For you, the listeners of Curtin the podcast. Audible dot com is offering a free audiobook download with a free thirty day trial to give you the opportunity to check out their service. For that free trial, you go to www dot audibletrial dot com, forward slash Curtain the podcast and that link will be on our website.
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 coloured blood on his clothing the day after the alleged at 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 Kurtain, 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. 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 some listeners.
Last week we told you about Kevin's confession and how key parts of that confession were struck out by the judge. The judge found that what Kevin said to police was not admissible because it was not voluntary. So Kevin didn't actually confess to putting Linda in the water. Why did police continue to go down that line? Well, we have to take you back to that week in nineteen ninety one.
Yet again, we'll take you back to the day after Winda was found. That was September two, nineteen ninety one. On that day and original man William Spicer was fishing on the Fitzroy River. Spicer wasn't from Rockhampton. He lived in Brisbane. A few days prior, he'd failed to appear in court for another matter down there. On that day, Spicer said he was fishing in between the new Bridge and the railway bridge when Kevin Henry was supposed to have approached him.
If you've never been to Rockhampton, that's where Spicer said he was fishing, is about thirty minute walk from Tanuba on the same side of the riverbank. And this is what Spicer said on the witness stand.
What happened?
Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen, please, what happened that man in the box there, he came up and started talking to me about that woman who got killed. Asked me, did I know anything about it?
I said no.
Spicer claimed that Kevin told what the women did to Linda, how they had used an iron bar, and then they walked back up the river and back towards town. Spicer says he parted ways with Kevin and then went to the police station. The next day, Kevin apparently came back down again to the same place where Spicer was fishing. Spicer said he walked across the railway bridge.
This is what Spicer said on the witness stand the next day, What did you do? I was looking for him and that, and I heard in the paper the body was found in the water. And I asked him and he said he was the bloke who put the body in the water to make it float away. Spicer claimed that an article from the local paper about Linda's death had been read to him, and he asked Kevin
whether he knew anything about the murder. After seeing Kevin for the second time, Spicer went back to the police station where they took a statement off him.
That was one of.
Two statements they took off Spicer. Now it's important to note here that Spicer also admitted on the stand that he is alliterate. He couldn't read, and so the state once he signed with an ex we're written by police. Now, madam, what do we know about this William Spicer character.
Well, I mean, it's quite unusual at the very beginning when we read his statement that allegedly Kevin's come and twice spoken to him having never met him before, and described what's allegedly taken place. Now, not only is that unusual, we know that mister Spicer doesn't always tell the truth. In fact, on the stand under cross examination, this is what Kevin Henry's lawyer asked him.
Mister Spicer, is that right? Yes?
Or is it Forester no Spicer? Or is it Forester no Spicer? Are you sure it's not George Neville Forester, George Forester, George Neville Forester answer, I do have two names. You just use those names when you were committing a crime, do you.
So.
While we won't go into the full record of mister Spice's criminal history, it's long, it's extensive, and it includes fraud, includes indecent exposure, includes making false statements to police, and clearly he has multiple names. So instantly I think we can start to question what did Kevin say to him, if anything, and did in fact he ever speak to.
Kevin at all?
What would have been the motivation though, to make a statement like that to police if he never had seen Kevin to begin with.
When we know that Spicer had failed to appear in court just days prior to Linda's death, we also know there was a warrant out for his arrest, and although on the witness stand he claimed not to have commit crimes recently, he in fact had committed at least three crimes.
In the twelve months prior.
So with a warrant out for his arrest, facing contempt of court charges as well as sentencing for a whole other load of cases where he'd been found guilty, he had plenty of reason to want to cooperate with the police and tell them something they wanted to hear to get himself out.
Of trouble Mardin.
It's brought up in the trial that he'd seen a newspaper article about Linda's death, but it's also brought up that he was illiterate. What can we take from that.
Well, he does claim that that article was read to him, although he does also say that he bought the newspaper. Now, this is a man who does not read and write at all, so the fact he buys a newspaper allegedly is suspect.
From the beginning. We also know that he gave.
