Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returns guilty verdicts against all three defendants.
It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just absolutely really coming.
Blood on his clothing.
The day after the alleged a tomp.
On a show a 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 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 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.
Now our regular listeners will be aware that we've been waiting for news on Kevin's latest parole application that was submitted some time ago, and we told you we were working on that over the Christmas break. Today we can now reveal that we have news on that outcome and we've finally received a letter from the Queensland Parole.
Board moan, what does that?
Let us say, It's.
A two page letter that is sent to Kevin and it's also forwarded to his legal representatives as well, and it begins by highlighting largely what was placed in the application on Kevin's behalf, but ultimately it rejects his application for parole, and the long and the short of that is that for now, that means Kevin will remain inside Capricornia Correctional Center.
Now, just for our listeners knowledge, was this the first time Kevin was up for for or how far along is he in this.
Sort of process?
Okay, So Kevin's been up for parole quite a number of times and each time he's been rejected, and those rejections have been based largely on different reasons. There's a few commonalities in there, but they've largely been rejected for different reasons. And what I can say is that we're narrowing down what the Parole Board are wanting of us, and we're really down to just one last sticking point.
So does it.
Say that in the letter? Does it give you any sort of explanation as to why he's been knocked back this time.
Look it does. I think one thing to acknowledge is that the Parole Board was very impressed by the support of the Warabinda community, the Rockhampton community, and particularly the elders of the Worabinda community who showed their support in a letter on behalf of Kevin, and that was accepted, acknowledged and seen as a very good step forward. There was quite a number of other issues in terms of the Mimosa Healing Center that they have at Warabinda and
their willingness to offer support to Kevin. So I think it's important for people to understand who are listening that it's not as if Kevin would be released and that's it. There is a huge network of support in place for
Kevin upon his release. That starts with his family and his closest friends, and it extends through to professional help, help from the indigenous community in Warabinda and in Rockhampton, its support from the elders, and there's also a number of other things we have in place in terms of the sort of work Kevin wishes to do. The programs that he has seccessfuly completed, so he has done a great deal of work to meet the requirements of the Parole Board, and we're really down to just this one
sticking point. But unfortunately for Kevin, and it's particularly unfair that he has gone through this process a number of times. And I think people should take that in mind that Kevin's maintained his innocence for more than twenty five years and yet because of issues, largely of technicalities, his parole has been refused quite a number of times.
So when we're talking about parole, particularly in this context, it's not a system that a lot of people understand, is it.
No, it's very complicated, and I think one thing our listeners and everybody needs to understand is that Queensland system, where Kevin is incarcerated, is perhaps the least developed of all the parole processes in Australia. And just yesterday we had news that a response has come down into a review of the Queensland parole system and it outlines quite a number of recommendations and one of the reasons that review took place is because of these technicalities we talk about.
But I think the very first thing we should mention is this is the first review into the Queensland parole system for eighty years, so no review had been done
since prior to the Second World War. So that means all the people who are in prison now and have been over the last many many decades have faced a system that was drafted between the wars and during the depression, and that's just not acceptable for a modern legal system, and that I think is partly what's prompted this review, and also the frustration that we continue to face roadblocks in these technicalities that just shouldn't be there.
But just over the past couple of decades, the Queensland incarceration rate has continued to go off, so not only just aboriginal prisoners, but numbers of people we in prison and a lot of that has to do with parole. But that's all based on the same system. So is it the way the system is sort of being used, or is it the overarching system or what's the key problem?
Because it seems like occasionally you can have a situation where parole numbers are going down and then you have an other situation like the present, where parole is being refused at higher.
And higher rates.
Yeah, I think that therese are quite a few issues there. One is political will and we've spoken a number of times on this podcast. How when politicians, particularly those in power, ramp up this idea of law and order making the community safe by locking people up, we tend to see prison population skyrocket, and that's very well detailed in a new documentary called Thirteen that's available on Netflix that I would recommend people have.
