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 immersing.

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

The Truth About Amy?

Episode eighteen.

Hi, I'm Liam Bartlett and.

I'm Alison Sandy.

Hillo.

Nancy, Oh, you're looking so beautiful.

I'm filming already.

I'm sorry, but you know it's a hungry beast.

Nancy, it's all It's so good to see you looking so well.

On my recent visit to Perth, I had the pleasure of catching up with Amy's mum and best friend Nancy Kirk and Aaron Gower.

How are you guys feeling after everything in this whole like avalanche of publicity, and you know that's light, I suppose, and the podcast and everything on top of it.

Well, I had a lady come up to me the other week at work.

I was helping her and then she's gone to the counter bought her stuff and the woman I was working with said my name, like olled out, Nancy.

Can you just have a look at the price for this?

I said, you was, And as she was walking out, she said, oh, you're related to Amy Wensley.

I said, now, I'm her mother, And I don't know what it was.

It was just I must have been happened one of them days, and I couldn't help.

I'd just started tearing up.

And she said, yeah, one hundred behind hers.

You know, Amy didn't die, and it was nice, it was it was nice, but I sort of yeah, and I just teared up, and I was like, oh my god.

What's a lot I mean?

And I don't want to dwell on that because I know how it makes you feel.

But yeah, I completely understand.

There is nothing worse than what you've been through, like for me, for you know, like a week as mums.

We're all mums, right, Nothing worse than losing the child so and then having to fight for justice.

I think that's the hardest.

Like I was talking today yesterday and I told her I was coming to meet you when you're going to be here, and she goes, oh, I said, why did you want to come?

She got no thanks, So okay, she goes, Oh, I wish you will just hurry up and finish.

Yeah, Johanna, she goes, I said, I just need to hurry up.

She goes, I hate saying you like this every time something comes up because it messes with your head.

Then she goes, I don't like it.

So I just felt so nice.

Yeah, that's I think the sad thing.

And they talk about it being dredged up again as though like we can help that, you know, like if it was dealt with properly in the first place.

That's right, we wouldn't be doing all this and we're reliving every single time.

One of the things that came up lim is how victims and their families are treated after the investigation of a loved one has been botched compared to that of witnesses and persons of interest.

I don't understand how Aaron Tash, myself, what we've seen what we've heard out of AIM's mouth.

Then this look at David, Gareth and what's the other one, Josh them through their stories aren't consistent at all.

I can't remember and I can't remember.

I forgot where we can tell you exactly what we've said at the Coroner's Court twenty twenty one.

I can remember that phone call.

I can't get that out of my head, her voice.

I'm not going to forget that.

I yes, I can't remember bits and paces.

The shock when you're in shock.

Right when I got to the house after David said that to me, I remember bits and paces.

I don't remember bits and paces when I got home, but that phone call, what she said to me, I'll never forget.

The other week, I was thinking that that's one of the frustrating things about it is that we're constantly thinking about what information can we get out there about people, like where's David at now in his life, or what's he doing?

When does he have caught and all these things, and we don't really get to just focus on just thinking about Amen, just because how she was as a person and who she was and all that sort of stuff, and just enjoying or remembering her life.

We're just focusing on this bad no part of it.

It's like I can't even enjoying a grandmother and that's what I missed.

I miss those faint cads on with Iman soon, right, I haven't the girls?

Yeah tonight, I can't do and I miss that.

I like it.

I don't feel like Ann a grandmother to them girls.

Yeah, and just shouldn't have to.

And how the system isn't just geared against them, but also the people who try to help them.

I then tell Nancy and Aaron about former detective Anne Lahane, who we discussed in episode sixteen, and how she was reprimanded for not falling in behind the decision from Major Crime that Amy suicided.

God, but why is she getting reprimanded when the two detectives still had their freaking jobs.

How do they have the authority to tell her to do that?

Well, they don't, but she got reprimanded and then she was seen as.

Not being a team player.

Oh my god.

But aren't the uniformed police officers their colleagues as well.

They're not detectives.

And they do freaking better job.

Why has there not been that pressure to get more answers.

It's costing the government more now looking into Amy's case now from what it would have if they've done their job properly that night.

I just hope this new cold case term are a lot sorr and a lot better than the last one.

God, I hope they do the right thing this time, by Amy, by Amy's daughters.

Well, they say it themselves now advertised as a homicide.

Think, yeah, so homicide investigations.

Yeah, that's why she needs now where they say they've got enough information for enough evidence to prosecute.

I mean, what do you think of it?

It's a no brainer they definitely do, wasn't it.

Just like he grabbed Amy Boger's throat, he threw her on the ground.

That came out of Amy's mouth to me.

That's when I told Amy pack, yes, stuff, you and the girls get down here now.

And then that happens.

She was hysterical.

She couldn't hardly talk properly, she was that hysterical.

But I got her to calm down and yes, mom, I'll be there soon, put her girls in the car.

And all the evidence shows that she was an attentive mum.

She wasn't just like a young mom that just doesn't really worry about their kids and just lets them go.

She would follow schools to the school.

When they first started catching a bus to school, she would follow the bus to school to make sure they got off the bus and walking to the school, and she would follow the bus after school.

She've done that for about a week to make sure her girls were safe on the bus.

I don't know about you, Lamb, but what bothers me the most is how little power victims and their families have in the event authorities decide.

It's all just too hard.

