September 22, 2024 • 44 mins
Julie Speight is not only a national cycling champion but the podcast’s first super sleuth.
Like so many, Julie was troubled by the way Amy’s case was handled and has dedicated herself to helping ensure the truth is realised.
With Julie, the team interrogates the more confusing and bizarre details of the case and discuss the latest responses from those tasked to serve and protect the community.
Please sign and share our petition Petition · Justice for Amy: help refer my Niece's case to - Office of Director of Public Prosecutions - Australia · Change.org
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline. I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot AU.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
I'm Alison Sandy here for the second conversations and I'm
joined by Tim Clark and Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Nice to see again, Alie, Hey Elie.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Good to c too. And we have a special guest
this week. Her name is Julie Spate and if I
look at her Wikipedia.
Speaker 5 (00:45):
Page, Australian former cyclist, eight time national champion at Australia's
first female Olympic and Commonwealth Games track cyclists, competing in
the women's.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Sprint of it at the nineteen eighty eight sold Summer
Olympics and winning a silver medal in the nineteen ninety
Auckland Commonwealth Games. At the time, Julie, you were described
as quote a class above any other female writer in
the country. Welcome time.
Speaker 5 (01:17):
Is about commitment, you do, Julie, So thank you for
being here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Legend trail blozer, that's me.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Watch out now.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
The connection here, Julie, we could actually call you our
first super sleut except you came on board before the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Can you tell us about that? Yeah? Well, I met
Anna through work. We both worked for a high profile
government agency this shall forever remain unnamed. And yeah, we
worked in a task force together and we quickly struck
up a friendship over our love of noodles and me
(02:01):
picking on Anna for her love it whgehood and Royal Dalton.
But you know, I've known her for about six months
before she ever mentioned anything about Amy. She's fiercely private,
which for her, like all of the things that she's done,
(02:21):
is just so phenomenal because she is a very private,
serious person who doesn't like to get out there and
speak in public and really speak about this really deep
private pain.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Can we remind our listeners again, for the sake of
anybody who's jumped on board recently, Allison, that Julie is
referring to Anna Davey. Anna was Amy's art So Anna
is the sister of Amy's mum, Nancy, And that's.
Speaker 6 (02:53):
Very interesting that you should mention Anna's private nature, Julie,
because she has had to be Amy's voice for the
past ten years, and she's very publicly driven her quest
for justice. So for you to say that it is
an anathema for her to do that is quite the
(03:14):
insight because we all know Anna is outspoken and go
getting and you know, never never backed down.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And a bit loose with the exclusive.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Absolutely.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
You know, it's interesting because in the position the task
was that we're in, she was just a dedicated worker
and just got the job done. But there was always
this sort of heaviness and she just sort of mentioned
one day, oh, she also stalked me on Wikipedia and said, oh,
(03:48):
I saw your Wikipedia page and I said, a it's
a bit embarrassing, and she said, I've got a bit
of a secret too. I'm on Australian story tonight. And
I went okay, and I looked at it next day
when we were supposed to be having a work meeting.
We just had a chat for about an hour on
(04:09):
government time and I just said, it all makes sense now,
you know, you're just completely dedicated to this complete injustice.
And of course, you know, I don't believe what I
see on TV or here on the radio, no offense.
But I thought, well, I'm going to have to look
(04:32):
up the coroner report and just have a read see
what was going on. And I read through it the
first time and I thought that can't be right. And
then on subsequent readings, which honestly probably I've read it
about twenty five times, and it just gets more unbelievable
(04:55):
each time I read it. And I just said to
and this is unbelievable. What can I do?
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Yeah, it's a great comment. Every time I read it,
I think, how can the coroner even have believed this?
It is so unbelievable. And I'm not I'm not even
cracking half a gag there. I mean, it's not even
it's not even a joke. And that's something to sort
of pause and think about as well, Julie. I mean,
you raise a really good point, Tim. If anyone who doesn't,
(05:25):
because I'm a big fan of that, you know, be
your own editor, find out for yourself. Don't don't just
take our word for it. Don't just believe you know
what we are trying to say, not that we're trying
to pull the wall over anybody's eyes. We're trying to
in fact open people's eyes. But do your own research,
you know, don't take our word as gospel. Google Amy
(05:47):
Wensley and google every part of that you know, and
go to whatever search engine that you favor, keep going,
dive a bit deeper, do things like read part of
the Coronial Inquest. But if that's too for you, go
and have a look at there's other video online, there's
our podcast material, There's a whole stack of other reference points.
(06:08):
There's various news organizations have done news stories. And familiarize
yourself with the story. And I'll guarantee you I'd pay
money to you that I haven't got if you come
back to me and say that doesn't amaze me, it
doesn't surprise me. I found something sort of unbelievable. I
found something incredulous. You know, it has sort of triggered
triggered my sense of mystery because I just can't work
(06:29):
that out. Because anyone who can work it out, they
need more than an Olympic gold medal. Julie wish I
had one. You know, it's pretty amazing. Can I just
ask Julie on the end of that, I mean, what
of all those things you've read and dived into, what's
the most amazing thing to you? You know, what sort
of stands out? Is there one particular thing that you
(06:49):
just you think there's absolutely no explanation for that.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Cat me consult my notes.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Oh that looks like a bible, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Well, I mean you can go for the obvious thing,
which is the detectives in take notes, and that's like
number one clear concise notes, contemporaneous notes, and they just didn't.
I think they've swapped notes at the end to say, oh,
what have you got mate? You know that was late
(07:21):
that night, just before one of them bug it off
on leave. So that's the obvious thing. But let's not
go for obvious. Let's just go straight to the coroner.
Have you seen Amy? She's this slight pittsite woman and
we're supposed to believe that she's beating up this big
(07:43):
beefy guy anyway, so she's the aggressor. She says things
like volatile relationship instead of just call it out for
what it is, which is he's an abusive partner. You know, Amy,
she had problems that was my She had problems with
David's drinking. And I just thought David's drinking wasn't Amy's problem.
(08:07):
It was his problem, and she was affected by it.
And we're meant to believe that the police have arrived
and they've looked around where we've heard by all accounts,
there's this massive blue that's happened. Mirrors have been thrown
and miraculously didn't break. Which ideare you to move a
(08:29):
mirror without cracking it. There's things been thrown, people are yelled,
she's been thrown to the floor, Tanks have been smashed,
and yet we're supposed to believe that David politely knocks
on the door, which I remind you had the inside
hand or removed, so how was she going to get
(08:50):
out anyway? And the coroner just brushes over there and says, okay, yeah,
you asked if you're okay, and you're not on the door,
and you helped her pack, Yet earlier he said he
told her to f off and get out of the house.
So I was just struck, like completely dumbfounded by the
(09:15):
coroner's language, and the fact that they have a professor
of biomechanics, all the signs of abuse, and all of
the instances that all the friends that said we saw this,
we know this, and I'm going to take what these
three blokes say, or four if you count rob it.
(09:39):
All of their statements don't line up. They all say
something different. But the thing from the scene was also
the cops walk in and there's guns everywhere. In the bedroom,
there's ammunition unrestrained, there's a crossbow in the shed. I've
(10:00):
got two kids under the age of six running around
in this house. We're going to take all your guns
off you and bloody keep them because you're using them
under the influence of drugs and alcohol. There's young kids
in the house.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Just a little claritation, they did confiscate the guns.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
So hello, you guys got a par as I know.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
It's interesting, Julie that you pick out the language that
the coroner uses in the findings and the way the
way she frames it, and the frame always seems to
be a little bit off away from Amy really ironically,
given that it was an inquest to find out how
Amy died. Thinking back to sitting in the in the
(10:44):
court for that week in a bit, there was a
lot of focus on Simmons.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Always, poor Simmons.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
Yeah, in terms of the build up to him giving evidence,
because the way the Coroner's court in wa do it
is well, I don't know if they take it from
the movies or whatever where they put the star witness
last always and there is a legal founding for that
in that they think, well, if all the questions are
(11:10):
going to be around this person, then it is only
fair to them that that all the other evidences is
put before we get them there.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
And and there's you know, there's competing things for that.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
I mean, you don't want any you know, surprise evidence
coming after that person has then given evidence.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
To have to call them back. So there's a practical
thing for it.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
But obviously, you know, journalistic and anticipatory sense, you want
to hear from this person and you've got to wait
right till the end, right, So there was always that
looming over the inquest as well. You know, well, well
you know, we'll hear from Simmons at the end, and
then he didn't turn up.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
And then he did but on the video link, and
you know, and there were there.
