Latest / Real Crime with Adam Shand / From The Desk -A Confession the Jury Never Heard

Transcript

From The Desk -A Confession the Jury Never Heard · Real Crime with Adam Shand

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: A Poche Production. Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shand.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: I'm your host, Adam Shand. And this is my Friday
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: feature from the desk. January 1970. Three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer went
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: to Ferry Meadow Beach near Wollongong with her mother and
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: three brothers. She disappeared from outside the chain sheds. Her
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: family searched, police searched, But Cheryl was never found. More
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: than 56 years later, her family is still asking what
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: happened to her. And at the centre of their search
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: is a police interview that a jury has never been
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: allowed to hear. A confession that has never been adjudicated.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: There's a question in this case that sounds simple until
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: you try to answer it. If somebody tells police they
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: killed a child, how can a court refuse to hear it?
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: In April 1971, a 17-year-old boy told police he had
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: abducted and killed Cheryl. Investigators looked for evidence to confirm
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: his account, but they did not charge him at the time.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: They didn't take him seriously, dismissing him as a disturbed youth.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: As a 17-year-old, Mercury recounted chilling details to police of
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: how he snatched little Cheryl from Fairy Meadow Beach. Well,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: who else but Mercury? a disturbed individual would abduct a
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: three-year-old with the intention of sexual assault and murder. But
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: they let him go. Decades passed. Two great detectives, Damien
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Loon and Frank San Vitale, came across the interview while
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: reviewing the case, and in 2017, the man was charged
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: with Cheryl's murder. In court, he was given the pseudonym Mercury.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: He pleaded not guilty. It appeared... the family might finally
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: see the allegations tested in a trial. They learned of
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: the existence of the confession for the first time. Hand
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: yourself in, mate. You've lived your life, now let us
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: get justice for our sister, and so we can have
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: our closure. But in 2019, a Supreme Court judge ruled
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: that the 1971 interview could not be admitted as evidence.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Prosecutors said they couldn't succeed without it, and the case continued.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: was discontinued. There was no trial and no verdict on
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: whether Mercury had anything to do with Cheryl's disappearance. To
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: understand why, we have to go back to the person
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: who gave that confession in 1971. Mercury was 17. There
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: was no parent, guardian, other adult or lawyer with him.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: The judge considered not just his age, but his individual
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: vulnerability and the way he was questioned. A law introduced
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: after the interview had taken place governed whether it could
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: be used at the later trial. The judge ruled that,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: in the circumstances of this case, it could not. He
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: also found it would be unfair to use the interview
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: under the Evidence Act. That is a difficult result to
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: explain to anyone who's waited decades for answers. But the
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: ruling matters for a reason. A confession can be very
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: powerful evidence. It can also be unreliable, especially when a
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: young or vulnerable person is questioned without support. A court
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: must decide whether an interview can properly be used before
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: a jury ever considers what it might mean. Cheryl's family
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: sees a different and equally urgent problem. They say the
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: interview contains details that deserve closer examination. They want a
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: fuller account of how the case was investigated. why the
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: prosecution ended and what can still be done. This year,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions reviewed the
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: decision to discontinue proceedings. The family provided extensive submissions. I
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: interviewed Cheryl's older brother, Ricky, about this, amid great optimism
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: that Mercury might finally be held accountable. However, the DPP
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: concluded the judge's decision to exclude the interview was was
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: not reasonably open to challenge and upheld the decision not
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: to proceed. The family was devastated, to say the least.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: They say the response did not adequately answer the questions
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: they'd put forward. They've now asked the NSW Government for
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: an independent review. Let's be precise about what that means.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Let's be precise about what that means. The excluded interview
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: is not proof that Mercury killed Cheryl. But it's powerful
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: evidence that must be tested. He pleaded not guilty, and
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: the court has never found him guilty. Nor does the
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: ruling tell us what happened to Cheryl. It tells us
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: that prosecutors could not use that interview at his trial.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: For Cheryl's family, those distinctions leave a painful gap. They
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: have an account given to police, a prosecution that ended
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: without a verdict, and a child who has never come home.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: A 2011 inquest found that Cheryl had died but could
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: not determine how. Her body has never been found. As
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: a crime journalist, I've seen how easily a case becomes
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: a debate about a suspect, an interview or a legal decision.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Those questions matter. But I keep coming back to Cheryl herself.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: She was three years old. Her family took her to
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the beach. They've been living with that afternoon ever since.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: I can understand why her family wants the interview scrutinised.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: I can also understand why a judge would examine with
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: great care an account taken from a vulnerable 17-year-old boy
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: without an adult beside him. The hard question is what
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: the system owes Cheryl's family now when the prosecution has
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: ended and so much remains unresolved. An independent review would
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: not by itself produce a conviction. It might not establish
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: what happened but the family is asking for their questions
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: to be examined thoroughly and answered clearly. After 56 years,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: that's a request that I can fully understand, and so
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: does the public. There's a $ 1 million reward for information
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: about Cheryl's abduction and suspected murder. If you know something,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: however small it may seem, contact Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Please give information to investigators rather than naming or accusing
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: anyone online. Cheryl Grimmer's family has lived for more than
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: half a century without knowing exactly what happened to her.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: A jury never heard the interview that once appeared central
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: to the case. What happens next may depend on whether
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: investigators find new evidence and whether the family can get
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: the answers it's seeking about the evidence already gathered. I'm
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: Adam Shand. This has been From the Desk. You can
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: also follow me and subscribe on Facebook for more independent
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: crime journalism. Thanks for listening. I'm just angry. Really angry.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: What has it done to you personally? Ripped a hole
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: in me. The feelings just don't go away. Thanks for
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: listening to this episode and supporting this story. Independent storytelling
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: that shapes the world is what Podshape really cares about.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Right now, there's thousands of people listening to this show
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: and our other true crimes, and they're completely engaged. More
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: than 10 million Australians listen to podcasts each week. If
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: you've ever thought about advertising your business in a podcast,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: there's a link to reach out in the show notes
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: or head to Podshape.com to book a free call.