May 5, 2025 • 52 mins
The Childs family wants answers. More than two decades after Rachelle was violently murdered, her sister Kristy is speaking out. Investigative journalist Ashlea Hansen and Kristy join Gary Jubelin in the studio to break down everything you need to know about this “solvable” case.
Can’t get enough of I Catch Killers? Stay up to date on all the latest crime news at The Daily Telegraph.
Get episodes of I Catch Killers a week early and ad-free, as well as bonus content, by subscribing to Crime X+ today.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective sy aside of life. The average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:45):
This is Part two of my chat with Christy Charles,
who's the sister of Rachelle Charles, the twenty three year
old woman who has murdered in two thousand and one,
a murder which remains unsolved to this day, along with
investigative journalists Ashley Hand, who's been working with Christie on
a podcast called Dear Rochelle. In Part one, we've got
(01:06):
an overview of the murder. In Part two, we speak
about some of the things uncovered whilst looking at Rochelle's murder,
which I hope, like Christy and Ashley, will put pressure
on people to ensure justice is finally done. Murders like
Rochelle's should not go unsolved. The podcast has been out
for a little bit. Now are you happy with the
(01:28):
impact that Dear Rochelle is having the getting your sister's
murder out into the public.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
I couldn't be happier. It's bigger than I ever thought
was possible, and the coverage has been incredible. The marketing team,
the whole team Rochelle, the team behind ash and just
the reach that it's getting and has gotten is incredible.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
And that is what you hope to achieve with getting
involved in the project, like the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yep, it's fitting for her. Just yeah she always you
just so go hard to go home. I think they've
definitely done that.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Yeah, definitely, it's been And what about you, Ashley? It
certainly had an impact, it looked at all the media
coverage of it, and people who are people are literally
asking me questions on the street about it, So it's
got people's attention.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
That's great to hear.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
I know, when you're working on a story like this,
it feels like you're carrying this secret for so long.
Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, you couldn't
really tell that many friends or family because we were
trying to keep it under wraps. And so when it
was finally out there, it was a bit overwhelming. I've
got to say, just to see it in print and
(02:48):
everywhere and finally know it's out there. But I just
mainly felt really proud and finally, this is it.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
This is what we've been working for. Let's go. So
maybe more hard work starts.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, we'll get getting the impact. And quite frankly, I
think it puts pressure on the person responsible for this,
and I say, to that person now talking to you guys,
I wouldn't like to be that person. Because there's one
thing I'm very sure of, having worked homicide as long
as long as I did. If an investigation gets a
(03:22):
lot of media attention, there's a too fold benefit the
way I see it, that you get the public interested
in it. Public are interested, politicians are interested, and police
properly resource the investigation. And if it's been sitting in
a cardboard box or sitting in brief boxes, on the
desk somewhere. They tend to get open when there's some
(03:42):
public public interest in a case. So I'm sure the
type of exposure that dear Rachelle is getting across the
police will be looking at it. The other thing that
I think important, Christy, you might understand this, but it
makes that Rachelle's life is not forgotten, and she's not forgotten.
(04:03):
Here we are over twenty years down the track and
we're still talking about the type of person she is.
Does that help you?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yeah, it's pretty empowering. I feel really good about it.
I feel like, oh, you know, we're giving her a voice,
and I think that that's really important because we've been
quite for so long. And yeah, there's someone out there
listening to this who's feeling very uncomfortable about all this.
(04:30):
I think that's incredible.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
One percent. I like to think the pressure that person's feeling.
And there's no statute of limitations on murder investigations, and
you hear about it all the time, the unsolved homicide
locking people up twenty years, thirty years down the track,
and yeah, it's not going to be forgotten. And I'm
sure they don't like the fact that it's back in
(04:52):
the attention of the media.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Yeah, can I ask you a question about that, just
as your experience as a homicide to active for so long,
what happens to a person when something like this drops
as someone that is guilty, that thinks that they've got
away with murder something so serious for so many years
and they think they're undetected. What happens when it starts
(05:16):
exploding in the media Again, have you ever seen that
from behind the scenes.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
I've seen it, and I've spoken to people that we've
done that too. And I was going to say it,
if people are now listening to this podcast and Dear
Rochelle podcast and all the interest in the media, have
a look at the person that you might be watching
or listening or talking about this, because a person responsible
for this will act strange. Now, that person might, if
(05:44):
it comes on TV or it comes up on radio
or whatever, might want to disengage from the conversation not
talk about it, or they might talk about it incessantly.
But whatever's going on, the person responsible with all this
exposure is going to act a little bit strange, and
people that are close to that person will look at
the person think why are we getting a reaction from
(06:06):
that person because we're talking about this crime, because they
will carry the guilt, will that will sit with them
and they'll be thinking, well, I've got away with it,
and now the pressures on. So I think it creates
a good opportunity for something to break and then the public,
the public should if someone then forgot suspicion about someone,
just someone that's ACKed in a little bit differently, when
(06:27):
all this talk is about, dear Rochelle, okay, pass that
onto the police. And I point this out that if
you know someone's committed an offense and you don't come forward,
there's a strong likelihood that you're committing in a serious
offense too. And these cases don't get forgotten. You can
see Christy's here and I've got a sense of you
(06:47):
enough to know you're not going to forget this, forget
this case. So the pressure, pressure is going to be on.
There's a reward out there, there's a whole range of things.
But if they've got if the public have got information,
they need to come forward, is no excuse not to
come forward, and that could just be that little piece.
But for the person responsible, yeah, I hope you're feeling
pretty nervous at the moment. You should feel nervous at
(07:09):
the moment because at any time there could be a
knock at the door, and that could be the police,
and there goes your life. You're locked away for the
rest of your life. So long answer to a short question.
But I'm passionate about this. I think this is the
type of pressure that should be applied to people. You
should not be able to get away with murder.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
So couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Yeah, that's my little pitch, and let's hope the person
is listening to it. And in answer further to your question,
do the people involved in these crimes listen to the
media one hundred percent seen it and time and time again,
and they can say I know, I'm not interested. They'll
be listening and they'll be panicking, and they might make
a stupid move. So this is the type of pressure that.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Yeah, and should their family and friends be asking them questions?
Speaker 3 (07:55):
What should they do?
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I think? So, if I was sitting beside someone that
I suspect of a murder, why are you reacting that way?
What's triggering? Why don't you want to talk about this case?
Or why do you overreact every time it gets mentioned
and it will get mentioned like the public or interest
in it now, so it will get mentioned, so you
don't have to have to front the person. But if
(08:16):
you've got concerns, pass the information on the police. And
it can be done discreetly too. It can be passed
on so the person doesn't know where the where the
information is coming from. There's so many different ways that
this information can be passed on. So I get excited
sitting down with people like yourselves so they're doing something
like this like I did with Headley, because that is
(08:37):
making the difference. That is the way these difficult crimes
get solved by putting the pressure on. So I'm a
big believer in using the media. If we want to
call podcast media, which is a form of it, now
we can use it in a positive way. So yeah,
I think it's great, Like you could have gone on
it could have been an article in the paper or whatever,
(08:57):
but it doesn't get that sort of in, that buy
in that the public get when they're listening to a
podcast and listening to it unfold and they're all coming up.
Everyone thinks they're a detective. So everyone's coming up going
I think it's this person, that person but it just
creates that environment. And when it's all said and done,
what are we doing it four is to get justice
for Rachelle and so the pressure. So, yeah, have a
(09:20):
look at the person that's acting strange and start to
question why they're acting.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
Strange and what would you say, Gary to someone that
may be close to this person, either back then or
now that might feel afraid.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Well, there's protections that can be put in place, and
I can understand the concerns and being afraid, but you
could approach the police in the strictness of confidence and
the information wouldn't get out and the protections would be
put in place. So I do understand the fear that
people might might have in pointing the finger at someone
(09:56):
or a concerning but there are measures that can be
put in in place to protect that person, so you
don't need to be fearful and it can be treated
with the strictness of confidence. So anyway, Chrissy, sorry, Ashley
and I are falling back into our old rolls. Actually
has been a journalist and we've completely lost track. Oh
(10:18):
that's right, this is a this is a podcast. Okay,
we'll get back to it. But yeah, I think they're
important important messages. So, yeah, what and there's so much
that's been uncovered in the investigation that's been done on
the podcast. What are the things that you guys think
are interesting? And we don't know, we haven't got time
(10:41):
to go through the full details, but just a couple
of things that have uncovered that excite you ll have
got you curious, that have flowed out from what's been
done on the podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think that the warping shaw and the significance of
the warping shaw is incredibly important. You want to add, Yeah, well.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I'm I'm really curious and about the key pieces of
evidence and one of them, just for example, the tank.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Yeah, and the.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Reason because so many experts, former detectives have given us
insights into the mind of a killer and the mind
of someone who disposes of a body and what the
process they go through. And so when we look at
the tank, which was the initial possibly the initial place
(11:30):
where the killer had intended to hide Rochelle's body, but
that didn't work out for one of many reasons, which
may have been that the concrete lid was too heavy
for one person potentially or they couldn't slide it off
for whatever reason, or there wasn't enough room in the
tank to fit Rachelle, so they've resorted to the fire.