Speaker 6 (11:48):
Were concessions made so he could appear the way that
you know, that was that was comfortable for him.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
But again but again to him to that point, like
it was all structured, that last bit was structured so
that it was it was comfortable for him. Yeah, but
why why are those concessions. It's like Julie's pointing out,
it's the language. Indeed, that language is incredibly important, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (12:08):
And hearing Julie talk about that now makes me think, well,
I wonder whether the coroner sort of took that whole
atmosphere away from the hearings and it sort of slid
into the language.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
That she used in the findings.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I think it's definitely that. But I think she's giving
him the answers. She's sort of saying, Okay, I understand
this is what happened. And she's definitely given him that
leeway to be out of that pressure cooker of the courtroom.
And we can't really read what his physical reactions are
(12:45):
because the body doesn't lie. We don't see him twitterly,
you know, like I'm sure he's just in this sort
of space where he doesn't have to feel the emotion.
And why is she doing that? Because if he's telling
the truth, tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
But but why is it like that some seven years afterwards,
six seven years after when the inquest is held, Why
is the coroner taking that approach and that this is
an open question. I don't I don't know the answer.
I'm not being I'm not being smarter. I mean, I'm
to pontificate on it.
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Maybe maybe she felt something better than nothing, but they
the previous day they declined to go down the route
that that's the Coroners Act give them.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You can issue a warrant, you can a bench warrant. Yeah,
you can.
Speaker 6 (13:31):
Take people into custody if you feel it's in the
interests of justice or it's going to help you get
to your conclusion. Criminal cases are a lot different juries.
Every day in you know, courtrooms up and down this
state are always told don't just listen to what the
person in the box says, listen to how they say
(13:53):
it and.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
And their their body language well while they're saying.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
It, exactly to Julie's point, because it's all part of
the package of the impression that you get from the
person being asked the questions right, particularly exactly, particularly if
it is an accused that goes from the that goes
from the dock into the witness box, and jurors are
actually instructed that's what they have to do, not not
(14:20):
if you like, you know, check their body language.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
Judges tell jurors, no, this is all part of your
your duty as a jura.
Speaker 6 (14:29):
You've got to look at the whole thing, not just
be and i' mean the reinstructed. Don't don't just take notes,
you know, don't don't don't have your head down just
transcribing what they're saying. Look at what they're saying, and
look at how they're saying it as well, which is
why judges are sometimes very much on the side of
non caution when talking about video links for witnesses, particularly
(14:51):
important ones.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Lawyers have to go.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
To court and apply for a special witness order so
that a person can appear on a video link for
reason because and sometimes they get knocked back for that.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah, it's absolutely.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
Because it's much more preferable to have a person in person,
you know, yards away from a dura for them to
get the full picture.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Well, I don't disagree with the word you say, so
all right. So considering then, given that a coronial inquest
is the ultimate fact finding mission, that's what it's all about,
gaining information, why wouldn't you, as coroner want to extract
one hundred percent of the information and demand that the
person at the center of all this is physically present
(15:33):
in the courtroom, in the actual courtroom. I mean, why
was he given such a That's an enormous concession and also,
can I just remind everybody the family have to sit
there for days on end, the family of the dead person,
they have to sit there for days on end and
go through that trauma. Are you seriously suggesting that then
(15:55):
at the end of all that we give the bloke
at the center of all this a complete discount by
letting him waltz down from the pub to some other
room to sit in splendid isolation and just give his
stuff on video. I mean, it just it does my
head in. But again for the reason, can I just
go back to that question, why would the coroner take
that easy path for Simmons and why would the language
(16:18):
all through the thing be very pro suicide?
Speaker 6 (16:21):
Well, I mean, the coronial brief was there, and she
would have had all the statements from the police officers right,
including Larry Brownford's, including his two uniform colleagues that turned
up first, including cold case. But I you know, maybe
maybe I almost dedicated as usually because I did read
(16:42):
through the coroner's phone.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
It's again.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
Just about a week ago, and I still keep going
back to those blooming expert reports Liam, which he had
two different experts. And I tell you why, because there's
funny enough. There's an inquest that started yesterday up in
Broom about another long standing mystery of a death of
a young person by the name of Josh Warner Key
(17:06):
And you know one of the experts that's doing the
crime scene Ecklund. Yeah, so it'll be interesting to see
the language that comes out of that and maybe a
compare and contrast many years on.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
But yeah, I noticed that.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
So going back to you, Julie, what did you do
after that, after that reading and your initial it looks
like very particular note taking, And what did you say
to Anna after after you'd read those findings.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Well, first of all, I went out and shopped about
a time. I would just had a few deep breaths,
and I just said, and I look, there's so much
in this And she said, I haven't been able to
read through it. It was horrific enough to watch her
to be there in the courtroom and she or here
(18:02):
Amy portrayed as having calls her own death. You know,
she was depressed, she was abusive, she was all these things.
If you listen to what everyone says, she wasn't those
things at all. And I've never known her. I don't
know her. I only know from what I'm reading and
(18:26):
looking at through the lens of don't I don't know anything.
I'm just going to read what's on the page, and
I'm going to pull out what doesn't make sense. And
one of the things like, you know, Tim, you said
the style witness, well, isn't he a bloke who has
said my partner committed suicide? And then years later, you know,
(18:51):
you say, well, what do you think you hear, David? Oh,
because the police didn't do their job. Well, no, apparently,
according to you, they did do their job because they
said suicide, so they did their job. Now you're saying
they didn't do their job. Well, if it was suicide,
(19:12):
they did do their job, do you know what I mean? Like,
it doesn't make sense. And then you've got poor old
Gareth Price. You know, you have to feel sorry for
this simple like is hooked up with these friends who
you know, they're awful and I'm not too much sympathy.
(19:34):
But even he says, oh, you know, Liam, the truth's
going to come out, hasn't the truth? Or it did
come out?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
They can't even stay on the same path. They're just like,
this is what happened, but oh, you'll get to the
truth or you know, it's it's like, guys, you're hopeless,
you know, hopeless witness and poor Amy was this depressed,
terrible person when all of the evidence suggests that she
(20:08):
was this fiercely strong little dynamo who loved the kids,
who was trying to keep the relationship despite how much
he didn't care about it. And all we get to
see is what she has said in text messages when
(20:28):
she's trying to say, look, come on, let's try and
make this work despite how useless he was. What do
we hear from him? Where's his text messages? What is
he saying back? And you know, we get that guy's
both on text messages because they don't really care or
(20:50):
they don't know how to spell. But you know, like
all we hear is this betrayal of Amy as this
depressed weak person. But the evidence, when you look at it,
she wasn't.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Julie, I've got a question for you in relation to
what Anna told me about the bags on the hands.
You had a bit of information in the forensics. Can
you tell me about that?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Yeah, definitely. So I lived in Perth for about seven years,
and for one of those years When I was first
over there, I worked for a funeral home. They had
a herst driver advertisement and I'm the last driver in
the world. So I thought, idea at a uniform and I.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Had haring skills intersect exactly.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
But unfortunately on the first day they said, no, you're
a funeral director's assistant and you have to go and
wash the bodies and help. And so I was a
bit of a baptism by fire. However, So this was
two thousand and one and we had the contract for
all coroner deaths, you know, for sudden accidents that are
(22:02):
north of the bridge, because everything you know in Perth
is defined the river. So we had north of the
river contract, which meant that we would go and pick
up decease people from accidents and you know, horrific things.
But at no time did we ever put bags on hands,
(22:25):
not once. And what struck me is that they released
the scene from any forensic evidence and then they asked
the contractors to come in, which would have been whoever
was south of the river. They would have wrapped Amy
in a sheet, placed in the bag, taken it to
(22:46):
Charlie Gardner's where the coroner is. So when did the
bags get put on great question.
