This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at lifeline dot org dot au. A twenty four year old devoted mother of two fleeing a violent relationship as a mom, bags packed car, running, her daughters strapped into the backseat.
Mom told me that she needed to go back inside to grab something.
Panic.
Amy is dead? Sir Aimy his dead?
Eight confusion than about five minutes say sit n to suicide.
One hundred percent. This is emersing.
What do you think is really the honest truth about Amy?
The Truth about Amy? Episode twelve.
I'm Liam Bartlett and.
I'm Alison Sandy.
Love yourself first, continue to strive for loving oneself. You have nothing to hide. Lack of self esteem can often cause doubt. Always think confidently, let yourself out. We all have something to give. By loving oneself, You're beginning to live when you feel good, loyal and true. Only then
can we really help you. When you see a negative or experience the pain, find yourself the positive, enjoy the game for when we smile and glow within, we cancel out the problem forever herein so you see, by loving oneself, you then have the opportunity to love me.
Feeling positive, Amy posted this poem on Facebook on the twentieth of September twenty thirteen. Now, as we've been investigating this case, we've been exploring what is necessary for WA Police, or indeed the WA Attorney General John Quigley, to take it seriously. The highest standard of proof in our judicial system is beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does that really mean? OL caught up with WA barrister Tom Percy case to discuss it.
What sort of evidence is required for a criminal case to get to court?
Well, I think if it's a case that's top let's say the police need to be satisfied that there's some elements, some evidence of each of the elements that constitute.
The offense, and then they would charge the person.
If it's a simple matter it goes to the magistrates court, well it would just stay there. But if it one ultimately astigated the Director of Public Prosecutions once it had been committed for trial, the Director would have to be satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success.
And that it was in the public interest to proceed with it.
Now, no one has to make a decision as to whether there is enough of evidence to convince someone beyond reasonable doubt.
At that preliminary stage. But the director would have to come to a conclusion that there was a reasonable.
Prospect that a jury might come to the appropriate conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. No one can define what reasonable doubt is. Jury has often asked that question in the course of their deliberations. I think I've been involved in probably one hundred trials where a jury is asked that question, and the answer is from the judge is always the same.
I'm not at law allowed to explain that to you. I can't explain it to you. The words are self explanatory.
But sometimes you can say to a jury, look, it's not the civil standard.
It's not the standard that we imply.
It's a defamation case, or a motor vehicle accident.
Cases of civil damages, or a case over a contract regarding money.
In that case or a civil case, the judge would only have to be satisfied that, on balance of probabilities.
One side was more likely than not.
Now judge may.
Be entitled to tell a jury.
That it's not the civil standard, it's a much higher standard, and it's the highest standard known to law.
But in order to get.
A case back before a coroner where there's already been a coroner's inquest, the Currents Act in Western Australia provides that you can, in the event that there is new evidence, take that to were the Supreme Court at Western Australia and asked the matter be remitted back to the coroner, either to reopen the hold in quest or to hold a new one.
So that's the starting point there.
The way that that would happen would be that you would compile the scientific or other evidence that you have put that in the form of an APPI dated by an appropriately qualified person and bring an application of the Supreme Court seeking either a new inquest or to reopen the old inquest. And if that was sufficient of sufficient moment, and the Court was of the view that that was.
Appropriate, then it would be referred back.
And then once it was back with the coroner, if the evidence of pe is compelling enough, the coroner has.
The power to refer to the DPP.
Now that seems a bit cumbersome. Another way it could be done is for the people involved to petition the DPP and put that sort of evidence in front of the BPP, and he would have the power to that
issue charge as himself or refer to the police. The third one which it could be referred as to is if the police were pursuing their investigations and came to the conclusion that there was an arguable case, or a prime facing case as we say, of murder against a person thought to be responsible in relation to the death of the deceased, and the police could then charge the person or refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
What primate facing mean facing.
Means the evidence of each of the elements of the offense.
That is, that the identity of the person is arguable, that it was the person required, that there was a death by which a person died, that that person was the person in.
Question, and that there was some evidence that that was.
Not accidental or by natural causes. So on what I know of this case watching the public domain, that I would have thought there was ample evidence for the prosecution to investigate this had possibly come to the conclusion that there was a primer facing case.
So what sort of burden of proof would be required for them to take it to a trial.
Well, if it does, the trial as a question exclusively for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and essentially there are two criteria. One that has to be in the public interest and secondly, the director would have to form the view that there were reasonable prospects of conviction.
Okay, And so what do you look for when you decide or you accept a case where you think there's reasonable prospects of conviction.
Well, I don't do much prosecuting these days. In fact, they haven't done anything about twenty five years. But I would think that a prosecutor would look for a case.
Where there's really really no question about the identity the presence of the potential accused person at the time, that is, opportunity, motive, and some scientific basis which linked the.
Two together with the cause of death.
They were the sort of things and I mean sometimes that is drawing a long bow, that that's a fanciful proposition. But if the director was of the view that having examined the police investigation and the evidence they came up with, that there was ample material to go to a jury, then they would normally proceed with the prosecution.
What happens if a kroener has done an in quest and hasn't recommended that it be referred to the ODPP. I mean, given that there obviously that's very subjective.
Well, I'm sure any director of public Prosecutions does.
It doesn't matter what status, would look at a coroner's inquest and see that there'd.
Been an open finding, that that wouldn't preclude him or her.
From coming to the proposition that, in life of fresh evidence, particularly fresh scientific evidence.
That the matter warranted be reopened. So it's no bar to a prosecute that.
A coroner's made an oven finding and decline to refer.
The matter to the TPP.
I would have thought going back to an inquest that would just be expensive and as you say, cumbersome.
I think right, that's securitous and unwieldy.
For it to go back there. If there is a body of fresh scientific evidence from reputable sources that.
The police could have a look at, and it may well be that the police want to exercise their own discretion afresh and in the light of the fresh.
Evidence, which or means the material.
Already went before the coroner, come to a decision to change someone.
What about there's a term now called hidden homicides, where they're put down a suicide or accidental and in some cases the police have mismanaged it in the first place. Is it then harder, given that it could draw criticism from what you've I guess your extensive career, do you find it often difficult to then get those sorts of cases across the line.
I think sometimes there's a degree of pride in the police force which stands in the way of them saying.
Oh, we were wrong when we'd have a good look at this game. So yeah, you're right.
There's certainly normal human frailty which sometimes might say this might be an admission that we didn't do our case correctly the first time, so we're not going to go down that part.
But there will come a time when they may be.
Forced into that position where the evidence stares them in the face and they say, look, perhaps we're wrong not to change this person or to go down this.
Other line of investigation, and we're about to do it, and we may make an arrest.
Yes, well, certainly, back in twenty twenty one at the inquest, it was very much police did make a submission that it was suicide. They didn't change for it in this case. So if they're looking at it and they do have a million dollar reward being an open fire, that they have to consider the other options given that they're not ruled out.