(11:56):
So I'm interested to ask you if you think the
significant of the tank or if you think that the
tank is significant, because you when we went down there,
that's when it really had an impact on.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Me, thinking it's nighttime.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
You wouldn't be able to see the tank at nighttime,
and who what are the chances that someone would just
stumble upon this tank? So the thinking is that somebody
knew that the tank was there, so they had to
have been familiar with the area.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
And you said that to.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
Me in one of our first interviews when we were
down there as well, that why are you so confident
that the killer you.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
That area find And I remember it's well, I mean,
we couldn't find it when we went down there, but
it's it's cleared a lot more than it was back
then and when because I used to go in there
and sit in there, which some people.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
So it's a concrete tank in.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Yeah, concrete tank.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
So it had at the time a concrete thick, concrete lid,
and but that lid has now been replaced with a
plastic lid and the ground kind of So it's not
obvious now, but at the time, from what I understand,
you describe it because you've seen it.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, you had to duck in under a branch and
it was a lot of room to.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Be in there. And it's a public bush land.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
It's pretty close to the road the National Park. It's
behind the tree line and you'd have to sort of
duck in. And I didn't realize that you could get
to it from the back. And I think that's what
the killer did, that they have taken her behind.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
And then is it on the beach side the road?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Okay, so it's on the eastern side of GIRoA Road
or the Crooked River Road seven mile Beach GIRoA.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
That runs all the way down, Okay.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
The back road to Naura.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
I know the road. I a couple of things and
we'll talk about the experts you've you've got working on
the on the podcast. A couple of things that jump
out to me with this, the circumstances surrounding because quite
often you can work out a lot by the manner
and the way in which the the victim's body has
(14:02):
been disposed of. This to me doesn't look like a
planned crime. It looks like such a situation that's escalated.
That's the sense I get at it, A get of it.
I'm also a starting point with when you're looking at
why has a body been disposed in this location? I
agree with what you touched on where other people have
(14:23):
said it's an area that familiar with Quite often when
people are disposing bodies, they go there and dispose it
because they're familiar with the are. If someone knew about
the tank and discreet tank, it would be a good
place to locate the body. To me, it seems strange
because we're talking one hundred kilometers from the location to Giraa.
(14:50):
There's a risk associated with driving a car if you
have someone that's a body in the car, so there's
obvious risk there to go all that way out and
then dispose of a body in the manner To me,
it strikes as panic. You've set the body alight. Well,
there's more likelihood that someone's going to discover the body.
If you light a fire, you're destroying potentially forensic evidence.
(15:16):
But there seems to be a panic about it. So
it's someone that didn't plan it and escalate, just escalated.
I think it's a reasonable case theory that if it's
right near the tank, that that was the intended intended location.
And then the car. Is there any suggestion that the
(15:38):
Rochelle's car was used to convey what basis was?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
There were three there were sightings or separate sighting four people,
three cars, so a couple in one car. There were
four four witnesses had cited a car similar to Rochelle's,
if not one witness who knew his Holden's described basically
Rachelle's car so.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Pretty much said it was it was a VB commodoel
but it looked like a v H which is exactly
what it is, because it's a VB Commodore. But it's
got the VH lights and grill.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
You're the expert here.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
He described it on the on the vehicle.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well yeah, okay, Well that's interesting, isn't it. And that
if her car was there taken to dispose of Rachelle's
body there and then driven all the way back to
hopefully just the hotel, all the way back there, okay.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
And the thinking is as well that perhaps they were
already down there.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
So that's when it escalated.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Chris Illingsworth, who is a criminal profiler, that has given
us insights into what she believes happened. Her thinking is
that she was probably killed and the incident has had
and closer to Jiroa as opposed to back in Bargo.
But because there are those missing nine hours and there
(17:09):
are no independent witnesses or any forensic evidence to show
where Rochelle was killed, that's one of the biggest mysteries
of this case. We don't know where she was killed,
so we only know where she was found.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
It's a reasonable and I know Chris and she's very
experienced a reasonable assumption that escalated down there because it's
a long way to go to dispose of a.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Body where expanse of bush land, between.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
So many other locations where a body could be disposed of.
So again that sound sounds reasonable.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
But then still you would wouldn't You still expect though,
that they go to a place like Mick Ashwood says
that they're familiar with. So again, what takes this person
to find that tank or to go looking for that tank.
I think you're right though, and I definitely do believe
that it's more likely that the murder wasn't planned, perhaps
(18:06):
something else was planned. That's my feeling on it that
it's probably more likely that whoever took Rochelle that night,
whoever met up with her, probably planned something, maybe some
sort of sexual encounter, and had hoped that it would
(18:27):
go it would be consensual, or maybe that already planned
to Yeah, something so sinister. Maybe they'd planned something sinister already,
but it wasn't as bad as murder. I'm not really sure.
We're never going to really know that, are we.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Well, hopefully we will, Hopefully we'll, But I suppose it's
speculation if went there with an intent, that that intent
didn't play out. Twenty three year old girl like Rachelle,
I'm thinking that's yeah. Is there a suggestion that it
was sexually motivated the crime?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
What brings people to that conclusion?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Well, she was she didn't have any clothes on from
the waist down right, And yeah, we've had every detective
that's worked on it said that they believe it was
sexually motivated. Yeah, we don't have any evidence of rape
or sexual assault, but that could be as a result
of the fire.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
What about the forensic examination of the car? Did that
reveal anything? You've indicated in part one that your assessment,
and I think it's a very sound assessment that she
wasn't the person that parked the car there.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah. So the police have bits of the car, they
have the steering wheel, they have a bit of carpet,
They've got bits and pieces that they took off the car,
but they weren't able to lift any DNA off any
of that. The sheet that they found nearby, they believe
that was used, however, that was contaminated by a police officer.
(20:09):
So the DNA found on that.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Was it is? Has there been a recent forensic review?
Do you know if there's no?
Speaker 5 (20:18):
But I've asked for it because.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That's I know with old homicides that I've had because
of the improvements and the changes in forensic science, at
a forensic review and gave for all the exhibits that
are still still retained.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Yeah, I've asked for it. They weren't keen on it.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Yeah. Who are you speaking to in REGARDSS that was
Nigel or own it?
Speaker 5 (20:40):
Unsolved homicide?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, and more recently Matthew Russell, right, and what was
the restinale behind that? Well? It like their arguments are
that's a strong argument. You can't there's a finite amount
of times that you can test something, so it's not
something that they routinely go back and test. If there's
(21:02):
some reason for it, they will, but they won't just
go back over everything.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah. Well, you mentioned the names, and it's difficult for
me because I know both both those people and I
respect both those people. Yeah, and so do I and Nigel.
I actually worked with him. I supervised him in his
early early days in homicide, and he's a very consciouest
just good operator. So I think you've got a good
(21:29):
person there. But yeah, I can understand your frustration.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yeah, we had when we were looking at the car.
We were looking at the petrol cap and we weren't
convinced that that was ever tested. I've asked Matthew Russell
and he can't find any evidence of if it was tested.
He can't find what happened with it, so he's not
sure whether it was or not. So he said he's
(21:54):
put in put that in the hands of a squad
near where I live, and they're going to come out
and seize the petrol cap and they are going to test,
which is great.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Well, I think to me, and I do listen to names,
and you form your own views, but I think with
Nigel and Matt. That's the point in a good direction
that gives me.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
And they've always been really willing to talk to me.
I've had meetings with them and they put up with
me digging my heels in and having, you know, selling
them exactly what I think. They're very good. They're good
towards me.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
They're they're both nice people too.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Yeah, that's and Matt's a car Holden Fank as well,
so we.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Went I think Nigel is too. He's a bit of
a bit of a redhead. So you've been able to
talk on that level. Yeah, but yeah, these are the
things that it's so hard, hard for the family. And
what I take away from that, the fact that they're
talking to is such a positive, positive situation because it's
(22:57):
when families get stonewalled. I think half the time that
police might be working on the case, but they're not
keeping the families informed and that creates that pain. There
was in one of the episodes I heard on the
podcast that there was I think he was a boss
of homicide at the time, Scott Cooked talking about CCTV
(23:20):
footage that was couldn't be found. What was that in
relation until we touched on it and in part one.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, so they see CCTV footage from petrol stations between
Vargo and now On. And the reason for that is one,
if you're driving a V eight commodore, you know, pass
everything on the road except for a petrol station. And
because an accelerant was used, right and because Rochelle was
(23:48):
so broke, she would only put you know, five ten
dollars worth of fuel in the car at the time
because she just never had any money. So if her
car was used and it traveled one hundred kilometers each way,
they would have needed to put fuel in it. So
that's why there's a tension on the field cap because
the field cap is one of those key locked silver
(24:09):
caps behind like a flat that you can open with
your hand. But there's no fingerprint, dust or anything on
the cap. So that's why we questioned. We had Chris
Darcy from Search Dogs looking at it and he questioned
whether that had ever been tested, and that's a.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Really good question. Well, it makes sense if they're coming
back and the petrol person driving the car back. But
the cc TV for the job had a lot of
success with investigations getting there at service stations where people
are up to no good heading along the highways, so
is there any hope that that might be found.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
They lost it really early on, and I think Christian
Olivari's and his team went right through wherever it was
supposedly stored and they couldn't find it either at the
time of the inquest, ye, so they have had a
lot of people looking for it.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
There are two segments of CCTV that, according to the
brief that we have, is still in police possessions. So
Christy has asked Unsolved if they'll let her look at it,
at least just Christie, just so that she could rule
it in or out. Because there is a woman on
one of the segments of CCTV within close proximity of
(25:28):
where Rochelle's body was found, but also just a few
hours before she was found. So there's one piece of
CCTV that has a woman and an unknown man. Both
of them are unknown, so a woman and a man.
And then the second piece of CCTV was about an
hour later, I think, and that had just two men
(25:52):
on it and a commodore, but the number.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Plate was obscured because of the hype.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
They had their lights on and they didn't turn their
lights off when they filled up right, So my feeling
on that was was that intentional? Did they leave the
lights on by mistake or was that a deliberate attempt
to disguise the number plate and obscure the number plate?
So that's why Christy wants to see that CCTV.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Is there a.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Suggestion that could have the female could have been rachelle Is?
Speaker 3 (26:25):
We just don't know.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
So at the very least, you would think that Christy
would have been shown that CCTV to say absolutely not
that is not.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Her or who is this person?
