00:00:01
Speaker 1: The public has had a long-held fascination with detectives. Detectives see a side of life the average person is never exposed to. I spent 34 years as a cop. For 25 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 talk to. Some of the content and language might be confronting. That's because no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged. Join me now as I take you into this world. Today, I'm speaking with Karina Berger, a solicitor turned researcher. who is now working alongside investigative journalist Hedley Thomas. Karina spends her days uncovering facts buried in some of the country's most compelling cold cases, and today she takes us behind the scenes of investigative podcasting, including Hedley's latest series, The Poisoned Wife, which raises questions about the mysterious death of 30-year-old pregnant mother Rosalind McQueen. Before we begin, an important note. Rosalind's husband, Ray McQueen... has always emphatically denied any involvement in her death. He maintained that position again when approached by The Australian for the podcast. He has not been convicted of any offence relating to Rosalind's death. Karina Berger, welcome to iCatch Killers. Thanks, Gary.
00:01:38
Speaker 2: It's great to be here.
00:01:40
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited about having a chat with you. You really hit the mark for the True Crime podcast, a former lawyer who now finds yourself working in in the true crime space as a researcher and working with the great, and they will probably blush when I say this, Hedley Thomas on some of the investigative podcasts.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a bit of a funny combination, isn't it? A lawyer turned producer on a true crime podcast.
00:02:05
Speaker 1: Well, I'm thinking fairly formidable with the skills that you would bring from your experience in the law and then working on these true crime podcasts.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: I hope so. And I think some of the skill set is definitely relevant and transferable from law into journalism and investigation work like this.
00:02:28
Speaker 1: I would suggest it sounds like a dream job to a lot of sleuths out there that like following these investigative podcasts to actually be working in that. Are you getting the satisfaction working as a, well, I'll call you an investigative journalist, a researcher. Are you getting the satisfaction working in this line of work that you did practicing law?
00:02:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really am. It's just been a great transition and I love the fact that Hedley and I are able to dive so deeply into one matter and dedicate a lot of time into that particular investigation. I've been used to sharing my time over the years as a lawyer between a lot of different cases, so it feels like a bit of a luxury to just be able to have this focus on one case.
00:03:12
Speaker 1: I would imagine there's some internal conflict within yourself about looking at it from a law perspective or looking at it from an investigative or spotlight telling the story perspective. Are you conflicted in some ways when you're looking at pieces of evidence?
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, sometimes I do feel a little bit conflicted. I think sometimes I suppose it's the journalist hat versus the lawyer hat. And I just have to sort of go a different path to the one that I might have gone down before. But Hedley's really great with that. We have a lot of discussions every day about what we're working on and how we're feeling about different issues. And he lets me raise all of those concerns and we talk through them. And, you know, sometimes they're completely legitimate. Other times I'm just being a little bit too cautious because of my background. But we do kind of laugh that sometimes it's the journalist versus the lawyer and who's going to win that debate.
00:04:08
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting we have this discussion because I've had that conflict myself because quite often when I'm now working in the media and I'm looking at an investigation, I'm looking at it from a homicide detective's perspective. And quite often I'm making notes, I'm looking at the facts, I'm reviewing it, I'm sourcing where the information came from. which I think does help down the track when you're trying to tell a story in the media. So it's not mutually exclusive to having the two skill sets put together. I would imagine that Headley appreciates the input you have from a legal perspective, it would carry some weight in the type of things that you're looking at.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think he does. I haven't done much criminal law, so it would have been handy to have had a criminal law background, but because of my coronial inquest work and just training that you get as a lawyer to be really analytical and quite critical and to ask questions. And sometimes we just see things from a different perspective, or I might think that something is an issue and he might not at first or vice versa. And so we can both bring our different skill sets and our different backgrounds into the podcast and hopefully come up with a really good product for our listeners.
00:05:23
Speaker 1: Well, a formidable pair, I suggest. I've listened to some of the episodes of The Poisoned Wife that we'll talk about in more detail that's out now. That's one of the current investigations you're working on. And I find it fascinating, but also quite frustrating hearing bits and pieces of evidence.
00:05:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really frustrating in a lot of the cases that Headley works on. You just, I mean, the benefit of hindsight can be in play, of course, but often you look at what happened at about the time of the person's disappearance, then you think, how can more not have been done at the time? Like, why was this left for so long? And of course, a delay in investigating and in gathering evidence can really prejudice potential investigations and legal proceedings down the track.
00:06:12
Speaker 1: Most definitely. And I spent a number of years, lots of reinvestigations into unsolved homicides and time in the unsolved homicide squad or unit. And I look at how the investigations were conducted. And you say with the benefit of hindsight, because I always like to put that disclaimer out there that it's easier with hindsight, but it's almost mind numbing when you look at some of the things that have been missed or not followed up at the time that are absolutely crucial. And with the passage of time with people's memories or the loss of exhibits and different things, it makes the job a lot harder.
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Exactly. It really does. There are just so many things that could often have been done better at the time, or even if they'd just been a pretty basic investigation, it could have really changed the outcome for some of these victims and their families and friends. So it's a really sad space to be working in, in many ways.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: And we're going to be talking about some of these historical cold cases and unsolved murders. You would have got a sense, I dare say, in the work that you're doing now, a sense of the impact it has on the families and relatives where situations remain unsolved and the frustration and the intergenerational trauma that can come when answers haven't been forthcoming into what happened to a loved one.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I think that's been so acute in the Bronwyn Winfield case in particular. You know, living with ambiguous loss, not knowing where Bronwyn's remains are, not knowing for sure what happened to Bronwyn. I can really hear the pain and the frustration in Bronwyn's brother Andy's voice when he speaks. He's just, it's devastating really. I feel so much for these families and I suppose Andy We were talking about the conflict between being a lawyer and a journalist before, but I think because so many of these families have literally reached the end of the road where there's nowhere else for them to go, it does allow me to put some of my legal cautiousness aside and just go for it in a way through journalism because what have these families got to lose?
00:08:22
Speaker 1: And therein lies that division between looking at it from the legal perspective and then the more emotional side of things where you're dealing with the victim's families and relatives that you can display that empathy. I think in my experience in homicide and when the process is going through the courts, all the investigations, Sometimes the families felt betrayed because no one seemed to care about their loved one in the way the language was spoken or the language used in courts and the frustration there. But from a legal perspective, you've got to be very analytical. It's about the law, what can be proved, what can't be proved, and it doesn't allow for emotion. And I think that's where there's an issue or a barrier with people understanding what the courts are all about.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: I think that's right and there's definitely more empathy in the coronial system, say, than in the criminal justice system. But again, like working in a coronial system, if you're working as a lawyer, it's not your job to be a counsellor and you still have to be cautious about how much empathy you display. But then you're also trying to work in a trauma-informed way and a victim-informed way. So it is a really difficult balance showing empathy and sympathy and understanding, but maintaining that professional boundary.
00:09:47
Speaker 1: Well, we'll talk about your time in the coroner's court, but there is that division in coroner's court. And generally, I've found dealing with the coroners, they do have an understanding of the process. the trauma that families are going through. But before we get into that and talk about some of the work that you've done with Headley, tell us a little bit about yourself, how you got into law in the first place.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: Well, I didn't actually know that I would always be a lawyer, Gary. I mean, the odds were quite high because I had lawyers in my family. My grandfather was a lawyer and so was my mum. So I had a lot of exposure to the law. But I ended up doing law more as a general degree. I thought initially I'd probably do something in foreign languages and maybe end up working for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But I pivoted into law and really enjoyed that until I came to do what's called a summer clerkship. which is when between their fourth and final year of law school, a lot of uni students try to go and work in a firm for a few months. And I did that and I just didn't enjoy it. I was in one of the big firms and I didn't really like the work and I had a bit of an identity crisis because I thought I've set myself up to do law and now I'm not sure that I want to do law anymore. What am I going to do? But I continued and I did my final year and I knew that law was broader than just working in a law firm and that it was a good degree to have and it could send you in all different directions. So I persevered and went into a policy role with the Attorney General's Department here in Canberra. That's part of the Commonwealth Public Service. And I did that for a little while, but I had a revelation one day. I'd been working with the Australian government solicitor on some copyright law issues and I'd been requesting advice and they'd been providing the advice to me. And I suddenly thought, I think I actually want to be providing this advice and not asking for it. So I decided to send off a CV and one thing led to another. And I had an interview and got into the dispute resolution or litigation area of the Australian government solicitor. And that's where I stayed for about 17 or so years was just a Really wonderful place to work. AGS, as it's known, does a lot of work for the Commonwealth government in Australia. So often if you see something in the press that relates to the Australian government, often AGS is involved. It might be behind the scenes or it might be quite publicly in a litigation matter. But there's a huge variety of work there and wonderful people, wonderful training. But for me, most of the work that they do is done in the public interest. And that was what really appealed to me. And that was how I wanted to work. I just wasn't interested in commercial law and helping people navigate contracts and make money. And I just, I would have felt uncomfortable doing that type of work. But for me, this type of work at the AGS was a really great fit and I just loved it and did all sorts of different things during my time there.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: Without identifying a specific case, an understanding of the type of cases you might be handling in the litigation field of law.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: So I started off in debt recovery initially, chasing people who weren't paying their child support and making bankruptcy applications and things like that. And then things just moved along from there. So I worked for quite a period of time in what's called civil claims. So that might be when the Commonwealth is being sued by someone who has a grievance against the Commonwealth. It could be a personal injury matter, like someone who's been injured in a detention center, or it could be someone who'd been, perhaps they had an issue against the Australian federal police or something like that. So I did a lot of that work for many years, which was wonderful. I did some work health and safety work. So investigating workplace accidents and things like that involving the Commonwealth. And then I moved into the law enforcement and national security space and did some really interesting work there for the intelligence agencies, for the AFP, that type of thing. But I really just found a niche in coronial inquest work. I just loved it. I loved the investigating work. I loved helping the Commonwealth agencies or employees who were involved navigate the coronial process. And, again, I just felt it was such a privilege to be working on those types of matters where someone has passed away, which is tragic. And sometimes it might be a Commonwealth employee who died or it might be someone who was engaging with the Commonwealth, for example, at an immigration detention centre or perhaps they were– coming into Australia on a boat from Indonesia or something like that. There was a lot of breadth to this work, a lot of variety, but I just found it such a privilege to be able to contribute to that process that was trying to determine how this person had died and what, if anything, might be able to be changed in the future to avoid a death in similar circumstances again.
