Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants.
It was absolutely shambles, to tell you the truth, just actually really patent blood on his clothing the day after the alleged a toime on a shallow mud bank and it fits Roy 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 pull 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 Don Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.
Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by Clint Curtis and produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous Media Association and a warning. This series contains the names of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset come with nerve.
Over the past two weeks, we've told you a little bit about the strange circumstances surrounding the murder of an Aboriginal woman named Linda, found on the banks of the Fitzroy River in nineteen ninety one. We told you how we became interested in this case. We began to have doubts about the guilt of the man who was convicted of rape and murder over Linda's death the following year.
That man's name is Kevin Henry, and they also call him Curdin last week, we told you a bit about Linda's last hours, the events that led to the savage assault inflicted on her body by three women who would later be convicted of grievous bodily harm. But at this point, if you were just joining us, we ask you to go back and listen to the two previous episodes. There's a lot of information in those episodes that you might need to know in order to understand this one.
Now. We have told you previously that there was no linking Kevin to Linda's death. We also told you we had doubts that it was possible for him to have put her body in the river where her official cause of death was drowning. With this in mind, we also told you that there was one thing that implicated Kevin in Linda's death. That was his confession. Kevin's been in jail for twenty five years already because of this confession.
There's no other evidence linking him to Linda's death. In this episode, you're going to hear the details of that confession, but first we want to tell you a few details, details that you may not know. Now.
When I hear someone has confessed to a crime, I don't know about you, but I immediately think it is incriminating. When I heard Kevin had given a confession to police, I couldn't help but have this reaction. You know this is going to be very bad for Kevin. I immediately think, well, there is no way someone would confess to a crime if they didn't do it, what would be the point. But why did I immediately jump to this conclusion. In Australia,
wrongful convictions are rare. We do have high profile cases like Andrew Mullard in Perth and also obviously the case of Lindy Chamberlain. So because this is rare in our own country, there's very limited research about wrongful convictions and what actually leads to innocent people being locked up. It's been found that one in four people in America who have been exonerated by DNA evidence actually gave a false confession. So it's obvious that false confessions are very common overseas.
You have to think maybe they happen just as often over here in Australia as well.
As a legal advocate, I have a very different reaction when I hear the word confession. I've been working with clients have been wrongfully convicted in the US, the Middle East, and Europe through prison and justice systems for a long time. Now I know the signs, what to look for and when someone is giving a false confession. I know this because of the research that's already being done based on actual cases where US prisoners have been forced to confess.
One of the leading experts in the United States on wrongful convictions is Brandon L. Garrett. He's a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He looked into cases where innocent people have been exonerated by DNA on forensics and eyewitnesses, but critically on false confessions. He's even written a book about it. It's called Convicting the Innocent, Where criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. While we were researching Kevin's case,
we contacted Professor Garrett. Professor Garrett responded and gave us an example of what he calls confession contamination, using the case of Frank Stirling when nineteen ninety one, the same year Linda died confess to the killing of an elderly woman.
In nineteen ninety one, Frank Sterling confessed to the nineteen eighty eight killing of an elderly woman. Sterling waived his Miranda rights and was interrogated without a.
Lawyer for twelve hours.
Only twenty minutes at the end of the interrogation was videotaped, and it shows him confessing in apparent detail, giving key facts in the case, the location of the murder, the color of the victim's jacket and clothing, and the use of a bb gun. DNA evidence proved that Frank Sterling was innocent and indicated the guilt of another man. Frank Sterling served almost nineteen years for a crime he didn't commit.
Sterling has explained how he was worn down during the interrogation and ultimately decided to repeat the account that the police gave him. In sixteen percent of the first two hundred and fifty DNA exonerations, innocent defendants falsely confessed.
Frank Sterling was not alone.
All but two of forty DNAs honorees who falsely confessed were said to have confessed in detail. Their confessions were contaminated. Confession contamination means that non public feed as specific facts about how the crime was committed. I disclosed to a suspect during an interrogation.
Now keep Frank's case in mind, because we have gone through Kevin's confession and we think there are some startling conclusions that can be drawn. But first of all, let's take you back to the day Kevin would have confessed.
