July 21, 2025 • 37 mins
Former detective Dennis Martyn was doing a routine check when he came face-to-face with Daniel Morcombe’s killer. Just weeks after the young boy disappeared, Dennis and his police partner met Brett Peter Cowan at his home. From catching Cowan out in a web of lies to the initial warning signs, Dennis walks Gary Jubelin through the case that shocked the country.
Want to hear more from I Catch Killers? Visit news.com.au.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life, the average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talked to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:45):
In part two of my chat, we've retired Queensland Police
detective Dennis Martin. Dennis told us some details about his
interaction with Daniel Morkham's killer, Brett Cowen. It was quite
chilling what he had to say, and we're going to
go into more detail now. And I think listeners who
want to know what is going through a detective's mind
when sizing up a suspect, you are going to find
(01:06):
this fascinating. It also gives us an insight in the
pressures of being involved in a high profile investigation and
the robust nature of policing when the stakes are high
and there's always differences of opinions regarding how matters should
be approached. I think you're going to find this part
of the conversation fascinating. Durns Martin, welcome back to part
two of I Catchkillers. Thanks for that. I'm really enjoying
(01:30):
our chat and it brings back a lot of memories
in the policing and different different experiences. In part one,
we talked about your childhood where you grew up in Maure,
talked about your career in the army and then going
across to policing and your fairly extensive undercover career within policing.
Then you went to Task Force Argos, which was investigating
(01:52):
child sex offenders, and that's how you got tied up
with the investigation into the disappearance of Daniel Morcambe. I
think when we left part one we're talking about you'd
been given the file perhaps two weeks, so, two weeks
after Daniel disappeared back in two thousand and three, I
think seventh of December two thousand and three to go
(02:14):
and speak to a call them a person of interest.
It's just anyone that's on the list a Brett Cowen,
What were your impressions when you went there? Talk us
through what happened when you went to that location.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah. Look, my partner and I were driving along. It
was a little near Palmwood's, nice little little area. It
was maybe half sort of acres here, and there drove
up the driveway. His house was on the front of
the block. There was a house behind, and in hindsight,
I now I know that it was the pastor's house.
(02:50):
He was one of the people that were sort of
sponsoring him. But anyway, there was a lot of I
wouldn't say kids toys, but there were a lot of
things around in the yard, like little windmills that he
would make cow and made and all that sort of
thing would take the markets and sell. But they were
painted in such a way that to me, I thought
a kid would want them. You know, they were like
(03:11):
butterflies on the blades and all that sort of stuff.
So I said to Ken straight, I so that's a
bit strange, man, you know, it just just looks like
a kid's area, and I knew he didn't have any
children at that age. So he had a front porch
out the front, which was a concrete I guess porch
with no cover. And before we went there, I did
(03:34):
read some witness statements. One of the witness statements said
that on the left hand side, going towards Nambor, there
was a full drive with a black Snorkell park there
right during the time that Daniel was allegedly under the
underpass waiting for the bus. So I kept that in
(03:55):
the back of my mind.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Okay, so this is in when you're getting your head
around the circumstances of Daniel's disappearance. There was that four
will drive with the black Snorkel. That's great, Yes, yeah, yeah,
in the center of where Daniel was last scene alive.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
That's right. The vehicle itself would have been where the
witness said it was directly across the road. But given
that that roade was two lanes towards Nanboor and two
lanes the other side, it may have been one hundred
meters or one hundred fifty meters, but it was still
there obviously to observe that's what you do from there.
(04:28):
So we drove in the driveway and here is a
white full drive with a black snorkel. And I said
to Ken, I said, I think it's something going on here.
This is a little bit. I don't believe in coincidences.
It's a coincidence that to me is a key indicator
that person or that person now becomes more of a
person of interest and to me steps up the ladder
(04:52):
towards the suspect. But that's just what it was at
the time on the observation of that car. So we
helped out and started to take record. Are running knocked
on the door and outsteps Brett Peter Kown. Now he
had some shorts on, I think, and a collarge shirt.
I think it might have been a white college I
(05:12):
can't remember now. But he was quite well, you know,
his hair was cut, he was shaven, but he stood
in a funny way. He's still with his shoulders back
of it. He was a skinny sort of fellow, you know,
and sort of anything moving was sentuated, you know, that's
sort of the way he was. And he was very
cocky and straight away I didn't like him. And I
(05:33):
said to Ken, you know, I said, just keep an
eye on this bloke mate. So we got talking to
him and we asked him where he was at the time,
and he's very blase. I don't know, really I was.
I was around, and I said, we're going to have
to sort this out pretty quickly, Brett, because I don't
have all day to deal with dickheads, you know, and
(05:54):
you've got to be straight up. Well, I was straight
up with these people, you know. I don't have time
to mark around with you.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Ah.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well, I might have gone in and picked something up
at Namble. So then we were starting to get the
picture of Okay, so you've you know, you've gone to Namble.
Which way did you drive to Namble? Anyway? So he said, oh,
I drove and underpass and all that sort of stuff.
I said, you happen to see a little child with
black hair on the underpass from the other side near
(06:23):
the bus stop. No, no, not at all. Never never
saw anybody, I said, but somebody has said that they
saw your car. I said it was his car parked
on the other side of the road. I don't know how.
He said, I never stopped. I said, I didn't say
you stopped. I said, they said it was parked on it.
I said, did you stop. No, no, it never stopped
at all. I said, did you see a white fall
(06:43):
drive with a snock on it? No? I said, do
you think it was to be a coincidence that you
drive a white car with a snorkel it's a foo
will drive and someone saying they saw something similar on
that side.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Of the road.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I said, you're a pedophile, bad one by the sound
of it. I said, and yet you know I've looked
at And I was only bluffing at the time because
I didn't have any on who the other children were.
I said that that Daniel is in your age group,
and he goes, well, he looked at it. I said,
oh did he? Yeah, I said, I thought you said.
He didn't say anybody I might have pulled over. So
(07:17):
now we've established two things. If firstly you're pulled over,
you reckon. You've seen Daniel, I said, and you're a liar.
But we all know you're alive, because pedophiles are liars.
So then he started to get cranky, and I was
really only trying to fluster him and get him sort
of stirred up, you know. And then his wife came
out and she happened to be not the prettiest little thing,
(07:39):
you know. And they had a young child, and I
took her aside. I said, do you know the history
of this fellow that you're married to? I know everything,
I said. Did you know that he raped until he
murdered a young boy here in queens And some years ago,
and they did the same up in Darwin. No, I
didn't know that. I said to you that with your
child alone, he said, because I do. It's my husband.
(08:00):
I said, well, do you know what happens when he
takes an appy with that child? So then she started
to carry on an arc up a bit, and I
was really only trying to get some sort of alia
nation between them both, you know, And.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Look, and people might be listening to listening to this,
and go, is that what happens? That's what I think,
good pleas to. You're going in there, you've got to
and I understand exactly what you're doing there. And if
you're go in, did you see anything? No? I thank
you very much, sir, and walk away. That's not how
the world operates.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
No, And they'll tell you that every day.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yeah. Yeah, So I'm fascinated to keep going with the story. Sorry,
when they're up.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So after that, obviously you know I've said to cow
and I said, look, I disagree that you would have
paid much attention to Daniel, given that you like little boys,
particularly with dark hair, and Daniel was a little boy
with dark hair. I said, if I liked blonde and
big breast, so I said, and I noticed that I
(08:56):
would notice. It's simple, I said, you don't have to
lie to me. I said, if that's what you noticed,
that to what you noticed, I said, I'm not saying
you did anything, just asking you. Oh, well, I might
have seen him. Yeah, he was there. So Lisa put
him there at that time. And that's a start.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
That's a big, big start. And the way the way
the information came out too, holding it back and then
under the pressure a little bit and then gives you
a little bit more. Yeah, yeah, so significant.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
We tried to knock him off off keel to a
little bit here, so he wasn't both feet on the ground.