That's right. I mean AVLU cases such as Chris Dawson.
I mean, for many years the police didn't think there was enough evidence to charge him with murder, and twenty thirty years later they reviewed that in the light of all the evidence that they had, they came to a subjective conclusion that there were reasonable prospects of a conviction.
They charged him, and he was ultimately convicted. So they can't happen.
And just because there's been an initial decision made not to charge someone, and even though a decade may have passed, it's always open to review.
And it does happen.
One of the issues that was brought up at the time is limitation of I guess the biomechanical evidence, and that was a decision made by the currentor not necessarily by the biomechanical experts, and certainly not by the new
one who's done their own analysis. Again, is that ever a case, you know, particularly cold cases right where you can just put it down to the fact that because there wasn't forensics at the time or whatever, it wasn't undertaken as a proper investigation at the time, that it could be limited and therefore no chance of a criminal conviction.
I wouldn't have thought that's the case. I wouldn't have thought that's going to be a limiting factor any sense.
If the evidence is credible, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny, and on the subjective assessment by either the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is sufficiently compelling, And I wouldn't have thought the fact that it wasn't used in the first place would be in any way impede the matter proceeding on the.
Basis of that evidence.
So how is the standard of proof applied? Well, then, wa Section one four one of the Evidence Act nineteen ninety five provides that in a criminal proceeding, the court is not to find the case of the prosecution proved unless it's satisfied it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to meet this threshold. Basically, it's up to the prosecution to convince the court based on the evidence that there's no
other reasonable explanation other than the accused is guilty. The accused need not prove that they didn't commit the crime, but show an alternative explanation is reasonable. The jury, of course, then decides whether there's reasonable doubt that they committed the crime or in the recent case of Chris Dawson, who was convicted of killing his wife Lynn Simms, a judge
only will make that determination. Judge only trials are allowed after an application from the defense or prosecution if a judge determines its appropriate after considering the circumstances of the case. There's a lot to consider, obviously in this case, and ultimately it's a determination of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in wa as to whether there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction if they proceed with a
criminal trial. Now, before we contemplate all the evidence they would need to evaluate, we wanted to share with you a message recently sent to us by one of our listeners.
Living close to the local area of Serpentine and being thirty four years old, I found this podcast hitting close to home in more ways than one. I found it really interesting. In the recent episode where Gareth is retelling the story of what happened when he says he pushed open the door. I don't know why, but I found
this really strange. If I myself had just witnessed my partner being shot, the last thing I would be doing is running out of the room and thinking that I needed to consciously close the door on my way out. I just found it odd.
That's right, Gareth Price, as the second person had to open the door to see if Amy was dead. It's worth noting that while the stories of what happened as recalled by David Simmons and his family and friends on the night Amy died varied, often wildly, what Amy's friends and family said both then and now has not, and remember they were also traumatized. The problem is it's not one thing, but lots of things and a lot of gaping holes in the evidence. Let's discuss them one by one.
So initially, wa police detectives believed she shot herself with her left hand because her right hand was under her buttock. This was supported by the fact it was the only hand with gun residue on it. But there's a problem with that. Amy had a burnmark on her left hand caused by the barrel, not the trigger, and they eventually discover it's impossible for her to reach across the front of her body with her left hand to shoot herself in the right temple.
They then turned to Amy's right hand, after all, she was right handed, but as we said earlier, that hand was found under her right buttock. So testing gets underway to find out if it's possible her right hand could have landed in that position after she used it to shoot herself.
In all of the tests undertaken, not one has Amy's right hand landing under her right buttock, so the question is asked if it could have ended up there after being shoved so many times as people entered the room. It's impossible to test that, so it's not ruled out.
But the right hand doesn't have gun residue on it. Could the hand that pulled or pushed the trigger not have gun residue on it?
Apparently yes, it's determined that it's possible the gun residue could have been lost.
When Senior Constable James Inskip was asked about this during the inquest, he said, the loss of gunshot residue from surfaces is quite easy.
Even though paper bags were placed on Amy's hands.
He says bags could have been sampled too, though, but we can't find any reference to that happening anywhere.
So suicide is still considered an option, despite the biomechanical testing suggesting evidence is quote highly consistent with someone else pulling the trigger and quote again not consistent with Amy shooting herself due to the limitations of the testing.
Correct despite evidence to the contrary. Now, let's turn to whether Amy was a victim of domestic violence. The curenter didn't make a ruling on this at the inquest, and there doesn't seem to be any domestic violence lens placed across this case at all. At the conclusion of the Major Crime Investigation Operation, jundi Wa police determined there was
no evidence of physical violence from David towards Amy. So despite acknowledging the violence an argument Amy had with David that afternoon, it still wasn't considered a factor in Amy's death.
But what about the testimony from Natasha Selzer and Erin Gower. Natasha saw her bent backwards over a table, struggling with symmons, and Amy sent erin a photo of bruises where she says David choked her for some reason.
Natasha's evidence didn't seem to be given any weight at the inquest, and WA police couldn't find that photo of Amy from Amy's phone, even though we managed to find it within twenty minutes. In its investigation, Major Crime determined that the argument between Amy and David before she died suggested Amy was the aggressor and David had no motive to want to kill Amy.
Did Amy drink.
Very infrequently and if she did, friends can't recall a time since having kids that she'd drink more than one.
Did she take illegal drugs?
Well, no, but David's father, Robert Simmons says he heard she used to.
Be wild, but he barely knew her.
Yes, but the curenter found him credible.
Despite Robert Simmons singing the praises of Detective Kirkman, who completely botched the investigation at the start.
I know, but in her findings, the coroner said she considered Robert to be an honest, forthright witness. He was the only one she afforded such credibility anyway, when it was mentioned David Simmons told Gareth his dad wasn't home Robert appeared confused as to why he would think that when he almost always worked from home.
Yes, and upon receiving a call from emergency services, Robert immediately jumped to the conclusion that David shot Amy. Now that is not the typical response you get from a parent, but the coroner doesn't seem to give much consideration to the fact that Robert thought his son capable of this, as he had changed his mind since.
Yes, and then he asked Gareth when he arrives at the gate, who moved the gun.
Also, it's strange Robert didn't notice her body or the blood spatter upon entering the bedroom. After all, he'd already spoken to Triple zero, so surely his first priority would be to look for a person in trouble. Instead, he goes straight for the gun.
Don't forget there was also a thirteen second phone call receipt on his phone from David at the roadhouse, and records show it didn't go to voicemail.
Robert Simmons denies receiving this call. He was upfront about his son's drink and drug problem, though.
Except there seems to be no consideration of that in her findings. They were more concerned about Amy being on antidepressants, even though David suffers depression and was supposed to be taking them as well.
It's worth mentioning that catelepram in the dosage Amy was prescribed is pretty mild.
And pretty common. According to later statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, one in five Australians fielled a mental health related prescription in twenty twenty two twenty three.