Speaker 6 (22:56):
Because reading from that coroner's report, he says, post more examination,
it says both of EMI's hands had been covered with
paper bags secured by masking tape before she was brought
to the mortuary, and it says they were removed and
multiple spots of dried blood was noted over the back
of the left hand and wrist and over the fingers
(23:17):
of the left hand, and then gunshot residues were taken
and submitted.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
So this is one of the problems to Tim, isn't it.
I mean, this was one of the issues that came up.
It's just remind our listeners again. So the left hand
had the burn mark, which was a burn from the barrel,
which is the reason they determined that she couldn't have
pulled the trigger with her left hand. Forget about the
biodynamics for a moment, but just from that, the burn
(23:44):
mark was a barrel mark, so it was a defensive
mark on her left hand. Her right hand was found
to be placed under her body. She was sitting on
her right hand, but they said later that there was
no gun residue on her right hand. And this is
where they came back to the bags. Wasn't it, Julie.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yeah, absolutely, It seemed to me that they were playing
catch up. But I guarantee you, as a contractor working
at that time, I and that was two thousand and one.
Whether that changed, I doubt it. You can ask a contractor. Now,
we didn't carry paper bags, we didn't have masking tape.
(24:24):
Another thing with those marks on a hand. We get that. Okay,
she's got the muzzle burns on the left hand, But
if she was holding her arm out, wouldn't she also
have had a burn on the inside of a bicet.
Isn't there also when the gun goes off, isn't it
(24:45):
hitting me and burning my bicyt?
Speaker 5 (24:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
There's so many unknowns, isn't there. One of the things
that I thought was a really good floating strand, as
Tim described the other day, loose strands is what was
placed on Amy's head. Remember there were three items that
they discussed. Now, I find that very weird because you've
(25:10):
got the red towel, the blue towel. But Robert stuck
both statements. He talked about a gray khaki jacket.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
There was a gray or khaki jacket over the person's
head and upper body.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Now that is really different from a red or a
blue towel, right, And he was very clear in his
evidence and he stuck with that. And then when he
was questioned about it back in episode seven of the
podcast where we talk about it, he just said he
lifted it up on her head and I don't know.
I thought it was a jacket. But that's something I
(25:46):
think significant and I think it fits in with that
whole None of the clothes had blood on it, even
though Gareth apparently had it down amy for a phone.
So when you patted her down looking for her phone,
do you think you would have moved her leg or anything.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
Well, no, I just checked it pockets.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
You pat checked, yes, because well we needed to call somebody, all.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Right, So you would think there would be some blood somewhere,
some sort of transfer and nothing. And that jacket was
it one of the ones or one of the items
that were allegedly burned.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Well, there's only one explanation, isn't there That If you've
got three different versions of something being placed over a
head from three different statements, either the recollection is wrong
or you know, hazy within that sort of shock horror
moments after the actual gun went off, or as you
(26:38):
say there's been some sort of manipulation. If let's just
you know, let's just pretend for a moment that it
was self inflicted, I think they'd all be incredibly they'd
be in shock, that they'd be you know, adrenaline running,
be all sorts of things. But what we have is
almost counterintuitive. We have a situation where we know that
(27:00):
scene has been tampered with. Allison, you've just pointed out
three different versions of somebody putting something over her head
or taking it off, taking something else off, and putting
something else on. Why you've got the gun, the weapon
being flicked off or placed in another part of the room,
at least by two people who've admitted that, Gareth Price
(27:24):
and Robert Simmons. They both admitted handling the weapon.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Why.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
And you've got the ammunition.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
And the ammunition take an aaken.
Speaker 6 (27:32):
Out, not put in a pocket to give to the
police if they if they ask for it, or not
put in a pocket, tied put on a side table
for correct some reason. You've also got the gun, the
other gun in the cupboard. You've got the mystery of
the missing door handle. Yep, you've got various different slightly
(27:56):
different but still different accounts of the exact position of
Amy's body. Yeah, you've got people go, people admitting they're
going in and out of that room and having to
jam the door open.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Force the door. You've got to mate. And then on
top of that, we've got the other the new evidence,
which which Brighton denies. But let's just introduce a fourth person,
which Brighton denies vehemently. But our witness who says that
she ran crime stoppers and gave them this information. That
evidence is that Brydon moved the body with Price. So
(28:31):
perhaps you've got four people. So we've got we've got
three or four people. It's the only way I can
describe it. Again, language is important, but tampering with that scene,
and my question is why, why they hell would you
do that in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
So you have Robert who's told, you know, there's a
gunshot or there's been an accident, something's happened, and he's said, oh,
my son's made of mistake. He's shot her. So of
course he's taken the pellets out of the gun and
put the cartridges on the table. You know, there was
(29:11):
no focus at any time on Amy except someone's throwing
their jacket on her head, and then they drew the
scene opposite sort of to where she was found. So
there's all these inconsistencies, which again we go back to
the coroner who seems to just brush over those.
Speaker 6 (29:32):
Two things strike me about this, right, the abnormality of
that behavior. I think any right thinking person would think.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
That, how would I react in that situation.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
I don't know, but I certainly would not take cartridges
out of a gun that even if I thought my
daughter in law had killed herself, I wouldn't do that.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
I wouldn't want to touch the gun. I wouldn't want
to go anywhere near.
Speaker 6 (29:55):
The gun that had just ended the life of someone
very close to me, exactly.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
And then the differences in account.
Speaker 6 (30:01):
You can sort of see in that traumatic moment, that
you might mistake a red toe for a blue toll
because it's probably read on the toll. Right, Amy's head
is catastrophically injured, Right, so you've got read.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
In your head, or there's blood coming through the town.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Correct.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yes, Yeah, jacket is a completely different item.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
And I would think that in that traumatic moment, those
scenes are burned into your brain and you would have
heard this Liam as I have many many times.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I will never forget that scene as long as I live.
Speaker 6 (30:36):
You know, they're going back to last week core memories, right,
and the second goes back.
Speaker 4 (30:41):
To Judy's original point contemporaneous notes.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
Right.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
If someone had bloody secured that scene properly, none of
these questions would have had to have been asked, because
there would have been proper forensic photographs taken of every
single inch of that room. There would have been an
initial statement taken from both those detectives who remembered were
happy to look at it from a photograph on a phone.
But it goes back to then. As soon as that
(31:08):
decision is made in the rush in the dark, in
the amid the chaos with the kids, you know, God
knows where, and you know, conflicting accounts coming in from
all over. No, the scene is lifted, the number of
the cleaner is given to David Simmons' father, and we
go and the cleaners come in and and there, and
(31:32):
then Amy's Body's turned up.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
With bags on their hands. Again contemporaneous notes.
Speaker 6 (31:38):
If everyone's doing their job properly and logging everything and
noticing everything and discussing everything, then we'd know exactly who
puts the bags on Amy's hands and why, and that
was that done forensically secure.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Well, you know the other thing too, when they talk
about the clothing, but I think it's Robert he says, oh, well, yeah,
they were dressed in broad shorts. It's liked by all accounts.
You know where at winter it was a rainy, miserable day,
They've been out shopping wood, they're about to go out hunting,
and he's in broad shorts.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Well, I thought that was something with Joshua Brydon to
when he made a note in his first statement that
David Simmons changed his clothes from blue jeans and a
singlet blue singlet, and the fact that he made a
point of that. But that was supposedly before Amy's death,
So there's that. Also, there's a post it notes, which
(32:37):
I think is an interesting thing. Nobody asked Robert Simmons
what was on the post it notes? They we know
he took them, he destroyed them. He made a note
of I didn't realize it was that bad, meaning he's
drinking and he didn't realize it was pretty bad. And
no one really went down that line, did they. They
didn't really talk to him or discuss with him, or
(32:59):
question him or about that.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
You know, I think with Robert Io he has that
father guilt because that's his. And when he talks about
when he went and asked David, he uses the term
he said, I'm going to ask you this once. Well,
anyone who's been a little kid with a father who's
(33:22):
pretty cranky, we'll sell you that they say that before
they whack you with their belt.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
I think, just coming back duly to your original point.
