Hi, it's Gary jubilin here. I'm excited to announce I'll be hosting a live podcast recording at the Factory Theater in Sydney on the twenty seventh of November. Spend the evening with myself and two special guests as we take a deep dive into the world of crime and punishment. You'll even be able to take part in a live Q and A. I'll be there before and after the show to have a chat. Tickets are available through the link in the show notes, or visit the Eyecatch Killers
Instagram or Facebook group. I hope to see you there. It's going to be raw and I reckon a lot of fun. The public has had a long held fascination with detectives. Detective see a side of life the average person is never exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop. For twenty five of those years I was catching killers. That's what I did for a living. I was a homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead, I'm taking the public into the world
in which I operated. The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw and honest, just like the people I talked to. Some of the content and language might be confronting. That's because no one who comes in the contact of crime is left unchanged. Join me now as I take you into this world. Welcome back to part two of my chat with Geraldine Kine. Geraldine's younger sister, Lisel Smith, disappeared on the New South Wales Central Coast
back in twenty twelve. After a lengthy investigation, a person known to James Church was charged with Liesl's murder. In Part one, we talked about the way that Geraldine became aware of Lisel's disappearance and the impact it's had on her, and bearing in mind this is over a six year
period that Part one Geraldine described. We're now going to hear from Geraldine what it was like attending the trial and what she learnt during the trial, and her version of the unforeseen twist at the end of the trial and how she dealt with that. We're also going to discuss if there is any way Lisaal's family can find out what happened to Lusel and get some form of justice. Geralone,
Welcome back, he Gary again. I apologize for discussing this and dragging this up, but I think it's important that people talk about their experiences, like your experience. So I want people, and I was always at pains as a homicide detective, if I want people to understand what families are going through when people who have disappeared or people have been murdered, and it's horrendous and unless you've been there, I don't think you can fully fully appreciate it.
It wasn't on my bucket list of things to do. Put it that way, I don't know anyone that would have that as something to do on their bucket list. No, as I said before, you know that sort of stuff always happen to other people and you feel compassion and empathy, and then you know, as you said, you know, go into the next thing until you become those other people and it happens to you. It's certainly not something that I ever thought would happen to me, or that I
would have to explain to people. Even now, I don't really talk about it. It's quite difficult. I tend to talk about it with people that I've known for a long time, so if I meet someone new, it's not really something that I bring up.
You know, it's just it's a hard, hard topic to bring up, and sometimes people don't know how to deal with you bringing the topic up, and it's almost what do I say, Well.
Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. And you know, I think a lot of people tend to think that, you know, we want you to fix what's gone on, and.
You can't.
I don't necessarily have that expectation of anyone that I talk to lisl about, but you know, sometimes I just want people to listen or to recognize that, you know, missing people affect everybody in society. It's not just you know, the immediate families and their friends, but it is the whole of society, you know. It's it's the fabric of society that missing people, you know, affect. And as I said to you in a previous conversation, you know, society.
I look at society as a bolt of fabric that's got different weaves in it, and missing people are one of those threads. And if you don't have that thread, then that fabric pattern isn't complete. You're missing a thread. It's you know, it's not like you can suddenly find out it's a pulled thread and fix it up. And yep,
in some cases that happens. And I am so happy for those families that do find their missing loved ones, but there are also quite a number of us that don't, and you know, realistically never will.
Yeah, it's hard, isn't it. It's very hard to come to terms with that. We're going to talk about the murder trial with Liesel's case. Before we do, just describe the type of person Lisel was. She was twenty three years old where she disappeared.
She was her own person, she liked her own company. She was just doing life like any other twenty three year old, you know, making mistakes, you know, making good choices, making bad choices, you know, working out what she wanted to do as a job, whether that was for the rest of her life or you know, for six months until you know, she found something else she wanted to do. You know, she was working, she was working it out, you know, like any other twenty three most twenty three year olds.
You know, it's a great time of life, isn't it. You're old enough to make the mistakes, but you've also got some control on your life, and it's an exciting time of life as twenty five now.
I wouldn't mind being twenty three again, but that's never going.
To happen if we work out the war and the clock back. Yeah, I'll keep the wisdom.
I'll keep the wisdom, thanks, but I'll take the rewinding age.
I think we could sell that to a few people.
Oh, I'm sure we could.
Okay, experits of a murder trial and I've been to countless murder trials and I've got to say they're emotionally and physically draining. I'd never come out at the end of a murder trial the same as I went into it. And I'm just city a police officer involved on the perif. I can't even fathom how much it drains. You been a family member going through a murder trial? Do you want to talk us through the whole process?
So I got informed that I would be subpoenaed to give evidence at the trial and got served with a subpoena that was arranged. I was warned, which was good because I could warn work that I was required because I worked for State Health Service. There are requirements about when I'm subpoena, like when I was subpoened that I had to inform certain.
People and whatnot.
