Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolutely shamblesh, to tell you the truth, just absolutely really. Heamous blood on his clothing the day after the alleged.
Attap on a shallow mud bank and it fits through a river.
Basically, I think most of the people are used to me, there are good people.
I think a really important question we need to ask is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm Amy Maguire and.
I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service. And a warning, this series contains the names of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset some listeners.
So last week we let you know a little bit more about Kevin Henry's parole process and the sad fact that he was yet again knocked back for parole after twenty six years spent incarcerated in our Campden jail. This week we received further detail about why he was actually knocked back for parole. Mardin, Can you give us a little overview of the reasons why the parole Board has knocked him back. Yeah.
So, first I'll actually go through both the reason they've knocked Kevin back, but also the letter we received from the Parole Board. And one of the very frustrating facts of it is it's a four page letter and it highlights many of the things that are in Kevin's favor, that are that he's undertaken and completed a number of programs.
One they name is the Positive Futures program. They also identify that there was a place of reds that was acceptable to the Parole Board where Kevin could live on release, and this is often a difficult barrier for people to overcome. They also accepted the petition from the residents of Warabinda and also the elders of Warabinda and again stated that
this was in Kevin's favor. They also took into account all the information that we provided to support Kevin's application, again in their own words, stated that all of this
was in his favor. They looked at some further submissions that we made that are sort of above and beyond what you would normally do in a parole application, and that included the level of community support that was there for Kevin, the sheer number of accommodation options, to support options from Indigenous run organizations, and that everything we'd done had been planned out, including outreach worker support from the New Endings Men's Program. And again in their own words,
they say that this was in Kevin's favor. But then we get to the part where Kevin is knocked back and in four pages, that's right down the bottom. Now, Kevin maintains his innocence and has done for twenty six years. But as we've discussed previously on the podcast, Queensland does not have what they call a denier's program. Now, that's a program that would allow a person who's imprisoned to exit prison to the satisfaction of the parole board without
admitting their guilt. In Queensland, a person incarcerated is required under the programs that they run, to admit their guilt and explain their motivations behind why they committed the particular crime. Now, of course Kevin didn't commit the crime, so he's not going to say he did it, and nor can he explain his motivations or how he went about committing the crime, because he'd have to lie to do that. Now, the board agreed that Kevin was unable to participate in these
programs because he maintained this stance of innocence. But what the board then said was, and I quote, the Board does not accept a proposition that people it believes to present too high a risk level should be released from custody simply because of the unavailability of a treatment program, because to do so would be to abridge gate its primary obligation to community safety. So the Parole Board is accepting there is not a program available to Kevin that's
acceptable or suitable. But because of the nature of the crime and the fact that the Parole Board can only consider the verdict of the initial trial and none of the evidence we've presented in relation to Kevin's innocence, they have to maintain that he is guilty. And so we have this absurd situation whereby the board's own admission, there is no availability of a program for Kevin to complete, and therefore he has to stay in prison. So I
would argue, what is Kevin left to do? What can he possibly do to satisfy their desire to see him not be, as they say, a high level risk. And the only basis they say that he is a high level risk on is the fact of his conviction of this crime twenty six years ago that I think we have thoroughly shown he is innocent of that he maintains his innocence of and in this episode we will detail some vital new information that points to that innocence. So
it's a terribly disappointing result. And last week I said we would have an opportunity to appeal this result, but the Board declined to give us that option and we cannot lodge a new application with the Board for Kevin's parole for a further six months.
It's really strange, Madam, because obviously this has been a continual problem in relation to Kevin's applications for par all it seems that it's back to square one yet again, that it's based around his inability to come this program. So where to from now? What options are actually available? And how much do the Parole Board have their own hands tis? How much hands tight? How much does this have to do with the existing parole system in Queensland.
Yeah, it's a really good question and I think the Parole Board absolutely has their hands tied in a certain sense in that while they are continued to be instructed that they must take into consideration only the verdict handed down at the time. It's very difficult because it means they can't consider any new information and this is clearly an absurd situation. The problem is that this is a statewide issue. That's why there has been a full review
into the parole system in Queensland. This is a system, as we've previously discussed, that has not been updated for eighty years. And while there were eighty two recommendations, eighty of which the Queensland Government has agreed to adopt, they haven't yet been adopted, and so we will have more options once the Parliament passes these recommendations and the new
Professional Parole Board are impaneled. But I still think even with the caveat of having to take into consideration the final verdict, Kevin is absolutely a person who should be eligible for parole and granted parole. He doesn't pose a
risk to the community. He hasn't drunk or used drugs for twenty six years, he hasn't committed this violent crime, and we've clearly shown that throughout the podcast, both with no forensic evidence, no DNA evidence, no witness testimony, nothing that points to Kevin involved in this, and he's essentially being punished for maintaining his innocence. And I think clearly that has to change, and hopefully with the new Parole Board being impaneled in the next week or so, we will see that change.