A look at.
But when we add the complication of increased people going into prison with an ancient, eighty year old parole system making it even more difficult for people a to be released and also to rehabilitate while they're out in the community, but under parole conditions, you just have this real difficulty for everyone involved, whether it's lawyers, rehabilitation centers, the mental health sector, and the prisoners and their families themselves finding
a way to navigate through this system. So I think it's a failure right across the board, and that's clearly why we've seen this review need to take place, and I hope we don't see the media cherry pick a few little aspects of the report and say that it's a need to become tough on law and order and actually look at what the bulk of the report says, which is about providing greater access to rehabilitation, updating the system and those sort of things.
It's interesting because I think the public obviously views parole a certain way, don't they, Because this report has actually been sort of sparked by one of these law and outrages you're talking about, How do you think the public is the issue of parole and how is it different to what actually needs to happen.
I think, almost exclusively, the only time we tend to hear about parole is when someone is paroled and then commits a fairly horrific crime upon their release. That's what we hear about, and that happens maybe once every five years. Unfortunately, that is just a microcosm of what is the actual
parole system. It's no way indicative of what happens day in day out at correctional centers around Queensland, at police stations where people report, at all the mental health and rehabilitation centers, and all the individual issues and processes that people have to go through who are out on parole or applying for parole. So we tend to see this reporting that parole should be tougher and more restrictive, because once every now and then it does lead to a
horrific outcome. And I don't think at all anyone is denying that mistakes are made and sometimes people who are released shouldn't be released. But it's very important to keep in mind that this is in the absolute minority, and largely what the report says is that one of the reasons this takes place is not because these people are released back into the community, but that they're not given
the ability to rehabilitate why they're in prison. And if you don't give people access to those services, if you don't help people rehabilitate, address their issues with drug and alcohol, help them re establish their connections into their communities, find work, improve their education, then you're setting people up to fail.
And sadly, you will have a small percentage of people who will go back into the community and re offend because nothing has been done to improve them as individuals and assist them rehabilitate from being offenders before they are relief.
So mar, what does this report actually say specific agree that agal Well.
I think there's a few things in the report in terms of recommendations that can make us somewhat hopeful. There's some very specific recommendations that address the needs of Aboriginal entire Straight Islander prisoners, and they include things like rehabilitation programs that specifically address the needs of Aboriginal entire straight Islander people. That's in terms of things to do with the proper provision and resourcing of mental health services that
are tailored to Aboriginal people. It's in terms of rehabilitation services of all kinds, because we do know that Aboriginal entire straight Islander peoples do respond very well to many
of the real rehabilitations services that do exist. They just haven't been been offered to people in prison, and that is both unfair to the prisoners and unfair to the communities they come from that these provisions have not been in place in the past, and so I really hope these things are fast tracked through and we see those
changes made. There's also a call for greater programs to be run by aberigin on Torres straight Islander people, and I think that's particularly important that we have a huge number of Aboriginal run and led professional organizations that deal with everything from mental health, to community and work placement to drug and alcohol rehabilitation that have really high success rates.
And this might shock some non Indigenous people who listen, but the success rates are actually much higher than the broader community, and so I think it's a welcome change that finally in twenty seventeen there is a recognition of the great work these organizations are doing and the great changes people are making to their lives. So that's some
of what's in place. But there's also a particular aspect that I think has been a concern of the Indigenous community right around Australia, which is do these parole boards have any Indigenous members sitting on them? And Recommendation thirty eight requires that at least one professional member of the
board be Aboriginal lot of Tois straight Islander. Previously, we've been given assurance that an Aboriginal lot Toros Straight Islander person would be on a parole board and it wasn't a requirement that that person be a professional in this area.
And so I think again we have quite a number of Indigenous experts in this area who are well versed in understanding the needs of prisoners and their communities, who will now hopefully be employed by the Queensland Government to assist in addressing these issues.
