This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide.

We urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at lifeline dot org dot au.

A twenty four year old devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom bags pack car running her daughters strapped into the backseat.

Mom told me that she needed to go back inside to grab something.

Panic.

Amy is dead, sir By, Amy's Dead?

Eight Confusion World.

About five minutes they said, N's a suicide.

One hundred percent.

This is emmersing.

What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?

The Truth About Amy.

Episode twenty.

I'm Liam Bartlett and I'm Alison Sandy.

So our friends at seven News and The West Australian have hit up Police Minister Reese Whitby about Amy Wensley's case at a recent doorstop, and as a result they published an article in the newspaper the following day saying this.

Police Minister Reese Whitby has refused to be drawn on whether he thought the Corruption and Crime Commission should launch its own investigation into the death of Amy Wensley after her family called for a fresh probe in a letter accusing WA police of attempting to cover up mismanagement of the case.

When asked on Monday whether he agreed with miss Wensley's families call for a Triple C investigation, mister Whitby said it wasn't a decision for him.

That's a matter for the Triple C.

I'm not going to enter into their area, he said.

The Triple C is distinct and independent of government, and they make their own decisions.

What I will say is there is a current police investigation into that death, and there's also a one million dollar reward available.

So police are still taking this seriously, still pursuing the issue.

I'd urge anyone if you have any information, if you have any evidence that could solve this issue, please do so.

When asked whether he believed police had mishandled the original investigation, mister Whitby said investigators were taking the cold case very seriously.

In the letter to Triple C Commissioner John mckeckney, obtained by Channel seven's Invasigitive podcast The Truth about Amy, miss Wensley's aunt Anna Davy, accused officers of applying bias to try to manipulate as suicide finding.

So that's the letter that Anna read out in episode seventeen.

However, we did have to redact a little bit of it for legal reasons.

But all of you who have been following this podcast and listening throughout would be very aware that Anna Davey, Amy's aunt, calls a spade a shovel.

There's no sugarcoating anything she says, is there.

I urge you to please undertake a new investigation into Western Australian Police's handling of the case of Amy Wensley relating to Operation Junde, the Homicide Squad's attempt to have an officer in charge of the coronial investigation treat Amy's case as non suspicious, and the obvious bias by senior police officers displayed at the coronial inquest.

Yes, Liam, Anna's no shrinking Violet, which makes me wonder whether she actually is your art.

Well funny that I have thought about adopting her officially through the channels.

I mean, I'm more than happy to extend the family for Anna's purposes, solely to take her on.

I love Anna, I think she's fantastic She's a smart, strong woman with strong opinions and she doesn't hold back.

I think it's fantastic.

Now, Al, I've viewed the footage of the presser, the press conference, and while I wouldn't exactly call Reese Whitby dismissive or evasive, I wouldn't go that far.

It is clear though that he wouldn't be drawn on what he thought of the allegations of police misconduct and of course the serious implications of that.

Have a listened to yourself, Abe Wensley, who the evidence points two was murdered, Yes, three, Policing force split off the points to the factor not murder.

The family wants a triple see you investigate.

Would you support that?

Well, that's a matter for the Triple C.

I'm not going to enter into their area.

It's a distinct.

The Triple C is distinct and independent of government, and they make their own decisions.

I will say there is a current police investigation into that death, and there's also a one million dollar reward available, so police are still taking this seriously, still pursuing the issue, and if the Triple C are remind to investigate, that is a matter for them.

Do you accept that the police didn't cover themselves in glory in those investigations, these earlier investigations.

I'm not going to go through the issues of the investigation.

There is a live investigation currently and I'd urge anyone if you have any information, if you have any evidence it could help to solve this issue, please do so.

There is a million dollar reward out which is an indication of the seriousness that is this issue is being regarded.

But as for the Triple C, that's matter for them.

You're the new minister, right, No, but have you been briefed on that case, on her death and those earlier inquiries and the mistakes that were made.

Yes, I had.

So is it your judgment that they did bugger it up?

Jeff.

I'll hold my own counsel.

I have my own communications with the commissioner.

But I think when there's an issue that is live, it's best that the police be allowed to get on and make their investigation.

And if the Triple C c fit to make an inquiry or look at anything in particular, that's a matter for them.

Great job to Jeff Parry from the Seven Years Room for his persistence there.

Okay, So that's the police Minister Whitby, the new Police Minister, at the press conference, as we said, now just before we go on, let's go back to what we've just told you about the report on mister Whitby and how he was quoted originally, and he said, just to remind you, mister Whitby said investigators were taking the cold very seriously.

Well, how would you know that if he doesn't want to get involved.

I mean, he said at the start of the report to our reporters from seven Years and from the West Australian.

He made a point of saying, look, this is a matter for the Triple C.

I'm not going to enter into their arena.

That's not for me as a police minister and go through with the whole Charter and all their obligations not only under the Act, but you know, basically to make sure every single policeman, man or woman in the state does their job properly.

And he is the minister, so he's got the ultimate responsibility.

That's why he gets paid the big bucks.

That's why ministers get extra money on top of back benches, right because they've got all this extra responsibility.

So here's the new Police Minister getting quite hoity toity about his role in the scheme of things.

Oh, I'm not going to really interfere.

It's not my job to interfere.

It's your job to make sure the police do the right thing.

And a member of the public, someone who helps to pay your way, just come along and point it out some very very serious issues about what they say is manipulation by the police.

So later on he says, but hang on a minute, I know that the police are taking this cold case very seriously.

Well, that's very interesting, because if you think that it's absolutely someone else's territory, what conversations have you had, Minister, with the police about this case in order to support them, not the members of the public.

What conversations have you had.

What sort of assurances have the police given you who are reinvestigating this case, to allow you to be able to say, don't worry, the investigators are taking this very seriously.

Has he talked to the investigators themselves in order to form the confidence to be able to come out and say the investigators were taking the cold case very seriously.

What sort of experience does he have with investigative procedures to know that they are very serious?

I mean there's a whole raft of questions that come out from that statement.

But in the meantime he doesn't want to get involved with the Triple C.

As a minister, if you don't think that a member of the public is being treated fairly, especially in a judicial sense, and you have authority in that area, then you could take all sorts of measures to make sure to make sure, doubly sure, triply sure that everything is in order.

The government have the power and often exercise it in many, many other ways, mostly for their own reasons, for their own political reasons, to jump up and say this demands a parliamentary inquiry, or let's have a judicial inquiry because we need to get to the bottom of this.

They can do all that and more.

Well, it's not unprecedented either, is it.

I mean, I've seen it in other states.

Absolutely, absolutely, totally, totally.

You're one hundred percent right.

Well, we'll get to a bit more of that later.