As mentioned by the New South Wales Crime Commissioner Michael Barnes last season, if the DPP doesn't decide to prosecute, there's no review process.

It's an all or nothing situation, isn't it.

Al It's very final, and the families of victims must really feel that.

I think you'd have to do the old walk a mile in my shoe routine to fully understand how they must feel.

But it's almost how can I put it, It's almost a godlike sort of system, isn't it in that respect?

Because that's it.

The final word is the final word.

But the final word comes very early.

I think in the process.

There's no checks and balances.

You just have to rely on the system, like you're in the hands of the system full stop, and you just have to trust that everyone along the line, and it's a very short line, has done their job properly, due diligence and with enough verve and vigor to come to the right decision.

And I say that because you know, everyone's under pressure.

There's budget tree pressures, there's resource pressures.

Everyone in those offices is under a lot of pressure because they do do a lot of very good work.

And we're the first to acknowledge that.

But that's it.

That's the sort of the Office of the High and Mighty.

Now, I mean, just to provide our listeners with context, I've gone back and had a look at the WA Director of Public Prosecutions Act nineteen ninety one and his role.

The DPP's role is very expansive, includes commencing or conducting, quote, the prosecution of any offense, whether indictable or not.

Now, I won't go into all these functions bore you to death, but I thought i'd mentioned a few key ones that's relevant to the case of Amy Wensley.

For example, under the Coroner's Act of nineteen ninety six.

They are required to participate in inquests and with concurrence of the coroner, assist them in the proceedings.

Talk more about that in a minute, because that'll become a very important point when we go to the previous coroner who had carriage of Amy's case originally.

But the DPP's office also have the ability to quote, make a request in writing to an official, including the Commissioner of Police.

Now that's a direct quote from the Act.

I haven't added the last part.

The last part reads and a member of the police force whose functions include prosecuting for or investigating offenses.

Now you'll remember the statement from the office of the DPP said they had but a mere ability to advise an investigative agency, implying WA Police, and it was their decision.

WA Police's decision whether to lay charges or not.

However, I think they're being a bit humble here for want of a better description, because clearly the director's power from the Act, from that quote that I've just given you, extends to requesting from the Police Commissioner with the obvious expectation that he would comply for any specified information or documentation or material that the DPP thinks may be relevant if considered to bring or take over a prosecution in relation to an offense or suspected offense.

Now he can also request investigation or further investigation reried out into any matter in relation to that offense or suspected offense.

Again, the police commissioner must comply unless there is any other law preventing that compliance, which I would suggest to you again would be very unusual.

So Robbo and sc who is the Director of Public Prosecutions in Wa, really can make the difference.

I mean, he has complete power to make the difference as to whether Amy's case is brought to justice.

Yeah, it's interesting again going back to that whole thing of them not having any review process for his decisions.

Not even a judge gets that.

It's the power that that role has the DPP has is just I just I can't quite fathom why they're allowed that level of power, given that people who you would say were more experienced, had better credentials in those top areas in Supreme Court and High Court aren't given that.

I mean, well the High Court is, but that's certainly not Supreme Court.

And yeah, I just it's quite surprising.

Are you're right?

I mean, Supreme Court judges are questioned all the time, aren't they.

That's why they go to an appeals court.

And then, as you say, ultimately there's the High Court.

So the appeal court judges on sitting on that bench, you know, they also get scrutinized.

The other interesting part about that is al is that you've got to remember that in the DPP's office, the DPP is not looking just at things that are obvious to you or me, or investigating officers information that we don't even know about.

There's other variables as well.

There's political variables involved in deciding whether or not a brief meets those criteria to you know, send it through to charges.

There are and we've had this from a number of DPPs across the country over the years.

You know, we've had comments that very truthful comments about the nature of the budget for example, and the fact that you know that particular case hasn't got a great chance of a prosecution being successful.

Therefore they must spend their money where justice is also seen to be done.

So there are nefarious variables involved that we may not necessarily know about or understand or have explained to us.

So there's lots of things in the shadows.

So it makes that lack of appeals process, I think, even even more acute.

I know that Michael Barnes would really like a national campaign on this because obviously it affects all states, not just w WA.

Certainly, it's interesting that part about the DPP's role in inquests as well Liam that came up in a recent interview.

Yeah, we managed to track down the very first coroner who handled Amy's case, and I must say her views were very enlightening and she was very forthcoming.

I thought I let our listeners be the judge.

Pardon the pun, but even though she's now retired, evel and Vicker was a very experienced, accomplished, extremely knowledgeable coroner who likes Sarah Linton, who was the coroner presiding over the eventual in quest, held the same title Deputy state Coroner.

And what I found most interesting is that Evelyn had a specific background in forensics, which I think provided her with a bit more understanding of their importance, especially in relation to this case.

Anyway, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

We are getting acquainted, all right.

Evel and thank you very much for as I said, for your time.

It's really kind of you to have a chat to us.

So let's go back in time a little bit.

How long were you a deputy state.

Coroner from about July two thousand through to June twenty nineteen.

That's a fair old stint.

And what sort of cases were you exposed to during all that time?

Well, there was only the state coroner, which then was Alista Hope and myself for a period of that time up until twenty thirteen, I think, so, I mean between us we were exposed to all the coronial cases because between the two of us we had to cover everything.

Every sudden and unexpected death had to have an investigation as opposed to an inquest, So there would be an investigation and one or other us would sign off on it.