00:15:07
Speaker 1: That's, I think, what a lot of people don't understand with the coronial inquest. It is about determining cause and manner of death if death has occurred. But a lot of the work is about the prevention, isn't it? So if a mistake has been made or a system hasn't been in place that's caused someone to be injured or lose their life, that on the back of the coroner's recommendations, things can change.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. It's such an important part of the coronial process.
00:15:37
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the coroner's court then. If you could just explain to people what is the role of a coroner in the work that you've done, just so people understand what the work of a coroner is, and then we'll talk in more detail about that.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the essential role of a coroner is to investigate the deaths of people or the suspected deaths of people in particular circumstances. And they have a secondary role, I suppose, which is to investigate fires as well, But the bulk of the work is investigating deaths and suspected deaths when the circumstances of the death or disappearance falls within a particular framework, which is set by legislation.
00:16:17
Speaker 1: And the period of time that you worked with the coroner or in the coroner's court or on coronial investigations, Could you give the listener an understanding about the type of emotion? Because out of all the courts that I've been involved in, the coronial court was the saddest and most emotion-filled environment. And it's quite taxing. It's just heavy. You walk away there and invariably no one feels good about anything that's been discussed in a coronial court because you're generally talking about the loss of someone's life and just trying to get answers to it. Yeah, it's a.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Very hard space to work in and also for people to be involved in. And I think a lot of people don't really have any exposure to the work of a coroner until their loved one passes away and then it can come as a big shock. But it's traumatic for everybody. And I think I've really seen that because I've worked in the Commonwealth where I've shepherded Commonwealth witnesses through coronial inquest. It's very hard on witnesses and, of course, incredibly hard on families as well. And also, because I've now worked in the court, it's really hard on those who work within the system too. It's a difficult space all around. There's no way to sugarcoat it.
00:17:39
Speaker 1: Your career, how would you describe it? The U-turn or a deviation where you've left law Were you looking at getting out of law or what was your interest that led you to working in the work that you're doing now?
00:17:55
Speaker 2: I just reached a point where I realised I'd been with the one organisation for a long time and I loved it. And so it took me probably 12 months to pluck up the courage to actually resign. And I didn't have anything in particular lined up. My husband's a barrister, so I knew that I could help him with his practice for a while. And I think things were... pretty busy at home. We've got two young kids and the barrister role is a pretty big one. And at times it's really inflexible. So we thought we might just lighten the load and try not to have these two big jobs going at once. And I did start off helping my husband with his practice and we worked well together. People laugh. They say, we just don't know how you could possibly work with your husband. But it was fine. Honestly, we got on really well. I don't think it placed too great a strain on our relationship. It was fine. But I did just have this kind of nagging thought that I wanted something that was mine and that would give me a bit more independence and I didn't really know what that was. I'd always thought about going to the coroner's court just because it was a passion of mine and a really strong interest professionally. But the coroner's court in Canberra is tiny. It's got a very small staff and I never knew whether a role would come up there. So I had that in the back of my mind. And then Hedley's Bronwyn Winfield podcast series coincided with my resignation from AGS. So I was busy listening to the podcast every Friday when the episodes dropped. And one day I just thought, I think I'd really like to help Hedley Thomas or work with Hedley Thomas if I possibly could. And I thought, I'm going to send him an email and see whether he needs any help. And I'd have to say I've never been someone that's done a lot of self-promotion. I've always had jobs where you've had to apply through a very rigid system and put in a written application, do interviews, meet before a panel, and it's always been very formal. So the idea of sending someone an email and doing a bit of self-promotion is didn't sit particularly well with me. But I thought, I just need to do this. And if he replies, that will be incredible. And if I never hear from him, then I will know that I've done this and that that door is closed. So I ended up sending Hedley a brief email one day just explaining my background and who I was and those sorts of things and just offering to help in a volunteer capacity if he ever needed a hand. And I think my timing was a little bit lucky. He was on holidays and overseas at the time, and he picked up my email and we exchanged a few emails between us. And he said he was interested and we touched base. And a few months later, we met up for lunch in Brisbane and we just seemed to click and get on really well. He's such an easy person to chat to and I think we had a similar sense of humor and it just, the lunch meeting went really well. And then he mentioned to me that he was looking to find an historical airline timetable for Bronwyn Winfield's case. And he said, I don't suppose you want to have a bit of a hunt for this timetable. And I, you know, jumped at that opportunity and just did a bit of research over the next 24 hours and managed to find this 1993 and set airline timetable that was held by a timetable association of collectors in Australia who collect timetables, who knew there was such an entity, but there is. And then it just kind of progressed from there. We just stayed in touch and sometimes Hedley would bounce ideas off me and he would get me to do a few more jobs. And then later in the year, We came up with the idea to write to the state coroner of New South Wales about Bronwyn's case and I offered to write the correspondence to the coroner that set out a lot of the factual background and a lot of the evidence and that set out the reasons why the podcast team and Bronwyn's family suspect that her remains may be located at a particular site in Sydney.
00:22:14
Speaker 1: A couple of things there with your airline and the timetable people that collect timetables. It made me think about murder investigations when you're looking for something and you find this little niche of people that are interested in playing timetables or whatever, and that's how you got the information. But it's those little things that make a difference in an investigation. That bit of information you provided there can change the landscape or direction of a whole investigation if you dig deep enough.
00:22:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it actually allowed us to work on our own timeline that we had going behind the scenes because we knew that someone had said that John Winfield had flown from Sydney to Ballina and that he'd landed when it was dark. So we knew it must have been an evening flight. And then once we had the timetable, we could look at the flights and say, well, the only flight that came when it would have been dark was is this one, unless previous flights were hours delayed or something like that. So it did help. And then we could sort of work out other timings from there.
00:23:22
Speaker 1: A little piece of information that could turn out to be crucial. What was it about the Bronwyn podcast that got your interest? You explained you're a little bit jaded from the work you were doing at the time in law. Have you always been interested in true crime? Has that been part of your passion?
00:23:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have. I've always listened to a lot of true crime podcasts, all of Headley's, of course, and then a whole lot of others as well. I just find it really intellectually stimulating and really interesting. And I think it's just important to learn from these things about what we can do better now. And I suppose probably with the coronial inquest work, it was kind of a related field. And yeah, I just found it really, really interesting. But in terms of Bronwyn's case, I just felt so sorry for her family and I just felt so sorry for Bronwyn and for her daughters and I think just all the unknowns, it just really bothered me and I thought I just would love to be able to do something to try to provide the family with some more answers. I think I'm someone who quite likes certainty and I'm not great with uncertainty and I just find that people living with this must just be horrific and And I thought any little tiny thing that I could do to help, I would just love to do that for these families.
00:24:45
Speaker 1: For those that are not familiar with Bronwyn's case, can you just give us a little brief overview of what the circumstances were surrounding her disappearance?
