Listeners are advised that this podcast series Brown contains course language and adult themes.

This podcast series is brought to you by me Headley Thomas and The Australian Michael Drury was the undercover cop they Couldn't Corrupt, a plain clothes detective with a relentless determination to expose organized crime in Sydney's underworld.

His name is synonymous in Australian police and crime circles.

Ray had morning onto GB.

It was ten past six in the evening on June sixth, nine eighty four on the North side of Sydney, and the unbelievable happened.

A serving police officer who'd been undercover about to testify in a giant drug case.

We shot in his own home in front of his wife and two small children.

When the undercover drug squad officer woke for his CAMA twelve days later, he was in no doubt that a fellow officer, Roger Rogerson, was involved in that assassination attempt.

My colleague Matt Condon told me that his friend Michael Drury had been paying a lot of attention to the evidence in our podcast investigation into Bromin's disappearance.

Matt confided that the long retired detective had focused his still sharp inquisitive brain on some of the angles in the case.

Mick Drury also knows Lennox Head well.

The force's most bent cop was Roger Rogerson in the nineteen eighties.

A skilled detective but a sociopathic killer who had crossed the dark side.

Rogerson ordered the execution of his fellow officer, Michael Drury.

Many years later, The Sixty Minutes reporter Liz Hayes took Mick Drury back to his old home in which he was shot twice and almost died.

This is the kitchen and the kitchen window, of course, and unfortunately this is where it all happened.

The first shot hit me straight through the stomach, into the area just next to the backbone and lodged between the ribs, and the second shot hit me alongside the heart and underneath the shoulder blade.

He has been living in northern New South Wales for years.

I wanted to pick his investigative brain.

We caught up at a roadside cafe.

One of the first things Mick confided to me there was his awe at the potential for true crime podcast investigations to solve old cold cases.

And when you've got exposure Australia wide and even overseas for that matter, you've got tens and tens and tens of thousands of people listening to it, that one a positive and truthful outcome, and someone out there may have a fresh idea.

Why would a loving, dedicated mother, for no reason whatsoever, after one so called private phone call in the bedroom, come out the front and say to John Winfield, oh, by the way, I'm off see you later, A wave to him, close the door and off into the never never and be never seen later.

Absolute bullshit.

That is not correct.

I state my entire career on that.

It just does not ring true.

I would love to interview him to get his version of the store.

Mick Drury zeroed in on a crucial period of fewer than twenty four hours, the period from when John arrived in Lennox Head after the flight from Sydney on Sunday evening May sixteenth, until the Monday afternoon when he turned up at Andy and Michelle's house in the Shire.

On that Sunday, he was awake for most of the day, had short notice.

He caught a plane from Sydney to Ballana.

I find this interesting.

He went to the police station and forecast them that he was going to his house with some pending, perhaps a verbal drama with his wife because they weren't on good terms.

John Winfel was a dedicated surfboard rider.

He brings the surfboard up by plane from Sydney, which would indicate is coming home for several days, and he leaves later that night.

There is no doubt in my mind that something very disturbing happened that night after driving almost non stop back to Sydney that night with amazing stamina and fatigue that I would suggest zero notice.

He's requested that the mother in law take care of the two children, and that freed him up with the motor car to do whatever he wanted, unobserved and unsupervised.

Now that worries me, because then that means he's got freedom of use of the motor car whatever may be disturbing in the car.

I would suggest he was concealed in the boot in the hysterics of the moment that he must have been going through through in scooping up the children, in leaving the house in an extremely untidy condition, when he's realized whatever this disaster may be, he has jumped in his car and driven non stop to Sydney.

Something very serious has happened.

He has taken flight away from the area.

What about the risk of driving a vehicle that's unregistered some eight hundred odd kilometers with a body in the boot.

As you put it, If there was a body in the boot, there is a risk involved.

But I would suggest Sunday night at twelve midnight, one, two, three, four, five in the morning.

You don't have that many highway patrol in those days on the old wading, very slow driving Pacific Highway.

And in those days, would an unregistered vehicle have been immediately obvious to a highway patrol.

No, he would have known that.

He's a man of a high degree of intellect.

I've got to give him that, and he's got more opportunity and flexibility of doing something sinister like disposing of a body in the Sydney area.

That's where John flourished a receipt for petrol purchased for the overnight drive from Sandstone Crescent to Sydney with the two girls.

He produced it to Andy Reid and Michelle Reid.

I think it's very disturbing behavior.

When you're the suspect of a crime and you have this ridiculous example of alibi construction on the balance of probability does not work in your favor.

It is a mark against you.

It's alibi construction by someone who's trying to cover their tracks.

Bromlin actually had a little bit of a background in banking, et cetera, so she would understand the format of a check.

Back to front.

There he is, five years later, being interviewed by the police to do a formal statement or interview.