So we saw accidents, homicide, well not usually homicides was after a trial, so we would get it afterwards just to do the finding, because of course we're only responsible for manner and cause of death, nothing more.

So accidents, suicide, medical negligence, workplace incidents, anything where there was a death that was sudden and unexpected, even natural causes if the person was not expected to die.

Therefore a doctor wasn't prepared to do a death certificate, then that would become a coronial case.

So essentially, your brief was always trying to find the manner and cause of death.

Well, cause of death was up to the pathologists, if you like, But then we would put the cause of death together with the surrounding evidence to give a manner of death i e.

Suicide, accident, unlawful killing, those sorts of things.

Yes, whatever was relatable to.

The evidence about the circumstances the.

Person end up being deceased one way or the other.

Yes.

Yes, was your background as a prosecutor helpful in doing that sort of coronial.

Work, Yes, it was, But don't forget prosecutors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coronial is only on the balance of probabilities because prosecuting your fault finding, coronal your only fact finding.

Okay, so there's kind of a difference there, But honestly, my background as a biologist was much more pertinent and helpful to me as a prosecutor and as a coroner.

Having that biology physiology understanding made it a lot easier for me to understand expert evidence around whatever it was, biological or whatever it was.

I really think my background as a biologist was the most useful to me both in criminal law, which I was doing and as a coroner.

So that part of it is science, part of it helped enormously.

Yep, hugely, absolutely hugely.

But also I would imagine as a prosecutor you learned along the way how to talk to people and more importantly, how to decipher their responses in such a way where you suspected or or perhaps concluded that they were either telling the truth or leading you down another garden path.

That's the forensic part, as in somebody may say something and taking it from a prosecution point of view, someone can be mistaken, but because they totally believed what they're saying, they're very credible.

So they're totally credible, so they are telling the truth, okay, But they may not be reliable, and it's other evidence that will point to that.

So it's not that they're intentionally misleading you, but they may have a particular memory that serves them one way.

So being able to tell with someone saying the truth or not isn't actually what you're after.

It's actually whether or not what they believe are the facts.

Do you understand what I mean by.

That, yes, But I guess that's my point.

Really.

Maybe I've phrased that the wrong way, being able to read the people scenario in situation.

But you have to have other evidence to be able to do that.

So yeah, I mean, but someone who believes they're telling the truth, even if they're mistaken, is so credible because they are telling the truth as they know it.

So this thing about truth or not truth, no, not really, it's just you just know a person passionately believes what they're saying, but it may not be quite right.

So again, this is a really good point ms Vicker is making.

Just because someone is saying something in a way that they seem like they're telling the truth doesn't mean they actually telling the truth.

It just means it's what they believe.

I mean, as you know, Liam, we've both spoken to Gareth Price, and he genuinely seems to believe what he's saying.

But when you point something out which is completely irrational, he just says something which is even more irrational to justify it.

Yeah, and I think too, Allison.

That's the old story, isn't it.

The longer you say something, no matter what it is the more you believe it, inherently it becomes your truth, as they are fond of saying these days, which is complete lunacy because there is only one truth.

I mean, truth is non binary, however you carve it up.

But you're right.

And again this is justification of why a trial would be so critical in a case like Amy's, because it's different pressures, different rules of evidence, different rules of legal counsel being able to cross examined, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah, given Evelyn's background, she is perfectly placed to to provide reasonable opinion, as I point out here, and clearly you look at the world forensically anyway.

Yes, I mean I think you have to.

I mean I think that's what science probably teaches you.

But kind of so does the law, I guess.

In the criminal law area.

It's long been argued, especially in Western Australia, that the Coroner's office has been understaffed, under resourced.

I mean, did you find that the backlog of cases was a constant challenge.

Yes, it was in a sort of way.

But it's very difficult for families to understand everything that goes into making determination.

You know, sometimes we wouldn't get the pathologists report for eighteen months or so, which would delay the police report.

And it's not that anyone wasn't working hard.

They were working very hard.

It's just that some of those things take an awfully long time to clarify, like especially neuropathology.

Neuropathology about if you're looking at medical issues, sometimes we just don't have the information in Australia and our pathologists would be looking to other countries to Great Britain to put information in.

And then when DNA became so important, originally we weren't as expert in that as we may be now.

And also the other thing that people really have to understand, and it's difficult for me because I'm not a technical person.

That's kind of different from the biology side.

Things have come such a long way with communication.

It's very easy these days to ask someone's opinion in the States or someone's opinion in Britain if you can provide them with all the information.

But it wasn't always that easy.

It used to be you'd have to send them stuff and get it back and then they'd have another query, whereas now that can be done quite quickly.

But there goes your backlog if you like, we're waiting for information a lot of the time.

Very frustrating for the families, doesn't it.

Oh yeah, absolutely, I totally accept that.

And that's the other thing.

If you want it done properly, then yeah, I guess it's just very hard to explain to people.

You obviously relish the challenge though, as part of.

That word I loved what I was doing.

Yeah, so why did you finish up?

Now, that's part of the whole coronial thing.

At the time I was made a coroner, I had to be a magistrate, okay, a magistrate as a statutory appointment.

And at the time I was made a magistrate, the statutory retirement age was sixty five.

That was it.

Okay, okay.

Shortly after I hit sixty five, it was extended to seventy, but I'd already had to officially retire by that stage, so it was possible to get extensions, but you had to apply for every year to the governor, and that actually is quite tiresome, it's quite hindering.

