October 13, 2024 • 61 mins
The team speaks to a very special guest about what’s currently going on behind the scenes. The DPP responds to recent calls for assistance by the family and a passionate plea to a significant witness who could hold the key to this entire case.
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):
Hello, Welcome to Conversations five. I'm Alison Sandy and I'm
joined by my fellow Brave and courageous colleagues Liam Bartlett
and Tim Clark.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Hi El Hi Tim, Morning, Liam. How are we well?
Speaker 1 (00:41):
I'm much better now that I've been described as brave courageous.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It's true, you know, because there's no punches pulled in
this podcast. We will shortly be joined by a very
special guest. But first I wanted to turn your attention
to this as you are all aware, there's been a
big push for me his family to have her case
far referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If you haven't signed and shared the petition, please do so.
(01:08):
Amy's aunt has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Robert Owen recently and received this reply, dated the first
of October twenty twenty four. Dear Miss Davey, thank you
for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four. I
acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my office
is likely to be for you and your family. I
(01:30):
understand you are seeking justice for Amy and that this
reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However,
I am unable to provide a materially different response from
the one you received from the ODPP on the first
of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you
that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we
(01:53):
do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints. Now,
just to clarify here, that is not what Anna was
asking for. Anna was just asking whether he could ask
for Amy's file to refer to him, and was also
asking for a meeting with him. Anyway, he goes on
to say the odopp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable
(02:16):
criminal offenses once charges have been laid by investigative agencies
such as WA police. That function includes the assessment of
the evidence gathered. If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP
isn't able to proceed. Now again, my understanding is that
the ODPP is the one that decides that Anyway, the
ODPP has no power to investigate the conduct of other
(02:38):
agencies or to assess whether an investigation by WA Police
was insufficient. Again, that's not what Anna was asking. She's
just asking, given that five years have now passed since
they last saw it, they might want to take another
look at it with all the updated information. Anyway. In
our letter to you dated first of November twenty nineteen,
we indicated that an inquest into your niece death maybe
(03:00):
an appropriate forum to ventilate the matter as you of race.
An inquest into the death of your niece has now
been completed and the findings were delivered by the Deputy
State Coroner on ninth September twenty twenty one. The inquest
followed a cold case review by WA Police. Blah blah,
blah blah goes into the whole history that we already know.
The Deputy State Coroner did make some adverse comments about
(03:21):
the standard of the initial police investigation and the limitations
is placed on the current's ability to consider all relevant evidence.
I have outlined this information only to ensure that you
are informed about events to date. I understand you are
likely to be very familiar with what has occurred, and
I mean no disrespect in doing so. At this time,
the ODPP cannot undertake further steps so offer any other
(03:43):
resolution of Amy's case. Your sincerely, Robert OMSC, Director of
Public Prosecutions. So what do you guys think of that?
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Not surprising, but still disappointing, Like it's a rehash of
arguments that we've just we've heard, and we've heard and
then we've heard from.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Different authorities and it's just.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Yeah, just wholly disappointing and another example of buck passing
really live.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Yeah, that's incredible, now, am I right? Just recapping on that.
So twice in that letter, the current Director of Public
Prosecutions references the previous correspondence with Amy Wensley's family, which
is dated the first in November twenty nineteen, twice twice
(04:36):
and so once in context. The first time he mentioned
that date five years ago. He mentions that date because
he says nothing's changed since the previous person was sitting
in my seat. That's what he's saying, isn't he quite clearly?
So they didn't do it, So I can't do it,
That's what Robert Owen is saying. So for him to
can't Blanche say, sorry, nothing's changed, see you later. It
(05:02):
really is practically and technically pathetic. So can I can
I I've got I've got Anna's reply to that letter
that Robert Owen sent her.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Do you mind if I just read this out? How
we need to get the bleep machine ready?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Look, I saw Anna's first version, so this one I've
refined a little bit, helped to refine a bit.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Anyway, keep going, yeah, no, no, no, I think this
has been through the censorship. It's been through the filter,
the special filter we have here. But this is this
is pretty good. So I'm just going I'll just I'll
read for the sake of our listeners. Dear mister Owen.
So this is Anna's reply to that pathetic response from
the director. She says, thank you for replying to my
(05:46):
recent letter and for confirming your office hasn't seen Amy's
case for at least five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's
case was still being treated as a suicide by w
WA police. Great point to my she goes on. Now,
in twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to
as a homicide, and there is a considerable amount of
(06:08):
new evidence now available. As per my previous letter. Would
you be willing to meet with me to discuss not
an unreasonable request, I would think, she goes on. Or
is it a case that you won't seek any information
from WA Police unless they raise it with you. Please
forgive my ignorance, says Anna, But given my family seems
(06:29):
to be at the mercy of WA Police, I just
wanted to find out from you what it would take
for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If, as a
family we don't believe Amy's case is being handled properly,
what avenues do we have Do we go back to
the way Corruption and Crime Commission. I'm sure you can
(06:50):
understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's come to
light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast The Truth
about Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've had to
fight the system for more than ten years now because
of a terrible mistake made by WA Police. I don't
(07:11):
think it's asking too much, says Anna to seek help
from people like you who are in a position to
provide some but for whatever reason, don't seem to want
to offer any assistance at all. Regards Anna, Davy pretty
much sums it up.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Yeah, typically strong, typically forthright, typically intelligent, and typically not unreasonable.
Not an unreasonable request when you've got an unsolved, suspicious
death of a young mother, you'd think police, DPP, Attorney
(07:49):
General would have the gumption to say, okay. First of
November twenty nineteen, I got some advice. The coroner had
the information that she did during the inquest. But it's
twenty twenty four and things have changed, Things have moved on,
We have more information, and we also, to be blunt,
(08:11):
we have a public push to relook at this case.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
And we know there is a further investigation confirmed by police.
There's a quote new team doing that further investigation unquote
right now as we speak.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
So we don't know whether it was Robowen that asked
the police to do that. We don't think so. I
think he probably might have mentioned that in his letter.
So the police have gone away listens been given information
via crime stoppers or wherever, and thought right, we need
a body of workers to work up a body of
work on this new information totally, and it seems to
(08:51):
me we go to the AG. He says, sorry, cannot
do as Allison has done numerous times. Anna has gone
to the DPP please, this is what we can do. No, no,
can do, Because in twenty nineteen there was all this information,
and in twenty twenty one the coroner came up with
this conclusion that there's not enough.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
There's not enough. Three years on, we.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Are now and we go to WA Police, respectfully but firmly,
asking for an interview with Cole Blanche or whomever they
wish to place before us to answer some questions that
we want to ask, and we are politely declined. So
you can probably say it's in my voice measure of
(09:35):
the frustration. Imagine, imagine how the Wensley family have felt
having to do this for ten years.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Well yeah, and you know, it just comes back to
that whole thing of just Anna needing a champion, just
someone who's willing to do their job. We're not even
asking anyone to go out there on a limb, right,
This is just part of their duties as a person
who works for the public service. Public service being being
(10:05):
the operative words here. So it's it just seems like
people just so happy to slam the door in the
faces of Amy's family, who, as we have already established,
have a very good I mean all they want to
do is go through the process, right, They're not asking
for special favors or anything like that, just going through
(10:28):
the democratic judicial legal process to see if justice can
be reached for Amy Wensley, for their beloved niece, slush daughter,
slush mother. You know, it's it's really sad.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, that's that's an interesting point. I mean, we're not
we're not even asking anyone to be entirely creative with this.
Certainly not go out on a limb. We're just talking
about things that you can do within the rules, like,
within the processes that are already in place and the
guidelines that have already been long established. It's not a
big deal. And you know, I mean, we can use
(11:07):
as many cliches as we like, but it is a
fact that, you know, this is supposed to be justice
for everybody because it's public. You know, the courts of
public the police are publicly funded, the DPP's office is
publicly funded. You know, sometimes these people, I think need
to be reminded they're actually being paid by the taxpayer. Again,
you know, the cliche about the duty and obligation and service.
(11:29):
Maybe we need to remind them time and time again
that guys, you're there to help people. You know, we're
there to get a result for the public.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
And what irks me is they point to process as
well when you ask them about it, Well, well we
did this, we did this, we did this. But we
know all that flowed from a process was it was
completely botched right at the start. Right the process was
there for the detectives to call in the homicide squad
(12:01):
and to seal off that forensic area so there would
be no doubts and there will be no lingering unknowns
and frustrations. That's what started all that. They stuffed the
process up right at the start, and everything that's flowed
from that has been trying to play catch up. And
you now can't say, in my humble opinion, you know,
(12:24):
you shouldn't hide behind an inquest that we've explored and
picked apart and other people other than us believe was
flawed as well. And you can't. You can't say there
was an investigation in twenty nineteen. Five years is a
long time. There's there's a whole there's a whole other
(12:44):
file to to pick through, and that's what they should
be doing.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Heah, And as Anna so pointedly reminds us, you know,
those two references by the Director of Public Prosecutions to
twenty nineteen. That's when police were very much entrenched with
this whole suicide theory. They wouldn't hear anything else to him,
as you know, well they put it forward out the
inquest exactly very strongly.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Yeah. I mean so, so, how.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Can the DPP be relying upon a time when the
police had totally the opposite view and now the.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Police have publicly listed it and offered a reward for
an unsolved homicide.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Doesn't make sense?
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Does which FI has showness and has also shown us
that some people in there were upset that that was
the case. But well why you asked the question why
were they upset? Well, you know because because you called
it as it was a first up and no it's not.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Can I just mention here, speaking of the inquest, the
person who was seen to be representing the Commissioner at
the inquest, as far as I can tell, was the
Major Crime Division Detective Superintendent Robert Scantlebury. Rob Scantlebury anyway,
now direct quote from the inquest here. I reviewed both investigations,
(14:06):
the Coronial Brief, the coronial report, and quote there is
no criminality identified in relation to this matter. He then says,
I cannot put any other person in that room, and
so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this.
He then goes on to highlight the limitations of the
testing done, which by their biomechanical experts to justify his
(14:29):
position that was the closed minded, inflexible attitude existing in
Wa police at the time, and we're yet to see
evidence that that's not the case now. And of course,
given quickly and Owen's replies to the family, it's really
hard to have much faith that there seems to be
(14:53):
a willingness to have a resolution in Aimy's case.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I can't understand why he can say that, or how
he can say that I cannot put any other person
in that room.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Presumably he's talking about the bedroom Amy's bedroom.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
I can come up with two or three scenarios just
off the top of my head where I can easily
put somebody else in that room, but it requires further
investigation to get the evidence of that person being in
that room. I mean, but that's the police job. That's
not I'm not looking for a conclusion on a fairy
tale from Rob Scantlebury. I mean, I want them to
do their job. You know the thing that really annoys
(15:34):
me about this whole thing. And I get annoyed, you know,
on behalf of the family and just personally because I think, gee,
you know, you wouldn't want to get into a serious
bit of strife in this state at the moment, would you.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
But it's the level of openness that's all we're asking for. Like,
it's not it's you know, I can't.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Believe that this goes back to requests for interview and
requests for information. Alison tim As, you know that whole
closed door approach, the entire closed door approach. It's ironic
because the police have a door very similar to Amy's
bedroom where it doesn't seem to be a handle on
the inside. No one opens it. But I don't understand
(16:16):
why you just can't talk about this because I have
the naive presumption that we're all on the same side.
In other words, now that we have a million dollar
reward for a homicide, we say, okay, it's a homicide.
So in terms of public safety for everyone else who's
still alive, isn't there a concern? But what about just
the rest of it being an open book for the
(16:39):
police them being able to talk about the possibilities like,
for instance, getting fresh eyes on the case outside wa Now, Tim,
you know there's a number of cases here where they've
done this in the past with cold case reviews. They've
brought somebody in from the East, or even somebody from
(16:59):
America or whatever, you know, from Britain. There was the
fellow who came over you know, I mean, who is
looking at this? Given the Rob Scandalbury quote that you've
just given us, Allison, you know, what's the makeup of
this new team investigating it?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
For example?