00:24:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Bronwyn was a married mother of two little girls. She was married to John Winfield and she lived in Lennox Head. And she and her husband, John, had been experiencing some marital problems and they'd actually separated and she'd moved out of the family home for a period. And John was a bricklayer and he'd been down in Sydney working. And to cut a long story short, Bronwyn got some legal advice and decided that she was going to move back into the family home and she did this on a particular day. And as we understand it, John found out about her move back into the family home and he decided to return from Sydney where he was working to Lennox Head. And so he came back one evening and apparently went to the house and had a bit of an argument with Bronwyn. And John's version of events is that Bronwyn went into the main bedroom and made a phone call and then left a short time later. And he says he doesn't know who she left with or where she went, but she left in a car and she was never seen or heard from ever again. And he did say that she'd gone to take a break, that she needed a break from her children, but that's something that her family just doesn't buy at all. And so Bronwyn has been a very long-term missing person and her husband, John, did some things immediately after her disappearance that seemed quite odd. He packed up the car more or less immediately or within a few hours of her departing the house and left the family home in a complete mess with food on plates, washing and washing machines. It had obviously been a very quick departure and he drove through the night all the way to Sydney with his daughters and with the family dog apparently. And he apparently told some people that he needed to get back very quickly because there was going to be a concrete pour on a building site where he was working that he needed to attend. But our understanding is that in fact, he did not need to be at the building site for the concrete pour and he wasn't expected to be there. And so that, begs the question, why did he travel to Sydney so quickly with the girls?
00:27:26
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, interesting overview. I'm sitting here and I've got my homicide hat on and I'm thinking warning concerns the whole way through. I suppose that's the difference between looking at it from a legal aspect, from your time as a solicitor or a lawyer, and then looking at it from researching an investigation into what's happened. So with this investigation, you're listening to this and you think, I wouldn't mind helping. And you reach out to Hedley, and Hedley's not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. You're going to do some work for him, looking at things from a legal perspective into now researching. I would imagine you start to feel the type of things that I would feel or others feel when we're investigating crimes. You're desperate to get that breakthrough Did you find it rewarding looking for that small piece of information? We're talking about tragic cases here, so I'm choosing my words carefully. There is a fascination about trying to solve a mystery. And I found that I was driven by that as a homicide detective with the greatest respect to the victims and the nature of the crime that you're investigating. But it was almost intoxicating that you were looking for that breakthrough, that small piece of evidence that might tip it in your favour and give answers for the families.
00:28:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I feel the same, perhaps not quite as strongly. I think I'm always quite cautious. I know how all these cases are. I know that they haven't been solved or prosecuted before. So I always have that. I think I probably use that knowledge to kind of moderate my own expectations a bit. And, you know, it also helps when you're working with families to be able to say, look, it is going to take something pretty extraordinary here to turn things around. But I love the hunt for the information, but also anything more that you can tell a family that's living with this type of loss that's living without answers, I think is beneficial. And that is what happens when you have these long form podcast investigations. Like I said earlier, you have the time, the luxury to look into the case with a fine tooth comb. You've got two fresh sets of eyes looking at it now with me and Hedley working together. We can dig around and look for things. But also because of the reach of these podcasts, people come forward who haven't spoken to police before or perhaps they have spoken to police before but their message hasn't been well received or they've been fobbed off or something like that. So you just never know what's going to happen and how things will play out. So I suppose there I do quite like that uncertainty. I like the possibility that a podcast can open up.
00:30:19
Speaker 1: On the issue of making sure everything has been done, My observation of victims' families where someone has disappeared or died in suspicious circumstances when they don't have answers, I think people can accept if everything that can be done was done, but there's another level of trauma that's added to families when they think the matter hasn't been investigated properly or things that could have been done weren't done. What's your take on that? Because I Even if you don't solve the case, I think you bring some, I won't say closure because people don't get closure, but some comfort that the disappearance or the murder or suspected murder of their loved one has been fully investigated. Would you agree what I'm saying there?
00:31:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely. I think the missed opportunities are just really tragic and sometimes they can't be addressed through a later investigation at all. It is what it is. But anything extra that we can do to provide information more answers. Again, I don't love the word closure either because I imagine there is no closure for most of these families. But if you think of it as a jigsaw puzzle and you're just putting more and more pieces into the puzzle and providing people with a bigger understanding of what might have happened to their loved one, I think that can be helpful.
00:31:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. Hedley, and I think where people first became aware of the work that he was doing on the teacher's pet, which resulted in prosecution of a person involved in the the murder. My observation of that, because you talked about the public and people coming forward, we needed scrutiny on an investigation like that. And you look back and it seems everyone suspected the person had been involved in the murder, but there wasn't enough to get the matter to court. And then the teacher's pet comes up and the amount of listeners that that podcast reached was quite extraordinary. but people were coming forward with information, I think that's a benefit there. But also, and I can say this and the police might argue against it, but I was working in homicide at the time, I know what was going on, that that scrutiny that the public was putting on the teacher's pet investigation and the type of information that was uncovered, it almost forced the police to have a look at it and re-examine the investigation. And we know the results it got from there. So I think that type of scrutiny is good. You've come from a legal background. You're now working in the media. What's your take on scrutiny?
00:32:59
Speaker 2: I think scrutiny is hugely important because the system doesn't always get it right. And particularly in these circumstantial cases, it's so interesting because you can get a sense that there might be enough there to launch a prosecution, but often historically that hasn't been done. So if you can add some more pieces of the puzzle into the mix, then maybe that might tip the scales in favour of prosecuting. Or perhaps all these years later, the prosecution service might have changed their thoughts about these types of matters. Because I have noticed that there does now seem to be more of an appetite to prosecute circumstantial cases that weren't prosecuted in the 80s and the 90s. So maybe there's been slight change of thinking or a different application of the prosecution policies, I'm not quite sure. But I think that podcasts and true crime podcasts and the media more generally can play a role in exerting pressure on agencies to have another look at cases. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Some of these agencies would probably disagree and say that it creates a lot of work for them. But you can find things that have been missed and You know, people do come forward and we've seen that a lot in the Bronwyn podcast and already in our new podcast relating to Rosalind McQueen, people have come forward who did not speak to police back in 1986 before the criminal trial was brought to an end.
00:34:28
Speaker 1: Well, I think scrutiny is a necessary thing on investigations because my observation of unsolved homicides is And I'm talking New South Wales because that was the area in which I worked. But without the scrutiny, it was very easy for an investigation to be put away. And, you know, it might have been a thorough investigation to start with. But unless the families are actually campaigning to have it reopened, once the lid's shut on the brief of evidence, it takes, you know, a lot to get it opened up and start working on it again. And I think I'd like to say that investigative standards of what we've got now and forensic evidence that we've got available that we didn't have years ago, and there's been some great results in unsolved homicides in New South Wales, and I think across the country as well, where the simple thing of DNA matching to something that they didn't have before. I think we've got to look at the aspect of it that a lot of these matters are solvable. It just needs the effort and the attention put on them. So When the scrutiny comes through the form of the media, it does have an impact. It has an impact on the politicians, which tend to flow down and impact on the police and things start to get done.
00:35:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that can definitely be the case. And it's really important. I mean, obviously there are reviews of unsolved cases every so often. So I do firmly believe that the more people who look at a case, the more perspectives there can be, the more things that can potentially be realised, like different people focus on different things because brains all work differently. So I think that the more attention a case can get, the better. And particularly in circumstances where a family is told, you know, case closed, it's effectively shelved, nothing more is going to happen unless there's some breakthrough. Well, how are you going to have a breakthrough if, you know, unless someone just comes forward out of the goodness of their heart all these years later, which can happen. But I think that having the case out there in the open being publicly discussed and debated and having that publicity can really cause people to come forward and think, oh, gosh, I actually have this little piece of information that I never thought was significant, but it might actually be really significant.
00:36:51
Speaker 1: How's your dealings with families of these mysteries or suspicious deaths? In your dealing with the families and Headley's dealing with the families, are they appreciative of the fact that their loved one's mother is getting the scrutiny?
00:37:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're so appreciative because I think for a lot of the families, they didn't really have anywhere else to go. They may have had a coronial inquest. Some of them have had criminal proceedings as well. Many haven't. But they're grateful for the attention that can be brought to their loved one's case and grateful for the assistance and, you know, being part of the media, we can request materials and information that maybe a family might not necessarily be able to access. And we just can have that reach that families just couldn't achieve on their own, even if they have a Facebook page set up for their loved one. Yeah, overwhelmingly, it's just a lot of gratitude and we work quite collaboratively with families, of course, but we still maintain our independence and Hedley's very clear on letting families know right from the outset that it is our investigation and it's our podcast and we have to tell the story in a way that we consider appropriate and that that can mean that the good, the bad and the ugly might all come out within the podcast. We don't kind of cherry pick issues and say, oh, okay, well, we won't go there because that might cause a rift in the family. There's none of that. And families understand that and they agree to those conditions because they just really want answers and progress.
00:38:37
Speaker 1: That's important that you inform the family of that. I've had post-police career and I know a lot of other detectives that have left that had expertise in homicide matters. quite often get reached out to by families who have concerns that the murder or suspected murder of their loved one wasn't properly investigated. Suicides are a potential where matters have been written off as suicide in the families of the belief that, no, there was something more sinister. It is difficult dealing with families. Sometimes I'm asked to review an investigation to have a look at how the police have done the investigation. I say to the families up front that I'll have a look at it and I'll offer you my opinion. I mightn't be right. It's my opinion based on my experience. But if I think the police have done everything that could be done, I will tell you. Or if I think there's further work that could be done, I'll also tell you. Sometimes that comes back to bite me. Like you're dealing with emotions, you're dealing with families, and I understand that it's trauma at its worst level. Have you encountered that in your work that you're doing with Hedley where families are not happy with what you've uncovered?