So what's next now? In a lesson to Kevin's parole process.
So right now, as a legal team, we need to consider what our options are and I can't give too many further details other than we are considering all options and we're not going to simply just wait six months and sit around and twiddle our thumbs. We'll look at all available options to us and continue to make representations to the board on Kevin's behalf, particularly as a new board is being impaneled and it'll be an entirely professional
board for the first time in Queensland history. There will definitely be an aboriginal member of the Parole Board now and we're hoping that some of these old rules that have existed since the nineteen thirties will be done away with and a more reasonable outcome will be possible for Kevin.
So moving on, we told you last week that we do uncovered a series of new witness statements that have been previously buried in relation to Kevin Henry's case. This week, we're going to tell you the content of those witness statements. And the first one starts with one of the women who was actually convicted in relation to the assault Onlander. Martin, can you explain to me a little bit about this witness statement and who it was from.
Yeah, So this witness statement was provided by Margaret Bob. She was one of the women at Tanuba House that night and she was, as we know, convicted of the us bodily harm. But Margaret Bob gave this statement in two thousand and two. She came forward and volunteered this statement. And I think it's a very brave thing to have done, given all of the pressures that were placed by police
on everyone involved and the intimidation of witnesses. And so you have to remember that Margaret Bob was there that night, she was an eyewitness to everything that occurred. And I'll read what she states and remember this statement is signed to be true and correct and not given under any kind of duress or persuasion. It's essentially like a witness statement or an affidavid and it says, I'm Margaret Joan Bob have written this sworn statement on behalf of the accused,
Kevin Allen Henry. Kevin Henry did not kill the deceased woman Linda, and she does give Linda's full name at Tanubah Aboriginal Hostel on September fifth, nineteen ninety one. I hope this letter finds Kevin Henry not guilty on both accounts of murder and rape. I'm writing this sworn statement that Kevin Henry didn't kill or rape the deceased Linda.
Yours sincerely, Margaret Joan Bob. Now that is an eyewitness statement from one of the people the court found to be involved that night, a person who knew all parties, certainly knew what Kevin looked like, and categorically states Kevin played no part in the murder or rape of Linda.
And I would just briefly add that the forensis, as we've spoken about in the past, showed no sign of a sexual assault on Linda, and I think that's an important thing to point out, and the only evidence that that ever occurred came from the police, but there was no evidence, forensic or witness or otherwise to back up what they tried to claim.
How significant is a witness statement like this, particularly coming from obviously one of the women who was convicted in relation to the assault.
Well, I think on its own it only holds so much value. It's simply one person's word. But what Margaret Bob stated is what we've heard from so many other witnesses and is consistent with so many other witnesses, And I think that adds a lot more weight because we do know, and it is admitted by the police quite clearly, that she was there and must have witnessed everything if
she was somewhat involved in what had gone on. Her statement is not only consistent, but it also backs up what witness X said, which is that they can't really provide any further details about Kevin's involvement in that crime other than he didn't do it because he wasn't there
when it occurred. If he was, they'd maybe be able to say he was sitting here, or that forensic evidence should have been able to show he did X, Y and Z. But Kevin wasn't there and played no role, and so all they're left to be able to say
is exactly that. And everything that Margaret Joam Bob says matches with our investigation, with the forensic evidence, with the evidence of the other witnesses who were there, and I think in that sense it's a very true statement, a brave statement to have given, and one that really paints a picture as to Kevin's innocence.
Now, we didn't just find the statement of Margaret Bob. We also found another statement from a man who'd actually been incarcerated with Kevin Henry. Martin, Can you tell me a little bit about this other witness statement.