So I was forewarned and I spoke to the barristers a couple of times before I got on the stand. They did their best to me, which I found really helpful, and they were very understanding that, you know, that's something else that wasn't you know, it was never on my bucket list. So I was always, you know, always worried about going to coroner's court for work and not probably
have nothing to worry about that in that regard. So they did their best to sort of prep what they would ask and what they were going to question me about. Obviously they couldn't tell me what the defense was going to ask. They also had told me a few months previously when this was moving through the courts. So as you would know, with a homicide charge, it moves through the local and the district courts first, and then an application is made to the Supreme Court to have the
charge heard in the Supreme Court. All those unaware, it's a very long process. And in the midst of this process, COVID had hit, so we had a delay of I think about six to eight months because everything just shut down, which certainly didn't help.
It adds to the trauma.
Yeah, it certainly didn't help because you want things to regress. At the same time, it was a world wide pandemic, so you know, yet something else that's out of your control that you can't do anything about. And so I knew that the judge was, you know, was pretty She was strict but fair, and I have nothing but the utmost praise for Justice Fullerton. So I was subpoened. I couldn't listen to the first two weeks of the trial because I was a.
Witness, which explain that to people, because again most people don't get experience in her criminal courts, especially the murder trial. But if you're a witness in a murder trial, regardless of your relationship to the victim or your involvement, until you've given evidence, you're excluded from the court. You can't go in there and understood why you can't hear other people give evidence before you give your evidence. But that
then itself can be very frustrating. I've been in charge of murder investigations where I've had to sit I'm virtually the last witness, so I've had to sit outside the whole trial of matter that you've invested years in two and not knowing what's going on. I'm mainly the police officer. You're a family member. How frustrating was it sitting outside while the murder trial for your sister was going on.
I actually had.
To do my evidence via AVL audio visual. I had had some health problems and had required surgery and I
wasn't allowed to fly. So originally the defendants lawyer had wanted me up in Sydney in person, so I don't live in New South Wales, and there was a lot of toing and frowing about me going up there, and in the end I had to get a letter from the specialist saying that I was not medically cleared to fly, and Justice Fullerton went, that's it, She's doing it via audio visual, which was done at one of the court houses in the capital city I live in.
The biggest issue was the dates.
Kept changing, so I think there was like one or two dates. Initially we were given a date and then that was changed because they didn't get through witnesses or there was some sort of discussion between the barristers and the judge and then it got changed again. And it was frustrating because you know, we've got kids.
I was trying to get time off work.
I'm trying to like a doctor's surgery. They line up about ten patients that they know they can the same day, in the same hour, and that's what they do with witnesses. So I do understand. Yeah, your frustration. That is the nature of the justice system in the courts always got to have them.
Yeah, that was explained to me. That I wasn't left hanging. I was explained we didn't get through everyone, you know, evidence took longer today, and I was like, okay, cool, and that I didn't have a problem with that necessarily because I was kept in the loop of what was going on, and I was like, yep, fine. And then finally they cemented in a date and a time and I had to basically sit in a room. The only person who I could see was the judge and the
defense lawyer and the two barristers. I couldn't see the defendant or anybody else in the courtroom, which in all honesty was completely fine with me. I gave evidence. Justice Fullerton was very thorough and there are a couple of instances where I think.
She realized that I.
Possibly not didn't quite understand what was being asked, and so she clarified for me, which was very appreciated. I was.
I gave evidence, I think.
For just under two hours, and the DPP were very good. You know, they covered what they had said that they would cover, so I was prepared for that. And then the defense lawyer started and some of the questions that he asked I just found completely in a and irrelevant. But it's not my job to work out why he was asking those questions. I answered as best as I could. Towards the end, I got frustrated and didn't lose my temper, but my frustration showed, and I remember sitting there, you know,
feeling like I'd run a marathon. I had tried to keep myself calm, you know, and recognize that you know, I'm doing this to help with my sister. You know, I can't get emotional, I can't get frustrated. But he kept hammering home one particular point, and in the end I just turned around and snapped at him, for want of a better word, and then that was the end of questioning. I was excused. I remember just getting up and going as soon as I was excused, because my
understanding was that once you're excused. If they want you back in court, they have to recipoena you, so I didn't want to give them any time to do that. And then smart play, Yeah, I flared out of the Yeah. In some ways, I felt a sense of relief and like a way to being lifted off my shoulders because I could now find out what was going on. I could listen to the evidence. They had to apply to the judge to get clearance for me to be able
to and she gave that. I think it was about a week before I felt like I could sit there and listen to what was being said in court.
So they set up facility for an AVL for you to listen to the form.
They email you a link that you can link into and they you know, you have to log in and they obviously realize who it is and then off you go.
That was horrendous.
The thing that really got me is that they were discussing Lisel and the things that were said about her, in particular.
By the defense.
I know that the defense lawyer was doing a job that he was being paid to do, but it's still not nice to hear certain things said, regardless of whether they are true or not, about a family member, as I'm sure you know people that have experienced this can appreciate. And I guess the bier sense of injustice at that point for me was that Liseel had no way of defending herself against against.
What was being said.
You know, in if any of half of what was said was said in a public domain or on Facebook or any other social media, you could go after someone for defamation, you know, and what not, on slander and everything else. And you know, this is in a criminal court, and they can basically say what they like about the person, you know, in this case, my.
