Strange Investigations with Charlie Bezzina - Part 2

Summary

Australian True Crime – Strange Investigations with Charlie Bezzina (Part 2)
Date: March 29, 2026 | Host: Meshel Laurie | Guest: Charlie Bezzina (former homicide detective)

---

Episode Overview

In this compelling second part of the conversation with veteran Victoria Police homicide detective Charlie Bezzina, Meshel Laurie delves into the realities behind notorious investigations across suburban Australia. Bezzina candidly reflects on his 38-year career, discussing case methodology, the emotional toll on investigators, the complexity of homicide investigations, and the challenging navigation of police, legal, and family dynamics. Real-life cases are unpacked with a focus on their psychological, procedural, and sometimes tragic idiosyncrasies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Coping with the Emotional Toll & PTSD

• Compartmentalisation as a Coping Mechanism
  • Bezzina opens up about managing trauma by focusing on the challenge and technical aspects of investigations, rather than emotional attachment to victims.
  • "To me it was a challenge. I loved going to work and doing it." – Bezzina (00:47)
• Juggling Leadership and Casework
  • Managing a team while staying hands-on in complex investigations adds layers of stress and administrative burden but also offers some emotional detachment.
• Exposure to Multiple Cases
  • The constant influx—up to 14 homicides in a year—demands the ability to “move on to the next job” and avoid dwelling on losses.
  • "You can't dwell on it... My goal is to find out why, who's responsible." – Bezzina (01:28)
• Developing Medical Literacy
  • Repeated post-mortems and working closely with pathologists impart unanticipated medical knowledge.

---

Unexplained Deaths and the Limits of Science

• Adult SIDS and Unexplained Cases
  • Discussion of sudden, inexplicable deaths—such as adult Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)—and the distress they cause families seeking clear answers.
  • "As much as science has progressed, there’s times when the science doesn’t know enough of the human body that they pass." – Bezzina (04:00)

---

Family Reactions, Suicides and Navigating Sensitivity

• When Families Reject Official Findings
  • Families often suspect foul play when suicide is concluded—sometimes due to difficulty accepting a loved one’s suicide or belief in police incompetence.
  • Case example: A woman’s suicide by firearm and the forensic details that confirmed it.
  • "At the end of the day, it's a family that need to be given answers, not closure." – Bezzina (05:08)
• Culture, Privacy, and Stigma
  • Rare cases from previous generations where families discouraged police investigation to avoid social embarrassment.

---

Suspects, Interviews, and Eliminating Doubt

• Always Start with the Family
  • Investigators begin “the circle” with immediate family/associates, then expand outward, methodically eliminating suspects.
  • "Circle starts at the body … family, friends, associates, work associates." – Bezzina (11:22)
• Anticipating Defence Tactics
  • The importance of collecting thorough evidence, anticipating cross-examinations, and leaving no investigative “wriggle room.”
  • "I'm in defence mode. I'm thinking like a defence barrister when I'm at the crime scene." – Bezzina (12:44)
• Evidence Overkill
  • Laborious evidence collection (e.g., swabbing every trace of blood) can be crucial – sometimes revealing vital clues, such as an offender’s injury mixed in with a victim’s blood.
• Motives and Reasonable Doubt
  • While motive is not a legal “point of proof,” lacking one can be frustrating for investigators, and often becomes the focus of laypeople and jury members.
  • "People say motive’s a good direction… It’s not a point of proof." – Bezzina (14:53)

---

Crime Scene Management and Forensic Advances

• Offenders’ Hubris
  • Many offenders mistakenly believe they can outsmart investigators, sometimes relying on Google or pop culture, which investigators quickly check (e.g., “how to dispose of a body” search histories).
• Thorough Documentation & Brief Preparation
  • Police ensure that every avenue is documented, knowing the defence will exploit any lapse.
  • "Our briefs of evidence go into volumes… our experience tells us if we don’t, that’ll be brought up as a reasonable doubt at a trial." – Bezzina (12:54)
• When Good Police Work “Penalizes” the System
  • Irony discussed: Overwhelming evidence can lead to guilty pleas and lighter sentences, which seems unfair to police and victims’ families.
  • "The coppers have been so well in their job…the evidence is so overwhelming…they plead guilty and get a discount on their sentence." – Bezzina (17:03)