What about the lack of any gun residue on both Price and Simmons clothes they were supposedly wearing when Amy died, that's an issue.
Yes, we know that David at least fired the gun a couple of times that afternoon.
Then there's Amy's pink phone and Price patting down her body to try to find it so he could call Triple zero. Still no blood transfer onto his clothes. Though both his and simmons clothes were spotlets when they handed them to police, not a trace of blood was found on them.
And remember Simmons going back to the house later to try to retrieve Amy's iPhone, telling Larry Blamford it was his.
But Simmons denies doing that, So it's barely even noted in the coroner's findings.
Unbelievable.
Then there's the missing door handle. If Amy decided to take her own life in the bedroom, wouldn't she have taken the door handle off the outside of the door so her children couldn't have discovered her body, not the inside of the door.
There's never been any real explanation for that. Also, the wheelibins. In his first statement, Joshua Brydon makes a particular note about taking them out earlier in the day at Amy's request.
But then Naa said she saw Price taking the bins up the drive after Amy's death. Of course, her testimony was inadmissible because she was only six at the time.
Another red flag is the fact that no fingerprints were found on the gun that killed Amy, despite at least three people having handled it.
Yeah, that to me says it was wiped down. A major red flag. Also, what about what Charondev said about major crime not having checked Amy's handbag. Had they done so, they would have seen her passport.
Exactly Again, if you planned to kill yourself, why worry about your passport. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's look at the timeline, which was compiled as part of the Major Crimes Investigation Operation JUNDI.
David Simmons, Joshua Bridon and Gareth Price returned to the small Serpentine home Simmons shared with Amy just before four pm. We know this because Simmons used Brydon's phone to send Amy a message on Facebook at three point fifty one PM asking her where are you, and she replies gone crazy. Amy arrives home shortly after and may have a massive fight where she throws a beer bottle and mirror at him and he puts her in a headlock and wrestles
her to the ground. After the fight, which they estimate last at about fourteen minutes, bringing it to roughly four point thirty pm, Amy goes into the shed and accidentally smashes the lizard tank. She then heads to the bedroom. At four forty eight, Amy takes a selfie in front of the mirror in the master bed with the Boito four ten, which was used to kill her. In the photo, she's sitting on the edge of the bed holding the rifle by the muzzle, with the butt of the gun
on the floor. Joshua Brdon says before leaving, he helps Price clean up the smashed lizard tank.
Simmo came and told the girls that they have to go to their NaNs. Simmo put the kids in the car. He put them in the car and explained to him that they were going with Mummy to stay at grandma's.
Once I saw things looked a little more.
Under control, I put my dogs in a cage and took him home to have a shower of stuff.
Brydon says he leaves at four forty seven pm, which is just one minute prior to Amy taking her selfie. He says he knows this because as he was driving out, he receives a text message from his old schoolmate, who he was supposed to have picked up from the train station. He planned to go Peakcott that night.
Now I have a problem with this because after the fight with David, Amy says I'm moving out and then goes to the bedroom. According to the Major Crime timeline, Amy only started packing after speaking to her mum at five o'clock. The phone call with Nancy last two hundred and twelve seconds, according to phone records. Nancy describes Amy as hysterical at the beginning, but then says she calms down.
Oh, I will I'll see you soon.
I will come.
Just a reminder. This is a recreation according to Nancy's recollection of the phone call. But the point here is how did Brydon witness the kids being put in the car when he left fifteen minutes earlier.
It's just another gaping hole in the story and it wasn't explored.
Okay, back to the timeline. So after the lizard tank incident, Amy is in the bedroom and takes the selfie at four forty eight pm. Nancy then calls her that phone call lasts two hundred and twelve seconds.
Don't hear here a week, a month, a year, I don't hear get here now.
And it's only then that Amy starts packing the car. Price estimates she made three to four trips.
While this is happening. David says he packs the children's toys and clothes in the car, turning on the heater and music for the girls. He then shouts to Amy, hurry off, and we're told Amy replies just a minute. Then at five ten pm, Gareth and David say they hear a thud.
Investigators estimate there was twelve minutes between the time Amy was shot and Simmons and Price left the premises to notify emergency services. The CCTV captures them at the Serpentine roadhouse at five twenty two pm. Major Crime ruled out foul play because they reckon there wouldn't be enough time to formulate a plan to hide what had occurred, and if they had staged the scene, surely they would put the gun in a position where there was no alternative
to suicide. The coroner indicates she's inclined to agree with this too, but we're not dealing with Rhodes scholars here.
Simmons says he first inside and knocked on the bedroom door while calling out to Amy.
Amy.
This time, the door is slightly ajar and David says he could see Amy's foot just inside the bedroom. He says he rushes out, calling out something like.
Is she still alive or why.
Depending which version you believe. But Gareth says David was saying fuck fuck.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
Fuck and starts punching the shed. He then goes in and flicks the shotgun out of her lap and places a towel over her head. Another version has David and Gareth going into the house at the same time, with Gareth remaining in the corridor while David goes into the bedroom first.
Yes, when you put it all together, it's hard to come to any other conclusion other.
Than Amy did not shoot herself.
Amy did not shoot herself. But because of the errors made from the beginning, there seems to be a real reluctance by anyone who's been given any say over how this case is treated to do any more than absolutely necessary.
And at the inquest there seems to be a real push towards suicide and against bowl play. Listen again to the questions from the coroner pose to David Simmons at the end of the inquest.
All right, thank you very much, David. I've heard what you've had to say. I'm the coroner, so I'm the one listening to your evidence and all the other evidence and bearing that in mind. Just to go back then, my understanding of what you're telling me is that you and Gareth had nothing to do with Amy being shot in the head that day. Is that right?
That's right?
And you were both standing outside the car and you heard a sound and you went into the house and found Amy behind the door with the shotgun injury. Is that right?
Yes, that's correct. Yes, the thud was definitely a gunshot, and David Simmons definitely wasn't in the room when the gun went off.
There's always been this assumption because Amy had left David Simmons before, but.
This time was different. Simmons drinking and drug taking was worse than it had ever been prior. Robert Simmons even acknowledges that, blaming himself for letting them live rent free, I'd.
Given them a whole heat more cash to buy drugs and alcohol because they're not paying any rent.
Gareth too admitted in that interview with you, people do dumb things on drugs.
Drugs, drugs, People who drugged dumb You know that. Obviously, because of the way detectives treated Amy's case, neither David nor Gareth were tested for drugs or excess alcohol consumption. But in the absence of all that, it's about looking at the pattern of behavior and other corroborating evidence.
The subsequent investigations by WA police via major crime and cold case did not seem to be concerned with any of that, and neither was the inquest. Then, of course, there's claims that Brydon allegedly told multiple people they burned the clothes they were wearing the Knight Amy died, including his favorite shorts. After moving Amy's body.
You know, we'd had this conversation with Joshua and he said about moving the body and burning the clothes.
