Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth. Just actually really pain of.
Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged attamp 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.
In nineteen eighty seven, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz were tried separately in Oklahoma and convicted of a brutal rape and murder. Questionable forensic evidence tied them to the scene of the crime. Williamson received the death penalty. Fritz was sentenced to life in prison. Fritz and Williamson were innocent, and they were exonerated by DNA evidence. In over fifty percent of DNA exonerations, the forensic evidence was unvalidated or improper.
There were a host of problems with the forensics used to convict these innocent people. Analysts testifying as experts at criminal trials made invalid claims, false claims unsupported by science. They made serious errors because they used unreliable methods which were either error prone or lack repuatability. They also engaged in scientific negligence, even outright misconduct. They concealed evidence of innocence, and they used vague and confusing terms that jurors could
not be expected to understand. In the Fritz and Williamson case, two types of forensics were presented, blood and hair analysis. Blood or a cyological analysis has sound science to back it up, but in this case, the analyst reached exaggerated and false conclusions that made totally inconclusive eb L blood taping seem like evidence of their guilt. Fretz and Williamson each served twelve years for a crime they did not commit. At one point, Williamson was only five days from execution.
That was Brandon ell Garrett, author of Convicting the Innocent, Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. He works for the Innocence Project and teaches law at the University of Virginia Law School. You've heard him on this podcast before, but there he was explaining the importance of forensic evidence and that when it's used poorly, collected, poorly, or mishandled in over fifty percent of cases where people are exonerated, it was because
of this poor use of forensic evidence. This week, we've got a bigger episode for you because we've been waiting on information that's been a long time coming. We told you late last year that we had grave concerns about the forensic analysis brought at the trial of Kevin Henry, and because of this, we sent this data away to an international expert in the United Kingdom. This week we finally received this independent analysis back and we can tell
you it's explosive. It confirms our previous suspicions on several aspects.
Of this case.
Now, before we outline this information, I want to extend a huge thank you to our listeners, especially those of you who've stuck it out with us over the past few weeks while we've revisited certain information, we have been waiting on the outcome of Kevin Henry's parole hearing, and we are still waiting.
Because of that.
We had a few quiet episodes this week, though we'll begin to go into detail about the FORENDS analysis in this case. We've told you before preliminary assessments from experts had already raised concerns it was overly simplistic. This new analysis confirms this.
But first we have to warn our listeners, especially our Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander listeners, that this episode will contain distressing content. It contains the names of deceased people. Now, we've taken a great deal of care in this podcast series not to be gratuitous. Out of respect for Linda's memory and her family.
We've tried our best to censor some of the more disturbing aspects of Linda's death. This is largely because, as an Aboriginal woman, she was victim not only to this crime, but to so many others in her short time on this earth. We don't want to add to that disrespect, and we don't want to further the trauma and hurt felt by her family.
But this week, we unfortunately do have to outline the more distressing details of her death. This is because the information we will provide you with is critical to Kevin Henry's case. It's critical to understanding why an innocent man has been sitting in jail for the past twenty five years. But as we outline these details, never forget that Linda
was an accomplished, smart, strong mother of four. She was loved by her immediate and large extended family, and deserves to be remembered as the brilliant person she was in life, rather than the tragic circumstances of her death.
We believe that a graver injustice has been committed against Linda. It was because she was Aboriginal, and it was because she was a woman that police failed to investigate this properly, that media failed to follow up and hold them accountable, and why her name was lost to the events of nineteen ninety one, forever tied to a tragedy when her life was worth so much more.
Now, we have told you several times before in this podcast series that Linda's official cause of death was drowning, But let's go back.
A bit so before we bring in the new information that we've received. We actually have to go back to the transcript. Now, Martin, when you look at the trial, when did the pathology report and the expert testimony actually come into play?