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Because even though it's almost twenty four years old, I
still think that even if it is just black and white,
a family member could could make out someone if they're identifiable.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
With the car.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
The car, so oh no, if it's the car, yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
So that's how that's our question to police is why
has Christy never been shown this CCTV if it does exist?
Because according to the brief, that was not this CCTV
that was lost, the other CCTV.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Other CCTV was lost. Okay, so there is some but
you've never seen it.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
No, And I've asked to say, and I can't remember
what the response was. The other CCTV footage that they've
got is from the Bargo train station. Yeah, apparently that's
very grainy and very hard to make anything out.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
Matt Russell said that.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
He said, it's really hard to.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Yeah, well, certainly improved the CCTV type coverage that you
get in this day and age, but the old ones
are hard. But the fact that the car was where
it was parked, someone who parked it had to leave
that location too. But I would imagine that that footage
was grabbed very early in the investigation because otherwise that
(27:51):
we probably wouldn't have have copies of it because it
gets disposed of sometimes. To put your mind to these,
I know there was a lot of time, doesn't really
put your mind to these, but knowing that these mistakes
shouldn't happen down the track. Not the impacts on this investigation,
but the practices are a lot better now on where
(28:12):
exhibits are stored. It used to be. I won't say
ad hoc. There was a system in place, but it
was a system that failed too often and the exhibits
were misplaced. And you think, well, how can you lose
an exhibit to a murder investigation? But police stations someone
retires and boxes left there, it gets moved, someone comes
in and it's happened too often, but now they've got
(28:34):
a system in place that that should not happen. Down
the track with the podcast, you've got some expert opinion
on the situation or people that were involved in the investigation.
Can we talk through a couple couple of them? You
mentioned Chris Illingsworth, What did you run past her? What
(28:56):
type of things were you looking at? Chris to provide, well.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Chris was involved in profiling Rochelle's killer, so she has intimate.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Knowledge about the case.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
She examined a lot of the evidence and wrote a
report to the New South Wales Police Force about the behavior,
the type and profile the killer. So for that reason,
she was someone that I really wanted to speak to
and she was willing to because she believes, like most
(29:28):
retired police officers, that getting that information out there could
help and could take this case a little bit further.
And she also believes in a podcast too, So she
was on board and she wanted to help the family
and was very generous with her time and went back
over her memory of the case and also met us
(29:51):
down at GIRoA and gave us some really fascinating insights
into what she believed happened. Fascinating but also traumatic for
Christy to hear. And that was a really difficult conversation
to have to relay to her what Chris had relayed
to us. So but you know, in true Christie's style,
(30:15):
she just takes it and just processes it and says,
I wanted out there. You know, this is what he
did to her, and it's part of the part of
the evidence, and we could it could help us.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
The cause of death. What was what was put down
as the cause of death.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
It was unknown, but either strangulation or suffocation.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Right, Okay, Damien learn and the people that would have
heard that name from from here and he's been a
guest on this, but he was also the detective involved
in the teacher's pet like a dog with a bone
when he's on the case. So you consulted consulted with him.
So that's a good choice. What did Damien bring to
(31:03):
the podcast?
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Well, I shared the brief of evidence with him and
asked him if he wanted to get on board because
I needed help and I wanted someone who could independently
help me pull out the key pieces of evidence that
we wanted to use in the podcast, and for obvious
reasons his profile with the Teacher's Pet. He was also retired,
(31:25):
and I thought he might have the time because it
is really hard to get people to commit to such
a big project. But when I reached out to him,
he said yes, absolutely, And then he tells a different
story that I just fronted him at the airport basically
with a brief of evidence and he did agree to
meet me though, and yeah, he started reading the case
(31:47):
and then we just had regular contact and I surprised
Christy with having him on board, and which was really nice,
just because they have felt forgotten for so many years.
So to bring someone with a profile like that to
the case, I just thought it was. Yeah, it just
(32:08):
shows that there are still many people that are interested
in Rachelle's case and getting justice for her and your family.
So I just thought he'd be a great person to
bring on board and his knowledge and his analysis of
the case. And he's just a straight shooter as well.
He's great for a podcast. He's got a great voice.
He just gets straight to the point and tells it
(32:29):
like it is.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
He doesn't care about ruffling feathers, which is a good
trait to have when you're involved in that type of stuff. Chritsie,
you would have been happy for him to come on board.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Yeah, he's really cool.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
You need those crazy, crazy human beings to sometimes push
it a long day.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
That's all right. I relate to that side of him
really well. He's yeah, and we agree on a lot
of things when it comes to the case. And just
having his insight was incredible, and he's just so giving
with his time and he's just such a good guy.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Yeah. And it must know you've carried this for so
long and having a team of good people, committed people
must must give you some contentment knowing that people.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Are looking at it's incredible.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Mick Ash would Okay, Mick took and off, Michael. We're
discussing it because I know Mick well and we worked
together in homicide, and I was thinking he might have
reviewed it in Unsolved homicide. When you said I think Chrissy,
that Mick ashwould became involved twelve months after either was
(33:42):
running the investigation. I think Mick would have been on
the floor as in one of the working teams at
that point in time. And I think the processes that
we had in place here that if an investigation like
this one had got to a certain point, homicide would
come down and act as a consultant or taken. So
I think that was the capacity. I thought it might
(34:03):
have been unsolved, but he probably was on the floor.
Giving the time.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Frame, that's likely.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
As I said, my memory of that's shaky.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
And how have you found Mick Ashwood's input. He's out
of the cops now, so he's not he doesn't have
to do the corporate spin. How has Mick?
Speaker 2 (34:19):
I haven't spoken to Mick. I've spoken to a couple
of others, but I's just spoken to Mick a few times.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
How'd you find Mick?
Speaker 4 (34:25):
He's incredible And again his insights and his expertise on
looking at the case and pointing me in the right
direction as to what I should focus on and why
he thinks it's important. And just again his time is
always available when I ring him up because I've got
a query about something and he just has intimate knowledge
(34:45):
of the case and what he believes may have happened.
And yeah, and who we should be focusing on as well,
he has some insights about that from my perspective as
a journalist.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Great, So happy to have him on board.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Well, you you're putting together a good team and all
the different skill sets and expertise that you've bought brought
together the inquest. When when the inquest was finalized, what
did the coroner come back with? What?
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Finding persons unknown?
Speaker 1 (35:21):
How did that make you feel?
Speaker 5 (35:23):
I wasn't surprised by that point.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, yeah, did you go to the inquest with expectations.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
That this one?
Speaker 2 (35:30):
I was hopeful, but you know, we'd been not let
down by anyone in particular. We've been let down a
lot over the years, So we were hopeful, but not confident.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Now and correct me if if I'm wrong, And if
I'm wrong here will probably have to delete this. But
I think I read in the media that there were
nine persons of interest identified at the inquest, that two
were not required to give evidence. I think at too,
it might have been more were not required to give
(36:02):
evidence because the coroner thought that's not going to take
the matter any further. The others got in some in
the evidence that they provided, it was clear that they
had alibis or it was exculplatory. There was one person
of interest that couldn't be eliminated. Are we touching on
dangerous grounds here or is that where we're that's where
(36:25):
we're up to. Okay. And that person, and my understanding,
was someone that Rachelle worked with. We want to talk
about that.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
Yeah, he was her boss. His name is Kevin Carrell.
And yeah, he sort of took her under his wing
and showed at the ropes of selling his cars. And
he was the one that allowed her to take cars home.
They had a really good relationship. It was a bit
(36:58):
of a mentor mentee relationship ship from Rochelle's perspective. Yep,
she really looked up to him. Yeah, they got along
really well. But she got along with everyone though.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
What she was twenty three? How how old was he?
Speaker 4 (37:13):
He would have been in his forties Yeah, early forties,
maybe forty three from memory.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Okay, So he was her boss. And does that bring
it back to the car that she was excited about
on the day. Forget the what's the talkie or what's well?
Not well, sorry, no walkie talking? Okay, walky? You think
that was that he had said that she could have
(37:42):
that car that weekend. Okay. And this was all heard
at the inquest. It was did I again correct me
if I'm wrong. But one of the part of the
podcasts I listened to that one of Rochelle's friends said
that she couldn't talk in front of him about going
out on a girl's weekend.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Yeah, she didn't want to, didn't want to annoy him.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
More secretive about her private life. Yeah, And Damien Luhne
has some insights about that. He says, well, that's a
red flag because why would someone why would a twenty
three year old woman be so afraid to share her
personal life with someone that she trusted and someone that.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
She worked with.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
So there's another person that works there as well, Fiona,
her friend, and she gives insights as well about that
time in Michelle's life and her relationship with her, and
she just sort of calls it.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Out that it was a little bit odd, bit strange.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Odd that he wanted to know about her.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
He was very obsessed with her life and knowing about
her personal life. But then at the same time, this
particular trip to Queensland, he wasn't happy about that. And
she was going to meet a young man in Queensland
that she'd met over the internet, and the internet was
only just emerging in two thousand and one, so it
(39:08):
was a bit of a new thing. So Fiona and
her went to Queensland on this girl's trip, but it
didn't go down well with Kevin and Fiona. And the
feelings around that are that he possibly fancied her and
he had a bit of a thing for her. He
played favorites with her, gave her lots of benefits in
(39:29):
terms of cars and her access to the cars, and
that's how you describe it.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
He remember her telling me, oh, Kevin used to be
a detective, that they were. That was the sort of
the stories that he would tell her. And he wasn't
a detective. It was Yeah, he was talking himself up
to this young pretty girl and she believed him because
(39:55):
she respected him.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, well, somewhere the twenty three year old working in
an environment, you shouldn't be concerned about what her personal
life is, and that is a concern.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Yeah, And there were reports from his girlfriend at the
time that he would make comments about about Rachelle and
he'd be disappointed in her behavior, like her personal behavior
and things that were uncharacteristic of a boss.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
And this all came out at the inquest.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Yes, he made comments about her wearing makeup, described her
as a tart on one occasion, so spoke really negatively
about her, and there was almost like this marked shift
in his behavior and his thoughts and feelings towards her.