For me, I still haven't heard back from Waypole, even though I was assured that they would get back to me.

But again, not surprised or the Attorney General quickly's no longer there.

There's a new attorney general.

This is like kryptonite for Superman.

I think not that any of them are Superman, but nobody wants to touch this.

I did, though, get a response kind of from the Crime and Corruption Commission in that I was advised there wasn't a response as a Triple C doesn't comment on what it is and isn't investigating.

That's completely consistent with agencies of that nature throughout the nation.

But it doesn't stop me trying.

And I would be negligent in my duty if I didn't go to them.

So that's the latest communication from authorities I've had on Amy Wensley.

Now a completely different story in relation to Courtney Anderson.

Liam you'll remember this case from last week.

Sure listeners will recall her family going into great detail with us.

They're saying she suffered a decade of physical and emotional abuse, which they don't believe was fully considered.

And the phone calls would start and it would just go and go and go and go, and it was just argument after argument after argument.

Who are you with?

You're not with your parents, You're cheating on me.

He would choke her with his hand round her throat while he was driving.

It's one of those cases that really gets under your skin, particularly given their history.

Courtney was fourteen when she met Ashley Campbell fourteen, who was about twenty or twenty one at the time.

Her family discussed how she'd written in her diary how he'd take her out, and she was excited about that.

He was Courtney's first real boyfriend and much older than her.

A bit of an imbalance, there, isn't that.

Yeah, Well, it's not hard to imagine what the power dynamic would have been like in their relationship, particularly after eleven years.

And then there's the circumstances of her death.

As soon as we knew he was in the car, alarm bells were ringing.

Courtney paid Anderson died on April first last year.

The official police release said she exited a moving car on the Bruce Highway.

Anyway, I reached out to the Queensland Attorney General Deb Frecklington liamb and you know what happened.

Her chief of staff called me, discussed the background he had from the department.

I gave him a description of what the family told me and fought it through the documents they provided on the case.

And guess what the family met with the Attorney General a week later.

Wonders never cease.

So Deb Frecklington, the Attorney General of Queensland's doing a job properly.

It's being professional, isn't it.

Isn't it?

I mean Attorney General Frecklington has a very important position, yea, the state's top law officer.

It's really crucial, you know, like a huge responsibility.

But there you go.

She finds time to deal with a constituent who was hurting.

Yeah right, family members who are drowning in all sorts of emotions, and she does the right thing and she sits down and she talks to them and she provides an avenue for them to meet the person at the top.

Fantastic.

I mean that's called doing your job.

And you can have the same position in two different states, operating on a completely different basis.

So what is that That's down to the person, isn't it.

It's down to personal attitudes and ethics.

And dare I say integrity?

Funnily enough that you mentioned integrity Lamb because she is actually also the Minister for integrity.

H then go, but hang on, wait there's more.

There is no Minister for Integrity in the West Australian cabinet.

That portfolio doesn't exist.

Yeah, I don't know if it's ever existed, has it?

Liam?

No, not that you have to be called that to have it.

Yeah, well, I mean they don't have a Minister for emotion or you know, minister for seriousness or a Minister for jocularity or a Minister for ridiculousness either.

But still people manage to go through that gamut of emotions in parliament.

I've seen it.

I've witnessed it.

But yeah, maybe, you know, I don't know, maybe people would take it more seriously.

But again, you know, good on the deb Frecklington.

I think that's fantastic.

You know, we should see more of it.

That's very human and coming from that position in parliament terrific.

If there was a Party of Integrity, I would vote for them every election.

But anyway, a disclaimer, I should mention this disclaim.

I do.

Oh yes, I do know Frecklington's chief of staff because, like Reese Whitby, he used to work at seven Except Ben Murphy is approachable and we often talk about going over to the dark side when people move into politics and political advisors or media advisors for politics or business and things like that.

We often joke about it.

But many of them really do change when they move over, don't they.

Oh yeah, oh yeah.

Well some of them, I will say, and I'm not pointing to anyone, but some of them become ego driven, self indulgent gatekeepers of information that they dispense sparingly in an attempt to manipulate and control what and how news is reported.

I mean, we're not the paparazzi here.

We're not trying to get a picture of some Hollywood style at skinny dipping or something.

We're just trying, Limb, to provide a voice for people who have been screwed over by the system, for families whose loved ones have been lost in the most terrible way and deserve to have their deaths investigated properly and treated fairly by authorities.

Shouldn't we all be wanting to help these people, Limb, Everyone can win out of this situation, except the baddies.

Isn't that something we can all be proud of?

I just don't understand why this is an US and them situation?

Why can't we work together?

Why are people with power blinded by arrogance and what I can only imagine are selfish motives?

That's an interesting question al.

Yeah, I'll take that as rhetorical because I don't understand either.

I don't understand either.

I think we know in.

These sort of said suations, if we get a result, that's the whole point, isn't it.

Yeah, it does matter who claims credit.

But I think a lot of times I think it's all about claiming credit.

I think that's the way people perceive it to be, which is a shame.

Sorry, sad Well, I'm happy to give them complete credit, should they take it seriously.

I mean, because as we've seen right through this, there are some really good officers who you know, you can shine a spotlight on and say well done.

Unfortunately the organization hasn't done that.

But before we move on, let me update you with some correspondents.

The family also received from the former Attorney General Shannon Fentaman, who's now in opposition, as well as offering support from her office to help frame the letter to the state coroner seeking inquest.

Miss Fenterman said she'd also write one herself supporting this.

My last response on Courtney Anderson's case was from Queensland Police Service, which stated.

Police have finalized their investigation into the death of a twenty eight year old woman.

No criminal charges have been laid.

The matter was referred to the coroner and as such it would be inappropriate for Queensland Police Service to comment further.

I replied that I was actually asking about the apparent internal investigation into the handling of the case, and then was told there was quote no current internal complaints or investigations in relation to this matter and the matter had been reviewed, but the investigation would not be reopened at this time.

Well it's pretty stock standard, isn't it.

Yeah, but that I mean that could that could change on the you know, in the blink of an eye.

Yeah.

I think that this will definitely get an in question Liam.

I have no doubt in my mind that it meets the criteria.

Criteria absolutely, yeah.

Yeah, and the criteria is unexplainable, very strange, weird, mysterious and should be explained.

Further questions to be answered that that category are Yeah.

Anyway, now moving on, Given the scope of Amy's story, I think it's good to get perspective from someone who has not only been a police officer but also a private investigator and a journalist talking about Duncan McNabb and Duncan's career has spanned something like fifty years.

He's also a renowned author and has covered current affairs and news investigations for the ABC for nine and for the Seven network.

Duncan is author of many of our listeners will relate to at least one of these.