---

The Justice System: Victims vs. Accused

• Courtroom Realities
  • Judges focus on the rights of the accused above all; families are secondary.
  • "The most important person in this courtroom is the person standing in the dock." – Bezzina (19:15)
• ‘Prejudicial’ Evidence
  • Australian courts avoid introducing emotive evidence (e.g., victim portraits)—which can be frustrating for families seeking acknowledgment.
  • "This is the person that’s been murdered by this guy there you can look at him or her… That’s the victim." – Bezzina (20:05)

---

Case Studies — Unique & Notable Investigations

1. The Murder of Phyllis Hocking (Box Hill) [22:00–33:03]

• An elderly woman is murdered in her son’s home. The crime scene is staged as a burglary, but Bezzina’s burglary knowledge highlights irregularities (e.g., cut cords on electronics).
• After multiple attempts on her life—a burglary, a Molotov cocktail attack—the case remains unsolved until the de facto partner comes forward, revealing the son and grandson orchestrated all attacks and the murder for financial gain.
• The limitations of the legal system prevented charging both co-conspirators due to lack of corroboration.

2. Crime as Collusion – Partner-Instigated Murder [14:13, 34:15]

• A murder arranged by a woman’s lover, with her feeding her partner’s routine to the killer.
• Shows the ripple effect and complexity when relationships and manipulation are in play.

3. Accidental Death and Coverup: Sex Games Turned Fatal [35:00–37:11]

• A woman accidentally asphyxiated during a sex act. The panic-induced cover-up (arson, staged crime scene) made the death suspicious.
• Bezzina reflects on how poor decisions after the incident compound legal jeopardy:
• "Had he come forward, would have given him more credibility...by then covering it up, you become more sinister." – Bezzina (36:14)

4. Dismemberment Murders and Forensic Science [38:00–46:03]

• Detailed investigation after a leg is found at a tip, reconstructing the disposal and discovering the killers. Science of forensic rubbish tracing becomes key.
• Difficulty of providing closure to families when not all remains are recovered (e.g., missing head due to differing trash pick-up routes).

5. Offenders Returning to Crime Scenes [47:46–48:19]

• Discussion of the behavioral tendency for offenders to observe police at crime scenes, resulting in some being caught through video crowd scans.

---

Victims’ Families & The Court Process

• Emotional Burden and Navigational Challenges
  • Families face repeated, sometimes humiliating, appearances in court, uncertain witness schedules, and bureaucratic delays.
  • Bezzina emphasises his ongoing support to witnesses and families, preparing them for court and sharing in their grief and frustration, especially after acquittals.
  • “You need families to have confidence in the investigator.” – Bezzina (54:31)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “We give families answers. Why did my daughter kill herself?... We were able to give them the answers and ratify the findings of the local detectives.” – Charlie Bezzina (06:52–08:52)
• “We’re accountable not only to the family, to the community, and we’re accountable to the justice system...” – Bezzina (09:17)
• “As investigators, we follow every Abbott’s down the hole because our experience tells us if we don’t, that’ll be brought up as a reasonable doubt at a trial.” – Bezzina (12:54)
• “The coppers have been so well in their job, the evidence is so overwhelming, of course you’re gonna plead guilty … but they get the discount. We don’t get any dispensation and say we’ve done such a good job.” – Bezzina (17:03)
• “The most important person in this courtroom is the person standing in the dock... his or her rights must be protected at all costs.” – Bezzina (19:15)
• “Had he come forward, [the suspect in the sex game asphyxiation] would have given him more credibility… by then doing anything further to conceal the crime, you become more sinister.” – Bezzina (36:14)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:47 – Compartmentalising trauma as a homicide detective
• 02:52 – Adult SIDS and unexplained causes of death
• 04:43 – Family disbelief and the limits of science in unexplained deaths
• 05:45 – Forensic clues supporting suicide findings
• 11:22 – Investigative process: starting with the victim's circle
• 12:44 – Anticipating defence strategies; collecting evidence
• 17:03 – System penalized for thorough police work (discounted sentences)
• 19:15 – Focus of the justice system: accused, not victim/family
• 22:00 – Start of Phyllis Hocking case study
• 34:15 – Collusion in murder: lover’s role exposed
• 35:00 – “Accidental” death and cover-up; consequences of panicked actions
• 38:00 – Dismemberment investigation; forensics of rubbish
• 47:46 – Offender returns to the scene; using crowd video for investigation
• 52:06 – The burden on victims’ families during court cases

---

Tone & Style

Meshel Laurie maintains a balance between genuine curiosity and sensitivity, often grounding the grisly subject matter with empathy for victims’ families. Bezzina is methodical, matter-of-fact, and unflinching, with a dry sense of humour and candor born of decades at the homicide squad. The tone is direct and educational, but always respectful toward the human cost behind each crime.