Sister, And it is hard for loved ones that with victims that And you've nailed the point. She's not there to defend herself, so they can throw speculative comments up about the type of person she is or things that might have been done, and she's not there to defend her self. So I can understand how painful that would be for a loved one to watch that play out.
Yeah, it basically felt like it was a free for all, you know, open slather on her, and that was really frustrating and quite upsetting a number of times. Some of the things that were said, especially by the defense defense lawyer, and as I said, I understand he's got a job to do. And that's from what I understand. That's whey criminal court.
Is you know exactly well, it's an adversarial system and that is the way that matters are adjudicated. Can I just to put it in context so people understand, and we won't go through all the evidence, but just in context the basic summary of the trial. So in twenty twelve, Lisal left house one day to drive to Tugara train station, parked a car, and then a witness saw her getting into another white uit. It was the last time she was seen alive. She was a missing person for six years,
never found a body. Everything pointed to Jim Church, an older neighbor who was a local horse trainer. Rumors were Lisal had an affair with him, got pregnant, and he killed her. Her body has not been found. Now that's a very brief description of the type of allegation. It's not going into the full facts of the matter, but just so people when we're talking about understand what was going on with this trial, because the trial ran for our correct me if I'm wrong thirteen and a half
weeks seventy days. Yep, it was a judge alone trial.
Yes, it was.
My understanding, is that explained to you?
Yeah, it basically meant that it was the judge and the judge alone who heard all the evidence, heard all the arguments, and you know, made rulings on what could or couldn't be submitted and whatnot. There was no jury whatsoever. My understanding is usually there's a choice. You can have a judge and a jury, or you can have a judge loan trial. The option, as far as I understood, wasn't given in this case because of COVID, so, which is to me, neither here nor there.
So, Yeah, during the course of the trial, you're listening to it. You've got over the time period where you were excluded from the court, You've given your evidence, and now you're starting to listen to the trial. How did you think the trial was going.
I kept an open mind because as in as everyone knows in this country, you know, you have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. And in some ways I wanted to listen to bear witness for Lisel. That was how I felt, and I wanted to hear what the evidence was with my own ears. There are a number of witnesses that were expert witnesses on like phone towers and roadworks and you know all these other bits and pieces that were
crucial to the case for the DPP. And what I found really good was that Justice Fullerton, if she wasn't clear on something, she got the person who was in the stand at the time to clarify so that she completely understood what the evidence they were giving was about,
which I know was very helpful. As the trial progressed and more and more witnesses were gone through, I started forming my own opinion, and I think the crux of it came towards the end when both my stepdad and the defendant were called to give evidence along with By this stage the police interviews with the defendant had been played. I think they're about five or six. So you just saw the only way to eliminate this thread was to murder Lusel anyway.
For what you don't know is that Lucil was never bringing up.
That's a difference to me.
We believe he murdered Lusel in the world right. We believe that her remains are located in the Hunter and we want to know where she is.
I haven't murdered a run. I don't know where she is. I certainly don't own a gun.
I've never murdered anyone. I said to the arrises for the DPAP at one stage, I'm surprised they didn't hear me yelling at the computer from interstate because I was just so incredulous about what the defendant had said. You know, in regards to Lisel, the way that he spoke about her and the person he was with at the time, who was apparently the love of his life was just disgusting,
you know. And the way that he presented himself in court verse is what he said when he thought no one was listening, was a very stark contrast.
This was the covit evidence was gathered through listening devices or phone taps.
Yes, yes, so there were listening devices planted in his parents house where there were conversations recorded between his parents and his sister as well as him. They planted listening devices in his I think his car and in his house, and there had also been intercepts picked up between him and other witnesses. So basically he had an outright asked people to lie for him.
To provide an alibi, but.
He had said, oh, you know, you stick with the story, and once those had been disproven, you know, my understanding was that he really had nowhere to go with, you know, explaining where he'd been. Phones had been turned off and then turned on, and he was like, oh, but I was, you know, at my girlfriend's house at the time, and they said, okay, fine, you know, but she's wrung immobile and you know, everyone's done the thing where, you know, I can't find a mobile, can you ring it for me?
Sort of thing.
But she'd also rung his landline as well, and it showed when they had telecommunication experts coming that he'd actually turned his phone off until like one one point thirty or something in the morning.
It was on the crucial time.
On the crucial time. The other thing was that up until the nineteenth of August, he and Lisal I think, in the course of four to six weeks or something had exchanged nearly two thousand text messages. I think it was like eighteen hundred, just over eighteen hundred, you know, contacts, And the nineteenth of August came and went was literally like.
It had dropped off a cliff.
There was nothing. He didn't text her, he didn't message her, he didn't ring her to find out if she was Okay, you know, I know I'm not the only one that messaged or tried to contact her. There was nothing from his phone.
Okay, well, yeah, yeah, I think that's pretty telling. And I look, and I'm talking in the general sense here, want to clarify that. But if I'm looking and there's just someone disappears and then the person that's meaning constant contact doesn't contact, that person, makes you ask questions. Tell me with the detail there, like the way that you're describing it, and we should explain or disclaim here. This is just the observations of a trial that your witnessed.