Duncan has authored The Usual Suspect, The Life of Abe Saffron, That was a Ripper Getting Away with Murder, and most recently Roger Rogerson from hero cop to convicted Murderer.

Yeah, this was great talking to Duncan.

Well, thank you so much, Duncan.

So first of all, I'd like to ask a little bit about your background.

I started off in law school and the courts actually, and after failing law skill comprehensively, I thinkrobably been kicked out more law skills than anyone else in Australia history.

Probably a good idea really.

I joined the New South Wales Cops, spent nine years there, stepped across to do criminal defense afterwards because it's very hand little a lot of major criminal defense work, and that sort of gave me a taste of how involved the media are in prosecutions and in defense for that matter.

So that's how I sort of ended up in the media thirty eight years ago.

Not many of us in the media have been police officers.

So can you tell me why you didn't stay a police officer.

Well, I didn't stay at police officer because I was in New South Wales at the time of staggering corruption, and I was working at internal affairs at the very end of it, and I was seeing things happening, and I was seeing how it was being swept under the carpet, and in particular the matter of Roger Rogerson, who I've written about on a couple of occasions.

And in nineteen eighty four I remember standing in my boss's office when a dying deposition from Mick Drury, who'd been shot by Christopher Flannery, the well known hitman who went missing forty years ago last week and we haven't found career.

Flannery had tried to bump off Mick Drury, who had survived.

The dying declaration deposition I'm sorry from Mick Drury in part said that Roger Rogerson was at the heart of it all, and my boss nodded his head safely and said it couldn't be Roger.

He's too good a blog, and what followed was a shamer of an investigation, and I thought, well, that's how you guys really treat the attemptment of a fellow police officer.

I'm not hanging around.

See you later.

I had parted, and it spent a couple of years defending some people who were wrongly accused of terrible, terrible crimes on briefs of evidence, in one in particular, which is just a complete and utter sham, and it looked good on paper until we sort of delved into it slightly and we realized that none of it, none of it hooked together.

The chronology failed the case, and our clients were exonerated fortunately and didn't go to jail for a long time for a horrible crime.

Mate, it's likely the crime had never even happened, let alone been committed by any and in crime, first of all, prove you've got a crime.

So Juhnt can explain to me why do they get it so wrong so often in relation to saying that somebody is guilty when they're not, all saying that they're innocent when they're not.

Well on paper, the cops aren't as supposed to decide good enough.

We reckon he's guilty.

All they need is reasonable cause to suspect and then it goes up to judging jury basically at some stage.

But the costs have got a huge onus on them to make sure that the case is absolutely sound.

And the fundamental problem, well, there're a couple of problems in policing.

It's very very easy.

Back in the old days, it was very easy to decide on someone you didn't like and make sure that evidence fitted them.

That's bad our corrupt does.

But the greatest problem with any investigation, and that whether it's done by cops, whether it's done by journalists for that matter, is deciding what the result might look like and working towards it.

It's sort of confirmational bias.

It can happen deliberately, as I've seen quite a number of occasions, or it can happen by accident and you decide, well, this person looks good to me.

Let's work towards that.

And the moment you have confirmation or bias in your investigation, your investigation is perilous.

It means that you're going to stuff it up.

It also means that someone innocent might get convicted or railroaded.

Towards a conviction.

And it also means that the victims of the crime aren't properly served by the investigators.

So investigation is a jigsaw puzzle, usually analogy.

You throw all the pieces of the jigsaw on the table and work towards systematically till you get a result.

And that's what coppers and journalists need to do.

You can't say, oh, this person looks good, let's work towards that.

In New South Wales recently the William Tyrell case, I think about one point five million dollars compensation paid to a blood who was falsely the focus of an investigation, and that investigation decided on him by the look of it and work towards it.

He picked up one point five million dollars.

His life was devastated.

The fundamentals and that is he actually could prove as I recall that he was somewhere else at the time he was accused of chasing William Tyrell.

He was in a cafe with his wife for a memory.

Good luck with that.

So confirmational bias is perilous in investigations and it damages so many people, not only the accused, but the families and all those people involved in them as well.

So bottom lineers don't assume work towards it.

Let the evidence guide you to the result.

And that's the classic problem.

I think that another thing and in the chronology also has to work.

And these are two important parts of an investigation that are sometimes overlooked willfully, sometimes accidentally, sometimes with enthusiasm.

Inexperience also comes into play as well, or in some investigations I've seen, they just can't be damned.

But it seems like detective school one oh one that you let the evidence guide you.

Yeah, well, if you're trained as a detective.

I don't know what training around Australia is like, but certainly when I was trained to spend three years on the job learning with people who are supposed to know what they're doing, I've had some great mentors, I have to say once it weren't that's so great over but some really fantastic people.

And at the same time you then spend in our days three months in the classroom learning it, making sure that it is driven hard into your head so you don't stup.

What happens after that, that's where things can get interesting, but it shouldn't happen.

But it does, and all sorts of things come into play.

But you know, from laziness through to criminality, there's a whole range of reasons why these investigations stuff up.

And sometimes it's Friday after and in Jesus Christ, I can't be bothered.

We don't want to go with the weekend.

Let's piss this off and move on to the weekend.

It can be something as simple as that.

Which seems like the case with Amy Wensley right going on holiday.

Yeah, with Amy Wensley, it's an unusual case from what I can see the chronology.

The uniform people have turned up and that one look at them that I mean a confronting crime scene as well.

I mean if the injuries from a shotgun devastating, so the crime scene would have been quite confronting for the cops, and the uniform blacks are quite reasonably worried about it.

I've just read the coroners the inquest summary, and the uniform cops have done exactly what they should have done, and they've called the detectives because you've walked in and the first thing you do at a crime scene is make sure you have an open mind and don't tread on too much, and the uniform cop has struck me as having done a really good job.

They've had a look and thought one, it's an extraordinary violent crime scene.

And secondly we have questions.

For my mind, they've done exactly what they should have done and got on them for doing it.

They've called the detectives who haven't from what I've seen from the coroner's summary, done a spectacular job in the first place.

I don't know.

I don't know what day of the week this was.

Was it before a long weekend or they just couldn't be bothered.

I don't know what it is.

But when you go to a crime scene, and I mean as an investigation I've done it, as a journalist, I've done it, and as a defense person, you go through it with a fine tooth.

Came to see where the police went right and where they went wrong.

Especially in cold cases, when we review them, the first thing you do is not assume the police got it right or they got it wrong.

We go back and walk out way through it ourselves.

Not only we've got fresh eyes, but we also have newer science that we can also.

Does that come to bear, you know something we didn't have twenty years ago.

Can that be useful looking at the summaries from the corner, the uniform bolgs have done the right thing.