John Winfield produces this check and claims he founded on the kitchen table five years earlier when he went up there the second time with her signature on it, and it should not have been her signature.

Is that correct?

Didn't need her signature?

Correct?

Correct?

Why would he keep that check for five years?

Why would he keep a petrol docket five years?

This is what's called alibi construction at its finest.

It takes my breath away.

This is nonsense.

So you're seeing now a pattern of alibi constructions.

Oh yes, yes, Mick Drury circled back to John's hasty departure from the house at Sandstone Crescent, on Sunday night, and then John's telephone call from Sydney to his neighbor Murray Nolan two days later, asking Murray to break into the house.

John was very obsessive with the hygiene and placement of things around the house that he owned at Lennox Head.

Yes, now this is important.

I believe that he is obsessive compulsive in his behavior in that regard.

The next door neighbor is instructed by John Winfield to go and knock on the door of the house and if there's no answer, if they be break in, and it's a bit of a mess here there and everywhere, the children's bedrooms, the kitchen area, and John some days earlier has driven back to Sydney and left his house in a mess.

I find leaving the house in that state or condition diametrically opposed to the normality of John Winfield, which is obsessive compulsive in that regard what was going through his mind.

It is so ridiculous that it is, in my opinion humble, as it is absolutely compelling evidence of a very disturbing nature.

Turning to that Monday in Sydney, he has dropped his daughters off at his ex wife's house, where his mother in law answers the door, and no doubt a bit bewildered, agrees to accept the children for several hours.

We then surmise in the podcast that John may have gone directly to this building site at a place called Illawong in the Shire where he had been working as a brick lath and part of our suspicion over Illawong is based on a fairly recent discovery which the police and the coroner didn't know about many years ago, and that discovery being council documents from nineteen ninety three showing that the inspectors of the council had approved just days before Bromwin disappeared the pouring of concrete for the patio and the garage slab.

And that's wonderful evidence about the date for approval the pouring of the concrete.

It's possible that Bromwin was put underneath the plastic and the rio that was all there ready for the concrete pause, and then the paws have occurred and she remains there entombed.

It's far easier to dig a hole in an area like that than it is somewhere around Lennox Head.

The grave only has to be twelve inches deep and from their backfill, was Sad put the plastic over in the rio and it's done.

It wouldn't be the first time our body's been located in that type of location.

Is that a site that you, if you're a detective on this case, would regard as low, medium, or high priority based on the circumstantial evidence you've heard in the podcast.

My view is when I look at the movement to John Winfield from that fabled Sunday night, it is absolutely critical to find out what may be happening underneath.

That is a vital area of consideration for intense forensic examination.

Listening to the podcast as closely as you do as a retired detective of impeccable standing and knowing the area Lenox and Ballana surrounding beaches, do you feel a connection to this case that has led you to volunteer this.

Help Look Podcasts are very very new forms of educational entertainment in this modern day for everyone in the community.

It gives an opportunity for those tens of thousands of people out there in Australia and perhaps overseas to send you emails or ring you up or one of your staff members and say what about this?

What about that?

We're doing a process of critically analyzing the facts that we're aware of.

You have an investigational team of ten thousand or more.

That's one hell of a team.

This is a twenty first century version of Sherlock Holmes before.

You read the final chapter.

When investigations go bad at an early stage, there's a tendency for people to speculate that it must have been because of corruption.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's very easy to be critical of an individual or what may or may not or should or should not have been done.

We're not dealing with a shoplifting from the local corner store.

We're dealing with a suspected murder.

It doesn't come more serious than a suspected murder.

I happen to know retired Detective Sergeant Graham Diskin personally.

He actually joined the cops with me the same class.

I haven't seen him for forty years or more.

I won't go into the way his mind works.

I don't want to be unfairly critical of anyone, but I can tell you now something very disturbing happened on that Sunday night.

We do not know whether the owners of the Illawong house share our suspicions and the suspicions of thousands of listeners.

For all we know, those owners have never heard of the Bromwin podcast.

But I have talked to Cariina and Andy about whether perhaps we should visit, introduce ourselves to the owners and just tell them about everything.

I was just thinking back to what Maddie said one day.

I think you and Maddie and Andy Hedley were in the car driving away from Illowong, and Maddie said, can you imagine if someone came up to your door and Toddy, this may be a person underneath your what?

I don't know if i'd like to hear that.

How would you even approach that?

I guess I worry that we might cause them some angst and concern at a time when we can't do anything much to alleviate that.

I feel like it would be transparent of us and talked so much about this property to talk to the owners without putting any pressure on them.

We can just talk to them on background, just a conversation to fill in any gaps they might have.

We don't know what the current state of play is with the police, so we can't really give them particularly up to date information or tell them what the lie of the land is at the moment.

