Proving Innocence in Australia

what Graham Archer has written. And remember he followed this case for thirteen years and I think What he says relates not only to Kevin Henry, but to all innocent people who are imprisoned in Australia. Once a defendant is found guilty, great locke shift into place, and they become increasingly difficult to undo. The built in safeguards Titan. The community wants to believe the institutions of justice are invaaluable

and incorruptible. All the good men and women in government or those anointed to run these institutions of power, see the unfailing faith of the public as essential to social and political order. Should that falter, should cracks appear, or doubts arise, who knows what might be unleashed. It is the unstated pledge of all the good men to defend citizens against enemies at the gates. Errors in competence, conflicts of interests, and acts of corruption are best refuted or

rebuffed to ensure their constancy. These great edifices of public order are designed to move like glaciers. Individuals trying to change the se his institutions from the outside, which are difficult enough to reform from the inside, face a vastly daunting task For a person in custody with no money no resources, no credibility, and with limited opportunity to communicate

with the outside world. The power balance is overwhelming. When Archer began writing this in twenty eleven, there were almost no avenues by which a convicted person in South Australia who had exhausted the normal appeal options could have their case returned to court. Even if they were to discover new evidence capable of challenging their conviction, it was almost

impossible to have it considered. The only avenue was to petition the Governor, which effectively meant appealing to the Attorney General. That process, as practiced in South Australia has always been a political one. The Attorney General makes determinations without any

independent oversight. There is effectively no time limit for processing petitions, no chance for the public to access the reasons for decisions, which are protected by legal professional privilege, and as a result of a Supreme Court decision in nineteen ninety eight, there's no avenue of appeal. It confers a kind of divine right on the Attorney General to decide a person's

fate with the stroke of a pen. It's a system that can be subject to abuse, and for me to echo the words of Archer, this is exactly the same problems that we've faced in trying to free Kevin Henry. Just like South Australia, we have to appeal to the governor. Just like South Australia, that means the political influence of the Attorney General. And just like in South East Australia, there are no other avenues, and so the wheels of justice turned slowly in a cold, dark corner of the

state where the public eyes cannot see. But just like Keo, there's another case in South Australia that bears many similarities to those of Kevin Henry.

he did not do. There are many similarities between Derek's case and Kevin's, but one of the most glaring is the fact both men are Aboriginal, and it's a key difference in the way that Henry Keo was treated and how Derek Bromley and Kevin Henry were treated and continue to be treated not just by the justice system, but

by the media. And so this episode, we're going to give you a little overview of Henry Kio's case based on this new book that's just come out Unmaking a Murder, and Henry Kio is currently walking free after serving two decades for a crime that he didn't commit, a crime that likely never took place, because it's later been found that the forensics the conviction was based upon was shonky and it was likely a murder had never occurred at all.

was the issue of these life insurance policies. The prosecution claimed that they valued those at over a million dollars. Keyo claimed they were valued more around four hundred thousand dollars and he'd signed them on Anna Jane's behalf, and this was before she'd died. Now, the other issue in the case was the forensics, and this was why in the end Henry Keo was able to be proven innocent. The forensics were done in a very boggy fashion by

then chief forensic pathologist, doctor Colin Mannock. He testified at the trial that Anna Jane was held under the water and that she'd been held down and there were marks on her legs in particular that would show this, but he'd later change his mind about this crucial evidence, including

the age of those marks and bruises on her legs. So, as with Kevin Henry, as with Derek Bromley, there was very little evidence to begin with in the first place, and what there was was very troublesome at the time and would be revealed by long investigations to be at best incompetent and at worst something far more sinister.

for Anna Jane and punishing Henry Keo. But we've seen in the case of Kevin Henry that there was very little coverage, virtually none, and there was absolutely no call for justice for Linda and for her family. Her life was given no real value whatsoever. So I wonder Amy, as an Indigenous journalist, what you can say, having covered these sort of cases for ten years, how race plays an impact the differences.