Yes, so for now we won't name this witness again. This was someone who came forward quite a number of years after the event, but has given a very detailed witness statement to describe the events that they saw. This is not a witness who was at Tinuba House that night, as you've just said. This is a person who was in prison with Kevin Henry. But this witness was also
in prison. This is a person we've previously described from witness's statement who was in the car that carried Linda's body over the bridge and who was involved in dumping the body in the water. So the witness who has come forward and given this statement on Kevin's behalf, explains the time they spent in prison with both Kevin Henry and this person, a man who was in that car and involved in the disposing of Linda's body, and he states that the person and he became quite friendly during
this time in prison. He also admits that on occasion he and this individual got stoned together in prison. He goes on to state that this person was talking about having murdered someone, and over time he began to realize that it was the murder that Kevin Henry had been convicted of that this person was talking about. And he confronted this individual and he said, and I quote, I see you set Kevin Henry up. His reply was, don't you ever tell any one about it? He seemed alarmed,
and I told him to calm down. The witness then goes on to say, I can recall that on a couple of other occasions I had a conversation with this individual where he'd said to me, I hate one little black Sea. I assumed he was talking about payback. I didn't know what he was talking about at the time, but he later told me he was referring to Kevin Henry, saying I hate one little black sea, Kevin Henry. I asked him why, and he said, I just hate him,
he continues. I tried to get further information. I said, let me have a wild guess you set Kevin up. This was in front of a number of other people. I also said, you hate Kevin. I put it to him that you killed a woman and you set Kevin Henry up. The witness then says this individual admitted it and asked him to promise never to tell anyone, and they sign this statement. It was witnessed by a lawyer, and it was dated on the date that this statement
was given. For now, I don't think there's any reason to publicly name either individual in that statement, other than to say that here we have a person in prison admitting to someone else on multiple occasions that they didn't like Evan Henry, they hated him in fact, and that they were involved in the murder of Linda, and that they did set Kevin up. Now, what's very important with this statement is that the person this statement alleges set up Kevin Henry and killed Linda is the exact person
Witness X also claims was involved. Witness X and this person, as best to our knowledge, had never met. And yet both Witness X, having seen it with her own eyes, and this gentleman, having heard the confession of this individual, state that this individual was involved and that they set
up Kevin Henry. I think this is vital information, something that should have been given to us long ago, and that clearly fits with Kevin's claim of being innocent and that other people were in And Kevin has confirmed to me that this individual did have it in for him. He never knew why, but it's consistent with the statement this person has given.
Now, that was a pretty explosive statement, but it wasn't the only witness statement we received recently, mardin what was the other witness statement.
So we have one final witness statement for this week, and that is from another person who, at another time, a year after the statement I just read out was given, wrote this particular statement, and again it was witnessed by a lawyer, and it is signed that everything in this statement is true and correct and of my own free will. I also want to state that again, as far as our investigation can tell, this person did not know Kevin Henry at the time of the murder and didn't know
the other witnesses. And what this statement says is that it backs up absolutely the statement of Witness X. Now, remember Witness X said that not only was Kevin Henry not involved, but that Witness X saw the people that were involved, that they drove Linda's body over the other side of the river from Tanuba House and dumped the body in the river. And remember again that what Witness X stated is consistent with the forensic details of this crime and the forensics both presented at trial and from
our investigation. Witness X was an eye witness, and so is this individual. This individual was in the car before it arrived at Tanuba House. When the car arrived at to n Uber House, this is what they stated. I waited for a while. Then I thought they'd forgot about me, so I went down under the house looking for them. When I got there, I saw two people laying down in front of the TV. Then I saw one of
the girls standing there with Willie. Now remember the person Willie is someone Witness X also mentioned, and this was the man that was driving the car. So he says, and I'll just start again. Then I saw one of the girls standing there with Willie dragging this body around. I didn't know what to do. I was feeling sick and scared, so I ran back to town. I just wanted to get away, and so I hitchhiked to Cannes. Now the reason this person wanted to get away was
they weren't actually from Rockhampton. They'd come from another part of Queensland to Rockhampton. These were not people they knew particularly well and clearly when they've seen something like this a man dragging a body around. Remember, this body was in front of a TV under Tanuba House, whereas we've previously explained, everyone there that day had been watching the
semi final of the Rugby League. So once again, this statement comes from a witness who has no reason to lie, and remember that they've signed the statement to be true and correct and have their own free will. This is a witness who does not know Witness X. This is a witness who really doesn't know many of the other parties involved. All they do know is what they saw, and it is absolutely consistent with the other witness statements
that we have. It's absolutely consistent with the forensic evidence both collected at the time and investigated more recently by US and the experts from overseas who have assisted us. And once again it does not place Kevin Henry at the crime scene. It places the same individual at the crime It locates the car that was used. Remember, again we previously discussed before we even had this information, that the person who committed the crime would have needed a car.