We touched on this couple of weeks ago another episode
that Tim you'll recall, but I think it's compelling. I
really think it's compelling. Again. You know, you don't have
to be a trained psych to figure out the sort
of the intent or the background to what could possibly
allow you to say certain things. That triple zero call
(34:00):
that Robert Simmons was on, you know, for a father
to say that, you can recant all you like, but
that's the heat of the moment. And if you say,
I think you know my son has just shot somebody,
I think my son has dot dot dot. If you
think if you can contemplate in the heat of the moment,
(34:22):
your son or your daughter or whatever being capable of
doing something like that. I think that says a thousand
more words.
Speaker 6 (34:32):
Well, that word contemplate is interesting because to me, you
make that call, you say the first thing, your first impression, right,
that's you're not thinking about, oh gosh, what's gonnap? What's
happened here?
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Exactly?
Speaker 6 (34:47):
You get on a call, you're being asked by an
emergency service, what's happened? And these are his exact words.
Someone shot her. I think it must have been my son.
He's not here, and then he's gone on. My son
made the mistake, but she's been shot in the head
and she's dead. You're not saying that to your neighbor
(35:08):
someone you know really well. You're not saying that to
one of his mates that you know. You're saying that
to a complete stranger on the end of the phone
to an emergency service, presumably in the in the knowledge
that a it will be recorded or be it will
be acted on, or see it will be certainly noted
down and.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
You'll be asked about it later.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
So it's an impulsive comment coming from the depths of
what you know about the relationship, about your son's character,
about potential physical attributes. If I can use that word
what your son may or may not be capable of
in that moment. I think I think that says a lot, Dulie.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I think too. We're all trained, or it's instinct when
we're talking to ambulance, maybe not the police, but ambulance.
They're going to help. We all trust the ambos. They're
not our enemy, they're going to help us. So he's
just gone, this is what's happened. I'm going to tell
(36:10):
you the truth because you're the ambo. We flicked around
and he's decided that I'm going to believe David, and
he's talking to the police. It's a different story. But
I want to know what was said in the thirteen
second phone call that when David called him thirteen seconds.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Now, Robert denies ever speaking to David in that thirteen
second that it didn't go to voicemail, but he says
he never received that call. But I will say a
couple of things. I just wanted to mention, just to
give you a bit of context, because it's about moving forward, right,
and that's what we want to do.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Now.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
We've got almost seven thousand signatures on our petition to
get this case referred to the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, So please please sign that petition. I
can't believe the coroner didn't refer it at the time
because you know, to look at the case files as
we know it, because we've been through you know, we've
(37:11):
cited the documents that she had access to. So please
share and sign our petition.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
How many do we need?
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Well, when do we do it? With the lady vanishes?
And that was getting Marrion put on the missing person's register.
We got twenty thousand plus, maybe even thirty thousand plus,
so it'd be good to get close to that. Just obviously,
I mean, what does it take for the government to
act right? I mean they put this team, the police
team on there, but what does that mean. I mean,
(37:44):
just putting a police team to follow up the tips
as a result of our podcast. It just doesn't it's
not enough. They need to move it forward. So and
just note this week's rejections that we've got because we
obviously put the call out to come on conversation, So
this week's rejection from the top the premiere. But he will,
you know, so to send questions his way if we
(38:07):
want to, if we want to answer this quickly the
Attorney General or he's just ignored us. This week when
I've sent a request the police minister just politely declined.
The police union president was going to do it and
then changed his mind. So yeah, we're running out of
(38:27):
those people in those top places to speak to who
don't want to speak to us. Obviously, and given the
questions on notice that are put by Collier to quickly
in the Parliament and the very very beige nothing response,
there's no point putting questions to them in writing. So
(38:47):
that's where we're at at the moment. Just to give
you a bit of an idea. What's the word again
in transisigence. I can't say I knew I would have
trouble saying this. Please tell us leave go through what I.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Was just thinking, just thinking why are're running through that list?
I was thinking, well, what could we do to actually
get somebody to be accountable in a high place. These
people who are in a position of power who just
want to do nothing to help help families like Amy's
just want to do nothing to help to help people
who pay their tax and try and live a good life.
They just do nothing from from their cushy officers in
(39:21):
Parliament and the police headquarters, and it just makes me
makes me quite angry. Actually, I just the level of
the level of of selfishness and they just lack they
totally lack care and and any any notion of public
duty just does my head in the amount of money
(39:43):
we pay them and they just they have no concept
of public duty. So I wonder, you know, what do
you have to do to you? I mean, maybe I
don't know. I should have been down at the zoo
this this week, Tim, You know, when I had the
big press conference and they announced the concession on the
free tickets for the kids to go and see the giraffes.
(40:03):
There's actually more. There was more monkeys down at the
zoo that day than there's been for a Well.
Speaker 6 (40:07):
How would they describe with you, you know, bullet and bullying,
a China shot, liamy elephant.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
With a long memory. Yeah, tiger's talking here, pray.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
I don't know. It would have been some good animal analogies.
I should have gone there, and obviously that was very important.
If I had, if I had a new train line
to open, maybe I could have gone there.
Speaker 6 (40:26):
Well, it's one of those announcements most Sundays, so yeah, yeah,
maybe next week Royal Show there'll be some free tickets,
use some more taxpayers money.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Maybe they're down there giving away show bags or something anyway,
something important. But we can only keep trying, Elison.
Speaker 6 (40:42):
Well we can also as Allison has asked people to
sign change dot org. If you if you google change
dot org and then just google justice for Amy.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
I'm sure it will come up.
Speaker 6 (40:51):
If the listeners want to add their name and add
their voice to it, then a great suggestion.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (40:57):
Maybe maybe if we did get to twenty thirty thousand,
then the AG might answer an email.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Well, there is a tipping point, isn't there There is
a tipping point where that is, Tim, But there is,
you'd hope so there is. That's great.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
I agree. There's an election coming up, maybe when they're
out in the hustings. We asked them every every minister
we come across, So what about Amy Wensley? Would you
like to see or would you back so you know,
justice for Amy Wensley.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
There will be a tipping point if we get enough signatures.
So yeah, I backed that call from Tim. Please please
sign that petition so it's change dot org and then
you just.
Speaker 6 (41:34):
And then I'm pretty sure if you googled Justice for Amy,
it's a petition put up by Anna, obviously, who we
all know and respect really highly, and a lovely picture
of Amy with one of her daughters, which if that
(41:55):
doesn't pull out your heartstrings, then you're a You're as
hard hearted as some of the high positions.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
It's about people power. Speaking of people, Julie, I mean
your support for Anna. You were obviously held bing and
you keep you keep digging. I notice often Anna will
send me, Oh, you should see what Julie found.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
Look at this relentless Yeah. Look, it's not just what
I realized after the first few months of looking into
just how horrible this is. It's not just Amy. There's
been so many Amys after Amy. I'll be frightened that
if anything happened to me, there won't be justice, The
(42:39):
truth won't be told, and you know the powers that
be are not on my side, especially quickly. You know,
he fought tooth and nail to get a man out
of jail. What's the problem now when all the facts
are there, and so the message is, hey, women don't care.
(43:00):
So I think to all the women out there and wa,
please sign the petition.
Speaker 3 (43:06):
It's very somber message that we're sending out, but it's
what it takes, you know, You just you've got to
be relentless. And sometimes, you know, I think, oh gosh
when I listen to our conversations and that where we're
not pulling any punches. But this is worth it. This
is important. This is about lives. You know, what's more
(43:28):
important than this? What's more important about the truth and justice?
Speaker 1 (43:31):
Yeah, no, there's nothing if you can't look after the
community in this sort of regard. What's the point.
Speaker 6 (43:37):
I've said often that Amy was very lucky, he's very
lucky to have Anna in a corner.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
And having listened to you speak.
