His Image Goes Viral

Some have known about Kevin for the whole time he's been in prison, and yet here we have, now for the first time, so many people seeing his picture. Amy, Why do you think there was such a huge response.

he is now is very powerful. It shows that there's a face to the name, and it shows that we're not just talking about some ideological pursuit for justice, as justice for a man who has been wrongfully convicted and spent time in jail for twenty seven years. He's a human being. He has feelings, he has pain, he has hurt, he has trauma, and I think being able to see

that picture of Kevin encapsulates a lot of that. I think it's sad that we have to show an image of Kevin in order to stress his humanity, but that's unfortunately the lengths that we do have to go to to continually stress that this is a man. You know, this is a human being. What would it be like if he was your brother, if he was your father, if he was your uncle, if he was your cousin, if he was your friend. And I think that's the

real power of a photograph. It also shows, you know, we had other photos and images of Kevin when he was only twenty two when he was first incarcerated, and that was taken from the local media at the time when he was in handcuffs, and so to see him grow up and to see, you know, in a physical sense, the toll that twenty seven years of incarceration has had on him is also very powerful Martin. Under the photo, we had a lot of questions from the public who

may not have known much about Kevin. There were a few comments about, well, how do we know he's innocent? You can't believe anything on the internet with many people not even bothering to research the case. And as we've shown across fifty four episodes, now we have a lot of concrete evidence study is innocent. But just for the listeners who may just be tuning in because of the photograph they might have seen on social media, how do we know Kevin is innocent?

do we know that Kevin is innocent? So for the purpose of bringing people up to date, but also it's relevant for everyone, even those who have listened to every episode, I think it's best to just conduct a simple experiment, which is to say, imagine yourself as a jury member, and I put it to you that your role as a jury member as defined by the law, both in Australia and as many people who saw the photo were from the United States and the United Kingdom and around

the world. That for the most part, jurisdictions rely on what we call beyond a reasonable doubt. So just for the next five minutes, just imagine you're a jury member in a trial and I put it to you that when you're asked to consider the information I'm about to give you, that not only will you decide that Kevin couldn't and shouldn't have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that you'll conclude that he is absolutely innocent of this crime.

And I will use nothing more than what we know to be absolute fact and that which is not contested either by what was placed on the record in Kevin's initial trial. What is witness statements that are in af David's at risk of perjury, and what is forensic information and forensic data that has come back from internationally certified labs that are certified to provide evidence to courts right

around the world. One of them is recognized by the United States Supreme Court and courts across Europe and in Australia. So this is not something we're just inventing. Two post mortems were done in regards to the death of Linda, and there was a third autopsy that was also done.

In every single case, despite the allegation that Linda was raped, I want to make it plainly clear, in none of the forensic investigations, the first two that were done, the post mortem, or the follow ups that have been done in more recent years, is there a single piece of evidence that suggests any sexual assault took place whatsoever. It just didn't happen. And I would say at this point that it really is a disgrace that the police took

this charge as far as they did. Linda's memory and her family should not have to believe that this took place when it absolutely didn't. No one went on the stand, not a witness to testify it happened, nor a forensic expert to say that that happened. So the charge of rape can be immediately dismissed. As to the charge of murder,

I'll begin with the forensic evidence. There was an enormous amount of forensic material at the scene, large amounts of blood, large amounts of forensic material in terms of hair, clothing, all recovered by police in subsequent days. There was also things like broken bottles, a number of sticks, and other implements. All of this was tested by two separate labs in Queensland. At the time. Not a single piece of forensic material

belonged to Kevin Henry. I'll repeat that, not a single piece of forensic material, whether it be DNA, blood, hair or anything of the sort, was found at or around the crime scene, linking Kevin Henry, not a shred. We also know from forensic testing that the claim by police that Kevin placed Linder in the water at Tanuba House is also inaccurate. We know from more recent testing of forensic material that we've explained previously that has to do with diatoms that allow us to determine where in a

waterway a body has been once it's been found. We also have the drag mark that was seen by the fishermen and the police photographer. We also have the tidle records that show Linda would have been placed in the river on the other bank, the north side, and not at Tanuba House where police allege Kevin Henry was. So again, there's no evidence to suggest Kevin Henry ever went near the body. There's no evidence to suggest any forensic link whatsoever.