Well, it came in two parts by two witnesses, and it was fairly scattered. One was called early on and one was called almost at the end of the trial. I think that's problematic because it can be quite complex information. Generally, you would hope if you have two expert witnesses, as they did in this case, they'd be called one after the other so that the jury has a chance to
understand what's being said. But that wasn't done. The pathologist, who will be predominantly speaking about today, was called in between two witnesses who happened to be at Tanuba House that evening. So I think that also might go to why some of the jurors were clearly or had to be confused about some of the information. And it did seem a slightly bizarre time in the trial to introduce that information.
So when you talk about those two experts, what testimony are we going to talk about today and where did those reports come from?
Okay, So the testimony itself is what we call forensic pathology, and that basically gives an understanding of the medical issues as to what occurred that night and that day, and it tries to explain how a person died, the injuries they might have suffered beforehand and after their death. It also looks at any blood toxicology and that information came from a laboratory expert in Brisbane who analyzed things like
blood alcohol level samples and also a medical practitioner. And that person is the one that acted as the specialist pathologist in the trial, and it was that person that produced a cause of death for Linda. And I'll just quickly read from the transcript that the cause of death was determined and this is what the pathologist, who was a medical practitioner said. I made to support the diagnosis of drowning as the cause of death.
So what did they base that cause of death on?
Okay, So, as we've discussed in the podcast, Linda sustained a huge number of injuries during the assault took place against her by the three women who were convicted of grievous bodily hal but the cause of death is given as drowning and that was because when Linda was found and the examination of her body was done. There was water in the lungs, there was some watery fluid in the stomach, and there was a small amount of froth
in the airway. This is what led to the diagnosis of drowning as the cause of death.
So at the time and on the stand, was it contested this cause of death, that it was drowning.
No, And despite this being a murder trial and that being given as the cause of death, there was really no challenge to that being the case at all, and no challenge to the forensic evidence that allegedly supported it. And I should say that one of the issues is that not only with Kevin on trial, but the women were on trial alongside him. So a large percentage of the forensic information presented a trial was not in relation
to Kevin at all. It was in relation to the assault perpetrated by the women, and so almost all of the forensic information given at trial relates to that assault. There's no link of Kevin's at all in that assault, either in the pathology that is, there's no connection with Kevin, and also by witnesses own statements that Kevin actually told the women and was the only person to speak up
and tell them to knock it off. So it's important to understand that the vast bulk of the forensic information presented was about the assault on Linda, and it was some of this information that was challenged by the lawyers representing the three women. But in terms of Kevin Henry, the cause of death was never challenged.
And why is it important to look back at the cause of death and consider whether she had drowned when we look at this case.
Okay, So for the prosecutors to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Kevin Henry was responsible for the murder of Linda, the only way they could do that was drowning, because there was no other forensic evidence that supported her death in a way that Kevin could have contributed to. Now we've already gone through why even Kevin being involved is simply inaccurate. But I think they chose this largely because there was simply no other way to
link to the death. So, to give an example, if they suggested that Linda had been strangled, they would have had to prove that it was Kevin Henry who did it, and you would expect to find his tissue samples his skin, perhaps his hair or blood as part of the crime scene, and none of that was found. So it was important that they determine drowning as the cause of death because there was no other way that they could even reasonably argue that Kevin had committed murder.
And Kevin was charged, just to remind our listeners before this determination of drowning was actually handed.
Down, that's right. So it's important to remember that Kevin was charged on the fifth of September with murder and the three women had been charged earlier in that day with murder, but under different circumstances. And as you say, this was before any cause of death was known to police. So how they made that determination in relation to Kevin Henry is quite bizarre. When it relates to the women, it can be understood they had committed a vicious assault
against Linda. There was up to thirty witnesses. The forensic evidence as to their involvement had already been discovered and while it was still being tested, it was very obvious as to their involvement and there was no doubt about that, and they would be convicted of that later on. But as you say, Kevin was charged with murder before any understanding was known of how Linda died, and certainly before there was any understanding of how he could have been involved in that death.