He was one day in the air and thinking, oh,
I don't know which way to go yet. Yeah. So
then I said, well, I think we wouldn't mind having
a bit of look around inside your house. I said,
what for, I said, I just want to have a
little look if that's okay. And I had no right really,
but he said, oh, come.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
In and have a mask.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, and he did. He said, we'll come in and
have a look. So we did. And I said to
her on the side, I said, so when when did
he leave the other day on the seventh? And she goes, oh,
I think you left around lunchtime? And I said, he
can keep him outside. He was away. And then I said,
well when did he come back? She said, oh, around
about two is threeh I said, well that's a fair time.
(10:05):
I said, we're talking an hour or so, you know.
I said, did he do anything strange when you come back? Yeah,
he got me to wash all his clothes. I said,
why would he do that? I said, did he do
it on a regular basis?
Speaker 1 (10:17):
No?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
I said, I'm here asking his questions. Now, I said,
are you just stupid? I said, can you see where
I'm coming from? No? She said no, no, I can't.
You know he's just a terrific fellow. I said, not
a trivial fellow, I said, a pedophile, his rape children
before you were a child here? I said, how stupid
are you? So I had to leave her because I
just couldn't put up with her. She was just some
people are just stupid and you can't talk anything. They're
(10:40):
like religious zealots.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Couldn't get it doesn't matter what you say. I'm not
going to register.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
It doesn't matter. So we got out and saw him
and he said, well, look I was gone for a
period of time, he said, And I went and saw
a mate, said nimble, and got a mulcha from him.
I said, okay, who's this mate? And all this sort
of stuff. We got that, and we said, look, while
we're here, we want to take your DNA, your fingerprints,
(11:07):
not that we really need them because we've got them
on fire, but would take them anyway, and some either
identifying particularly some pictures of you and your tattoos and
your car and whatnot. And you've got a bit cranky
with the car anyway, so that's all right. So we
then left him after we were there maybe an hour. Yeah,
I guess. Left And I said to Ken, I said, mate,
(11:28):
if he didn't do Daniel Morkham, I said, you know,
he's right for something, but I'm pretty sure that's who
did it.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So I'm fascinated on a couple of couple of points
there I think it's interesting that it's almost sometimes it's
a test where people don't arc up like you, I
want to have a look through your house, Like if
you had nothing to do with it, he'd probably stay
staunched and piss off, you're not coming in my house.
But he's trying to be compliant, and it's a real
battle of the mines, isn't it that Yeah, at that
(11:58):
point in time, because you know, you don't know, and
you've got to push things to get the reactions so
you can make an assessment.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, that's true. And if everyone remind remembers in the
back of my mind and Cans and my partners, we
were still looking for Daniel. Daniel could have been in
one of the rooms, could have been one of the cupboards,
could have been anywhere. So that house needed to be searched,
and whether it be done with his permission or not,
it was going to get serched, trust me.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
And I think that sometimes people forget that. And when
I took over the Wim Tural matter, I felt that
pressure too, like we don't know what's happened to Wim Turrell.
So every inquiry you're making, you're wondering if this child's
still alive.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Absolutely, because you'd be lifting our boxes outside of the
garden looking in the shed because he could have been
tied up there. There's no reason why he wasn't. He
hadn't been found to that stage, so it could have been.
It was quite feasible for him to He's still been
alive and kept.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So you're there for about an now. Certainly the indicators
that you've or the things that you've told me there,
I'm looking at red flag, red flag you and can
get back in the car, tell us the conversation you
guys have, because I always find it fascinating, the conversation
because you can't say, you can't declare it in front
of each other or in front of the suspect. But
(13:14):
when you get back in the car, you can't wait
to compare notes and get the others insights and tell
us about the conversation.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Look, you know, straight away we looked at each other
and said, he's right for it, and if it's not
right for something, but we're pretty confident he's right for
Daniel walkhambe. So we said, look, our next plan of
attack will be we'll drive the route that he said,
take times, take kilometers, and we'll go and see the alibi.
So we did that. It was around about forty five minutes.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
So you did that straight away, straight away.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, straight away. It was that I was aware of it,
that I thought that everything else could wait, need to prioritize. Yeah, absolutely,
So we did that, and we went to the fellow
that had the multure, because you did say sorry during
the conversation when he stopped at the maltitari he had
a cup of tea or something and chattered to the fellow.
And we went to to the bloke that had the
(14:01):
mulcha and he was going with his wife. So he
was with his wife and we sat down in his house.
I said, cowan turned up to get the malted you
know where did you have a cup of tea? He said,
you have a couple of tea, You said, my wife
nogating out to a party. I think it was my memory.
He pulled up in the car, lowered his targeate, we
put the malta in the way he went. He never
stopped at all. No, he said, wouldn't have been any
(14:22):
more than five minutes. So there we picked up another
at least twenty minutes of his alibi.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And there crucial things like the alibi is that's you
build or you build a case on the alibi. If
the alibi stands up, you're looking at the wrong person.
But when someone's lying about their alibi, that's where it
gets your interest up straight away.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yes, And the issue was that the way he went
allegedly went back home took him onto the same side
that Daniel Morgan would have been.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
So what we're obviously looking at in that period of
time his vehicle was pulled over to site Daniel. Yeah,
he's gone to get the mulcha, didn't stay for and
that multa would have been maybe eight kilometers up the road,
so double laned highway might have been four minutes to
drive there, five minutes there by the alibi to say
that's what occurred, and six minutes the other side. In
(15:14):
that time the bus has gone past, or the buses
broken down, replacement buses gone past. Daniel's still there, given
him plenty of time to come back. And in hindsight
we now know from his admission that what he did
was he did go past, and he did see Daniel
still there, and he went back up and parked into
the car park of a church where he used to
(15:35):
go to church as a sponsor that lived near him.
Palm Woods was a pastor there. And then he walked
down the back way right next to Daniel and that's
where he abducted him from. That's Cowen's own words.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
And so this is a call of for one of
the better words, a case theory that you're building on
the timeline that what he's told you, the suspicions you've
got from what he told you, and the way he
revealed the information you've done that check he's ourbi doesn't
check check out. Timeline doesn't check out in terms of
(16:11):
his travel, and you've put him in the in the scene.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
That's correct here.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Yeah, so okay, Well I'm from a detect this point
of view. I'm excited on this piece of information.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah. Look, we were excited and obviously not excited to
the way people would think, but we were thinking every
step of the way, this fellow's more for the job
than what is not. So we went back to the
station Maruchi door, got a few things sorted out, and
we went back to his place of employment where he
(16:43):
had his full drive. He was worked at a tow
truck business, and took some pictures of his tires and
a few more pictures of the car. Took some tread
pats of his car to see if there was something
on the other side of the road so we could
say your car was definitely there. He admitted it, but
we'd like to get some pre yeah. Anyway, So that
was that. So we went back that evening put the
(17:04):
full report together. Was that, you know, we don't do
that for every one of the people. For Alibis, we
have put a big kick and say it's no good
blah blah blah. So we do a full report. We're
then made representation to the Major Enginet room that you know,
we really think we should brief you on this person
should be a main suspect. Ken brief the the major
(17:25):
engine room the next day. Yep, and that was it.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
It was quietly dismissed, right, okay, yeah, so just and
this is like the build up to it. But I
just wanted to get sense from you what you were
dealing with at the time. So I'm looking at it.