So we're not saying going through facts detail by detail. We're just your observations. Seems to be a thorough investigation. Let's wind it back when you're frustration with the police, if the communication was better, like I would suggest, you're looking at the investigation now and it was playing out in the trial that you think, okay, well, they were working on it. Does it change your view on your dealing with the dealings with the police.
I think they'd obviously put a number of resources and a lot of time into the investigation. At the trial, they were there along with their wives, which I was very appreciative of, given how much time that this has taken up of their lives. You know, it wouldn't just be it's not a nine to five job.
No should pushed that for a very long time.
So I was very appreciative that they came along to see see the outcome. I don't I give credit to how much work and resources was put in. I just feel that if they had have explained that at the start, you know, and just had that compassion and that empathy in humanity, at least in their dealings with me. I can't speak for their dealings with anybody else. Yeah, I feel that I probably would have had a different view,
and I would have a different view now. I still view it as you know, they really could have done it better, and you know, not necessarily treated me with key gloves, but not treated me the way that they did, you know. I just I felt that that was unwarranted and undeserved, and if they had have changed the way or you know, approached the way that they interacted with me on a different angle, and I guess expressed understanding.
You know that I was frustrated, you know what's going on, and explained, as I said earlier, you know, we are working, but we can't explain what we're doing at the moment. I think things may have been a lot easier for me to some degree in that I would have understand understood that they were working. Yeah, at the trial, they had put a lot of work into their case. You know,
proving time. You know how long it took to drive from point A to point B. You know why it was impossible that he said he was here when his car was you know, he was at point C, when his car was at point D, et cetera. And all of a sudden, you know, the case was built around circumstantial evidence that was quite strong.
Because there was no evidences presented where Liesl's body is. That Lisel's body wasn't recovered, so there's no evidence presented there, No, there's nothing. You're you've been watching the trial now for ten eleven weeks. At the end of the trial, the prosecution would have summed up and the defense would have summed up and pulling together all the evidence that's gone by.
How did you feel did you were you when I say confident, confident being they show me the result that you were seeking would be that the person was convicted. Were you confident that he would be found guilty?
I will be honest and say I certainly hope that he would be From my personal observations, I couldn't see how any other verdict could be reached. You know, there were huge gaps in things that he said, and the way you know, he tried to explain certain things away just made absolutely no logical sense. You know, it may have made sense to him, but you know it certainly
didn't make sense to me. And from some of the questions that the judge had asked, I got the impression that she was trying to work out how it made sense as well. I didn't know what the judge would come to down with, and this was a discussion between my husband and I. Actually he said, you know what if he is found guilty, and I said, look, you know I'm not the judge. I don't have that legal backing. You know, she has nothing to do with the case.
And that's the whole point of the legal system in Australia. You know, you bring forth your argument, you argue on the basis of your evidence as to what you think has happened, and then you know, the judge retires to make a verdict on the basis of points of law that you know they've spent god knows how long you know, understanding and applying and that's what should happen. If it had have come back not guilty, I would not have necessarily agreed with her. But at the same point, I'm
not a Supreme Court judge. You know, I don't have to apply the law, and in all honesty, I would never want that responsibility because you're making judgments about people's lives for all you know, intents and purposes. You're either you know, sentencing them to jail for whatever period of time you may deem relevant at some point, or you're setting them free. And on the flip side, you know you have a family, you know that may or not
agree with what you come up with. You know, that's a huge responsibility.
Gerald. Just in what you've said there, I think you're showing what a fair and objective person you are, even when you're looking at a trial like that. So yeah, it says a lot about a lot about you as a person that you can offer that opinion when you're talking about a murder trial relating to your sister. You got notified that the verdict was going to be handed down, and I think the date that was set was the
eighth of July twenty and twenty two. What went through your mind when you knew a date was going to be set, when the judge was going to come back with a guilty or not guilty verdict?
Not a lot.
Initially, Funnily enough, we were we were driving coming up to see my in laws when we got the I think it.
Was a message to say that the judge had set a date.
We'd asked for a date because obviously, living into state, we had to organize work schedules and flights and whatnot.
And I think I was just in shock.
That, you know, at this stage it had been.
Just on a month.
Actually, I think it was a month to the day when we got told that the judge was ready to hand down her verdict. We duks for a week's notice and she gave us five days. Originally I think it was going to be forty eight hours. Yeah, in some ways I wish it had a been forty eight hours, but I don't necessarily think that would have changed anything that happened afterwards, and so it was a mad scramble
to organize flights and whatnot. And I don't think I actually processed anything, and I hadn't up until the day before, I think, just because so much needed to be organized. You know, I still had to go to work.
You were going up there to see the judge handed down the findings.
That was y yep.
I would not have missed that for the world. I couldn't be there during the trial physically, you know, other responsibilities, you know, during that thing called life. But I was definitely going to be there for the verdict.
And then this roadblock, this thing that I've never heard of in all my time in policing. At such a crucial stage, you get notified that the person that was charged with your sister's murder and had been the accused in the thirteen and a half week trial, the judge was going to hand down her findings on the eighth of July, and on the seventh of July, he killed himself.
Yeah, I remember that phone call.