Although if Amy's body was moved, it can't have been very far. According to forensic experts. The blood spatter indicates she died where she was found, crammed between a door so that you can barely open the door, with blood on the left side on this wall here. Many people weren't aware of this, but council representing the family during the inquest, Peter Ward took our Namy's case for free. I caught up with Peter in Perth to discuss why he got involved and whether he's surprised by the way
it's been handled. Peter, thank you very much for having a chat to us about this. Goes without saying. You've got a world of legal experience from a human experience. You've known this family for a long time, working this case about nine years and going through all the various nuances of it. How do you see it as an overview Sitting at the moment, what's your opinion of the case? In terms of its legal merits.
The legal merits is something I can't specifically speak to, but what I can say is that the impact on the family of the way in which the police investigation didn't occur initially has been massive. And what I've seen is a family that feel hurt. They feel like they haven't been given the respect that they deserve. They haven't had the decency of a proper investigation, and they haven't had an apology for the failure to investigate.
When you heard the coroner's decision and you read the coroner's findings, what did you make of that?
I wasn't surprised that it was an open verdict. In some ways, I was glad it was an open verdict because that at least would compel the police to continue investigating.
When you say that, you mean it gave them some elasticity to be able to work with something in the future.
The police approached the coronial inquest in the same way as the first to investigations, which was to say that there was no evidence of criminality and that they believed it was a suicide. The coroner wasn't satisfied on the balance of probabilities that that was the case and having a coroner say no, I'm not satisfied essentially leaves the case open, requiring the police to continue investigating.
And really provides some justification for the Famili's point of view. Does it not? Well?
It certainly helped to confirm the family's view that more needed to be looked at.
Why have the police been so stuck on this one channel? They said at the inquest, and they kept saying it. The Major Crime Squad concluded that the evidence that Amy died by suicide was compelling, that's the word they used.
Well, the coroner didn't accept it was compelling. And I don't know why the police have been so focused on suicide. There's a lot there to be in investigated. There are a lot of indications in her personal circumstances that would exclude suicide, and in fact, we tried to point to those in the coronial in quest and we asked the coroner to it at the very least exclude that on the balance of probabilities. But I'm not surprised that the coroner in the end couldn't exclude anything.
But that's the whole point, Peter, is not I mean, anybody who reads even that final coroner's report will find holes in the police argument. You don't have to be a trained lawyer to do that. So why do the police keep going on about the suicide. It's got to be suicide. I mean that alone allows people and even the coroner jumped in at one point and said she understood why some people, even the family could think this was the result of a police cover up.
As I've said, I can't talk to the merits of the case that the police ran, and really the question has to be to them as to why they've focused on suicide. Superintendent Scandalbury, he gave evidence that that was the opinion he formed, but others may form a different opinion. And the coroner in this case didn't adopt his opinion.
But at one stage that policeman, the head of homicide in wa told the coroner that there was no evidence to place another person in that room in that bedroom at the time of Amy's death.
Yes, that's his opinion. The coroner didn't agree on the balance of probabilities.
But what can you say about that? I mean, you ran basically the other case, didn't you.
I ran the case for the family to tease out the evidence that would be inconsistent with a finding of suicide, and I made submissions at the end of the case that the coroner should exclude suicide on the balance of probabilities. But the coroner, as I say, wasn't satisfied either way.
And you may recall Justice Lee in the Luhman case recently gave a really good explanation about what's required to make a finding on the balance of probabilities, and that is that the judicial officer in this case of corona has to be persuaded toward an outcome.
They have to.
Feel that they've positively been persuaded to that finding, and the coroner in this case didn't reach that standard of satisfaction in respect of any of the options.
There's been a lot of coroners involved in this case. A lot of coroner's names have passed over the desk, havevin' they it took a long time to get there.
It did take a long time, so it was first listed in twenty eighteen. I think it was then the Coroner's office received the biomechanical report of Professor Ackland and on that basis vacated the coronial inquest that was scheduled, sent it back to police for investigation, it went back
to the DPP. They were all off concluded that there was no prosecution warranted at that stage, so it came back to the coroner, came back in twenty twenty, COVID hit that and then came back again in twenty twenty one.
So what three four coroners until we got to the final corner.
Well, I don't know if it was the same one listed to do each one, but certainly it was. There were three or four dates in which it was scheduled before it finally occurred in February twenty two.
Just seems like the family's just gone through. You know, you pick the worst case scenario, this family's got it. I mean, it's like winning the unlucky lot.
Of well to go from twenty fourteen Amy's death to twenty twenty two investigation and then twenty twenty three reward finally being offered nine years down the track. It's it's been a long time for them.
I I just can't get my head around Peter. Can you explain to me an in a legal way again? And I'm not trying to get you hooked on the merits of the case, but can you explain to me how the two detectives who are in charge of this case first day, that night, that tragic night, takes five years for the police Internal Affairs Unit to make the
finding that they neglected their duty. That's big call. They neglected their duty as detectives five years and the only reason the Internal Affairs Unit did that was because the Coroner's office sent a letter back to the commissioner saying what the heck? Basically, so those two detectives say, there's nothing to see here. Five years later, they are found to have neglected their duty, but the police line remains
the same. It remains the same right up until twenty twenty one to the coroner's inquest, and the police are still singing the same tune, still determined that it was suicide. Are the police just looking after their own.
Well, there are two ways to look at it. That might be one, But the other is to say, well, major Crime did an investigation shortly after their attendance, and Major Crime reached the same conclusion of suicide, and therefore, from the police perspective, while they may not have been as diligent as they should have been on the night, ultimately it didn't make any difference to their outcome, and.
Yet the coronial investigation squad say otherwise.
Well, the cold case investigation that occurred later had the benefit of the biomechanical evidence that those guys didn't and that came to a slightly different conclusion. And the coroner had the benefit of all of that evidence and also came to a different conclusion.
So two independent biomechanical experts say that the evidence showed to them, yes, that Amy did not shoot herself.
What they said was that what they could see was not consistent with suicide.
In fact, they went one step further, didn't they, because they actually said that it was consistent with someone else shooting her.
They did, that was their opinion on the basis of the evidence that they had. But one of the police officers who attended the reconstruction with Professor Ackland, he gave evidence also before the coroner, and he expressed his concerns about the way in which the experiments were conducted and the difficulties in perfectly reconstructing the case. So whilst those biomechanical experts had that opinion, it's only the opinion is only as good as the evidence on which the opinion
is based. And the present case. The opinion is based on reconstructions that have inherent difficulties given two things, one the lack of a clear forensic picture from the night, and two the fact that you can never really truly test how a body reacts when it's hit with a shotgun. You can't reconstruct that.
No, exactly, But two independent experts, one from Perth, one from Sydney, both sides of the country, both come to exactly the same conclusions, and they've got no skin in the game. I agree as the word is, they're independent. But the only person who objects to that is a policeman who happens to go back to the same line, same theme, same song, as they've always been singing.