Speaker 6 (43:46):
So eloquently and passionately this morning, Julie, I think Anna
is lucky to have you in a corner. So thanks
very much for sparing some time to join us today.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Thank you. It's an absolute privilege to be in Anna's corner,
and thank you so much for what you're doing with
the podcast.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Thank you, Thanks.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
Everybody speak, Thanks week
Speaker 2 (44:11):
Unto me again,
This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We
urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline. I'm
thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen, or visit them at
lifeline dot org dot AU.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
I'm Alison Sandy here for the second conversations and I'm
joined by Tim Clark and Liam Bartlett.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Nice to see again, Alie, Hey Elie.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Good to c too. And we have a special guest
this week. Her name is Julie Spate and if I
look at her Wikipedia.
Speaker 5 (00:45):
Page, Australian former cyclist, eight time national champion at Australia's
first female Olympic and Commonwealth Games track cyclists, competing in
the women's.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Sprint of it at the nineteen eighty eight sold Summer
Olympics and winning a silver medal in the nineteen ninety
Auckland Commonwealth Games. At the time, Julie, you were described
as quote a class above any other female writer in
the country. Welcome time.
Speaker 5 (01:17):
Is about commitment, you do, Julie, So thank you for
being here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Legend trail blozer, that's me.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Watch out now.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
The connection here, Julie, we could actually call you our
first super sleut except you came on board before the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Can you tell us about that? Yeah? Well, I met
Anna through work. We both worked for a high profile
government agency this shall forever remain unnamed. And yeah, we
worked in a task force together and we quickly struck
up a friendship over our love of noodles and me
(02:01):
picking on Anna for her love it whgehood and Royal Dalton.
But you know, I've known her for about six months
before she ever mentioned anything about Amy. She's fiercely private,
which for her, like all of the things that she's done,
(02:21):
is just so phenomenal because she is a very private,
serious person who doesn't like to get out there and
speak in public and really speak about this really deep
private pain.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Can we remind our listeners again, for the sake of
anybody who's jumped on board recently, Allison, that Julie is
referring to Anna Davey. Anna was Amy's art So Anna
is the sister of Amy's mum, Nancy, And that's.
Speaker 6 (02:53):
Very interesting that you should mention Anna's private nature, Julie,
because she has had to be Amy's voice for the
past ten years, and she's very publicly driven her quest
for justice. So for you to say that it is
an anathema for her to do that is quite the
(03:14):
insight because we all know Anna is outspoken and go
getting and you know, never never backed down.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And a bit loose with the exclusive.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Absolutely.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
You know, it's interesting because in the position the task
was that we're in, she was just a dedicated worker
and just got the job done. But there was always
this sort of heaviness and she just sort of mentioned
one day, oh, she also stalked me on Wikipedia and said, oh,
(03:48):
I saw your Wikipedia page and I said, a it's
a bit embarrassing, and she said, I've got a bit
of a secret too. I'm on Australian story tonight. And
I went okay, and I looked at it next day
when we were supposed to be having a work meeting.
We just had a chat for about an hour on
(04:09):
government time and I just said, it all makes sense now,
you know, you're just completely dedicated to this complete injustice.
And of course, you know, I don't believe what I
see on TV or here on the radio, no offense.
But I thought, well, I'm going to have to look
(04:32):
up the coroner report and just have a read see
what was going on. And I read through it the
first time and I thought that can't be right. And
then on subsequent readings, which honestly probably I've read it
about twenty five times, and it just gets more unbelievable
(04:55):
each time I read it. And I just said to
and this is unbelievable. What can I do?
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Yeah, it's a great comment. Every time I read it,
I think, how can the coroner even have believed this?
It is so unbelievable. And I'm not I'm not even
cracking half a gag there. I mean, it's not even
it's not even a joke. And that's something to sort
of pause and think about as well, Julie. I mean,
you raise a really good point, Tim. If anyone who doesn't,
(05:25):
because I'm a big fan of that, you know, be
your own editor, find out for yourself. Don't don't just
take our word for it. Don't just believe you know
what we are trying to say, not that we're trying
to pull the wall over anybody's eyes. We're trying to
in fact open people's eyes. But do your own research,
you know, don't take our word as gospel. Google Amy
(05:47):
Wensley and google every part of that you know, and
go to whatever search engine that you favor, keep going,
dive a bit deeper, do things like read part of
the Coronial Inquest. But if that's too for you, go
and have a look at there's other video online, there's
our podcast material, There's a whole stack of other reference points.
(06:08):
There's various news organizations have done news stories. And familiarize
yourself with the story. And I'll guarantee you I'd pay
money to you that I haven't got if you come
back to me and say that doesn't amaze me, it
doesn't surprise me. I found something sort of unbelievable. I
found something incredulous. You know, it has sort of triggered
triggered my sense of mystery because I just can't work
(06:29):
that out. Because anyone who can work it out, they
need more than an Olympic gold medal. Julie wish I
had one. You know, it's pretty amazing. Can I just
ask Julie on the end of that, I mean, what
of all those things you've read and dived into, what's
the most amazing thing to you? You know, what sort
of stands out? Is there one particular thing that you
(06:49):
just you think there's absolutely no explanation for that.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Cat me consult my notes.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Oh that looks like a bible, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Well, I mean you can go for the obvious thing,
which is the detectives in take notes, and that's like
number one clear concise notes, contemporaneous notes, and they just didn't.
I think they've swapped notes at the end to say, oh,
what have you got mate? You know that was late
(07:21):
that night, just before one of them bug it off
on leave. So that's the obvious thing. But let's not
go for obvious. Let's just go straight to the coroner.
Have you seen Amy? She's this slight pittsite woman and
we're supposed to believe that she's beating up this big
(07:43):
beefy guy anyway, so she's the aggressor. She says things
like volatile relationship instead of just call it out for
what it is, which is he's an abusive partner. You know, Amy,
she had problems that was my She had problems with
David's drinking. And I just thought David's drinking wasn't Amy's problem.
(08:07):
It was his problem, and she was affected by it.
And we're meant to believe that the police have arrived
and they've looked around where we've heard by all accounts,
there's this massive blue that's happened. Mirrors have been thrown
and miraculously didn't break. Which ideare you to move a
(08:29):
mirror without cracking it. There's things been thrown, people are yelled,
she's been thrown to the floor, Tanks have been smashed,
and yet we're supposed to believe that David politely knocks
on the door, which I remind you had the inside
hand or removed, so how was she going to get
(08:50):
out anyway? And the coroner just brushes over there and says, okay, yeah,
you asked if you're okay, and you're not on the door,
and you helped her pack, Yet earlier he said he
told her to f off and get out of the house.
So I was just struck, like completely dumbfounded by the
(09:15):
coroner's language, and the fact that they have a professor
of biomechanics, all the signs of abuse, and all of
the instances that all the friends that said we saw this,
we know this, and I'm going to take what these
three blokes say, or four if you count rob it.
(09:39):
All of their statements don't line up. They all say
something different. But the thing from the scene was also
the cops walk in and there's guns everywhere. In the bedroom,
there's ammunition unrestrained, there's a crossbow in the shed. I've
(10:00):
got two kids under the age of six running around
in this house. We're going to take all your guns
off you and bloody keep them because you're using them
under the influence of drugs and alcohol. There's young kids
in the house.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Just a little claritation, they did confiscate the guns.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
So hello, you guys got a par as I know.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
It's interesting, Julie that you pick out the language that
the coroner uses in the findings and the way the
way she frames it, and the frame always seems to
be a little bit off away from Amy really ironically,
given that it was an inquest to find out how
Amy died. Thinking back to sitting in the in the
(10:44):
court for that week in a bit, there was a
lot of focus on Simmons.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
Always, poor Simmons.
Speaker 6 (10:50):
Yeah, in terms of the build up to him giving evidence,
because the way the Coroner's court in wa do it
is well, I don't know if they take it from
the movies or whatever where they put the star witness
last always and there is a legal founding for that
in that they think, well, if all the questions are
(11:10):
going to be around this person, then it is only
fair to them that that all the other evidences is
put before we get them there.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
And and there's you know, there's competing things for that.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
I mean, you don't want any you know, surprise evidence
coming after that person has then given evidence.
Speaker 4 (11:26):
To have to call them back. So there's a practical
thing for it.