So it makes me wonder as a journalist, did she
(40:46):
reject him?
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Was there any kind of.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
You suggestion that they were going to he wanted more
from her and she rejected him, And maybe then that
has escalated over time.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Well, these are all the questions ideally that would be
asked and answered at the inquest. Was he called to
give evidence at the inquest? And how did that play out?
Speaker 4 (41:13):
He did give evidence at the inquest, but there were
many questions he didn't answer because he executed his right
to silence, executed his right to refuse to answer questions
on the grounds that it may incriminate him, which is
his legal right. And he was legally represented at the inquest,
(41:34):
so there was a lot of legal arguments about what
was asked of him, what he was prepared to answer.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
You're quite right, that is his legal right that he
doesn't have to answer a question on the grounds that
may incriminate him. And I've seen people time and time
again getting the witness box and take that protection. Sometimes
it's for something that's not related to what the inquest
is about. Sometimes it could be that was making a
(42:02):
joint that night.
Speaker 2 (42:04):
And that could be that could have been the case
because there were other issues happening at Camden Holden at
the time, that that could be the reason why he
didn't want to incriminate himself.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
Okay, I always look opportunity madeive capability and opportunity falls
in the factor of alibi evidence. Was there any alibi
evidence that he presented that I was at home or
I was in the state on the day she disappeared?
Was any alibi evidence presented?
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yes, but it was you know, no one saw him, right,
so he presented and actually see anyone in his alibi,
so there was no one to corporate what he were saying.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
He presented a very involved alibi that involved going shopping,
going to a service station, go into a pub, briefly
going to a takeaway food store, even mentioned going to
his girlfriend's house, but she wasn't home.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
At one stage.
Speaker 4 (43:05):
He said he's driven past Campden Holden and has seen
the cleaner and has had a really brief conversation with
the cleaner and all the people that he came into
contact with that night that he says, police can't verify it,
and the cleaner even gave evidence at the inquest and said,
I have no memory of anyone pulling me up that night,
(43:26):
and he was interviewed pretty soon after Kevin was interviewed
about his movements on the seventh of June two.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
Thousand and one.
Speaker 4 (43:35):
So his alibi can't be proven and it can't be disproven.
So that's always been the difficulty about this investigation as well,
because there were so many persons of interest and so
many people in her Rochelle's life that had to be
looked at, and for whatever reason, they didn't manage to
(43:56):
prove or disprove Kevin's alibi.
Speaker 3 (44:00):
We don't know whether so that's what he did that.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Night, left hanging. I think I should point out at
this stage that Kevin Carrell has strenuously denied any involvement
in the murder of Rachelle Childs. Yes, that's true, and
he's consistently maintained that position.
Speaker 4 (44:18):
He has and he's always cooperated with police as well,
and has volunteered his time to participate in interviews with detectives
about Rochelle's murder.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
And he's always denied any involvement.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
There was a couple of other lines of lines of inquiry.
I think that was there was someone that Rachelle saw
the night before and his petrol can was found in
the Oh.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
That's the next door name, right, Yeah, yeah, they did
clear him, I understand.
Speaker 5 (44:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Yeah, So okay, we've had the had the inquest and
what you was adding again to two thousand and eight? Eight?
Speaker 3 (44:56):
Okay, two thousand and eight, the findings were handed down.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
All right, so you're the family, there's been an investigation,
You've got no result. There's been a change of teams
running the investigation. It's gone to inquest. Looks like it's
been prepared and the police have done their best currying
the hands down their findings, and still none the wiser.
(45:22):
What's the next time you were contacted by police or
what's the next thing, because if we're talking two thousand
and eight, this is a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
What they doubled the reward in twenty eleven, okay, from
one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Was that your initiation or no?
Speaker 2 (45:36):
I can't remember why they did that. Yeah, and then nothing.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
So probably difficult as well, just to be fair because
as you say, your dad was.
Speaker 5 (45:45):
The main point of contact.
Speaker 4 (45:47):
Yeah, point of contact, So yeah, they could have been.
There could have been. It's it's hard to say whether
there was, you know, unless because I know that you
say that you don't have a good memory of it.
So it's it's sort of hard to say whether or
not Graham was speaking to how often Graham was speaking
to police, and what was what was happening between them,
(46:09):
such with Christian Olivris.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Yeah, he would have been unsolved homicide Christian, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
But nothing substantial happened.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
Right right, Okay, so looking at this way, but that.
Speaker 3 (46:23):
Was twenty and eleven when that.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Reward reward increased.
Speaker 4 (46:27):
We're in twenty twenty five and it's still at two
hundred thousand dollars, which isn't a huge amount of money
if it's going to change somebody's life to come forward
with critical information, and.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Rewards don't get paid a lot of the time, So
I think, yeah, and quite often families would come to
me because I was involved in the first million dollar
award with Willim Tyrrel and that was after a discussion
with a politician and then the me and dollar award
came out and then I got in not inundated, but
contacted by other families saying, well, if why is that
(47:01):
case worth a million dollars and why he is ours
one hundred and fifty thousand, and that I think there
could be rewards a tactical thing. You've got to use
them at the right time for the right reason. But yeah,
when we're looking at two hundred thousand dollars, it's not
life changing now, but a million dollars perhaps, you know,
that might might push push someone to come forward. That
(47:25):
if they did know the person that was going to
change their life or their life was going to be disrupted,
that might motivate them. But the point I'm trying to
get to here is two thousand and eight inquests, Okay,
well we've got no answers. Twenty eleven, Okay, the reward
has been an increase. That's good. There's a bit of attention.
(47:45):
We're now two thousand and twenty five, we're talking about this,
and I'm sure the police are looking at this because
of the podcast. What do you think would have happened
if you didn't do the podcast?
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Can't swear, but nothing. I contacted the police in twenty
unsolved in twenty twenty one and I was emailing a
man named Stuart at the time, and he said that
they were assessing Rochelle's case to see if they'll do
a review, and so I gave him. He said, give
(48:20):
me a month. I gave him three months and emailed
him and I just never heard back from him. Then
when I spoke to Nigel Warren last year, he said, well,
at that point in time, Stuart actually retired. So then
I said, okay, well what happened with it? And he said, well,
we can't find an assessment. We don't know what happened.
(48:43):
So I said to him, are you telling me that
I was lied to? And he said no, I don't
know if you were lied to or not. You said,
I don't think so, So I said, okay, well, when
when's the next assessment of her case? And he said
it'll be this year, which was last year. And then
when I spoke to Matthew Russell, they were focusing their
(49:04):
efforts on older cases at the time, so they weren't
actually doing an assessment of Rochelle's case and they said,
you know, and I said, so, don't hold my breath
and he said.
Speaker 5 (49:13):
No, don't want to breath right, right, So.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
But but then now they are so miracle squeak you will.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
This is a squeaky will.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
But I'm happy about that. I'm thrilled that they're doing that,
and I'm not. I know I sound critical, but it's
I know that they've only got, as I said, a
finite number of resources, and they've got to make those
decisions which are really hard. And I'm the family, so
I obviously want it for Rochelle. But there's eight hundred
unsolved cases.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah, I know, but also you have the right to, yeah,
ask and I'm confident for you. And I'm saying this,
I'm looking you in the eye here that the fact
that you got Nigel you're talking to. No, he wouldn't
bullshit to you, like I'd say it up front. I
(50:05):
know the way he operates and I know the person
he is, so it's a good person looking at it.
I think it's sad that you need to do that
squeaky will to get people to look at it. People
put faith in the fact that their brief is that
unsolved homicide, and for years I cringe when I heard
coroners say, look, we don't know what's happened, but rest assured.
(50:27):
We're referring this matter to unsolved homicide, and there's been
a lot of coverage in the media about the failings
of the unsolved homicide where cases weren't being reviewed and
cases weren't being followed up. So, yeah, you're doing all
that you can to get attention on your sister's murder.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
I think it's a reflection of how underresource they are too. Yeah,
can't expect them to work miracles.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
No, no, but it's someone's life's been taken. You expect
things to be done properly. Where to from there?
Speaker 2 (51:03):
We need people to come forward. We're hoping that, as
Damien Luhn has said in his interviews, we're hoping that
the relationships that existed back then that may have prevented
people from coming forward now don't exist. And now that
people are you know, have another twenty years on them,
(51:25):
and they're more mature and they understand the gravity of
keeping silent, that they will come forward. And we want
them to know that we're not going to whacky with
a stick for not coming forward earlier. We're going to
welcome you with open arms and we want you to
come and talk to us.
Speaker 1 (51:41):
That's good, good message. To put out. Yeah, and I
think quite quite reasonable. But just congratulations on the podcast
and I've enjoyed the listen. It really takes you deep
inside what happened. If people want to listen to the podcast,
how do they listen to Dear Rochelle.
Speaker 4 (52:00):
Well, they can go to the website www dot Dear
Rochelle dot com dot au and if you subscribe to
News Corp Australia Mastheads, you get early access to episodes,
so we encourage people to do that if they want
to listen, and you can follow all the news and
the breaking news through that website and also through your
News Corp mastheads.