00:39:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've definitely encountered it at the coroner's court as well and also working with Hedley. I think particularly in suicide cases or in cases that may have been a suicide, it's very hard for families. I think sometimes they just find it so hard to accept the possibility that their loved one may have committed suicide. And that can really lead to very strong emotions and perhaps a bit of a blinkered position on the case. So trying to sort of explain to other people that other possibilities might be open other than, say, it being a homicide or that someone's met with foul play or something is really tricky and has to be done really delicately. And I mean, Hedley does get approached by a lot of families who want him to take on their cases. And sometimes we do have to knock them back for a range of reasons. And, you know, this scenario that we're talking about can be one of them where, particularly where, say, a coroner has found that the person committed suicide and say where there has been a very thorough investigation and it does look like things were looked at really well. It's It's hard for us to take on a case in those circumstances and those conversations with those families are really tough.
00:41:23
Speaker 1: How do you select or come to select investigations you think are worthwhile? There'd have to be initial cursory look at it and delve into what information is there. Is there anything that you look for that, okay, this is... matter should be further investigated or we should put the spotlight on this case? What are you guys looking for when you're choosing a subject matter?
00:41:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're looking at cases pretty holistically, actually. Like we need sort of a few factors to be met. We really need a cooperative family. Obviously, that's a big factor for us. But we need access to documents, to contemporaneous materials from the times. So ideally we need a coroner's file or findings or witness statements, a police brief, something like that. And then we just read through those materials really carefully and critically. And then Hedley and I end up having a chat about what we both think about the case. And we normally land in the same spot as to whether it's a yes or a no or a maybe. It just kind of becomes quite clear. But... We like to choose cases where we think that we can make a difference. It's quite helpful if there's been a strong coroner's finding to back up any suspicions that we may have about the case. That can be a signal to us that the case might really have some legs to it. But yeah, it's really just a matter of reviewing the materials, talking to the family. We often ask the family, well, what's your theory? What do you think happened here? And we can push them quite a bit. Why do you say that? And we'll challenge them.
00:43:07
Speaker 1: What about this?
00:43:08
Speaker 2: What about that? And we just kind of pull all of that together and then make a call about whether the case is an appropriate one to take on. And at this stage, we still do want to focus on missing and murdered Australian women. We are asked to look into other cases from other countries. And of course, the men, there's plenty of men who have horrible things happen to them too, but we've just decided that the focus on the women is where we'd like to stay for now.
00:43:38
Speaker 1: Well, certainly with the teacher's pet and what you've outlined about Bronwyn and then the poisoned wife, there seems to be a pattern there of what's happened. So I understand you're looking for that type of investigation. A lot of analytical work would have to go into the process. When you say you're reviewing coronial briefs, they can be quite extensive. And so a lot of time would go into it. Working in unsolved homicide, the first thing that we would do would review if we're looking at a ideally have an analyst attached that can identify, help with sorting out the sheer volume of information. Do you sometimes get overwhelmed with what you're looking at?
00:44:30
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it can be overwhelming. You can just feel like, oh, there's so much to this case. How will I ever get my head across it? But you do. I just work through it methodically.
00:44:40
Speaker 1: I take notes.
00:44:41
Speaker 2: I write down ideas. Hedley does the same. Sometimes we divide and conquer. So I might tackle a certain group of witnesses or a particular issue and he might take on another and then we kind of combine our collective thinking. So, no, I think because I was also used to dealing with a lot of information previously as a lawyer and, you know, briefs of evidence and that sort of thing, I don't find that side of it too tricky.
00:45:08
Speaker 1: Right. That's interesting you should say that because I know when I'm looking at briefs of evidence and sometimes– It'd be dumped on me and, oh, can you get back to it? But I don't think people have a full understanding to go through a brief of evidence that you need to if you're looking for evidence or critical lines of inquiry, the detail that you've got to go through.
00:45:33
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I suppose in some of these very old cases, you have information and briefs and things available to you, but they're probably far more minimal than what might arise in a more modern day case. So, you know, looking at something from 1986 or 1993 might be really different to a potential murder in 2010. So maybe I should just bite my tongue and wait until we do some more modern cases and then I might be saying, yeah, I feel completely overwhelmed, Gary.
00:46:04
Speaker 1: No, I wouldn't expect you would be overwhelmed, but I just wanted to emphasise to people that understand the amount of work that goes into it. All right. Working with Hedley, what surprised you about him? The persona he comes across very calm and considered on the podcast. I'm not suggesting he's not calm and considered. He's a character. I know Hedley. We've had him on the podcast. He has a knack, I would suggest, of making people at ease. He's a good communicator, and I think that carries through in the way he does the does the podcast. What have you found working with Hedley's like? And we can edit this if you're worried about jeopardising your career path.
00:46:45
Speaker 2: No, no, no. No, you summed it up pretty well. I mean, I think with Hedley, what you see or what you hear is actually just what you get. He's been so supportive of me and my involvement. I mean, I didn't quite know how the dynamic would work or what I would be doing. And, you know, we've both had to find our feet but he's really he's been really encouraging of input and ideas and we have these robust discussions where I can just you know say I don't buy that or I don't like that approach and he'll do the same to me so it's a very um like a direct frank um vibe that we've that we've got going between us but yeah he he doesn't sort of dismiss ideas and theories he's um Yeah, I've really appreciated the way that he's let me become involved in these matters because, of course, he's done many investigations himself over many years and I wondered if he would find it hard having someone else sort of getting on in there too. But I think it's working pretty well and together the combination of the two different brains and the two different skill sets is quite a good one.
00:47:59
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:48:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, hopefully, you know, listeners will think that too and think that we're both bringing different things to the mix.
00:48:06
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's important to have that open mind and listen to other people's opinions. I know the best people I've worked under in homicide and I tried to carry that through. We had a lot of briefings, a lot of frank discussions. It's all out on the table. Everyone can contribute and different ideas, different perspectives. And it does help cut through an investigation that prevents that tunnel vision that sometimes can lead you down the wrong path. Getting a different perspective on matters is a good idea.
00:48:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, definitely. And I've really learned, I think Hedley works through doing a lot of talking. Like my husband said, I think Hedley's one of those people who processes his ideas through talking because we spend so much time on the phone. But it just works well that way. We sort of update one another on what we're doing, catch up on little tidbits of information. Yeah, it's just, I mean, we're not in the same city, so we have to, you know, work that way. We can't get into an office together. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It's just a lot of time spent on the phone going through everything.
00:49:14
Speaker 1: But that's interesting, your husband's observation of the communication through talking. Because when you are getting into the nitty-gritty of an investigation, you can be having a conversation that goes for half an hour and then at one point in time, that snippet of information that's just dawned on everyone or the realisation what we're dealing with here comes across.
00:49:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, it It's amazing when you sort of, like you said, you have that realisation, you've been talking for a while and then all of a sudden the penny drops and you're like, oh, hang on a minute, like maybe there's a line of inquiry or has that been missed? Yeah, those moments are pretty special.
00:49:51
Speaker 1: Well, I reckon you've found, especially people listening to this type of podcast that see themselves as a sleuth, private investigator of sorts, you sound like you've found your dream job. an interest in true crime. You've got your qualifications as a solicitor. And here you are working on these investigations at everyone. And they're fascinating investigations. People want to find answers.
00:50:17
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a pretty great role. I still have to pinch myself sometimes. And to remember that I'm getting actually paid to do this just seems a bit extraordinary to me.
00:50:27
Speaker 1: Well, good on you. We might take a break here. When we get back, I want to delve more into the current investigation you're working on and one that's been released in a podcast, The Poisoned Wife. And I found that you can't make this stuff up, that that started with a suitcase, a locked suitcase of documents being delivered to Hedley, which I thought, what a great way to start an investigation. Yeah.
00:50:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a pretty incredible origin story for that matter. And in fact, Chris Dawson had just been convicted of his wife, Lynn Sims' murder, I think five weeks before the suitcase arrived at the Australian's office in Brisbane out of the blue. So it must have been a pretty incredible time for Hedley.
00:51:12
Speaker 1: It was timely. Well, we'll unpack that suitcase and talk about that investigation. Also talk about the type of relationship you guys have with investigators, police, and also get your thoughts on where there's so much scrutiny through the media, whether it prevents people having a trial. Because I know some people in the legal fraternity, your old mob, will be going, this is unfair. We can't have a fair trial because of the exposure in the media. So we talk through a few issues in relation to that as well when we get back.
00:51:49
Speaker 2: Okay, sounds good. Thanks, Gary.
00:51:51
Speaker 1: Cheers.