I mean, obviously they could turn us away.

That's not the end of the world for us.

But I'm a bit worried about the effect that it could have on them as a family, especially if they have children.

If they know nothing at the minute and we sort of go and burst that bubble, then it could potentially cause them quite a lot of stress and anxiety, I think.

But if we're assuming that the police will go there to search, then that bubble is going to be burst anyway.

Yeah, it will.

But again I think there's a difference between having your bubble burst by law enforcement.

They could really welcome contact from us and might have been say, oh, we've been waiting for you to get in touch.

But on the other hand, it might just come completely out of the blue and be a real shock.

But what if nothing's going to happen despite the letter to the state coroner, despite the new evidence pointing to Illowong, nothing happens.

Let's hypothetically say that we have chosen to avoid the family at Illowong, to knock go and knock on the door and introduce ourselves in good faith, and then the promin series comes to an end.

The police keept diverted elsewhere.

You and I are diverted elsewhere onto another murder investigation, and Illawong goes completely overlooked, and we never ever spoke to the family, who may say, look, if the police have no interest in searching our property.

Will you and I see what you mean about the fact that people might move on and get distracted by other things.

But it is something we could revisit down the track if there was no police action ultimately taken.

Do you agree that it's more likely than not the family living there knows about the history of that property.

There's definitely a possibility that they know about it.

What is the worst thing could happen by us going there and introducing ourselves and just offering to answer questions and telling them that in the event police don't search, we'd like to come back and talk to them.

The worst thing that can happen is that we approach the owners at the Llowong house now at this stage when there's not a real need to go there, and they are unhappy about that contact from us, And then down the track the authorities might decide not to go to Illawong, and we really do need to go in at that point if we want to try to bring about a search of the site, and the owners might be less inclined to engage with us at that time if we've sort of irritated them now through an unnecessary approach.

I was going to stand right behind you when you knocked on the door, just.

Time it off and made it my responsibility.

Andy was going about his own building job when I reached him to talk about it.

The owners of that house in Illawong must now know that it's their house that has been discussed in the podcast as being a possible burial ground.

For Bromwind thinks, so, yeah, don't don't know that.

It wouldn't surprise me.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me.

Your all, how did you feel about you and I am, possibly Karina going up to that property and offering to answer any of their questions based on the that they do know and we're not trying to cause them trouble, and we have the one to identify the property really just as a good will gesture, and we'll ask them, how would you feel about the police coming here?

If that's their decision, but we won't be saying to them we want to do it ourselves.

We wouldn't be interfering with the site in doing that, we wouldn't be contaminating anything.

We'd simply be knocking on the door and offering to have a chat to them about what's been unfolding, but not asking them for their permission to do anything subterranean.

This is based on that assumption that they must know about it.

How would we find out whether they know about it, because you'd be pretty confronting for them if they didn't and we turned up there, Well.

We can't find out whether they know.

We just have to front up.

But what are the chances they don't?

And he clearly feels for the people living at that address in Illawong if the police are going to visit and do a proper search under concrete there, and his view is that it should be done quietly.

I've long thought that it would be beneficial to that family that you've siftly turn up there and you've put a building shine out in the front, as if that family's doing some renovations, and you'd go in there and quietly do the work you're playing close.

Why would you turn up there with all the fans there and crap?

So make a song and dance about it.

You really acknowledge that, but made that ship has sailed.

Neighbors will just put on social media.

Word'll get out and then about half an hour you'll have TV crews there because they'll realize what's going on.

It's just not possible anymore to do this quietly.

In view, I reckon, Yeah, it's just a show, all right, mate, I'll let you go.

You're on a building site, yep.

Yeah, make sure you get the levels right of course.

Mate.

Before we reconstructed the five days of the two thousand and two Inquest with episodes that were faithful to the evidence, you heard a lot from John Winfield's nineteen ninety eight record of interview with the then detective Sergeant Glenn Taylor.

That interview was held in the Ballaner police station, right near the start of Glenn's reinvestigation of Bromwin's disappearance.

You'll recall that over multiple episodes, Glenn re enacted his questions from the official transcript of that interview, and a voice actor for John Winfield read the answers, which the real John gave.

Here's a reminder of the very start of that interview.

It's from episode fourteen.

The interview has commenced at eight fifty two AM.

For the purpose of the tape record, Can everyone present state their full name on Detective Sergeant Glenn William Taylor.

Detective Senior Constable Wayne Tembe introduced himself, and John followed.

Suit Jonathan Winfield.

Mister Winfield.

As I've already explained to you, Detective Temby and I are making inquiries in relation to the disappearance of your wife Broman Joey Winfield on or about the sixteenth of May nineteen ninety three from Lennox Head.

We're going to ask you some further questions about this matter.