You've gone to make this inquiry. There's enough indicators there
to get you excited about the inquiry. And when I'm
(17:50):
saying excited, it's not a horrendous crime, but from an
investigative point of view, excited that you might be on something.
Your instinct and the information that you got I didn't
check out. You've had it got him in the vicinity.
He's opportunity, most even capability. That's what I always look
for when I'm looking for a suspect for a crime.
And he ticks all three boxes. There, you've gone back.
(18:14):
You followed up the inquiries that you could make and say,
people understand the working of a strikeforce, it being Queensland
or down here. All that information comes in at briefings,
as you said, can brief the major incident team and
said okay, this is our take on it. You've done
the report, submitted that and you would think that there
would be some priority given to what needs needs to
(18:36):
be done at that point in time.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Our report dictated that that should have been the case.
The report was very you know, my reports are reasonably
concise and very clear and accurate in relation to what
recommendations should and should not be done. The recommendations on
that report were very clear. You know basically that a
summarization that would be he is your main suspect. If
(18:59):
he's not, he should everything should be done to rule
him out rather than sorry, rule him in, rather than
trying to rule him out. Yep. And that's how it
should be. And that's every possibility that was COVID, that
was electronic, that was surveillance, and yeah, they never even
went and seized his computers.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
So Daniel disappeared on the seventh of December two thousand
and three, yourself and can spoke to Cowen about two
weeks later, brief Task Force members and compile the report
of their suspicions. What we've just talked about. In two
thousand and six, I think Cowen was a game interview
by the Strikeforce because it was still unsolved. So you're
(19:36):
looking at two thousand and three. Detectives have gone back
to speak to Cowen at two thousand and six. I
assume you weren't working on it at that stage.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
No. I was walking past the toilets on Level three
at the time and was called in. They said that
they were going to get him to talk to him again.
Could I give them some hints? I saw the biggest
hint would be going to get this report that we wrote. Yeah,
and they found the report and they said, is this
a reporter that yes it is, I said, and they said,
well he've moved to New South Wales now, right, and
(20:06):
I think he refused to come back for some reason anyway,
so that was it.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
So that was that sort of okay, So they've still
got the report. Yes, for whatever reason, the cycle's gone around,
and yeah, there's a lot of inquiries going on. I
think you and I both understand that you've got an
instinct on that. I'm sure there's other cops have gone
out and spoken to someone else that thinks, okay, maybe
that person's good for it as well. But anyway, two
(20:33):
thousand and six, he's been interviewed again. I'd take it
he's denied any involvement or they couldn't gather any evidence
on it. October twenty twelve and April twenty eleven Akrainal
inquest was held, so at this stage Daniel's disappearance hasn't
been solved. There's an inquest that's been held. On the
thirteenth of August two thousand, eleven eleven, after an undercover operation,
(20:57):
police took cow In in the custody in charge. So
that's eight years later or almost eight years later. August
twenty first of August, so almost a week later, a
bit over a week later, Daniel's remains were located. Thirteenth
of March twenty fourteen, Cowen was found guilty of murder
and December two thousand and eight in the inquest was
(21:19):
reopened after Cowen had exhausted his appeals. So Daniel disappears
in two thousand and three, and then eight years later
Cowen gets locked up. He made admissions there as an
undercover operation, contested at court, convicted, and we've gone back
to an inquest.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
The whole idea of that coronal inquiry into the police investigation,
that's what it was, was my understanding was sold to
me because I was out of the police by then. Yep,
it sold to me that it was really to put
ideas to the coroner so that he could make some
changes either legislative or policy and procedures within the police
to make such a thing easier for police all around,
(22:00):
for investigating into the future. I thought, great, that's a
good thing, the healthy thing. So Ken and I got
together and we said, what would you like to see happen?
And so we both agreed basically on the fact that
if regardless whether you're in the Major Incident Room, or
you are not. If you are, in our case, the
two police detectives that are interested in Cowen, it should
(22:24):
be our responsibility to investigate him one hundred and ten
percent to the point where we can say he is
no way in the world he is a suspect or
involved in the manner prior to us letting him go,
and that was where we were coming from. That's what
we wanted to put to the coroner to say that
these policy procedures should be put in place so that
something like this doesn't happen again. It can't be missed.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
I think I'll read out Probably the easiest way to
do is read out some extracts from a media article
report the findings of the inquest in twenty eighteen. So
this is as I said. Next track from a media
article reporting on the findings of the inquest twenty eighteen.
The early police rest response to the disappearance of Queensland
boyd Daniel Morkham did not pay enough attention to his murderer,
(23:05):
Brett Peter Cowen as a suspect. That coroner says. Findings
have been handed down by State Coroner Terry Ryan on
Friday just over fifteen years since the thirteen year old
disappeared at a bus stop on his way to buy
Christmas presents for his family in two thousand and three.
Mister Ryan noted Cowen was a known child sex offender
and admitted being in the Sunshine Coast area where Daniel disappeared.
(23:29):
I agree with the submissions from the family and counsel
assisting that more could have been done to focus on
mister Cowen and mister Cowen in the early stages of
the investigation, mister Ryan said. He also said claims made
at the inquest by two police officers that they were
rebuffed when they raised Cowen as a suspect could not
be proven. So that last bit two police officers, I'm
(23:51):
assuming that you and Ken and it just cannot be proven.
Also at the inquest, mister Ryan said on Friday, immediate
police response was adequate and in line with policy. So adequate.
There's a lot of interpretations there, and in line with policy.
Given Daniel was likely killed within an hour of his abduction,
his death could not have been prevented by police, he said.
(24:13):
I think it's interesting for the public to get an
insight into an investigation like that. Police in his robust isn't.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
It It is a robust situation, yes.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
But people have opinions. I think you identified there's competing
interest too, whether we've got the resources and all that does.
Do you think the public are aware of what goes
on in an investigation.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Look, I'm positive they don't.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I think that they think there's one person that takes charge.
The rest are out to do whatever they are required
to do by the and they dictate back to the individual,
and that person makes a decision. It's not the case
and should never be the case. Yeah, because everyone looks
through a different set of eyes, and not everybody agrees
with everybody on what has not happened.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
It's an unfortunate situation too, isn't it? Like it's the
ideal situation is that there's input from everyone. Someone's got
to make the final call, Like there's got to be
like in the army, they in the police, there's got
to be someone that makes a final call. But it's
input from everyone. But I think what happened on that investigation,
what's happened on countless other high profile investigations. You hear
(25:22):
them from overseas and Madeline McCain one that all blew up.
It just seems to be the nature of some high profile,
high profile investigations. I've been in a position where I'm
running investigations. I've had people put that in, but they
don't fully understand the full picture of it. So I
think we'd accept that that you don't fully under someone
(25:42):
might the inquiry that you and Ken have done. You've
got your suspicions, but someone else might have some other
lines of inquiry that take priority. So I think we
give him the fair call lead a couple of other
things that you've bought up or in conversations I had
(26:03):
with you that the prolonged suffering of Daniel's family. Yeah,
and we're looking with the benefit of hindsight looking back.
But I've got to say, from what you were saying
back in the early days when you speak to him,
you have been proven to be right. It could have
been you were wrong, and you would accept that, as
(26:25):
fate would have it, you were correct. But if those
lines of inquiry were followed up, perhaps the Daniel's family
wouldn't have suffered and they're still suffering, but wouldn't have
gone through the turmoil of not knowing what's happened, which
causes adds to the pain.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
It does, And I think there's two sides to that.