So I actually hit sixty five, so I then applied for an extension and it was just becoming difficult because of the statutory retirement age, as I say, it then changed, but that didn't save me.

And also is the coronial system.

You got a coronial warrant for either three years or for five years.

Generally it was just renewed.

Now, unfortunately, and I mean, I think it's a very bad move, coroners don't have to be magistrates, which means they're very vulnerable that if they do something that is not appreciated, they may not get their warrant renewed.

That sort of applied before, but because you were a magistrate, you still always had a job to go to.

You could go to being an ordinary magistrate.

Now if a coroner blots their copybook in some way, then they're out on the street, if you like, which makes them vulnerable politically, is all I can really say to that.

That is really interesting because what evil and Vicker appears to be saying here is there's a lot of political pressure put on coroners and if they step out of line in whatever capacity that's measured, they may lose their jobs.

Makes it hard to be independent.

Yeah, and that's the whole point, isn't it.

Of the coronial office of any sort of you know, quasi judicial office in that sense, it's supposed to be fully independent of the political process.

I mean, that's what everyone thinks.

I thought that.

Well, yeah, that is the working assumption every day of the week.

But a very interesting insight from Evelin on that subject, and back to her.

Now out the state coroner is a statutory appointment.

They can do that until they hit now the retirement age of seventy.

But because the newer coroners are not magistrates, they're quite vulnerable to their tenure.

So you got caught up by the red tape of the day.

Yes, I think you can say that it's.

Great shame because good coroners don't come along very often.

Well, I can't answer that I did what I did to the best of my ability.

Some people wouldn't approve of that, and others would.

I don't know.

I certainly strived to always be true to what I believed to be right, and I did that as a prosecutor too.

Here Liam asked Evelin if she remembers what she thought when she first saw the file of Amy Wensley.

Can you recall with any sort of clarity your first impressions.

Oh, yeah, very clearly.

I can't remember why, I asked to see the file, because that was after twenty thirteen, when we'd expanded as an office and there were then four of us.

There was a new state coroner, and I don't know why that file was brought to my attention, but I did read it and my whole forensic background.

To me, it was a homicide.

But no, that's not even fair.

It was an unlawful killing.

It was an unlawful killing.

All I'm saying is manner of death.

To me, it was an unlawful killing.

I couldn't see it as a suicide.

I couldn't see it as an.

Accident straight away.

Absolutely.

I mean, I think forensically the photograph speaks for itself.

But the difficulty we had was that the photograph was only macro blood splatter.

It's not micro, which is what you need for a true determination.

But even with what we had to me, it was inexplicable any other way.

That is not the situation for some of the other coroners.

As you know, two coroners had conduct of it after me, and they didn't see it the same way, And particularly Coroneer Linton.

She heard the evidence, she sat through the court.

You make a determination, you said, on where you thinks are you're the trier of fact.

You know, it was just different.

But to me, I looked at the photograph and I wanted more information.

The red flag went up straight away.

Yes, So is that why you then referred the case in order to get a report from Professor Tim Ackland?

Is that why you sought him out?

Well, it didn't happen quite like that.

I asked the police for more information, and I can't remember how that went, And at some stage I understood that Professor Ackland had been asked to look at it, and so I got counsel assisting because by eventually I decided if we won't get it get any more information, I'd have to inquest it.

So before we did the inquest, I asked the person who was counsel assisting to contact Professor Ackland to ask him exactly what he had had.

And he hadn't had very much, so I asked if he thought he would be able to do more with more information.

So I gave him more information that was on the brief, and just before the inquest was due to go, we got his report.

And as a result of his report, I thought it was highly lightly that she hadn't pulled the trigger herself, and as a result, I pulled the inquest because as a provision in the Coroners that says that if criminal proceedings are in the offing, then you can't proceed.

And on what we had, I knew you couldn't charge anybody.

We didn't have any information that would indicate who it might be.

It was just the fact that she didn't pull the trigger herself.

So I pulled it sent it to the DPP because that's what the Act required me to do, hoping that if it was from the DPP, the police may have different investigative pathways for them that were not part of what I needed to be doing.

So let me ask you about that when you were looking at it.

Firstly, at that time, the police had already formally investigated it at least twice on two separate occasions, arguably three, but i'm giving one of the operation.

It was only twice by the time I sent it to the DPP, the original and then when I sent it back to them the cold case before we got the no no.

The cold cave case came.

Up, came after I went to think about operations gen D.

I left being a coroner or deput state coroner.

In June twenty nineteen.

The inquest had been set for August twenty eighteen.

I think, so I then lost conduct of the file.

What I'm trying to get at is, so the police first turned up to Waitmie's house, and we have the whole charade of the detectives turning up and ruling a suicide straight away.

I didn't use that term, but I did, okay.

And then they write it off essentially as a suicide.

But then before twenty eighteen, then it goes then it goes back to homos over the next few days to a week.

Oh, yes, that's ripe.

Yes, yes, so that's what I'm when you go back to homicide.

We went to homicide detectives of local detectives.

Direct and they that's what I'm saying.

Yep.

So at the time the detective saw it, all they saw was the evidence that I had, which was one of the constables had taken photographs on his mobile.

They actually saw the body, but they only had macro, no micro, and they decided on that that it was a suicide.

On that basis.

Yes, that was the same photos that you saw, yea, and you had the red flags go up, yep.

But I understood forensic evidence.

Don't forget.