It was the afternoon of the fifth.
Of September ninety ninety one. Now, remember Linda's body was found on the first of September, and she died the night before on the thirty first of August, so this was all in the same week. In fact, it was only four days after Linda was found.
Now, Kevin had already been thrown in the watchhouse before picked up the next day on the first for public drunkenness. On the fifth, he was walking along the rock Hampden Street with a friend. He was again picked up by the police, but this time he wasn't drunk. The police officers had obviously picked him up for some other reason.
Now it was.
Two twenty one PM by this point, and Kevin was seated in a room at Rockampden Police Station. In attendance were the two arresting officers, Senior Constable Leslie Girk and Senior Constable Robert Hunt. Now, Hunt was listening while Girk was leading the interview. We don't have the recording of that confession, but we do have the transcript, and for the purposes of this podcast, we're as citing the transcript
to make it easier to understand. Martin will play the voice of Senior Constable Girk, and I'll occasionally read out the lines of Senior Constable Hunt. We have also enlisted the help of Elijah Blair, a young Aboriginal radio announcer based at the Murray Radio station for US in Rockhampton, to play the part of the twenty two year old Kevin Henry.
Now, Kevin's confession was two and a half hours long. We can't read out the whole thing, but we've picked out the excerpts we can play on air. Now, Kevin had already given us statement to police. He'd given it to them on the Monday, they set him down and read it out again. That statement details the assault on Linda with a great level of accuracy. We know this because it's corroborated by other witness's statements on the night and by the forensic examination of her body.
In that original statement, Kevin claims that after Linda was assaulted, he went to the Crown Hotel with the others at Tanuba, where they all put in for alcohol purchased by Susan Aubrey, before going back to Tanuba a half an hour later. It was there that Linda was gone. Now we're going to read out Kevin's interview to police on the fifth of September nineteen ninety one, which would end up implicating
him in Linda's death. It starts with the police asking Kevin if there is anything he wanted to change.
Again.
Here is Martin as Senior Constable, Leslie Girk and Elijah as Kevin. Now again or warning to our listeners that this next part of the podcast contains some disturbing content.
The time now is two twenty one PM. Do you agree with that time? Kevin?
Yes?
Kevin. My questions to you today and your answers will be recorded on this tape recorder in front of us. Do you understand that?
Yes.
At the end of the interview, you'll be given a cassette tape of our conversations. Do you understand that?
Yes?
Okay. I now ask each person present to say their full name. My full name is Leslie John Girk Plain closed Senior Constable of Police attached to the Rockampton CIB. My registered number is five nine three seven.
My full name is Robert John Hunt.
I'm a detective Senior Constable of Police presently stationed at Rapempton CIB.
My registered number is six one five seven.
Kevin, is there any person present who hasn't identified themselves? No, Kevin, for the record, could you please state your full name and correct.
Name, Kevin Alan Henry.
Are you known by any other name? Kevin Curtain with the key and your date and place of birth.
The first of the third sixty nine.
Where were you born, Kevin, Rockhampton. Are you currently employed?
Yeah?
Whereabouts you working?
No? I'm on unemployment benefit.
Unemployment benefits right? What grade of education did you achieve?
Nine?
And where was that?
Or a bender?
Can you read and write the English language?
Yeah?
Can you clearly understand my questions? To you today. Yeah, Kevin, do you recall a short while before we commenced this interview, I asked you if you wish to have anyone from a legal aid present. Do you recall that?
Yeah?
And could you tell me what you said to me?
Yes?
When I asked you if you wanted someone from legal aid, could you tell me what you said?
I want somebody here anyways from legal aid. Anyways?
When I asked you before the commencement of the interview, you told me you didn't want anyone from legal aid. Do you recall that?
Oh? Yes, yeah?
Now do you are you saying now that you want someone from legal aid or you don't want someone from legal aid to city?
Yeah? I want someone from legal aid.
So you want someone from legal aid now?
Yes? Yes? Yeah, now.
Right Kevin. What I'm going to do now I'll suspend the interview, yes, so you can get someone from legal aid. Okay?
Yes.
The time now is two fourteen pm. Do you agree with that time?