That's one side that any hindsight, there's not much we
could do about that, so time will march on, and
unfortunately he has passed, and that's terrible. But the other
issue is in that eight years you've got this terrible
that has been roaming the streets. What victims have happened
(27:05):
between then and his arrest that nobody knows about haven't
come forward, are killed and lying in a ditch somewhere
that nobody has reported missing, or has been molested. My
good mate was the undercover that jumped on the plane
with him from Brisbane to Perth and lived with him
for some period of time. He was telling me a
story that over in Perth he tried to molest a
(27:26):
child on the railway lines. So he didn't stop doing
what he does. Between two thousand and three and upon
his arrest, he was still committee offenses. So we had
a whole line nearly a decade of offending that we've
allowed him to do because we had egos and we
didn't want to rock the boat.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Yeah, when you put it that way, and looking at
the type of person is I'd say one hundred percent
he's committed other offenses in that period of time. But look,
there's discussing with you about this. It just brings home
(28:07):
how complex investigations are and all the personalities that come
into play. I still think the way investigations best practice reliant,
reliant facts, reporting, accountability. The sad thing with this is
that the public's perception is that the police are all
working together as one unit. I haven't met police that
(28:29):
I know that a crime like this don't want to
solve it. As I wouldn't suggest you didn't want to
solve the investigation or anyone working on it. But yeah,
when things become skew, if and opportunities are missed. What
you described in speaking to I can only look at
it from my perspective, from my experience as a homicide detective.
(28:53):
What you provided, they're that information I'm getting. I was
getting excited. I think I use the word excited, but
that's how I feel on the investigation. If I was
told that information, if I was looking on this, there
was a lot of indicators there and it's a shame
that it wasn't followed up on. But I'll sit here
comfortably saying that's a line of inquiry. If that information
(29:15):
has passed on the way you've relaid it here, I
would have got very excited about following that up and
would have given it a degree of priority.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah. Look, I think it was an opportunity missed. Yeah,
and I agree with you that you clearly there was
nobody involved in that investigation didn't want the outcome to
be as positive it could be, and would not do
anything to overturn, you know, to turn every stone over
to find the person or persons responsible. You know, and
we all talk about in the intelligence community you get
(29:43):
A one intelligence and C two and all that sort
of stuff. We were a one, We were detectives. The
evidence we got was first hand. Why wasn't it treated
as a one evidence?
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Well, it just wasn't you know a simple rule of
FUNB that I go, Opportunity, capability, and motive. They're the three.
And that's how I approached the William Tyrell thing, those
three headings, and that's what I'm looking for when I'm
looking at the suspect. What you just provided there from
that meeting that you had with him in two weeks. Opportunity,
(30:16):
capability and motive like tic tick that would have he
goes straight to the top of the list. I'm going
to offer an opinion from a homicide to take this
point of view what you've relaid to me, that would
have just be shining a bright light. I'd be looking
looking at that and that's not me sitting here with
the benefit of the pine sight. I've always talked about
(30:37):
there the way I approached these difficult investigations. I saw
it early in my homicide career. When you come in
as the raw kid and some of the people that
I looked up to, my mentors and the people I
aspired to be. What I found was how inclusive they
were at the briefings and it literally could be the
most junior officer there would make the table would be open. Now,
(31:00):
has anyone got any thoughts? And I watched the way
they operated, and I'd like to think that that I
adopted that attitude, and that's certainly what I tried to adopt,
is that listen to everyone in the room, take all
the information on because it can be someone's just viewpoint
that might be the thing that clinches the clinches the deal.
(31:20):
And again, breakthroughs on investigations like that and I push this,
and you've really brought me back into a criminal investigation
having the chat with you. You've got to take those
wins when you can. So when you've seen something like that,
and just the way that he changed from I didn't
see him. I might have seen him type thing that
(31:42):
could be lost on people that don't have experience, but
people that have experience, to me, that was okay, that's
something that interests me. Other people might go, oh, no,
he just he forgot about that before. It's the way
that you look at things. And I thought that gave
a real interesting insight into what good police do and
they speak to a suspect than what you're taking into account.
(32:03):
And I read somewhere you talked about it briefly, but
just the fact that tidy himself up and you'd seen
that in pedophiles before, after they commit the offense, that's
tidy yourself up and presents as this good person forget
about the evil I've done. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Well, I've often had a bit of an argument, and
we have some police psychologists.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Yeah, they're always good to argue with you. They always
tell you you just got a fatheriship.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
That's yeah, that's right. You know, I did have an
argument there once with one and she said, we can't
pigeonhole people. Dennis, I said, good, you can pigeon old people.
I said, why can't you pigeono Yeah? You know, I said,
if he just rapes little boys, he's a homosexual pedophile.
He rapes little girl. It's a head po sexual pedophile.
I mean, it's pretty simple stuff, isn't it. And because
(32:47):
that's what I bring that up. Because the other person
they were looking out close. He was a fellow called
Jack Waite. Yep, he was an asexual predator, right, so
he would males or females. Yeah, but he was more Yes,
there was opportunity with Daniel. It was more hunted from Daniel.
But this this jackaway just sort of stumbled onto people
like he was walking along a track and he would
fine that sort of stuff. You know. He never sort
(33:11):
of went out of his way as a hunter, and
yet cow and did he He saw his prey, hunted
the prey and got his prey. That's what happened in
every one of his occasions. And it was he was
singular minded in doing that. He identified the victim and
that was always going to be the victim.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
That person there, the scary ones. They are brethathers, aren't they. Yeah?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, and he was. You know, the description of the
person seen laying or standing up next to Daniel was unkept, unshaven, ungroomed,
and scruffy, you know what I mean. And when we
first interviewed him at his house, he was his hair
was carded with will shaven, looked clean and tidy. And
(33:55):
then through that conversation I asked his wife and she goes, yeah,
he's clean himself up a bit in the last right away.
You know, they go through the honeymoon period. They sit
there on the computer and masturbate themselves and carry on
looking at pornography, getting their heightened senses up ready to
do it, building up to it, and then go looking
for a victim. And then after they finished, they're quite
(34:16):
satisfied for a period of time, and then you know,
they clean themselves up and have a shower, have a shave,
and don't works just that I.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Feel like setting up a whiteboard and going look, look,
look if I was briefing briefing people on it. But
you know, different opinions on investigations. It's healthy, but sometimes
causes problems. There's casualties in investigations, but the priority should
always be focused on the good thing about There is
(34:46):
no good thing about Daniel Morkam, it's such a sad thing.
But the good thing is that cow And has been
taken off the streets and never never getting out and
that should be the priority. Correct.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
But he will get out of parole.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
You've got that strange set up in Queensland, haven't you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I have no doubt you will see the light of day,
Absolutely no doubt in my mind.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Yeah, well let's uh, let's well, let's we'll get the
platform started started here. But that person should never have
how how he wasn't in prison for life with the
case that Darren Edwards locked him up in the Northern Territory. Absolutely, yeah,
it's disgraceful.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
It is, I agree. And the whole justice system isn't
a justice system. It's a legal system that we use
at the moment best we've got at the moment because
there's no other there's no justice involved.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
So soty, the justice should be representing society and society
doesn't want someone like cow out on the streets. That
would be a travesty of justice. I think crimes of
that nature. There just be a public outrage. I'd like
to think that would override there's we're all entitled to
redemption that some people give up their right. So you
(35:54):
enjoying post life outside out of the cops, out of
the military.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Yeah, look involved at the moment with RSL. Yeah, you know,
and that sort of stuff. But other than that, a
lot of work really for me, more work than what
I was doing when I was working.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
It's amazing that when you do live policing where you
think your life is all consumed, you manage to find
things and you think, how did I have time to
do those jobs? But look, I've really enjoyed the chat.
It's been a long time coming. I want to thank
you for your military service for the country, your service
to the community as a cop, and the fact you're
(36:33):
one of those cops that care. And I just I
mean that it means so much that people like you
actually care about what's going on and you do make
a difference. So yeah, full full credit to you. Thanks
for telling this story and what you've been through, and
I hope all the best for the future.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
No, thanks very much, and it's been an honored to
build been a privilege never nan to nine.