I mean when I first started prosecutor.

Detectives, well, they are maybe, But when I first started prosecuting, you'd be amazed at the number of times the investigating officer would come in and I would say about a case, and it wasn't necessarily a murder, it could be even burglaries.

I'd say, what does the forensic evidence tell you?

And they looked at me as And I was one of the first prosecutors at that time for minor cases to call the forensic people in and talk to them about their evidence.

Back when I started, a lot of the detectives didn't understand the value of forensic evidence, especially if it's negative.

They couldn't see that negative forensic evidence was still evidence.

I understood that because of my background.

Now.

Liam Evelan also mentioned doing a search of the National Coronial Investigation System now as it indicates this is for the whole nation, not just WA and in twenty fourteen she couldn't find any death by suicide like this.

By this, I mean with the car running, kids strapped in the back seat, bags packed, then go back inside to get something and decide no, instead of dropping her kids off to a month's first, she is going to go ahead and shoot herself in the head from a really awkward angle that requires her to contort her body painfully with her arms outstretched to the side and the gun positioned slightly downward at her temple.

She clarifies it though, by noting that the database is only as good as the information put into it, and different states territories put in different amounts of data depending on their confidentiality policies and the type of data they collect in the first place.

That said, I bet nothing's changed there.

It's why it would be an oversight if WA police haven't consulted a suicideologist as part of the new investigation.

Well, isn't that the point that Michael Barnes made last season when he said a suicideologist should be consulted.

I mean, I've got to be honest, I have never heard of a suicideologist before.

I didn't realize that was a specialty.

But when he said that, it did make a lot of sense, didn't it.

And the data they collect, obviously is all encompassing all of us would have only sort of so much exposure.

I think fair to say Allison too.

Yeah, suicides and the manner in which they occur.

Even working in the media, the exposure is narrow, I have to say, given the scope and if we look at the national numbers, the complete toll, which is just terribly, terribly sad.

But a suicide ologist specializes in that area, so surely their expertise would be heavily weighted in any evidence included in the police brief of evidence that they provide to the DPP.

And here I seek further clarification on this point.

So the police are saying, no, we think it's a suicide.

So you look at the file with that, I take it.

You correct me if I'm wrong with that notation sort of attached to it.

But I didn't agree, and you didn't agree, no, so you pulled it from inquest.

Now that was a bit later on.

I asked them to look at other things before the inquest thing.

I put it down for inquest because I wasn't going to get any further on the evidence we had.

And again the difficulty we had is that there was no micro there was no micro blood spatter in analysis.

So you look for more information.

Ye, Hence enter Professor Tim.

Acklin yes, because we weren't going to get micro because it had been destroyed because the scene was forensically cleaned.

If some of the blood spatter experts had seen it had been able to do micro forensics on the blood spatter, which tells you a lot more about direction and those sorts of things.

Now, to compensate for the fact we didn't have that, I had to go to someone like Professor Ackland.

And when Professor Ackland comes back with his conclusion, which was very strong, that Amy did not shoot herself, that somehow, somewhere there must have been a third party involved.

Is that when you sent the case to the DPP.

Well, first of all, I pulled the inquest and alerted the police to fact I was going to do that because they'd been organizing witnesses and things like.

So I pulled the inquest and then I sent it to the DPP because on Professor Ackland's report, I was probably looking at an indictable offense.

Whether or not we had a suspect was irrelevant.

It was if she didn't pull the trigger herself, it may be an indoubtable offense.

If it wasn't an accident, then that meant it was up to the DPP to look at it.

And when you sent it to the DPP and then told the police that you'd pulled the inquest, was there any reaction from the police.

No, because I had to explain to the commander why i'd done it.

He came in and spoke to me, and I honestly can't remember who it was.

And before I did it officially, I showed him the report and he was very good.

He understood straight away what was going on.

But before that I'd had discussions with various police officers as to why I didn't believe it was a suicide.

I mean, I can remember at one stage getting down behind the door of my office and saying, it's just not in my view physically possible.

I've got asked, have you ever handled a shotgun?

Well, it just so happened.

Yes, I had handled a side by side shotgun, and I was even more determined.

But you know, Professor Ackland wasn't one hundred percent.

But expert witnesses never are, well, most of them never are.

I know we have some people who are prepared to go one hundred percent, but real experts in a criminal trial will never one hundred percent, say one thing.

Professor Ackland may be prepared to you now, but that's what his report said.

You're just a highly consistent You're right.

Yeah.

So just to clarify here, I'd interviewed Professor Ackland the day before I interviewed Evil and Vicker, so I was able to tell Evelin the exact percentage that Professor Ackland attributed to that ninety five percent.

Yeah, because I mean, that's that's the whole basis of scientific theory, is the fact that a theory is proven until another theory proves it wrong.

I mean, you'd be happy to back any theory at ninety five percent?

Would I personally would.

But to a person who hasn't got that sort of background, maybe not.

Maybe they expect the all expensive expert to say one hundred percent.

And you have someone who said that.

I think if we went to the races well and people told us every horse we'd back it was a ninety five percent chance when it But Evelyn remained there is circumspect.

I don't go to the racist limb.

Although who she recognized the weight of Professor Eckland's evidence.

When I sent it to the DPP.

I knew as a prosecutor on what we had at that stage, you didn't have enough evidence to charge a particular person.

In which case you weren't surprised with the way I was treated at the DPP's office.