---

Conclusion

This episode expertly peels back the layers of homicide investigation—balancing war stories, emotional truths, and the day-to-day grind. Whether listeners are true crime novices or veterans, Charlie Bezzina’s firsthand accounts illuminate both the profound difficulties and the relentless logic of solving Australian true crime.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is Australian True Crime with Michelle Laurie. And today we're joined again by former homicide detective Charlie Bazzina. Charlie's here to talk about some memorable cases from his 38 year long career with Victoria police. This is actually the second half of our conversation with Charlie. If you'd like to listen to part one, it's episode 737 and there's a link in the show notes of this episode to help you do that. We begin this conversation by chatting about Charlie's lack of ptsd. This is Australian True Crime and we acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this podcast is created. The Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung People of the Kulin Nation and a warning. This episode of the podcast contains graphic descriptions of violence.

[B]

To me it was a challenge. I loved going to work and doing it.

[A]

Yeah, you've managed to. And I do believe you when you say that. I do believe that you've managed to compartmentalise it, to cope with it, to have a great home life and all those things.

[B]

And you are detracted from a lot because you don't. Because I was also a manager Looking after 10 detectives, nine detectives, looking after their welfare and wellbeing, being engaging with their partners, making sure administrative, that's done. And I'm dealing with multiple victims, multiple offenders, multiple victims, families, offenders, families and the like. She's so overwhelmed and unlike the movies and I say to people, I say, well, we just don't do one homicide. No, we get distracted, we get an acquittal and then we can't. We think about it. But then we move on to the next job. There's one year there. My team alone did 14 homicides for the year. Multiply that by 14 families, 14 victims, families. So you can't dwell on it. And then you've got no connection. That's where going into the postmortem room, gowned up and you don't want to dwell on and say this person suffered so much or this and that you've got to remove yourself from that and say, my goal is to find out why, who's responsible. And it becomes. And you become quite skilled, as they would have told you, become quite skilled in identifying the organs and saying, well, there's a cirrhosis of liver or there's a disease heart and that type of stuff. You become quite apt in medical terms of doing. You do that many of them. Interesting stuff. It's like having years ago, I remember Dave Ransom was the pathologist and I never heard of it. We had a early mid-20s lady living in a caravan, a little bit obese, living on her own, died. No reason for her to die. No medical history, no this, no that. And that's when I learned about adult sids.

[A]

You know what? A really good friend of my brother's died of adult SIDS a couple of years ago. Yeah, I hadn't heard of it either.

[B]

You never heard of it? And then when Dave then says to me, charlie, I don't know why she died. Yeah, just stop breathing. And then he said, as a 21 year old as she was, he said in adult, in the early 20s. It does happen in science and it's amazing that I've done a number of investigations where a pathologist can't give me cause of death. Why has this person died or stopped breathing? I don't know. I did it with. Again, we fight in different things. I went to a Lion and Madeleine.

[A]

Oh, mi kac.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. the cassette. At the foundation.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Went to one of their functions and there you sit on table with other celebrities. And one happened to be Clinton Grybis, who was a journey, a sports journey. Oh yeah, for Fox Sport, I think he was. So I met him and within two, three weeks I was standing over his body in his apartment. I remember that. And you know, he just passed and no reason, no cause of death come back. And he said, well, I don't know why he passed. It was. We couldn't get a cause of death. It's just, you know, you get disabled. As much as science has progressed, there's times when the science doesn't know enough of the human body that they pass.

[A]

We're still complicated enough, aren't we, that they can't figure it out. Do you find those families wanna pursue homicide? Like, is that a common thing? I've had a few people approach me wanting to do episodes about. And I've looked at all the stuff and I've thought, I just. They can't believe their loved one killed themselves.