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life, the average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talked to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:45):
In part two of my chat, we've retired Queensland Police
detective Dennis Martin. Dennis told us some details about his
interaction with Daniel Morkham's killer, Brett Cowen. It was quite
chilling what he had to say, and we're going to
go into more detail now. And I think listeners who
want to know what is going through a detective's mind
when sizing up a suspect, you are going to find
(01:06):
this fascinating. It also gives us an insight in the
pressures of being involved in a high profile investigation and
the robust nature of policing when the stakes are high
and there's always differences of opinions regarding how matters should
be approached. I think you're going to find this part
of the conversation fascinating. Durns Martin, welcome back to part
two of I Catchkillers. Thanks for that. I'm really enjoying
(01:30):
our chat and it brings back a lot of memories
in the policing and different different experiences. In part one,
we talked about your childhood where you grew up in Maure,
talked about your career in the army and then going
across to policing and your fairly extensive undercover career within policing.
Then you went to Task Force Argos, which was investigating
(01:52):
child sex offenders, and that's how you got tied up
with the investigation into the disappearance of Daniel Morcambe. I
think when we left part one we're talking about you'd
been given the file perhaps two weeks, so, two weeks
after Daniel disappeared back in two thousand and three, I
think seventh of December two thousand and three to go
(02:14):
and speak to a call them a person of interest.
It's just anyone that's on the list a Brett Cowen,
What were your impressions when you went there? Talk us
through what happened when you went to that location.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah. Look, my partner and I were driving along. It
was a little near Palmwood's, nice little little area. It
was maybe half sort of acres here, and there drove
up the driveway. His house was on the front of
the block. There was a house behind, and in hindsight,
I now I know that it was the pastor's house.
(02:50):
He was one of the people that were sort of
sponsoring him. But anyway, there was a lot of I
wouldn't say kids toys, but there were a lot of
things around in the yard, like little windmills that he
would make cow and made and all that sort of
thing would take the markets and sell. But they were
painted in such a way that to me, I thought
a kid would want them. You know, they were like
(03:11):
butterflies on the blades and all that sort of stuff.
So I said to Ken straight, I so that's a
bit strange, man, you know, it just just looks like
a kid's area, and I knew he didn't have any
children at that age. So he had a front porch
out the front, which was a concrete I guess porch
with no cover. And before we went there, I did
(03:34):
read some witness statements. One of the witness statements said
that on the left hand side, going towards Nambor, there
was a full drive with a black Snorkell park there
right during the time that Daniel was allegedly under the
underpass waiting for the bus. So I kept that in
(03:55):
the back of my mind.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Okay, so this is in when you're getting your head
around the circumstances of Daniel's disappearance. There was that four
will drive with the black Snorkel. That's great, Yes, yeah, yeah,
in the center of where Daniel was last scene alive.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
That's right. The vehicle itself would have been where the
witness said it was directly across the road. But given
that that roade was two lanes towards Nanboor and two
lanes the other side, it may have been one hundred
meters or one hundred fifty meters, but it was still
there obviously to observe that's what you do from there.
(04:28):
So we drove in the driveway and here is a
white full drive with a black snorkel. And I said
to Ken, I said, I think it's something going on here.
This is a little bit. I don't believe in coincidences.
It's a coincidence that to me is a key indicator
that person or that person now becomes more of a
person of interest and to me steps up the ladder
(04:52):
towards the suspect. But that's just what it was at
the time on the observation of that car. So we
helped out and started to take record. Are running knocked
on the door and outsteps Brett Peter Kown. Now he
had some shorts on, I think, and a collarge shirt.
I think it might have been a white college I
(05:12):
can't remember now. But he was quite well, you know,
his hair was cut, he was shaven, but he stood
in a funny way. He's still with his shoulders back
of it. He was a skinny sort of fellow, you know,
and sort of anything moving was sentuated, you know, that's
sort of the way he was. And he was very
cocky and straight away I didn't like him. And I
(05:33):
said to Ken, you know, I said, just keep an
eye on this bloke mate. So we got talking to
him and we asked him where he was at the time,
and he's very blase. I don't know, really I was.
I was around, and I said, we're going to have
to sort this out pretty quickly, Brett, because I don't
have all day to deal with dickheads, you know, and
(05:54):
you've got to be straight up. Well, I was straight
up with these people, you know. I don't have time
to mark around with you.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Ah.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well, I might have gone in and picked something up
at Namble. So then we were starting to get the
picture of Okay, so you've you know, you've gone to Namble.
Which way did you drive to Namble? Anyway? So he said, oh,
I drove and underpass and all that sort of stuff.
I said, you happen to see a little child with
black hair on the underpass from the other side near
(06:23):
the bus stop. No, no, not at all. Never never
saw anybody, I said, but somebody has said that they
saw your car. I said it was his car parked
on the other side of the road. I don't know how.
He said, I never stopped. I said, I didn't say
you stopped. I said, they said it was parked on it.
I said, did you stop. No, no, it never stopped
at all. I said, did you see a white fall
(06:43):
drive with a snock on it? No? I said, do
you think it was to be a coincidence that you
drive a white car with a snorkel it's a foo
will drive and someone saying they saw something similar on
that side.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Of the road.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I said, you're a pedophile, bad one by the sound
of it. I said, and yet you know I've looked
at And I was only bluffing at the time because
I didn't have any on who the other children were.
I said that that Daniel is in your age group,
and he goes, well, he looked at it. I said,
oh did he? Yeah, I said, I thought you said.
He didn't say anybody I might have pulled over. So
(07:17):
now we've established two things. If firstly you're pulled over,
you reckon. You've seen Daniel, I said, and you're a liar.
But we all know you're alive, because pedophiles are liars.
So then he started to get cranky, and I was
really only trying to fluster him and get him sort
of stirred up, you know. And then his wife came
out and she happened to be not the prettiest little thing,
(07:39):
you know. And they had a young child, and I
took her aside. I said, do you know the history
of this fellow that you're married to? I know everything,
I said. Did you know that he raped until he
murdered a young boy here in queens And some years ago,
and they did the same up in Darwin. No, I
didn't know that. I said to you that with your
child alone, he said, because I do. It's my husband.
(08:00):
I said, well, do you know what happens when he
takes an appy with that child? So then she started
to carry on an arc up a bit, and I
was really only trying to get some sort of alia
nation between them both, you know, And.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Look, and people might be listening to listening to this,
and go, is that what happens? That's what I think,
good pleas to. You're going in there, you've got to
and I understand exactly what you're doing there. And if
you're go in, did you see anything? No? I thank
you very much, sir, and walk away. That's not how
the world operates.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
No, And they'll tell you that every day.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yeah. Yeah, So I'm fascinated to keep going with the story. Sorry,
when they're up.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So after that, obviously you know I've said to cow
and I said, look, I disagree that you would have
paid much attention to Daniel, given that you like little boys,
particularly with dark hair, and Daniel was a little boy
with dark hair. I said, if I liked blonde and
big breast, so I said, and I noticed that I
(08:56):
would notice. It's simple, I said, you don't have to
lie to me. I said, if that's what you noticed,
that to what you noticed, I said, I'm not saying
you did anything, just asking you. Oh, well, I might
have seen him. Yeah, he was there. So Lisa put
him there at that time. And that's a start.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
That's a big, big start. And the way the way
the information came out too, holding it back and then
under the pressure a little bit and then gives you
a little bit more. Yeah, yeah, so significant.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
We tried to knock him off off keel to a
little bit here, so he wasn't both feet on the ground.