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Is it the same old coppers who had that view
that the DPP quoted in November of twenty nineteen. Is
it somebody else? Have they got fresh eyes? Do they
have a biased view towards that? Are they thinking more
about protecting the thin blue line than they are about
looking at fresh evidence or collecting fresh evidence? I mean,
you know, can we have fresh eyes on this? Is
(17:39):
it a good idea?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
To me?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
It would be essential, right because you know, there has
to be there just has to be you know, pressures issues.
If you're an existing homicide detective, you would hope there'd
be homicide detectives would be tasked with.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Doing this work.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
You'd know someone, right, You'd know you'd have to have
known someone or work someone with that down the track,
who had who had involvement in this case. The other
issue at the moment in Western Australia is there's there's
not there's not that many homicide detectives to go around. Lin,
my colleague got the West Australian Phil Hickey, who has
some of the best police contacts in this state, has
(18:23):
been talking to homicide detectives and they are absolutely chock
a blot with work, slammed, absolutely slammed, as I'm sure
many many other police forces across Australia are. Because for
whatever reason, this has been a particularly violent gear.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
In Western Australia.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
There's been some horrible crimes, domestic violence desks that we've
all heard about and regional homicides.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
They all take.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
Work, right, You've all got obviously, you've got you've got
a victim, You've got a family also grieving, also wanting justice,
also wanting information, also wanting every lead chase down. So
I hate to say it, but how far up or
down the priority list?
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Yeah, hay on for me, Well, more the case, more
the case go to the Attorney General's office, see if
you can wake up John Quigley or somebody close to
him to get them to wake him up and say, hey, listen,
how about an ex graser addition to our budget. Because
we're struggling with serious crime. What about giving us a
I don't know, one off payment. Give us a boost
(19:30):
of a couple of million dollars. You have money coming
out of your ears from the royalties. You're always banging
on about it, Roger Cooks telling them what the whole state,
what a great job they're doing economically. How about just
a few million of that will use a little bit
of it to get maybe a deputation from somebody in
the Eastern States or maybe recently retired, somebody with a
great reputation, maybe even someone like a Ron Idle's that
(19:51):
we had on the program. I mean, you know, fantastic reputation.
Bring them over for four weeks, get them to work
on the case, put a set of fresh eyes on it.
Make a consultancy payment. What's the big deal. Yeah, I'll
take your point, But it's not an excuse to Oh no, no, no, no,
I wasn't trying to make it excense.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
It's the will.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
It's the will, exactly, it's the will, and it's the
willingness to think slightly outside the process and slightly outside
the box and say, well, look, we've promised this, we've
said it publicly, we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Why don't we do it properly? Well exactly, I mean,
we've got consultants for everything else. Maybe if they work
for metro Net, we'd get it done. That's how far
over budget is that? What billion or ten billion is it?
At the last count.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
There's a lot of noughts at the end of our building.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Anyway, this is about people, not about machine And.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I'd face it, the reason we are in this predicament
is because of the unwillingness to investigate properly in the
first place. We point them in the right direction. It's
not it shouldn't be as onerous as as it would
have been. They've just done the forensics. But look that said,
you know, this is more than just a case that
(20:58):
wasn't handled properly at the beginning. They owe it to
Amy's family to see it through. This is a suspicious
death that has a lot of repercussions if it's not solved,
potentially so there's no excuse. They just have to do it.
They can't just say, oh, they were competing priorities. Well,
every life matters. Anyway. I've put some questions to the
(21:23):
WA Police, new questions to Waypole Commissioner Cole Blanche, and
we haven't obviously got replies back yet, but we will
and we'll inform you of those hopefully next week. Internal
emails we obtained under freedom of information law shows later
as last year, seen your high ranking police officers still
adamant there's no possibility Amy's death was anything but suicide.
(21:44):
How can Amy's family be confident that WA Police is
interested in solving Amy's case giving this closed minded attitude
within WA Police ranks. Two, given how much new evidence
that's now available compared to the last time the ODBP
reviewed Amy's file at least five years ago, why hasn't
it been referred to them already? And three? What more
(22:06):
does WA Police require for Amy's case to be referred
to the ODPP. So anyway, we'll see what we get
back from that. But it's it's just really important. I
think that it's just I just like you know, when
you look at what happens with other deaths you know,
like Alison Baiden Clay in Queensland for example, her death,
(22:28):
you know, and the Lynn Dawson case, you know that
came back so many years later. Who chooses which is
important or which isn't.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Now that's a very very very good question.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
I think it probably depends on how embarrassing it might
be if you did put the resources in, because it
might be a different outcome.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Yeah. Well, I mean I would have thought a potential
risk to society as well would have to be a
factor that they could consider if if you know, this
is something that could result in further violence against women
or yeah, I mean all those sorts of factors should
be taken into account. Right, is that the job criteria?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
It is the criteria. You're right, You're dead right, it's
I mean it's basic policing one oh one, isn't it.
I mean, that's that's your that's your what do they
call it?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Mission statement? Tim?
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, you know that's on the canteen at police headquarters.
So please catch the bad guys before you go home.
Clock off.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
It's not difficult. It's not difficult to work out.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
A former detective has made a big living out of
a podcast called I catch killers. That's what people want, right,
and it's a popular podcast because people want to tune
in to homicide detectives catching killers.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Yeah, well I heard them. I heard the head of
the police union on the radio the other day talking
about their their pay dispute with the state government and
their paid claim and they were asking for two different
I think they were asking for or was it eight
and a half percent in the first year and five
percent in the second year and the state government so
(24:09):
far won't come to the party. And I had two
thoughts on that. A. A. I think most police officers
thoroughly deserve arise. Yeah, absolutely they do because they are underpaid.
They are underpaid for what they do. But secondly, guys, girls,
if we're going to pay you, can you please try
(24:30):
to catch the criminals?
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
I mean I have obviously huge respect and sympathy actually
for a lot of the detectives that are tasked with,
you know, cleaning up the most horrible messes on a
daily basis and the impact that it has on their
personal lives as well as the sort of professional reputations
as well.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But has gone back.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
To to the earlier point public servants, Right, they're two
to protect and serves, I think is the motto that's
on the side of American police cars. So and that
goes worldwide. And yeah, it's just it's just so frustrating
to come up against the same closed doors that Anna
(25:17):
and her family have for so long. And it also
just you know, adds another level of admiration to Anna
for being able to keep going and not just.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
Not just go away and cool up in a ball
in a corner somewhere.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Speaking of Anna, she is our guest, and she is waiting.
She's waiting for the host to accept. So whenever, Oh
my god, I'm here, can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Are you all right?
Speaker 5 (25:47):
God? I was getting really nervous waiting for you guys
to bloody let me join. It's like having a little
private party without me.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Well we are, but it's not complete without no.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
No, that the level of indignation is too low. So
tell us, Anna, what's the latest. How are you feeling
at the moment? And you know what's going on. You know,
we've read your letter to the DPP, we've read the
letter out that they sent to you. I imagine you're feeling
a bit frustrated at the moment.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
Well, frustration It's not new for me, Alison, I've had
over ten years of it now, but I have to
say it is disappointing, but it's not surprising. I'm used
to this sort of response passing the buck and people
in positions of authority telling me that they can't help.
It's like the people in charge are all playing a
game of hot potato, and Amy's case is the ball
(26:40):
being thrown around to the next person just to get
rid of it. But this sort of response doesn't deter
me or stop me from continuing the fight for Amy.
It just means I have to keep trying and hope
that one day someone in a position of authority has
the courage to stand up and help.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
And Liam here, how are you going?
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I'm good, Thanks Liam.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Look, I wanted to explore with you that I touched
upon a subject. This is very basic, but I think openness,
the ability for some of these people in high places
to be just open to the public, to the family
about the whole deal, I really find quite troubling, especially
in the West Australian context of where we have had
(27:18):
a lot of problems with policing generally. Can can you
talk to me a little bit about the police's attitude
from the police commissioner down, you know, how open are
they to family? And I asked that question of knowing
that you have a sort of a dedicated family liaison officer,
but can you let our listeners know sort of you know,
how that works and how often the contact takes place.
(27:40):
I'm not asking you to disclose what they say to you,
because you know that it has to be a degree
of integrity there.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
But how's it going.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
Well, it's really difficult because you know I've said to
you before that over ten years now, I've lost count
of how many liaison officers we've had. But in the beginning,
you get told nothing. Liam. There is no one there
keeping you up to date, telling you what's going on.
And it took almost three years before I actually found
(28:10):
anything out about Amy's death. And that's a long time
for family to have to wait to hear what's happening,
what's going on, what took place that night. That's a
very long time. And there's no one there that's willing
to assist you and help you and give you that information.
And you can write to the police commissioner. You can
write to these high ranking officials, but they close rank.
(28:33):
You know, they don't they don't tell you anything. It's
just all a fob off. Like what I've said, I've
been getting for over ten years now. But I have
had some liaison officers who have been really polite. They
appear to be very caring towards our situation, which is
really nice. But I mean, it's felt like most of
(28:55):
the liaison officers police liaison officers are there as a
buffer between me and high ranking officials because I'll ask
a question and so many times I've had the response
I'm not sure, I don't know, I can't say it's
under investigation, and you don't actually get an answer. They're
(29:17):
a buffer, really. But the current liaison officer I have
at the moment, he and one that I had for
quite a few years, appear to be very responsive to
my inquiries. They can't always tell me things, but you know,
at least they respond at least they call me if
I ask, at least they respond to emails. But still
(29:39):
it's very limited in what they can tell me.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
How salective are they though? Do they ever ring you
to tell you that they're being progress.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
In the past ten years, I've had one liaison officer
who couldn't always tell me everything that's going on, but
at least reached out without prompting from me. He reached
out to me to tell me little pieces of information
that he was allowed to tell me. But it's not
like their forthcoming and.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
It's it's Tim here.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Like I would think that your everyday listener, who you know,
who God forbid, would never have to go through a
situation like that. They would have a different impression. They
would think, oh, well, you know that the police are.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
They'd be.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
They'd be so they'd be really keen to keep the
family informed. They'd be they'd be wanting to provide information,
you know, you know, possibly on a you know, a
sort of need to know basis, but you know, as
soon as something new would crop up, they want to
tell you. But from from your experience, it's the exact opposite.
(30:43):
It seems that they try and keep you, or have
tried to keep you at arm's length as much as possible.
I mean, do you think that's because it's you or
do you think that's a general Have you spoken to
other families that have gone through this.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
I think I've got to say the answer to your question, Tim,
I was exactly what you just explained. I was that
person who thought that the police are going to keep
us informed, They're going to tell us what's going on,
they're going to keep us updated. But that was early
on in the day. I thought that, and I was
completely wrong. It's not like that at all. And I
(31:20):
think I don't know if it's because it's this particular case,
because it was so badly messed up at the start
that they were trying to, you know, sweep it under
the carpet and make it go away. So I don't
know if that's why. But I have met someone else.
I've actually met another aunt, Janine Mackney, who is the
aunt of Breanna Robinson, and it's her sister's daughter who died,
(31:44):
and she's been fighting for her niece's case as well,
and I think she's come up against the same thing
that the police don't want to be so forthcoming with information.
It's very difficult. It's very very hard, especially because in
her situation with Janine's niece, the police deemed it a
suicide immediately as well. Another young woman in an early twenties,
(32:07):
same thing.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
And this is the case of a young woman who
actually fell out of an elevated flat on the.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Gold That's correct. So you know, it was actually really
nice to meet another aunt that was going through the
same thing, and she understood everything everything that I was saying.