[B]

Correct. I'll give you a prime example of that too. He just reminded me of that particular process. We get called. There's a young female in the early mid-20s. She's on the banks of a particular river. She suffered a gunshot wound to the chest. Just put the gun between her legs. Gunshot wound to the chest. The local detectives investigated it and rightly come up with a suicide. One of the deceased sisters was a lawyer and pretty well to do people. We learned that she lived with her father in this particular country town and they were adamant we want a full blown investigation. We want this, the incompetency of this. But the country detectives, how they're incompetent, this, they're that. And so because of the big fur all over it, we went up there and reviewed the investigation. And it's difficult for me because I go to this country town giving my apologies, second guessing these detectives. No experienced detectives. So you do get your nose out of joints when you're being challenged by, okay, the big city. The big city boys, you know, but you do, cap in hand. And I said, look, this is why. Explained it. And they were good about it, no worries about it. But at the end of the day, it's a family that need to be given answers, not closure. We give families answers. Why did my daughter kill herself? Is what the local detectives are saying. So we do the examination, review the whole lot. And then things like you learn from. I don't know if it was Dave or Ansell because I had a bit to do with Dave and I had a lot to do with a lot of the pathologists there. And they're so highly skilled. So we become quite close. And he then tells me, and then the more you learn about women in particular who commit suicide, especially with firearms, still want to be found of appearance.

[A]

Yes. I've read that, that women are unlikely to use something violent to their face.

[B]

Yeah. Or blow their head off like a.

[A]

Men do.

[B]

Men do. But here we have a woman to the chest. So that ticked the box. Dave said, well, you know, studies have shown that they want to be found quite presentable.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And the crux for that was. And the family was, no, we want a full blown inquest. This is incompetency. It's this, it's that. Da, da, da, da, da. And then we were able to show that she put the gun between her legs. The butt of the gun rested on the dirt while she held the barrel and was able to reach the trigger either with her toe or whatever the case may be. And the clincher that was was recoil. There was two marks in the soil where it actually the gun sat. So the gun sat here, but there was another mark there because when the bullet, when the gun goes off, it went backwards for the recoil and then it arrested back where it was. So definitely 2 marks. And based on that alone, it was clear that an offender couldn't have done that up or set that up. There's two marks there. We went back to the family and they then said, well, they went the opposite. We don't want this out. We don't want a conquest, we don't want this out. But we were able to give them the answers and ratify the findings of the local detectives and apologies. We're walking, driving around all this stuff. So that put the local detectives in a good light to say, well, you made the right call. We were able to do it because they don't get. They didn't because it was a suicide. They don't bring out a full blown crime scene people as we were able to based on that. But it was preserved enough that those two marks were still there. Once we were able to show that to the family, they said, okay, we accept that it's a suicide, we don't want any part of it, we don't want it publicly, we don't want anything. It was inquest held in chambers and away you go.

[A]

So does that happen much in murders? I feel like there's a couple of stories, but they generally from the sort of 70s, early 80s murders where I believe the families have not wanted the murder investigated very much. Not because there's any guilt on their part, but just it's embarrassing. It's.

[B]

Yeah, but you take that on board but explain as much as you can

[A]

to say, does it happen often though?

[B]

Not that often, very rarely, no.

[A]

I feel like it's maybe an old fashioned thing about divorced women, women who are dating.

[B]

Yeah, very rarely. But then you become suspicious of and people are very private, families are very private and say, well you know, we don't want that release, we don't want this, we don't want that, or whatever the case and you try and accede to their wishes. But at the end of the day, the accountability laid in lays with us as investigators because we're accountable not only to the family, to the community and we're accountable to the justice system and we want to be sure that not acceding to their wishes and we'll work around it, explain our position. And it's like when you interview the husband that say the wife's gone missing or the wife's been found dead and oh, come home and she'd gone or found my wife dead, you know, and you say to them, well, you're a prime suspect, you're a prime person of interest, but we've got to account for your movements because at the end of the day that then will then support you in saying, well, my innocence, oh, the police have already looked at me, they've checked out my alibi where I was, I had nothing to do with my wife's murder et CETERA So you gotta go down that process. And a prime example was Jill Maher. That.

[A]

Yes, of course, Tom Ma. Yeah.

[B]

Was in the frame.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

As you would. Because the phone went flat and that didn't happen. And all of a sudden these things are growing. And as an investigator, you must look at the most obvious until you can eliminate them.

[A]

But he's such an extraordinary man. I mean, I think. I don't know how he took it at the time. I wasn't there. But I know that afterwards he spoke to detectives about.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

For investigating the way you did. And I understood it.

[B]

I understand it's unpleasant as it may well be, but that's the process you've got to go through. You become. You're the independency and say, well, we're gonna support what you say. And we're gonna say, we as investigators will go public and say we are more than happy. This has nothing to do with the family. We're looking for someone outside the family unit.

[A]

Start work out in circles. Right. I'm just thinking about the most common I can think of is we had an argument and she just walked out.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That always raises my suspicion. Yeah. And there've been a number of them.