He was one day in the air and thinking, oh,
I don't know which way to go yet. Yeah. So
then I said, well, I think we wouldn't mind having
a bit of look around inside your house. I said,
what for, I said, I just want to have a
little look if that's okay. And I had no right really,
but he said, oh, come.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
In and have a mask.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, and he did. He said, we'll come in and
have a look. So we did. And I said to
her on the side, I said, so when when did
he leave the other day on the seventh? And she goes, oh,
I think you left around lunchtime? And I said, he
can keep him outside. He was away. And then I said,
well when did he come back? She said, oh, around
about two is threeh I said, well that's a fair time.
(10:05):
I said, we're talking an hour or so, you know.
I said, did he do anything strange when you come back? Yeah,
he got me to wash all his clothes. I said,
why would he do that? I said, did he do
it on a regular basis?
Speaker 1 (10:17):
No?
Speaker 2 (10:18):
I said, I'm here asking his questions. Now, I said,
are you just stupid? I said, can you see where
I'm coming from? No? She said no, no, I can't.
You know he's just a terrific fellow. I said, not
a trivial fellow, I said, a pedophile, his rape children
before you were a child here? I said, how stupid
are you? So I had to leave her because I
just couldn't put up with her. She was just some
people are just stupid and you can't talk anything. They're
(10:40):
like religious zealots.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Couldn't get it doesn't matter what you say. I'm not
going to register.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
It doesn't matter. So we got out and saw him
and he said, well, look I was gone for a
period of time, he said, And I went and saw
a mate, said nimble, and got a mulcha from him.
I said, okay, who's this mate? And all this sort
of stuff. We got that, and we said, look, while
we're here, we want to take your DNA, your fingerprints,
(11:07):
not that we really need them because we've got them
on fire, but would take them anyway, and some either
identifying particularly some pictures of you and your tattoos and
your car and whatnot. And you've got a bit cranky
with the car anyway, so that's all right. So we
then left him after we were there maybe an hour. Yeah,
I guess. Left And I said to Ken, I said, mate,
(11:28):
if he didn't do Daniel Morkham, I said, you know,
he's right for something, but I'm pretty sure that's who
did it.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
So I'm fascinated on a couple of couple of points
there I think it's interesting that it's almost sometimes it's
a test where people don't arc up like you, I
want to have a look through your house, Like if
you had nothing to do with it, he'd probably stay
staunched and piss off, you're not coming in my house.
But he's trying to be compliant, and it's a real
battle of the mines, isn't it that Yeah, at that
(11:58):
point in time, because you know, you don't know, and
you've got to push things to get the reactions so
you can make an assessment.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, that's true. And if everyone remind remembers in the
back of my mind and Cans and my partners, we
were still looking for Daniel. Daniel could have been in
one of the rooms, could have been one of the cupboards,
could have been anywhere. So that house needed to be searched,
and whether it be done with his permission or not,
it was going to get serched, trust me.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
And I think that sometimes people forget that. And when
I took over the Wim Tural matter, I felt that
pressure too, like we don't know what's happened to Wim Turrell.
So every inquiry you're making, you're wondering if this child's
still alive.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Absolutely, because you'd be lifting our boxes outside of the
garden looking in the shed because he could have been
tied up there. There's no reason why he wasn't. He
hadn't been found to that stage, so it could have been.
It was quite feasible for him to He's still been
alive and kept.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So you're there for about an now. Certainly the indicators
that you've or the things that you've told me there,
I'm looking at red flag, red flag you and can
get back in the car, tell us the conversation you
guys have, because I always find it fascinating, the conversation
because you can't say, you can't declare it in front
of each other or in front of the suspect. But
(13:14):
when you get back in the car, you can't wait
to compare notes and get the others insights and tell
us about the conversation.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Look, you know, straight away we looked at each other
and said, he's right for it, and if it's not
right for something, but we're pretty confident he's right for
Daniel walkhambe. So we said, look, our next plan of
attack will be we'll drive the route that he said,
take times, take kilometers, and we'll go and see the alibi.
So we did that. It was around about forty five minutes.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
So you did that straight away, straight away.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Yeah, straight away. It was that I was aware of it,
that I thought that everything else could wait, need to prioritize. Yeah, absolutely,
So we did that, and we went to the fellow
that had the multure, because you did say sorry during
the conversation when he stopped at the maltitari he had
a cup of tea or something and chattered to the fellow.
And we went to to the bloke that had the
(14:01):
mulcha and he was going with his wife. So he
was with his wife and we sat down in his house.
I said, cowan turned up to get the malted you
know where did you have a cup of tea? He said,
you have a couple of tea, You said, my wife
nogating out to a party. I think it was my memory.
He pulled up in the car, lowered his targeate, we
put the malta in the way he went. He never
stopped at all. No, he said, wouldn't have been any
(14:22):
more than five minutes. So there we picked up another
at least twenty minutes of his alibi.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And there crucial things like the alibi is that's you
build or you build a case on the alibi. If
the alibi stands up, you're looking at the wrong person.
But when someone's lying about their alibi, that's where it
gets your interest up straight away.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yes, And the issue was that the way he went
allegedly went back home took him onto the same side
that Daniel Morgan would have been.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
So what we're obviously looking at in that period of
time his vehicle was pulled over to site Daniel. Yeah,
he's gone to get the mulcha, didn't stay for and
that multa would have been maybe eight kilometers up the road,
so double laned highway might have been four minutes to
drive there, five minutes there by the alibi to say
that's what occurred, and six minutes the other side. In
(15:14):
that time the bus has gone past, or the buses
broken down, replacement buses gone past. Daniel's still there, given
him plenty of time to come back. And in hindsight
we now know from his admission that what he did
was he did go past, and he did see Daniel
still there, and he went back up and parked into
the car park of a church where he used to
(15:35):
go to church as a sponsor that lived near him.
Palm Woods was a pastor there. And then he walked
down the back way right next to Daniel and that's
where he abducted him from. That's Cowen's own words.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
And so this is a call of for one of
the better words, a case theory that you're building on
the timeline that what he's told you, the suspicions you've
got from what he told you, and the way he
revealed the information you've done that check he's ourbi doesn't
check check out. Timeline doesn't check out in terms of
(16:11):
his travel, and you've put him in the in the scene.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
That's correct here.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Yeah, so okay, Well I'm from a detect this point
of view. I'm excited on this piece of information.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah. Look, we were excited and obviously not excited to
the way people would think, but we were thinking every
step of the way, this fellow's more for the job
than what is not. So we went back to the
station Maruchi door, got a few things sorted out, and
we went back to his place of employment where he
(16:43):
had his full drive. He was worked at a tow
truck business, and took some pictures of his tires and
a few more pictures of the car. Took some tread
pats of his car to see if there was something
on the other side of the road so we could
say your car was definitely there. He admitted it, but
we'd like to get some pre yeah. Anyway, So that
was that. So we went back that evening put the
(17:04):
full report together. Was that, you know, we don't do
that for every one of the people. For Alibis, we
have put a big kick and say it's no good
blah blah blah. So we do a full report. We're
then made representation to the Major Enginet room that you know,
we really think we should brief you on this person
should be a main suspect. Ken brief the the major
(17:25):
engine room the next day. Yep, and that was it.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
It was quietly dismissed, right, okay, yeah, so just and
this is like the build up to it. But I
just wanted to get sense from you what you were
dealing with at the time. So I'm looking at it.
You've gone to make this inquiry. There's enough indicators there
to get you excited about the inquiry. And when I'm
(17:50):
saying excited, it's not a horrendous crime, but from an
investigative point of view, excited that you might be on something.
Your instinct and the information that you got I didn't
check out. You've had it got him in the vicinity.