Speaker 1: The public has had a long-held fascination with detectives. Detectives see a side of life the average person is never exposed to. I spent 34 years as a cop. For 25 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 talk to. Some of the content and language might be confronting. That's because no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged. Join me now as I take you into this world. Today, I'm speaking with Karina Berger, a solicitor turned researcher. who is now working alongside investigative journalist Hedley Thomas. Karina spends her days uncovering facts buried in some of the country's most compelling cold cases, and today she takes us behind the scenes of investigative podcasting, including Hedley's latest series, The Poisoned Wife, which raises questions about the mysterious death of 30-year-old pregnant mother Rosalind McQueen. Before we begin, an important note. Rosalind's husband, Ray McQueen... has always emphatically denied any involvement in her death. He maintained that position again when approached by The Australian for the podcast. He has not been convicted of any offence relating to Rosalind's death. Karina Berger, welcome to iCatch Killers. Thanks, Gary.
00:01:38
Speaker 2: It's great to be here.
00:01:40
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited about having a chat with you. You really hit the mark for the True Crime podcast, a former lawyer who now finds yourself working in in the true crime space as a researcher and working with the great, and they will probably blush when I say this, Hedley Thomas on some of the investigative podcasts.
00:02:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a bit of a funny combination, isn't it? A lawyer turned producer on a true crime podcast.
00:02:05
Speaker 1: Well, I'm thinking fairly formidable with the skills that you would bring from your experience in the law and then working on these true crime podcasts.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: I hope so. And I think some of the skill set is definitely relevant and transferable from law into journalism and investigation work like this.
00:02:28
Speaker 1: I would suggest it sounds like a dream job to a lot of sleuths out there that like following these investigative podcasts to actually be working in that. Are you getting the satisfaction working as a, well, I'll call you an investigative journalist, a researcher. Are you getting the satisfaction working in this line of work that you did practicing law?
00:02:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really am. It's just been a great transition and I love the fact that Hedley and I are able to dive so deeply into one matter and dedicate a lot of time into that particular investigation. I've been used to sharing my time over the years as a lawyer between a lot of different cases, so it feels like a bit of a luxury to just be able to have this focus on one case.
00:03:12
Speaker 1: I would imagine there's some internal conflict within yourself about looking at it from a law perspective or looking at it from an investigative or spotlight telling the story perspective. Are you conflicted in some ways when you're looking at pieces of evidence?
00:03:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, sometimes I do feel a little bit conflicted. I think sometimes I suppose it's the journalist hat versus the lawyer hat. And I just have to sort of go a different path to the one that I might have gone down before. But Hedley's really great with that. We have a lot of discussions every day about what we're working on and how we're feeling about different issues. And he lets me raise all of those concerns and we talk through them. And, you know, sometimes they're completely legitimate. Other times I'm just being a little bit too cautious because of my background. But we do kind of laugh that sometimes it's the journalist versus the lawyer and who's going to win that debate.
00:04:08
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting we have this discussion because I've had that conflict myself because quite often when I'm now working in the media and I'm looking at an investigation, I'm looking at it from a homicide detective's perspective. And quite often I'm making notes, I'm looking at the facts, I'm reviewing it, I'm sourcing where the information came from. which I think does help down the track when you're trying to tell a story in the media. So it's not mutually exclusive to having the two skill sets put together. I would imagine that Headley appreciates the input you have from a legal perspective, it would carry some weight in the type of things that you're looking at.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think he does. I haven't done much criminal law, so it would have been handy to have had a criminal law background, but because of my coronial inquest work and just training that you get as a lawyer to be really analytical and quite critical and to ask questions. And sometimes we just see things from a different perspective, or I might think that something is an issue and he might not at first or vice versa. And so we can both bring our different skill sets and our different backgrounds into the podcast and hopefully come up with a really good product for our listeners.
00:05:23
Speaker 1: Well, a formidable pair, I suggest. I've listened to some of the episodes of The Poisoned Wife that we'll talk about in more detail that's out now. That's one of the current investigations you're working on. And I find it fascinating, but also quite frustrating hearing bits and pieces of evidence.
00:05:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really frustrating in a lot of the cases that Headley works on. You just, I mean, the benefit of hindsight can be in play, of course, but often you look at what happened at about the time of the person's disappearance, then you think, how can more not have been done at the time? Like, why was this left for so long? And of course, a delay in investigating and in gathering evidence can really prejudice potential investigations and legal proceedings down the track.
00:06:12
Speaker 1: Most definitely. And I spent a number of years, lots of reinvestigations into unsolved homicides and time in the unsolved homicide squad or unit. And I look at how the investigations were conducted. And you say with the benefit of hindsight, because I always like to put that disclaimer out there that it's easier with hindsight, but it's almost mind numbing when you look at some of the things that have been missed or not followed up at the time that are absolutely crucial. And with the passage of time with people's memories or the loss of exhibits and different things, it makes the job a lot harder.
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Exactly. It really does. There are just so many things that could often have been done better at the time, or even if they'd just been a pretty basic investigation, it could have really changed the outcome for some of these victims and their families and friends. So it's a really sad space to be working in, in many ways.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: And we're going to be talking about some of these historical cold cases and unsolved murders. You would have got a sense, I dare say, in the work that you're doing now, a sense of the impact it has on the families and relatives where situations remain unsolved and the frustration and the intergenerational trauma that can come when answers haven't been forthcoming into what happened to a loved one.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I think that's been so acute in the Bronwyn Winfield case in particular. You know, living with ambiguous loss, not knowing where Bronwyn's remains are, not knowing for sure what happened to Bronwyn. I can really hear the pain and the frustration in Bronwyn's brother Andy's voice when he speaks. He's just, it's devastating really. I feel so much for these families and I suppose Andy We were talking about the conflict between being a lawyer and a journalist before, but I think because so many of these families have literally reached the end of the road where there's nowhere else for them to go, it does allow me to put some of my legal cautiousness aside and just go for it in a way through journalism because what have these families got to lose?
00:08:22
Speaker 1: And therein lies that division between looking at it from the legal perspective and then the more emotional side of things where you're dealing with the victim's families and relatives that you can display that empathy. I think in my experience in homicide and when the process is going through the courts, all the investigations, Sometimes the families felt betrayed because no one seemed to care about their loved one in the way the language was spoken or the language used in courts and the frustration there. But from a legal perspective, you've got to be very analytical. It's about the law, what can be proved, what can't be proved, and it doesn't allow for emotion. And I think that's where there's an issue or a barrier with people understanding what the courts are all about.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: I think that's right and there's definitely more empathy in the coronial system, say, than in the criminal justice system. But again, like working in a coronial system, if you're working as a lawyer, it's not your job to be a counsellor and you still have to be cautious about how much empathy you display. But then you're also trying to work in a trauma-informed way and a victim-informed way. So it is a really difficult balance showing empathy and sympathy and understanding, but maintaining that professional boundary.
00:09:47
Speaker 1: Well, we'll talk about your time in the coroner's court, but there is that division in coroner's court. And generally, I've found dealing with the coroners, they do have an understanding of the process. the trauma that families are going through. But before we get into that and talk about some of the work that you've done with Headley, tell us a little bit about yourself, how you got into law in the first place.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: Well, I didn't actually know that I would always be a lawyer, Gary. I mean, the odds were quite high because I had lawyers in my family. My grandfather was a lawyer and so was my mum. So I had a lot of exposure to the law. But I ended up doing law more as a general degree. I thought initially I'd probably do something in foreign languages and maybe end up working for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But I pivoted into law and really enjoyed that until I came to do what's called a summer clerkship. which is when between their fourth and final year of law school, a lot of uni students try to go and work in a firm for a few months. And I did that and I just didn't enjoy it. I was in one of the big firms and I didn't really like the work and I had a bit of an identity crisis because I thought I've set myself up to do law and now I'm not sure that I want to do law anymore. What am I going to do? But I continued and I did my final year and I knew that law was broader than just working in a law firm and that it was a good degree to have and it could send you in all different directions. So I persevered and went into a policy role with the Attorney General's Department here in Canberra. That's part of the Commonwealth Public Service. And I did that for a little while, but I had a revelation one day. I'd been working with the Australian government solicitor on some copyright law issues and I'd been requesting advice and they'd been providing the advice to me. And I suddenly thought, I think I actually want to be providing this advice and not asking for it. So I decided to send off a CV and one thing led to another. And I had an interview and got into the dispute resolution or litigation area of the Australian government solicitor. And that's where I stayed for about 17 or so years was just a Really wonderful place to work. AGS, as it's known, does a lot of work for the Commonwealth government in Australia. So often if you see something in the press that relates to the Australian government, often AGS is involved. It might be behind the scenes or it might be quite publicly in a litigation matter. But there's a huge variety of work there and wonderful people, wonderful training. But for me, most of the work that they do is done in the public interest. And that was what really appealed to me. And that was how I wanted to work. I just wasn't interested in commercial law and helping people navigate contracts and make money. And I just, I would have felt uncomfortable doing that type of work. But for me, this type of work at the AGS was a really great fit and I just loved it and did all sorts of different things during my time there.