Two statements to police and he can't Again, he can't read and write. Now, these statements weren't necessarily read to him. In fact, he says that the second statement, which was taken a month later, and this is the one in which he implicates Kevin and not the women, he signs just with an X. And there's no suggestion that statement was ever read to him. He says on the witness stand,
it's the same. But those two statements weren't the same. Now, given he couldn't read, and given it wasn't read to him, there's no way he could know what he was signing, or he did was put an X at the bottom and that's where he agreed that Kevin had confessed to him. So I think it's pretty clear that not only do we have a witness who was capable of making false claim, James who had an extensive criminal record, who probably didn't buy a newspaper, who'd probably never seen the article at all.
In fact, I doubt he ever saw Kevin ever, And we should make this point. Kevin claims never to have met William Spicer, never to have seen him, and never to have made those walks over the bridge where mister Spicer was.
How much did that win this statement play in Kevin's conviction or the trial.
Well, I think in the trial it doesn't play too important a factor, given that it's clearly shown under cross examination that this is a man that is not someone who offers up the truth when asked. In fact, he sort of admits that by the end of his statement. The big role I believe mister Spicer plays in Kevin's trial, Kevin's conviction, and Kevin's arrest is the fact it appears he's the first person to claim that Kevin dumped the
body in the water. Now that was made the day after Linda had passed, so immediately that would have influenced the police, and clearly we know from then on that's all they focused on, and once they'd arrested Kevin, they didn't investigate that issue any further. Nobody else raised that issue, So that must have been taken from mister Spicer, who quite clearly is someone pretty liberal with the truth.
So was that the only statement taken from a witness who couldn't read and write.
No.
In fact, the very next witness called on the stand was another person, a woman who couldn't read or write either, and she freely admitted that she was illiterate. Now, the problem with this is, just like mister Spicer during her statement, there was no one present with her. Now, if they can't read or write, and the police aren't reading the statement back to them, how have they got any chance of knowing what's in that statement. So there's a huge
problem with the way this was conducted. And these statements were taken very early on in the piece and clearly impacted on the way the investigation was run.
So were there any other issues in regards to this particular.
Witness, Well, there was, and it's something that shows us that clearly she didn't know what was in her statement.
Firstly, she admits.
That she was very drunk on that day, so when she's giving this statement, there's a lot of inconsistencies. But it is again a lot worse than that, because not only can she not read and write, not only did she just initial the statement, she clearly didn't know what was in it. And we know that because she admitted as much in court. She was asked if she'd had a conversation outside the courtroom that day, and she admitted
she had. She was taking direction from other people before going on the stand about what she should say on the stand, and this is what she said, What am I going to say? She admits she was asking for help. First she says she was asking for help in regards to just how to be a witness, and then she admits she was asking for help in regards to her statement. Clearly she had no idea what was in it. And this again was what was overheard. What do you want
me to say here? Do you remember saying that? Yes, So she was asking someone for direction as to what to say on the witness stand, and we can tell you the person she was asking was a relative of hers, and that relative was one of Kevin's co accused.
Now, Mardin, there was one other thing that you mentioned about this witness while we were investigating the case.
What was it?
Well, that was the fact that on the stand, this witness repeatedly claims that the day after Linda's body was found, nobody down at ten Uber House, and this includes all the people that were there the night before, the three
women involved in the assault, that nobody spoke of what happened. Now, this is important because her statement was taken, just like mister Spicer, a second statement more than a month later, and she claims that even then she hadn't spoken to anyone about the case, hadn't spoken to anyone about what happened that night before, didn't talk about the fight, didn't talk about the fact that the police were all over the joint, nothing, And that claims that she'd only spoken
to the police, and she was questioned about this quite forcefully on the stand. Now, the reason this is important is virtually every other witness will make this claim that the following day and the months after, some even claim all the way up until the trial, and we're talking eight months, never spoke to anyone but the police about what went on a That's very hard to believe that they wouldn't talk about something so serious that they'd witnessed the fact that they were going to court to be
a witness, and that it just wouldn't come up in conversation. And we know that the very next day everyone was sitting around at Tanuba House before the police arrived. That's on the Sunday, and the suggestion is that they were not talking about the night before. That's something I just can't believe.
Now, what do you talk about how all of the witnesses claimed that they didn't talk to each other, but you say that a lot of them were around sitting around Tanuba House before police courted it off. What do we know about that? When did police go down to Tanuba.