I don't think I'll forget that as long as I live. I was at work, I think I was like two hours into a shift. I was working in recovery at this stage. I'd had to leave ICU because of the stress of what was going on with the trial. And then, you know, ic use a high acuity area. As I've mentioned, I couldn't do both. I had nothing left, so I moved to another area where I could use those skills, but it wasn't, as you know, emotionally demanding.
And I remember.
I had my phone in my pocket because we were trying to organize flights and you know, and bits and pieces, and it rang, and I remember pulling it out of my pocket, out of my scrubs and thinking, oh, that number looks odd and I don't know what it was, but I was like, I've got to answer this. So I worked, walked around the corner from the nurse's desk where it was semi private, and answered the phone. And it was the social worker attached to the case, and she asked me if I was at worker at home.
I said, no, no, I'm at work, and she's like, oh, there's been a development. And I remember saying he played guilty. I mean I would have fallen over, you know, because I was adamant that there was no way he was going to change his PLA, which had been not guilty, and he was very adamant that he hadn't done it the entire way through the trial and she went no, and I'm like, okay, so you know, I think I said something else and she was like no. She said, look, is there any way that you can get on a
video conference call? This was at about ten ten thirty in the morning, and I said, I'm at work and she said, oh, what time do you finish? And I was like, well five, but like, what's going on? She said, Oh, I don't really want to tell you. And I just said, you've got to tell me. I said, like, I need to focus for what I do. If you don't tell me, I'm not going to be able to focus, and that potentially puts, you know, my patients at risk because I'm
going to be wondering what's going on. And she said, let me just dial in the two barristers. So she did that and she said, oh. They got on the phone and you know, asked me how it was and stuff, and they said, oh, there's been a notification at the defendant's house. There's been an ambulance and the police called of a deceased body and I do believe the entire word of mother f came out of my mouth loudly, understand. And I remember just saying like, are you serious and
they said, yeah, we're waiting on confirmation. We can't get in touch with your step dad. We're trying to at the moment. And I was like okay, and they said, you know, are you able to set something up so that we can talk to you, you know, face to face through zoom And I.
Said, leave it with me.
I'll have a chat to my bosses and I'll get back in touch and they said yep. I walked around to my in charge and said, I've got a codo like our nursunit manager. So my big boss's office, I remember walking in there and I saw one of the other a and ums from anesthetics. So anesthetics is sitter recoveries.
When you wake up.
And I remember walking there and just asking where my boss was because she knew, and I remember just shaking, and they were like, oh, no, she's at a meeting. And I'm like, can you please ring her? And I think the look on my face they just went yeah, sure, and they said, I do want me to tell her what's about and I said, just tell her it's Geraldine and she needs to come here, and so he very kindly rang her. She turned up five minutes later. I
rang matt in that time. He had been in town and was on the way home and basically did a YUI. I was like, I can't drive home, Matthew if I if I get into the car, I'm going to have an accident. You know, I just I'm in no shape to drive. So he did a UI and came back in and my boss had come back at that point, and I had quickly explained to her what had happened, and I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm out for the shift,
and she was like, not a problem. My husband turned up in theater cat booties and a theater gown that was two sizes too small for him.
Because we're in theater you have to be in scrubs. But you know, I just he just looked utterly ridiculous. God love him.
And she set up Microsoft teams and we had a discussion with the barristers. They were in the midst of going through all the legal cases in Australia where anything like this had happened, and they were of the opinion that as far as they knew, there was nothing, and they ended up having to go back to British common law, so back through Britain or the UK's legal cases as
well to see if any increased it and being sent there. Yep, it's never happened before and as the law currently stands, as was explained to us at the time and again just before we got the verdict, they were pretty confident that we would not get a verdict because the law as it currently stands in New South Wales does not allow for a verdict to be handed down where the defendant has died, no matter what stage of the proceedings
you were in. So even though it was less than twenty four hours that this occurred.
The law was the law.
Now, so many things to unpack you that, how did that make you feel that you weren't the verdict that you've been waiting for, the decision getting some ants as perhaps some answer is about what happened to your sister, just taking the word from you like that, how did it make you feel?
Initially?
I was hoping against hope that we would still get a verdict because to me rationally it was like, well, we've just been through a thirteen and a half week trial, the evidence has been examined, the judge has already written
her verdict. You know, the defendant participated how he wanted to within that trial, and you know, nothing was going to change the verdict that she had written in you know, twenty four hours before it was due to be handed down, you know, and then I remember feeling really angry because I felt like this was a final if you not just to the family I grew up with, and the judge and the legal system, but most of all to Lisel.
You know, he didn't want to be held accountable. He didn't want to be held responsible, and you know, I think he's a coward. He didn't want to face the prospect, you know.
Of what.
One of the possibilities was all, you know, and I think it was a power play, you know, that he still had control. He was out on bail the entire time, apart from I think a couple of months where he was held in remand. And the judge ruled that, you know, because how long it was expected before we were to go to trial and the length of the trial, that
it was unfair to keep him in jail. And it was raised by the DPAP that they had considered asking for him to be held in remand, but there was no you know, there was no justifiable reason to put him into remand. Prior to the trial. He turned up every day. He you know, had surrendered his passport that was part of the conditions. There was nothing to indicate that he would not turn up to the verdict being read. You know, they had no justifiable reason. I understand the logic, you know, I just.