Question you might like to put to the police, speaking.
Of the police, Peter, as you know, the coroner encouraged WA police to make a formal apology to the family. Yes now, instead they received a letter of regret. How does that sit with you?
The letter of regret was I think, unfortunately a really bad idea. Perhaps it was done with good intent, but there are two things wrong with it. The first is that it referred only to regret as to a couple of particular aspects of the investigation not even being conducted properly. It didn't express any regret at all about the fact that the family may never know what truly happened on the night. And the second was that it just perpetuated
the family's feeling that the police didn't care. And that comes through in the very first line of the Acting Commissioner's letter when he expresses condolences for the loss of Amy in February twenty twenty one. Couldn't even get the date of her death right after an inquest, says it all really doesn't I've got a query with the acting Commissioner even read the letter before he signed it.
Did you have any conversation with the police about that? Did they run that past you as the lawyer?
They didn't run the draft letter pass us. They did say that they were going to issue a letter of regret, and I did caution privately the Commissioner's lawyer that they might like to get some input from a grief counselor before they did anything like that.
Jest to them quite plainly that it probably wouldn't be enough.
I suggested to them it would be a very good idea to get some input from a professional grief counselor or psychologists before sending a letter of that type, because I was worried about the impact that it would have, particularly on Nancy.
Clearly they didn't take your advice.
Doesn't appear.
So where can the family go from here? Legally? Is there a particular avenue that is available to them or do they just literally have to sit around and wait for fresh evidence to come forward.
The only way that the coronial inquest can be reopened is if there is fresh evidence. They can conduct their own inquiries to some limited extent, and to that end, they identified as an expert in the US who may be able to help. But unfortunately we're a bit hamstrung at the moment because we can't use the coronial brief or transcript to brief any experts. Were really are limited in what we can do.
Why can't you do that?
There are restrictions on the use of the brief that have been imposed by order of the coroner's office. Why well, the currenter will usually impose limitations on the use of the brief in circumstances where criminal charges may result in the future, So it's to protect the integrity of the investigation and any future prosecution.
Is that a common thing?
It's not uncommon if there's potentially criminal proceedings that might follow in the future.
I know the family have tried to access a transcript, yes, of the full coronial inquest. It's an open court, it's a public court. We all pay for it, Peter, you and I. Why haven't they been allowed to do that.
I don't know why Western Australia limits access to transcript
in that way. I can understand it, and respect to the version we got originally that was provided free of charge because the family's lawyers were acting pro bono and in circumstances where there was no payment for the transcript for a copy of it, I can understand the court saying well, no, we want it back at the end, when the family or anybody else like the media, want to get access to a copy of the transcript later and are willing to pay for it, you can do
that in any court except the coroner's court. It would appear even the Triple c put their transcripts online for free, apart from their closed sessions. So I don't know why evidence given in the open coroner's court should not be freely available.
Do other states do that, as far as.
I'm aware, Western Australia is unique in that regard.
And yet they have it on record.
I mean it's all transcribed, yes, yes, And we were given the transcript for the purposes of preparing closing submissions and it's a public concondition that we had to give it back and we weren't allowed to keep any copies.
But they're not allowed to have a copy even if they pay whatever it is, a dollar a page.
Applications to the court have been refused without any detailed reasons.
Just say, every step this family takes it, it's a tough It's a tough rode, isn't it.
Yes, yes, absolutely. At the moment, they're in the hands of the police to continue investigating with little confidence that the police actually will do anything about it unless something comes out that forces the police to investigate.
But technically there's no limit is there for the police? I mean whatever police action needs to be taken or they want to take, they can take it. Is that correct? Am I right in saying that.
Well, if the police had unlimited resources, they could throw a strikeforce team at this case and go off and seek to use any of their sophisticated investigation techniques. But of course they're balancing their investigative resources against this and many other cases.
But there's nothing to stop them doing it. It's a cold case, and they could revive it at any stage.
They could. I would expect that they won't unless there is some new development, maybe that might come out of the podcast. Maybe somebody might come forward. Maybe the reward might entice somebody to come forward.
The reward may give somebody the ability to develop a conscience.
Perhaps if they know something that will assist the police. It would be very very good if that came forward.
Do you think there are people involved in this case who do know something, don't you?
I don't know that for sure, But there are certainly some aspects of the evidence that was given before the coroner that warrant further investigation. There are some things that just didn't quite gel, some contradictions in some ways, and some incomplete things.
Speaking of incomplete, we know from the inquest that the two detectives who attended the scene that night between them, took less than one page of notes and did not formally interview the two men at the scene of the death.
That's right.
Do you find that incredible.
I find the shutting down of the scene on that night quite remarkable, particularly given the views of the three uniform officers who attended. They themselves described it in their evidence that they had a heated discussion with the detectives and eventually they were effectively ordered to shut the scene down.
And yet during the inquest, Peter, as you well know, both those detectives couldn't remember that heated argument.
That's right, there was an inconsistency between their evidence and the evidence of the three uniform officers. And the other things worth noting on that is that the three uniforms who attended gave evidence that they've never had a formal statement taken in any of the subsequent investigations.
Incredible. So the first three police men and women who were on the scene have never had a formal statement taken.
That was their evidence before the coroner.
That's Constables Dixon, Roberts and Blandford. And they all said during the inquest that they thought death was suspicious. Even the paramedic said it was a bit strange. Yes, and yet we still go back to perhaps suicide, or if you believe the police absolutely suicide.
That's the view that was formed by the officers on the night, and it's the view that was formed by the Major Crime squad when they came into it shortly afterwards, subject of course to the limitations of not having a proper forensic scene to investigate.
And no formal interviews with the two men involved.
There were formal interviews conducted by Major Crimes.
But that was days afterwards, not on the night.
Not on the night. No, and unfortunately also not without separating them immediately so that you get a clear account from each of them. Well, one would expect that proper procedure on the night would have been to interview each of them separately, and I and not what you said. There's no evidence that there was any collusion, but the clearest way to avoid any inferences at all would have been for police to investigate it properly on the night.
So again we just don't know. W Do you think the million dollar reward for information will help?
I hope it will, even if it just brings forward somebody to say, well, I think you should look at this. A million dollars there's a lot of money, particularly to people in that community.
Did you raise your eyebrows when you saw the million dollar reward on the Internet alongside the word homicide.
I didn't because I think the way it was done as being a package of I can't remember how many exactly there were then, but I think somewhere around fifty cold cases. Yes, I think they were all just lumped in together without a lot of consideration given to the terminology that was used.
It seems to be a common theme these days, so you think what that was just an oversight or no one really gave it much thoughts, They just chucked it in.
I think there was a sort of sweep up of open cases within police and given to the government as here here are all the ones that you might like to announce a reward in respect of. And I'm aware that some police internally have expressed concern about this being called a homicide.