Yeah?
I'm sorry, two nineteen pm. Do you agree with that time? We'll now suspend the interview and I'll contact someone from Legal Aid okay, so they can sit here with you.
It's two twenty four.
I'm sorry, Kevin. The time is two twenty four Yeah. Interview suspended at two twenty four pm. Interview resumed at two twenty seven pm. Right, this interview is now resumed. The time now is two twenty seven pm. Do you agree with that time, Kevin, two twenty seven yes, Kevin. Prior to me suspending the interview, you said that you wanted someone from Legal Aid. Is that correct?
Yeah?
And then I then suspended the interview and I said I was just going to get someone from Legal Aid, and you told me that you wanted to get on with the interview and you didn't want anyone from Legal Aid. Is that correct?
Yes?
Now, do you wish to have anyone from Legal Aid here or ninth?
No?
Well, you're happy if we continue with the interview, yes, without anyone from legal Aid?
Yeah? No? Oh yes, yeah, no legal Aid here?
Right, Kevin? Did you provide a statement to police on two of this month? That's on I don't know, second of the ninth, that's correct, Yeah, that's Tuesday, wasn't it?
No?
Monday morning?
Monday morning, Monday morning. Did you provide a statement to police? Yeah, Kevin, I've got a copy of that statement with me. I'll now read that statement to you. Okay, Yes, Do you wish to read the statement or would you like me to read it?
Oh, you can read it.
Okay. Did you read this statement over on Monday?
Yes?
And did you then sign that statement? Yes, on Monday morning.
That's right.
Is there anything in that statement that you wish to change?
No, there's nothing to change there.
Anything.
You just put it in the bottom. There.
Is there anything else you'd like to add to that statement?
No, there's nothing else there.
Well, what would you like me to put at the bottom of it?
What I did? What happened?
Well?
Could you tell me what that was?
What happened? Well, I'm just talking about when she got That's what I'm just talking And that is the last and that's all. That's the last. That's the last page for me.
Yeah, that's the largest page of your statement. Yeah, we'll put.
Down the bottom there that I stayed.
There, You stayed where you stayed where.
Down at to Nimba. I waited till he went up to the bank.
You waited till who went.
All of them, all of them, all our ulburry girls. Yeah, and after that I pulled the that bar out of her behind at Linda's behind and I threw it away in the barbecue. And after that I dragged her to root Root Valley. Then after that I had sex with her and she was she woke up. She had sex with me then she was awake to see, right. And after that, then that I left from her and I told her to come along with me. Then after that
I went up to ring an ambulance. But after that, when the ambulance came, she was gone from there when there wasn't no dragon mark there?
See when did she wake up? At what stage? Did she wake up?
What time? Then?
Was she awake?
She was awake. She was awake when she got to the Rude Valley. She was awake then, right, And we had sex there, okay. And after that I left from there.
Before I ask any further questions, Kevin, I warn you that you don't have to answer any more questions yes, or say anything yes okay, because anything you say or any statement you give will be recorded here today and may later be given in evidence. Do you understand that yes? Do you understand you don't have to answer any more questions?
Yes?
Do you understand that if you do, they'll be recorded?
Yes?
And then they may later be told to the court. Yes, do you understand that?
Yes?
Why for what reason did you drag Linda down to root Valley?
Well? I dragged her away because them girls come back down, you see, they would bash her more up, more and more and more, because I know what they're like. See, they bash, they're bashing the every other girl that's coming out here. They get jealous of them, of the men, all those fellows down there who root them. That's why they get jealous of them, right, that's why they bash. Bash other women's up. Sometimes they bash men's up to see which girls? Is that? All the girls?
Right? How did you drag her just.
By one arm, just by just two arms like that, just dragged her along?
You held her with your two arms.
Two arms, yeah, and dragging her by the yeah, left arm on her back, dragging her by the left arm.
Did Linda have any blood on her from being assaulted by the other girls?
Oh?
Yes, she had a lot of blood all on her face.
And where was the blood coming from.
From her face? Her face? Noise mouth?
Did you have any cuts? Do you know?
I wouldn't know. I couldn't see that so much blood was on her face.
