Let's hope we can find some justice for
Lui and that n
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.