Really so they're still worried.
Well, I've seen some documents obtained under Freedom of Information in which they've expressed concern about about it.
Peter Ward is referring to the FI application we made to WA about the internal correspondence relating to Amy's case. The documents captured include emails by senior police officers, including a detective acting inspector from the homicide squad, seemingly criticizing the fact that a million dollar reward was introduced for information into Amy's death. Referring to the article about this in the West Australian, he says in an email, I was.
Wondering if the claim that this matter is now being listed as a homicide bringing a million dollar reward is correct. The scudder gun approach to offering rewards is just ridiculous, particularly if it leads to commentaries such as this.
He seems to be referring to the criticism of WA Police for the initial quote botched investigation. In reply, the Detective Superintendent and Major Crime Squad emails back.
I saw this in today's paper. Interestingly, it wasn't homicide.
Another officer, this time an examiner from the ballistics unit, was also disgruntled, saying.
What the fuck?
Who has admitted this or is it poetic license by the West? If so, any idea what is being done about it?
So high ranking offices in WA Police still don't even acknowledge that Amy Wensley's investigation was stuffed up. These emails were dated the seventeenth and nineteenth of May twenty twenty three, respectively. Fortunately not everyone feels the same way. On the sixteenth of May, a crime Stoppers media officer following up on the new one million dollar reward says he's leaving out the part about the coroner making an open finding, instead saying.
The circumstances surrounding the death of Amy are suspicious and the matter is being investigated as a suspected homicide.
Unfortunately, he's not the one who'd be tasked to investigate it.
You probably can't answer this, but do you think police are more worried about their own reputations than the outcome for Amy's family?
I can't answer that specifically, and I really hesitate to answer it in respect of individual officers, because I think there are some officers who attended on the date, and there are some officers who were involved in the cold case investigation who really seem to have done a good job with the limitations they faced, but demonstrated good support for the family and discharged their duties to the best of their abilities. Where I'm more concerned is at an
institutional level. The police institutionally don't appear to have shown the family that they care.
Peter, You've done a lot of work over the years in the service of the public at times when you probably could have made more money in private practice. Yes, so you do have a conscience in that regard. I mean, how do you see this for Amy's family, for those behind it still having to feel as though they have to keep fighting it metaphorically headbutting those institutions to try and get some answers for a young woman who was
found dead in horrific circumstances in very suspicious way. I mean, how do you view that.
So I've done quite a bit of domestic violence related work pro bono as a sideline to my regular commercial practice, and I've done that throughout Western Australia, the NT and I've seen a lot of instances where police and corrections authorities have not kept tabs on offenders or have not properly investigated things. I think that sometimes families in the position of Amy's family need somebody to stand up for them, and within the legal profession, there's a long history of
people doing that. I'm not the only one. John Quickly is the classic example, with the work that he did to free Andrew Mallett.
Many years ago when he was a humble attorney.
He's demonstrated that he's got a heart to stand up for victims.
Well, he's now that his Attorney General, who see he's in the ultimate position of power, is the law maker, and he won't sit down and take any questions on this subject. It all becomes too hard politically, doesn't it. That's all right for John's political future, but what does it say for Amy's family.
I'm sure that Amy's family would like to hear from him or the police minister or the commissioner, but of course they can't be forced and there is still an ongoing police investigation at least in name.
That's why lawyers like yourself are so badly needed, especially in pro by no situations where people from poorer backgrounds need that help. As you rightly point out, they need people to stand up for them. They are public leaders standing up for people when they need them. And isn't this the argument we're having right now around Australia about domestic violence.
The domestic violence aspect certainly gets raised in this. There was a huge amount of evidence given before the coroner about the previous history of controlling behavior and domestic violence incidents well before the night in question. And you can't just reason that because there was a history of violence, that there must have been something that occurred on the night.
But if that violence in the past had been addressed, if as a society we had systems in place to deal with domestic violence more generally to provide refuge to women, then we've been a lot better place than Maybe Amy wouldn't have been shot, Maybe things never would have escalated to the point of homicide, suicide or accident, whichever it was.
I couldn't agree more with you. But again, you know, Amy's family and friends told the coroner repeatedly, as you've just pointed out, that there was a history there of violent acts and actions. And yet the police get up and they say, well, we check the police database. Nothing in the police data base, nothing to see here, Move away, folks, go home. Yep, there's a gulf between the reality and the officialdom, isn't there?
There is, And there is a lot more to be done on the ground level to address the causes and instances of domestic violence, not just for Amy.
Not just for Amy. As I understand it, We're not talking any sort of double jeopardy moment here. David Simmons has been formally arrested on suspicion of murder in this case twice yes, on two separate occasions. Discharged every time. So if there is any evidence that he should be charged again in that way, there's no impediment, is there none? Whatsoever? It doesn't have to be shall we say, fresh evidence
in terms of what the police already have. It can be what they already have plus plus Yes, So it's an open playing field.
Really, what you're talking about is whether the police would arrest him a third time. And the only reason why they would arrest him a third time would be because they've got something new that supplements the evidence they previously had that cast doubt on the suicide theory and it implicates David in Amy's.
Death, something that the DPP would consider would provide a complete brief in order to justify the charges.
Yes, it would provide a reasonable prospect of a jury reaching a verdict of.
Guilty, which is the beginning point for any charge.
Yes.
Yes, there has to be a reasonable prospect of a conviction before charges are proceeded with.
This is how coroner Sarah Linton concluded her findings.
I have considered all the available evidence that has been obtained in all of the police investigations and obtained through the inquest process itself, and I have concluded that there is not enough evidence for me to make a formal finding as to how Amy died. I regret that I am unable to provide all of the answers that Amy's family is seeking, but I am required to base my findings on the evidence, and there are too many unknowns
in this case. I extend my deepest condolence to Amy's family and friends who have followed this matter all the way through and put their energy and efforts into seeking the truth. They have demonstrated in their commitment to the
process their love for Amy and her daughters. I understand that this finding is unlikely to ring them closure, but I hope at least they will take some satisfaction from having brought to the light the failings of the initial investigation and ensured that all proper measures were taken to investigate Amy's death in the way it should have been from the very start. Sh Linton Coroner, nine September twenty twenty one.
Now we acknowledge not all of the evidence we've presented in this podcast was available at the time, but a lot of it was, and it's not just us who feel it was all dealt with haphazardly. Someone who is deeply concerned about the lack of action on Amy's case is wa opposition leader in the Legislative Council, Peter Collier. He's asked a lot of questions in Parliament recently. Peter, thanks very much for being part of this. My pleasure having a chat to us, trying like we are to
find the truth about Amy. I think it's incredibly important in the interest of public justice.
Is that the way you see it one hundred percent. I've spoken with Amy's family at length. The inconsistencies, the contradictions that exist around this case are profound.
Now, I don't take these things unlikely. I've been in this.
Game for twenty years and you hear a lot of innuendo, a lot of rumors, a lot of emotion from families affected, et cetera.