And in fact, what the evidence does show is not only was Kevin Henry not involved, that he couldn't have been involved because where the body was placed is not where Kevin Henry was. Now, how can we add to that? There's certainly a huge amount of doubt there. In fact, I would say that alone proves his innocent. But there's further information. Eyewitnesses don't place Kevin Henry at the scene at the crucial time where Kevin would have had to have been to place Linda's body in the water. In fact,

eyewitnesses place other people at that scene. Eyewitnesses also place those people at the place where we know the forensic evidence shows Linda's body was put into the water. We also know that a man confessed to the crime, and that that man's lawyer went to the police and said to the police that he had a client who had confessed to the crime, and the police said, and I quote,

we've got a black for a black. Now, we also have other witness testimony that shows Kevin Henry was in a taxi cab at the time the body was moved and placed in the river. We have further evidence from eyewitnesses who describe the people who did move the body, who described the car and how the body was moved, and who describe the clothing that belonged to Linda and where it was located, None of which involves Kevin Henry, not in a forensic link, no DNA link, and no

eye witness link. So to be very clear, is there an eyewitness that places Kevin Henry with Linda and her deceased body? Know, there is not, and the police did not present one at his initial trial. Is there forensic evidence that links Kevin to Linda in any way whatsoever? No, there is not, and the police and the prosecutor did not try to offer up such evidence at trial. It simply does not exist, and further recent forensic testing shows that that's the case too. Are there witnesses that provide

an alibi for Kevin Henry? Yes, there are. There are four new witness statements, and there are also the statements of everyone who went on the stand. Not one of them pointed the finger at Kevin Henry as them being an eyewitness who saw Kevin commit this crime. And a number of these new witnesses not only provide alibis for Kevin, but provide the information as to who the people were that were with Linda's body. So what evidence was even

taken to trial? All there was is this a supposed confession. Now, Kevin Henry has maintained throughout his entire ordeal that he's innocent of the crime and that the confession was taken under duress. Now, we've previously done a number of episodes on this, and I would encourage people to go back and look at them and have a listen and hear the evidence. But you don't just have to believe me or believe Kevin that the confession that he supposedly gave

was taken under duress. The trial judge ruled it inadmissible, and he stated clearly the record of interview from the middle of Paya nineteen onwards at the CI branch is tainted and cannot be received as a voluntary statement. He also states that on a number of occasions Kevin maintained his right to counsel and maintained his right not to speak further, and they were ignored, and that the police persisted, and he even said this about the prosecutor. It is

clearly conceded by mister Wright. The prosecutor that persistent questioning about new matters is not permissible, and it seems to me there is no valid distinction between clarifying material already

given and seeking to investigate new material. What the judge was saying there is that at the beginning of the trial, the prosecutor conceded that not only was the statement given by Kevin in admissible other than the earlier pages where he really just talks about what his name is, where he lived, where he'd been that night and in the days before, but also the new material, which was both a video and an audio tape, were not admissible. These

tapes are important. The videotape was seen by Kevin's cousin, uncle Doug Graham, who, like everyone else who saw it, says it was grainy and that you could hardly make out any of the people in the video. The second is the audio tape that the police took of Kevin's supposed confession, where he never actually did confess, but was ruled inadmissible because it was not voluntary and it was taken under threat by those police. Those cassette tapes were

bought privately by one of the police officers. That cassette tape was taken home by a police officer. That cassette tape was played in court and appeared to have been tampered with. Hence the judge's comments that tape is where Kevin Henry alleges he was forced to confess at gunpoint. That tape allows us to hear Kevin Henry on multiple occasions say that he has nothing more to say about this matter and that he does not know what happened.

That tape also tells us that Kevin Henry wanted legal representation. And what that tape also tells us, and what we know for a fact, is that Kevin's literacy was such that he could not read or write. He couldn't have written that statement. It was written for him. Kevin had no idea what was written down. He was simply forced to sign his name to it. This is not something you have to believe the Internet about. This is not

something you have to believe us over. This is something the initial trial judge stated as a matter of fact, and that was conceded by mister Wright, the prosecutor. Now you have heard the key facts, could you possibly, based on those, find Kevin Henry guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would put it to you that you could not.

And I would also put it to you that based on those facts, and if you took the time to hear all the evidence we've presented throughout these fifty four episodes, that you would find what we find that Kevin Henry is not only not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Kevin Henry is an innocent man and has been in prison for twenty seven years for a crime he did not commit.