He's opportunity, most even capability. That's what I always look
for when I'm looking for a suspect for a crime.
And he ticks all three boxes. There, you've gone back.
(18:14):
You followed up the inquiries that you could make and say,
people understand the working of a strikeforce, it being Queensland
or down here. All that information comes in at briefings,
as you said, can brief the major incident team and
said okay, this is our take on it. You've done
the report, submitted that and you would think that there
would be some priority given to what needs needs to
(18:36):
be done at that point in time.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Our report dictated that that should have been the case.
The report was very you know, my reports are reasonably
concise and very clear and accurate in relation to what
recommendations should and should not be done. The recommendations on
that report were very clear. You know basically that a
summarization that would be he is your main suspect. If
(18:59):
he's not, he should everything should be done to rule
him out rather than sorry, rule him in, rather than
trying to rule him out. Yep. And that's how it
should be. And that's every possibility that was COVID, that
was electronic, that was surveillance, and yeah, they never even
went and seized his computers.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
So Daniel disappeared on the seventh of December two thousand
and three, yourself and can spoke to Cowen about two
weeks later, brief Task Force members and compile the report
of their suspicions. What we've just talked about. In two
thousand and six, I think Cowen was a game interview
by the Strikeforce because it was still unsolved. So you're
(19:36):
looking at two thousand and three. Detectives have gone back
to speak to Cowen at two thousand and six. I
assume you weren't working on it at that stage.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
No. I was walking past the toilets on Level three
at the time and was called in. They said that
they were going to get him to talk to him again.
Could I give them some hints? I saw the biggest
hint would be going to get this report that we wrote. Yeah,
and they found the report and they said, is this
a reporter that yes it is, I said, and they said,
well he've moved to New South Wales now, right, and
(20:06):
I think he refused to come back for some reason anyway,
so that was it.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
So that was that sort of okay, So they've still
got the report. Yes, for whatever reason, the cycle's gone around,
and yeah, there's a lot of inquiries going on. I
think you and I both understand that you've got an
instinct on that. I'm sure there's other cops have gone
out and spoken to someone else that thinks, okay, maybe
that person's good for it as well. But anyway, two
(20:33):
thousand and six, he's been interviewed again. I'd take it
he's denied any involvement or they couldn't gather any evidence
on it. October twenty twelve and April twenty eleven Akrainal
inquest was held, so at this stage Daniel's disappearance hasn't
been solved. There's an inquest that's been held. On the
thirteenth of August two thousand, eleven eleven, after an undercover operation,
(20:57):
police took cow In in the custody in charge. So
that's eight years later or almost eight years later. August
twenty first of August, so almost a week later, a
bit over a week later, Daniel's remains were located. Thirteenth
of March twenty fourteen, Cowen was found guilty of murder
and December two thousand and eight in the inquest was
(21:19):
reopened after Cowen had exhausted his appeals. So Daniel disappears
in two thousand and three, and then eight years later
Cowen gets locked up. He made admissions there as an
undercover operation, contested at court, convicted, and we've gone back
to an inquest.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
The whole idea of that coronal inquiry into the police investigation,
that's what it was, was my understanding was sold to
me because I was out of the police by then. Yep,
it sold to me that it was really to put
ideas to the coroner so that he could make some
changes either legislative or policy and procedures within the police
to make such a thing easier for police all around,
(22:00):
for investigating into the future. I thought, great, that's a
good thing, the healthy thing. So Ken and I got
together and we said, what would you like to see happen?
And so we both agreed basically on the fact that
if regardless whether you're in the Major Incident Room, or
you are not. If you are, in our case, the
two police detectives that are interested in Cowen, it should
(22:24):
be our responsibility to investigate him one hundred and ten
percent to the point where we can say he is
no way in the world he is a suspect or
involved in the manner prior to us letting him go,
and that was where we were coming from. That's what
we wanted to put to the coroner to say that
these policy procedures should be put in place so that
something like this doesn't happen again. It can't be missed.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
I think I'll read out Probably the easiest way to
do is read out some extracts from a media article
report the findings of the inquest in twenty eighteen. So
this is as I said. Next track from a media
article reporting on the findings of the inquest twenty eighteen.
The early police rest response to the disappearance of Queensland
boyd Daniel Morkham did not pay enough attention to his murderer,
(23:05):
Brett Peter Cowen as a suspect. That coroner says. Findings
have been handed down by State Coroner Terry Ryan on
Friday just over fifteen years since the thirteen year old
disappeared at a bus stop on his way to buy
Christmas presents for his family in two thousand and three.
Mister Ryan noted Cowen was a known child sex offender
and admitted being in the Sunshine Coast area where Daniel disappeared.
(23:29):
I agree with the submissions from the family and counsel
assisting that more could have been done to focus on
mister Cowen and mister Cowen in the early stages of
the investigation, mister Ryan said. He also said claims made
at the inquest by two police officers that they were
rebuffed when they raised Cowen as a suspect could not
be proven. So that last bit two police officers, I'm
(23:51):
assuming that you and Ken and it just cannot be proven.
Also at the inquest, mister Ryan said on Friday, immediate
police response was adequate and in line with policy. So adequate.
There's a lot of interpretations there, and in line with policy.
Given Daniel was likely killed within an hour of his abduction,
his death could not have been prevented by police, he said.
(24:13):
I think it's interesting for the public to get an
insight into an investigation like that. Police in his robust isn't.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
It It is a robust situation, yes.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
But people have opinions. I think you identified there's competing
interest too, whether we've got the resources and all that does.
Do you think the public are aware of what goes
on in an investigation.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Look, I'm positive they don't.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I think that they think there's one person that takes charge.
The rest are out to do whatever they are required
to do by the and they dictate back to the individual,
and that person makes a decision. It's not the case
and should never be the case. Yeah, because everyone looks
through a different set of eyes, and not everybody agrees
with everybody on what has not happened.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
It's an unfortunate situation too, isn't it? Like it's the
ideal situation is that there's input from everyone. Someone's got
to make the final call, Like there's got to be
like in the army, they in the police, there's got
to be someone that makes a final call. But it's
input from everyone. But I think what happened on that investigation,
what's happened on countless other high profile investigations. You hear
(25:22):
them from overseas and Madeline McCain one that all blew up.
It just seems to be the nature of some high profile,
high profile investigations. I've been in a position where I'm
running investigations. I've had people put that in, but they
don't fully understand the full picture of it. So I
think we'd accept that that you don't fully under someone
(25:42):
might the inquiry that you and Ken have done. You've
got your suspicions, but someone else might have some other
lines of inquiry that take priority. So I think we
give him the fair call lead a couple of other
things that you've bought up or in conversations I had
(26:03):
with you that the prolonged suffering of Daniel's family. Yeah,
and we're looking with the benefit of hindsight looking back.
But I've got to say, from what you were saying
back in the early days when you speak to him,
you have been proven to be right. It could have
been you were wrong, and you would accept that, as
(26:25):
fate would have it, you were correct. But if those
lines of inquiry were followed up, perhaps the Daniel's family
wouldn't have suffered and they're still suffering, but wouldn't have
gone through the turmoil of not knowing what's happened, which
causes adds to the pain.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
It does, And I think there's two sides to that.