legal process and even a retrial for Henry Keo. But the ingredients that made up the Henry Kio story originally were very salacious and very enticing to media and to the South Australian and even the national public, and involved a man who only six weeks later was planning to walk down the Eye with this woman. She's found deceased

in a bathtub and he's been accused of her murder. Then, as you were talking about before mut and there is all this circumstantial evidence around him taking out life insurance

policies which came to quite a considerable amount. And so through the course of Henry Ko's trial, his second trial, and then his numerous appeals and attempts to attempts to prove his innocence through over two decades, it was very widely covered and at many points I think he was seen as one of the worst people in South Australia, but this case was national news. His name was a household name in South Australia and that of his victim as well. She was obviously seen as being like a daughter,

I guess to a lot of South Australian locals. But then if we compare it to for example, Kevin's Henry's case, and we've looked through the archives of our local paper here the Morning Bulletin, and the day after Linda died it made the front page and there was a couple of front page articles about it that week, But the next year, by the time that the trial had come around, and even by the time of Kevin's conviction, the story had really fallen to the back of the newspages, so

to like the fifth or the sixth page, and they were only very short stories in the middle of the newspaper. And so that gives you a sense that to the rock Hampton community and even to the Queensland community, this wasn't a big story for them. The victim was Aboriginal, she was largely faceless and nameless throughout the proceedings, and

the alleged perpetrator was also Aboriginal. So it shows again just the value placed on Aboriginal lives, particularly the life of Linda, that it didn't cause a similar outrage as that of Enna Jane Cheney down in South Australia, who sadly died in nine to ninety five. Now, Martin, you've worked on cases all around the world. Have you had a similar experience in the way black and white victims of crime and also perpetrators are seen by the media.

and that's where the difference changes. So in the case of Rodney Reid, who we've spoken about before, in this case he was a black man and the victim was white. And even to this day, although the evidence is absolutely crystal clear that Rodney did not commit this crime, that in fact it was a white man who committed the crime,

who murdered his white fiance. Stacy styes that a large percentage of the public just refused to accept this, and so there's still a great deal of negative media against Rodney. There's still a lot of politicians who want Rodney executed, and so it's quite clear that once the evidence is exposed, it's also the fact of race that plays a decision on whether people are willing to change their mind with the evidence right in their face, and we see that

with Kevin too. I think to take it to an even more extreme example is another case I've worked on. Now we moved to Europe and the case of Amanda Knox. Now, she was young, beautiful, white university student who was accused of murder, and the sympathy for her, even as the person who was accused, was enormous. So I would say, not only was the media coverage extensive, it was global. I mean, that's how extensive it was. It was largely sympathetic.

At least fifty percent was on her side, and we saw everyone from President Obama to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton involved. And because she was a young white woman, even as the alleged perpetrator, again the victim was forgotten. And in this case it did really matter the race of the victim. It was the fact that people could relate to the alleged perpetrator as being the white innocent woman.

And so the cases we all know has resulted in movies, documentaries, books, there's a Netflix special and although I was glad to be part of helping a man to prove her innocence, so I think it exposes quite drastically what happens when you have a difference in race.

thirty four years. I mean, what do you take from the fact that we're still waiting and Derek Bromley is still fighting through the courts to have his name cleared. While obviously we had this really great exoneration in the case of Henry ko.

having to go through the same processes. And where Bromley's case was really not known to many people and really not widely reported, Keo's case, as we've mentioned, was far more widely reported and he really was seen as this monster. But the issue here is when you're trying to set a new precedent in here, we're trying to prove that in Australia the criminal justice system is getting it wrong, and we're trying to prove that there are many people

in prison who are innocent. And so when you run test cases, you really want to run a case that will be successful because it will impact on all your other clients, all the other people who are in a similar position who are faced by these same hurdles. Now, despite the fact that Derek Bromley has always had far more clouds over his guilt, his innocence has always been much more obvious and there was far less evidence against him.