[B]

Yeah, exactly, exactly. I know.

[A]

We had a fight and she left and that's the last time.

[B]

Exactly. Yeah. Right. So at the end of the day, and that's where you do look at. At the family unit first. And that's where your circle starts. Circle starts at the body. I'd go in there. As I've said in the past, why would someone want to kill this person? I gotta look at that. So I start off with family, friends, associates, work associates, et cetera, et cetera. And it goes on from there. And you start eliminating all these people. You first gotta eliminate everyone because that's what you'll be attacked on at the trial.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

Why don't you look at this guy? Well, hang on, we did look at him.

[A]

Because that can be your reasonable doubt.

[B]

Correct. And that's where I call it the theater of court where a defence barrister has to create that reasonable doubt in the minds of the 12 strangers in that jury box and saying, well, yeah, what about that red car that police didn't account for? That's why I shun away from us being called elite. What we are, we follow every Abbott's down the hole because we know our experience tells us if we don't, that'll be brought up as a reasonable doubt at a trial. So everything we've got to look at. And the defence will say, oh, call for the investigation file. And they go through every information report we've got and we make sure it's gotta be pristine and we've eliminated everybody else and we come back to that person sitting in the dock.

[A]

So I know that during the process, from the first minute you're thinking, what could the defence make of this? Close that, as you say, close the gates behind things.

[B]

And I say I'm in defence mode. I'm thinking like a defence barrister when I'm at the crime scene. Because you know from the significant cross examination you get at a trial, you learn every time. Yeah, but you're an expert witness, Mr. Bazino, aren't you? Why didn't you do this? Oh, something I didn't think about. Why didn't you do this? And you then become more experienced. Next time I'm going to collect that ASHRAE of cigarette butts. I didn't do it last time but next time I'm going to do that. So I'm going to go overboard, collect it, log it, DNA it, fingerprint it. And it's like I had a investigation where this security guard was killed and this guy was attacked at a particular factory and an almighty physical assault took place. And there was blood everywhere. And I said I want every piece of blood, a sample taken. And it was just a mess of

[A]

it in case they were different sources in different sources.

[B]

Because I didn't know who the offender was. Yeah, because it was such a horrific assault that as an offender left there, that's my clue. Well that you know, 98% the deceased. But these, this 2% here, unknown bang. I've got something. It was a laborious but I asked the brother and sure enough got down his two legs, two knees and just each particular one he swabbed. Cause there's nothing else.

[A]

And cause offenders oftentimes do injure themselves

[B]

when they do when they're stabbing and it was a horrific thing. And then we eventually found out that it was a lover and this type of thing. He lay in wait in the bushes. He knew he was given his routine by the wife, by his lover and set up this poor bugger of being ambushed by the lover. But that's the extreme you've gotta go to, to give no wriggle room to a jury person to say, well what if this and what if that and just build it up and build it up and just give it overwhelmingly and say, well this is easy, we've got no choice because it's been proven well beyond it.

[A]

At least you've got a motive in that case, without a motive. I find that frustrating too.

[B]

People say motive's a good direction. Yeah, it's not a point of proof.

[A]

I know you don't need to prove a motive, but I found it frustrating during the trial when people kept saying, but why would she. Why would you do that? And I just thought, well, maybe it made sense in her brain and not ours.

[B]

And this is where the thing is, all these dumb coppers. I'm smarter than coppers. But I say to them, we do this for a living, we are good at what we do.

[A]

I'm always astounded by people who think they're smarter than coppers.

[B]

Exactly. But that's good for us. Cause they're the ones that make mistakes. They're not career criminals. They're not criminals, but they either get off on podcasts, seeing crime shows or they'll Google it. They've had a number of times. First thing you go to as an investigator, you go straight to their computer

[A]

and you see search history.

[B]

Yep, search history. So I think there was a particular family. How to get rid of a body or how do the police do homicide? And then straight indicator, good start for an investigation. But again it becomes proof. What we allege we've got to prove. And then you've got to build up on that.

[A]

Oh yeah, absolutely.

[B]

Someone goes to a. Is either seeing a woman or whatever the case may be and their semen is found there. Look, when I left, they're alive and well.

[A]

Yep. But just cause my semen's there doesn't mean I killed them.