So those appeals have been exhausted, So a retrial A can't happen. But B I would also say we don't want nor need a retrial. The evidence is more than clear enough Kevin is eligible for parole and should be paroled, and that's something I'll talk about in a moment. And we've also presented a great deal of information to the Attorney General's Department of Queensland and the Governor General, who

have the ability to pardon Kevin. A retrial would simply prove what we already know that Kevin Henry is an innocent man. It would cost an enormous amount of money, it would drag on for years, and it would cause a great deal of distress to Linda's family who would have to hear all of the details again. And it would also require many of the witnesses who were traumatized by these events to be involved in a new trial.

The other thing that makes it impossible is that many of the witnesses are sadly deceased and they wouldn't be to appear. Quite obviously, there's just no point to a retrial. There's really no evidence that could be presented at a retrial in terms of a prosecution's case, because there isn't

a case against Kevin Henry. Now, if the police wanted to actually reopen the case, we would absolutely be open to that because unlike the police over all these years, and particularly unlike the police who investigated Linda's murder in the very early days, we actually care about justice for Linda. We actually care about finding out the truth of what happened and ensuring that everyone knows exactly what occurred and who is responsible, so that there can be some closure,

some truth, some justice. And I think part of the podcast process has been to present the truth, not only because it proves Kevin's innocence, but it also dispels many of the misstatements, misinformation, and untruths spread by the police, one of which is the disgusting suggestion that they made that Linda had been raped when we know their own forensic experts told them that never took place, and that is in writing. So a retrial is not going to happen.

It's not something we want to call for, and it's not something that needs to happen. There are other processes in place.

The main issue that he's holding up the parole is the fact that the parole board is bound by what was found at trial, which is that Kevin was guilty of both the rape and murder of Linda, and the parole process when it involves a sexual assault rightly requires that a person go through counseling and rehabilitation where possible, if possible. But as we've pointed out, not only is Kevin Henry innocent, he of course didn't commit this rape

because no rape occurred. So there's been a real problem in that the parole Board has been saying Kevin has to do a sex offender's rehabilitation cause he can't do one because it he admit his guilt. He's not guilty. It he discuss aspects of the crime. We know from the forensic evidence, the evidence provided by the Queensland State Prosecutor's Office that this didn't happen. It would require Kevin

to lie. He's not going to do that. So it's been litigated, and we've litigated many times against the Parole Board and their refusal, and we've won every single time.

Right now, we are in the process of organizing and we have organized for an expert in the field to conduct a number of interviews with Kevin that would satisfy the Parole Board that this is in fact the case, that Kevin Henry is a of course not a sex offender and be not at all a threat to the community because he wasn't a criminal in the first place.

And we hope to resolve this issue as soon as possible, but sadly it does take time and we're being forced to jump through hoops that are very complicated because this is such a unique case where a man is serving twenty seven years so far for a crime he didn't commit, and there's no flexibility in the law to navigate such a problem where the state has wrongly locked up an

innocent man. But we are continuing, of course, with this process, and we expect that in the coming months we will have navigated this issue.

people as possible knowing what is going on. It's very difficult to get anywhere when the entire public seems naive and ignorant to what is taking place. So the first thing you can do is share the podcast. This is the fifty fourth episode we've recorded. Every single one contains vital information. And the more you share it and the more people listen, the more the public becomes aware of what's going on. And then here's where the rubber hits

the road. Running cases like this, freeing innocent men like Kevin Henry bringing justice for Linda, as is proven and happening now on a daily basis in the United States, as we see people exonerated and sent free after serving decades for crimes they didn't commit. These cases cost a lot of money. As Kevin's senior legal advocate, I don't charge Kevin a single cent, never have, never will. But we still need to file freedom of information requests. We

need to have forensic material tested. We need to write up all of the research that we've done and can continue to provide information to the governor, the Attorney General, the parole Board. We need to employ the right experts. We've had to litigate against the Parole Board a number of times. All of this costs large amounts of money. And while I wish I was flushed with cash, and I'm sure Amy does too, it's just not the case.

So if you want to support both the podcast and the work we're doing to spread this information about Kevin and also the broader issue of the over incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island, the people the sheer number of these cases that have resulted in innocent people in prison, then please consider supporting us financially, you can do it from as little as a dollar a month twelve dollars

a year. All you have to do is go to our Patreon page, which you can find on the website www dot com, curtainthepodcast dot com, or go to Patreon and find us under Curtain podcast.