Kevin didn't have one and he didn't have access to one. This witness statement, like Witness XES, confirms that the person they both name, had a car, was there, was dragging the body and put it in a car, where Witness X confirms they took it to the other side of the river and placed the body in the water, exactly
where the forensics show Linda's body would have been. This is yet another statement from another independent person who does not name Kevin Henry because Kevin Henry was not there, but whose witness statement is consistent with all of the information we have presented, and we have only received this statement in the last ten days. So given that this statement is consistent with a year's worth of investigation, given the previous statement that we read before that was consistent
with all the forensic information and other eyewitnesses. Given the statement of Margaret Joan Bob is consistent with all the forensic information, all the eyewitnesses, and everyone who has spoken about this case for the last twenty six years. How is Kevin Henry in prison today?
Marda. The interesting thing I was thinking just as you were talking and read out the substance of particularly the last two witness statements. It's just really interesting that they come from two people who are in no way connected really to Tanuba House, and each one names a separate person that we know from previous witness statements who was actually in the car that night. And these are two
people who didn't really come up in the trial. One came up in relation to the defense Kevin's defense team. They mentioned his name a couple of times, but other than that, these two men have largely gone unscathed. They haven't been talked about in relation to this case. So to me, it seems very significant that two men no way connected with the roal campeding community, no way connected with the people down at Tanuba actually named these two men.
I mean, it seems like really almost a huge breakthrough in the case, would you, I mean, how significant would you say, there's two witness statements.
Are I think the point you raise about them not being connected to the case in particular is very significant because there's no reason for them to involve themselves. If anyone just thinks for themselves right now, would you want to insert yourself into a controversial murder trial and ongoing issue that's been so controversial and such a horrific incident.
I don't think many people would. But what we also know is that these statements are quite clearly and absolutely consistent with those who were there and were eyewitnesses, and I would say, more importantly, with the forensic evidence, because eyewitness statements are not always one hundred percent accurate. But when you start to get multiple people and just we've read three statements that are all consistent with each other, and that adds weight to all of them. They're also consistent,
as I said, with the forensic information. There's nothing in any of these statements you can point to and say, well, we know this to be untrue. There's simply nothing there that would lead us to believe that these were offered up for any other reason than just like us, these people know Kevin Henry didn't do it. How do they know it? One was there, another one had someone we had previously believed to be involved admit to them on multiple occasions that not only did they do it, that
they set Kevin up. And the third person saw the other person in the front of that car with their own eyes dragging around Linda's body. And I think the reason these people have come forward is because they couldn't and didn't want to keep that a secret any longer. I think it's an enormous burden to carry around with you.
It's not something you would wish on anyone. As we've previously stated, the police were able to show the grievous bodily harm that took place, but the women were not involved in the murder, and the police never provided any
forensic evidence that they were. But nor did they provide any forensic evidence that Kevin was so to any half thinking individual, surely the police needed to find a person or two other people that were involved in the actual murder and the placing of Linda's body in the river.
And here we have witnesses who heard from and saw these two people who did exactly that, and the forensic evidence matches up with it, and so the significance of these new witness statements is huge and we implore the Attorney General of Queensland to take them very seriously, given that her department oversees the imprisonment of Kevin Henry, an innocent man who spent twenty six years in prison despite no evidence being presented against him, and now quite clearly
this new evidence that shows he was no way involved and we do know who was involved.
Now over the past few months you've listened to a number of new witness statements that we've uncovered. Another case that both Martin and I have had a close association with is the case of the Bauerville children who were murdered on Bauerville Michelin from nineteen ninety to nine ninety one down in New South Wales. Now, in relation to the bower All case, the breakthrough is in that case has come after sustained media pressure that forced the state
Attorney General to actually intervene in that case. In the case of Kevin Henry, we're calling on Queensland Attorney General to do exactly the same thing. We've uncovered so much new evidence. We've uncovered multiple witness statements, some of them you've heard in this podcast tonight, we're calling on the State Attorney General Evett Dave to finally make it right.
And just like the Barerville case, this is an opportunity for the mainstream media to for once do something positive for the Aboriginal community. To put the pressure on the Attorney General of Queensland like they did the Attorney General of New South Wales, to ask the questions that need answers, to understand how, just like in the Bear case, more than a quarter of a century can pass without there
being justice for Aboriginal people and their communities. This requires that attention from the media, and given we've done all this work, they have no excuse but to write the stories, present it on radio, and do the TV programs that this case warrants. That's Curtin for this week. Join us next week for a new episode of Curtin the Podcast.