These questions and any answers that you care to give to those questions will be recorded electronically, both on video and audio cassette tapes as the interview takes place.

Do you understand that?

Yeah.

Now, some former and serving police and several lawyers with experience in criminal defense work have been in touch since the interview between John and Glenn Taylor featured heavily in the podcast.

They wanted to raise something that is troubling if true.

They are concerned that the formal interview which John did might not be admissible evidence in the event of any prosecution.

The reason for their concern revolves around something known as a caution.

A suspect needs to be alerted to his or her rights, one of which is the right to silence, the right to say nothing at all.

The record shows that Glenn did not caution John, did not tell him that he had the right to say nothing at all.

As you'll hear later, that was a deliberate decision by Glenn.

He had his reasons for omitting the caution, and he explains those reasons.

Ultimately, it could be up to a judge to determine.

Karina Burgers spoke to Rachel Fisher, a lawyer experienced in criminal defense cases, about the caution, why it is important, and what can happen under certain circumstances if no caution is given.

Can you explain what a caution is?

What does that mean?

So a caution is a legal requirement that is to be given to an individual who is in police custody being interviewed.

It is a phrase of wording that essentially is critical and very important to make sure the person being interviewed understands that they essentially don't have to participate in the process, and they don't have to answer any questions, and if they choose to do that, or if they choose to participate in the interview, that anything that they say can and usually is used in any proceedings against them.

In what circumstances should a person be given a caution?

If they're being interviewed by police, in every circumstance they should be cautioned.

Rachel works with Street and Lawyers in Sydney.

In twenty twenty four, she was recognized by members of the profession as a criminal law rising star in what's called the Doyle's Guide.

As a defense solicitor, Rachel, would you make an application to exclude an interview in which a caution wasn't given to a person?

Would you do that?

As a matter of course.

It would really come down to whether or not I was at the view that the interview or anything that was contained within the interview was essentially problematic or against my client's interests.

If my client is sitting down with police and making what we refer to as admissions, which is statements that go against their interest, then absolutely it would be the first thing that I do.

My first question is did you participate in an interview?

And if they say yes, well, one of the first things that I check in the transcript or the recording of that interview is whether or not they were given a caution, because if they weren't given a caution, it is very standard for me to make an application to exclude it.

Obviously, I'll make the strategic call to not make the application if the interview is from my perspective, something that assists them or makes them look better, or provides explanations for things that I think are helpful or in their interests.

But that is quite rare.

And if someone isn't a suspect at the time of their interview, let's say they're being treated as a witness, would.

You expect that person to be cautioned.

They don't have to be cautioned necessarily in the same way that someone who is a protected suspect or someone who's been arrested is.

But I think it's quite important for police to tell people that they don't have an obligation to speak to them.

But that's as high as it's taken.

They don't have to caution them in the way because they're not necessarily talking to police whilst being expected of committing a crime, so they don't necessarily have the right to silence.

But they are not in the same position as someone who's been charged or is being suspected of committing an offense.

And hypothetically, if you were acting for someone who's interviewed in the capacity of a witness, So they're not a suspect at that stage, but they later go on to become a suspect in say a murder investigation, and they hadn't been cautioned in their initial witness interview.

What do you think you might do in that situation as a defense solicitor for them, Well, I would absolutely look at putting on an application to exclude it.

And one of the basis upon which to do that is to try to ascertain and understand whether or not the police actually did have a reasonable suspicion or a suspicion that they were involved in some way.

Police can often speak to people and say, I just want to hear your side of the story.

I don't necessarily think that you've done anything wrong, and treat them like a witness, speak to them as if they are a witness and haven't given them their rights, whereas the police state of mind and the reason that they're doing certain things is critical.

So if there is anything that I would discover, usually through a subpoena of police notebooks, police indices, that would indicate that there might be some reason that the police have a suspicion about this individual and they haven't treated them like they are a suspect and they haven't given them their rights, but there could be something in the back of their mind that might be raising that suspicion.

I would absolutely be putting on an application to exclude it on the basis that the police have improperly obtained an interview.

It doesn't necessarily mean if they're not cautioned that anything that they say is automatically excluded.

There's no guarantee because that application is balancing test.

The law says that sometimes the desirability of admitting evidence that is improperly or unlawfully obtained outwighs the undesirability of losing evidence that's what we refer to is really probative or really strong.

So it's a balancing exercise by the court.

And why is.

A police caution during an interview so important.

That requirement is underpinned by a fundamental principle in our criminal law system, which is the right to silence.

People need to understand that if they are being investigated or suspected of committing a crime, that they have a right to silence.

They don't have to answer police questions, and they don't have to essentially assist the authorities who are looking to investigate whether or not they have committed an offense.

The caution is essentially the practical way in which those rights are secured.

Of course, every case is different with unique circumstances.