We know that a body was found early that morning, around eight am. We know that a number of extra police were called on duty at about nine thirty am, and that was clearly to do with the fact that a body had been found and a serious investigation was about to begin. But those police who would secure the crime scene didn't arrive at t Nuba House until three
point fifteen that afternoon. So that's a considerable period where the crime scene of the assault, where all the witnesses still were was unsecured, so.
Mardin the crime scene had been unsecured for a very long time. What does that mean for the evidence, Well.
It's quite significant because the assault had taken place on Lnder nearly twenty four hours earlier before the crime scene was secured. But also all the witnesses, the three women who would later be convicted of that assault, was still around, so they had significant time up to twenty four hours, but from the time the body was found still another six hours where any of that evidence.
Could have been tampered with.
There could have been attempts to clean it up, There could have been attempts to destroy particular pieces of evidence, or there simply would have been people just walking around. And we know there was a considerable number of people, and so even just people walking around walking through a crime scene that disturbs a lot of the evidence. It changes the way things are placed. People might move objects
they don't know were associated with the crime. They might clean something up not knowing what had gone on, because we do know a lot of people came and went from Tanuba, so someone could have seen some blood and maybe just cleaned it up thinking they were doing the right thing. So this clearly plays an impact in the crime scene and the forensic evidence and the way it
was gathered. But most importantly, this is the site where virtually all the forensic evidence that would be tended in court is taken from a crime scene that was unsecured for twenty four hours from the time of the assault and six hours from when the body was found, and particularly the area where Linda was assaulted, and this forms the majority of the forensic evidence.
Now, Mardin is going to provide a few details of the forensic evidence, and we must warn our listeners it does contain distressing content.
Now, the assault on Winder is a significant part of this entire event. We can't be sure whether this assault was lethal and resulted in her death or whether she was still alive after the assault had finished. Witnesses seem to be confused on this fact, and the forensic scientists can't provide conclusive evidence, although under questioning one would give a more definitive opinion, and will come to that later.
But what's clear from the statements of the witnesses, from the statements of the accused and the women who would later be convicted of this assault, one of whom would plead guilty during the process, and of everyone else who was around at that time, is that the assault on Linda was long and sustained. The three women initially began with blows to Linda's head, and these blows were significant.
That's testified to both by the witnesses who saw them and by the forensic scientists, one of whom said a significant degree of force was delivered to the head area. The assault took place, then it paused for a while, and then it recommenced, and when it recommenced, it was far more violent. The assault resulted in severe trauma and lacerations to the head, to the torso, to the arms, the legs, and even the hands. It was a considerable
amount of bleeding. Much of this blood came from the head and two significant wounds that were caused by severe blows. We also know that at least one of the women and possibly two jumped onto Winder off a nearby step. That was why her body was on the ground, and it's believed she was still conscious at the time. Again, the forensic testimony would show that this too caused significant damage to Linda's body and wounds both to her head and to her to Also, towards the end of the assault,
we get to the point of the bar. Now this is important because the confession that would convict Kevin is claimed that he put the bar in Linda's mouth. Now, there is no forensic evidence that suggests this ever took place. What we do know, though, however, is a bar was used by the three women. Now at trial, it's never confirmed exactly who was the person to pick up the bar, although all the witnesses tend to agree that.
It was one individual in particular.
Out of up to thirty statements, really only one or two differ on this fact, and that bar was used to inflict a significant injury on Linda. It resulted in a seven centimeter wound that would have caused significant bleeding, It was a deep penetrating wound into the tissue, and it punctured a significant organ in Linda's body.
All of this is important to remember.
Not only does it go to the fact that the assault committed by the women was significant and possibly lethal, it also shows the potential that Kevin wasn't needed at all.
To solve this crime.
That the assault on Linda by the three women was the significant event of that night. Now we can begin to confirm some of this by two events. Firstly, that those three women were initially charged by.
The detective inspector.