But I did hope, and that was one of the reasons I got the commander in first before I officially pulled it.

I did hope that, having pulled it so close to the inquest, that there may be other investigations the police would undertake.

And I don't know whether they did or not.

I will never know that, and I don't want to know that.

But I thought that because it was now with the DPP, they might look at other avenues.

Did it ever strike you as strange or surprising that the police generally held that view and didn't budge from it suicide scenario?

Uh?

I guess so yes.

But hey, two coroners after me were also skeptical about what had happened.

So I mean, I can't comment on that other than to say.

Well, the final coroner, yeah, just to put the lid on that was skeptical but also suspicious because she delivered an open finding.

Did deliver an open finding, but she didn't refer it to the DPP.

Stopping here, LIAMB.

Evelan makes a good point.

Why didn't Sarah Linton refer it to the DPP.

Well, I decided to follow up this with her and she pointed out there is a section in the WA Coroner's Act which stipulates that where a coroner believes an indictable offense which would be an unmawful killing, has been committed, it should be referred to the DPP, which is what she did.

Coroner Linton was unsure as to what it occurred, so there was no requirement for her to refer to the DPP.

Sort of swings and roundabouts, there isn't it.

Yeah.

You'll also recall, though, in the last episode, seen as Sergeant McDonald defending their decision not to implement phone intercepts in this case because he didn't consider it to be a homicide.

Yes, so again it's sort of tail wagging the dog, if I can put it that way.

But surely on that basis alone, it should have been brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions at least raise the issue as a headline with the DPP to let them use their expertise in magnifying that particular part of it.

So in this case, I still think very much, I firmly believe it was integral to refer it back to them just looking for additional information.

Doesn't that only come about by further investigation?

And isn't that largely driven by the police component of all this in this case or direction from the DPP's office, which which you know, according to one of the sections, is possible.

Yep, so is it about?

It was nothing I could do though, No as a coroner.

That's right, you were one out in one back.

But the intent, I guess, is what I'm asking you about, in terms of your opinion professional opinion.

Yes, the intent of what it.

Was there a lack of intent to make those things happen, to do that extra investigation, to go that extra yard.

Certainly every time I asked them to do something, they did it.

Originally, when I got the file, I was told there was no gunpowder residue.

Okay, well I didn't believe that, so I rang up the pathologists and I didn't don't think I did.

I think probably counsel assisting did.

And you know, when there's a firearm involved, there's always that testing.

And then I found out that it had been done, so when I asked for the results of that, it came back to me.

But it also came back with an article about how unreliable gunpowder residue can be in an environment where it's been used.

But once we'd done that, then I can remember a police officer saying to me, well, how do you account for the burns on her left hand?

And I said, that's just as consistent with her trying to push the barrel away from herself as it is with her holding the barrel in place.

So there's different interpretations of everything, but I don't have to follow that.

Neither did I.

And sending me the article about how unreliable gunshot residue can be was certainly information I needed to know about.

And I didn't know about that before because back in the day, gunpowder residue was anything and everything, and now that's been not it's been qualified, is the best way to put it.

And yeah, I certainly needed to know that as an option.

Yep.

I'm not saying they were trying to dissuade me, but they were making me aware of everything that they had to work with.

Look, I do know that there were differences of opinion within the police.

I would be dumb if I didn't think, well, it was apparent on the brief from the attending police officers to the detectives that there was a disagreement about what the evidence said, and the situation at that time was that detectives had the lead on it.

So yeah, there were differences of opinion.

So the open finding, yes, that was my in quest.

What sort of impact does that finding have on potential criminal proceedings?

It leaves it open for there to be criminal proceedings, which I would have thought is what people wanted.

It was better than saying it was suicide.

But even then with additional information that may I don't think that a coroner's finding has because a coroner's finding can't be used as evidence in a trial.

So the coroner's finding may leave it open for cold cases, which this one has, and I think it's now being treasured as a cold case because there's always the potential that new evidence may become available, and we're seeing all the time technology changing.

They used to do it through just pure DNA, Now they're using DNA with genealogy to pick people.

So who knows what could happen in the future, but any coronial finding can be For instance, I've done missing persons where we had no information at all that the person was dead, and the coroner's making a finding that the person is deceased.

Then sometimes after we've done that, a number of years afterwards, a bone may wash up on the shore and through DNA we find out that it belongs to that person.

So, yes, that we've now got proof that the person is dead and it's probably no longer a missing person because we've got bits of a body, so that can be added to It's not a final determination.

It's a fine determination for people to work with, but if more information becomes available, it's not the end of the story.

So in order for the story to progress, it's really in the lap of the police, isn't it, in terms of the work that they do or that they're doing behind the scenes.

Yes, in order to strengthen that brief before it goes back to the DPP.

Yes, we've now got three independent expert witnesses, including Professor Eckland, who all say adamantly that Amy did not shoot herself.

Yep, I'd agree with that.

I've always believed that that's my belief.

I'm wondering how many more expert witnesses they need.

I don't think they need any more.

I was surprised we had any more after Professor Eckland.

However, other people didn't agree with me, so they got another expert who backed up Professor Eckland, and then I think you guys got another expert who was prepared to go even further.

So, yeah, fine, but there's a huge difference between and unlawful killing or a murder and someone who pulled the trigger.

What we've got is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that other people don't agree with that, but to me, we've got evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

She didn't pull the trigger herself.

Some people don't agree with that, but that was probably enough for me.