A lot of listeners who may not understand or have a lot of contact with Aboriginal communities, might be wondering why would you need someone like that on a parole board. Does the report find any specific discrimination against Aboriginal and Hashate Island a prisoners on I go for parole.
The report does, and I think we can detail some of it in terms of Kevin's particular case, which is that there is a real lack of understanding by government agencies across the board, including parole boards, about what constitutes things like a fair family life, reintegration into community work for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, and the particular importance of community and connection to country that Aboriginal and
Toros Straight Islander people have. So often a parole board might want to see a person placed back with one particular relative in particular, and that tends to just look at what we see in the broader community as mum, dad and the kids, and as we know in Aboriginal in Toros Straight Islander communities, families and communities don't always
operate that way. Elders play a very significant role in assisting everyone in the community, and often elders are in fact the very best people placed in the community to assist those who are coming out of prison, and I think there's finally again a little bit of acknowledgment in
terms of the role they can play. And one of the other issues is that the report recommendation number sixty four is that there should be a substantial and immediate increase in the number of cultural liaison of positions within probation and parole. So we have those people in terms of incorrection facilities, we have those people working with police, but there has not been enough of those jobs in terms of probation and parole, so assisting people who are
out on parole and assisting people with that transition. And again I think that's one area where Aboriginal people are much better positioned to assist other Aboriginal people than the wider community is. But reading the report as well, Amy, there's also something that touches very close to home for Kevin's case in partent, Yeah, it was.
Very interesting when you consider that the war of Endo community, where Kevin is actually from the worrib Indo community's deputy there is actually the man who recommended these cultural liaison officers. So it's obvious that the war of inter community itself is very well versed in the problems around parole and would acknowledge the problems that Kevin's currently coming up against.
Yeah, I think that's evident as well in the Worrebindo community support for Kevin, and I think people right around Australia should understand that the Worribinda community here we have an example of them addressing a broader issue that affects every Queenslander and providing expert advice on what needs to happen, and that's been acknowledged and taken on board by this review for the Coinsaying government. And then at a micro level we also see in Kevin's case that the Worrebindo
com community has rallied around Kevin. Elders have supported Kevin and signed a letter of support for Kevin for his parole. So despite the fact that Warabinda is a small community in central Queensland, Indigenous or non Indigenous, this must be one of the most active communities in all of Australia in terms of working to reform our prison system, our parole system and assisting with rehabilitation and that benefits everybody in the community. These are the things that reduce crime
and recidivism. This helps absolutely everyone, and I think really we should see the Warabinda community applauded for the hard work that they've done in assisting with this new recommendation that will hopefully be rolled out very soon and not only assist people like Kevin and all those from the Warabinda community, but absolutely everybody in Queensland. And again I think they should be congratulated for that fact.
Now this report is just being released only yesterday, will it actually help Kevin's case for parole? Do you think if all of these recommendations are implemented.
Look, I think that's a really good question, and I think it goes to the fact that there's been no review for eighty years. If this review had taken place ten years ago, twenty years ago and contains these recommendations and they'd been put in place, as you say, these would have helped Kevin absolutely. In fact, I don't think Kevin would still be in prison if these recommendations had
been implemented years ago when they should have. So absolutely I think they can help Kevin going forward a because so much of these recommendations back up what we've been saying for years and backs up what Kevin's been saying saying about his own rehabilitation, his own innocence, and his right to maintain his innocence, and his right and the benefit to him and his community to be able to return to his community and be supported by his elders.
I think there's recommendations in here that address some of the concerns we've raised with the Parole Board, and I hope now the Parole Board, having seen them been fleshed out in a government report, will see that we're not the only people saying them that this shouldn't just be something that's about whether Kevin is or isn't given parole. This is something that affects all prisoners and therefore affects Kevin as well. So it's not usd just trying to
make excuses to get Kevin out. These are real issues that experts have looked at and they've come to the conclusion that much of what Kevin has been putting in his applications for parole is absolutely spot on. And so I hope going forward that as we see the Parole Board take these recommendations on and implement them, that now many of the things where I mentioned previously Kevin has been knocked back for on those technicalities can now be redressed.