So yeah, she's come up against something very similar. And
I wonder if that's because at the start the police
called it a suicide. So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Ron Iddle's had that case in Shepard and that he
talked about that he revisited and made stuff that one
of the first instance too, But it was fine for
him to solve that one. You know. It's just I mean,
the law's meant to be deterrent too, right, Like the
whole idea is that you want to discourage people from
killing other people on the basis that they'll go to jail.
(32:54):
It just seems kind of weird in this case that
you know, a crime potentially has occurred, the evidence certainly
points that way to a crime occurring, and that it
needs to be you know, measured out and go through
the system, like that's supposedly what it's supposed to do.
(33:17):
But it hasn't gone through the system because that whole
denial of a crime having existed. I just wanted to
read this to you to Anna. This is from Melissa
High Team The Truth about Amy. Such a fantastic podcast
and so close to home for me. I lived in
that area and was in a domestic violence relationship at
the same time Amy died. I'm not surprised the police
(33:38):
ruled a suicide. Domestic violence wasn't a high priority for
the police in that area. I personally reached out for
help from the police and the Armadale and Serpentine areas
and didn't get any assistance. I was actually told by
police that the person I was in a relationship with
had over thirty reports slash phone calls for domestic violence
issues in the past, but from pre as partners. In
(34:01):
my opinion, there was a real culture within the place
that domestic violence wasn't important. My heart breaks for Nancy
and Amy's babies. Keep up the good work, keep fighting
for Amy, so you know we are not alone.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Sadly, I can only hope that the attitudes of police
are evolving for the better and in a positive way,
and changing for the better as well because so many women.
There are so so many women, and I guess it's
just I don't know if it's in the media more
(34:36):
now or whether I'm more aware of it because of
our own situation with Amy, but it's just shocking.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Well, I think it is being reported more because of
the public consciousness and the push to shine a light
on what is a scourge in this country. I have
had lawyers tell me, you're on and off the record,
that the cases are getting more frequent, they're getting more serious.
(35:10):
I know judges are sensensing more harshly because they have to,
they've been told to, but more obviously that they want
to also send a message to the public that this
is being taken seriously and there will be serious repercussions.
But then you go back to a case like Amy's,
(35:31):
and it was it's obvious in twenty fourteen, it wasn't.
It wasn't even it didn't seem to me that it
was even seen through a prism of domestic violence on
that night and in the days that followed, And even
now you're having to push and push and push for
authorities to get to see the whole picture.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
Right.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
And we talked about it before, Anna that that in
that in quest, there was a there seemed to be
a lot of sympathy for David Simmons, and maybe that
sympathy should have been cheered around a bit more.
Speaker 5 (36:05):
Well. I actually read through some of the Current's inquest
finding I couldn't read the whole thing because it just
makes me so angry. But there were comments and things
that people said in there that just made me sick.
You know, I jotted some of them down, But is
(36:25):
it okay if I bring some of them up?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
Go on? Yeah? Yeah, please, absolutely so.
Speaker 5 (36:29):
When David Simmons was asked what Amy meant in her
text to him when she said she was over being
a no Hoper, David said it definitely wasn't him to change.
He did everything for that family, for them. I don't
know if she was on drugs or not. That's why
I wanted to know if there were any illicit drugs
in her system. I thought that's really comical that he
says that he wasn't the one to change, because I
(36:51):
have no doubt Amy's no Hope of comment was more
about her having enough of being in a no Hoper
relationship with him, and I think the comment is very tell.
She says she's had enough. That's what I think. She
says she's had enough and she wants to try for
a better life. And and that was the decision she
decided to finally act upon on the twenty sixth of
(37:11):
June twenty fourteen. She hated drugs. The whole thing was
about her telling him to stop doing that. And it's
very well documented in the coroner's finding too, that he
had an alcohol and substance abuse problem. Yet he says
he wasn't the one who needed to change. There's just
so much in there.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Anna. We were talking the other day with Ron and
I think somebody else sent another message about whether David
simmons phone was seized by the police. Can you have
an answer to that, don't you?
Speaker 5 (37:43):
I do so. After Amy died, he took Amy's car
and the children and drove to Nancy's house, and when
he got to the house, he told Nancy what he
told her. Nancy became very distressed. She blamed him and
accused him of causing it, and she pushed him and
(38:03):
he fell on all fours onto the front lawn and
when that happened, his phone, that he says was water damaged,
fell out of his pocket and there it remained. So
when the police became involved the next day, Nancy gave
them Amy's phone back and told them that his phone
(38:25):
had fell on her front lawn and she handed that
over to them.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
So they've got well they had the phone. Whether or
not they've still got it remains to be seen.
Speaker 5 (38:33):
That's correct.
Speaker 3 (38:34):
So did they go through it?
Speaker 5 (38:36):
My understanding. So I'm not one hundred percent sure, But
my understanding is it was water damaged and they couldn't
access it.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Well, yeah, hang on a minute. I mean there's a
lot of technology around you. You can dive into water damaged
phones for data retrieval.
Speaker 3 (38:51):
It's not a big deal.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Well, they couldn't get into Amy's iPhone at that point,
but technology advanced and they were able to do that
many years later. But I don't know if the police
kept his phone or handed it back to him.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
But why wasn't that sort of that's sort of present
detail explored by the coroner when she's hearing him, you know,
make those sort of generic statements about Amy's drug usage.
I mean, why isn't that cross referenced with, you know,
with a call to provide information from his phone to
see what goes on there. I mean, it's pretty basic stuff,
(39:26):
isn't it. Or have we got well, I mean, who's
running the joint inspectacles.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
I just want to go back to a question that
we got that you read out or I read out
yes last week, Paul's question about why Amy didn't use
a dominant hand to defend herself. Now I've revisited the
files on that, so just looking and it was obviously
in spotlight as well, and anyone can look that up.
So Amy was facing the like her legs was stretched
(40:00):
out towards the door, so she was facing the door
that the door opened on her left though, as I said,
and so to get in. So but obviously it was
a right temple. You know, there's a whole idea of
her cowering. Potentially that if she was cowering at the time,
she would have had her right temple up towards the door,
(40:21):
which is potentially, you know, why she was shot in
her right temple, but certainly with you know, holding her
left arm out anyway, it's just something else to consider
with all this, because it's it's just all part and
parcel of the whole investigation and looking at the information
in microscopic detail.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
Allison, I had someone, a police officer actually say to
me that they thought with all the with the argument
that was going on in that bedroom, that Amy's ended
up in that corner, because that's what you do when
you feel in danger, you know, you hide in a corner.
And he said to me that he felt that Amy
was using her dominant hand to brace herself against the
(41:05):
wall and use her hand to lower herself to the floor,
and when she got to the floor, she ended up
sitting on it, and as the gun's to her head,
she's used a left hand to try and push the
gun away or well.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
That makes perfect sense because of the burnmark on her
left hand, which was a muzzle mark, so that that
would tend to indicate you're trying to push the muzzle away.
Speaker 4 (41:25):
It certainly makes more sense than your right hand firing
a gun which's then on your lap and then your
right hand end up ends up under your buttock.
Speaker 3 (41:34):
Yeah. No, it's impossible, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
I mean, well, as the biomechanical experts basically said, but
that makes perfect sense from that police officer.
Speaker 5 (41:42):
Anna, Yeah, And can I just read out another part
of the inquest that I found disgusting really? At the inquest,
the detective Kirkman said, I couldn't imagine somebody sitting there
and allowing somebody to place a gun directly onto her
head and pull the trigger and her not move or
try to prevent it. It's not logical. When I read that,
(42:04):
I thought, wow, talk about victim blaming, and his comment
actually doesn't make logical sense, because if someone has a
gun pointed at your head, you would freeze. My fear
would be if I move, they might pull the trigger.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Yeah, well, lots of things happen in a rapid space
of time.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Doo. I mean that that is nonsensical.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
Yeah, but also you know with that comment that they
couldn't imagine someone sitting there and allowing someone to place
a gun on their head. If someone had a gun
to my head, the only I believe because I'm know
Bruce Lee or Action Hero, so I can't flick that
gun away, you know, like they do in the movies.
But my thought would be the only option for me
(42:45):
would try to be would be to try and talk
someone down. Yeah, talk them down, talk them out of it.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
But also, if you've got an aggressor who sticks a
shotgun into your temple, and remember the pressure on that,
it can be quite you know, it would be could
be very hard, very strong. Hannah I mean you would
you would freeze, wouldn't you.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Absolutely, I would freeze. I
would ship myself.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
Well, and there's that, But you don't I mean for
a policeman to say that, it's just look that all
that is. Let's be honest, that's complete self justification. He
completely stuffed it up, and that was reinforced by the
police's own internal affairs unit, not as strongly as it
should have been. But you know, he'd already been slapped
across the wrist for negligent duty, so it was that's
(43:37):
just an exercise.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
Absolutely, But he still did it, didn't he. We're at
an inquest and he's still saying it. Another another thing
that Detective Kirkman said in assessing how Amy died, He
said he considered he could he could easily reach the
trigger sitting down like that with either the left or
right hand, so deduced that Amy could do the same.
How could you? How could you say that just because
(44:01):
you could do something somebody else can. And then he
was corrected and told that you know it wasn't the gun,
you know, to the floor pointing upwards. So you know,
the other thing is did he factor in her neck injury,
and how could he reason that anything he could do
someone else could do the same. One minute, he's saying
she used a left hand and the end of the
(44:23):
gun was on the propped onto the bed. Then he
says she used a right hand which fell under a
bottom afterwards. Then the gunshot was from the ground up,
and then it's horizontal. I mean, can anyone else see
an issue here or is it just met?
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Yeah? I think that's definitely established. Anna, It's seriously and
I think at the time, I think Ian Roberts's statement
talked about how both him and Blandford said that it
couldn't have happened that way, but of course they were ignored,
which is terribly sad. But I guess what's even more sad.
(44:58):
And I think you pointed this out last week with
Ron Liam that when you lose, you've just got to
lose gracefully, right, you just got to accept it rather
than just keep pushing that barrow, right, And it was
just just just, man, can you just stop already?
Speaker 1 (45:15):
Ron brought this up last week too, which I thought
was the most pertinent thing of all. Even if you
don't know anything about police procedures. You know, it just
makes perfect sense. I mean, if you turn up at
a scene and such a violent act has been perpetrated
a young mum and a shotgun and a shooting injury
(45:41):
to that extent, your default position is there's a problem here.
This is potentially criminal. You know, this is suspicious. That's
your default position, because you know, anyone who comes across
a scene like that, you think that that is an
ultra you know, aggressive, serious, you know whatever.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (46:00):
You talk about domestic violence issues, generational attitudes till the
cows come home. But the point is, if you turn
up to a scene like that, you take the default
position of it being the worst possible outcome in a
police context, and you work backwards, you know, and if
it turns out down the track from from all the
(46:21):
forensics and all the bits and pieces that somehow that
person has tragically taken their own life, well then that's
a conclusion. But you start off from the position of
assuming the worst. And I thought, you know, Ron making
that point as an experienced detective made perfect sense, whether
you're a policeman or not.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
Because, as we've said, detectives see things.
Speaker 4 (46:44):
That's the normal sort of working Joe's like you and me,
Liam would never see yeah and never wish to see.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
But this one, this is, this is still has to
be highly unusual in regional Western Australia. We're not talking
about Perth or north Bridge, and they're hardly the Bronx,
you know what I mean. Yeah, we're talking about Serpentine.
We're talking about a rural area, young woman, kids in
(47:14):
the car. I mean, it just like red flags planted
all over.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Oh mate, it was so many red flat I mean
a place would it looked like Tianum and square. I mean,
you can't make it up. It's just no, it's phenomenal.
Tim me your spot on, don't you think?
Speaker 3 (47:29):
Anna?
Speaker 5 (47:30):
Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking, listen to everything you're saying,
and you know I agree with you. But I've got
to say there were three constables that were there who
thought exactly what Ron was saying, the same way Ron
was thinking. They were taking you know, making the right
steps and following procedure. They wanted this done. They wanted forensics.