This one is compelling.
Having spoken with Amy's family, I don't think you need a PhD in criminology to understand that there is something within this case without a shadow of it out.
What do you think about the way the death of Amy Wensley has been treated.
I understand why the family are so aggrieved with the process, the inconsistencies from day one from the attending officers when Amy's was first found to then the attending detectivesance on the part of the authority to do anything about it. The open finding from the coroner show that there is there are many more questions and answers, a lot of questions and.
A lot more questions that we've raised through the course of this podcast so far. So one could argue, do you think that you could put together a pretty strong brief now if you really wanted.
To, if there was there the will to do so without a shadow of it out.
So if that's the case, then why is the Attorney General of Wa so reluctant to refer this case off to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Well that's the do I say, the million dollar question? Because the government have offered a million dollars for information into Amy's death. Quite frankly, in addition to that, on the Minister for Police's website it is listed Amy step There's listed as a homicide. Yet the Attorney General in the same government is reluctant to report it to the DPP. Now, how can you have those contradictions Okay, this is not a speeding fine. This is something that is profoundly significant.
A young woman lost her life. The government knows that we as a community owe it not just to her daughters, not just to her family, not just to justice, but to Amy. We owe it to Amy to get to the bottom of this. And I specifically asked in the Parliament as to why he wouldn't forward it off to the DPP, the Public prosecutor. I've pretty much got, in political terms, a single finger solute that is it's under investigation.
Well, we don't know whether it is or it isn't. Quite frankly, there is an easy avenue for this.
I know that the Attorney General is using the guys that there's no statutory requirement or no statutory avenue for him to send it to the DPP. At the same time, there is no statutory impediment to him sending it to the DPP. Quite frankly, for a government that has got on one minister's website that it's a homicide to not have the other minister responsible to actually send it off to the DPP is gob smackingly unbelievable.
Let me drill down on that. Peter so you're saying the Attorney General is using the excuse there's nothing in the Act that says he should send it to the DPP. That's correct, but you're saying, in effect, there's also nothing in the Act that prevents him from sending it to the DPP.
Without a shadow of it out, without a shadow of it out.
I mean, anyone that's got raised eyebrows with regard to Amy's death is going to have them even higher at this stage.
And also it's straightforward along the lines the Attorney General has already used to give himself a better image in the public. He has said in recent weeks and months he wants to help the victims of domestic violence. If that is true, isn't this the perfect opportunity to show that he wants to help them.
One hundred percent? You know, domestic violence is a scourge on our community. Has escalated forty four percent over the last quarter compared to the last.
Five years average.
It's a very very sad testament of whether or not we're sincere about overcoming domestic violence issues. Let's not forget Liam Amy lost her life over ten years ago. On the twenty sixth of June two thousand and forty Amy lost her life and ten years down the track it has been, in some instances a slow moving train wreck. You know, if you want to have some solace for Amy's family, but also for Amy herself, for goodness sake,
have the courage of your convictions to the government. It turn your General sends it off to the DPP and then you'll find that'll give a lot more comfort to the family.
Where is the blockage here?
Is it?
Dare I say? Is it embarrassment? Somewhere at the top?
You know, we can only speculate on that limb which cases similar cases move along. This one has really captured my imagination, captured my conviction, and that is because I
don't think Amy took her own life. I've had multiple occasions in the last twenty years, particularly over the last four years as Shadow Police Minister, to lay the boots in to the government from multiple people that have come to me with concerns over actions of the police, erections of the Attorney General or justice that's been denied.
Almost exclusively.
I have listened to them, tried to assist them, but directed them to the Triple C or to another authority. Not in this instance. I think I think it has been an injustice. I think the government quite frankly, is dragging its heels and their motives are.
Hard to fathom.
Attorney General John Quigley last week wrote to Amy's aunt, Anna Davy, claiming he couldn't help her.
Dear Miss Davy, I write to you with regards to the ongoing matter of the death of your niece, Miss Amy Wensley in twenty fourteen. I would again like to express my sincere condolences for your loss and for the difficult times you and your fair have endured. Since I understand that Miss Amy Wensley's family, including yourself, are advocating for the matter to be referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the matter to be
raised in court. I advise that as Attorney General, there is nothing in Part four of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act under the heading Relationship with Attorney General, which provides for the Attorney to refer matters to the DPP, and it specifically prohibits me, as the Attorney, from issuing directions to the DPP. In respect of a particular case.
The coroner has the authority to report a matter to the DPP if the coroner believes an indictable offense has been committed in connection with the death which the coroner investigates. WA Police can also refer a matter to the DPP for assessment and advise as to whether the available evidence establishes a prima facie case with reasonable prospects, but as Attorney General I have no role in that. I can, however, confirm that the following has taken place in relation to
Miss Wensley's death. Point one. A hearing was set down for a discretionary coronial inquest to be held in relation to Miss Wensley's death in twenty eighteen. Prior to the inquest, the former Deputy State Coroner Vicar referred the matter to the DPP. This was based on the opinion of an expert biomechanical report, which former Deputy State Coroner Vicer considered contained information to suggest an indictable offense had been committed
in relation to Miss Wensley's death. That referral to the DPP resulted in the WA Police Cold Case Homicide Squad conducting a review of the earlier police investigations into Miss Wensley's death. WA Police conducted further investigations in an attempt to obtain evidence which would establish criminality in Miss Wensley's death. Zero point four. The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of another person in Miss
Wensley's death. Point five. The DPP reviewed the materials and agreed with the determination made by WA Police and referred the matter back to the coroner's court. Point six. An inquest took place in February twenty twenty one, with Deputy State Coroner Linton conducting the inquest with a focus on whether there was any additional evidence that could be obtained that might assist in determining how Miss Wensley came to
suffer the injury that caused her death. Point seven. The current Deputy State Coroner, Linton declined to refer the matter to the DPP for further consideration, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to be satisfied that an indictable offense had been committed in relation to Miss Wensley's death. I want to commend you for your advocacy on behalf of your
niece during a difficult time. I understand that it would have been a difficult process and as a result you may wish to make contact with the offers of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime. Yours, sincerely, John Quiggly.
To say Anna was livid with this letter from mister Quiggley is an understatement. We've received legal advice which confirmed there is nothing preventing the ag from asking the DPP to review the brief again in light of the evidence that has arisen through this podcast, and to consider exercising the Director's power under Section twenty two of the DPP Act to request police to undertake specific investigations into the
new evidence. This podcast should never have been made. When I started writing it, I hadn't read all the documents, and when I spoke with Anna, she spoke like someone who had witnessed a great injustice. Passionate, angry, outraged. I came to the end I felt the exact same emotions, but also absolutely astonished that this could happen in this day and age. It's only been ten years. We reached out to Premier Roger Cook. He referred us to the
Attorney General. We'd already emailed the Attorney General asking if he'd do an interview with us and meet with Amy's family. His spokesman said this in reply.