So we saw this forensic analysis, why did you decide to then get a second opinion and actually send it to an independent person and an independent expert to have a look at.
Well? When I read the trial transcripts when we finally received them, I expected to find in their damning evidence against Kevin Henry, and I expected to find fairly comprehensive forensic evidence of the way Linda died, particularly the drowning aspect, because if they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Linda had indeed drowned, then the murder charge against Kevin
simply couldn't be upheld. But when I read that trial transcript, not only was the forensic evidence presented very simplistically, it was not at all comprehend and in no way did it link Kevin Henry to the crime. So I felt it was vital that we understand the forensics further and try to discover if we could learn more about the way Linda died and if we could potentially find any more information out about if Kevin wasn't involved, who might be, and also if there could be links to Kevin Henry.
But those links just didn't show up, and they would have been shown at trial if they did. But my main concern was the simplistic nature of the forensics and also the fact that there was no direct link to Kevin Henry provided.
So this is actually a big question, Martin, because really the question centers around was Linda alive before she was put in the water or she'd actually been put in the water and she died beforehand.
So that's quite a critical question, isn't it.
In the sole case, absolutely for them to convict Kevin Henry or proved that he had committed murder, they needed to prove and the judge made this clear.
That Linda was still alive when she was placed in the water, because that would be the only way Kevin could be found guilty of murder by drowning was that Linda was still conscious and alive before she was placed in the water, and that it was indeed Kevin Henry who did place her body in the water with the intent of committing murder, That is, that he deliberately placed her body in the water for the purpose of drowning her, yet virtually no evidence as to this is presented, and
will break down the evidence that was presented and why that fails to convict and should have failed to convict Kevin Henry of the crime.
Now, before we get into what we're going to talk for the majority of this program about, which is the drowning, was there any other forensic evidence that could have pointed to this crime being committed by Kevin Henry.
Yes, So, the crime scene examiner and the pathologist examines the many large patches and pools of blood that were found at the scene. Upon analysis, this showed that it was Linda's blood and that of at least one or more other people, but it was not a match for Kevin Henry. The blood's often mixed when people fight, when
someone struggles against their attacker. But Kevin also did not have any of Linda's blood on him, no blood on Winder's clothing or body that was Kevin's, and there was no match for any other biological material on either Winder's clothing or body that was from Kevin. Now, it's also
important to point out one last thing. There was hair found in some of the pools of the blood that was not tested and it should have been, and one of the experts was asked why they didn't do that, and basically they said that it wouldn't have provided any
further information. But when challenged that if there could show that other people were involved, they had to concede that that was a possibility, but we would never know because those tests were not done, and because those samples were kept or taken, that information is lost forever, and that hair could have very well led to someone else who was involved ultimately in the death of Linda.
That seems like a huge oversight.
I'm just wondering back in nineteen ninety one, whether it was common for them to test hair and do those sort of DNA.
Tests at the time of the trial. In nineteen ninety one, this was largely before DNA was used in murder trials or any type of criminal trial, So testing of things like blood and hair was very common because this is what they had available to them, and it allowed them to narrow down suspects link people to crimes purely by taking hair samples and matching it to what was found at the scene. And it's not the just hair was found.
It's very important at a crime scene as to where these things such as blood, hair, skin matter are found. And the hair that was found was found in a pool of blood, so we know that more than likely it was linked to the assault on Linda, and yet it was not tested. Now, had it been linked to Kevin Henry, and had it been Kevin's hair, there's no doubt they would have tested it because they were trying
to find anything that linked him to Linda's death. But because it was quite obvious and known to all were the police and the witnesses and everyone that Kevin was in no way involved in the assault, they simply didn't test it. But it also means we'll never find out who that hair belonged to, and it could very well point to the person directly responsible for Linda's ultimate death.
So that's pretty amazing man.
And there was no blood linking even though there was blood all around the crimes, and there was none that linked Kevin to this assault. I'm wondering if there was anything else that was found that could have potentially pointed to Kevin Henry.