But that doesn't tell me who did pull the trigger, which is what you need for a criminal trial.

It's interesting how personalities can change the course of justice, though, isn't it.

Yeah, I guess so.

Imagine if you hadn't retired and I had stayed with you, and you'd taken it through that coronial process, we might have a different result today.

You may do, but I don't think it would have served you any better.

What you got was an open finding.

Okay, I possibly, on the information I had at that stage, may have said an unlawful killing by personal persons undetermined.

I don't know.

I don't know that's a and I don't know after i'd heard the witnesses.

Don't forget I haven't heard the witnesses.

Conral Linton heard all the witnesses.

Yes, look, I'm being hypothetical, yeah, but based on evidence, and you're being professionally very courteous, which is admirable.

Well, one thing I learned as a coroner, and I mean, don't forget we did lots of mandatory inquest deaths and custody and things like that.

No one who is in the profession of a doctor, a nurse, a prison officer or a police officer actually wants someone to die.

They're actually devastated if people in their care make a mistake.

But everybody's human and people make mistakes, which is why I'm into fact finding and not fault finding.

I'm happy to say the fact is this, but I played the ball, not the.

Person even And one last thing, if I can just get you to cast your mind back as much as you can, your memory of seeing that case file talking to people dealing with people like Professor Aglin.

Is there particular part of Amy's case that troubled you more than others?

Look, because I'm a people person to some extent, and people will tell you this doesn't matter.

First of all, I should tell you as a prosecutor, I would only say I had Of all the people I prosecuted where we got convictions, I only once or twice ever thought someone was evil.

People get to a particular point in time where they do very bad things, but that doesn't necessarily make them evil.

So I suppose it made me a very good cross examiner though, because I could always see things from two points of view, which meant I possibly got nearer the mark when I was cross examining, which was useful both psychologically and forensically to me.

Amy wouldn't have committed suicide at that point in time.

Why do you say that because of the whole psychologically I'm not supposed to take into account.

But the children in the car talking to her mother, I now know, though I didn't know at the time, but I know.

But again, I've not examined this forensically, the passport in the bag, all of those things to me say, psychologically, this mum was not looking to leave her children.

Okay, so that's a psychological part which probably doesn't apply in a prosecution, but as a coroner, it makes some impression on me.

Okay.

The other thing is forensically, to me, it didn't make sense.

I and all the alternatives that are put to me having hand, and I'm a lot stockier than Amy was.

Amy's probably a lot lighter than I am.

But and she worked out, and she was used to guns.

That's the other thing.

You know, people tend to use a method for suicide that they're familiar with, which is why a lot of women don't use guns in suicide.

I've never heard of anyone committing suicide by physically holding a shotgun parallel to their temple.

I'm not saying it's not done, but I haven't heard of that.

But Amy was used to guns.

Use of a gun isn't that peculiar, But just the way she was behind the door with her hand underneath her bottom, and different things happen as people relax after they die.

So you've got all that forensic input as well, But to me, it was just I couldn't see how she could pull the trigger herself.

So it was the totality of the scene and all the events surrounding it.

Yep, it just made you think that this is just not how it happened.

Yes, So what did you think of what Evil and Vicker had to say?

LIAMB.

I thought she was very candid.

I thought she was professionally very respectful too, wasn't she even though she's retired.

She's now retired.

As we said at the start of that, she's a bit of a brain box, sharp, sharp as a packet of raisers, and she she still didn't hold back, but she was gracious to some of the people still involved in proceedings.

And that's fair enough.

That's fair enough.

But I think she said what she had to say, and she got a couple of things off her chest.

But they all point back to exactly what we've been talking about on this podcast, every single thing that's been said from the start by people who've got a few brains and a few clues, all the professional independent experts, all the people we've spoken to who've got credibility in the game, whether it's the legal game or you know, you know, every single person.

I mean her and she was the first one on the scene from the coronial aspect, right yeah, and she knew, you know, she is completely confident Amy Wensley did not kill herself.

And I thought the comments that she made not just about the forensics, although she had plenty to say about that and all the sort of scientific aspect of it, but from the attitudinal part of it, from a young mum's perspective, and also the if I can put it this way, the feminine aspect of suicide, in that you know, highly highly highly unusual, not to say it never happens, but highly unusual for anyone to kill themselves in that manner, especially with the way her life was planned, with the kids in the car, the immediate planning, the medium term planning, everything about it, everything about it.

For a woman of that experience in a courtroom to say that, didn't you think that had big impact?

I did.

And I think the other thing is the lens.

It's so the importance of the lens that people view these cases through.

Right now, that was ten years ago, and the world has changed a lot, as you know, in ten years, you know, with the Me Too movement and also in relation to domestic violence people, you know, gas lighting, wasn't even a thing back then.

But she wasn't looking at it from any of those I guess what you'd call emotional perspectives.

She was just looking at it from a factual perspective, as was tim Ackland, Right, there was nothing else involved.

The same with Larry Blamfort.

You'd say the same thing, right, he was just like you just couldn't actually physically.

Do that, Oh no, in fact, loud and clear, just to reinforce your opinion there.

I think that's spot on, if anything evil, and it comes across a little bit cold and calculating that, that's how much she leaves out the emotional component.

She only wants to deal with the facts.

Yeah, right, And so I think that's the part of it as well, that you know, even if you did take into account all those you know, domestic violence, the issues that were overlooked at the time, just from that factual perspective, which is what I always thought was the I guess the biggest factor, that was the most weighty factor, which is again what tim Acklin said too, right.