Speaker 1 (52:21):
I wish you guys all the best in getting the
result to this. For this it deserves a result and
my instinct from a homicide to take this point of view,
it is solvable. It's definitely definitely solvable. So hopefully the
podcast you're doing, the attention that you're getting that will
encourage people to people to come forward.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
Thanks Gary,
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective sy aside of life. The average person is never
exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:45):
This is Part two of my chat with Christy Charles,
who's the sister of Rachelle Charles, the twenty three year
old woman who has murdered in two thousand and one,
a murder which remains unsolved to this day, along with
investigative journalists Ashley Hand, who's been working with Christie on
a podcast called Dear Rochelle. In Part one, we've got
(01:06):
an overview of the murder. In Part two, we speak
about some of the things uncovered whilst looking at Rochelle's murder,
which I hope, like Christy and Ashley, will put pressure
on people to ensure justice is finally done. Murders like
Rochelle's should not go unsolved. The podcast has been out
for a little bit. Now are you happy with the
(01:28):
impact that Dear Rochelle is having the getting your sister's
murder out into the public.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
I couldn't be happier. It's bigger than I ever thought
was possible, and the coverage has been incredible. The marketing team,
the whole team Rochelle, the team behind ash and just
the reach that it's getting and has gotten is incredible.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
And that is what you hope to achieve with getting
involved in the project, like the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yep, it's fitting for her. Just yeah she always you
just so go hard to go home. I think they've
definitely done that.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Yeah, definitely, it's been And what about you, Ashley? It
certainly had an impact, it looked at all the media
coverage of it, and people who are people are literally
asking me questions on the street about it, So it's
got people's attention.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
That's great to hear.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
I know, when you're working on a story like this,
it feels like you're carrying this secret for so long.
Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, you couldn't
really tell that many friends or family because we were
trying to keep it under wraps. And so when it
was finally out there, it was a bit overwhelming. I've
got to say, just to see it in print and
(02:48):
everywhere and finally know it's out there. But I just
mainly felt really proud and finally, this is it.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
This is what we've been working for. Let's go. So
maybe more hard work starts.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, we'll get getting the impact. And quite frankly, I
think it puts pressure on the person responsible for this,
and I say, to that person now talking to you guys,
I wouldn't like to be that person. Because there's one
thing I'm very sure of, having worked homicide as long
as long as I did. If an investigation gets a
(03:22):
lot of media attention, there's a too fold benefit the
way I see it, that you get the public interested
in it. Public are interested, politicians are interested, and police
properly resource the investigation. And if it's been sitting in
a cardboard box or sitting in brief boxes, on the
desk somewhere. They tend to get open when there's some
(03:42):
public public interest in a case. So I'm sure the
type of exposure that dear Rachelle is getting across the
police will be looking at it. The other thing that
I think important, Christy, you might understand this, but it
makes that Rachelle's life is not forgotten, and she's not forgotten.
(04:03):
Here we are over twenty years down the track and
we're still talking about the type of person she is.
Does that help you?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yeah, it's pretty empowering. I feel really good about it.
I feel like, oh, you know, we're giving her a voice,
and I think that that's really important because we've been
quite for so long. And yeah, there's someone out there
listening to this who's feeling very uncomfortable about all this.
(04:30):
I think that's incredible.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
One percent. I like to think the pressure that person's feeling.
And there's no statute of limitations on murder investigations, and
you hear about it all the time, the unsolved homicide
locking people up twenty years, thirty years down the track,
and yeah, it's not going to be forgotten. And I'm
sure they don't like the fact that it's back in
(04:52):
the attention of the media.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Yeah, can I ask you a question about that, just
as your experience as a homicide to active for so long,
what happens to a person when something like this drops
as someone that is guilty, that thinks that they've got
away with murder something so serious for so many years
and they think they're undetected. What happens when it starts
(05:16):
exploding in the media Again, have you ever seen that
from behind the scenes.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
I've seen it, and I've spoken to people that we've
done that too. And I was going to say it,
if people are now listening to this podcast and Dear
Rochelle podcast and all the interest in the media, have
a look at the person that you might be watching
or listening or talking about this, because a person responsible
for this will act strange. Now, that person might, if
(05:44):
it comes on TV or it comes up on radio
or whatever, might want to disengage from the conversation not
talk about it, or they might talk about it incessantly.
But whatever's going on, the person responsible with all this
exposure is going to act a little bit strange, and
people that are close to that person will look at
the person think why are we getting a reaction from
(06:06):
that person because we're talking about this crime, because they
will carry the guilt, will that will sit with them
and they'll be thinking, well, I've got away with it,
and now the pressures on. So I think it creates
a good opportunity for something to break and then the public,
the public should if someone then forgot suspicion about someone,
just someone that's ACKed in a little bit differently, when
(06:27):
all this talk is about, dear Rochelle, okay, pass that
onto the police. And I point this out that if
you know someone's committed an offense and you don't come forward,
there's a strong likelihood that you're committing in a serious
offense too. And these cases don't get forgotten. You can
see Christy's here and I've got a sense of you
(06:47):
enough to know you're not going to forget this, forget
this case. So the pressure, pressure is going to be on.
There's a reward out there, there's a whole range of things.
But if they've got if the public have got information,
they need to come forward, is no excuse not to
come forward, and that could just be that little piece.
But for the person responsible, yeah, I hope you're feeling
pretty nervous at the moment. You should feel nervous at
(07:09):
the moment because at any time there could be a
knock at the door, and that could be the police,
and there goes your life. You're locked away for the
rest of your life. So long answer to a short question.
But I'm passionate about this. I think this is the
type of pressure that should be applied to people. You
should not be able to get away with murder.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
So couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Yeah, that's my little pitch, and let's hope the person
is listening to it. And in answer further to your question,
do the people involved in these crimes listen to the
media one hundred percent seen it and time and time again,
and they can say I know, I'm not interested. They'll
be listening and they'll be panicking, and they might make
a stupid move. So this is the type of pressure that.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Yeah, and should their family and friends be asking them questions?
Speaker 3 (07:55):
What should they do?
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I think? So, if I was sitting beside someone that
I suspect of a murder, why are you reacting that way?
What's triggering? Why don't you want to talk about this case?
Or why do you overreact every time it gets mentioned
and it will get mentioned like the public or interest
in it now, so it will get mentioned, so you
don't have to have to front the person. But if
(08:16):
you've got concerns, pass the information on the police. And
it can be done discreetly too. It can be passed
on so the person doesn't know where the where the
information is coming from. There's so many different ways that
this information can be passed on. So I get excited
sitting down with people like yourselves so they're doing something
like this like I did with Headley, because that is
(08:37):
making the difference. That is the way these difficult crimes
get solved by putting the pressure on. So I'm a
big believer in using the media. If we want to
call podcast media, which is a form of it, now
we can use it in a positive way. So yeah,
I think it's great, Like you could have gone on
it could have been an article in the paper or whatever,
(08:57):
but it doesn't get that sort of in, that buy
in that the public get when they're listening to a
podcast and listening to it unfold and they're all coming up.
Everyone thinks they're a detective. So everyone's coming up going
I think it's this person, that person but it just
creates that environment. And when it's all said and done,
what are we doing it four is to get justice
for Rachelle and so the pressure. So, yeah, have a
(09:20):
look at the person that's acting strange and start to
question why they're acting.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
Strange and what would you say, Gary to someone that
may be close to this person, either back then or
now that might feel afraid.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Well, there's protections that can be put in place, and
I can understand the concerns and being afraid, but you
could approach the police in the strictness of confidence and
the information wouldn't get out and the protections would be
put in place. So I do understand the fear that
people might might have in pointing the finger at someone
(09:56):
or a concerning but there are measures that can be
put in in place to protect that person, so you
don't need to be fearful and it can be treated
with the strictness of confidence. So anyway, Chrissy, sorry, Ashley
and I are falling back into our old rolls. Actually
has been a journalist and we've completely lost track. Oh
(10:18):
that's right, this is a this is a podcast. Okay,
we'll get back to it. But yeah, I think they're
important important messages. So, yeah, what and there's so much
that's been uncovered in the investigation that's been done on
the podcast. What are the things that you guys think
are interesting? And we don't know, we haven't got time
(10:41):
to go through the full details, but just a couple
of things that have uncovered that excite you ll have
got you curious, that have flowed out from what's been
done on the podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think that the warping shaw and the significance of
the warping shaw is incredibly important. You want to add, Yeah, well.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I'm I'm really curious and about the key pieces of
evidence and one of them, just for example, the tank.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Yeah, and the.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Reason because so many experts, former detectives have given us
insights into the mind of a killer and the mind
of someone who disposes of a body and what the
process they go through. And so when we look at
the tank, which was the initial possibly the initial place
(11:30):
where the killer had intended to hide Rochelle's body, but
that didn't work out for one of many reasons, which
may have been that the concrete lid was too heavy
for one person potentially or they couldn't slide it off
for whatever reason, or there wasn't enough room in the
tank to fit Rachelle, so they've resorted to the fire.
(11:56):
So I'm interested to ask you if you think the
significant of the tank or if you think that the
tank is significant, because you when we went down there,
that's when it really had an impact on.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Me, thinking it's nighttime.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
You wouldn't be able to see the tank at nighttime,
and who what are the chances that someone would just
stumble upon this tank? So the thinking is that somebody
knew that the tank was there, so they had to
have been familiar with the area.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
And you said that to.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
Me in one of our first interviews when we were
down there as well, that why are you so confident
that the killer you.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
That area find And I remember it's well, I mean,
we couldn't find it when we went down there, but
it's it's cleared a lot more than it was back
then and when because I used to go in there
and sit in there, which some people.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
So it's a concrete tank in.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Yeah, concrete tank.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
So it had at the time a concrete thick, concrete lid,
and but that lid has now been replaced with a
plastic lid and the ground kind of So it's not
obvious now, but at the time, from what I understand,
you describe it because you've seen it.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, you had to duck in under a branch and
it was a lot of room to.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Be in there. And it's a public bush land.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
It's pretty close to the road the National Park. It's
behind the tree line and you'd have to sort of
duck in. And I didn't realize that you could get
to it from the back. And I think that's what
the killer did, that they have taken her behind.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
And then is it on the beach side the road?