And while we have many other things we're working on in terms of Kevin's release in parole, this is just another issue that's come along that should assist Kevin greatly.
Now we are going to outline the reasons that Kevin Henry was knocked back for parole, and we'll do that next week, but first of all, we need to go back and examine the forensics yet again. Now Mardin last week we focused mostly on the drowning, but were there other issues that were brought up in a forensic report that is important to know?
Yeah, there is. I think the drowning is the most conclusive part of the report that, as we detailed last week, outlines just how poor the forensic work was, to be honest, and it's what's often referred to as junk science. But there is a second aspect to the report that is very important, and that relates to the issue of blood. And I think anyone can understand that when you have a murder has occurred, that generally you're going to have a large amount of blood present where the crime scene
takes place. And I think anyone who's seen a documentary about such a thing, or even a movie will understand that often these crime scenes are very bloody and are very horrific things to witness and see. But in that mess that is the crime scene is a large amount of clues. And the clues that were very evident to all involved in this case was the blood. There was a large amount of Linda's blood in the crime scene and within the vicinity of the crime scene, and there
was also blood that was belonging to other individuals. But the most important aspect is this large amount of Linda's blood. And the first thing we would expect is that whoever was to have handled Linda's body, and remember the allegation is that Kevin placed Linda's body in the water, you would expect, firstly, just by common sense, that that person would have some of that blood on their body. Now
that's because of a few reasons. One, the wounds that Linda had suffered were wounds that are considered to produce a great deal of blood, and these were wounds and injuries that were right across Linda's body. So from a forensic point of view, there would have been no way to handle Linda's body without getting blood on more than just the hands. This is not something you could just
wash off your hands. The forensic examiners believe the blood would be all over a person who had handled the body, and that's in.
The independent report.
We should say, so, this is what the independent forensic experts has said.
Yeah, that's correct, and it's also largely what was said at trial. I should say too that this is what you would expect to find. But in the forensic evidence, there is none of this blood on Kevin Henry. Now, Kevin Henry's clothes that he was wearing that night were recovered and there is no suggestion by the process cution or police or forensic experts that Kevin made any attempt
to clean these clothes. The clothes were well worn and slightly dirty, and they still contained this dirt that was days old, So there was no evidence of anyone trying to clean blood or anything off the clothes. The clothes contained no traces, not even microscopic traces of Linda's blood.
Kevin's shoes were also recovered, and as we've mentioned previously, they didn't have any mud on them that we would have expected had Kevin gone down into the riverbank, which he would have been required to do to place the body in the water, But both the initial forensic report and now more conclusively in the new forensic report, there is no suggestion of any blood at all, neither Kevin's
nor Linda's, nor anybody else's on Kevin's shoes. There was also no suggestion at the initial trial, and none found in the new forensic report, that there was any blood on Kevin's person. That is, there was no blood on his skin, on his hands, on his arms, on his feet where it would be possible for him to have perhaps removed his clothing and then move Linda's body. So there was no blood anywhere on Kevin, neither his own,
nor more importantly, any of Linda's. And it's believed by the forensic experts that to have done what the police alleged Kevin did, it's simply impossible for him to have done it without getting blood on him, either on his body or clothes or shoes, and none of that blood exists.
I was just going to ask Martin with the blood, was any of it found near De Grassy areas or anywhere near the riverbank or it was largely just near to Newba House where we know the assault did occur, so the.