I just remember.
Hoping against hope that there would be something that would let us get a verdicts of what that verdict was, the only thing that we didn't get is something called a theory of tendency because, as the judge explained, if she ruled us to whether it basically came down to whether she accepted his or not his alibi, but his version of events or not. And it was a very short walk, as she said, from there to work out whether she felt he was guilty or not guilty.
Right, So she didn't articulate that during the trial or during her closing address.
No, because it was so tied up with the verdict that you yeah, so there were both things that we didn't get.
I I'll bring you back to earlier on in the podcast, you said you have absolutely no criticism of the judge, Justice Fulton in the matter, in the way that was conducted the trial, not at all.
If anything, I felt when she was reading out why she couldn't give us a verdict, that she was as empathetic and compassionate as she possibly could be. She recognized that you know, a number of family had traveled from interstate, and that she hoped She did say that she hoped that we could understand that the law simply did not
allow her to give the verdict. I think, and this is my personal observation from sitting in the courtroom, I think she was just as frustrated and angry that this had occurred as you know, as what everyone else was.
I've got a quote from her from what she said after it, and this is from Justice Fullton. Because of mister Church's death yesterday, which brought his trial to an end,
I cannot announce my verdict today. I want to assure Miss Smith's many friends and many members of her family that the law simply does not allow me to publicly announce it or to publish the very lengthy reasons which were ready to be published clearly, I can hear the frustration in her in what she's saying them, the empathy and everything else that we've talked about to me, and let's yeah, you're a very balanced and objective in what you're saying. But you brought it back to the point
that it's been through the trial. The trial had finished for all intents and purposes, and it was a verdict to be handed down. The fact that it's never or they couldn't find any law, common law or anything to refer to and had to keep digging back. It is such an unusual situation. I haven't seen it in my time. The closest I've come to anything like this was a person that I was looking at for his wife surprisingly disappeared ten years before, and he reported it. Then his
business partner disappeared. I became involved in the investigation. When he reported his business partner having disappeared. It looked suspicious to me. That's the second person that's disappeared in his life. Then the wife had disappeared ten years earlier. We started investigating that matter. We charged him with some drug relay defences. He skipped to into state. We brought him back and we got a warrant and brought him back to New
South Wales. He was in custody, he was notified that I was coming out to speak to him about the murders, and he killed himself in prison and left a nate. But there was I felt so bad for the family, the wife's family, because they were looking for answers. They've never found their loved one's body, and they were hoping that if these charges, which looked like they were going to be laid, might give them answers. And I know
how cheated they felt. But that matter was referred to the coroner, or his death was referred to the coroner, and from my memory that's going back probably fifteen or more years, that the coroner made a comment that, based on the information, the most likely likely scenario is that he took his own life, but he was also involved in the disappearance of the two people. Doesn't give you a definitive answer that it helps to a degree. Is that something that you think could work with your situation?
What recourse do you want?
I think something at this point in time is better than nothing. You know, thirteen and a half weeks of a huge emotional impact that still has ramifications and consequences on me and my family today. I remember when the judge was reading this out. You know, I just sat there and stared at her. I'm sure she thought I was giving her a death stare, but I actually had tears.
Rolling down my face.
Yeah, you know, I just something, you know, because at this point we've got nothing. We've got nothing. We don't have any idea where Leathal is. She could be anywhere between the Central coasts and the Upper Hunter Valley. You know that's a couple of hundred square kilometers.
Yeah, I just.
I understand that.
You know, he doesn't have the right to appeal because of what he did. But as I said, you know, something's better than nothing, and at the moment, you know, anything's better than what we've got, which is nada.
And I believe his legal team spoke out on his behalf and said, look, he shouldn't be the verdict hasn't been handed down, so he's not a convicted murderer, and pushed that aspect of it. You actually reached out to the Attorney General, Mark Speakman at the time, and you've got a response back, and you kindly pass that on to me. I just might read out an extract from that and this is response that the Attorney General gave to an email sent on the ninth of July twenty
and twenty two. Please accept my deepest sympathy for the tragic loss of your sister and the grief that you and your family have endured. I understand the strong sense of dissatisfaction you have experienced as a result of the
conclusion of proceedings. I also understand that you and your family sat through many days of evidence hoping for an outcome and the resolution to the matter that would bring closure to your family and justice for the lease that you would denied that opportunity is a matter about which you have every right to feel aggrieved. I appreciate your concerns about the current state of the law which preclude
the judge in this case from delivering her judgment. This is a complex matter, and therefore I have to ask the Department of Community and Justice to provide me with advice on the legal and policy issues involved. I will carefully consider the advice in determining whether any form is any reform is appropriate to help me to consider the issues further. I would welcome any input you have on your experience in this case, and would ask you that
you please contact my executive assistant. That was a response to an email that you sent to the Attorney General. Getting that must have given you some comfort at the time that it looks like they're at least looking into it, they're taking your concerns seriously.
Yes and no.