At the time of the interview in Ballana Police Station, Glenn Taylor was an experienced detective.

He had investigated and helped solve murders while working for the homicide squad in the city of Newcastle, north of Sydney.

As you'll hear, Glenn still believes that it was appropriate for him to not caution John because of the interview occurring at a very early stage of Glenn's investigation.

However, he acknowledges that a criminal defense lawyer would possibly try to bring a challenge about it and seek to knock all the evidence from John's interview out of a possible future prosecution.

Joel winf was the very first person that was the interview just to commit aversion from him, And that's why I did an issue a cause.

If you've got a suspect, you may have enough evidence to charge a person early in the interview, you would administer a formal call that they don't have to say anything unless they wished to, as anything they say may later be given in evidence.

So we didn't use that caution because at that point in time we simply didn't have any formal statements taken and we had very little information other than what was in the running sheets of Detective Sergeant Diskin.

There's a little bit of a fine line administering a caution that this stage we were not at that level.

I mean, we didn't have not one statement from the previous investigation with all we had was running sheets from Diskin to say they'd spoken to him and they've spoken to the neighbor and she hadn't touched the bank accounts.

But we didn't have anything concrete or been written for that would want him getting a caution.

So that's why the commencement of the interview I still wanted him to be legally bound to say what he's going to say, to the best of his knowledge is the truth.

Glenn is talking here about what he read to John at the start of the interview.

Here's another reminder from episode fourteen.

I'm just going to read this onto the record here and if you understand it, I'll just get you to acknowledge that the statement made by you accurately sets out the evidence which you will be prepared, if necessary, to give in court as a witness.

The statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief, and you make it knowing that if it is tended in evidence, you shall be liable to prosecution if you are rawfully stated in it anything which you know to be false or do not believe to be true to you give an undertaking to tell the truth in his interview.

Yeah, yeah, so that paradought read out to him is like a declaration by any witness.

When you interviewed in New South Wales and when you take a statement from somebody, you're saying that what you're going to say in the statement is the truth, and you know you could be prosecuted if you're telling deliberate laws.

But in a legal sense, you have not made up your mind at that point that they're sufficient to.

Charge without a caution.

Is that record of your interview with him admissible in a murder prosecution?

Hypothetically, Well, that would be opened to a court a judge to decide that at the time that was taken in good faith.

I believe it would be admissible because as an investigator, we had not made up our mind that there was sufficient evidence at that point, because we vientually hadn't interviewed anyone.

And then, when a detective trained, you should only administer a caution when you believe there's sufficient evidence that crime's been committed and you have sufficient evidence to wright this person being charged.

When we interviewed him, he was like everyone else we're interviewing early an investigation.

He was a witness.

There's something myself and Wayne Tenby would have considered before we even brought him into the police station.

Okay, what do we know to this point?

There was certainly a lot of things we didn't know.

It's sometimes good to get someone committed to a version early in the peace, before we've interviewed all the other witnesses, and after you've got a person committed to a version you can come back to them later.

But by the time we finished the investigation, it was clearly of the view that he's either got to charge with murder now and that was considered, or let's test all the evidence before a coroner and then put a submission to the coroner that the coroner referred to the DPP, which we thought would be the more appropriate way to go about it.

We could have invited him back for a second interview, but we strongly believe by that time that he would have had legal representation and said no, I'm not willing to be interviewed, not willing to answer any further questions.

Because we would have then had to give him a caution.

He would know then that he's no longer just being able to be treated as a weakness.

He's going to be treated as a suspect.

There's no set thing in police rules and instructions as to who should interview first.

There's benefits probably both ways.

If we had gone the other way around and interviewed everyone else and then invited him in for an interview, I feel pretty confident that he would have been legally represented or advised was solicitor not to answer any questions we would get no version from him whatsoever.

That's my belief.

You were to closed up shop and said no, I'm not going to answer anything because you clearly think I've murdered Bromlin.

I believe myself personally it could be it should be still admissible, because we had not come to any reasonable belief that we're going to charge him.

Even at that point or even later, we needed to gather evidence.

We certainly had some suspicion because there was red flags flying everywhere that this is more than just a missing person.

Retired New South Wales homicide detective Stuart Wilkins played a key role in the investigation of the serial killer Ivan Malatt.

But I spoke to Stuart in December twenty seventeen about the Chris Dawson matter because in January nineteen ninety one, Stuart Wilkins was a relatively junior detective and he went to the Gold Coast with the season Detective Sergeant Paul Mager to conduct a formal recorded interview with Chris Dawson over his wife Lynn's disappearance eight years earlier.

Stuart went on to help solve many murders in the homicide squad in New South Wales.

Here's what he told me shortly before Christmas twenty seventeen, as we sat at the kitchen table in his home and he recounted that nineteen ninety one interview with Chris Dawson.