Hmmm, And you said before you dragged her that you pulled the Was it a stick out of her bottom?
Babe?
What was this? There was a stick or something in her bottom?
You said, the bar?
The bar? Was it stuck into her bottom?
Was it? Yes? It was stuck in her bottom. Yeah. Because I was sitting right on the steps, I was watching all the time.
Who stuck this bar into it?
Amy Saunders? Amy Saunders?
Could you describe this bar to me.
Just some? It was about that long, about a sort of like a temper, sort of sort of sort of like this, you know, but it's got thin here, right?
And do you know where Amy got this bar from?
No, I wouldn't have a clue about it. I wouldn't have nothing. I wouldn't have nothing to do about that. I wouldn't even know where the bar come from.
And where did you throw the bar when you took it out?
I threw it in the barbecue.
Did it go into the barbecue or no?
I threw it just against the barbecue on the side, right, But it bounced back that way, but sort of on an angle sort of angle.
And where did it land? Did it land anywhere near the river bank? Did it?
No?
Oh? Yeah? Oh?
No?
It didn't land near the river bank bridge there, but it was still there. Barbecue just apart just about right.
Did Linda did move it all when you pulled the bar around?
Yeah, she moved a bit. Yeah, she moved a bit.
When you were having sex with Linda.
No, No, I didn't have blood on me.
Are you sure of that?
Yes, I'm sure. I'm positive.
You said she kissed you all over.
Yeah, but there was no blood on me, you see, right, there was no blood.
And when you said her legs.
Like all her blood went all hard?
It was all hard, was it?
Yeah? It was all hard?
Okay, So that's all.
That's all I we just had sex and I just hung up. I just wrung up the ambulance and just wring them down.
And okay, she wasn't.
She might have because the bank's just there, you know, and she might have just dragged herself.
Did the ambulance come down? Did they?
They came down? But then I showed them. I said, she's not there now, right, And what did they? So I went across and had a look and she and she not there?
And what did they say? When they got down?
They thought I was lying. In the next morning they heard found her dead. What nobody killed her? Nobody killed her? Blood just lost a lot of blood off them girls, You know, nobody killed anyone. She just must have just lost a lot of blood off.
Sorry. How did you contact the ambulance?
I rang up? I rang up? Right?
Where did you rung up from?
I rang up from the from the box, from the box down there, to come to the mall, to the mall across the road there?
Right?
Will you come to the mall? All them calves pull up there? Right?
That's where not.
This roundabout at the front, not that one near near the.
Yeah, across the road from the Union Hotel? Yeah, from the Union Is that where Union Hotel is? Just at the end of the mall?
Yeah?
And what did you do after? What did you say to them when you rang out?
Just someone out here, blood and all over the place, broken nose and mouth and all that, all the bleed and everything and what they came out and.
She was gone after you wrong the ambulance. You said you went down to the Crown Hotel.
Is that right?
Yeah?
Then you said you went from the Crown Hotel back down to Tanuba. Yeah, is that right?
Yeah?
Was anyone else with you when you went down to Tanuba from the Crown Hotel.
No, there was nobody else.
How long do you think you would have been at the Crown Hotel?
For?
It would have been there about quarter past seven, was something around there.
Did you have a drink at the Crown Hotel when you were there?
No? No, I was a bit shocked in that.
Had you been drinking it all that day?
Yeah?
I'd been drinking that day. Yeah.
How much do you think.
Before that even happened, before that even.
Happened, how much do you think you would have drunk that day?
Oh?
About two cartons? No, three cartoons, three cartoons, three flanagans, one vodka, one rum and cola, just a big rum, you know, straight and just pure rum and coke, coke bottles, soft ring bottles, that's all.
How many of those cartons would you have drunk? You said, three curtains.
I only had about seven of them, that's all I had.
Right when you went to the Crown after you rang the ambulance up. Yeah, did you speak to anyone at the Crown?
No, I said nothing, just talk to nobody.
Why did you go to the Crown day? Why did you go to the Crown?
But just I was going to say something, but there wasn't there. See you were came back down then then I was. But I need say nothing about that till they came.