(47:51):
You know, why is it detectives could come in and
just shut all of that down. It is so wrong.
Speaker 1 (47:58):
Yeah, that's the irony They were good coppers, every one
of those constables.
Speaker 5 (48:01):
They were.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Now next week, Annie, you'll be pleased to hear we
are going to have the new South Wales Crime Commissioner,
Michael Barnes, Oh my god, talking about Amy's case, and
I guess he's experienced now he's it's going to be
an exciting, exciting episode, but I guess for now. I mean,
(48:22):
obviously I wanted to speak to you about the family
and how everyone's coping. I mean everyone forgets sometimes, Anna,
because you're just out there and you're going hard, and
you know, everyone just assumes that you're so strong, but
I know this is often hard, always hard. Really, how
you doing? First, first and foremost?
Speaker 5 (48:44):
Well, you know you're not allowed to ask me that question,
I know, I know. Sorry, I yeah, that's a really
hard one, because yeah, it is. It is so difficult
what this has done to me, you know, how it's
affected me, my life, you know, my family's life is
just devastating. I have good days, I have bad days,
(49:06):
and generally that question you just asked me could make
me burst into tears because I try not to think
about anything but what's in front of me, which is
you know, fighting for the truth about Amy. So I
don't stop to look either side of me to think
about how I'm feeling, or you know that sort of thing.
It's my focus is Amy, So sometimes I don't even
(49:28):
realize things build up. And when someone asked me that questions,
you know, there's been times when I've just burst into
tears because I haven't stopped to think about how I feel. Yeah,
but you know, the family's doing well, the kids are
doing well, Nancy is doing well. But you know that
only lasts a little while, Allison, until you know there's
(49:48):
another smack in the face or another let down, or
something happens. And once that happened, you know, once some
sort of news comes along, it just dredges everything up
gain and we're back to the twenty sixth of June
twenty fourteen. So there is no moving on until you
know there's some sort of answer to all this.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
You're doing your great job, Anna, You're doing a great job.
And thank you, and thank you for trusting us with
Amy's story. We'll keep going.
Speaker 5 (50:18):
Oh, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. Have I got
time to talk about something else? Yes, Okay, I wanted
to bring up Robert Simmons, if that's okay, it's fine. Yeah,
just a couple of things about him. He said that
Amy and his son David and the kids were living
on his property for about three months, and he said
(50:39):
he only saw Amy a couple of times and he
didn't know her very well. But he did say she
was a good mother, always polite and nice to him.
I found it interesting that he claims he didn't know
the mother of his grandchild, the one who looked after
his horses when he was away, the one who picked
him up from the airport a couple of times, he
doesn't know very well. And then he said that he
(51:02):
went into that room and unloaded that shotgun, and I
thought to myself, well, why didn't he unload the pink
gun too, and in fact, why not all the other
guns that were in that room. He said at the
inquest that he was a bit reluctant to sign off
to get Amy a gun license because of what his
son and his mates had told him about Amy going
(51:23):
to violent rages and things like that. So he's worried about,
you know, supporting Amy getting a gun license. Yet he's
okay with his son, the one with a substance abuse problem,
having a gun, and he's never witnessed anything from Amy
and says she was polite and nice and claims that
he didn't know very well. So if it's okay with you,
I actually have a personal message for Robert Simmons.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
Is that okay?
Speaker 2 (51:48):
Bert?
Speaker 5 (51:48):
You've said in your own words that you've tried so
hard to help your son get his life on track.
I'd like to ask you this, Bert, have you ever
stopped and considered in all of this, just once your
granddaughter and what she's gone through the pain and the
suffering she lives with caused by losing the most important
person in her life, her mother Amy.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
Yeah, I think that's a that's a that's a great statement.
And I asked the question again. Anyone can answer this.
You included Anna, why did he touch that gun? Why
did he go in that room and unload that gun?
Speaker 2 (52:25):
I can give you an answer. Somebody else said that,
and you know because he kind of explained it in
his statement. He said, you know, as a gun user,
it's always to disarm the guns, you know, when they're
not being used. So that's that's try.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Come on, but just that one, come on, Well.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
He said that he didn't see her he only saw
the gun and then turned around and saw Amy.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
But I'm confused. But this is something I've always been
confused about. The chronology of events. Robert Simmons' phone call
to the ambulance operator, where he says in the transcript
of the call, he's on record as saying, what are
the words, Tim? I think I think my son.
Speaker 5 (53:07):
Someone shot her. I think it must have been my son.
He's not here. My son made the mistake.
Speaker 3 (53:13):
Thank you. Is that before he goes into the room
or after?
Speaker 2 (53:16):
That was after he got a phone call, initially being
told that something was going on, so he went there,
And it's a good point you make. He went there
knowing that there was someone to think of, yeah, yep,
that's right, someone in distress, or yeah, that that there
was an person hurt.
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Something had happened.
Speaker 1 (53:36):
So he uttered those words after he'd been in the
room and unloaded the gun.
Speaker 5 (53:41):
Yes, correct, and found Amy.
Speaker 1 (53:43):
And found Amy. So he sees her in situe after
he unloads the gun. According to him, it's just such
a small room. We know what the dimensions are. I mean,
I've been inside the replica. But anyway, I'll go with
him on the chronology that's his evidence. But he unloads
the gun, then he sees her, then he utters those words, Yeah,
(54:05):
I'm sorry, but I there's still there's so much, there's
so much to unpack there, there's so much still unanswered.
It's it's incredible.
Speaker 4 (54:11):
And we've discussed it before. He wasn't saying this to
the neighbor that he knew. He wasn't saying this to
one of his son's friends. He was saying this to
a complete stranger or an emergency call.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
It's a great point.
Speaker 4 (54:25):
It's like, yes, I mean, you're overwhelmed like this, that
life is coming at you pretty fast at that point,
but that that's your first instinct to tell a complete
stranger you think your son has shot his partner like that.
Speaker 3 (54:40):
That to me is very.
Speaker 4 (54:41):
Telling to what he really thought had happened in that moment. Yes,
and then everything since, as and has just pointed out,
has seemed to walk that back or try to.
Speaker 1 (54:56):
Yes, because that's that's the flavor I get from everything
he said at the ink, he seemed to get more
and more did so.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
He downplayed it, definitely downplayed it at the inquest. But
if you you'll remember this and the post, it notes
that were all over that small house. Robert Simmons at
one point said to Amy's mum that they showed me.
I didn't realize it was that bad.
Speaker 5 (55:20):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (55:21):
And those were notes that Amy had made, presumably about
what was happening in that house, or what's what had
happened to her in that house, or what Simmons had
said to her in that house. I didn't realize it
was that bad. So that that's that's him again, not
not admitting to someone unimportant, admitting to the mother of
(55:44):
a of a of a of a dead young woman
that yeah, oh god, it was bad in that house.
Now what did he What did you mean by that?
Speaker 5 (55:52):
And those post it notes were thrown out. He threw
the post it notes out, And I just wanted to
say also, Robert gave evidence at the inquest that he
had never known his son David being violent towards a woman, right,
Yet his first instinctive comment to police emergency on the
phone was that someone shot on he thought it was
(56:13):
his son. So if you give evidence in court and
you say I've never known my son to be violent
towards a woman, yet that's your response when you see
a dead woman, you call police emergency and you say
you think he did it, Well, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3 (56:29):
It's counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (56:30):
Boyce should be talking to Robert Simmons again if they're
not already, but they also should be speaking to his
partner at the time, or his former partners. They should
be speaking to them because we know more in relation
to those relationships, and I think they could offer some information,
(56:51):
give a bit of clarification on the situation. But you know,
I mean again, like so much of this, right, we
look at this, we look at the words, we look
at the situation, and we know we're talking circumstantial. But
the way they have interpreted stuff doesn't make sense. The
way we're talking about it now does make sense. And
(57:13):
they've just conveniently omitted the other information which backs up
the whole idea of Amy being killed as opposed to
having killed herself. So that's been the ongoing frustration for you, hasn't,
an Anna.
Speaker 5 (57:27):
The whole thing's been frustrating, Alison, like every step of
the way. I mean, I cannot believe. I still can't believe.
I know, I've had over ten years of it, and
I still cannot believe that there is no one in
authority that is stepping up to help. No one. I
just keep being fobbed off. Like I said, it's a
game of hot potato. Just keep throwing it because you know,
(57:50):
don't want to hold that for too long, do you
I get burned? That's right.
Speaker 3 (57:53):
We'll just keep the pot boiling away.
Speaker 2 (57:56):
We'll hold the potato until they only take it. But Anna,
is it? You know again? Thank you so much? Is
there anything else you'd like to say? I know that
we could, We could dedicate so much time to all
of this, but there's going to be plenty of opportunity,
I can assure you. And you know, we've got some
really exciting people coming up in conversation.
Speaker 5 (58:17):
Have you've done so well?
Speaker 2 (58:18):
As I said, starting with Michael Michael Barnes next week.
And you know, there are people willing to help. They're
not in the position, the direct position to help, but
they're willing to at least provide advice and insight on
what should be happening.
Speaker 5 (58:33):
Well, Allison, I'm so grateful to everyone who has stepped
forward to speak to the podcast. You know, people from
you know, specific expertise and backgrounds that have that have
come on here and helped and you know, given their
opinion on the matter, it's been just amazing that they've
(58:53):
been willing to do that. I would like to sincerely
thank the listeners who've been following Amy's story and to
everyone who's signed who has signed the petition in support
of Amy. They're helping to make such a difference, So
if people could please keep spreading the word and sharing
the link. And I'd also like to thank the people
who have come forward with information. Our family are so
(59:16):
appreciative of their courage in doing so, and my family
and I are also grateful to you, Alison, Sandy, Liam
and Tim and the team at seven Media for the
ongoing help and support you continue to give us Amy's
family and friends by helping to uncover the truth. I'd
also like to thank the three of you for your
kind words in conversation one. Alison, You're amazing. Tim, I've
(59:40):
appreciated all all the articles you've written, and Liam, I'm
happy to be your auntie Anna. No one's taking down
a dirt road.
Speaker 1 (59:49):
That's praise, that's praise indeed, praise indeed, were compared to
some of my other arsers. I don't know whether you
want to be in that bucket. But I'm very pleased
to put you there. No good on you, Anna, thanks
very much. We all really appreciate it, and so least
we can do. We just want to We just want
to get more, more, more, more traction. That's that's what
we're frustrated about too, equally with you. But although we
(01:00:12):
could probably never reach those dizzying heights after ten years,
but that's a great way to finish this if we
can just again urge people to to even get their
friends to look at it, family members, that sort of thing.
Go to change dot org and just type in Amy
Wensley and please sign that petition, you know, because that's
a really important thing to do, and we could get
(01:00:35):
some some literally some change from that anner.
Speaker 5 (01:00:38):
Yeah, I'd like to hope so absolutely.
Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
Well, the good thing is we're edging ten thousand now,
which is good. So we're making progress. It's slow, slowly
but surely, but you know, we're going to get there.
I mean, it's every we all sing from the same
hymn sheet. We're all dedicated to this and getting the
truth about Amy out there. And we just again, thank.
Speaker 5 (01:01:02):
You so much.
Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
And Anna Davy, you're a real superstar, which is so
much admiration for you.
Speaker 5 (01:01:11):
Thank you well, thank you so much for your kind words.
I appreciate it and everything that you're doing to help.
I just really appreciate it so much. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Thanks guys, all right, thank you, Thanks Tom.
Speaker 3 (01:01:23):
Bye,
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):
Hello, Welcome to Conversations five. I'm Alison Sandy and I'm
joined by my fellow Brave and courageous colleagues Liam Bartlett
and Tim Clark.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Hi El Hi Tim, Morning, Liam. How are we well?