It's easy to say things and pass commiserations on when you know these things haven't happened to you. And it's easy to express that you understand someone's frustration, as we've spoken about before, unless it's actually happened to you. I don't think people quite understand the frustration, you know, when people give you platitudes and then don't follow up with anything. I had a teleconference call with him shortly after that that was organized. And you know, the Attorney General has
the ability to change legislation. Yes, I understand that. You know, from a legal point, there needs to be a number of considerations. You know, you don't want to create loopholes where things have to go back to trial, you know, especially if the legislation is made retrospective so that it could apply to Liesl's case, which is what I would be looking for. And that was all well and good, But then I've heard absolutely nothing since that teleconference. I
have no idea what they've done. I have no idea whether they've gone any further than that, you know, and I think if it's happened once, it'll happen again. You know.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Thanks for listening. To learn more, visit iycatchkillers dot com dot au. If you're a crimex plus subscriber, I hope you're enjoying your early and add free access to this podcast. We've got heaps of other great news series. One to look out for at the moment is Shandy's Legacy, created by the term behind your favorite podcast including The Teacher's Pet and The Teachers Trial. Shandy's Legacy follows the hearings into a major public inquiry into the Queensland DNA lab.
Listen early and ad free at crimex or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, there's some counter arguments if they made the legislation. I've been involved in legislation changes on different matters. I've been involved in parable murders, double jeopardy legislation, and I understand the arguments going backwards and forwards. Eventually it was changed. But part of the argument for not
changing legislation. If we change this, the the sky is going to fall everyone's It'll change the very structure of our justice system. It was changed and it didn't happen. This is such a rare occurrence. As the DPP identified as said, they can't find case law on it because we haven't seen it occur, and we're talking at the end of the trial, not during the trial, at the
very end of the trial. If they made legislation that covered that, I don't think it did even have to be enacted on very often, but it would prevent what you guys have been through with the situation here, simple
legislation change. I'm not a legal person, clearly, and I'm not informed enough to know the changing legislation, But just from an observational point of view, I can't see that the sky would fall if they made a change to find out what the verdict was going to be handed down, given that the trial had already concluded, you followed up with some letters, again still trying to get answers. There
was a new Attorney general. Can I'll just read out some extracts of more communication that you had with the now new Attorney General the day before we receive the verdict mister Church committed suicide. This meant, as I'm sure you are aware, that we're unable to hear the verdict handed
down as per the current legislation around this. Surely you can emphasize how traumatic that was, especially after giving evidence, along with everything pertaining to her disappearance over a decade now and the ongoing trauma this continues to put us through. We have no closure, We have nothing to me that comes as a that's pleading on the emotions. Please help us.
I haven't heard a response at all to that.
Well, you didn't finish off there. I spoke with your predecessor, mister Mark Speakman, who indicated this would go to the new South Wales Coroner. After thirteen and a half weeks of criminal trial evidence put under the microscope and the potential to have to reappear. I'm rather a gast disappointed and frustrated, to say the least, not to mention there has been nothing from your office, the coroner or the DPP to indicate what is happening or moving forward. We
have no way of recourse. Again frustration, and you haven't heard anything back.
I haven't had a phone call, I haven't had a text message, I haven't had an email. I've had absolutely nothing.
I find it of interest there that they're mentioned in the New South Wales Coroner. Now, I know we had this discussion a few days ago. To me, and this is a very simplistic plan, but I can't see why the matter couldn't be referred to the New South Wales Coroner. The coroner could get access to Justice Fulton's findings, review that with all the other evidence that came out through the trial, and perhaps make a finding on what happened
to Lisel. Now, the role of the coroner is to investigate this where the cause is unknown, where there is a reason to think that death may not be due to natural causes, to determine the identity and the date, place and circumstances of the death. To me, and again, maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but that seems to be a solution to this problem. Your thoughts.
As I said, something's better than nothing. I mean, like legislation would be great and I'd be rapped if it was changed. You know that that would just be the you know, the holy grail, I guess, And you know, legislation is so specific, you know, it's it's there in black and white. You know, it's very specific to make sure that you know, you can't find loopholes. So I'm sure that it could be done. Failing that, because you know, as you said, they're worried the skyfall. I mean, never
mind that my sky has already fallen. But you know, a coronial inquest I think would at least hold Jim Church to accountability. It's not a conviction, but you know, it's something, you know, and at this point in time, you know we're most likely never going to find where Lesa is, you know, and that's devastating, but at least there would be some accountability, you know, in some sort of respect from I guess, like a legal standpoint of view, for want of a better phrase.
Well, I think a legal point of view is that at this point you've got zero. It's just up in the air. It's like everything's been thrown up in the air and the pieces haven't landed and no one's going to comment on it, so you're just left wondering. I think, if you know, if the best you could get is through if a person is in charge with murder. It goes before the coroner for the coroner to determine cause, manner, and location, time of death, all the details around what's happened.
But I would hope then there's some accountability, some accountability if the coroner came back with a finding, and if we need to protect what justice Fulton, we can't just hand it out to everyone because he doesn't have the he's no longer here. Surely the system could set up that the coroner could look at. It doesn't have to make all the findings public, but just based on the information that's contained there, make a very very informed decision.