Down, right. You were quite concerned about Linda, were you?
Yeah? I didn't even know, Percy.
This tape's just about to run out, keV. What we might suspend the interview?
Now?
Would you look at the clock on the wall. Do you agree that the time is now six minutes past three?
Yes?
Is that correct?
Yes?
Okay, Now I'll just to spend the interview.
That's all I got to tell you. That's all I know.
Interview suspended at three oh six pm.
Interview resumed at three eight pm.
This is tape two of the interview between myself, Leslie Girk and Kevin Henry. Kevin, do you agree that the time is now just after eight minutes past three in the afternoon?
Yes?
Do you agree Kevin that whilst we suspended the interview, we didn't speak to you about this matter?
Hey?
When we were changing the tapes over, No, I didn't. Do you agree that we didn't speak? No about what about the matter I'm talking to you about now?
Yeah?
Do you agree with that? Yes, Kevin? I said earlier or just before we suspended the interview, that you were quite worried about Linda. Yeah, Why were you worried about her?
Just worried about the girls getting into her, that's all.
Right. Were you concerned at all about the injuries she'd sustained, Yes, that's the injuries that were caused to her. Yes, like the blood on her face and the injury to her bottom.
Yes.
Could you tell me why you didn't call an ambulance before you dragged her down to Root Valley.
Just wanted to get her away from the girls, that's all. M Otherwise the girls come back down, they're going to bash her more with more.
Why did you have sex with her before you called the ambulance?
She was to have sex with me first, she woke up down there in Red Valley. She wanted to have sex with me. Then when she woke up.
Did you say anything to you about the injuries to her face?
No, she didn't say nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all. If she didn't say nothing about that.
Did you say anything to her?
No? I never said nothing at all to her.
Why didn't you?
No, I didn't say nothing.
Do you think she would have been in any pain from her injuries.
Oh yeah, she was in plenty of pain.
Why did you have sex with her if you thought she was in pain?
Because all the blood all over her head, all over her head evering kicked in?
Probably been probably, But why did you have sex with her if you thought she was hurting? Come again, my question was why did you have sex with her when you thought she was in pain? But when you thought she was hurting from her injuries?
Well, I just dragged her and just I just dragged her down. She rolled over down in Ride Valley. She just took her clothes off, and she just wanted to have sex just then. After that, I had sex with her, and then I told her to get up. I said, are you coming now? I was getting the ambulance for her. When they came back, she was gone. Nobody ever dragged her in there because she had no mark there. I tell you, I tell you now, there was no mark there because nobody dragged her. She fell in there. She
fell in there, and she drowned her own self. Nobody killed her. Okay, See that's it, man, I just told you everything. That's all the evidence. Like, got nothing to say no more. Now you can't ask me anymore because I've got nothing else to say.
Okay, Martin, you've read that confession. You've heard that confession again, what did you think of it? Like, what were your initial thoughts when you first read Kevin's confession?
Well, I think the first thing that really stands out is Kevin's insistence early on that he wanted legal representation, and then that was changed for whatever reason. So immediately we know he was confused. We also know reading the confession that there was a lot of inaccuracies and things that just didn't add up. There were things he said that just couldn't have possibly taken place, so straight away you know that something's not right with the confession itself.
Could it have just been the adversarial nature of you know, where he was in the sterile, in the foreign environment, Like he would have been nervous anyway, even if he had walked in and given a confession on his own will.
Yeah, he definitely would have been. I think what we know is that this was the second statement that Kevin gave, So why was he feeling more apprehension this time around? His first statement reads much more clearly and for some reason in this second statement, we've got Kevin changing things around, not sure what he's being asked, changing his mind about legal representation. So just weighing up the way the two confessions read and sound, they're very very different.
I mean when you I mean you've had experience over in the US when you look at cases where there has been, for example, a forced confession, what do you actually look for? What are the beginning signs or the science that you watch out for.