Speaker 1 (00:41):
I'm much better now that I've been described as brave courageous.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It's true, you know, because there's no punches pulled in
this podcast. We will shortly be joined by a very
special guest. But first I wanted to turn your attention
to this as you are all aware, there's been a
big push for me his family to have her case
far referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If you haven't signed and shared the petition, please do so.
(01:08):
Amy's aunt has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Robert Owen recently and received this reply, dated the first
of October twenty twenty four. Dear Miss Davey, thank you
for your letter dated nineteenth September twenty twenty four. I
acknowledge how difficult raising these matters again with my office
is likely to be for you and your family. I
(01:30):
understand you are seeking justice for Amy and that this
reflects the love and sense of dignity her memory deserves. However,
I am unable to provide a materially different response from
the one you received from the ODPP on the first
of November twenty nineteen, where the former director advised you
that the ODPP is not an investigatory agency and we
(01:53):
do not have the power to independently investigate allegations or complaints. Now,
just to clarify here, that is not what Anna was
asking for. Anna was just asking whether he could ask
for Amy's file to refer to him, and was also
asking for a meeting with him. Anyway, he goes on
to say the odopp's sole function is to prosecute indubtable
(02:16):
criminal offenses once charges have been laid by investigative agencies
such as WA police. That function includes the assessment of
the evidence gathered. If there is insufficient evidence, the ODPP
isn't able to proceed. Now again, my understanding is that
the ODPP is the one that decides that Anyway, the
ODPP has no power to investigate the conduct of other
(02:38):
agencies or to assess whether an investigation by WA Police
was insufficient. Again, that's not what Anna was asking. She's
just asking, given that five years have now passed since
they last saw it, they might want to take another
look at it with all the updated information. Anyway. In
our letter to you dated first of November twenty nineteen,
we indicated that an inquest into your niece death maybe
(03:00):
an appropriate forum to ventilate the matter as you of race.
An inquest into the death of your niece has now
been completed and the findings were delivered by the Deputy
State Coroner on ninth September twenty twenty one. The inquest
followed a cold case review by WA Police. Blah blah,
blah blah goes into the whole history that we already know.
The Deputy State Coroner did make some adverse comments about
(03:21):
the standard of the initial police investigation and the limitations
is placed on the current's ability to consider all relevant evidence.
I have outlined this information only to ensure that you
are informed about events to date. I understand you are
likely to be very familiar with what has occurred, and
I mean no disrespect in doing so. At this time,
the ODPP cannot undertake further steps so offer any other
(03:43):
resolution of Amy's case. Your sincerely, Robert OMSC, Director of
Public Prosecutions. So what do you guys think of that?
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Not surprising, but still disappointing, Like it's a rehash of
arguments that we've just we've heard, and we've heard and
then we've heard from.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Different authorities and it's just.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
Yeah, just wholly disappointing and another example of buck passing
really live.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Yeah, that's incredible, now, am I right? Just recapping on that.
So twice in that letter, the current Director of Public
Prosecutions references the previous correspondence with Amy Wensley's family, which
is dated the first in November twenty nineteen, twice twice
(04:36):
and so once in context. The first time he mentioned
that date five years ago. He mentions that date because
he says nothing's changed since the previous person was sitting
in my seat. That's what he's saying, isn't he quite clearly?
So they didn't do it, So I can't do it,
That's what Robert Owen is saying. So for him to
can't Blanche say, sorry, nothing's changed, see you later. It
(05:02):
really is practically and technically pathetic. So can I can
I I've got I've got Anna's reply to that letter
that Robert Owen sent her.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Do you mind if I just read this out? How
we need to get the bleep machine ready?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Look, I saw Anna's first version, so this one I've
refined a little bit, helped to refine a bit.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Anyway, keep going, yeah, no, no, no, I think this
has been through the censorship. It's been through the filter,
the special filter we have here. But this is this
is pretty good. So I'm just going I'll just I'll
read for the sake of our listeners. Dear mister Owen.
So this is Anna's reply to that pathetic response from
the director. She says, thank you for replying to my
(05:46):
recent letter and for confirming your office hasn't seen Amy's
case for at least five years. In twenty nineteen, Amy's
case was still being treated as a suicide by w
WA police. Great point to my she goes on. Now,
in twenty twenty four, Amy's case is being referred to
as a homicide, and there is a considerable amount of
(06:08):
new evidence now available. As per my previous letter. Would
you be willing to meet with me to discuss not
an unreasonable request, I would think, she goes on. Or
is it a case that you won't seek any information
from WA Police unless they raise it with you. Please
forgive my ignorance, says Anna, But given my family seems
(06:29):
to be at the mercy of WA Police, I just
wanted to find out from you what it would take
for your office to reconsider Amy's case. If, as a
family we don't believe Amy's case is being handled properly,
what avenues do we have Do we go back to
the way Corruption and Crime Commission. I'm sure you can
(06:50):
understand our frustration, particularly given recent information that's come to
light on Amy's case via Channel seven's podcast The Truth
about Amy. I am devastatingly disappointed that I've had to
fight the system for more than ten years now because
of a terrible mistake made by WA Police. I don't
(07:11):
think it's asking too much, says Anna to seek help
from people like you who are in a position to
provide some but for whatever reason, don't seem to want
to offer any assistance at all. Regards Anna, Davy pretty
much sums it up.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Yeah, typically strong, typically forthright, typically intelligent, and typically not unreasonable.
Not an unreasonable request when you've got an unsolved, suspicious
death of a young mother, you'd think police, DPP, Attorney
(07:49):
General would have the gumption to say, okay. First of
November twenty nineteen, I got some advice. The coroner had
the information that she did during the inquest. But it's
twenty twenty four and things have changed, Things have moved on,
We have more information, and we also, to be blunt,
(08:11):
we have a public push to relook at this case.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
And we know there is a further investigation confirmed by police.
There's a quote new team doing that further investigation unquote
right now as we speak.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
So we don't know whether it was Robowen that asked
the police to do that. We don't think so. I
think he probably might have mentioned that in his letter.
So the police have gone away listens been given information
via crime stoppers or wherever, and thought right, we need
a body of workers to work up a body of
work on this new information totally, and it seems to
(08:51):
me we go to the AG. He says, sorry, cannot
do as Allison has done numerous times. Anna has gone
to the DPP please, this is what we can do. No, no,
can do, Because in twenty nineteen there was all this information,
and in twenty twenty one the coroner came up with
this conclusion that there's not enough.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
There's not enough. Three years on, we.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Are now and we go to WA Police, respectfully but firmly,
asking for an interview with Cole Blanche or whomever they
wish to place before us to answer some questions that
we want to ask, and we are politely declined. So
you can probably say it's in my voice measure of
(09:35):
the frustration. Imagine, imagine how the Wensley family have felt
having to do this for ten years.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Well yeah, and you know, it just comes back to
that whole thing of just Anna needing a champion, just
someone who's willing to do their job. We're not even
asking anyone to go out there on a limb, right,
This is just part of their duties as a person
who works for the public service. Public service being being
(10:05):
the operative words here. So it's it just seems like
people just so happy to slam the door in the
faces of Amy's family, who, as we have already established,
have a very good I mean all they want to
do is go through the process, right, They're not asking
for special favors or anything like that, just going through
(10:28):
the democratic judicial legal process to see if justice can
be reached for Amy Wensley, for their beloved niece, slush daughter,
slush mother. You know, it's it's really sad.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, that's that's an interesting point. I mean, we're not
we're not even asking anyone to be entirely creative with this.
Certainly not go out on a limb. We're just talking
about things that you can do within the rules, like,
within the processes that are already in place and the
guidelines that have already been long established. It's not a
big deal. And you know, I mean, we can use
(11:07):
as many cliches as we like, but it is a
fact that, you know, this is supposed to be justice
for everybody because it's public. You know, the courts of
public the police are publicly funded, the DPP's office is
publicly funded. You know, sometimes these people, I think need
to be reminded they're actually being paid by the taxpayer. Again,
you know, the cliche about the duty and obligation and service.
(11:29):
Maybe we need to remind them time and time again
that guys, you're there to help people. You know, we're
there to get a result for the public.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
And what irks me is they point to process as
well when you ask them about it, Well, well we
did this, we did this, we did this. But we
know all that flowed from a process was it was
completely botched right at the start. Right the process was
there for the detectives to call in the homicide squad
(12:01):
and to seal off that forensic area so there would
be no doubts and there will be no lingering unknowns
and frustrations. That's what started all that. They stuffed the
process up right at the start, and everything that's flowed
from that has been trying to play catch up. And
you now can't say, in my humble opinion, you know,
(12:24):
you shouldn't hide behind an inquest that we've explored and
picked apart and other people other than us believe was
flawed as well. And you can't. You can't say there
was an investigation in twenty nineteen. Five years is a
long time. There's there's a whole there's a whole other
(12:44):
file to to pick through, and that's what they should
be doing.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Heah, And as Anna so pointedly reminds us, you know,
those two references by the Director of Public Prosecutions to
twenty nineteen. That's when police were very much entrenched with
this whole suicide theory. They wouldn't hear anything else to him,
as you know, well they put it forward out the
inquest exactly very strongly.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Yeah. I mean so, so, how.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Can the DPP be relying upon a time when the
police had totally the opposite view and now the.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Police have publicly listed it and offered a reward for
an unsolved homicide.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Doesn't make sense?
Speaker 4 (13:26):
Does which FI has showness and has also shown us
that some people in there were upset that that was
the case. But well why you asked the question why
were they upset? Well, you know because because you called
it as it was a first up and no it's not.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Can I just mention here, speaking of the inquest, the
person who was seen to be representing the Commissioner at
the inquest, as far as I can tell, was the
Major Crime Division Detective Superintendent Robert Scantlebury. Rob Scantlebury anyway,
now direct quote from the inquest here. I reviewed both investigations,
(14:06):
the Coronial Brief, the coronial report, and quote there is
no criminality identified in relation to this matter. He then says,
I cannot put any other person in that room, and
so therefore I cannot establish any criminality in relation to this.
He then goes on to highlight the limitations of the
testing done, which by their biomechanical experts to justify his
(14:29):
position that was the closed minded, inflexible attitude existing in
Wa police at the time, and we're yet to see
evidence that that's not the case now. And of course,
given quickly and Owen's replies to the family, it's really
hard to have much faith that there seems to be
(14:53):
a willingness to have a resolution in Aimy's case.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I can't understand why he can say that, or how
he can say that I cannot put any other person
in that room.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Presumably he's talking about the bedroom Amy's bedroom.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
I can come up with two or three scenarios just
off the top of my head where I can easily
put somebody else in that room, but it requires further
investigation to get the evidence of that person being in
that room. I mean, but that's the police job. That's
not I'm not looking for a conclusion on a fairy
tale from Rob Scantlebury. I mean, I want them to
do their job. You know the thing that really annoys
(15:34):
me about this whole thing. And I get annoyed, you know,
on behalf of the family and just personally because I think, gee,
you know, you wouldn't want to get into a serious
bit of strife in this state at the moment, would you.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
But it's the level of openness that's all we're asking for. Like,
it's not it's you know, I can't.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Believe that this goes back to requests for interview and
requests for information. Alison tim As, you know that whole
closed door approach, the entire closed door approach. It's ironic
because the police have a door very similar to Amy's
bedroom where it doesn't seem to be a handle on
the inside. No one opens it. But I don't understand
(16:16):
why you just can't talk about this because I have
the naive presumption that we're all on the same side.
In other words, now that we have a million dollar
reward for a homicide, we say, okay, it's a homicide.
So in terms of public safety for everyone else who's
still alive, isn't there a concern? But what about just
the rest of it being an open book for the
(16:39):
police them being able to talk about the possibilities like,
for instance, getting fresh eyes on the case outside wa Now, Tim,
you know there's a number of cases here where they've
done this in the past with cold case reviews. They've
brought somebody in from the East, or even somebody from
(16:59):
America or whatever, you know, from Britain. There was the
fellow who came over you know, I mean, who is
looking at this? Given the Rob Scandalbury quote that you've
just given us, Allison, you know, what's the makeup of
this new team investigating it?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
For example?