00:12:56
Speaker 1: Without identifying a specific case, an understanding of the type of cases you might be handling in the litigation field of law.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: So I started off in debt recovery initially, chasing people who weren't paying their child support and making bankruptcy applications and things like that. And then things just moved along from there. So I worked for quite a period of time in what's called civil claims. So that might be when the Commonwealth is being sued by someone who has a grievance against the Commonwealth. It could be a personal injury matter, like someone who's been injured in a detention center, or it could be someone who'd been, perhaps they had an issue against the Australian federal police or something like that. So I did a lot of that work for many years, which was wonderful. I did some work health and safety work. So investigating workplace accidents and things like that involving the Commonwealth. And then I moved into the law enforcement and national security space and did some really interesting work there for the intelligence agencies, for the AFP, that type of thing. But I really just found a niche in coronial inquest work. I just loved it. I loved the investigating work. I loved helping the Commonwealth agencies or employees who were involved navigate the coronial process. And, again, I just felt it was such a privilege to be working on those types of matters where someone has passed away, which is tragic. And sometimes it might be a Commonwealth employee who died or it might be someone who was engaging with the Commonwealth, for example, at an immigration detention centre or perhaps they were– coming into Australia on a boat from Indonesia or something like that. There was a lot of breadth to this work, a lot of variety, but I just found it such a privilege to be able to contribute to that process that was trying to determine how this person had died and what, if anything, might be able to be changed in the future to avoid a death in similar circumstances again.
00:15:07
Speaker 1: That's, I think, what a lot of people don't understand with the coronial inquest. It is about determining cause and manner of death if death has occurred. But a lot of the work is about the prevention, isn't it? So if a mistake has been made or a system hasn't been in place that's caused someone to be injured or lose their life, that on the back of the coroner's recommendations, things can change.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. It's such an important part of the coronial process.
00:15:37
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the coroner's court then. If you could just explain to people what is the role of a coroner in the work that you've done, just so people understand what the work of a coroner is, and then we'll talk in more detail about that.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the essential role of a coroner is to investigate the deaths of people or the suspected deaths of people in particular circumstances. And they have a secondary role, I suppose, which is to investigate fires as well, But the bulk of the work is investigating deaths and suspected deaths when the circumstances of the death or disappearance falls within a particular framework, which is set by legislation.
00:16:17
Speaker 1: And the period of time that you worked with the coroner or in the coroner's court or on coronial investigations, Could you give the listener an understanding about the type of emotion? Because out of all the courts that I've been involved in, the coronial court was the saddest and most emotion-filled environment. And it's quite taxing. It's just heavy. You walk away there and invariably no one feels good about anything that's been discussed in a coronial court because you're generally talking about the loss of someone's life and just trying to get answers to it. Yeah, it's a.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Very hard space to work in and also for people to be involved in. And I think a lot of people don't really have any exposure to the work of a coroner until their loved one passes away and then it can come as a big shock. But it's traumatic for everybody. And I think I've really seen that because I've worked in the Commonwealth where I've shepherded Commonwealth witnesses through coronial inquest. It's very hard on witnesses and, of course, incredibly hard on families as well. And also, because I've now worked in the court, it's really hard on those who work within the system too. It's a difficult space all around. There's no way to sugarcoat it.
00:17:39
Speaker 1: Your career, how would you describe it? The U-turn or a deviation where you've left law Were you looking at getting out of law or what was your interest that led you to working in the work that you're doing now?
00:17:55
Speaker 2: I just reached a point where I realised I'd been with the one organisation for a long time and I loved it. And so it took me probably 12 months to pluck up the courage to actually resign. And I didn't have anything in particular lined up. My husband's a barrister, so I knew that I could help him with his practice for a while. And I think things were... pretty busy at home. We've got two young kids and the barrister role is a pretty big one. And at times it's really inflexible. So we thought we might just lighten the load and try not to have these two big jobs going at once. And I did start off helping my husband with his practice and we worked well together. People laugh. They say, we just don't know how you could possibly work with your husband. But it was fine. Honestly, we got on really well. I don't think it placed too great a strain on our relationship. It was fine. But I did just have this kind of nagging thought that I wanted something that was mine and that would give me a bit more independence and I didn't really know what that was. I'd always thought about going to the coroner's court just because it was a passion of mine and a really strong interest professionally. But the coroner's court in Canberra is tiny. It's got a very small staff and I never knew whether a role would come up there. So I had that in the back of my mind. And then Hedley's Bronwyn Winfield podcast series coincided with my resignation from AGS. So I was busy listening to the podcast every Friday when the episodes dropped. And one day I just thought, I think I'd really like to help Hedley Thomas or work with Hedley Thomas if I possibly could. And I thought, I'm going to send him an email and see whether he needs any help. And I'd have to say I've never been someone that's done a lot of self-promotion. I've always had jobs where you've had to apply through a very rigid system and put in a written application, do interviews, meet before a panel, and it's always been very formal. So the idea of sending someone an email and doing a bit of self-promotion is didn't sit particularly well with me. But I thought, I just need to do this. And if he replies, that will be incredible. And if I never hear from him, then I will know that I've done this and that that door is closed. So I ended up sending Hedley a brief email one day just explaining my background and who I was and those sorts of things and just offering to help in a volunteer capacity if he ever needed a hand. And I think my timing was a little bit lucky. He was on holidays and overseas at the time, and he picked up my email and we exchanged a few emails between us. And he said he was interested and we touched base. And a few months later, we met up for lunch in Brisbane and we just seemed to click and get on really well. He's such an easy person to chat to and I think we had a similar sense of humor and it just, the lunch meeting went really well. And then he mentioned to me that he was looking to find an historical airline timetable for Bronwyn Winfield's case. And he said, I don't suppose you want to have a bit of a hunt for this timetable. And I, you know, jumped at that opportunity and just did a bit of research over the next 24 hours and managed to find this 1993 and set airline timetable that was held by a timetable association of collectors in Australia who collect timetables, who knew there was such an entity, but there is. And then it just kind of progressed from there. We just stayed in touch and sometimes Hedley would bounce ideas off me and he would get me to do a few more jobs. And then later in the year, We came up with the idea to write to the state coroner of New South Wales about Bronwyn's case and I offered to write the correspondence to the coroner that set out a lot of the factual background and a lot of the evidence and that set out the reasons why the podcast team and Bronwyn's family suspect that her remains may be located at a particular site in Sydney.
00:22:14
Speaker 1: A couple of things there with your airline and the timetable people that collect timetables. It made me think about murder investigations when you're looking for something and you find this little niche of people that are interested in playing timetables or whatever, and that's how you got the information. But it's those little things that make a difference in an investigation. That bit of information you provided there can change the landscape or direction of a whole investigation if you dig deep enough.
00:22:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it actually allowed us to work on our own timeline that we had going behind the scenes because we knew that someone had said that John Winfield had flown from Sydney to Ballina and that he'd landed when it was dark. So we knew it must have been an evening flight. And then once we had the timetable, we could look at the flights and say, well, the only flight that came when it would have been dark was is this one, unless previous flights were hours delayed or something like that. So it did help. And then we could sort of work out other timings from there.
00:23:22
Speaker 1: A little piece of information that could turn out to be crucial. What was it about the Bronwyn podcast that got your interest? You explained you're a little bit jaded from the work you were doing at the time in law. Have you always been interested in true crime? Has that been part of your passion?
00:23:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have. I've always listened to a lot of true crime podcasts, all of Headley's, of course, and then a whole lot of others as well. I just find it really intellectually stimulating and really interesting. And I think it's just important to learn from these things about what we can do better now. And I suppose probably with the coronial inquest work, it was kind of a related field. And yeah, I just found it really, really interesting. But in terms of Bronwyn's case, I just felt so sorry for her family and I just felt so sorry for Bronwyn and for her daughters and I think just all the unknowns, it just really bothered me and I thought I just would love to be able to do something to try to provide the family with some more answers. I think I'm someone who quite likes certainty and I'm not great with uncertainty and I just find that people living with this must just be horrific and And I thought any little tiny thing that I could do to help, I would just love to do that for these families.
00:24:45
Speaker 1: For those that are not familiar with Bronwyn's case, can you just give us a little brief overview of what the circumstances were surrounding her disappearance?