That's one side that any hindsight, there's not much we
could do about that, so time will march on, and
unfortunately he has passed, and that's terrible. But the other
issue is in that eight years you've got this terrible
that has been roaming the streets. What victims have happened
(27:05):
between then and his arrest that nobody knows about haven't
come forward, are killed and lying in a ditch somewhere
that nobody has reported missing, or has been molested. My
good mate was the undercover that jumped on the plane
with him from Brisbane to Perth and lived with him
for some period of time. He was telling me a
story that over in Perth he tried to molest a
(27:26):
child on the railway lines. So he didn't stop doing
what he does. Between two thousand and three and upon
his arrest, he was still committee offenses. So we had
a whole line nearly a decade of offending that we've
allowed him to do because we had egos and we
didn't want to rock the boat.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Yeah, when you put it that way, and looking at
the type of person is I'd say one hundred percent
he's committed other offenses in that period of time. But look,
there's discussing with you about this. It just brings home
(28:07):
how complex investigations are and all the personalities that come
into play. I still think the way investigations best practice reliant,
reliant facts, reporting, accountability. The sad thing with this is
that the public's perception is that the police are all
working together as one unit. I haven't met police that
(28:29):
I know that a crime like this don't want to
solve it. As I wouldn't suggest you didn't want to
solve the investigation or anyone working on it. But yeah,
when things become skew, if and opportunities are missed. What
you described in speaking to I can only look at
it from my perspective, from my experience as a homicide detective.
(28:53):
What you provided, they're that information I'm getting. I was
getting excited. I think I use the word excited, but
that's how I feel on the investigation. If I was
told that information, if I was looking on this, there
was a lot of indicators there and it's a shame
that it wasn't followed up on. But I'll sit here
comfortably saying that's a line of inquiry. If that information
(29:15):
has passed on the way you've relaid it here, I
would have got very excited about following that up and
would have given it a degree of priority.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah. Look, I think it was an opportunity missed. Yeah,
and I agree with you that you clearly there was
nobody involved in that investigation didn't want the outcome to
be as positive it could be, and would not do
anything to overturn, you know, to turn every stone over
to find the person or persons responsible. You know, and
we all talk about in the intelligence community you get
(29:43):
A one intelligence and C two and all that sort
of stuff. We were a one, We were detectives. The
evidence we got was first hand. Why wasn't it treated
as a one evidence?
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Well, it just wasn't you know a simple rule of
FUNB that I go, Opportunity, capability, and motive. They're the three.
And that's how I approached the William Tyrell thing, those
three headings, and that's what I'm looking for when I'm
looking at the suspect. What you just provided there from
that meeting that you had with him in two weeks. Opportunity,
(30:16):
capability and motive like tic tick that would have he
goes straight to the top of the list. I'm going
to offer an opinion from a homicide to take this
point of view what you've relaid to me, that would
have just be shining a bright light. I'd be looking
looking at that and that's not me sitting here with
the benefit of the pine sight. I've always talked about
(30:37):
there the way I approached these difficult investigations. I saw
it early in my homicide career. When you come in
as the raw kid and some of the people that
I looked up to, my mentors and the people I
aspired to be. What I found was how inclusive they
were at the briefings and it literally could be the
most junior officer there would make the table would be open. Now,
(31:00):
has anyone got any thoughts? And I watched the way
they operated, and I'd like to think that that I
adopted that attitude, and that's certainly what I tried to adopt,
is that listen to everyone in the room, take all
the information on because it can be someone's just viewpoint
that might be the thing that clinches the clinches the deal.
(31:20):
And again, breakthroughs on investigations like that and I push this,
and you've really brought me back into a criminal investigation
having the chat with you. You've got to take those
wins when you can. So when you've seen something like that,
and just the way that he changed from I didn't
see him. I might have seen him type thing that
(31:42):
could be lost on people that don't have experience, but
people that have experience, to me, that was okay, that's
something that interests me. Other people might go, oh, no,
he just he forgot about that before. It's the way
that you look at things. And I thought that gave
a real interesting insight into what good police do and
they speak to a suspect than what you're taking into account.
(32:03):
And I read somewhere you talked about it briefly, but
just the fact that tidy himself up and you'd seen
that in pedophiles before, after they commit the offense, that's
tidy yourself up and presents as this good person forget
about the evil I've done. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Well, I've often had a bit of an argument, and
we have some police psychologists.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Yeah, they're always good to argue with you. They always
tell you you just got a fatheriship.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
That's yeah, that's right. You know, I did have an
argument there once with one and she said, we can't
pigeonhole people. Dennis, I said, good, you can pigeon old people.
I said, why can't you pigeono Yeah? You know, I said,
if he just rapes little boys, he's a homosexual pedophile.
He rapes little girl. It's a head po sexual pedophile.
I mean, it's pretty simple stuff, isn't it. And because
(32:47):
that's what I bring that up. Because the other person
they were looking out close. He was a fellow called
Jack Waite. Yep, he was an asexual predator, right, so
he would males or females. Yeah, but he was more Yes,
there was opportunity with Daniel. It was more hunted from Daniel.
But this this jackaway just sort of stumbled onto people
like he was walking along a track and he would
fine that sort of stuff. You know. He never sort
(33:11):
of went out of his way as a hunter, and
yet cow and did he He saw his prey, hunted
the prey and got his prey. That's what happened in
every one of his occasions. And it was he was
singular minded in doing that. He identified the victim and
that was always going to be the victim.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
That person there, the scary ones. They are brethathers, aren't they. Yeah?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, and he was. You know, the description of the
person seen laying or standing up next to Daniel was unkept, unshaven, ungroomed,
and scruffy, you know what I mean. And when we
first interviewed him at his house, he was his hair
was carded with will shaven, looked clean and tidy. And
(33:55):
then through that conversation I asked his wife and she goes, yeah,
he's clean himself up a bit in the last right away.
You know, they go through the honeymoon period. They sit
there on the computer and masturbate themselves and carry on
looking at pornography, getting their heightened senses up ready to
do it, building up to it, and then go looking
for a victim. And then after they finished, they're quite
(34:16):
satisfied for a period of time, and then you know,
they clean themselves up and have a shower, have a shave,
and don't works just that I.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Feel like setting up a whiteboard and going look, look,
look if I was briefing briefing people on it. But
you know, different opinions on investigations. It's healthy, but sometimes
causes problems. There's casualties in investigations, but the priority should
always be focused on the good thing about There is
(34:46):
no good thing about Daniel Morkam, it's such a sad thing.
But the good thing is that cow And has been
taken off the streets and never never getting out and
that should be the priority. Correct.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
But he will get out of parole.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
You've got that strange set up in Queensland, haven't you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I have no doubt you will see the light of day,
Absolutely no doubt in my mind.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Yeah, well let's uh, let's well, let's we'll get the
platform started started here. But that person should never have
how how he wasn't in prison for life with the
case that Darren Edwards locked him up in the Northern Territory. Absolutely, yeah,
it's disgraceful.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
It is, I agree. And the whole justice system isn't
a justice system. It's a legal system that we use
at the moment best we've got at the moment because
there's no other there's no justice involved.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
So soty, the justice should be representing society and society
doesn't want someone like cow out on the streets. That
would be a travesty of justice. I think crimes of
that nature. There just be a public outrage. I'd like
to think that would override there's we're all entitled to
redemption that some people give up their right. So you
(35:54):
enjoying post life outside out of the cops, out of
the military.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Yeah, look involved at the moment with RSL. Yeah, you know,
and that sort of stuff. But other than that, a
lot of work really for me, more work than what
I was doing when I was working.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
It's amazing that when you do live policing where you
think your life is all consumed, you manage to find
things and you think, how did I have time to
do those jobs? But look, I've really enjoyed the chat.
It's been a long time coming. I want to thank
you for your military service for the country, your service
to the community as a cop, and the fact you're
(36:33):
one of those cops that care. And I just I
mean that it means so much that people like you
actually care about what's going on and you do make
a difference. So yeah, full full credit to you. Thanks
for telling this story and what you've been through, and
I hope all the best for the future.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
No, thanks very much, and it's been an honored to
build been a privilege never nan to nine.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
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.