The detectives have arrived, and they haven't.

They've made a mistakes.

They've made a classic mistake.

They haven't assumed that foul play and worked backwards to eliminate whether there was foul play or whether it was suicide.

They seem to have readily just assumed it was suicide.

And this is something I noted in the current summary without my glasses on something that struck me as being unusual.

The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of another person, so he's death.

When I read that, my first thought was, shouldn't it be the reverse?

Is there insufficient evidence to it out whether it was it in fact suicide.

I mean, my assumption is you assume if oul play and work backwards, you know, keep your mind really open so you don't miss anything.

But if it happens, you work it backwards and suicide becomes obvious, then fine, you've got a decision.

But so when I saw it's bizarre insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of another person, that strikes me as being the reverse of what should have been said.

Well, particularly when you have three mechanics well at the time two by a mechanic experts saying that the evidence is highly consistent with having her being shot by somebody else.

So yeah, it was really odd.

But the lead detective was going on holidays.

It's used to affect police thinking when I was young, not that you'd pass a murder of but you're thinking, God, I want to pay day, let's get to the pub, going on holidays?

Do I want?

There's lingering on.

I find their attitude very unusual.

Don't put it that way.

Yes, I would have thought.

You walk into that scene as a detective and the first thing you do is start thinking what's wrong with it, not what's right with it.

And I'm fascinated too that they've made their decision yet according to some of the evidence I've looked at, someone has actually gone there and moved the shotgun.

That in itself is unusual.

Why would you do that?

I mean, I'm getting question at the moment I looked my good questions said the dignity of covering up slightly.

I can understand that.

What I can't understand is why you choose to move the shotgun?

What purpose does that have in you?

I'm thinking, well, okay, the shotguns.

And it comes back to what you were mentioning earlier, the biomechanics of it.

Surely you would reconstruct the crime scene to make sure that it was that there was possibly if suicide was either included or eliminated.

Could she have actually done what she has alleged done in and as she did it.

Yeah, that's where the lynch penable is to move on very very quickly without possibly giving that due consideration and asking questions about why someone would choose just purely to move the shotgun.

That's all too simple acts by one person.

For me, this has got alarm bells ringing all over it.

And then you consider a couple of questions later, you consider the antecedents of both people involved in it, and you start thinking you'd be getting the hair standing up on the back of your neck.

I would have thought, no, that's not normal.

No, unfortunately happens far too often, but it isn't normal.

So yeah, it's the world they live in.

It was the socioeconomic factors as well.

Some people say or have somemise that maybe he was an informant.

Maybe that was why they went lightly on him.

So, but I think, as you probably find with all these cases, Duncan, it usually comes down to laziness more than conspiracy.

Yeah.

Look and classic in every investigation, never ever, always put up and put it politely in two versions, fuck up before conspiracy, and I always lean on the film rather than the latter.

Conspiracies are wonderful and it's great stuff to have a talk about over glass of wine at night.

But the reality, as we go back to what I said at the very beginning, it's chronology, and it's keeping that open mind and or have your mind opened certainly to other things.

Sure, but she wiz, the simplest route is usually the accurate one.

Just do your job, step by step.

I think the problem with this one, Duncan, is what happened is they then launched an operation the next day, and so the detectives came back, not the same detectives, another operation JUNDI, the homicide squad.

They came back major crime.

It was then because they went back, so they came back, they did their own investigation, but for whatever reason, they ended up coming to the conclusion of suicide as well.

Yeah, there may be a couple of things in play here too, because I noticed the crime senate also being cleaned to that happened before the homicide squad.

Well, this is where you have a fundamental problem with the entire case.

The crime scene was cleaned up very very quickly.

So when the so called experts or perhaps experts from Perth and Serpentines on the edge of Perth as well, it's not a huge schlep away.

When I first looked at that Serpentine roadhouse, well will that be?

It's about fifty on k's out of Perth.

It's not a massive schlep.

Well, you might actually want to live out there and commute in to town.

So we're not talking remote Western Australia at all.

If the detectives had chosen to cal the homicides, god well, surely the homicide squad first up would have said preserve the scene what you do so we can have a look at it.

But that didn't happen for some reason, I don't know why.

Instead that not only was the scene not preserved, even though the uniform blacks were saying we don't like this, the scene wasn't preserved, and in fact that someone very kindly gave the owner of the property the telephone number of someone who forensic cleaners to come out and give the place a runover.

I don't know, maybe it's more current, but certainly when I was a young copper, which is quite some time ago, we didn't immediately have forensic cleaning services at our beck and calls oh yeah, I've got a number in my pocket here.

No, I'd be curious to see how quickly the forensic cleaners are in fact called to the scene.

So when the homicide squad the experts have arrived the next morning, they see a pristine, non crime scene, So they have to make their decision on suicide based on what they're told by their colleagues, who've already written it off as suicide.

So you can see already the problem starting.

They might have gone there with fresh eyes, but they've got nothing to see.

So how can they reasonably say we've independently reviewed the investigation because the crime scene's gone.

How can we actually say that they've done it.

They've relied on what their mates have told them, or their colleagues have told them, and they've drawn that conclusion from what their colleagues have told them.

So unless they've had eyes on the crime scene, have walked around and done their bits and pieces, use their expertise, they're relying on what they were told and they ain't gonna work.

Yes at all, that makes perfect sense.

It's fund a metal floor in the review.

Yes, but it was a reportable event, so as you know, and that's where the coroner gets involved, and that's why it was reopened a third time.

And you of course know Evil and Bigger.

Yeah.

I've known evil And for years and her partner is probably my oldest friend, and he and I worked together in the New South Well's Cops.

These people have extraordinary careers.

I mean, Evil and had a great career as a prosecutor.

She was a fabulous coroner.

Her views on this are spot on the money.

She's done what a good detective would do.

She looked at it and thought, this doesn't smell right, and I noticed it's now become an open finding.

I'm still troubled by the other coroner, who Coronel Linton.

I think it was in the summary just saying insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of another person.

Call me pessimistic, I'd be wreaking the reverse way let's have a look at it.

Yeah, so evil the money.

She looked at it, and the first thing I would imagine her noses wrinkled in the hairs that stood up on the back of her head.

This doesn't work.

And then you go down to the biomechanics of it all.

I mean, can it have happened in the way the police believed that led them to suicide?

Well what did they do?

Did they just walk in, have a look around, put their hands in their pockets, say this looked like a suicide.

Walk up the door, the old detective trick, your hands in pockets so you don't touch anything.

You walk around, have a look around.

Yeah right, fine, it looks like a suicide to me.

Job done.

I don't know whether it was that casual.

But I'd also be concerned if I've got a couple of uniform coppers saying this doesn't work, there's something wrong here.