Well, certainly you're looking for things like is the person under du rest, do they sound like this's coercion or they're being led that way? Is there any diminished capacity mental impairment which includes intoxication that could have happened prior to the confession being taken, and that's played a role in that person being unsure of what they're doing. And we know this is a great possibility because more than one in four people who've been wrongly convicted and then
later exonerated by DNA evidence gave a false confession. So these are people who definitely did not commit the crime. Most were nowhere near the crime scene and they didn't even know the victim, but they gave a confession. And there's a lot of the same markers that we look for in Kevin's confession that can be found in those confessions.
What do you mean by markers? What would you look out for? And what were evident in Kevin's confession?
I think certainly his confusion is not understanding a lot of the questions that were being asked immediately. That suggests that he was either stressed under duress, he was giving statements that the police knew didn't match the facts, but he was never picked up on that. So that always suggests that perhaps someone's been told things prior to the
interview commencing. And that's something we need to keep in mind is while we know what happened while the tape recorder was playing, we don't know what happened in between the time Kevin was picked up, when he was in the police car, when he was in the watchhouse, and before record was pressed on the tape.
So we don't know what the conversations he had prior to the tape being recorded. We don't know anything about that.
No, nothing in terms of that is recorded. You often see in some states where they will vig the entire process because we do know what's said beforehand, can cause what we know is confession contamination, and that's the interviewee being given information that they couldn't possibly know and that's not on the public record, and then they make those statements in their confession. And I certainly think there's things in Kevin's confession that match that description of confession contamination.
How would you pull out those comments?
Is that the way he's saying it, the way he's terming certain things that he's saying, or how can you even determine which parts he may have may have been contaminated?
Well, we look for the things that we do know to be true that match everyone else's statements, that match the forensic evidence provided at trial by doctors and forensic experts, and we look at the things that Kevin has said that just don't match those We know them not to be true. We know them from all those things I've mentioned, as well as the court proceedings and the claims that everyone else has made, including the police themselves, so we know he says things that just are not true.
I mean, one of the things that got me was he was very confused about whether there was any blood there, and he seems to go back and forth, and the only time he seems to give a proper answer is when he had seen the blood earlier, when she'd been lying in the light after the woman had assaulted her. But after that he kept changing his mind. He was very flustered and couldn't remember whether there was blood I guess coming out of certain parts of her body.
Well, that's right, And I think what we see in the confession is two issues being confused. Kevin when he speaks of the blood, when he speaks of the injuries, when he speaks of Linda, he's clearly referring to what he saw while Linda was being assaulted by the three women. But the inference in the confession and the way the questions are asked leads those reading the confession to believe that that's what Kevin saw when he was allegedly alone
with Linda. But it's quite obvious from what he says that that's not correct, because he mentions the stairs, he mentions the trauma to Linda's face and head, and the way that that was inflicted, and we know that that occurred. We know from evidence provided by forensic experts, when and where that occurred, and so we know what Kevin says about those issues only matches. If he's talking about the assault.
On the women, which he definitely saw, it's established. So he definitely saw that assault.
Absolutely he saw it, and he even says he looked away at one point while it was going on, but he certainly saw the beginning of the assault, most of the assault and the aftermath. He was quite close. And so he gives a very clear recollection of the things we know took place. He's very fuzzy on the things that we cannot confirm took place other than what is in his confession.
The other thing Martin I got from his confession is he was very adamant. He was saying things like nobody. There was even a part where he goes, nobody killed her. Nobody killed her.
I mean, he was.
Very adamant about that, very direct, almost defensive language. Whereas if you're confessing, I mean, would you say.
That, well, certainly. And that's one of the things that about this supposed confession that's quite unusual is that he is very clear he didn't do certain things, but he seems to confess to other aspects. But the way he confesses is what we call answering questions with questions. So he often answers by asking a question of his own, and that tends to suggest that he doesn't actually know
the answer to the question he's being asked. And one of the other markers we look for is a lack of detail, and you can't know the detail of something you know nothing about and didn't see.