Yeah, so that was examined by the crime scene examiner as to if Linda was placed in the water, what would you expect to find. And as we've discussed previously, the riverbank is very muddy, and so immediately what they expected to find was mud on the clothing of whoever committed the crime. And no mud, not even a microscopic dot of it, was found on the clothing of Kevin Henry. And it should be known that the clothing he was
wearing that night was recovered voluntarily by Kevin. There's no doubt that the clothing he wore that night was tested and he did nothing to impede any of this forensic evidence being gathered, and that was never suggested, and that's very important. And the forensic expert who examined the crime scene was asked about that river bank and the fact that you would have to go into the mud to place a body in the water, And this is what they were asked on the stand by Kevin Henry's barrister,
mister Murray, did you go down into the mud? Not myself? No, Did you see any of the officers who did? Yes, I did. Did they come back very much mud stained? Answer? They sure did. Now Kevin again had no mud on him. And this is from the examiner of the crime scene saying those officers that did go down into the mud
came back covered in mud, with a lot of mud stains. Now, I should also point out that both officers and the forensic experts stated that although the crime happened at night, they did not go down into the mud at night when they examined the scene at night themselves. That was for a number of reasons, and we've touched on this before. That's because the river has crocodiles, That's because the mud becomes very deep, very quickly, and that's because the river
bank is very unstable. It's very easy to slip and fall, to get stuck in the mud, to fall in the water. And the officers simply didn't want to end up at night covered in mud or stuck in the river with
a bunch of crocodiles around. And yet they would claim that a very intoxicated Kevin Henry managed to carry the body of an individual down this unstable bank, willingly go into the water where there was crocodiles and large snakes as known to all, and be able to place that body in the water without getting a sceric of mud on his body or his clothes or his shoes. This tests credulity completely.
He would have to be the world's most lucky criminal, I would say, to get away from it without completely clean clothes and no evidence completely. So I guess it gives you a sense of how important the drowning analysis was to the prosecution's case against Kevin Henry.
That's right. So now they had no forensic evidence whatsoever linking Kevin to the death itself and to any assault. They had no forensic evidence or eyewitness evidence that showed Kevin placing the body in the water. All they could rely on was the drowning itself.
So we've been moting on this forensics report from overseas for a very long time and it's only come back.
Just this past week. What does it actually say about drowning?
Okay, so at the trial it was stated that the cause of death was drowning, and less than a paragraph's worth of evidence was presented about that, just that there was the watery fluid in the lungs, the stomach and some of the airways. But from the report, this is what it states in forensic terms. There is nothing whatsoever deemed classic about any drowning, No one particular physical characteristic manifesting in the body that would aid in expediating such
a ruling. So because of this, the methodology for reaching a determination that it was a water death a drowning is chiefly focused on excluding other forms of foul play. This place is a great deal of importance on the initial investigative role of police personnel who could inform or misinform a medical examiner with their on site reports and early conclusions.
So we've already shown that we have a lot of concerns with how this police investigation was actually carried out.
Could that have potentially happened in this case?
Were it certainly the case that a large amount of forensic evidence that was collected was not secured properly by police. So we've spoken previously about the fact that people were allowed to walk through the crime scene all day on the Sunday. We also know that the body or that was first discovered by fishermen was secured by police, and so a lot of those early reports that they would have given information to the medical examiner about where and
how the body was found in what position. All that sort of thing influences the ability of the examiner to come to an accurate conclusion.
So how does a pathologist usually determine a drowning death.