And you'll see during the interview he was cautioned did he need not answer any further questions and the rules of evidence are quite clear our minds we had potentially enough evidence to heading down a criminal path.

The caution was given at around the half way mark of the police interview.

The then detective Sergeant Paul Magar.

Says, Chris, I'm going to ask you questions, a series of questions now, but before I do, I want you to understand that you're not obliged to answer these questions unless you wish to do so, because anything you do say will be recorded and may later be used in evidence at court.

I'm not saying that it will be, but it may be.

Do you understand that.

Yeah, So, anything that he said after that time was given to us after a caution was given to him, and the caution years, of course, that anything you say will be used or will or can be used an interview for court.

Lord.

The video recording and transcript from that interview which Chris Dawson did in nineteen ninety one with detectives Stuart Wilkins and Paul Magar, were admissible in Dawson's Murder Trap in twenty twenty two, and those documents were important parts of the prosecution's evidence all those years later.

The law expects us as investigators to ensure that if we think we've got enough evidence to at least put a charge or put someone before a court in any format, that we should caution them before we actually speak to them.

And I've been in a number of homicide investigations where unfortunately that caution wasn't delivered prior to police asking questions of suspects, and the actual information and the answers to those questions have been precluded from being accepted the court because of the very rules of evidence.

It is very difficult and it gets frustrated.

I remember another case where there was the execution murder of an X and his partners actually had taken out a contract and actually killed at Porchat.

We interviewed the suspect and whilst he wasn't a suspect at the time, the law and the legal process was that we should afford that he was a suspect no matter what information we had of so we lengthy in detailed interview of him that unfortunately got precluded to evidence.

I told Andy Reid and his wife Michelle of the potential complications with the nineteen ninety eighth interview of John Winfield at Ballana Police Station.

It's giving them that notification up front, the caution words like the words that you have to use you have the right to ride silent to ensure that what is said in that interview can be admissible.

Otherwise defense lawyers will say, well, can't use it.

I asked a former police officer with legal qualifications.

To read the record of interview.

It is possible that despite there being what we believe is evidence of deceptive answers and lies in the interview, they may not actually be admissible at all in the event of any case.

Maybe that was part of the consideration of the original DPP.

Well, we didn't actually get a specific reason.

We only just got a very generalized reason that they weren't going for it.

You might be quite aware that anything he said in that interview is not going to be able to be used anyway.

This might be the reason he says things like the little or blow over.

That's a bit of a bummer.

It's just my knowing.

It's a double edged sword, isn't it.

Yeah, it's just ridiculous.

Andy and Michelle have given me a copy of a letter they received from Glenn Taylor in two thousand and three, one year after the inquest.

At that time, Glenn had recently retired as Ballina's Detective Sergeant of Police.

Glenn has not been able to let Bromin's case go.

He is still offering help and advice, even where it throws a poor light on police and on the badge that he wore with pride.

Glenn has been challenged in Ballina by serving police who are unhappy that he has spoken his mind in the podcast, but he has also been congratulated by retired and serving police who hope that it will make a difference.

Glen agreed to read some of his two thousand and three letter.

It was sent soon after he had visited his old workplace at Ballena Police Station.

He went there about giving evidence in court for another case, but what he saw prompted him to write to Andy and Michelle.

To my disappointment, I found that all of my old investigations, including Broman's disappearance, have been thrown into a storage room with other old court briefs.

I found four boxes relating to Broman's disappearance scattered all over the room.

I've now put them all into one area of the storage room to try to keep them together, but I am not sure what will happen now that I'm no longer there.

Another detective should have been assigned the investigation in case further information comes to hand, and to keep the police brief intact, but it is obvious that this hasn't happened.

I have obtained some documents out of the four boxes, and I have enclosed a copy here for you.

It beggars belief that criminal investigation files for unsolved cases as serious as alleged murder was thrown in police stations with such a cavalier disregard for victims of crime and their loved ones.

Glenn Taylor quit shortly after the two thousand and two inquests run by Karl Milavanovitch, as he disclosed to Andy and Michelle read in his.

Letter, Unfortunately I couldn't continue in the near Southwelles Police after twenty seven years aden of them.

As a detective, I was just mentally burnt out.

I will leave in hope for you that one day justice will be done and John Winfield will be brought to account.

Hopefully Bromlin's remains will one day be found.

The preservation of evidence from unsolved homicide should be one of the most important priorities for every police force, but there have been some lamentable failures.

In Romlin's case, documents disappeared, and it also happened in the case of Lynn Dawson now known as Lynn Simms.

In late twenty seventeen, during interviews with Lynn's brother Greg Simms and his wife Marilyn, they disclosed the loss of important evidence in the original homicide investigation we were.

Interview Dug I would say about nineteen eighty eight, eighty nine here and.