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Is it the same old coppers who had that view
that the DPP quoted in November of twenty nineteen. Is
it somebody else? Have they got fresh eyes? Do they
have a biased view towards that? Are they thinking more
about protecting the thin blue line than they are about
looking at fresh evidence or collecting fresh evidence? I mean,
you know, can we have fresh eyes on this? Is
(17:39):
it a good idea?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
To me?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
It would be essential, right because you know, there has
to be there just has to be you know, pressures issues.
If you're an existing homicide detective, you would hope there'd
be homicide detectives would be tasked with.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Doing this work.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
You'd know someone, right, You'd know you'd have to have
known someone or work someone with that down the track,
who had who had involvement in this case. The other
issue at the moment in Western Australia is there's there's
not there's not that many homicide detectives to go around. Lin,
my colleague got the West Australian Phil Hickey, who has
some of the best police contacts in this state, has
(18:23):
been talking to homicide detectives and they are absolutely chock
a blot with work, slammed, absolutely slammed, as I'm sure
many many other police forces across Australia are. Because for
whatever reason, this has been a particularly violent gear.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
In Western Australia.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
There's been some horrible crimes, domestic violence desks that we've
all heard about and regional homicides.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
They all take.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
Work, right, You've all got obviously, you've got you've got
a victim, You've got a family also grieving, also wanting justice,
also wanting information, also wanting every lead chase down. So
I hate to say it, but how far up or
down the priority list?
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Yeah, hay on for me, Well, more the case, more
the case go to the Attorney General's office, see if
you can wake up John Quigley or somebody close to
him to get them to wake him up and say, hey, listen,
how about an ex graser addition to our budget. Because
we're struggling with serious crime. What about giving us a
I don't know, one off payment. Give us a boost
(19:30):
of a couple of million dollars. You have money coming
out of your ears from the royalties. You're always banging
on about it, Roger Cooks telling them what the whole state,
what a great job they're doing economically. How about just
a few million of that will use a little bit
of it to get maybe a deputation from somebody in
the Eastern States or maybe recently retired, somebody with a
great reputation, maybe even someone like a Ron Idle's that
(19:51):
we had on the program. I mean, you know, fantastic reputation.
Bring them over for four weeks, get them to work
on the case, put a set of fresh eyes on it.
Make a consultancy payment. What's the big deal. Yeah, I'll
take your point, But it's not an excuse to Oh no, no, no, no,
I wasn't trying to make it excense.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
It's the will.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
It's the will, exactly, it's the will, and it's the
willingness to think slightly outside the process and slightly outside
the box and say, well, look, we've promised this, we've
said it publicly, we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Why don't we do it properly? Well exactly, I mean,
we've got consultants for everything else. Maybe if they work
for metro Net, we'd get it done. That's how far
over budget is that? What billion or ten billion is it?
At the last count.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
There's a lot of noughts at the end of our building.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Anyway, this is about people, not about machine And.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I'd face it, the reason we are in this predicament
is because of the unwillingness to investigate properly in the
first place. We point them in the right direction. It's
not it shouldn't be as onerous as as it would
have been. They've just done the forensics. But look that said,
you know, this is more than just a case that
(20:58):
wasn't handled properly at the beginning. They owe it to
Amy's family to see it through. This is a suspicious
death that has a lot of repercussions if it's not solved,
potentially so there's no excuse. They just have to do it.
They can't just say, oh, they were competing priorities. Well,
every life matters. Anyway. I've put some questions to the
(21:23):
WA Police, new questions to Waypole Commissioner Cole Blanche, and
we haven't obviously got replies back yet, but we will
and we'll inform you of those hopefully next week. Internal
emails we obtained under freedom of information law shows later
as last year, seen your high ranking police officers still
adamant there's no possibility Amy's death was anything but suicide.
(21:44):
How can Amy's family be confident that WA Police is
interested in solving Amy's case giving this closed minded attitude
within WA Police ranks. Two, given how much new evidence
that's now available compared to the last time the ODBP
reviewed Amy's file at least five years ago, why hasn't
it been referred to them already? And three? What more
(22:06):
does WA Police require for Amy's case to be referred
to the ODPP. So anyway, we'll see what we get
back from that. But it's it's just really important. I
think that it's just I just like you know, when
you look at what happens with other deaths you know,
like Alison Baiden Clay in Queensland for example, her death,
(22:28):
you know, and the Lynn Dawson case, you know that
came back so many years later. Who chooses which is
important or which isn't.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Now that's a very very very good question.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
I think it probably depends on how embarrassing it might
be if you did put the resources in, because it
might be a different outcome.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Yeah. Well, I mean I would have thought a potential
risk to society as well would have to be a
factor that they could consider if if you know, this
is something that could result in further violence against women
or yeah, I mean all those sorts of factors should
be taken into account. Right, is that the job criteria?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
It is the criteria. You're right, You're dead right, it's
I mean it's basic policing one oh one, isn't it.
I mean, that's that's your that's your what do they
call it?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Mission statement? Tim?
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, you know that's on the canteen at police headquarters.
So please catch the bad guys before you go home.
Clock off.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
It's not difficult. It's not difficult to work out.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
A former detective has made a big living out of
a podcast called I catch killers. That's what people want, right,
and it's a popular podcast because people want to tune
in to homicide detectives catching killers.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Yeah, well I heard them. I heard the head of
the police union on the radio the other day talking
about their their pay dispute with the state government and
their paid claim and they were asking for two different
I think they were asking for or was it eight
and a half percent in the first year and five
percent in the second year and the state government so
(24:09):
far won't come to the party. And I had two
thoughts on that. A. A. I think most police officers
thoroughly deserve arise. Yeah, absolutely they do because they are underpaid.
They are underpaid for what they do. But secondly, guys, girls,
if we're going to pay you, can you please try
(24:30):
to catch the criminals?
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
I mean I have obviously huge respect and sympathy actually
for a lot of the detectives that are tasked with,
you know, cleaning up the most horrible messes on a
daily basis and the impact that it has on their
personal lives as well as the sort of professional reputations
as well.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
But has gone back.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
To to the earlier point public servants, Right, they're two
to protect and serves, I think is the motto that's
on the side of American police cars. So and that
goes worldwide. And yeah, it's just it's just so frustrating
to come up against the same closed doors that Anna
(25:17):
and her family have for so long. And it also
just you know, adds another level of admiration to Anna
for being able to keep going and not just.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
Not just go away and cool up in a ball
in a corner somewhere.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Speaking of Anna, she is our guest, and she is waiting.
She's waiting for the host to accept. So whenever, Oh
my god, I'm here, can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Are you all right?
Speaker 5 (25:47):
God? I was getting really nervous waiting for you guys
to bloody let me join. It's like having a little
private party without me.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Well we are, but it's not complete without no.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
No, that the level of indignation is too low. So
tell us, Anna, what's the latest. How are you feeling
at the moment? And you know what's going on. You know,
we've read your letter to the DPP, we've read the
letter out that they sent to you. I imagine you're feeling
a bit frustrated at the moment.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
Well, frustration It's not new for me, Alison, I've had
over ten years of it now, but I have to
say it is disappointing, but it's not surprising. I'm used
to this sort of response passing the buck and people
in positions of authority telling me that they can't help.
It's like the people in charge are all playing a
game of hot potato, and Amy's case is the ball
(26:40):
being thrown around to the next person just to get
rid of it. But this sort of response doesn't deter
me or stop me from continuing the fight for Amy.
It just means I have to keep trying and hope
that one day someone in a position of authority has
the courage to stand up and help.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
And Liam here, how are you going?
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I'm good, Thanks Liam.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Look, I wanted to explore with you that I touched
upon a subject. This is very basic, but I think openness,
the ability for some of these people in high places
to be just open to the public, to the family
about the whole deal, I really find quite troubling, especially
in the West Australian context of where we have had
(27:18):
a lot of problems with policing generally. Can can you
talk to me a little bit about the police's attitude
from the police commissioner down, you know, how open are
they to family? And I asked that question of knowing
that you have a sort of a dedicated family liaison officer,
but can you let our listeners know sort of you know,
how that works and how often the contact takes place.
(27:40):
I'm not asking you to disclose what they say to you,
because you know that it has to be a degree
of integrity there.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
But how's it going.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
Well, it's really difficult because you know I've said to
you before that over ten years now, I've lost count
of how many liaison officers we've had. But in the beginning,
you get told nothing. Liam. There is no one there
keeping you up to date, telling you what's going on.
And it took almost three years before I actually found
(28:10):
anything out about Amy's death. And that's a long time
for family to have to wait to hear what's happening,
what's going on, what took place that night. That's a
very long time. And there's no one there that's willing
to assist you and help you and give you that information.
And you can write to the police commissioner. You can
write to these high ranking officials, but they close rank.
(28:33):
You know, they don't they don't tell you anything. It's
just all a fob off. Like what I've said, I've
been getting for over ten years now. But I have
had some liaison officers who have been really polite. They
appear to be very caring towards our situation, which is
really nice. But I mean, it's felt like most of
(28:55):
the liaison officers police liaison officers are there as a
buffer between me and high ranking officials because I'll ask
a question and so many times I've had the response
I'm not sure, I don't know, I can't say it's
under investigation, and you don't actually get an answer. They're
(29:17):
a buffer, really. But the current liaison officer I have
at the moment, he and one that I had for
quite a few years, appear to be very responsive to
my inquiries. They can't always tell me things, but you know,
at least they respond at least they call me if
I ask, at least they respond to emails. But still
(29:39):
it's very limited in what they can tell me.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
How salective are they though? Do they ever ring you
to tell you that they're being progress.
Speaker 5 (29:48):
In the past ten years, I've had one liaison officer
who couldn't always tell me everything that's going on, but
at least reached out without prompting from me. He reached
out to me to tell me little pieces of information
that he was allowed to tell me. But it's not
like their forthcoming and.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
It's it's Tim here.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Like I would think that your everyday listener, who you know,
who God forbid, would never have to go through a
situation like that. They would have a different impression. They
would think, oh, well, you know that the police are.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
They'd be.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
They'd be so they'd be really keen to keep the
family informed. They'd be they'd be wanting to provide information,
you know, you know, possibly on a you know, a
sort of need to know basis, but you know, as
soon as something new would crop up, they want to
tell you. But from from your experience, it's the exact opposite.
(30:43):
It seems that they try and keep you, or have
tried to keep you at arm's length as much as possible.
I mean, do you think that's because it's you or
do you think that's a general Have you spoken to
other families that have gone through this.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
I think I've got to say the answer to your question, Tim,
I was exactly what you just explained. I was that
person who thought that the police are going to keep
us informed, They're going to tell us what's going on,
they're going to keep us updated. But that was early
on in the day. I thought that, and I was
completely wrong. It's not like that at all. And I
(31:20):
think I don't know if it's because it's this particular case,
because it was so badly messed up at the start
that they were trying to, you know, sweep it under
the carpet and make it go away. So I don't
know if that's why. But I have met someone else.
I've actually met another aunt, Janine Mackney, who is the
aunt of Breanna Robinson, and it's her sister's daughter who died,
(31:44):
and she's been fighting for her niece's case as well,
and I think she's come up against the same thing
that the police don't want to be so forthcoming with information.
It's very difficult. It's very very hard, especially because in
her situation with Janine's niece, the police deemed it a
suicide immediately as well. Another young woman in an early twenties,
(32:07):
same thing.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
And this is the case of a young woman who
actually fell out of an elevated flat on the.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Gold That's correct. So you know, it was actually really
nice to meet another aunt that was going through the
same thing, and she understood everything everything that I was saying.