Because this matter has already gone through the Supreme Court as a murder trial as to what's happened to Lisel and the other thing that I see another potential benefit here if that is done, I think it would be a good opportunity to call out to the media if
anyone knows anything that might have happened to Lisel. Given the circumstances that someone that might have been loyal to the accused, now the fact that James Church's deceased might decide to come forward, that would be a great platform to make an appeal and then my understanding, what every family wants when a person's missing a suspected murder is to be able to find the body and lay their loved one with some respect and dignity.
That would that would be nice. I don't think that leasels remains are probably going to be found in my lifetime, which is something that I really struggle with. You know, she's my sister. I want her home wherever or however that looks. And I think that if we have the ability to get something from the coroner, I would take that. You know, people talk about closure. I've had that mentioned a lot of times to me over the course of this.
There will never be closure, you know. There's no such thing as closure for anyone who's got a missing person or a case such as this where you know you don't know where where your loved one is. I think there's just more questions. You know, Some questions get answered and others don't, and you have to work out what's important, which is sort of where I'm at as to which
question do you want answered? And so at this point in time, you know, i'd take a coroner's in quest, you know, and I would take whatever you know, the coroner, you know, came up with on the basis of you know, them examining the evidence from Justice Fullerton, because they would at least allow you know, the ability to process, you know, and knowing that in some way, you know, he was held accountable. And I'm speaking from from my point of view because of what I you know, observed and what
I think. But I just don't understand why, you know, there's been such a lack of response. And as I said, it's not a matter of if this happens again, it's a matter of when, and no other families.
Should go through this, ye you know, this.
Has completely shattered what was left of the family I grew up with. You know, it's certainly had an impact on the way that you know, my immediate family, so my husband and my kids, you don't interact and deal. It's been extremely stressful. I've had to leave an area of my career that I loved doing because emotionally, I just I had nothing left, you know, which was something that I didn't want to do, but there was no
other option for me. And you know, this is something that I will be dealing with for the rest of my life. And you know, at some point, I'm going to have to explain to my daughter, you know, what's happened to her aunt, because I'm sure with the Internet that she'll come across it or something will get said and she's going to have questions. And you know, fair enough, what I don't understand is the lack of response from the people that can do something about this. You know,
I've sent two letters. I know that there was quite a bit of pressure, but I just don't understand how, you know, there's a lack of consideration for responding. I know that they're busy, but everyone's busy. You know, she was my sister, she was she belonged to a family, She was here, you know, and I'm sure that if this ever happened to any person who you know, is in politics or the legal system, you know, they'd move heaven and to get something to happen. I mean, you've
seen it with the police force, for example. You know, something happens like one of your own, happens to one of your own, and you guys do everything you can to work out what happened, and quite rightly, you know, yeah, I just feel that because it's not one of their own, that you know, in some regards it doesn't have as big of an impact, and I'm sure it matters to them, but it doesn't matter as much as if it was one of their family members.
You know, the law of the laws.
That we have are supposed to reflect society's values and what society holds up as the standard, as an and
as being important and the failed they don't. You know, I understand that the way that the legal system is geared is that you're innocent to proven guilty, and as I said, you know, I get that, but at the same time, I think there needs to be in a case like this, a consideration for the victim's family and for the person who you know, bore the brunt of what happened, which in this case is Leesel.
You know, she deserves better than apathy, which.
Is essentially how I feel that you know, I've gotten at this point.
You know, they're just apathetic. It's sort of.
While it was in the media, it was important and oh my gosh, we've got to do something. And now because it's not front page news anymore, it it doesn't matter.
Well, sadly, I've seen it too many times, and you hit on some very good points there. The justice systems there to serve the community, and everyone should be treated equal in the justice system. There shouldn't be a disparity bit about what resources or what things have done because of who the victim is. It shouldn't shouldn't come into it. When you reached out to me to ask, I ask if I could help. I can't bring any skills as a homicide detective to the table, but what I can do,
and you have done it. I've just given you a platform to talk, and I hope people are listening. I hope the policy makers are listening to your account of it, because no one could accuse you have been going off just angry and bitter, and you'll never be satisfied. You have been so reasonable, so open, and you've articulated your positions so clearly. I hope people do listen to this and push to make a change, because why you deserve
an answer. Your family deserves an answer, lethal deserves an answer, and I think she'd be very proud of what you're doing in her memory and keep fighting to get justice for it. Credit for coming on and telling us your story.
Thank you, Garry. It's much appreciated.
Okay, we'll be in touch and let's find out if people do actually get back to you that have told you that they will get back to you. Let's see if they get back to you now, no worries, Thank you, cheers. I reckon we can get justice for Lisel here. I
don't think it's that hard. They could even make a legislative change and hand down the findings of Justice Fulton after trial has been completed, or another way that I think is a very simple way, refer the matter to the coroner, give the coroner access to Justice Fulton's findings, and then the coroner can hand down the decision on what has happened to Lisal Smith. I really appreciate Geraldine Caine coming on the show, and I hope it helps.
And I hope the people that said they're going to get back to Geraldine and the family do get back to Geraline. Let's hope we can find some justice for Lui and that n