At the police station with murder, and that's quite consistent with the forensic evidence that's offered, and we'll go into that in more detail. But perhaps what's also significant is something we've mentioned earlier in this podcast today, and that's that mister Spicer, the witness who was illiterate, who didn't know what was in his statement, who simply put an X on his second statement, given more than a month after the events, that would implicate Kevin, had been given
to police very early on in proceedings. Now it's not till later on that it's established by anyone other than the police that this mister Spicer was known not to be truthful. We know this because of the many crimes mister Spicer was convicted of and the fact there was
already outstanding warrants for his arrest. The fact he implicated Kevin so early on, based on what appears to be no evidence at all, persuayed some but not all, of the police officers that Kevin was somewhat of interest, But that clearly wasn't enough for Detective Inspector Weeks, the most senior officer, based on the assault I've just described, decided that was enough for murder charges to be laid against the three women.
Now, in the last episode we told you about multiple people being charged. There were multiple versions of events and there seemed to be a degree of confusion amongst police. Madam, was this the only Was this confusion only in relation to the charging?
No, So that charging initially resulted in the three women being charged with murder by the same police officer, Detective Inspector Weeks, who I mentioned just previously, and then only a few hours Kevin Henry being charged by a lower ranking officer with murder based on an entire separate version of events.
But the confusion began on.
The very day the police began.
Their investigation, and that's quite clear by much of what takes place and by their testimony. Now that includes the failure to secure the crime scene, even though a police officer admits he was aware at around nine to thirty of where the assault had probably taken place, or at the very least where the body is believed to have entered the river. Or the police's idea of where the
body had entered the river. Now, based on that that officer should have secured that crime scene immediately, but that didn't take place for five or six hours. Now, there are other issues. There were multiple people, multiple police officers, claiming from the very beginning, to be in charge of
the investigation, and they clearly took very different paths. Why wasn't a decision made very early on as to who would be in charge of the crime scene, who would be in charge of the investigation, and finally who would lay the formal charges? But the discussions between the police seemed to be very mixed and very confused. Some say there was consultation, others say there was not. Some say they made the decisions on their own. Some say they did so with the agreement of other police officers who
would later claim they weren't consulted. This leaves us with a great problem at this point, in kurtin the podcast, it's fair to say we may never uncover the truth. And that's because on that day the police did not do their job. They didn't do it in the way they questioned witnesses who were either still hungover, were still heavily intoxicated, or who were illiterate, and none of whom were given assistance giving their statement, nor allowed the presence
of a lawyer. It's because of the way the crime scene was secured or not secured for many many hours after the crime had took place, and after that crime scene was known to be the most important place, too secure, and where the vast majority of evidence would lay. And it's also because once Kevin was charged only a few days after the crime had taken place, the police, by their own admission, ceased investigating. There was so much more they could have uncovered, so much of which we've uncovered.
But twenty five years later, it's very difficult to do the work the police should have done on that day.
Now, how much did the forensics play upont in the trial? Was it a big part in the trial?
It was quite a large part. But because the women who committed the assault and Kevin were all put on trial together, most of that forensic evidence in fact relates to the assault carried out by the women and not at all to do with Kevin Henry. Very little of the actual evidence, and it is significant, relates in any way to Kevin's involvement, and the small bit that does
relate to Kevin is of considerable contention. So, given that such a small amount of the forensic evidence related to Kevin, it's very important that the forensic scientists and the examining doctor did their job absolutely properly. Otherwise the only bit of forensic evidence tying Kevin to the case at all causes huge problems and has to be questioned. Now.
In order to understand the next episode, you have to understand a little bit about the role of forensics and forensic experts in trials. Here's Sue Black, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Dundee who's highly experienced in murder trials.
Our job is not to help the police are Our job is not to be involved in the investigation. Our job is to prepare evidence for the court, and that's the expert witness part of what we do. Sometimes our evidence will be heard in court without us needing to appear there. Other times our evidence will be heard and we will have to give an oral presentation as the expert witness in the court room.
Next week we'll examine whether the forensic experts and medical examiner conducted themselves in this way or were they involved in the investigation at all, and will also speak to an internationally renowned forensic expert who right now is examining the forensic evidence that was presented at trial against Kevin Henry.
That was episode one of Curtain, a podcast delving into the ninety ninety one murder of an Aboriginal woman named Linda on the banks of Tanoba or the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton, Central Queensland. 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