00:24:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Bronwyn was a married mother of two little girls. She was married to John Winfield and she lived in Lennox Head. And she and her husband, John, had been experiencing some marital problems and they'd actually separated and she'd moved out of the family home for a period. And John was a bricklayer and he'd been down in Sydney working. And to cut a long story short, Bronwyn got some legal advice and decided that she was going to move back into the family home and she did this on a particular day. And as we understand it, John found out about her move back into the family home and he decided to return from Sydney where he was working to Lennox Head. And so he came back one evening and apparently went to the house and had a bit of an argument with Bronwyn. And John's version of events is that Bronwyn went into the main bedroom and made a phone call and then left a short time later. And he says he doesn't know who she left with or where she went, but she left in a car and she was never seen or heard from ever again. And he did say that she'd gone to take a break, that she needed a break from her children, but that's something that her family just doesn't buy at all. And so Bronwyn has been a very long-term missing person and her husband, John, did some things immediately after her disappearance that seemed quite odd. He packed up the car more or less immediately or within a few hours of her departing the house and left the family home in a complete mess with food on plates, washing and washing machines. It had obviously been a very quick departure and he drove through the night all the way to Sydney with his daughters and with the family dog apparently. And he apparently told some people that he needed to get back very quickly because there was going to be a concrete pour on a building site where he was working that he needed to attend. But our understanding is that in fact, he did not need to be at the building site for the concrete pour and he wasn't expected to be there. And so that, begs the question, why did he travel to Sydney so quickly with the girls?
00:27:26
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, interesting overview. I'm sitting here and I've got my homicide hat on and I'm thinking warning concerns the whole way through. I suppose that's the difference between looking at it from a legal aspect, from your time as a solicitor or a lawyer, and then looking at it from researching an investigation into what's happened. So with this investigation, you're listening to this and you think, I wouldn't mind helping. And you reach out to Hedley, and Hedley's not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. You're going to do some work for him, looking at things from a legal perspective into now researching. I would imagine you start to feel the type of things that I would feel or others feel when we're investigating crimes. You're desperate to get that breakthrough Did you find it rewarding looking for that small piece of information? We're talking about tragic cases here, so I'm choosing my words carefully. There is a fascination about trying to solve a mystery. And I found that I was driven by that as a homicide detective with the greatest respect to the victims and the nature of the crime that you're investigating. But it was almost intoxicating that you were looking for that breakthrough, that small piece of evidence that might tip it in your favour and give answers for the families.
00:28:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I feel the same, perhaps not quite as strongly. I think I'm always quite cautious. I know how all these cases are. I know that they haven't been solved or prosecuted before. So I always have that. I think I probably use that knowledge to kind of moderate my own expectations a bit. And, you know, it also helps when you're working with families to be able to say, look, it is going to take something pretty extraordinary here to turn things around. But I love the hunt for the information, but also anything more that you can tell a family that's living with this type of loss that's living without answers, I think is beneficial. And that is what happens when you have these long form podcast investigations. Like I said earlier, you have the time, the luxury to look into the case with a fine tooth comb. You've got two fresh sets of eyes looking at it now with me and Hedley working together. We can dig around and look for things. But also because of the reach of these podcasts, people come forward who haven't spoken to police before or perhaps they have spoken to police before but their message hasn't been well received or they've been fobbed off or something like that. So you just never know what's going to happen and how things will play out. So I suppose there I do quite like that uncertainty. I like the possibility that a podcast can open up.
00:30:19
Speaker 1: On the issue of making sure everything has been done, My observation of victims' families where someone has disappeared or died in suspicious circumstances when they don't have answers, I think people can accept if everything that can be done was done, but there's another level of trauma that's added to families when they think the matter hasn't been investigated properly or things that could have been done weren't done. What's your take on that? Because I Even if you don't solve the case, I think you bring some, I won't say closure because people don't get closure, but some comfort that the disappearance or the murder or suspected murder of their loved one has been fully investigated. Would you agree what I'm saying there?
00:31:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely. I think the missed opportunities are just really tragic and sometimes they can't be addressed through a later investigation at all. It is what it is. But anything extra that we can do to provide information more answers. Again, I don't love the word closure either because I imagine there is no closure for most of these families. But if you think of it as a jigsaw puzzle and you're just putting more and more pieces into the puzzle and providing people with a bigger understanding of what might have happened to their loved one, I think that can be helpful.
00:31:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. Hedley, and I think where people first became aware of the work that he was doing on the teacher's pet, which resulted in prosecution of a person involved in the the murder. My observation of that, because you talked about the public and people coming forward, we needed scrutiny on an investigation like that. And you look back and it seems everyone suspected the person had been involved in the murder, but there wasn't enough to get the matter to court. And then the teacher's pet comes up and the amount of listeners that that podcast reached was quite extraordinary. but people were coming forward with information, I think that's a benefit there. But also, and I can say this and the police might argue against it, but I was working in homicide at the time, I know what was going on, that that scrutiny that the public was putting on the teacher's pet investigation and the type of information that was uncovered, it almost forced the police to have a look at it and re-examine the investigation. And we know the results it got from there. So I think that type of scrutiny is good. You've come from a legal background. You're now working in the media. What's your take on scrutiny?
00:32:59
Speaker 2: I think scrutiny is hugely important because the system doesn't always get it right. And particularly in these circumstantial cases, it's so interesting because you can get a sense that there might be enough there to launch a prosecution, but often historically that hasn't been done. So if you can add some more pieces of the puzzle into the mix, then maybe that might tip the scales in favour of prosecuting. Or perhaps all these years later, the prosecution service might have changed their thoughts about these types of matters. Because I have noticed that there does now seem to be more of an appetite to prosecute circumstantial cases that weren't prosecuted in the 80s and the 90s. So maybe there's been slight change of thinking or a different application of the prosecution policies, I'm not quite sure. But I think that podcasts and true crime podcasts and the media more generally can play a role in exerting pressure on agencies to have another look at cases. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Some of these agencies would probably disagree and say that it creates a lot of work for them. But you can find things that have been missed and You know, people do come forward and we've seen that a lot in the Bronwyn podcast and already in our new podcast relating to Rosalind McQueen, people have come forward who did not speak to police back in 1986 before the criminal trial was brought to an end.
00:34:28
Speaker 1: Well, I think scrutiny is a necessary thing on investigations because my observation of unsolved homicides is And I'm talking New South Wales because that was the area in which I worked. But without the scrutiny, it was very easy for an investigation to be put away. And, you know, it might have been a thorough investigation to start with. But unless the families are actually campaigning to have it reopened, once the lid's shut on the brief of evidence, it takes, you know, a lot to get it opened up and start working on it again. And I think I'd like to say that investigative standards of what we've got now and forensic evidence that we've got available that we didn't have years ago, and there's been some great results in unsolved homicides in New South Wales, and I think across the country as well, where the simple thing of DNA matching to something that they didn't have before. I think we've got to look at the aspect of it that a lot of these matters are solvable. It just needs the effort and the attention put on them. So When the scrutiny comes through the form of the media, it does have an impact. It has an impact on the politicians, which tend to flow down and impact on the police and things start to get done.
00:35:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that can definitely be the case. And it's really important. I mean, obviously there are reviews of unsolved cases every so often. So I do firmly believe that the more people who look at a case, the more perspectives there can be, the more things that can potentially be realised, like different people focus on different things because brains all work differently. So I think that the more attention a case can get, the better. And particularly in circumstances where a family is told, you know, case closed, it's effectively shelved, nothing more is going to happen unless there's some breakthrough. Well, how are you going to have a breakthrough if, you know, unless someone just comes forward out of the goodness of their heart all these years later, which can happen. But I think that having the case out there in the open being publicly discussed and debated and having that publicity can really cause people to come forward and think, oh, gosh, I actually have this little piece of information that I never thought was significant, but it might actually be really significant.
00:36:51
Speaker 1: How's your dealings with families of these mysteries or suspicious deaths? In your dealing with the families and Headley's dealing with the families, are they appreciative of the fact that their loved one's mother is getting the scrutiny?
00:37:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're so appreciative because I think for a lot of the families, they didn't really have anywhere else to go. They may have had a coronial inquest. Some of them have had criminal proceedings as well. Many haven't. But they're grateful for the attention that can be brought to their loved one's case and grateful for the assistance and, you know, being part of the media, we can request materials and information that maybe a family might not necessarily be able to access. And we just can have that reach that families just couldn't achieve on their own, even if they have a Facebook page set up for their loved one. Yeah, overwhelmingly, it's just a lot of gratitude and we work quite collaboratively with families, of course, but we still maintain our independence and Hedley's very clear on letting families know right from the outset that it is our investigation and it's our podcast and we have to tell the story in a way that we consider appropriate and that that can mean that the good, the bad and the ugly might all come out within the podcast. We don't kind of cherry pick issues and say, oh, okay, well, we won't go there because that might cause a rift in the family. There's none of that. And families understand that and they agree to those conditions because they just really want answers and progress.
00:38:37
Speaker 1: That's important that you inform the family of that. I've had post-police career and I know a lot of other detectives that have left that had expertise in homicide matters. quite often get reached out to by families who have concerns that the murder or suspected murder of their loved one wasn't properly investigated. Suicides are a potential where matters have been written off as suicide in the families of the belief that, no, there was something more sinister. It is difficult dealing with families. Sometimes I'm asked to review an investigation to have a look at how the police have done the investigation. I say to the families up front that I'll have a look at it and I'll offer you my opinion. I mightn't be right. It's my opinion based on my experience. But if I think the police have done everything that could be done, I will tell you. Or if I think there's further work that could be done, I'll also tell you. Sometimes that comes back to bite me. Like you're dealing with emotions, you're dealing with families, and I understand that it's trauma at its worst level. Have you encountered that in your work that you're doing with Hedley where families are not happy with what you've uncovered?