Speaker 4 (13:28):
Okay, so it's on the eastern side of GIRoA Road
or the Crooked River Road seven mile Beach GIRoA.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
That runs all the way down, Okay.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
The back road to Naura.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
I know the road. I a couple of things and
we'll talk about the experts you've you've got working on
the on the podcast. A couple of things that jump
out to me with this, the circumstances surrounding because quite
often you can work out a lot by the manner
and the way in which the the victim's body has
(14:02):
been disposed of. This to me doesn't look like a
planned crime. It looks like such a situation that's escalated.
That's the sense I get at it, A get of it.
I'm also a starting point with when you're looking at
why has a body been disposed in this location? I
agree with what you touched on where other people have
(14:23):
said it's an area that familiar with Quite often when
people are disposing bodies, they go there and dispose it
because they're familiar with the are. If someone knew about
the tank and discreet tank, it would be a good
place to locate the body. To me, it seems strange
because we're talking one hundred kilometers from the location to Giraa.
(14:50):
There's a risk associated with driving a car if you
have someone that's a body in the car, so there's
obvious risk there to go all that way out and
then dispose of a body in the manner To me,
it strikes as panic. You've set the body alight. Well,
there's more likelihood that someone's going to discover the body.
If you light a fire, you're destroying potentially forensic evidence.
(15:16):
But there seems to be a panic about it. So
it's someone that didn't plan it and escalate, just escalated.
I think it's a reasonable case theory that if it's
right near the tank, that that was the intended intended location.
And then the car. Is there any suggestion that the
(15:38):
Rochelle's car was used to convey what basis was?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
There were three there were sightings or separate sighting four people,
three cars, so a couple in one car. There were
four four witnesses had cited a car similar to Rochelle's,
if not one witness who knew his Holden's described basically
Rachelle's car so.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Pretty much said it was it was a VB commodoel
but it looked like a v H which is exactly
what it is, because it's a VB Commodore. But it's
got the VH lights and grill.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
You're the expert here.
Speaker 5 (16:18):
He described it on the on the vehicle.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Well yeah, okay, Well that's interesting, isn't it. And that
if her car was there taken to dispose of Rachelle's
body there and then driven all the way back to
hopefully just the hotel, all the way back there, okay.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
And the thinking is as well that perhaps they were
already down there.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
So that's when it escalated.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Chris Illingsworth, who is a criminal profiler, that has given
us insights into what she believes happened. Her thinking is
that she was probably killed and the incident has had
and closer to Jiroa as opposed to back in Bargo.
But because there are those missing nine hours and there
(17:09):
are no independent witnesses or any forensic evidence to show
where Rochelle was killed, that's one of the biggest mysteries
of this case. We don't know where she was killed,
so we only know where she was found.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
It's a reasonable and I know Chris and she's very
experienced a reasonable assumption that escalated down there because it's
a long way to go to dispose of a.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
Body where expanse of bush land, between.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
So many other locations where a body could be disposed of.
So again that sound sounds reasonable.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
But then still you would wouldn't You still expect though,
that they go to a place like Mick Ashwood says
that they're familiar with. So again, what takes this person
to find that tank or to go looking for that tank.
I think you're right though, and I definitely do believe
that it's more likely that the murder wasn't planned, perhaps
(18:06):
something else was planned. That's my feeling on it that
it's probably more likely that whoever took Rochelle that night,
whoever met up with her, probably planned something, maybe some
sort of sexual encounter, and had hoped that it would
(18:27):
go it would be consensual, or maybe that already planned
to Yeah, something so sinister. Maybe they'd planned something sinister already,
but it wasn't as bad as murder. I'm not really sure.
We're never going to really know that, are we.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Well, hopefully we will, Hopefully we'll, But I suppose it's
speculation if went there with an intent, that that intent
didn't play out. Twenty three year old girl like Rachelle,
I'm thinking that's yeah. Is there a suggestion that it
was sexually motivated the crime?
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
What brings people to that conclusion?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Well, she was she didn't have any clothes on from
the waist down right, And yeah, we've had every detective
that's worked on it said that they believe it was
sexually motivated. Yeah, we don't have any evidence of rape
or sexual assault, but that could be as a result
of the fire.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
What about the forensic examination of the car? Did that
reveal anything? You've indicated in part one that your assessment,
and I think it's a very sound assessment that she
wasn't the person that parked the car there.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah. So the police have bits of the car, they
have the steering wheel, they have a bit of carpet,
They've got bits and pieces that they took off the car,
but they weren't able to lift any DNA off any
of that. The sheet that they found nearby, they believe
that was used, however, that was contaminated by a police officer.
(20:09):
So the DNA found on that.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Was it is? Has there been a recent forensic review?
Do you know if there's no?
Speaker 5 (20:18):
But I've asked for it because.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That's I know with old homicides that I've had because
of the improvements and the changes in forensic science, at
a forensic review and gave for all the exhibits that
are still still retained.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Yeah, I've asked for it. They weren't keen on it.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Yeah. Who are you speaking to in REGARDSS that was
Nigel or own it?
Speaker 5 (20:40):
Unsolved homicide?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, and more recently Matthew Russell, right, and what was
the restinale behind that? Well? It like their arguments are
that's a strong argument. You can't there's a finite amount
of times that you can test something, so it's not
something that they routinely go back and test. If there's
(21:02):
some reason for it, they will, but they won't just
go back over everything.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah. Well, you mentioned the names, and it's difficult for
me because I know both both those people and I
respect both those people. Yeah, and so do I and Nigel.
I actually worked with him. I supervised him in his
early early days in homicide, and he's a very consciouest
just good operator. So I think you've got a good
(21:29):
person there. But yeah, I can understand your frustration.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yeah, we had when we were looking at the car.
We were looking at the petrol cap and we weren't
convinced that that was ever tested. I've asked Matthew Russell
and he can't find any evidence of if it was tested.
He can't find what happened with it, so he's not
sure whether it was or not. So he said he's
(21:54):
put in put that in the hands of a squad
near where I live, and they're going to come out
and seize the petrol cap and they are going to test,
which is great.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Well, I think to me, and I do listen to names,
and you form your own views, but I think with
Nigel and Matt. That's the point in a good direction
that gives me.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
And they've always been really willing to talk to me.
I've had meetings with them and they put up with
me digging my heels in and having, you know, selling
them exactly what I think. They're very good. They're good
towards me.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
They're they're both nice people too.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Yeah, that's and Matt's a car Holden Fank as well,
so we.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Went I think Nigel is too. He's a bit of
a bit of a redhead. So you've been able to
talk on that level. Yeah, but yeah, these are the
things that it's so hard, hard for the family. And
what I take away from that, the fact that they're
talking to is such a positive, positive situation because it's
(22:57):
when families get stonewalled. I think half the time that
police might be working on the case, but they're not
keeping the families informed and that creates that pain. There
was in one of the episodes I heard on the
podcast that there was I think he was a boss
of homicide at the time, Scott Cooked talking about CCTV
(23:20):
footage that was couldn't be found. What was that in
relation until we touched on it and in part one.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, so they see CCTV footage from petrol stations between
Vargo and now On. And the reason for that is one,
if you're driving a V eight commodore, you know, pass
everything on the road except for a petrol station. And
because an accelerant was used, right and because Rochelle was
(23:48):
so broke, she would only put you know, five ten
dollars worth of fuel in the car at the time
because she just never had any money. So if her
car was used and it traveled one hundred kilometers each way,
they would have needed to put fuel in it. So
that's why there's a tension on the field cap because
the field cap is one of those key locked silver
(24:09):
caps behind like a flat that you can open with
your hand. But there's no fingerprint, dust or anything on
the cap. So that's why we questioned. We had Chris
Darcy from Search Dogs looking at it and he questioned
whether that had ever been tested, and that's a.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Really good question. Well, it makes sense if they're coming
back and the petrol person driving the car back. But
the cc TV for the job had a lot of
success with investigations getting there at service stations where people
are up to no good heading along the highways, so
is there any hope that that might be found.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
They lost it really early on, and I think Christian
Olivari's and his team went right through wherever it was
supposedly stored and they couldn't find it either at the
time of the inquest, ye, so they have had a
lot of people looking for it.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
There are two segments of CCTV that, according to the
brief that we have, is still in police possessions. So
Christy has asked Unsolved if they'll let her look at it,
at least just Christie, just so that she could rule
it in or out. Because there is a woman on
one of the segments of CCTV within close proximity of
(25:28):
where Rochelle's body was found, but also just a few
hours before she was found. So there's one piece of
CCTV that has a woman and an unknown man. Both
of them are unknown, so a woman and a man.
And then the second piece of CCTV was about an
hour later, I think, and that had just two men
(25:52):
on it and a commodore, but the number.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Plate was obscured because of the hype.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
They had their lights on and they didn't turn their
lights off when they filled up right, So my feeling
on that was was that intentional? Did they leave the
lights on by mistake or was that a deliberate attempt
to disguise the number plate and obscure the number plate?
So that's why Christy wants to see that CCTV.
Speaker 5 (26:18):
Is there a.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Suggestion that could have the female could have been rachelle Is?
Speaker 3 (26:25):
We just don't know.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
So at the very least, you would think that Christy
would have been shown that CCTV to say absolutely not
that is not.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Her or who is this person?
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Because even though it's almost twenty four years old, I
still think that even if it is just black and white,
a family member could could make out someone if they're identifiable.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
With the car.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
The car, so oh no, if it's the car, yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
So that's how that's our question to police is why
has Christy never been shown this CCTV if it does exist?