Speaker 6 (11:29):
But obviously, you know, journalistic and anticipatory sense, you want
to hear from this person and you've got to wait
right till the end, right, So there was always that
looming over the inquest as well. You know, well, well
you know, we'll hear from Simmons at the end, and
then he didn't turn up.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
And then he did but on the video link, and
you know, and there were there.
Speaker 6 (11:48):
Were concessions made so he could appear the way that
you know, that was that was comfortable for him.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
But again but again to him to that point, like
it was all structured, that last bit was structured so
that it was it was comfortable for him. Yeah, but
why why are those concessions. It's like Julie's pointing out,
it's the language. Indeed, that language is incredibly important, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (12:08):
And hearing Julie talk about that now makes me think, well,
I wonder whether the coroner sort of took that whole
atmosphere away from the hearings and it sort of slid
into the language.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
That she used in the findings.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I think it's definitely that. But I think she's giving
him the answers. She's sort of saying, Okay, I understand
this is what happened. And she's definitely given him that
leeway to be out of that pressure cooker of the courtroom.
And we can't really read what his physical reactions are
(12:45):
because the body doesn't lie. We don't see him twitterly,
you know, like I'm sure he's just in this sort
of space where he doesn't have to feel the emotion.
And why is she doing that? Because if he's telling
the truth, tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
But but why is it like that some seven years afterwards,
six seven years after when the inquest is held, Why
is the coroner taking that approach and that this is
an open question. I don't I don't know the answer.
I'm not being I'm not being smarter. I mean, I'm
to pontificate on it.
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Maybe maybe she felt something better than nothing, but they
the previous day they declined to go down the route
that that's the Coroners Act give them.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You can issue a warrant, you can a bench warrant. Yeah,
you can.
Speaker 6 (13:31):
Take people into custody if you feel it's in the
interests of justice or it's going to help you get
to your conclusion. Criminal cases are a lot different juries.
Every day in you know, courtrooms up and down this
state are always told don't just listen to what the
person in the box says, listen to how they say
(13:53):
it and.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
And their their body language well while they're saying.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
It, exactly to Julie's point, because it's all part of
the package of the impression that you get from the
person being asked the questions right, particularly exactly, particularly if
it is an accused that goes from the that goes
from the dock into the witness box, and jurors are
actually instructed that's what they have to do, not not
(14:20):
if you like, you know, check their body language.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
Judges tell jurors, no, this is all part of your
your duty as a jura.
Speaker 6 (14:29):
You've got to look at the whole thing, not just
be and i' mean the reinstructed. Don't don't just take notes,
you know, don't don't don't have your head down just
transcribing what they're saying. Look at what they're saying, and
look at how they're saying it as well, which is
why judges are sometimes very much on the side of
non caution when talking about video links for witnesses, particularly
(14:51):
important ones.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
Lawyers have to go.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
To court and apply for a special witness order so
that a person can appear on a video link for
reason because and sometimes they get knocked back for that.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah, it's absolutely.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
Because it's much more preferable to have a person in person,
you know, yards away from a dura for them to
get the full picture.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Well, I don't disagree with the word you say, so
all right. So considering then, given that a coronial inquest
is the ultimate fact finding mission, that's what it's all about,
gaining information, why wouldn't you, as coroner want to extract
one hundred percent of the information and demand that the
person at the center of all this is physically present
(15:33):
in the courtroom, in the actual courtroom. I mean, why
was he given such a That's an enormous concession and also,
can I just remind everybody the family have to sit
there for days on end, the family of the dead person,
they have to sit there for days on end and
go through that trauma. Are you seriously suggesting that then
(15:55):
at the end of all that we give the bloke
at the center of all this a complete discount by
letting him waltz down from the pub to some other
room to sit in splendid isolation and just give his
stuff on video. I mean, it just it does my
head in. But again for the reason, can I just
go back to that question, why would the coroner take
that easy path for Simmons and why would the language
(16:18):
all through the thing be very pro suicide?
Speaker 6 (16:21):
Well, I mean, the coronial brief was there, and she
would have had all the statements from the police officers right,
including Larry Brownford's, including his two uniform colleagues that turned
up first, including cold case. But I you know, maybe
maybe I almost dedicated as usually because I did read
(16:42):
through the coroner's phone.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
It's again.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
Just about a week ago, and I still keep going
back to those blooming expert reports Liam, which he had
two different experts. And I tell you why, because there's
funny enough. There's an inquest that started yesterday up in
Broom about another long standing mystery of a death of
a young person by the name of Josh Warner Key
(17:06):
And you know one of the experts that's doing the
crime scene Ecklund. Yeah, so it'll be interesting to see
the language that comes out of that and maybe a
compare and contrast many years on.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
But yeah, I noticed that.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
So going back to you, Julie, what did you do
after that, after that reading and your initial it looks
like very particular note taking, And what did you say
to Anna after after you'd read those findings.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Well, first of all, I went out and shopped about
a time. I would just had a few deep breaths,
and I just said, and I look, there's so much
in this And she said, I haven't been able to
read through it. It was horrific enough to watch her
to be there in the courtroom and she or here
(18:02):
Amy portrayed as having calls her own death. You know,
she was depressed, she was abusive, she was all these things.
If you listen to what everyone says, she wasn't those
things at all. And I've never known her. I don't
know her. I only know from what I'm reading and
(18:26):
looking at through the lens of don't I don't know anything.
I'm just going to read what's on the page, and
I'm going to pull out what doesn't make sense. And
one of the things like, you know, Tim, you said
the style witness, well, isn't he a bloke who has
said my partner committed suicide? And then years later, you know,
(18:51):
you say, well, what do you think you hear, David? Oh,
because the police didn't do their job. Well, no, apparently,
according to you, they did do their job because they
said suicide, so they did their job. Now you're saying
they didn't do their job. Well, if it was suicide,
(19:12):
they did do their job, do you know what I mean? Like,
it doesn't make sense. And then you've got poor old
Gareth Price. You know, you have to feel sorry for
this simple like is hooked up with these friends who
you know, they're awful and I'm not too much sympathy.
(19:34):
But even he says, oh, you know, Liam, the truth's
going to come out, hasn't the truth? Or it did
come out?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
They can't even stay on the same path. They're just like,
this is what happened, but oh, you'll get to the
truth or you know, it's it's like, guys, you're hopeless,
you know, hopeless witness and poor Amy was this depressed,
terrible person when all of the evidence suggests that she
(20:08):
was this fiercely strong little dynamo who loved the kids,
who was trying to keep the relationship despite how much
he didn't care about it. And all we get to
see is what she has said in text messages when
(20:28):
she's trying to say, look, come on, let's try and
make this work despite how useless he was. What do
we hear from him? Where's his text messages? What is
he saying back? And you know, we get that guy's
both on text messages because they don't really care or
(20:50):
they don't know how to spell. But you know, like
all we hear is this betrayal of Amy as this
depressed weak person. But the evidence, when you look at it,
she wasn't.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Julie, I've got a question for you in relation to
what Anna told me about the bags on the hands.
You had a bit of information in the forensics. Can
you tell me about that?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Yeah, definitely. So I lived in Perth for about seven years,
and for one of those years When I was first
over there, I worked for a funeral home. They had
a herst driver advertisement and I'm the last driver in
the world. So I thought, idea at a uniform and I.
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Had haring skills intersect exactly.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
But unfortunately on the first day they said, no, you're
a funeral director's assistant and you have to go and
wash the bodies and help. And so I was a
bit of a baptism by fire. However, So this was
two thousand and one and we had the contract for
all coroner deaths, you know, for sudden accidents that are
(22:02):
north of the bridge, because everything you know in Perth
is defined the river. So we had north of the
river contract, which meant that we would go and pick
up decease people from accidents and you know, horrific things.
But at no time did we ever put bags on hands,
(22:25):
not once. And what struck me is that they released
the scene from any forensic evidence and then they asked
the contractors to come in, which would have been whoever
was south of the river. They would have wrapped Amy
in a sheet, placed in the bag, taken it to
(22:46):
Charlie Gardner's where the coroner is. So when did the
bags get put on great question.