00:39:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've definitely encountered it at the coroner's court as well and also working with Hedley. I think particularly in suicide cases or in cases that may have been a suicide, it's very hard for families. I think sometimes they just find it so hard to accept the possibility that their loved one may have committed suicide. And that can really lead to very strong emotions and perhaps a bit of a blinkered position on the case. So trying to sort of explain to other people that other possibilities might be open other than, say, it being a homicide or that someone's met with foul play or something is really tricky and has to be done really delicately. And I mean, Hedley does get approached by a lot of families who want him to take on their cases. And sometimes we do have to knock them back for a range of reasons. And, you know, this scenario that we're talking about can be one of them where, particularly where, say, a coroner has found that the person committed suicide and say where there has been a very thorough investigation and it does look like things were looked at really well. It's It's hard for us to take on a case in those circumstances and those conversations with those families are really tough.
00:41:23
Speaker 1: How do you select or come to select investigations you think are worthwhile? There'd have to be initial cursory look at it and delve into what information is there. Is there anything that you look for that, okay, this is... matter should be further investigated or we should put the spotlight on this case? What are you guys looking for when you're choosing a subject matter?
00:41:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're looking at cases pretty holistically, actually. Like we need sort of a few factors to be met. We really need a cooperative family. Obviously, that's a big factor for us. But we need access to documents, to contemporaneous materials from the times. So ideally we need a coroner's file or findings or witness statements, a police brief, something like that. And then we just read through those materials really carefully and critically. And then Hedley and I end up having a chat about what we both think about the case. And we normally land in the same spot as to whether it's a yes or a no or a maybe. It just kind of becomes quite clear. But... We like to choose cases where we think that we can make a difference. It's quite helpful if there's been a strong coroner's finding to back up any suspicions that we may have about the case. That can be a signal to us that the case might really have some legs to it. But yeah, it's really just a matter of reviewing the materials, talking to the family. We often ask the family, well, what's your theory? What do you think happened here? And we can push them quite a bit. Why do you say that? And we'll challenge them.
00:43:07
Speaker 1: What about this?
00:43:08
Speaker 2: What about that? And we just kind of pull all of that together and then make a call about whether the case is an appropriate one to take on. And at this stage, we still do want to focus on missing and murdered Australian women. We are asked to look into other cases from other countries. And of course, the men, there's plenty of men who have horrible things happen to them too, but we've just decided that the focus on the women is where we'd like to stay for now.
00:43:38
Speaker 1: Well, certainly with the teacher's pet and what you've outlined about Bronwyn and then the poisoned wife, there seems to be a pattern there of what's happened. So I understand you're looking for that type of investigation. A lot of analytical work would have to go into the process. When you say you're reviewing coronial briefs, they can be quite extensive. And so a lot of time would go into it. Working in unsolved homicide, the first thing that we would do would review if we're looking at a ideally have an analyst attached that can identify, help with sorting out the sheer volume of information. Do you sometimes get overwhelmed with what you're looking at?
00:44:30
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, it can be overwhelming. You can just feel like, oh, there's so much to this case. How will I ever get my head across it? But you do. I just work through it methodically.
00:44:40
Speaker 1: I take notes.
00:44:41
Speaker 2: I write down ideas. Hedley does the same. Sometimes we divide and conquer. So I might tackle a certain group of witnesses or a particular issue and he might take on another and then we kind of combine our collective thinking. So, no, I think because I was also used to dealing with a lot of information previously as a lawyer and, you know, briefs of evidence and that sort of thing, I don't find that side of it too tricky.
00:45:08
Speaker 1: Right. That's interesting you should say that because I know when I'm looking at briefs of evidence and sometimes– It'd be dumped on me and, oh, can you get back to it? But I don't think people have a full understanding to go through a brief of evidence that you need to if you're looking for evidence or critical lines of inquiry, the detail that you've got to go through.
00:45:33
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I suppose in some of these very old cases, you have information and briefs and things available to you, but they're probably far more minimal than what might arise in a more modern day case. So, you know, looking at something from 1986 or 1993 might be really different to a potential murder in 2010. So maybe I should just bite my tongue and wait until we do some more modern cases and then I might be saying, yeah, I feel completely overwhelmed, Gary.
00:46:04
Speaker 1: No, I wouldn't expect you would be overwhelmed, but I just wanted to emphasise to people that understand the amount of work that goes into it. All right. Working with Hedley, what surprised you about him? The persona he comes across very calm and considered on the podcast. I'm not suggesting he's not calm and considered. He's a character. I know Hedley. We've had him on the podcast. He has a knack, I would suggest, of making people at ease. He's a good communicator, and I think that carries through in the way he does the does the podcast. What have you found working with Hedley's like? And we can edit this if you're worried about jeopardising your career path.
00:46:45
Speaker 2: No, no, no. No, you summed it up pretty well. I mean, I think with Hedley, what you see or what you hear is actually just what you get. He's been so supportive of me and my involvement. I mean, I didn't quite know how the dynamic would work or what I would be doing. And, you know, we've both had to find our feet but he's really he's been really encouraging of input and ideas and we have these robust discussions where I can just you know say I don't buy that or I don't like that approach and he'll do the same to me so it's a very um like a direct frank um vibe that we've that we've got going between us but yeah he he doesn't sort of dismiss ideas and theories he's um Yeah, I've really appreciated the way that he's let me become involved in these matters because, of course, he's done many investigations himself over many years and I wondered if he would find it hard having someone else sort of getting on in there too. But I think it's working pretty well and together the combination of the two different brains and the two different skill sets is quite a good one.
00:47:59
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:48:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, hopefully, you know, listeners will think that too and think that we're both bringing different things to the mix.
00:48:06
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's important to have that open mind and listen to other people's opinions. I know the best people I've worked under in homicide and I tried to carry that through. We had a lot of briefings, a lot of frank discussions. It's all out on the table. Everyone can contribute and different ideas, different perspectives. And it does help cut through an investigation that prevents that tunnel vision that sometimes can lead you down the wrong path. Getting a different perspective on matters is a good idea.
00:48:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, definitely. And I've really learned, I think Hedley works through doing a lot of talking. Like my husband said, I think Hedley's one of those people who processes his ideas through talking because we spend so much time on the phone. But it just works well that way. We sort of update one another on what we're doing, catch up on little tidbits of information. Yeah, it's just, I mean, we're not in the same city, so we have to, you know, work that way. We can't get into an office together. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It's just a lot of time spent on the phone going through everything.
00:49:14
Speaker 1: But that's interesting, your husband's observation of the communication through talking. Because when you are getting into the nitty-gritty of an investigation, you can be having a conversation that goes for half an hour and then at one point in time, that snippet of information that's just dawned on everyone or the realisation what we're dealing with here comes across.
00:49:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, it It's amazing when you sort of, like you said, you have that realisation, you've been talking for a while and then all of a sudden the penny drops and you're like, oh, hang on a minute, like maybe there's a line of inquiry or has that been missed? Yeah, those moments are pretty special.
00:49:51
Speaker 1: Well, I reckon you've found, especially people listening to this type of podcast that see themselves as a sleuth, private investigator of sorts, you sound like you've found your dream job. an interest in true crime. You've got your qualifications as a solicitor. And here you are working on these investigations at everyone. And they're fascinating investigations. People want to find answers.
00:50:17
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a pretty great role. I still have to pinch myself sometimes. And to remember that I'm getting actually paid to do this just seems a bit extraordinary to me.
00:50:27
Speaker 1: Well, good on you. We might take a break here. When we get back, I want to delve more into the current investigation you're working on and one that's been released in a podcast, The Poisoned Wife. And I found that you can't make this stuff up, that that started with a suitcase, a locked suitcase of documents being delivered to Hedley, which I thought, what a great way to start an investigation. Yeah.
00:50:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a pretty incredible origin story for that matter. And in fact, Chris Dawson had just been convicted of his wife, Lynn Sims' murder, I think five weeks before the suitcase arrived at the Australian's office in Brisbane out of the blue. So it must have been a pretty incredible time for Hedley.
00:51:12
Speaker 1: It was timely. Well, we'll unpack that suitcase and talk about that investigation. Also talk about the type of relationship you guys have with investigators, police, and also get your thoughts on where there's so much scrutiny through the media, whether it prevents people having a trial. Because I know some people in the legal fraternity, your old mob, will be going, this is unfair. We can't have a fair trial because of the exposure in the media. So we talk through a few issues in relation to that as well when we get back.
00:51:49
Speaker 2: Okay, sounds good. Thanks, Gary.
00:51:51
Speaker 1: Cheers.