Well, that's rare, right, that's really rare.

It's really rare.

And good on them for taking that stand.

But that's the hierarchy of policing.

You know, it's not a uniform matter.

It's a detective matter.

The detectives are spoken.

Thus it is, and it's curious that our reviewers ensued twenty four hours later.

But by that stage there's nothing to review.

Yes, but luckily, luckily, the uniform officers did do quite a bit before the detectives got there.

So they took photos.

So they've had those photos.

They've seen the position of the body, they've seen the position of the gun, so it wasn't lost.

That's incredibly important.

It would have been even better if they'd had a forensic scientist turn up and examine the crime scene rigorously.

I know, I don't know whether that actually ever happened.

No, that was a problem because I said, you know, by then it was getting late.

The detectives had turned up, and then they took over and said, no, no, let's clean up the crime scene.

Well call me old fashioned, but I would have thought you turn up, But this did.

Uniform cops called the detectives.

The detectives had turned up, and I would imagine forensics should have been summoned at the same time.

Let's capture the video of the scene.

We've got contemporary technology.

Let's get still photographs, position of the body, position of the gun, which, of course by that stage was tricky because it had been moved.

Blood spatter pattern analysis critical in crime scenes like this, so you can make sure that it actually happened on the way it did with there are other fingerprints at the scene, what's on the gun?

Did anyone look at the gun for other fingerprints and or DNA?

Did they examine any of the people adjacent to it to see if they had some gunshot residue?

All those sorts of things don't appear to have happened.

So evil and started asking questions.

And then there was an officer who was appointed as head of the coronial investigation, and that was Senior Constable and Lahane.

So she was told by the homicide Squad Major crime squad at the time.

She was told to treat it as non suspicious.

Is that usual?

I would have thought that the person in the courner's office would be the very end of the game.

The homicide squad should have been handling it.

I'm not too sure how Perth works.

West Australia works in ways that have often found mysterious.

I would imagine the person at the coroner's office was just basically handling the paperwork.

The conduct of the bread detectives said nothing to see her homicide squad have said nothing to see here, So then it goes to the coroner's office, and this is just basically the mechanics of getting the coronial in quest in progress, not actually investigating.

The investigation was done, so I take a pumpet.

By the time the senior constable assisting the coroner's got involved, well game over.

They're just presenting the paperwork has provided to them by their fellow officers, so not a lot of skin in the game as an investigator.

By that stage.

She then got reprimanded.

She told me how she got called into a senior homicide detective who yelled at her for questioning his detectives to the point that she could feel spit on her face.

So that probably you So she wasn't seen as a team player, so she was punished for that.

No, well, she's the endgame.

Presumably she's the person then takes it to the coroner works for the coroner, and she's looked at it and thought this doesn't smell right either, and she's taken a fairly ballsy iView have gone back to probably some senior detectives who don't like that interference.

I mean, we're the experts.

Why are you questioning it.

But like any good review of a brief, and that'd be the same if you take a conal brief to the Director of Public Prosecutions, they will review the brief and think there's bits missing here, this is problematic.

Fix this, there's a gap here.

I don't understand this.

Can you explain why?

And I think that sounds like what her wrong was.

She's putting the paperwork together, she's reviewing it before it goes to Corona.

She's finding what she perceives the problems with the investigation, and she's gone back to them say what's the score.

So rather than actually think, yeah, you're right, there are problems here that you're reviewing it, you've got problems with it.

Very common in policing is not to say, well, yeah, I see what you mean.

Very common in policing is to say congratulations, do what you're told.

And that seems to be what has happened here.

So look, it happens in policing around the country and we see cases like this where things have been gloriously stuffed up.

We don't want to accept we've made a mistake.

Rather than except we've made a mistake, we'll just push on hard copplers around the country, and I think internationally to that matter, seldom say ooks, we've got it wrong.

They have to be forced into that position and that's always unwilling.

So Duncan, you wouldn't be surprised that she also told me that it killed her career.

She's no longer with way Pong.

Oh, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

In fact, I could see it happening very very quickly.

My dealings with the Western Australian Police have been a couple of them.

Some great people I've dealt with over the years when we did the Bernie story for Channel seven, but other horror stories as well, and you get them throughout around the countryside, and I've been doing this for fifty odd years.

Some great stories about fabulous policing, but some terrible stuff, and the whistleblower or the dissenter is often just crushed because we don't want to bite the bullet and say we stuffed up, Whereas my view is if you're stuffed up, you take it on the chin and fix it.

Yeah, I know, like it's really been drag kicking a straight.

I always go back to West Australia's police's greatest greatest achievements.

It was the Clermont disaster for years, yes, but the one that always sticks in my mind from Western Australia is the Scott Ostick case.

We did it seven all those years ago.

The actions of WA police have been placed under an uncomfortable spotlight as an appeal against a decade old murder conviction got underway today.

Today, Ostik's defense told the court there are problems with key pieces of evidence, in particular a packet of Winfield Blue cigarettes allegedly stained with miss Thorn's blood, which was nowhere to be seen in the initial forensic photographs of Ostick's house, but then appeared in more police photographs taken days later.

Then there's the alleged murder weapon, a pocket knife missed by Sees volunteers when they searched a paddock near the murder scene, but discovered days later by detectives.

Here's a bloke who was a rail roaded into a prosecution.

In my view, Stacy Thornt murdered, stabbed to death in her home.

They arrest Scott Ostick, her occasional sort of boyfriend for what it might have a better term.

Scott is convicted.

I don't think his defense was particularly good.

Scott has convicted.

He's insight for twelve years before some people like Malcolm McCusker and other crew from Western Australia start looking into it.

Came to us with the story where looking the first thing I do, I wouldn't think this just doesn't work and you go back to the crime scene again.

It comes back to the mechanics of the crime scene.

Stacy I think was there were murdered.

There was blood everywhere as you could expect.

There are two sets of footprints in the blood, one is hers and the other presumably as a perpetrator.

There's a small feed and Scott isiac's got a bloody big feet, So that doesn't work.

In reviewing the case independently years yell out later, not only is there things like that, there's suggestions that the metadata might have been problematic in some of the visions they've got, and simple things like footprints and the part that always also dragged my attention is an independent and incredibly capable pathologist.

I think Richard Sheppard from Memory the UK blog, who did the Princess Die autopsy, looks at the murder weapon, looks at the results and says this isn't the murder weapon.

It's not long enough yet.

This poor bloke's done twelve years in jail.

The Western Australian Government begrudgingly eventually it goes to appeal.

They order a retrial.

The government does a retrial.

The retrial takes a couple of weeks.

The jury are out for time to pour a cup of coffee and have a Scotch finger biscuit before they ac quit.