So yeah, she's come up against something very similar. And
I wonder if that's because at the start the police
called it a suicide. So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Ron Iddle's had that case in Shepard and that he
talked about that he revisited and made stuff that one
of the first instance too, But it was fine for
him to solve that one. You know. It's just I mean,
the law's meant to be deterrent too, right, Like the
whole idea is that you want to discourage people from
killing other people on the basis that they'll go to jail.
(32:54):
It just seems kind of weird in this case that
you know, a crime potentially has occurred, the evidence certainly
points that way to a crime occurring, and that it
needs to be you know, measured out and go through
the system, like that's supposedly what it's supposed to do.
(33:17):
But it hasn't gone through the system because that whole
denial of a crime having existed. I just wanted to
read this to you to Anna. This is from Melissa
High Team The Truth about Amy. Such a fantastic podcast
and so close to home for me. I lived in
that area and was in a domestic violence relationship at
the same time Amy died. I'm not surprised the police
(33:38):
ruled a suicide. Domestic violence wasn't a high priority for
the police in that area. I personally reached out for
help from the police and the Armadale and Serpentine areas
and didn't get any assistance. I was actually told by
police that the person I was in a relationship with
had over thirty reports slash phone calls for domestic violence
issues in the past, but from pre as partners. In
(34:01):
my opinion, there was a real culture within the place
that domestic violence wasn't important. My heart breaks for Nancy
and Amy's babies. Keep up the good work, keep fighting
for Amy, so you know we are not alone.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Sadly, I can only hope that the attitudes of police
are evolving for the better and in a positive way,
and changing for the better as well because so many women.
There are so so many women, and I guess it's
just I don't know if it's in the media more
(34:36):
now or whether I'm more aware of it because of
our own situation with Amy, but it's just shocking.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
Well, I think it is being reported more because of
the public consciousness and the push to shine a light
on what is a scourge in this country. I have
had lawyers tell me, you're on and off the record,
that the cases are getting more frequent, they're getting more serious.
(35:10):
I know judges are sensensing more harshly because they have to,
they've been told to, but more obviously that they want
to also send a message to the public that this
is being taken seriously and there will be serious repercussions.
But then you go back to a case like Amy's,
(35:31):
and it was it's obvious in twenty fourteen, it wasn't.
It wasn't even it didn't seem to me that it
was even seen through a prism of domestic violence on
that night and in the days that followed, And even
now you're having to push and push and push for
authorities to get to see the whole picture.
Speaker 3 (35:53):
Right.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
And we talked about it before, Anna that that in
that in quest, there was a there seemed to be
a lot of sympathy for David Simmons, and maybe that
sympathy should have been cheered around a bit more.
Speaker 5 (36:05):
Well. I actually read through some of the Current's inquest
finding I couldn't read the whole thing because it just
makes me so angry. But there were comments and things
that people said in there that just made me sick.
You know, I jotted some of them down, But is
(36:25):
it okay if I bring some of them up?
Speaker 3 (36:26):
Go on? Yeah? Yeah, please, absolutely so.
Speaker 5 (36:29):
When David Simmons was asked what Amy meant in her
text to him when she said she was over being
a no Hoper, David said it definitely wasn't him to change.
He did everything for that family, for them. I don't
know if she was on drugs or not. That's why
I wanted to know if there were any illicit drugs
in her system. I thought that's really comical that he
says that he wasn't the one to change, because I
(36:51):
have no doubt Amy's no Hope of comment was more
about her having enough of being in a no Hoper
relationship with him, and I think the comment is very tell.
She says she's had enough. That's what I think. She
says she's had enough and she wants to try for
a better life. And and that was the decision she
decided to finally act upon on the twenty sixth of
(37:11):
June twenty fourteen. She hated drugs. The whole thing was
about her telling him to stop doing that. And it's
very well documented in the coroner's finding too, that he
had an alcohol and substance abuse problem. Yet he says
he wasn't the one who needed to change. There's just
so much in there.
Speaker 2 (37:30):
Anna. We were talking the other day with Ron and
I think somebody else sent another message about whether David
simmons phone was seized by the police. Can you have
an answer to that, don't you?
Speaker 5 (37:43):
I do so. After Amy died, he took Amy's car
and the children and drove to Nancy's house, and when
he got to the house, he told Nancy what he
told her. Nancy became very distressed. She blamed him and
accused him of causing it, and she pushed him and
(38:03):
he fell on all fours onto the front lawn and
when that happened, his phone, that he says was water damaged,
fell out of his pocket and there it remained. So
when the police became involved the next day, Nancy gave
them Amy's phone back and told them that his phone
(38:25):
had fell on her front lawn and she handed that
over to them.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
So they've got well they had the phone. Whether or
not they've still got it remains to be seen.
Speaker 5 (38:33):
That's correct.
Speaker 3 (38:34):
So did they go through it?
Speaker 5 (38:36):
My understanding. So I'm not one hundred percent sure, But
my understanding is it was water damaged and they couldn't
access it.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Well, yeah, hang on a minute. I mean there's a
lot of technology around you. You can dive into water damaged
phones for data retrieval.
Speaker 3 (38:51):
It's not a big deal.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Well, they couldn't get into Amy's iPhone at that point,
but technology advanced and they were able to do that
many years later. But I don't know if the police
kept his phone or handed it back to him.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
But why wasn't that sort of that's sort of present
detail explored by the coroner when she's hearing him, you know,
make those sort of generic statements about Amy's drug usage.
I mean, why isn't that cross referenced with, you know,
with a call to provide information from his phone to
see what goes on there. I mean, it's pretty basic stuff,
(39:26):
isn't it. Or have we got well, I mean, who's
running the joint inspectacles.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
I just want to go back to a question that
we got that you read out or I read out
yes last week, Paul's question about why Amy didn't use
a dominant hand to defend herself. Now I've revisited the
files on that, so just looking and it was obviously
in spotlight as well, and anyone can look that up.
So Amy was facing the like her legs was stretched
(40:00):
out towards the door, so she was facing the door
that the door opened on her left though, as I said,
and so to get in. So but obviously it was
a right temple. You know, there's a whole idea of
her cowering. Potentially that if she was cowering at the time,
she would have had her right temple up towards the door,
(40:21):
which is potentially, you know, why she was shot in
her right temple, but certainly with you know, holding her
left arm out anyway, it's just something else to consider
with all this, because it's it's just all part and
parcel of the whole investigation and looking at the information
in microscopic detail.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
Allison, I had someone, a police officer actually say to
me that they thought with all the with the argument
that was going on in that bedroom, that Amy's ended
up in that corner, because that's what you do when
you feel in danger, you know, you hide in a corner.
And he said to me that he felt that Amy
was using her dominant hand to brace herself against the
(41:05):
wall and use her hand to lower herself to the floor,
and when she got to the floor, she ended up
sitting on it, and as the gun's to her head,
she's used a left hand to try and push the
gun away or well.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
That makes perfect sense because of the burnmark on her
left hand, which was a muzzle mark, so that that
would tend to indicate you're trying to push the muzzle away.
Speaker 4 (41:25):
It certainly makes more sense than your right hand firing
a gun which's then on your lap and then your
right hand end up ends up under your buttock.
Speaker 3 (41:34):
Yeah. No, it's impossible, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
I mean, well, as the biomechanical experts basically said, but
that makes perfect sense from that police officer.
Speaker 5 (41:42):
Anna, Yeah, And can I just read out another part
of the inquest that I found disgusting really? At the inquest,
the detective Kirkman said, I couldn't imagine somebody sitting there
and allowing somebody to place a gun directly onto her
head and pull the trigger and her not move or
try to prevent it. It's not logical. When I read that,
(42:04):
I thought, wow, talk about victim blaming, and his comment
actually doesn't make logical sense, because if someone has a
gun pointed at your head, you would freeze. My fear
would be if I move, they might pull the trigger.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
Yeah, well, lots of things happen in a rapid space
of time.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Doo. I mean that that is nonsensical.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
Yeah, but also you know with that comment that they
couldn't imagine someone sitting there and allowing someone to place
a gun on their head. If someone had a gun
to my head, the only I believe because I'm know
Bruce Lee or Action Hero, so I can't flick that
gun away, you know, like they do in the movies.
But my thought would be the only option for me
(42:45):
would try to be would be to try and talk
someone down. Yeah, talk them down, talk them out of it.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
But also, if you've got an aggressor who sticks a
shotgun into your temple, and remember the pressure on that,
it can be quite you know, it would be could
be very hard, very strong. Hannah I mean you would
you would freeze, wouldn't you.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Absolutely, I would freeze. I
would ship myself.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
Well, and there's that, But you don't I mean for
a policeman to say that, it's just look that all
that is. Let's be honest, that's complete self justification. He
completely stuffed it up, and that was reinforced by the
police's own internal affairs unit, not as strongly as it
should have been. But you know, he'd already been slapped
across the wrist for negligent duty, so it was that's
(43:37):
just an exercise.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
Absolutely, But he still did it, didn't he. We're at
an inquest and he's still saying it. Another another thing
that Detective Kirkman said in assessing how Amy died, He
said he considered he could he could easily reach the
trigger sitting down like that with either the left or
right hand, so deduced that Amy could do the same.
How could you? How could you say that just because
(44:01):
you could do something somebody else can. And then he
was corrected and told that you know it wasn't the gun,
you know, to the floor pointing upwards. So you know,
the other thing is did he factor in her neck injury,
and how could he reason that anything he could do
someone else could do the same. One minute, he's saying
she used a left hand and the end of the
(44:23):
gun was on the propped onto the bed. Then he
says she used a right hand which fell under a
bottom afterwards. Then the gunshot was from the ground up,
and then it's horizontal. I mean, can anyone else see
an issue here or is it just met?
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Yeah? I think that's definitely established. Anna, It's seriously and
I think at the time, I think Ian Roberts's statement
talked about how both him and Blandford said that it
couldn't have happened that way, but of course they were ignored,
which is terribly sad. But I guess what's even more sad.
(44:58):
And I think you pointed this out last week with
Ron Liam that when you lose, you've just got to
lose gracefully, right, you just got to accept it rather
than just keep pushing that barrow, right, And it was
just just just, man, can you just stop already?
Speaker 1 (45:15):
Ron brought this up last week too, which I thought
was the most pertinent thing of all. Even if you
don't know anything about police procedures. You know, it just
makes perfect sense. I mean, if you turn up at
a scene and such a violent act has been perpetrated
a young mum and a shotgun and a shooting injury
(45:41):
to that extent, your default position is there's a problem here.
This is potentially criminal. You know, this is suspicious. That's
your default position, because you know, anyone who comes across
a scene like that, you think that that is an
ultra you know, aggressive, serious, you know whatever.
Speaker 3 (46:00):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (46:00):
You talk about domestic violence issues, generational attitudes till the
cows come home. But the point is, if you turn
up to a scene like that, you take the default
position of it being the worst possible outcome in a
police context, and you work backwards, you know, and if
it turns out down the track from from all the
(46:21):
forensics and all the bits and pieces that somehow that
person has tragically taken their own life, well then that's
a conclusion. But you start off from the position of
assuming the worst. And I thought, you know, Ron making
that point as an experienced detective made perfect sense, whether
you're a policeman or not.
Speaker 3 (46:41):
Because, as we've said, detectives see things.
Speaker 4 (46:44):
That's the normal sort of working Joe's like you and me,
Liam would never see yeah and never wish to see.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
But this one, this is, this is still has to
be highly unusual in regional Western Australia. We're not talking
about Perth or north Bridge, and they're hardly the Bronx,
you know what I mean. Yeah, we're talking about Serpentine.
We're talking about a rural area, young woman, kids in
(47:14):
the car. I mean, it just like red flags planted
all over.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Oh mate, it was so many red flat I mean
a place would it looked like Tianum and square. I mean,
you can't make it up. It's just no, it's phenomenal.
Tim me your spot on, don't you think?
Speaker 3 (47:29):
Anna?