Because according to the brief, that was not this CCTV
that was lost, the other CCTV.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Other CCTV was lost. Okay, so there is some but
you've never seen it.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
No, And I've asked to say, and I can't remember
what the response was. The other CCTV footage that they've
got is from the Bargo train station. Yeah, apparently that's
very grainy and very hard to make anything out.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
Matt Russell said that.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
He said, it's really hard to.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Yeah, well, certainly improved the CCTV type coverage that you
get in this day and age, but the old ones
are hard. But the fact that the car was where
it was parked, someone who parked it had to leave
that location too. But I would imagine that that footage
was grabbed very early in the investigation because otherwise that
(27:51):
we probably wouldn't have have copies of it because it
gets disposed of sometimes. To put your mind to these,
I know there was a lot of time, doesn't really
put your mind to these, but knowing that these mistakes
shouldn't happen down the track. Not the impacts on this investigation,
but the practices are a lot better now on where
(28:12):
exhibits are stored. It used to be. I won't say
ad hoc. There was a system in place, but it
was a system that failed too often and the exhibits
were misplaced. And you think, well, how can you lose
an exhibit to a murder investigation? But police stations someone
retires and boxes left there, it gets moved, someone comes
in and it's happened too often, but now they've got
(28:34):
a system in place that that should not happen. Down
the track with the podcast, you've got some expert opinion
on the situation or people that were involved in the investigation.
Can we talk through a couple couple of them? You
mentioned Chris Illingsworth, What did you run past her? What
(28:56):
type of things were you looking at? Chris to provide, well.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Chris was involved in profiling Rochelle's killer, so she has intimate.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Knowledge about the case.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
She examined a lot of the evidence and wrote a
report to the New South Wales Police Force about the behavior,
the type and profile the killer. So for that reason,
she was someone that I really wanted to speak to
and she was willing to because she believes, like most
(29:28):
retired police officers, that getting that information out there could
help and could take this case a little bit further.
And she also believes in a podcast too, So she
was on board and she wanted to help the family
and was very generous with her time and went back
over her memory of the case and also met us
(29:51):
down at GIRoA and gave us some really fascinating insights
into what she believed happened. Fascinating but also traumatic for
Christy to hear. And that was a really difficult conversation
to have to relay to her what Chris had relayed
to us. So but you know, in true Christie's style,
(30:15):
she just takes it and just processes it and says,
I wanted out there. You know, this is what he
did to her, and it's part of the part of
the evidence, and we could it could help us.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
The cause of death. What was what was put down
as the cause of death.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
It was unknown, but either strangulation or suffocation.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Right, Okay, Damien learn and the people that would have
heard that name from from here and he's been a
guest on this, but he was also the detective involved
in the teacher's pet like a dog with a bone
when he's on the case. So you consulted consulted with him.
So that's a good choice. What did Damien bring to
(31:03):
the podcast?
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Well, I shared the brief of evidence with him and
asked him if he wanted to get on board because
I needed help and I wanted someone who could independently
help me pull out the key pieces of evidence that
we wanted to use in the podcast, and for obvious
reasons his profile with the Teacher's Pet. He was also retired,
(31:25):
and I thought he might have the time because it
is really hard to get people to commit to such
a big project. But when I reached out to him,
he said yes, absolutely, And then he tells a different
story that I just fronted him at the airport basically
with a brief of evidence and he did agree to
meet me though, and yeah, he started reading the case
(31:47):
and then we just had regular contact and I surprised
Christy with having him on board, and which was really nice,
just because they have felt forgotten for so many years.
So to bring someone with a profile like that to
the case, I just thought it was. Yeah, it just
(32:08):
shows that there are still many people that are interested
in Rachelle's case and getting justice for her and your family.
So I just thought he'd be a great person to
bring on board and his knowledge and his analysis of
the case. And he's just a straight shooter as well.
He's great for a podcast. He's got a great voice.
He just gets straight to the point and tells it
(32:29):
like it is.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
He doesn't care about ruffling feathers, which is a good
trait to have when you're involved in that type of stuff. Chritsie,
you would have been happy for him to come on board.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Yeah, he's really cool.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
You need those crazy, crazy human beings to sometimes push
it a long day.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
That's all right. I relate to that side of him
really well. He's yeah, and we agree on a lot
of things when it comes to the case. And just
having his insight was incredible, and he's just so giving
with his time and he's just such a good guy.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Yeah. And it must know you've carried this for so
long and having a team of good people, committed people
must must give you some contentment knowing that people.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Are looking at it's incredible.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Mick Ash would Okay, Mick took and off, Michael. We're
discussing it because I know Mick well and we worked
together in homicide, and I was thinking he might have
reviewed it in Unsolved homicide. When you said I think Chrissy,
that Mick ashwould became involved twelve months after either was
(33:42):
running the investigation. I think Mick would have been on
the floor as in one of the working teams at
that point in time. And I think the processes that
we had in place here that if an investigation like
this one had got to a certain point, homicide would
come down and act as a consultant or taken. So
I think that was the capacity. I thought it might
(34:03):
have been unsolved, but he probably was on the floor.
Giving the time.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
Frame, that's likely.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
As I said, my memory of that's shaky.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
And how have you found Mick Ashwood's input. He's out
of the cops now, so he's not he doesn't have
to do the corporate spin. How has Mick?
Speaker 2 (34:19):
I haven't spoken to Mick. I've spoken to a couple
of others, but I's just spoken to Mick a few times.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
How'd you find Mick?
Speaker 4 (34:25):
He's incredible And again his insights and his expertise on
looking at the case and pointing me in the right
direction as to what I should focus on and why
he thinks it's important. And just again his time is
always available when I ring him up because I've got
a query about something and he just has intimate knowledge
(34:45):
of the case and what he believes may have happened.
And yeah, and who we should be focusing on as well,
he has some insights about that from my perspective as
a journalist.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Great, So happy to have him on board.
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Well, you you're putting together a good team and all
the different skill sets and expertise that you've bought brought
together the inquest. When when the inquest was finalized, what
did the coroner come back with? What?
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Finding persons unknown?
Speaker 1 (35:21):
How did that make you feel?
Speaker 5 (35:23):
I wasn't surprised by that point.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, yeah, did you go to the inquest with expectations.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
That this one?
Speaker 2 (35:30):
I was hopeful, but you know, we'd been not let
down by anyone in particular. We've been let down a
lot over the years, So we were hopeful, but not confident.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Now and correct me if if I'm wrong, And if
I'm wrong here will probably have to delete this. But
I think I read in the media that there were
nine persons of interest identified at the inquest, that two
were not required to give evidence. I think at too,
it might have been more were not required to give
(36:02):
evidence because the coroner thought that's not going to take
the matter any further. The others got in some in
the evidence that they provided, it was clear that they
had alibis or it was exculplatory. There was one person
of interest that couldn't be eliminated. Are we touching on
dangerous grounds here or is that where we're that's where
(36:25):
we're up to. Okay. And that person, and my understanding,
was someone that Rachelle worked with. We want to talk
about that.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
Yeah, he was her boss. His name is Kevin Carrell.
And yeah, he sort of took her under his wing
and showed at the ropes of selling his cars. And
he was the one that allowed her to take cars home.
They had a really good relationship. It was a bit
(36:58):
of a mentor mentee relationship ship from Rochelle's perspective. Yep,
she really looked up to him. Yeah, they got along
really well. But she got along with everyone though.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
What she was twenty three? How how old was he?
Speaker 4 (37:13):
He would have been in his forties Yeah, early forties,
maybe forty three from memory.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Okay, So he was her boss. And does that bring
it back to the car that she was excited about
on the day. Forget the what's the talkie or what's well?
Not well, sorry, no walkie talking? Okay, walky? You think
that was that he had said that she could have
(37:42):
that car that weekend. Okay. And this was all heard
at the inquest. It was did I again correct me
if I'm wrong. But one of the part of the
podcasts I listened to that one of Rochelle's friends said
that she couldn't talk in front of him about going
out on a girl's weekend.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Yeah, she didn't want to, didn't want to annoy him.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
More secretive about her private life. Yeah, And Damien Luhne
has some insights about that. He says, well, that's a
red flag because why would someone why would a twenty
three year old woman be so afraid to share her
personal life with someone that she trusted and someone that.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
She worked with.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
So there's another person that works there as well, Fiona,
her friend, and she gives insights as well about that
time in Michelle's life and her relationship with her, and
she just sort of calls it.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Out that it was a little bit odd, bit strange.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Odd that he wanted to know about her.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
He was very obsessed with her life and knowing about
her personal life. But then at the same time, this
particular trip to Queensland, he wasn't happy about that. And
she was going to meet a young man in Queensland
that she'd met over the internet, and the internet was
only just emerging in two thousand and one, so it
(39:08):
was a bit of a new thing. So Fiona and
her went to Queensland on this girl's trip, but it
didn't go down well with Kevin and Fiona. And the
feelings around that are that he possibly fancied her and
he had a bit of a thing for her. He
played favorites with her, gave her lots of benefits in
(39:29):
terms of cars and her access to the cars, and
that's how you describe it.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
He remember her telling me, oh, Kevin used to be
a detective, that they were. That was the sort of
the stories that he would tell her. And he wasn't
a detective. It was Yeah, he was talking himself up
to this young pretty girl and she believed him because
(39:55):
she respected him.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, well, somewhere the twenty three year old working in
an environment, you shouldn't be concerned about what her personal
life is, and that is a concern.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Yeah, And there were reports from his girlfriend at the
time that he would make comments about about Rachelle and
he'd be disappointed in her behavior, like her personal behavior
and things that were uncharacteristic of a boss.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
And this all came out at the inquest.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Yes, he made comments about her wearing makeup, described her
as a tart on one occasion, so spoke really negatively
about her, and there was almost like this marked shift
in his behavior and his thoughts and feelings towards her.