Vast bulk of the forensic matter that was collected was taken where we know absolutely the assault took place. There were small trace amounts of blood found in other areas, but largely this was not tested. It was just assumed that this was Linda's blood, but it could have been anybody's blood. There's nothing to rule out that someone had cut themselves, that there hadn't been a fight a day earlier, and someone else might have been injured, that it could
be fish blood. Remember that fishing is very common by the river and where this took place, So the forensics were also collected in a way that makes determining these
things very difficult. But I think it is fair to say, given that the police were so aggressive in going after Kevin Henry, if they believed any this forensic material related to Kevin or belonged to Kevin, they would have tested it, but they decided not to, and I think that's because they knew that it didn't relate and had no connection whatsoever to Kevin Henry.
So police could have used that original clue about the blood that the person who had supposedly done STILLNDA would likely have quite a lot of blood on them to sort of zero down.
Or help their investigation.
But they obviously didn't find anyone else, but they didn't want to find anyone else who might fit it and more fit it better.
Well, that's right, and I think it's there's two very disturbing aspects here. One is on behalf of the police, and that is that while they recovered the evidence that relates to the three women who committed the assault, and unsurprisingly they did have traces of Linda's blood on them, on their clothes, on their person, and some of it was a little bit more difficult to detect because days
had gone by before they were first interviewed. But remember they were charged with murder on the fifth of September, on the Thursday, and the assault took place on the Saturday night, so there was certainly other forensic evidence. It's
just that none of it relates to Kevin Henry. And as you rightly say, if police wanted to solve this crime, very early on it became obvious that the person they should be looking for is someone that either had blood on their clothes or on their person, or a person who had disposed of bloody clothing and we do know that there was some forensic evidence that was disposed of and that was by one of the women who was charged with murder and then later convicted of Griever's bottle harm,
and it is believed that did contain and there was a confession to that containing some of Linda's blood, So we know that that blood transfer between people who absolutely were involved on the attack of Linda against Linda took place.
So when the police were looking for the person who committed the last remaining part of the crime, particularly putting Linda in the water, they should have been zeroing in on anyone who had destroyed their clothing, wasn't wearing their clothing from the night before, or who had made attempts to wash their clothing or other such matters, and they
didn't do that. Now, before we leave the forensic issue, there's one final thing I want to raise that, as I said, I think is the second part that's most disturbing, and that is that the forensic evidence presented it Kevin Henry's trial was mixed with the forensic evidence of the three women because they were all tried at the same time, and so most of the forensics relates to the women
and not Kevin Henry. The forensics presented at the trial and now examined in the new report that we have shows there was no forensic link of Kevin Henry to this crime. So you would assume that at Kevin Henry's trial and at Kevin Henry's appeal, that experts would have been called on his behalf to point this fact out and to explain to a jury and to a judge that this very simplistic evidence, this junk science that was being used to try and link Kevin to the crime
simply didn't exist. We know it didn't exist because there was no blood, There was no link, and the police didn't even offer any forensic link on Kevin Henry's behalf,
but not a single witness was called for Kevin. Now, anyone who's watched say anything on the OJ Simpson trial or any of these famous murder trials will know that the prosecution calls their witnesses and the defense calls theirs, and the defense does not have to accept the forensic proposals that are put forward by the state and by the state examiner and the pathologists that work for the state. They can bring forward their own experts to at least
challenge the forensics. Now, these forensics were so weak that it would have taken just a few sentences of a forensic expert called on Kevin's behalf to have them dismissed and either dismissed or shown to the jury and made it very clear to the jury that there was absolutely no forensic link of Kevin to the crime. But again, in Kevin's trial and his appeals, not a single expert
witness was called on his behalf. So really, what you're hearing is, for the first time in twenty five years, any effort to show and advocate on Kevin's behalf that that forensic evidence didn't exist, and it doesn't and that he had no forensic link whatsoever to this crime, and that should have been made clear to the jury. And it wasn't sorry to cut you off before we go. I have just got a message and it's gotten attachment what and it's oh man, we've got them.
What does it say?
Amy? As soon as we go off air, I'll tell you what I've received, and listeners next week you will hear are what I've just received in an email and it's explosive. Tune in next week for Curtin the podcast