Then the Regial Chrome Squad was disbanded and all their paperwork and everything went to different areas.

A year or two after that.

Our original statements we had taken were lost.

They went to Missing Persons and got lost from there.

And we didn't have copies of those.

It's been a miss.

The whole thing's been at real miss.

Five years after I spoke to Greg and Maryland.

A retired homicide squad detective gave evidence at Chris Dawson's murder trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court about the loss of evidence at an early stage in the case.

It got little attention at the time.

These are the retired detective's words.

It's not his voice.

When we relocated from the Chatswit office into the centralized system over in Surrey Hills, all our records, all our briefs, everything was boxed up and taken into storage.

And I had later visited warehouse to try to find something else, and what I found was quite a disaster.

There were boxes of records stacked four and five high cardboard boxes from all of the crime squads and they'd been there on this concrete floor for so many months.

The weight at the top had started to collapse the bottom boxes and the damp had come through the concrete.

It was just a mess.

Really, trying to find stuff was almost impossible.

Glenn Taylor's experience and the disclosures like those you just heard from a retired detective who was giving testimony under oath begs a couple of questions, how many cases of vital importance to hundreds of people will be forever unsolved because the evidence has been lost or destroyed due to thoughtless or incompetent handling.

Do the families of the victims even know that the historical records are gone.

The loss or destruction of evidence from unsolved cold cases is more often than not swept under the carpet.

Fortunately, the problem has been formally recognized.

An eight eighth month inquiry into the police investigations of unsolved gay hate deaths revealed police files were missing or lost.

Some exhibits, including the murder weapon in a number of cases, had been lost as well.

In twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three in New South Wales, a special Commission of Inquiry investigated unsolved LGBTIQ murders and assaults and the unresponsiveness of police in many of these cases.

The inquiry was led by the then Supreme Court Justice John Sacer, he has since retired.

In his final report, Justice Sacca called out.

The historical legacy of poor record and exhibit management practices concerning unsolved homicides, and he wrote in some cases entire sections of investigative files appeared to be missing, with limited evidence from which to discern whether records had been lost or never made.

Significant exhibits had often been lost or destroyed.

It became apparent that there were long standing problems with exhibit and documentary record management within the New South Wales Police Force.

Justice Sakker questioned Detective Chief Inspector David Laidlaw of the Unsold Homicide Unit during the inquiry.

We have relied on a voice actor to read out the now retired Judge Sackers' findings, but we do have the actual audio from the exchange with Inspector laid Law during the inquiry.

Has it ever occurred to anyone in the New South Wales Police Force at a specially funded project be in urgently to take place, by way of audit of all unsolved matters to find out where the records are such that do exist, whether exhibits are sitting in boxes somewhere untested, which may be.

These are all people's lives and people's.

Families are so I appreciate that and as anyone, as far as you know, ever put to the Commissioner, a current one or any chronic commissioner, some specially funded project is urgently needed to get a grip on all of these unsold cases on aware.

The inquiri's report, including recommendations, was delivered in December twenty twenty three and it ran to almost three and a half thousand pages.

Recommendation ten was that the New South Wales Police.

Force conduct a systematic review or audit of all unsolved homicides pertaining to the period nineteen seventy to twenty ten, including an audit of what exhibits have been retained in relation to each death and their current location.

This is very significant because it recommends a review of all unsold homicides and is not limited to unsolved suspected hate crime deaths.

The Police Commissioner Karen Webb said sorry to victims and families who had been failed by New South Wales Police, including for.

The gaps in those investigative processes where records and exhibits were lost or not examined with enough rigor.

Our research suggests there may be more than two hundred unsolved homicides requiring auditing, and that twenty five detectives have been assigned to help.

Michelle and Andy have forged what they believe will be long and deep connections with people who have come forward in the podcast to help and give them moral support, but this series is still coming at a heavy personal cost.

Their connection to their niece, Bromman's eldest daughter, Crystal, who is siding with Lauren and John and Jody, was frayed before we took the break.

At the end of episode thirty two, connection appears to be severed, at least for now.

Can you just paraphrase what Crystal told you, Andy?

She said, Look, I can't be in contact at the moment because I don't agree with your version of events, and I need to be there for my family, meaning she needs to be there for the Lena's Head side of the family more than the Sydney side of the family, which I thought was pretty confronting.

Now obviously feeling rather that way, mate.

So she's rejecting the arguments and the facts and narrative of the podcast series.

She refers to them as a version, when all we're doing is following the facts and the statements and the information that's on public records.

So I'm not sure why you refer to it as a version, because this isn't fiction, you know what I mean.

We're not making this stuff up.

But I firmly believe that's because of the pressure that's put on her and the parrot that's sort of always forever.

They're being dangled about having a relationship, but it's not really a true relationship.