Okay, so a pathologist will attempt to reconstruct what happened by first determining what didn't happen. This may sound a little contradictory, but it's the easiest way to rule out anything other than accidental death. Quite simply, if the pathologist has been asked to autopsy a body that was found in water but does not have any physical injuries or problems with heart disease, then the most likely conclusion is that death was caused by drowning, and its list is
death by misadventure. But of course we do know that Linda had subsustained serious physical injuries. There may well be occasions when it's difficult to establish whether or not the deceased was alive when they entered the water. This is because that even if an individual is deceased when they enter the water, providing the body remains submerged for a period of time, the lungs will fill up anyway. Now, the pathologist was asked about this on the stand because
this is crucial. We have to remember, as I discussed this, that they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kevin placed Linda in the water while she was still alive. And what we've just heard is what modern pathologists consider to be an absolute base truth, which is that someone already deceased will present with the same evidence in terms of water in the lungs as a person who was still alive when they were placed in the water. But at the time, the pathologist on the stand was asked
about this and he said that that wouldn't happen. So it's very clear we know that that was wrong. There's also a condition called dry drowning. This is where the deceased larynx has gone into spasm and water has entered the throat and blocked the passage into the lungs, and that any water in the lungs already can't get out and more can't get in. Now. At the time of Kevin's trial, this was another issue of forensic science that
was being debated widely around the world. The pathologist at Kevin's trial says that this doesn't happen, and he was asked this by mister Murray, Kevin's lawyer. We now know that the condition known as dry drowning very much does happen and has to be considered. So once again we have both inaccurate information present, and that is partly because it was done too simplistically and partly because new methods and methodology is now known.
So this dry drowning, it seems to me that that suggests that she was put in alive when she was put into the water. So that seems to suggest that she did drown. Why did I guess he say it didn't happen, and why is that important to this case?
I guess well, I think what's very important is that they were trying to rule out the fact that Linda was already deceased when she was placed in the water, because if she was, then what Kevin did did not constitute murder. So what we see is the pathologist ruling out basically anything that would suggest that Linda was deceased when she was placed in the water, but also ruling out controversial or are they types of methodology that would
prove drowning. He really just wanted to stick to what he believed was the sign of drowning and nothing else. And that's important because we now understand so much more about what happens when someone drowns.
So it shows that he's quite in a way close minded to other possibilities of what might have happened that he only sees. He's very narrowminded and what he sees as a drowning.
Does that's right. And this also goes back to could the examiner have been given misdirection by the police very early on? If the examiner wasn't told vital information, that information was excluded either by accident, deliberately, or by incompetence. This is partly what would have caused him to suggect that certain aspects that were presented to him weren't possible. He could have been given misinformation, or he simply could have been doing the analysis completely wrong.
So what are the basic tests, if there are any, that a modern pathologist would do in this.
Case, Because the usue of water being in the lungs could occur whether a person was placed either dead or alive in the water, there are a few basic tests that a pathologist will carry out to determine if the person was alive when they were placed in the water in drowning. The primary test is the hemorrhage in the mastioid air cells of the bilateral temporal bone. They also test for water in the aviole lie of the lungs.
They look for what's known as washerwoman's hands, and that's what you might see if you're in a bathtub for three hours and the skin goes wrinkly, and they actually test the state of the skin, and they also examine what's known as post mortem lividity, and this occurs because of the way a body acts when it's in the water if the person, while alive, has inhaled a huge amount of water. Not a single one of these tests
were done. Now, these are all basic tests that are now carried out routinely, even if a person has drowned. There were witnesses to that drowning and it was purely accidental. These are just routine tests and they help determine and give a cause of drowning as being a definitive reason why the person died. Any of these tests on their own assist all of them are much better. And yet not a single one was done in this case.
So, given that these tests weren't actually done, what does that mean? Can we say definitively that she hadn't drowned or that she did drown What does the report say about that?
So what we can say, based on the evidence that was provided a trial and the testing that was done at the time, a determination of drowning simply could not be made. The pathologist simply stated that the lungs were heavier than normal water logs, and that water fluid was present in the stomach and airways, but he doesn't say
where in the airways this fluid is found. Now, if we go back to the forensics from the modern report that we have, that froth that he refers to would not be considered in a sufficient amount to prove drowning. It's also not sufficient just to say there was some in the airways. There would be large amounts in the airways. It would be in the mouth, the nostrils, and the upper and lower airways, and that froth would contain blood.