It was the KEYO case that was run with first by the courts, and people can draw their own conclusions, but mine is that Derek Bromley is a forgotten Aboriginal man in prison, just like Kevin Henry. And because there is no media coverage, there's no ability to put a great deal of pressure on this arbiter of justice, the attorney general in both states or even the courts to get these cases heard. So once again we see race impeding justice and this is something we're really pushing hard

to change. And something that links both Kea and Bromley that makes the fact that Bromley's still in prison very bizarre is that is that both cases revolve around evidence given by the chief forensic pathologist, Dr Mannock, the now disgraced doctor Mannock, and that work for Henry Keo. That this man's credibility is completely shot to pieces this forensic pathologist, but it still hasn't helped Derek Bromley yet, who was subject to the same sort of dodgy evidence being given

by doctor Manock, even worse in Bromley's case. And I think there's something that's been uncovered that shows just what sort of attitude doctor Manock had to the Aboriginal community.

in which to conduct his investigation. Doctor Manick declined the offer, and, according to the police witness, performed the autopsy out in the open and in front of onlookers. So this would have been an Aboriginal community. He was performing this autopsy on one of their community members in front of the Aboriginal community. Graham Rsher writes, the scene would have been shocking enough, but the police witness's recollection includes the following detail.

The pathologist so doctor Manick dipped a metal ladle into.

So that's the forensic pathologist that the South Australian government really refused to well, they looked into it, they knew there were problems with a lot of his autopsies and a lot of his evidence that he'd give in up to four hundred trials where he was an expert witness

in and yet they really looked away. They looked away in relation to Henry Kio's case, and they seem to continually be looking away in relation to Derek Bromley's case and Derek Bromley's appeal, which is currently before the courts in South Australia is heavily based on the fact that doctor Mennock's forensic evidence was also flawed in his own case.

doctor Manock was not qualified to be giving expert testimony. Now, this is very similar to Kevin Henry's case, where what we see is huge holes in the forensic evidence, and as we've had this evidence retested, we've been able to expose some of that. Now we also have the issue of just as Amy described about doctor Mannock's behavior with the Aboriginal community, that the same has occurred in Queensland and in Kevin Henry's case. Now there's many examples, but

I'll just point to a few. Firstly, the way Linda was treated as the victim. Remember that her body was found in the Muddy River, but before an autopsy was conducted, her body was washed and hosed down. What sort of way is this to treat a human being? And it also meant that much of the evidence was destroyed and that it meant getting Kevin Henry a fair trial was almost impossible. Now we also have to consider some other things about the forensic evidence and the way the police

and prosecution dealt with it. Remember, Kevin Henry is convicted of both rape and murder, and as we've previously discussed on this podcast, even according to the original forensic expert, not only was Linda not raped, no sign of sexual intercourse was found during any of the forensic examinations. So here we have a state in Queensland that would allow Linda's family to believe this horrific crime of rape had

been committed against her when it clearly hadn't. The evidence showed no sexual intercourse had taken place, let alone rape. And then, of course, to compound it, Kevin Henry, now clearly shown by the evidence to be an innocent man, is still having this conviction of rape hanging over his head, and it's quite clear he did not commit that crime, or did he commit the murder, which the forensic evidence

also shows. It does not show his guilt. But of course, as we've pointed out in the past, only the forensic evidence and it was very little to none that fit with the police story was ever presented in court because all they could rely on was a confession that, once again remember, was taken after they had produced a firearm to get Kevin Henry to confess. So just briefly before we end the episode to give an update on Kevin's case.

As Graham Arsher describes at the start of this episode in his book in the introduction, that the wheels of justice turn extremely slowly for those who are already convicted. It's like trying to move a glacier. But we are slowly moving that glacier for Kevin Henry. The appeal to the Governor is ongoing and we're presenting new evidence to the Governor as it comes forward and as we're able to piece it together. Already that is an enormous amount

of evidence that shows Kevin Henry's innocence. And the parole process continues and although I don't want to go into detail, we are making progress, although slow, on that front too, And Kevin Henry's spirits remain high and he's buoyed by the support he's received and the fact that Queensland, the Rockhampton community, his own community of Warabinda and now Australia, and the world are hearing about his innocence and the fact that the Australian justice system is going to finally

have to face up to this very real fact. Innocent men and women, particularly innocent Aboriginal people, are being shown to be innocent, and it's largely based on dodgy police work and crap forensics that should never have been allowed into courts, conducted by people who are not experts and

got it wrong. This should result in a nationwide review of every prisoner currently serving a sentence for a serious crime such as murder, because we cannot allow innocent people to spend another day in prison, We cannot allow victims of crime to not have justice, and we cannot have their families not knowing the truth. We owe them all that much.