Hello Allison, the attorney extends his condolences to Miss Wensley's family. As stated in my earlier email, this matter is or may be the subject of a police investigation now or in the future, and as such it would not be
appropriate for the attorney to comment. I also repeat what I provided earlier, being that police can refer a brief of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice and to assess whether the available evidence establishes a primer facy case with reasonable prospects, but the
attorney has no role in that process. There is nothing in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the attorney to refer matters to the ODPP, and it specifically prohibits the attorney from issuing directions to the DPP in respect of a particular case. It should also be noted that the ODPP has no investigative function regards Jordan.
Prima facie as described by Jordan here is based on the first impression. Accept it is correct until proved otherwise. Now, this case has already been referred to the ODPP due to the findings of the unbiased biomechanical experts Tim Ackland and Tom Gibson, both of whom concluded the evidence was highly consistent with Amy having been shot by so someone else, not having taken her own life. That's what triggered the
cold case investigation and of course the subsequent inquest. What we can ascertain from Jordan's email is that there's nothing stopping Attorney General John Quigley from referring it back to the ODPP, but he won't because he doesn't have to. We sought clarification as to whether this means he won't even meet with Amy's family, and we've heard nothing back.
He's just leaving it in the hands of WA police, who, after bungling Amy's investigation at the start, appear to now have absolutely no desire to rectify the situation.
Apparently so because, as you know, we spoke to Chris, who provided a significant tip to crime Stoppers about how apparently Joshua Brydon told her and others that he helped move Amy's body and they had to burn their clothes. To clarify here, he was apparently still maintaining Amy shot herself and the blood was actually as a result of going pigging but that he lost his favorite shorts as a result, which again begs the question among others, did they always burn their clothes after pigging.
Now we heard from Chris again last week. She's been scrolling through her past messages with Brydon and found one from twenty eighteen of him recalling, wait for it, finding his best mate's wife, who was like a sister to him, with her head blown off his words, which certainly adds
weight to what Chris is saying. Now. Brighton has denied ever having such a conversation and maintains to this day he was not there when Amy died, but the evidence he was is quite overwhelming, and as we've said before, his story was never verified by police. That should be one of the first things this new team, which has been formed to follow up all the tips sent to crime stoppers, should do that and to properly interrogate all the key people, both Simmons father and son, Gareth Price,
Joshua Brydon and Rachel mckinne. To date, there has never been a thorough investigation to the standard you'd expect for a possible homicide.
The truth about Amy is that it's a hidden homicide and as such much more difficult to address. This termsents all those cases that are written off a suicide or accident, usually as a result of a shoddy police investigation from the start, but sadly, once the initial decision is made, it's incredibly difficult to have it overturned, regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary. Thus reflected in this email response we had from Police Commissioner Cole Blanche's media officer.
WA Police Special Crime Squad has carriage of the investigation into Amy's death and there is a million dollar reward for information leading to the conviction of the person or persons responsible. Anyone who has information in relation to her death is encouraged to contact crime Stoppers on one eight hundred, triple three, triple zero or online at www dot Crimestopperswa dot com dot au. WA Police will never give up and is committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death.
While it appears pretty much a cut and paste from previous media releases, they do at least say that they're committed to finding those responsible for Amy's death. Contrast that with the position they put to the coroner in closing submissions in twenty twenty one that there was no one responsible other than Amy. It's a remarkable turnaround that they now publicly accept someone else is responsible. Although disappointing, the
old school establishment still seemed to be fighting this. According to the emails that we got under FOI.
The problem is WA Police hasn't been proactive about this case from the start. It just appears to be a tick and flick exercise. So I'm not sure how optimistic I can be from this response given their record to date. Initially I thought we wouldn't even reach this episode because surely if anyone from WA Police was listening, they'd looked to make the most of the publicity and turn the screws,
so to speak. But looking at that comment from the Office of the Police Commissioner, it just seems they're waiting for the heat to die down so they don't have to deal with it. If you are listening, please be aware it doesn't end here.
Yep, that's right. How we are just getting started soon soon?
You again, so soon.
This was about revealing the truth about Amy by presenting facts, showing how they were handled, and bringing to their attention new evidence that provides the foundation for this case to progress. From next week myself, Al and Tim Clark from the West Australian will engage in a weekly conversations podcast, engaging various experts to provide their opinions. Amy's family has now also launched a petition via change dot org calling for her case to be referred to the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions. You can find the details in the show's notes, but will also post a link on our Facebook and Instagram accounts. We'll also continue to seek answers from the WA Police Commissioner Cole Blanche, Attorney General John Quigley, and Premier Roger Cook about why this case continues to be ignored when there is a clear need for action. Their ongoing refusal to address the issues is a disgrace. Last question before we shall finish. I don't
know whether you're aware of this. So there's evidence from one of the women who've gone to crime stoppers, the friend of Joshua Bryden's ex partner, and she's saying that she was at his house a couple of months afterwards. He was crying and saying he remembers Amy's you know, he helped move Amy's body with Gareth christ the other his body of evidence is that he was never there.
That was ad weight, without a doubt.
And as again, just that to those constant inconsistencies that exist, and can I say it should not, with all respect to yourself and to your media colleagues, be up to.
The media to actually solve this case and get to the bottom of it. Gets the truth for the peace of mind.
Of everyone involved, including Amy's family, but also for Amy herself. Don't just rely on the police. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the Attorney General should not be referring this to the deep and that provides solace for everybody.
We'll leave you with a message from Amy's mum, Nancy, who is so grateful for all the support she's received since the podcast started and hopes you can continue to help our plight to see the truth about Amy realized by signing the petition.
To all the people around the world who have been listening and following the truth about Amy, I would like to say thank you for all the lovely messages and support. My sister Anna has been the driving force for the last ten years. She has given up life to fight for justice for Amy, and I cannot thank her enough. Amy's daughters are well loved and cared for and have grown into the most beautiful, caring and loving teenage girls.
They are doing great at school. Amy would be prayer as I am lisser.
You s so des.
Re.
Both know they jell me.
Hunt. If you knew Amy and have information, any information about her death, we'd love to hear from you. Just email us at The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot a U that's s e V E N The Truth about Amy at seven dot com dot au, or visit our website sevenews dot com dot au forward slash the Truth about Amy. You can also send us an anonymous tip at www dot the Truth about Amy
dot com. If you're on Facebook or Instagram, you can follow us to see photos and updates relevant to the case, but for legal reasons, unfortunately you won't be able to make any comments. And remember, if you like what you're hearing, don't forget to subscribe. Please rate and review our series because it really helps new listeners to find us. Presenter and executive producer Alison Sandy, Presenter and investigative journalist Liam Bartlett,
Sound design Mark Wright and producer Cassie Woodward. Graphics Jason Blandford and special thanks to Tim Clark and Brian Seymour. This is a seven News production.