On the stand, the pathologists provided no evidence at all that there was blood in that froth, And the volume of this froth is generally much greater in drowning than from any other way of a person dying of asphyxiation, which includes perhaps strangulation, having a bag placed over their head,
a pillow placed over their mouth. Now we're not suggesting any of those things happened in fact, we can be fairly sure that in terms of things such as a bag or strangulation, those things didn't happen, but we don't know, and we can't ever know because the testing was not done properly, and even the testing to prove drowning as a cause of death was completely insufficient, and the evidence provided is not evidence that would get anywhere close to
a finding of drowning either back when this testing was done and particularly now.
Now Madin.
Another thing that the report comes back with, which is really interesting is about diatoms. Can you explain a little bit about what diatoms are and why are they're important in this context.
Yeah. So, generally, when a body is found in the water, whether that be in a backyard, swimming pool, but particularly in waterways such as the river the ocean, water samples will be taken from where the body is believed to be placed into that water body, and it will also be taken from where the body is found. And the reason they do that is there's very distinct markers that change even from bank to bank on a river and particularly upstream and downstream, and these markers are known as diatoms.
These are very small particles that are in the water. They're generally an algae like substance. But it's important to understand these are basically a living thing and in any water that's not treated so you tap water, these will be present and they differ from location to location. What can be done is that under a microscope these diatoms can be seen to be whether they exist or not, and to what level they exist and what type they are.
So to break it down, what would be done when the water testing is done is the water from where the body was placed in the river would be tested and the types of diatoms examined. They would also scrape algae off the rocks. Then what they do is they take the water from where the body was found and once again they examine the diatoms under a microscope and they look at their differences, the number that exists the algae content. Then the third aspect is to take the
water recovered from the body of the drowned INDIVI. Now, diatoms are not just found in the water of the person who's drowned. That's in their lungs or perhaps in their throat. These diatoms are absorbed into the organs, so they can be found in the river, the kidneys, even the brain, and after a period of time, they will
also be found in the bone marrow. So this leaves a very distinct marker and shows how a body might have moved in the water, and it makes determining where that body was placed in the water and where it was found very easy to determine because these diatoms differ from place to place and will never be the same.
So if they had done these tests, they could have very well solved this problem of where Linda was placed in the river once and for all, almost quite definitively, we could have ruled and places out.
Yeah, and that's very important because if Linda wasn't placed in the river at Tanuba House, then the murder could not have been carried out by Kevin Henry. Again, this would have placed huge doubt as to Kevin's involvement. In fact, it could have proved whether he was or was not involved.
But further to that, it could have shown exactly where Linda was placed in the water and helped lead police to other suspects of people who had access to a car, who were at other parts of the river at that night, whose whereabouts couldn't be accounted for. But these tests simply
weren't done. Now, the diadom test might sound complex, and so we can say that perhaps it wasn't done because because the pathologists was sure enough about their results, when we now know that those results were simply not good enough. But this testing of even water samples was not done. We had no evidence that any scraping of nearby rocks, trees the bank of the river was done to find the certain types of algae that could be then found in the victim's body or in the water that is
then in the victim's lungs or in their organs. So none of this testing was carried out. So not only is it important in terms of determining who the real killer might have been, it would have definitively ruled Kevin Henry in or out. Now, I have to believe that if they felt it would have shown Kevin Henry to be the killer, they would have done this testing. This testing was available at the time. The taking of the water samples is as easy as year eight science at
high school, and yet it simply wasn't done. So once again, there is no evidence that Kevin Henry was involved, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt in the disposing of Linda's body into the water, and particularly at ten Uber House.
It definitely does sound like so many other factors. The fact that Kevin was originally charged with murder is what almost contaminated the rest of the investigation, including how the forensic evidence was gathered and examined.