You know, he made it very clear that he had never had a case like this one which hadn't proceeded to a trial.

Based on his evidence, his strong evidence of what he believed to be the case.

As it just kind of thought, well, why did you bother getting him everyone else thereafter if you weren't going, or you'd wait for it.

Yeah.

So nobody's ever questioned tim Acklin's integrity, right, nor Evil and Vicar for that matter.

So that's pause to think about that.

So if tim Ackland is turning around saying, this is the only case with this sort of weight of evidence that's never gone to trial, why is that what's extraordinary about this case compared to all the other cases that tim Acklin's worked on.

I mean, give me an answer for that, because I haven't got one.

There's nothing in any ingredient in this case that sticks out as extraordinary.

This is the interesting thing about it.

So comes back to the police pushback against Evil and Vicker for example.

So there you've got an incredibly experienced deputy state coroner looking at this case, going, guys, this doesn't add up.

This is all wrong.

The look on this is wrong, the feel on this is wrong.

You know, I'm telling you it's wrong.

And yet she is still at that stage coming up against senior police who are insisting as far as we're concerned it to suicide.

The other interesting thing, and I know evel And didn't make anything of this, but I thought it was interesting when she said that she asked about the gun residue, right, why there wasn't any gun residue on the hand that she would have had to have held the gun, and the police came back with a report saying how unreliable gun residue is.

And you know, she sort of just said, oh, well, that they have to let me know and things like that.

But I did think it's interesting that they would have come back with an excuse I suppose for that as to why, you know, they could just explain that away, but they couldn't explain this away, right, They couldn't explain the whole tim Acklin.

It was always a case, which of course was supported by a detective constable and Lahane that they wanted it to be treated as non suspicious and would only look at it like.

That now on that out, even Vicker was initially told there was no gun residue, remember, zero gun residue, but she didn't believe them.

Also worth mentioning, I did some research and there are many more articles saying that the GSR tests are reliable and should be admitted as evidence can be admitted.

However, it was clarified that the absence of gun residue doesn't mean someone didn't fire a gun, because it can easily be removed, say by washing your hands, as simple as that.

But in this case, in Amy's case, she certainly didn't wash her hands.

Yeah.

I found that whole thing of providing Evil and Vicker with an article about how unreliable gun residue is concerning Liam.

Firstly, if they were being fair, they should have also included articles arguing the positives of gun residue testing, right, I mean, there's plenty which provide a more balanced analysis.

Like any testing, it's a component of the evidence requiring consideration.

It's just a matter of taking that into consideration, not ruling it out entirely.

No, I thought it was a bit immature, actually, to tell you the truth.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say I thought it was a bit insulting to Evel and Vicker, not that she said that.

I'm saying that.

Yeah, I thought it was insulting to her level of expertise.

I mean it was like some kid waking up in the morning, coming into the kitchen and saying, hey, Mum, you know I had a dream last night about an alien and then you provide them that afternoon with a book about how aliens don't exist.

You know what I mean?

It was that simple as that basic.

Yeah, Anyway, I digress.

So, even though way Pole says it's now investigating Amy Wensley's death as a homicide, I agree with Amy's family that there should be some oversight from the Triple C just to make sure this is absolutely rock solid.

Now remember the FOI the freedom of information that we got back where a senior detective claimed it's a suicide.

I do because that was after they announced the reward, And this is why I sent Waypole a few more questions Liam, you know how much they love those, and asked them if they had consulted with a suicideologist.

After speaking with Michael Barnes, I emailed Kyrie and I apologize if I have got the pronunciation wrong.

Kri Colvez, a professor at the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention.

When I gave her a summary of Amy's case, she replied that she quote very much agreed that a suicidologist should be involved in the investigation, but to do it properly, she would need access to all the police reports and evidence.

She's a professional.

Now, I was sure that this new Waypole Investigation would canvass this because hasn't it been the main sticking point throughout I mean, we're still talking about it.

So I forwarded them doctor Colvez's email and asked them if they'd consulted her, or indeed any suicidologist.

I also made point that given they sought a second opinion following doctor Ackland's report ruling out suicide, surely they do the same with the police psychologists report.

Right, good point, particularly given the criticism the police psychologists got from internationally renowned criminal behavioral analyst Laura Richards.

And you know what, they said, nothing.

They didn't get back to me, but they indicated they would, So hopefully I'll have an update for you next week.

Good good.

I mean again, it's the yin and the yang, isn't it.

You know, if you take one thing into account, you've got to take the other thing into account.

But if you go back to basics, as the good Detective Ron Needles said to us many many episodes, ago, start with the worst case scenario and you can rarely go wrong.

Yeah.

Classic statement from Ron and one that has given him an unbelievable record in solving crime.

Allison, So you can't exactly say that he's got it wrong, can you.

No.

Next week we're going to explore the prevalence of other Australian hidden homicides.

I think the toller is significantly higher, and I think it's because we just have so many deaths across Australia that are not being investigated, especially the so called suicide.

Deaths, and how another family is grappling with the reluctance by authorities to make it right.

He said that Courtney most likely had undiagnosed mental health issues, which was something that her partner had said that scene.

Oh she's crazy, she's suicidal.

She wasn't suicidal.

She had rip one her life.

See you next week.

Out the nows you me.

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, 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.