[B]

I left and someone has come after me. Nice other stuff. So you then have got to account for that as an investigator and say, well, where are my Achilles heel for a defence brute? When I check our briefs of evidence and our briefs of evidence go into volumes at times, but they're phone book thickness. So you look at that and I check every word and you say, because you work on the premise that our briefs of evidence could end up in the High Court in Canberra and I got my name, I'm putting my name to it and I'll either send it back, well, hang on, what about this particular avenue of we didn't do that, Go and do it. Because if I don't pick it up, the defense will. They'll have a clerk go through it with a fine tooth comb and say, yep, find all the holes in it. But that's where it's unfortunate, you know, an offender. Unfortunate for Me. Fortunate for the offender. We charge somebody and the evidence is so overwhelming, they plead guilty and get a discount on their sentence. Why doesn't the judge say, I don't care whether you're gonna plead guilty or not. You're only pleading guilty to get the discount. But the coppers have been so well in their job. The evidence is so overwhelming. Of course you're gonna plead guilty. Cause you've got nowhere to go. Yeah, but they get the discount. We don't get any dispensation and say we've done such a good job.

[A]

Yeah. I'm gonna give him three extra years.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

He did such a great job. Yeah.

[B]

All I'm doing is if you don't. Yeah. Plead not guilty and I'm gonna give you an extra sentence. You plead not guilty with the overwhel, you're gonna get an extra whack. It doesn't work that way.

[A]

Well, it's also economics, isn't it? It's also about saving the cost of a trial.

[B]

Well, it is, but are we in the business of saving money in relation to that? I know it's. Everything is driven on money, but we're talking about a horrific death of a person, so I don't care. And someone being held accountable for it. Not give someone a discount to say, copper's done such a good job. It was overwhelming. So we get penalized, the family get penalised and the winner comes out the crook.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

And you're going to say, well, something's wrong with this picture. They're going to say no. Okay. Either if you don't plead guilty, you got to get an extra whack. Start turning the tables on them. Starting rather than a carrot, give them the stick and say, well, okay, but that's where I'd like to be. But the system doesn't do that. It just creates these other get out of jail free cards for these people.

[A]

It's definitely centric toward the accused.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

This I've note I've realised.

[B]

And that's where I said the judge

[A]

is really focused on keeping the police to account.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Judges can be very hard on the coppers, on the investigators. Very much as we've said earlier about trying not to allow evidence pristine and that stuff.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Oftentimes I just think, why not? How is that? Yes, it looks bad for the accused because they're bad because they've done something terrible.

[B]

Correct. And that's what I say to families. I sit with families in the Supreme Court and I'll just prepare them. And you say, look, this is how the justice system works. And the most important person in this courtroom is the person standing in the dock. Yeah, that's the most important person. That's his or her rights that must be protected at all costs.

[A]

We're going to leave this bit out because it's prejudicial, correct? Well, yeah, it's prejudicial because it happens.

[B]

Correct. And then you've got to prepare the family and say, well, you know, your daughter, your husband, whatever it is, they're secondary to the issue because the prime focus is on the accused. And I don't know whether he's been done or it becomes prejudicial. And I've seen it a couple of American court shows, movies and that where they have a picture of the deceased person.

[A]

I've seen it in real court in America, not here.

[B]

Yeah. Then they say, no, no, no, it's prejudicial because the family focused on this beautiful looking person in the photograph and they say, hang on. But that's what it's all about.

[A]

I know. I think I asked Lex Lasari about that actually.

[B]

What'd he say?

[A]

He said, oh, it's ridiculous. No, you'd never do that. Because it's prejudicial or not.

[B]

Yeah, it's a person. This is the person that's been murdered by this guy there you can look at him or her, doesn't matter, and say, well, that's the victim.

[A]

I know.

[B]

But as a lose the identity.

[A]

Lex, you know, is the epitome of the sort of modern judge. And so he's, he's just black and white about. No, nothing prejudicial. This is the law, this is what it is.