One of the things we look for is called the mean length of utterance, and this is something that's been subject to rigorous study over many, many decades that helps us analyze a confession or a statement given to police or other investigative services. And what it tells us is that the average person answers these sort of questions with
a sentence between ten and fifteen words. Now, highly educated person with a very high IQ will tend to go in the other direction, the answer significantly longer, and that's because they're trying to confuse the interviewer. They're trying to outsmart them, and they're trying to obfiscate, they're trying not
to answer the question directly. For people who are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who are particularly nervous and have reason to be when questioned by police, and particularly someone like Kevin, who we know hadn't completed a great deal of schooling. The studies tell us that they answer significantly shorter, and throughout Kevin's testimony, he often answers which has one word yeah or no. So he's not actually giving his side
of the story. He's just agreeing or disagreeing to what he's asked by the police.
And that's some I know just from other stories I've done, that seems to be quite an aboriginal trait.
A lot of the time, collegratuitous concurrence.
Do you think that's something that that he's just agreeing to certain things?
Can we see that in confessions? Or is that not a factor in this?
It's certainly a factor in this, and we certainly see them in confessions. One thing that's often on the person's mind, and this may be under hard to understand for the general public, is they just want to get out of there, so they will often agree or disagree just as a way of getting this over and done with. And one thing the studies have shown with people who have confessed to crimes that DNA evidence has proven the innocence of is they just went along with it. They wanted to
please the people that were asking the questions. They wanted no hostility, and they wanted it over and done with as soon as possible. And we can tell Kevin was that way Incline because he tried to end the interview. He became very agitated and he just didn't want to speak anymore.
It was interesting because he was also very as we were talking about, very careful. I mean, he would give certain concessions, but then he'd say something like, for example, because no one, nobody ever dragged her in the water to see.
So I guess I was a bit confused by that.
How if you're saying a confession, you're also saying because nobody ever dragged her in the water, nobody killed her. She I think in another party says she dragged her own self into the water, or she put us own self into the water. So there's he's quite defensive, very careful to try not to incriminate himself.
Yeah, I think at this stage the great possibility that Kevin believed he was just another witness and so he was just one of the more than thirty people there on the night, and the things we know he says proven by the forensic evidence and the testimony. He's quite clear on when there's allegations or assumptions made on behalf of the police about things that he finds troubling and disturbing. He is very very clear to point out he didn't
do certain things. So while he seems okay with answering questions that don't really implicate him that anyone there could have seen that will just get the police off his back, and he's just answering yes or no and agreeing to anything, when it comes to accusations of anything that's serious, he deviates and he's very clear on saying he did not do those things.
But wouldn't a guilty person act the exact same way? I mean, no one wants to go to jail. Wouldn't a guilty person if they're giving that sort of statement, wouldn't.
They just lie as well?
Wouldn't they they do the same thing, try to downgrade what they'd actually done.
Well, that's true, And there's two ways of looking at it. If this is a confession as is alleged, and confession that results in Kevin being convicted of murder, why doesn't he just agree to everything? Why does he fight back on certain issues and not others. So, if it's a straight confession of Gil, there would be no point for Kevin to disagree with what's being said, particularly those parts
that implicate him. But your question does go to something that's very important to understand, which is, to the general public side, the difference between a false confession and a true confession can't be determined. In fact, the police are not good at determining these issues, and nor are many prosecutors.
And that's why we see now a great deal of science going in to analyzing confessions and why these studies have been done because we do know that more than one in four people have asked to crime that DNA would show they did not commit, So it does occur far more frequently than people would believe.
So that just raised so many questions. First of all, Kevin never actually confessed. He never said he put her in the water. In fact, he was very adamant that no one had killed her. And what happened in those crucial three minutes when turned off the recording afterwards Kevin changed his story? And did Kevin actually want legal aid? Why did he change his mind conveniently when the tape had turned off right at the beginning of the interview.
So far in this podcast, you've heard my analysis and a brief discussion trying to answer some of the questions that Amy raises. Next week, we'll hear from a trial lawyer, so expert in this field. The film documenting his work won an Academy Award, and we'll ask him the question is there something wrong with this confession? In fact, we know there is because we weren't the first people to raise issue with it. Twenty five years ago, the same
questions were asked. Those questions were asked by a very important person in this case and in the trial.
For now.
You can catch up on iTunes by typing in Curtain the Podcast, or go to our website www dot Curtain Thepodcast dot com.
Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter at Curtain the Podcast.
Join us next week for Curtain