Crystal's in her early forties and you've known her since well since she was a baby, yep.

At times as an adult, have you observed her having a very different perspective and view about her stepfather John and his alleged conduct.

Yes, well, look at her statement and her evidence given.

There's some fairly damning sort of evidence there and in her testimonial.

But is it the case that when you telephone her she doesn't pick up the phone.

No, she doesn't want at all.

She's even taken Mel off Facebook.

He's taken Mel off Socialism isn't in touch with Mel anymore.

Mel's mum, deb told me that yesterday.

Melanie Taylor has shared memories and observations of Bromwyn and John from the nineteen nineties when Mel and Crystal were close friends and childhood neighbors in Sandstone Crescent.

Mel saw Bromwin and her girls leave the house as part of Bromwin's termination of the marriage with John.

Mel was there when Crystal, Lauren, and Bromwin returned to the house while John was living away and working in the shire in May nineteen ninety.

Three to got back to that home to give the kids a house rather than will be unit and be the mum And for all I know is that's what she.

Ever wanted, And over the years it's been suggested that Bromwin just went off to, as John said, start a new live.

No way.

Mel's candor has led to her being attacked on social media by Bromwin's youngest daughter, Lauren.

Lauren and Jody remain staunchly loyal to their father John.

Andy Reid believes that Crystal's recent cutting of her ties with him and also with Mel on social media pleases the Winfields.

Tell me how you feel about the side that she's picked.

I can understand in a sense.

So I can understand because h's flutching extrawtion.

She doesn't want to lose the relationship with her sister.

I think her relationship with Lauren is more important than anything else.

That's what she clings to.

Yeah, it's disappointing, but anyway, I can't do any about it.

I can't do any about it.

It's more important to get justice for Bromlan than to worry about my feelings.

We don't know you from a bar of soap.

You've never stepped foot in our household or our shoes, So what right exactly do you have to make these claims and assumptions on here?

Lauren has expressed heartfelt criticisms speaking art against her uncle Andy Reid, as well as some of the listeners who are part of an ongoing conversation about what possibly happened to Bromwyn.

We have always wanted Lauren to have her say within respectful boundaries.

Most educated people know that just because the media publishes something, it doesn't deem it factual or truthful accusations, speculations, opinions, gossip, judgments, condescending acts, bullying tactics, stalking, filthy staes, doxing, harassment, intimidating approaches, threats to safety.

Should I continue my list of what people are doing to us daughters and our families.

There is always a standing invitation to her, Jody, Crystal, and John to sit down for an interview in person or over an online platform like zoom.

Lauren has been assured that she can say much more in an interview than she could say on the Facebook discussion group page.

Her father John has declined to be interviewed since day one.

I spoke to Bromwin's cousin Megan about this.

From what I've heard from Crystal and I speak to Crystal every day, Lauren has been going through a dreadful time.

But as I said, this had to come out eventually, and I wish I was close to her like I am to Crystal.

She looks so much like Bronwyn, a burst in a cheese and Isiah.

She walks like Bromwen.

She's got Bromwin's eyes, It's the Bromin's physique.

She's just so much like Bromwin.

It's like a double ganger.

It's like coming back.

Crystal's antipathy about the podcast became apparent in some of her social media writings months before this episode.

The podcast only ever shares part of statements, comments, fabrications and stories that serve their agenda.

I'm not turning a blind eye to anything, However, there is always two sides to every story.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced in this story.

Mum would have always put her children's happiness first, just like I would for my child.

I wish she were here, Mum.

I feel for it terribly, you know that.

I think she's burnt shrung along a bit to help their cause anyway.

Disappointing, but this is already our time and see if she comes around.

Bronwyn is written and investigated by me Headley Thomas as a podcast production for The Australian.

If anyone has information which may help solve this cold case, please contact me confidentially by emailing Bronwyn at the Australian dot au.

You can read more about this case and see a range of photographs and other artwork at the website Bromwyn podcast dot com.

Our subscribers and registered users here episodes first.

The production and editorial team for bromwin includes Claire Harvey, Kristin Amiot, Joshua Burton, Bridget, Ryan Bianca, far Marcus, Katie Burns, Liam Mendez, Sean Callen and Matthew Condon, Karina Verger and David Murray, with assistance from Isaac Iron's.

Audio production for this podcast series is by Wasabi Audeo and original theme music by Slade Gibson.

We have been assisted by Madison Walsh, a relation of Bromwyn Winfield.

We can only do this kind of journalism with the support of our subscribers and our major sponsors like Harvey Norman.

For all of our exclusive stories, videos, maps, timeline and documents about this podcast and other podcasts including The Teacher's Pet, The Teacher's Trial, The Teacher's Accuser, Shandy's Story, Shandy's Legacy, and The Night Driver.

Go to the Australian dot com dot au and subscribe.