[B]

Yeah, but again, taking it away from a jury, isn't there something for the jury they can look at there? They look at him, him or her in the dock every day of the trial, but all they know is it's Mary Brown is the deceased or the deceased. It's a non entity. Yeah, the entity is in the photograph. I know that was a person. That's who we're dealing it with. It just frustrates the hell out of you. And that's where it all leans to the accused person. So I had another one, this lady again, an elderly lady. And it just shows you the inhumanity of certain people in families. I don't know if you knew about. This was an elderly lady in the mid-80s, early in the mid-80s, fellow lady called Phyllis Hocking, lived in Box Hill. We get a call, she's been living in the lounge Room which was converted into a bedroom at her son's house in Box Hill. She'd been battered to death with a heavy blunt object. She just got dropped off. She'd been out for the morning. She'd been out to an elderly function and dropped off by the driver. Here we are. Who becomes a prime suspect. The driver son is working not too far away. I forget what type of business he had. He had his business and he had a secretary. She had a grandson who was in the carpet laying business. So we start looking at again, why would someone want to kill this person? So here we go. We go to the crime scene and there's electrical equipment being stacked up. There's a forced entry on a kitchen window. And again, the eccentric part of the sun, what he did, he'd have an amplifier, a video player. He'd actually wired these. This equipment into the walls. So it wasn't a plug. He wired it into the walls for whatever reason. I don't know.

[A]

Some guys take their stereos very seriously.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. This is going back about. So. But here we have all this electric equipment stacked up there and the cords have been all cut stacked up there. And because I was a general detective out of footscray for about four or five years, I'd investigate a heap of burglaries. You become a general detective, A general practitioner, if you will. So I've been to burglaries. I've been to rapes, I've been to armed robberies, I've been to arsons. I've done all that. But now I'm specializing in homicides. And homicides do get involved with other crimes. So I know as an investigator, because of my experience in doing umpteen burglary investigations, there is not one burglar that's going to cut the cord off an amplifier and stack it there. Because how can you resell it without a cord? Yeah, that didn't make sense. I said, okay, that's odd. Nothing else ransacked or taken out. That's the only forced entry. And the offenders lay in wait as she's walked in the door. She walked in the lounge room to her right and she's been attacked. No burglar does that. A burglar going into the house would always have a exit point.

[A]

And also they want to avoid running into crip.

[B]

Yeah, it's flight.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Not fight. It's flight. So they said, okay, we expect someone to come in the front door. So I'm going to open up the back door. Someone's there. I'M gone. So you know your traits and so we start to stink early in the piece, this particular killing. Then you start going into investigation. Why is she living in the converted lounge room of her son's house? Oh, no, look, now, she had a unit not far away and she was burgled. Someone broke into it and absolutely trashed the joint. Turned it upside down and water and whatever the case, absolutely trashed it. She wasn't home, so they reported that. So the son come and relayed the carpet and did all this stuff. Looked after Nan. Oh, fantastic.

[A]

She's scared to live there, I guess.

[B]

No, no, she moved back in. She was a tough, tough lady. She moved back in. She's widower, Move back in. Within a month or couple of months, someone driving past throws a Molotov cocktail through the front window of a flat.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

She, the end gets out and I said, this has got to be the most unluckiest lady. Yeah, Burgled. What's it make? Didn't make sense. Now she's Molotov cocktailed and so the joint burns. She was lucky enough to get herself out because her feisty old lady got out and hence, whilst that's getting repaired, son does the right thing, puts her in his house and converts the lounge into a bedroom. We look at the son, you look at families. As I said earlier, the son's alibi by the secretary said, no, no, no, he was there. So a bit like the movies. And the grandsons alibi'd being home, watching videos with his. De facto, there's no murder weapon there as such. And we see all the defensive wounds, you start getting attacked, your first instinct is to put your arms up. So there's all these defensive wounds. Here we have the old whodunit with the evidence. She's wearing a Seiko watch, a gold watch, and it's smashed. Ten past two in the afternoon. Aha. Time of death. Bit like the movies. Yeah, the watch is broken also.

[A]

They've left the watch on her, though.

[B]

Yeah, the watch isn't pinched it. That's right. So she's been protecting herself. So, sure enough, we then start vacuum in there to make sure it's been broken there and we find the pieces of the thing, of the lens. Okay, that makes sense. But I'm still not happy with it's not a burglary. So I'm looking more closely at the family, but I couldn't budge one way or the other. He's the son's alibi, the grandson's alibi. Why would Someone want to kill this defenseless old lady. She's had two attempts on a unit, burglary, arson attack. Horrific. Okay, so we start looking at her inheritance.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So she's got I think some 350,000, I think from memory, whatever. 300,000, okay, that's one motive, but it's not taking me anywhere. Why would someone else do it? Why would someone make so to me it's a murder make look like a burglary gone wrong. It doesn't make sense. Everything keeps coming back to the family. I couldn't prove one way or the other. So we worked on it for quite some period of time. And that's where it was interesting. Again using the media. And that's where I first got to know Tara Brown. Tara from Now 60 Minutes. She was with Current Affair then. So Tara was interested in the investigation and we got her come in and she actually interviewed the son. And she was a good hard nosed investigative journalist, which she is, and quite good at it. And she started putting the pressure on him and he started really got agitated and told her to get out eventually. But that her interview which we had on videotape didn't match up to what he told us.