Scott Austik he's lost twelve years of his life.

His father's died whilst he's in jail, his daughter's grown up while he's been in jail, and he's now out.

But gee is the battle to get it done all because the crime scene was originally not terribly well looked at, and no one ever wanted to say books, we've made a mistake.

Sounds so familiar.

Well Waypole has launched a new investigation off the back of our podcast in the Spotlight episode, and they're reinvestigating Amy's case of the fourth time this time, and they're updating the brief for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

But the family is concerned that given they keep pushing the suicide angle, you know, sort of favored result.

And I don't think it's drawing a long vote to say that there is bias within the ranks.

They're really good police officers, but also some officers who don't want to admit they're wrong.

So they're going through the process now.

The biggest fear from the family and they've called them the Triple Cee to oversee it as well.

John mc keeckney used to be a DPP himself, and obviously Rob Owen, who's the DPP now.

I mean, all ways are on them and I don't know if the Scott Austic case at the time did it have a spotlight shone on it when that was.

Nothing to see here.

It was only until he'd been in jar for about twelve years and basically saying I didn't do it, that he was fortunately scooped up by a good barrister, a good solicitor, and then the former governor, a distinguished lawyer himself, gets behind the exactly as you're seeing in this case, it smells what can we do about it quickly?

There's a parallel in what you're seeing at the we had in Sydney, the case of Scott Johnson whose death in nineteen eighteen nine he set off the top of his head, was passed up quickly as a suicide.

There was a rudimentary investigation.

Day one Scott was sound naked at the bottom North headed Citny.

Yes, this one, yes, and it's very similar to what you're looking at now.

The police said our suicide bank.

In nineteen eighty eight to the American's naked body was found at the bottom of cliffs in Manly, originally ruled a suicide.

That theory changed following three inquests.

There was review a couple of weeks later which put a map by detectives who weren't at the scene.

Massive rubber stamp put on saying suicide.

Feel later nothing to see here.

Years later, when his brother went from being a pauper basically his bum hanging out of his trousers to suddenly a multimillionaire because he invented very cleverly the algorithm to sent a picture down the Internet.

All of a sudden, Big brothers wealthy.

He sees the cases in Sydney about gay, Hey crime, you thinks is my brother one of those?

He funds an investigation.

Now for almost thirty years, the New South Wales Police Force stood steadfastly behind their original decision that it was suicide, and it wasn't until twenty sixteen that a coroner said, I don't think it is.

That's Michael Barnes, right, Michael Barnes, yes, yes, he spoke about this.

Scott Johnson died as a result of a gay hate attack.

Yeah, Barnes dropped this fairly large bombshell at the coroner's court.

And I was there that morning, thinking, at last someone has done what had to be done.

And I was adjacent outside to a member of the unsolved homicide mob and a couple of blokes and Steve Johnson, who's Scott's brother, was there.

Steve Paige, a great detective who led the investigations that originally uncovered the hate crimes.

Fabulous detective.

They think, you know, let's chat a chapter the senior homicide squad detective and just see if we can make amends and get on with the business of investigating the crime.

This senior detective turned around basically and said, up yours, I think the coroner's wrong and walked away.

So they clung to that original decision for years and years and years, and curiously enough, some fresh set of cop has finally put on the case, have arrested somebody and is in jail.

Thirty three years after Scott Johnson was murdered, Scott White finally admitted what he'd done.

Guilty.

I am guilty, guilty.

His outburst mid court hearing came as a shock to his own lawyer, police and his victim's brother who'd flown here to face him.

So we've gone from suicide to a murder conviction for manslor I think it was.

It's taken thirty odd years to get there, and it's been a battle every step of the way.

But it's been done and it may give some hope to the victims here are the victim's family that it can be done.

It just requires the cops to change their thinking absolutely.

And this is make or break time.

I mean, I know duncan that if if they don't do something now, it will eventually be done.

Because it has to be like that.

There will have to be a goodie down the track now.

Michael Barnes, you know, I'm glad you mentioned that because he spoke about that case too, and you know he had a suicideologist also gave their advice and I think at the time the Director of Public Prosecutions, because the police weren't pushing for charges to be laid, didn't they charges?

And that's the problem.

And so if the police in Aimy's case provide an updated brief of evidence and then the cover sheet says we don't think charges should be laid, then we're kind of in And of course their decisions aren't reviewable.

I think in Scott's case it was a little bit it was simplified.

The Commissioner actually at the time realized that it was probably proven to have another look at it, and he appointed a group of detectives who are fabulous people.

I've had the joy of meeting them, and they just took to the case and thought, yeah, this does think, let's go and do something.

So when they by the time they got to the DPP in Scott's case, they were convinced that they had the right blow and they should prosecute him.

But it took an enormous amount of navigation to get to that point and the involvement of the then commission Nick Fuller, saying yeah, we've got to fix this, and you need that high level to come in and kick this.

Maybe that's what Amy deserves this, it's got to be done right.

Yes, there is a problem with the crime scene.

We had the same problem with Scott Johnson.

The only story we have about Scott Johnson is that of the blog who finally confessed.

Whether you're not believed that, but he's in jail, which is a result which we didn't think we'd get.

Did you need the champion, don't you?

And Nick Fuller did come to the party with obviously the chrystalson case.

Ga Fuller made some various stute decisions and they're a stute decision that impact very heavily on the victims of crime.

And maybe they're there's little beacons that make other detectives or other senior coppers start thinking, well, instead of saying no, no, no, forget the past, to deal with the past and get these crimes fixed.

And that's where Amy's case is so significant.

Maybe at that higher level, someone in the West Australian policing and or government will say, well, we need to fix this.

It doesn't work, it's not right.

Let's go back and get it right.

Well, I hope so, I mean Robo and sc I'm really hopeful that he'll be the one, because I don't have a lot of faith in cole Blanche at this stage given the track record and he's handling on the bombar right.

From a pr side of thing, I would pr is what it is.

The political side is, here's the chance for you to get in front of something.

Here's the chance for you to be seen as someone doing the right thing.

Yes, a couple of rank and file might squawk loudly about it, but you're a leader leader.

Well much like you don't can see it all Liam.

But as it talked about New South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller, I was feeling a bit sad that to this point there's been no evidence in relation to Amy's case that cole Blanche or another senior ranking member of Waypole has had that level of commitment into the case.

So far, there haven't been any favorable murmurings about the case being taken seriously.

That said, we won't know for sure until we hear back after the DPP has been provided a copy of the new brief of evidence and made its decision.

It is interesting, isn't it that we haven't really heard from any senior ranking police publicly about making comments they just no one in a position of power wants to dip their toe into the water, do they.

And I'm not sure.