Speaker 6 (22:56):
Because reading from that coroner's report, he says, post more examination,
it says both of EMI's hands had been covered with
paper bags secured by masking tape before she was brought
to the mortuary, and it says they were removed and
multiple spots of dried blood was noted over the back
of the left hand and wrist and over the fingers
(23:17):
of the left hand, and then gunshot residues were taken
and submitted.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
So this is one of the problems to Tim, isn't it.
I mean, this was one of the issues that came up.
It's just remind our listeners again. So the left hand
had the burn mark, which was a burn from the barrel,
which is the reason they determined that she couldn't have
pulled the trigger with her left hand. Forget about the
biodynamics for a moment, but just from that, the burn
(23:44):
mark was a barrel mark, so it was a defensive
mark on her left hand. Her right hand was found
to be placed under her body. She was sitting on
her right hand, but they said later that there was
no gun residue on her right hand. And this is
where they came back to the bags. Wasn't it, Julie.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yeah, absolutely, It seemed to me that they were playing
catch up. But I guarantee you, as a contractor working
at that time, I and that was two thousand and one.
Whether that changed, I doubt it. You can ask a contractor. Now,
we didn't carry paper bags, we didn't have masking tape.
(24:24):
Another thing with those marks on a hand. We get that. Okay,
she's got the muzzle burns on the left hand, But
if she was holding her arm out, wouldn't she also
have had a burn on the inside of a bicet.
Isn't there also when the gun goes off, isn't it
(24:45):
hitting me and burning my bicyt?
Speaker 5 (24:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
There's so many unknowns, isn't there. One of the things
that I thought was a really good floating strand, as
Tim described the other day, loose strands is what was
placed on Amy's head. Remember there were three items that
they discussed. Now, I find that very weird because you've
(25:10):
got the red towel, the blue towel. But Robert stuck
both statements. He talked about a gray khaki jacket.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
There was a gray or khaki jacket over the person's
head and upper body.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Now that is really different from a red or a
blue towel, right, And he was very clear in his
evidence and he stuck with that. And then when he
was questioned about it back in episode seven of the
podcast where we talk about it, he just said he
lifted it up on her head and I don't know.
I thought it was a jacket. But that's something I
(25:46):
think significant and I think it fits in with that
whole None of the clothes had blood on it, even
though Gareth apparently had it down amy for a phone.
So when you patted her down looking for her phone,
do you think you would have moved her leg or anything.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
Well, no, I just checked it pockets.
Speaker 4 (26:03):
You pat checked, yes, because well we needed to call somebody, all.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Right, So you would think there would be some blood somewhere,
some sort of transfer and nothing. And that jacket was
it one of the ones or one of the items
that were allegedly burned.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Well, there's only one explanation, isn't there That If you've
got three different versions of something being placed over a
head from three different statements, either the recollection is wrong
or you know, hazy within that sort of shock horror
moments after the actual gun went off, or as you
(26:38):
say there's been some sort of manipulation. If let's just
you know, let's just pretend for a moment that it
was self inflicted, I think they'd all be incredibly they'd
be in shock, that they'd be you know, adrenaline running,
be all sorts of things. But what we have is
almost counterintuitive. We have a situation where we know that
(27:00):
scene has been tampered with. Allison, you've just pointed out
three different versions of somebody putting something over her head
or taking it off, taking something else off, and putting
something else on. Why you've got the gun, the weapon
being flicked off or placed in another part of the room,
at least by two people who've admitted that, Gareth Price
(27:24):
and Robert Simmons. They both admitted handling the weapon.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Why.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
And you've got the ammunition.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
And the ammunition take an aaken.
Speaker 6 (27:32):
Out, not put in a pocket to give to the
police if they if they ask for it, or not
put in a pocket, tied put on a side table
for correct some reason. You've also got the gun, the
other gun in the cupboard. You've got the mystery of
the missing door handle. Yep, you've got various different slightly
(27:56):
different but still different accounts of the exact position of
Amy's body. Yeah, you've got people go, people admitting they're
going in and out of that room and having to
jam the door open.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Force the door. You've got to mate. And then on
top of that, we've got the other the new evidence,
which which Brighton denies. But let's just introduce a fourth person,
which Brighton denies vehemently. But our witness who says that
she ran crime stoppers and gave them this information. That
evidence is that Brydon moved the body with Price. So
(28:31):
perhaps you've got four people. So we've got we've got
three or four people. It's the only way I can
describe it. Again, language is important, but tampering with that scene,
and my question is why, why they hell would you
do that in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
So you have Robert who's told, you know, there's a
gunshot or there's been an accident, something's happened, and he's said, oh,
my son's made of mistake. He's shot her. So of
course he's taken the pellets out of the gun and
put the cartridges on the table. You know, there was
(29:11):
no focus at any time on Amy except someone's throwing
their jacket on her head, and then they drew the
scene opposite sort of to where she was found. So
there's all these inconsistencies, which again we go back to
the coroner who seems to just brush over those.
Speaker 6 (29:32):
Two things strike me about this, right, the abnormality of
that behavior. I think any right thinking person would think.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
That, how would I react in that situation.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
I don't know, but I certainly would not take cartridges
out of a gun that even if I thought my
daughter in law had killed herself, I wouldn't do that.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
I wouldn't want to touch the gun. I wouldn't want
to go anywhere near.
Speaker 6 (29:55):
The gun that had just ended the life of someone
very close to me, exactly.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
And then the differences in account.
Speaker 6 (30:01):
You can sort of see in that traumatic moment, that
you might mistake a red toe for a blue toll
because it's probably read on the toll. Right, Amy's head
is catastrophically injured, Right, so you've got read.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
In your head, or there's blood coming through the town.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Correct.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yes, Yeah, jacket is a completely different item.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
And I would think that in that traumatic moment, those
scenes are burned into your brain and you would have
heard this Liam as I have many many times.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
I will never forget that scene as long as I live.
Speaker 6 (30:36):
You know, they're going back to last week core memories, right,
and the second goes back.
Speaker 4 (30:41):
To Judy's original point contemporaneous notes.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
Right.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
If someone had bloody secured that scene properly, none of
these questions would have had to have been asked, because
there would have been proper forensic photographs taken of every
single inch of that room. There would have been an
initial statement taken from both those detectives who remembered were
happy to look at it from a photograph on a phone.
But it goes back to then. As soon as that
(31:08):
decision is made in the rush in the dark, in
the amid the chaos with the kids, you know, God
knows where, and you know, conflicting accounts coming in from
all over. No, the scene is lifted, the number of
the cleaner is given to David Simmons' father, and we
go and the cleaners come in and and there, and
(31:32):
then Amy's Body's turned up.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
With bags on their hands. Again contemporaneous notes.
Speaker 6 (31:38):
If everyone's doing their job properly and logging everything and
noticing everything and discussing everything, then we'd know exactly who
puts the bags on Amy's hands and why, and that
was that done forensically secure.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Well, you know the other thing too, when they talk
about the clothing, but I think it's Robert he says, oh, well, yeah,
they were dressed in broad shorts. It's liked by all accounts.
You know where at winter it was a rainy, miserable day,
They've been out shopping wood, they're about to go out hunting,
and he's in broad shorts.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Well, I thought that was something with Joshua Brydon to
when he made a note in his first statement that
David Simmons changed his clothes from blue jeans and a
singlet blue singlet, and the fact that he made a
point of that. But that was supposedly before Amy's death,
So there's that. Also, there's a post it notes, which
(32:37):
I think is an interesting thing. Nobody asked Robert Simmons
what was on the post it notes? They we know
he took them, he destroyed them. He made a note
of I didn't realize it was that bad, meaning he's
drinking and he didn't realize it was pretty bad. And
no one really went down that line, did they. They
didn't really talk to him or discuss with him, or
(32:59):
question him or about that.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
You know, I think with Robert Io he has that
father guilt because that's his. And when he talks about
when he went and asked David, he uses the term
he said, I'm going to ask you this once. Well,
anyone who's been a little kid with a father who's
(33:22):
pretty cranky, we'll sell you that they say that before
they whack you with their belt.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
I think, just coming back duly to your original point.