So it makes me wonder as a journalist, did she
(40:46):
reject him?
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Was there any kind of.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
You suggestion that they were going to he wanted more
from her and she rejected him, And maybe then that
has escalated over time.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Well, these are all the questions ideally that would be
asked and answered at the inquest. Was he called to
give evidence at the inquest? And how did that play out?
Speaker 4 (41:13):
He did give evidence at the inquest, but there were
many questions he didn't answer because he executed his right
to silence, executed his right to refuse to answer questions
on the grounds that it may incriminate him, which is
his legal right. And he was legally represented at the inquest,
(41:34):
so there was a lot of legal arguments about what
was asked of him, what he was prepared to answer.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
You're quite right, that is his legal right that he
doesn't have to answer a question on the grounds that
may incriminate him. And I've seen people time and time
again getting the witness box and take that protection. Sometimes
it's for something that's not related to what the inquest
is about. Sometimes it could be that was making a
(42:02):
joint that night.
Speaker 2 (42:04):
And that could be that could have been the case
because there were other issues happening at Camden Holden at
the time, that that could be the reason why he
didn't want to incriminate himself.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
Okay, I always look opportunity madeive capability and opportunity falls
in the factor of alibi evidence. Was there any alibi
evidence that he presented that I was at home or
I was in the state on the day she disappeared?
Was any alibi evidence presented?
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yes, but it was you know, no one saw him, right,
so he presented and actually see anyone in his alibi,
so there was no one to corporate what he were saying.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
He presented a very involved alibi that involved going shopping,
going to a service station, go into a pub, briefly
going to a takeaway food store, even mentioned going to
his girlfriend's house, but she wasn't home.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
At one stage.
Speaker 4 (43:05):
He said he's driven past Campden Holden and has seen
the cleaner and has had a really brief conversation with
the cleaner and all the people that he came into
contact with that night that he says, police can't verify it,
and the cleaner even gave evidence at the inquest and said,
I have no memory of anyone pulling me up that night,
(43:26):
and he was interviewed pretty soon after Kevin was interviewed
about his movements on the seventh of June two.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
Thousand and one.
Speaker 4 (43:35):
So his alibi can't be proven and it can't be disproven.
So that's always been the difficulty about this investigation as well,
because there were so many persons of interest and so
many people in her Rochelle's life that had to be
looked at, and for whatever reason, they didn't manage to
(43:56):
prove or disprove Kevin's alibi.
Speaker 3 (44:00):
We don't know whether so that's what he did that.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Night, left hanging. I think I should point out at
this stage that Kevin Carrell has strenuously denied any involvement
in the murder of Rachelle Childs. Yes, that's true, and
he's consistently maintained that position.
Speaker 4 (44:18):
He has and he's always cooperated with police as well,
and has volunteered his time to participate in interviews with detectives
about Rochelle's murder.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
And he's always denied any involvement.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
There was a couple of other lines of lines of inquiry.
I think that was there was someone that Rachelle saw
the night before and his petrol can was found in
the Oh.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
That's the next door name, right, Yeah, yeah, they did
clear him, I understand.
Speaker 5 (44:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Yeah, So okay, we've had the had the inquest and
what you was adding again to two thousand and eight? Eight?
Speaker 3 (44:56):
Okay, two thousand and eight, the findings were handed down.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
All right, so you're the family, there's been an investigation,
You've got no result. There's been a change of teams
running the investigation. It's gone to inquest. Looks like it's
been prepared and the police have done their best currying
the hands down their findings, and still none the wiser.
(45:22):
What's the next time you were contacted by police or
what's the next thing, because if we're talking two thousand
and eight, this is a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (45:29):
What they doubled the reward in twenty eleven, okay, from
one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Was that your initiation or no?
Speaker 2 (45:36):
I can't remember why they did that. Yeah, and then nothing.
Speaker 4 (45:41):
So probably difficult as well, just to be fair because
as you say, your dad was.
Speaker 5 (45:45):
The main point of contact.
Speaker 4 (45:47):
Yeah, point of contact, So yeah, they could have been.
There could have been. It's it's hard to say whether
there was, you know, unless because I know that you
say that you don't have a good memory of it.
So it's it's sort of hard to say whether or
not Graham was speaking to how often Graham was speaking
to police, and what was what was happening between them,
(46:09):
such with Christian Olivris.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Yeah, he would have been unsolved homicide Christian, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
But nothing substantial happened.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
Right right, Okay, so looking at this way, but that.
Speaker 3 (46:23):
Was twenty and eleven when that.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Reward reward increased.
Speaker 4 (46:27):
We're in twenty twenty five and it's still at two
hundred thousand dollars, which isn't a huge amount of money
if it's going to change somebody's life to come forward
with critical information, and.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Rewards don't get paid a lot of the time, So
I think, yeah, and quite often families would come to
me because I was involved in the first million dollar
award with Willim Tyrrel and that was after a discussion
with a politician and then the me and dollar award
came out and then I got in not inundated, but
contacted by other families saying, well, if why is that
(47:01):
case worth a million dollars and why he is ours
one hundred and fifty thousand, and that I think there
could be rewards a tactical thing. You've got to use
them at the right time for the right reason. But yeah,
when we're looking at two hundred thousand dollars, it's not
life changing now, but a million dollars perhaps, you know,
that might might push push someone to come forward. That
(47:25):
if they did know the person that was going to
change their life or their life was going to be disrupted,
that might motivate them. But the point I'm trying to
get to here is two thousand and eight inquests, Okay,
well we've got no answers. Twenty eleven, Okay, the reward
has been an increase. That's good. There's a bit of attention.
(47:45):
We're now two thousand and twenty five, we're talking about this,
and I'm sure the police are looking at this because
of the podcast. What do you think would have happened
if you didn't do the podcast?
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Can't swear, but nothing. I contacted the police in twenty
unsolved in twenty twenty one and I was emailing a
man named Stuart at the time, and he said that
they were assessing Rochelle's case to see if they'll do
a review, and so I gave him. He said, give
(48:20):
me a month. I gave him three months and emailed
him and I just never heard back from him. Then
when I spoke to Nigel Warren last year, he said, well,
at that point in time, Stuart actually retired. So then
I said, okay, well what happened with it? And he said, well,
we can't find an assessment. We don't know what happened.
(48:43):
So I said to him, are you telling me that
I was lied to? And he said no, I don't
know if you were lied to or not. You said,
I don't think so, So I said, okay, well, when
when's the next assessment of her case? And he said
it'll be this year, which was last year. And then
when I spoke to Matthew Russell, they were focusing their
(49:04):
efforts on older cases at the time, so they weren't
actually doing an assessment of Rochelle's case and they said,
you know, and I said, so, don't hold my breath
and he said.
Speaker 5 (49:13):
No, don't want to breath right, right, So.
Speaker 2 (49:16):
But but then now they are so miracle squeak you will.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
This is a squeaky will.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
But I'm happy about that. I'm thrilled that they're doing that,
and I'm not. I know I sound critical, but it's
I know that they've only got, as I said, a
finite number of resources, and they've got to make those
decisions which are really hard. And I'm the family, so
I obviously want it for Rochelle. But there's eight hundred
unsolved cases.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah, I know, but also you have the right to, yeah,
ask and I'm confident for you. And I'm saying this,
I'm looking you in the eye here that the fact
that you got Nigel you're talking to. No, he wouldn't
bullshit to you, like I'd say it up front. I
(50:05):
know the way he operates and I know the person
he is, so it's a good person looking at it.
I think it's sad that you need to do that
squeaky will to get people to look at it. People
put faith in the fact that their brief is that
unsolved homicide, and for years I cringe when I heard
coroners say, look, we don't know what's happened, but rest assured.
(50:27):
We're referring this matter to unsolved homicide, and there's been
a lot of coverage in the media about the failings
of the unsolved homicide where cases weren't being reviewed and
cases weren't being followed up. So, yeah, you're doing all
that you can to get attention on your sister's murder.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
I think it's a reflection of how underresource they are too. Yeah,
can't expect them to work miracles.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
No, no, but it's someone's life's been taken. You expect
things to be done properly. Where to from there?
Speaker 2 (51:03):
We need people to come forward. We're hoping that, as
Damien Luhn has said in his interviews, we're hoping that
the relationships that existed back then that may have prevented
people from coming forward now don't exist. And now that
people are you know, have another twenty years on them,
(51:25):
and they're more mature and they understand the gravity of
keeping silent, that they will come forward. And we want
them to know that we're not going to whacky with
a stick for not coming forward earlier. We're going to
welcome you with open arms and we want you to
come and talk to us.
Speaker 1 (51:41):
That's good, good message. To put out. Yeah, and I
think quite quite reasonable. But just congratulations on the podcast
and I've enjoyed the listen. It really takes you deep
inside what happened. If people want to listen to the podcast,
how do they listen to Dear Rochelle.
Speaker 4 (52:00):
Well, they can go to the website www dot Dear
Rochelle dot com dot au and if you subscribe to
News Corp Australia Mastheads, you get early access to episodes,
so we encourage people to do that if they want
to listen, and you can follow all the news and
the breaking news through that website and also through your
News Corp mastheads.
Speaker 1 (52:21):
I wish you guys all the best in getting the
result to this. For this it deserves a result and
my instinct from a homicide to take this point of view,
it is solvable. It's definitely definitely solvable. So hopefully the
podcast you're doing, the attention that you're getting that will
encourage people to people to come forward.
Speaker 3 (52:42):
Thanks Gary,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Good Hang with Amy Poehler
Come hang with Amy Poehler. Each week on her podcast, she'll welcome celebrities and fun people to her studio. They'll share stories about their careers, mutual friends, shared enthusiasms, and most importantly, what's been making them laugh. This podcast is not about trying to make you better or giving advice. Amy just wants to have a good time.