I'm not sure whether that's just about the investigative schedule, if I can put it that way, I'm not sure about that.

I get the distinct impression they're just they're holding back because they don't want to commit to anything, anything at all, which is interesting.

I think it's quite strange because only only a couple of weeks ago we had a situation where the police Commissioner Cold Blanche came out and you know, furiously defended the force's position on domestic violence, which as we know, is very very much the case with Amy Wensley in terms of experiencing domestic violence.

We've got, you know, photographic proof, and we've got you know, eyewitness proof and eyewitness recollections from her close friends.

I mean, you know, we know it's all part of it, and yet for some reason that seems to be just forgotten about, you know.

So here I'm going to draw a parallel and I'm just going to go ahead and say this because I think it's a very firm link to me.

Anyway, the fantastic speech given by Ariol Bombara.

Listeners to this podcast will remember it well, so well spoken and sew together for what she's been through and her father, Mark Bombara obviously committed that heenus double murder and is now dead himself.

But you know, Cold Blanch the police commissioner came out, as I say, just recently and said, we now have a zero tolerance approach.

He infers, it's not going to happen again because they've changed the culture, or they've started to help change the culture.

Now, what we know, and we've only found this out recently, is that no less than eight police officers, and this is all from bodycam footage and other substantive sort of evidentrary chain from the police themselves, eight police officers failed in their duty.

Not one of them was sacked, not one lost their job, not one, but they failed in their duty.

Now is that sounding familiar to the two detectives who were first on the scene to the Amy Wensley case.

But Cole Blanche's police commissioner comes out now and says, because there's been so much public pressure as a result of the Bombarer case, he says, look from now on, ero tolerance.

So, in other words, wouldn't happen again.

If any of those eight came before my desk, I'd sack them.

He actually has said that in public, you know, sack I'd sack the officers if I find them not to have done their job.

You can say what you want in public to try and shore up the sort of public confidence in the force.

But if you're not doing the bottom line stuff from day to day, and you're not actually showing people that you are prepared to go the whole hog, then what does it all mean?

And that comes back to the point you've just made about the fact that it is sad that more senior police officers haven't come out and stated publicly a position on the Amy Wensley case.

You know, in various I'm not talking about, you know, making comments that are sub judas or whatever or potentially you know, a problem legally.

I'm just talking about the way that Duncan McNabb was talking about Mick Fuller, the former New South Wales commissioner.

Yeah, and it does strike me again.

You know, it's like the difference between the Queensland Attorney General and the WA Attorney General.

Same position, totally different response, totally different reaction.

Totally different public stance.

So I think it's very enlightening.

But you can say what you want, though, Liam.

That's the thing.

It's like between the theory and the practice.

So come out and say the media that I'm going to have a ero tolerance approach and we're going to not let this happen again, but then ignore seemingly the Amy Wensley case.

I've asked him, I think a dozen times to come on this podcast to talk about Amy Wensley, and you've seen some of the replies I've got, which are kind of a bit sarcastic really, and you're just like, well, I mean, really, is what I'm asking unreasonable?

Well, no, it's not unreasonable.

But you don't expect to make friends of any of those people either, do We're not inviting them over to your place for Christmas lunch this year, So it doesn't matter.

I mean, what you're trying to do is what you're trying to do is help a family and obtain justice one way or the other, right, And that's very noble action, ol, and you need to just concentrate on that and just forget about all the tinsel, really, you know, forget about it.

But I understand what you mean.

It is.

It's an immature reaction.

But there's three different things.

You can sound tough, and you can look tough, or you can just be tough.

And clearly the trifecta is not happening in the WA Police force.

And surrounding all that is transparency and accountability, and I think that's all.

That's all we ask for because if this happened to you, or if this happened to a member of your family or extended family or a very close friend, you would want the absolute best reaction, most professional approach.

You'd want people to really go out of their way to make sure that they were doing a job properly, to put things right.

That's all you ask you know, it's not a question of any other function.

You just want justice to be served and you want a police force that does their job properly.

And it's as simple as that.

Yes, have a bit of an update.

So it's not just Joshua bright And who's reached out recently, Liam, We've also had Gareth Price.

He initially sent a message to Amy's best friend Aaron Gower on Facebook Messenger.

He offered to catch up with her one day so she could hear what he had to say.

Aaron replied, I definitely want to hear what you have to say, Gareth, thanks for reaching out.

Are you willing to talk to Alison of the phone.

Aaron offered to pass on his number to me, but he requested I text him on Facebook, Messenger and step which I did anyway, a bit more betuing and rowing, but later that day I made friends with Gareth and I called him.

We spoke for about an hour limb about him doing a sit down interview for Spotlight, which you know, I thought would be better, so we're not kind of rushing, and he's.

You know, I'd like that.

Yeah, that'd be good.

Yeah, I think so.

He was a bit confused about you, actually, Liam, because he seemed to think that you were some big week from Sydney, but you're just a big week from Perth.

Local.

I'm gonna hear wig anyway.

Anyway, he were the take homes From my end, he reiterated what he told you about David not having pulled the trigger.

Now.

I pushed him on this and asked, how does he know Simmons was firing the gun all afternoon?

He didn't see Amy shoot herself Simmons went into the bedroom on his own, So how did Gareth know that this thud they both heard after he came back outside was Amy being shot?

You know, when they were shooting all afternoon, what's to say that she wasn't shot on any of those earlier occasions.

Gareth didn't seem to really comprehend what I was saying there, because he kept telling me that Simmons wasn't the Flash or Superman, but then later admitted it only takes a milli second to fire a shot.

I told him three biomechanic experts say Amy didn't shoot herself and the evidence is highly consistent with her having been shot by someone else.

He said he had a certificate or documents or report or something in his room which said Amy killed herself, and that's what the police told him, so I'm assuming he's referring to the conclusion of Operation Junde.

He kept repeating this and didn't understand that the coroner didn't agree with the police and ruled an open finding.

So then I asked him how he didn't have any blood transfer from patting down Amy's body looking for her phone.

He said the blood was just on the wall and Amy's face.

But I said, that's not true, because we all know that head wounds bleed profusely.

But not only that, the police report said she was in a pool of blood.

The blood had seek down or all over her.

Gareth said he checked Amy's pockets, including her back pocket, and flipped her to do this, so he's touching her body, the blood has come down.

You know, we know that she was sitting in blood.

Doesn't make sense.

Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

I mean, there's no way in the world, in the human world, that he would not get blood on his clothes or on his hands, arms, forearms, And that was an incredibly bloody scene.

Yeah, by anybody's estimation, in fact, anybody who dies in that manner, there's no way that he would not get blood on him, especially if he as he describes to you, he flipped her like and he's searching through her pockets.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Sorry, I've got to say.