Speaker 5 (47:30):
Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking, listen to everything you're saying,
and you know I agree with you. But I've got
to say there were three constables that were there who
thought exactly what Ron was saying, the same way Ron
was thinking. They were taking you know, making the right
steps and following procedure. They wanted this done. They wanted forensics.
(47:51):
You know, why is it detectives could come in and
just shut all of that down. It is so wrong.
Speaker 1 (47:58):
Yeah, that's the irony They were good coppers, every one
of those constables.
Speaker 5 (48:01):
They were.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Now next week, Annie, you'll be pleased to hear we
are going to have the new South Wales Crime Commissioner,
Michael Barnes, Oh my god, talking about Amy's case, and
I guess he's experienced now he's it's going to be
an exciting, exciting episode, but I guess for now. I mean,
(48:22):
obviously I wanted to speak to you about the family
and how everyone's coping. I mean everyone forgets sometimes, Anna,
because you're just out there and you're going hard, and
you know, everyone just assumes that you're so strong, but
I know this is often hard, always hard. Really, how
you doing? First, first and foremost?
Speaker 5 (48:44):
Well, you know you're not allowed to ask me that question,
I know, I know. Sorry, I yeah, that's a really
hard one, because yeah, it is. It is so difficult
what this has done to me, you know, how it's
affected me, my life, you know, my family's life is
just devastating. I have good days, I have bad days,
(49:06):
and generally that question you just asked me could make
me burst into tears because I try not to think
about anything but what's in front of me, which is
you know, fighting for the truth about Amy. So I
don't stop to look either side of me to think
about how I'm feeling, or you know that sort of thing.
It's my focus is Amy, So sometimes I don't even
(49:28):
realize things build up. And when someone asked me that questions,
you know, there's been times when I've just burst into
tears because I haven't stopped to think about how I feel. Yeah,
but you know, the family's doing well, the kids are
doing well, Nancy is doing well. But you know that
only lasts a little while, Allison, until you know there's
(49:48):
another smack in the face or another let down, or
something happens. And once that happened, you know, once some
sort of news comes along, it just dredges everything up
gain and we're back to the twenty sixth of June
twenty fourteen. So there is no moving on until you
know there's some sort of answer to all this.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
You're doing your great job, Anna, You're doing a great job.
And thank you, and thank you for trusting us with
Amy's story. We'll keep going.
Speaker 5 (50:18):
Oh, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. Have I got
time to talk about something else? Yes, Okay, I wanted
to bring up Robert Simmons, if that's okay, it's fine. Yeah,
just a couple of things about him. He said that
Amy and his son David and the kids were living
on his property for about three months, and he said
(50:39):
he only saw Amy a couple of times and he
didn't know her very well. But he did say she
was a good mother, always polite and nice to him.
I found it interesting that he claims he didn't know
the mother of his grandchild, the one who looked after
his horses when he was away, the one who picked
him up from the airport a couple of times, he
doesn't know very well. And then he said that he
(51:02):
went into that room and unloaded that shotgun, and I
thought to myself, well, why didn't he unload the pink
gun too, and in fact, why not all the other
guns that were in that room. He said at the
inquest that he was a bit reluctant to sign off
to get Amy a gun license because of what his
son and his mates had told him about Amy going
(51:23):
to violent rages and things like that. So he's worried about,
you know, supporting Amy getting a gun license. Yet he's
okay with his son, the one with a substance abuse problem,
having a gun, and he's never witnessed anything from Amy
and says she was polite and nice and claims that
he didn't know very well. So if it's okay with you,
I actually have a personal message for Robert Simmons.
Speaker 3 (51:46):
Is that okay?
Speaker 2 (51:48):
Bert?
Speaker 5 (51:48):
You've said in your own words that you've tried so
hard to help your son get his life on track.
I'd like to ask you this, Bert, have you ever
stopped and considered in all of this, just once your
granddaughter and what she's gone through the pain and the
suffering she lives with caused by losing the most important
person in her life, her mother Amy.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
Yeah, I think that's a that's a that's a great statement.
And I asked the question again. Anyone can answer this.
You included Anna, why did he touch that gun? Why
did he go in that room and unload that gun?
Speaker 2 (52:25):
I can give you an answer. Somebody else said that,
and you know because he kind of explained it in
his statement. He said, you know, as a gun user,
it's always to disarm the guns, you know, when they're
not being used. So that's that's try.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Come on, but just that one, come on, Well.
Speaker 2 (52:41):
He said that he didn't see her he only saw
the gun and then turned around and saw Amy.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
But I'm confused. But this is something I've always been
confused about. The chronology of events. Robert Simmons' phone call
to the ambulance operator, where he says in the transcript
of the call, he's on record as saying, what are
the words, Tim? I think I think my son.
Speaker 5 (53:07):
Someone shot her. I think it must have been my son.
He's not here. My son made the mistake.
Speaker 3 (53:13):
Thank you. Is that before he goes into the room
or after?
Speaker 2 (53:16):
That was after he got a phone call, initially being
told that something was going on, so he went there,
And it's a good point you make. He went there
knowing that there was someone to think of, yeah, yep,
that's right, someone in distress, or yeah, that that there
was an person hurt.
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Something had happened.
Speaker 1 (53:36):
So he uttered those words after he'd been in the
room and unloaded the gun.
Speaker 5 (53:41):
Yes, correct, and found Amy.
Speaker 1 (53:43):
And found Amy. So he sees her in situe after
he unloads the gun. According to him, it's just such
a small room. We know what the dimensions are. I mean,
I've been inside the replica. But anyway, I'll go with
him on the chronology that's his evidence. But he unloads
the gun, then he sees her, then he utters those words, Yeah,
(54:05):
I'm sorry, but I there's still there's so much, there's
so much to unpack there, there's so much still unanswered.
It's it's incredible.
Speaker 4 (54:11):
And we've discussed it before. He wasn't saying this to
the neighbor that he knew. He wasn't saying this to
one of his son's friends. He was saying this to
a complete stranger or an emergency call.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
It's a great point.
Speaker 4 (54:25):
It's like, yes, I mean, you're overwhelmed like this, that
life is coming at you pretty fast at that point,
but that that's your first instinct to tell a complete
stranger you think your son has shot his partner like that.
Speaker 3 (54:40):
That to me is very.
Speaker 4 (54:41):
Telling to what he really thought had happened in that moment. Yes,
and then everything since, as and has just pointed out,
has seemed to walk that back or try to.
Speaker 1 (54:56):
Yes, because that's that's the flavor I get from everything
he said at the ink, he seemed to get more
and more did so.
Speaker 4 (55:02):
He downplayed it, definitely downplayed it at the inquest. But
if you you'll remember this and the post, it notes
that were all over that small house. Robert Simmons at
one point said to Amy's mum that they showed me.
I didn't realize it was that bad.
Speaker 5 (55:20):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (55:21):
And those were notes that Amy had made, presumably about
what was happening in that house, or what's what had
happened to her in that house, or what Simmons had
said to her in that house. I didn't realize it
was that bad. So that that's that's him again, not
not admitting to someone unimportant, admitting to the mother of
(55:44):
a of a of a of a dead young woman
that yeah, oh god, it was bad in that house.
Now what did he What did you mean by that?
Speaker 5 (55:52):
And those post it notes were thrown out. He threw
the post it notes out, And I just wanted to
say also, Robert gave evidence at the inquest that he
had never known his son David being violent towards a woman, right,
Yet his first instinctive comment to police emergency on the
phone was that someone shot on he thought it was
(56:13):
his son. So if you give evidence in court and
you say I've never known my son to be violent
towards a woman, yet that's your response when you see
a dead woman, you call police emergency and you say
you think he did it, Well, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3 (56:29):
It's counterintuitive.
Speaker 2 (56:30):
Boyce should be talking to Robert Simmons again if they're
not already, but they also should be speaking to his
partner at the time, or his former partners. They should
be speaking to them because we know more in relation
to those relationships, and I think they could offer some information,
(56:51):
give a bit of clarification on the situation. But you know,
I mean again, like so much of this, right, we
look at this, we look at the words, we look
at the situation, and we know we're talking circumstantial. But
the way they have interpreted stuff doesn't make sense. The
way we're talking about it now does make sense. And
(57:13):
they've just conveniently omitted the other information which backs up
the whole idea of Amy being killed as opposed to
having killed herself. So that's been the ongoing frustration for you, hasn't,
an Anna.
Speaker 5 (57:27):
The whole thing's been frustrating, Alison, like every step of
the way. I mean, I cannot believe. I still can't believe.
I know, I've had over ten years of it, and
I still cannot believe that there is no one in
authority that is stepping up to help. No one. I
just keep being fobbed off. Like I said, it's a
game of hot potato. Just keep throwing it because you know,
(57:50):
don't want to hold that for too long, do you
I get burned? That's right.
Speaker 3 (57:53):
We'll just keep the pot boiling away.
Speaker 2 (57:56):
We'll hold the potato until they only take it. But Anna,
is it? You know again? Thank you so much? Is
there anything else you'd like to say? I know that
we could, We could dedicate so much time to all
of this, but there's going to be plenty of opportunity,
I can assure you. And you know, we've got some
really exciting people coming up in conversation.
Speaker 5 (58:17):
Have you've done so well?
Speaker 2 (58:18):
As I said, starting with Michael Michael Barnes next week.
And you know, there are people willing to help. They're
not in the position, the direct position to help, but
they're willing to at least provide advice and insight on
what should be happening.
Speaker 5 (58:33):
Well, Allison, I'm so grateful to everyone who has stepped
forward to speak to the podcast. You know, people from
you know, specific expertise and backgrounds that have that have
come on here and helped and you know, given their
opinion on the matter, it's been just amazing that they've
(58:53):
been willing to do that. I would like to sincerely
thank the listeners who've been following Amy's story and to
everyone who's signed who has signed the petition in support
of Amy. They're helping to make such a difference, So
if people could please keep spreading the word and sharing
the link. And I'd also like to thank the people
who have come forward with information. Our family are so
(59:16):
appreciative of their courage in doing so, and my family
and I are also grateful to you, Alison, Sandy, Liam
and Tim and the team at seven Media for the
ongoing help and support you continue to give us Amy's
family and friends by helping to uncover the truth. I'd
also like to thank the three of you for your
kind words in conversation one. Alison, You're amazing. Tim, I've
(59:40):
appreciated all all the articles you've written, and Liam, I'm
happy to be your auntie Anna. No one's taking down
a dirt road.
Speaker 1 (59:49):
That's praise, that's praise indeed, praise indeed, were compared to
some of my other arsers. I don't know whether you
want to be in that bucket. But I'm very pleased
to put you there. No good on you, Anna, thanks
very much. We all really appreciate it, and so least
we can do. We just want to We just want
to get more, more, more, more traction. That's that's what
we're frustrated about too, equally with you. But although we
(01:00:12):
could probably never reach those dizzying heights after ten years,
but that's a great way to finish this if we
can just again urge people to to even get their
friends to look at it, family members, that sort of thing.
Go to change dot org and just type in Amy
Wensley and please sign that petition, you know, because that's
a really important thing to do, and we could get
(01:00:35):
some some literally some change from that anner.
Speaker 5 (01:00:38):
Yeah, I'd like to hope so absolutely.
Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
Well, the good thing is we're edging ten thousand now,
which is good. So we're making progress. It's slow, slowly
but surely, but you know, we're going to get there.
I mean, it's every we all sing from the same
hymn sheet. We're all dedicated to this and getting the
truth about Amy out there. And we just again, thank.
Speaker 5 (01:01:02):
You so much.
Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
And Anna Davy, you're a real superstar, which is so
much admiration for you.
Speaker 5 (01:01:11):
Thank you well, thank you so much for your kind words.
I appreciate it and everything that you're doing to help.
I just really appreciate it so much. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Thanks guys, all right, thank you, Thanks Tom.
Speaker 3 (01:01:23):
Bye,
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.