We touched on this couple of weeks ago another episode
that Tim you'll recall, but I think it's compelling. I
really think it's compelling. Again. You know, you don't have
to be a trained psych to figure out the sort
of the intent or the background to what could possibly
allow you to say certain things. That triple zero call
(34:00):
that Robert Simmons was on, you know, for a father
to say that, you can recant all you like, but
that's the heat of the moment. And if you say,
I think you know my son has just shot somebody,
I think my son has dot dot dot. If you
think if you can contemplate in the heat of the moment,
(34:22):
your son or your daughter or whatever being capable of
doing something like that. I think that says a thousand
more words.
Speaker 6 (34:32):
Well, that word contemplate is interesting because to me, you
make that call, you say the first thing, your first impression, right,
that's you're not thinking about, oh gosh, what's gonnap? What's
happened here?
Speaker 1 (34:47):
Exactly?
Speaker 6 (34:47):
You get on a call, you're being asked by an
emergency service, what's happened? And these are his exact words.
Someone shot her. I think it must have been my son.
He's not here, and then he's gone on. My son
made the mistake, but she's been shot in the head
and she's dead. You're not saying that to your neighbor
(35:08):
someone you know really well. You're not saying that to
one of his mates that you know. You're saying that
to a complete stranger on the end of the phone
to an emergency service, presumably in the in the knowledge
that a it will be recorded or be it will
be acted on, or see it will be certainly noted
down and.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
You'll be asked about it later.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
So it's an impulsive comment coming from the depths of
what you know about the relationship, about your son's character,
about potential physical attributes. If I can use that word
what your son may or may not be capable of
in that moment. I think I think that says a lot, Dulie.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I think too. We're all trained, or it's instinct when
we're talking to ambulance, maybe not the police, but ambulance.
They're going to help. We all trust the ambos. They're
not our enemy, they're going to help us. So he's
just gone, this is what's happened. I'm going to tell
(36:10):
you the truth because you're the ambo. We flicked around
and he's decided that I'm going to believe David, and
he's talking to the police. It's a different story. But
I want to know what was said in the thirteen
second phone call that when David called him thirteen seconds.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Now, Robert denies ever speaking to David in that thirteen
second that it didn't go to voicemail, but he says
he never received that call. But I will say a
couple of things. I just wanted to mention, just to
give you a bit of context, because it's about moving forward, right,
and that's what we want to do.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Now.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
We've got almost seven thousand signatures on our petition to
get this case referred to the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, So please please sign that petition. I
can't believe the coroner didn't refer it at the time
because you know, to look at the case files as
we know it, because we've been through you know, we've
(37:11):
cited the documents that she had access to. So please
share and sign our petition.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
How many do we need?
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Well, when do we do it? With the lady vanishes?
And that was getting Marrion put on the missing person's register.
We got twenty thousand plus, maybe even thirty thousand plus,
so it'd be good to get close to that. Just obviously,
I mean, what does it take for the government to
act right? I mean they put this team, the police
team on there, but what does that mean. I mean,
(37:44):
just putting a police team to follow up the tips
as a result of our podcast. It just doesn't it's
not enough. They need to move it forward. So and
just note this week's rejections that we've got because we
obviously put the call out to come on conversation, So
this week's rejection from the top the premiere. But he will,
you know, so to send questions his way if we
(38:07):
want to, if we want to answer this quickly the
Attorney General or he's just ignored us. This week when
I've sent a request the police minister just politely declined.
The police union president was going to do it and
then changed his mind. So yeah, we're running out of
(38:27):
those people in those top places to speak to who
don't want to speak to us. Obviously, and given the
questions on notice that are put by Collier to quickly
in the Parliament and the very very beige nothing response,
there's no point putting questions to them in writing. So
(38:47):
that's where we're at at the moment. Just to give
you a bit of an idea. What's the word again
in transisigence. I can't say I knew I would have
trouble saying this. Please tell us leave go through what I.
Speaker 1 (38:59):
Was just thinking, just thinking why are're running through that list?
I was thinking, well, what could we do to actually
get somebody to be accountable in a high place. These
people who are in a position of power who just
want to do nothing to help help families like Amy's
just want to do nothing to help to help people
who pay their tax and try and live a good life.
They just do nothing from from their cushy officers in
(39:21):
Parliament and the police headquarters, and it just makes me
makes me quite angry. Actually, I just the level of
the level of of selfishness and they just lack they
totally lack care and and any any notion of public
duty just does my head in the amount of money
(39:43):
we pay them and they just they have no concept
of public duty. So I wonder, you know, what do
you have to do to you? I mean, maybe I
don't know. I should have been down at the zoo
this this week, Tim, You know, when I had the
big press conference and they announced the concession on the
free tickets for the kids to go and see the giraffes.
(40:03):
There's actually more. There was more monkeys down at the
zoo that day than there's been for a Well.
Speaker 6 (40:07):
How would they describe with you, you know, bullet and bullying,
a China shot, liamy elephant.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
With a long memory. Yeah, tiger's talking here, pray.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
I don't know. It would have been some good animal analogies.
I should have gone there, and obviously that was very important.
If I had, if I had a new train line
to open, maybe I could have gone there.
Speaker 6 (40:26):
Well, it's one of those announcements most Sundays, so yeah, yeah,
maybe next week Royal Show there'll be some free tickets,
use some more taxpayers money.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Maybe they're down there giving away show bags or something anyway,
something important. But we can only keep trying, Elison.
Speaker 6 (40:42):
Well we can also as Allison has asked people to
sign change dot org. If you if you google change
dot org and then just google justice for Amy.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
I'm sure it will come up.
Speaker 6 (40:51):
If the listeners want to add their name and add
their voice to it, then a great suggestion.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (40:57):
Maybe maybe if we did get to twenty thirty thousand,
then the AG might answer an email.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Well, there is a tipping point, isn't there There is
a tipping point where that is, Tim, But there is,
you'd hope so there is. That's great.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
I agree. There's an election coming up, maybe when they're
out in the hustings. We asked them every every minister
we come across, So what about Amy Wensley? Would you
like to see or would you back so you know,
justice for Amy Wensley.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
There will be a tipping point if we get enough signatures.
So yeah, I backed that call from Tim. Please please
sign that petition so it's change dot org and then
you just.
Speaker 6 (41:34):
And then I'm pretty sure if you googled Justice for Amy,
it's a petition put up by Anna, obviously, who we
all know and respect really highly, and a lovely picture
of Amy with one of her daughters, which if that
(41:55):
doesn't pull out your heartstrings, then you're a You're as
hard hearted as some of the high positions.
Speaker 3 (42:01):
It's about people power. Speaking of people, Julie, I mean
your support for Anna. You were obviously held bing and
you keep you keep digging. I notice often Anna will
send me, Oh, you should see what Julie found.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
Look at this relentless Yeah. Look, it's not just what
I realized after the first few months of looking into
just how horrible this is. It's not just Amy. There's
been so many Amys after Amy. I'll be frightened that
if anything happened to me, there won't be justice, The
(42:39):
truth won't be told, and you know the powers that
be are not on my side, especially quickly. You know,
he fought tooth and nail to get a man out
of jail. What's the problem now when all the facts
are there, and so the message is, hey, women don't care.
(43:00):
So I think to all the women out there and wa,
please sign the petition.
Speaker 3 (43:06):
It's very somber message that we're sending out, but it's
what it takes, you know, You just you've got to
be relentless. And sometimes, you know, I think, oh gosh
when I listen to our conversations and that where we're
not pulling any punches. But this is worth it. This
is important. This is about lives. You know, what's more
(43:28):
important than this? What's more important about the truth and justice?
Speaker 1 (43:31):
Yeah, no, there's nothing if you can't look after the
community in this sort of regard. What's the point.
Speaker 6 (43:37):
I've said often that Amy was very lucky, he's very
lucky to have Anna in a corner.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
And having listened to you speak.
Speaker 6 (43:46):
So eloquently and passionately this morning, Julie, I think Anna
is lucky to have you in a corner. So thanks
very much for sparing some time to join us today.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Thank you. It's an absolute privilege to be in Anna's corner,
and thank you so much for what you're doing with
the podcast.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Thank you, Thanks.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
Everybody speak, Thanks week
Speaker 2 (44:11):
Unto me again,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.