That's the thing though, Lamb.

See, I got the feeling that that question was a question he had never been asked before, never been asked that question.

I wonder whether the new investigation has asked him that question.

Surely surely really scare me.

There's a lot that scares me about this so called new investigation.

But anyway, it may not be as poorly handled again as what I've been told.

But it's different when you ask When you were talking to him and asking about what happened the THOD, and he's consistent telling that story.

That's something he said a lot.

And he's talked about the type of gun that was used, a four ten Buoi too.

He repeats that same thing.

But when you ask him something that he hasn't been asked before, it's different.

He tries to answer it.

I then told him there's no way he would have been able to do that without getting blood on him anyway.

He didn't really have a response for that.

But then I mentioned how Josh said they burned their clothes, and he replied that was after the police handed them back, so again a question that seemingly he hadn't been asked before, so he was thinking on his feet.

He didn't deny them burning the clothes, which is what I was expecting, but stated they were the ones they'd handed to police.

And I said, well, that doesn't make any sense.

Why would you burn those ones?

He then argued the biomechanic experts were delusional.

Yes, that's the word he used, and we rely too much on technology.

I also mentioned how after the car accident she couldn't move her body while he explained how he pulled the gun off her lap and it was pointing towards her mouth.

So Gareth doesn't seem to understand that she was shot in her temple.

He seems to think that she somehow shot herself up through the mouth, so he doesn't even recognize that she'd have to be contautionous to have shot herself in that position.

And that's a problem Liam.

Gareth doesn't understand the facts of the case and is just totally reliant on what he's being told.

So I've got two more items of note with what Gareth Sedlimb.

Firstly, I talked about the physical abuse by David Simmons, which as you know, reportedly included placing Amy in a headlock that afternoon, and Gareth replied she was beating him up, not the other way round.

I mentioned the headlock and him strangling her, and he replied not there, as if it happened another time, but not that afternoon.

I then said she wasn't big enough to beat him up, and he asked me if I was married and if I'd ever been hit.

I told him, oh, nobody had ever laid a hand on me, because that's not normal in a relationship.

He was surprised by that and replied, what is normal?

I get bit up all the time, he said, But I guess that's why neither he nor Josh intervened in the physical fight between Amy and David Simmons.

He continued to defend Simmons, saying Amy was a love of his life.

I said, telling her to erf off to a mum's and calling her the sea word, not to mention the violence were not signs of love.

And lastly, the black gun with the scope that Naa saw Simmons bring back into the room.

When I mentioned this to Gareth, he was familiar with that gun and didn't deny this happening.

He went on to say that Simmons had all the guns out because he was cleaning them.

Naya, who was seated in the back seat of the car at the time waiting for her mum to come out, said she saw David put that gun with the scope into the wardrobe, which is exactly where it was found.

So it's just interesting when you're dealing with Gareth about things that he hasn't seemingly memorized.

It's almost like a muscle memory thing, isn't it this stage?

And you just don't know how many times he's repeated that same story.

Yeah, Well, in that interview with you, he kept trying to get a word perfect.

He'd go back and it's like he's learned a line and he wanted to make sure that he repeated it exactly.

I think it'd be interesting to see him sitting in a seat.

And there's a lot too with facial expressions.

I think that go with the answer that you can interpret and interpolate one way or the other.

Now, a reminder ol this is the final episode of season two, but shortly it will appear on YouTube as a vodcast, so stay tuned for that.

Will provide updates on social media and put out a notification wherever you're listening to this podcast.

Meanwhile, we also have some bonus episodes coming up to coincide with another episode in Spotlight on Sunday Nights and as more events relating to the current reinvestigation by Waypole into Amy's death unfold and we'll keep you up to date on that, and this will include details of the brief of evidence being provided to the DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and any subsequent updates, revelations and or announcements.

The whole grab bag will stay across it, and if we get any more information from other other listeners or anyone close to the case, obviously that is pertinent, and we can advance Amy's case in other ways.

Of course, it goes without saying.

We will, So thank you all for listening and coming on this journey with us and remaining to the end when the entire truth about Amy is finally realized.

So this isn't the end completely, but it's the end of season two.

We're at a crucial moment as WA Police's cold case team finishes up its investigation, which has gone on for much longer than they initially expect it apparently hopefully that's a good thing.

And all the information is there, including independent expert advice from a criminologist, a suicideologist, an independent psychologist not just the police psychologist they used initially, which as you know, has been debunked, and a domestic violence specialist.

Yeah, also Scott Rhoda not to be forgotten, and Scott's ongoing participation in the case.

He has helped an amazing number of jurisdictions and police agencies in the United States, being an American himself, with some very very big cases.

Among all the other new evidence that we've uncovered, of course from key witnesses we've identified, and that which was previously ignored, such as you only mentioned it a little while ago, the fact that the clothes the police received from Gareth Price and David Simmons could not have been the ones they were wearing when Amy died.

Yeah, absolutely, pinly the ones that they were wearing at the roadhouse, but they weren't the ones that they were wearing when Amy died.

And of course that the gun was placed in the position Gareth founded in it was placed there, it could not have landed there.

Amy's daughter Naya, saw David Simmons in the room with Amy after she went back inside and before the so called bud And that's just to name a few key details which we provided painstaking detail on throughout the duration of this podcast.

Yeah, and I guess we now put our faith in the Director of Public Prosecutions and his team carefully analyzing it and following up on any holes in the evidence, overall in the hope that a criminal trial is the ultimate goal.

Hopefully they'll listen to this podcast.

It certainly can't hurt Liam.

It's essential listening given the responsibility of the position.

They are intrusted.

Yeah, all eyes on them.

There was a famous quote from the thirty fourth President of the United States, Al Dwight D.

Eisenhower, and it goes like this, The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity.

Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang football field, in an army, or in an office.

I think Dwight was referring to a police office at the end.

He just missed out that word, but it's appropriate.

Sure is.

Thanks Leam, Thanks thankslessness.

Lasimus so deation.

We would know the nasty kill me.

Say if you knew Amy and have information, any information about her death, we'd love to hear from you.

Just email us at the Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au.

That's s E v E N The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au, or visit our website sevenews dot com dot au.

Forward slash the Truth About Amy.

You can also send us an anonymous tip at www dot the Truth about Amy dot com.

If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but for legal reasons, unfortunately Lee, you won't be able to make any comments.

And remember, if you like what you're hearing, don't forget to subscribe.

Please rate and review our series because it really helps new listeners to find us.

Presenter and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett, Sound design Mark Wright, Assistant producer Cassie Woodward, Graphics Jason Blandford, and special thanks to Brian Seymour and Jessica Evanson.

This is a Seven News production.