That's right, and I think that's clear from what we've learned from experts around the world previously in this podcast. What we're learning today from expert fromensic scientists and pathologists, that the fact Kevin was charged so early, the fact he was charged before there was a cause of death established, the fact there was no witnesses that saw Kevin ever
place Linda's body in the water. All of this meant that the pathology work that was done, the forensic examination that was done, missed any other signs that could lead to who the real killer was.
So what else did this new report find in the original investigation that they found wasn't done?
Probably it was insufficient.
Okay, So there was two issues. One was in relation to blood in the lungs and whether the sheer force of water flowing in a river could cause bleeding in the lungs now. Mister Murray asked the forensic pathologist at
trial whether this was possible. He simply said no. The report that we have now tells us that that is possible, and it's quite a frequent occurrence, particularly in a waterway where the water moves rapidly, and as we've discussed previously, the Fitzroy River that runs through Rockhampton is a very tidal river and the water flows in and out very
fast with the tips. The second issue is looking for any pieces of plant life, stones, rocks, algae or biological matter from another individual that may be present on the hands, fingers, or under the fingernails of the person that drowned. Firstly, this will show when they moved through the water, what did they touch, and therefore it helps in the determination of where the body was placed and where the body
moved to. But it will also show that if the person was indeed alive, their hands would have touched the person or attempted to touch the person placing them in the water. They might have clawed at the individual trying to escape, and this would leave behind biological markers such as the hair, blood, or skin of the person responsible.
These tests were not done again, these are routine tests, and had they been done, they would have provided further evidence of who the real killer was if indeed Linda was placed in the water while she was still alive. What we do know is that none of the bioline logical matter, whether that be blood, hair, skin, that was tested, was ever found to be that of Kevin Henry.
So Martin, I guess it seems really strange for me.
If they truly believed Kevin had done this crime, why wouldn't they do these tests, these preliminary tests, which would have just given them more evidence against Kevin if they truly believed that he was the one who did this.
Well, I think the answer is quite simple, and it comes from the fact that Kevin was charged before the cause of death was determined. Once the pathologist had made that determination, all the basic tests that we've described could have been done and could have been done to further link Kevin Henry to the crime. Now, whether they did these tests or didn't do these tests, if they had,
if it would have ruled Kevin in or out. But by the police's own admission, the moment they charged Kevin Henry with murder, their investigation stopped so any information that came back that showed not only did Linda not die of drowning, but perhaps more likely died as a result of the injuries that were perpetrated against her in the assault, and didn't show a link to Kevin Henry could have
quite easily been ignored. And this would have been done to satisfy their desire to have Kevin Henry found guilty and satisfy the fact that they charged Kevin Henry with murder before they had any of this forensic information made available to them. So we won't know if those tests were ever done or not done. If they were done and they showed that Kevin Henry was any way involved, surely they would have been raised a trial they simply weren't.
That means that That means that the charge that he deliberately drowned Winda in the river and that led to the murder conviction, by modern standards, and even by the standards available at the time, couldn't be upheld beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I don't think it could be upheld to any level of doubt had the tests been done, and if they were done, that information presented to the jury,
but the police had made their decision. They charged Kevin Henry with murder when the determination that drowning came back as the cause of death. They knew that no information linked Kevin to that drowning, and that's clear in the forensic pathology, and so they chose either to ignore it, not present it, or instruct that those tests not be done.
So whether they were simply incomfident or whether they deliberately ignored these tests is up to you, the listener, to decide.
So whatever you decide about what you've heard, you have to keep in mind that for the murder conviction, for that to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the police and the prosecutor were required to show that Kevin placed Linda's body in the water while she was still alive,
and that she died of drowning. And based on the evidence we've given you today, you can decide for yourself whether you think they proved that beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Kevin was involved, or whether it could be said Linda died from drowning and was placed in the water while still alive. Next week, we'll bring you more from the new forensic report, and we'll get closer to showing the innocence of Kevin Henry and closer to showing who
a real killer could be. That's next week on Curtain, the podcast