[C]

I could see a couple of scratches on the door and then there was a heap of stereo equipment on the floor.

[D]

We first met the very composed Philip hocking in October, October 1993. It's hard to believe it was just three days after the savage murder of his elderly mother Phyllis. He'd found her in his lounge room, her temporary bedroom. And he told me that day he believed she was the victim of a burglary gone wrong.

[C]

To see her lying there, the words are hard to find. It's someone so helpless and defenseless really. So my feeling was for her that, you know, this is not the way to come home from a happy day at the day center and end up curled up on the floor with your head bashed in.

[B]

It's my view that he certainly knew what he was going to find once he entered the rear of that household.

[D]

Homicide Detective Senior Sergeant Sergeant Charlie Bassina has been on the case since day one. Philip Hocking has never been out of his sights.

[B]

Philip Hocking was a prime suspect initially. He was the then the sole beneficiary and that was the only issue that arose in the early stages. We weren't happy with the crime scene in itself, that it was to our mind a put up burglary scene, as it were.

[A]

Do you liaise with a journo in a situation like that where you say, ask him this.

[B]

Yeah, we did, yeah, we did, yeah.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Avenue of inquiry. And you know, and you take them on board and they say, well, look, it's. We're not just going to make a story of it. And we say, you know, it's going back ages ago where people might not remember where there was a allegation of our water source being allegedly poisoned. And I think Darren Hinch got the mail on it.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

And they had to take Darren into their confidence. This is way back. And say, don't run with it. Cause you'll just shut this whole state down or this stuff. So you do bring your journalists in because if they. You can't stop them. No, you've just got to say, come on board. And these are the reasons. And, you know, we'll give you this or we'll look after you down the track. But it becomes quite complicated. So that's where that particular investigation lay. And I'd been at Homicide about seven years then. And then I couldn't get promoted within the squad. I then had to leave the squad to get promoted as a senior sergeant. So I went back to uniform. That's how the system worked. Went back to the uniform branch. That remains an unsolved. That was my hobby horse. And we didn't have the cold case unit then, so it remained just on a shelf, dormant. And I then transferred back to the homicide squad after 18 months, took charge of a team of detectives. And within a short period of time, I get contacted by the de facto of the son. She's living in a state at that time. She said, I want to see you because my husband was the one that killed his grandmother. So.

[A]

So she's the one who alibi'd him at the time. And now. Oh, okay.

[B]

I went and spoke to her, or she come and spoke to me and told us that the son had got the grandson to do the deed and kill his grandmother and her because they weren't getting inheritance quick enough. It was all money driven.

[A]

And did they do the previous attacks as well?

[B]

And they did. The grandson did the burglary, trashed the joint, then repaired it. The son, that didn't work. That didn't scare her enough and say, well, we'll kill her. So then they Molotov cocktailed the unit. She's tough, old Bert. She said, no. It was all reported to the local detectives I investigated, and in those days was $50,000 reward on it. So she came and gave a statement to me which blew him out, which made him the obvious suspect for Whatever reason, he then caught wind of it, this particular offender. And then whilst I'm talking to or the day very soon after speaking to the de facto he gave himself up to the local police station. I get contacted and said I've got this guy here, he wants to talking about a murder. So and so and it all fell into place and so he gave himself up, interviewed him, made full admissions and he said well my father put me up to it. But as the then law worked with co accused, you can't convict an accused on the uncorroborated evidence of a co accused.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So we couldn't corroborate his evidence. So we charged the son, couldn't charge the father, he was alibi'd. But even though just on the word of the son to say, well dad put me up to it, it was only word of mouth, we couldn't support it in any way.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So the son ended up getting 20 odd years, whatever it was, 15, 18 years, couldn't charge the father. And again, again with the association you had with offenders, this offender got out of jail and then contacted me, he said oh Charlie, I found my calling in the jail. I've done a book on rehabilitation of prisoners and what to expect. When I went into prison I didn't know what to expect and so I've done this book and da, da, da. And so I then emailed him back, I said that's fantastic and away you go. And yeah, just interesting that how the relationships you have with these offenders. Oh yeah, and stuff like that, just, you know.

[A]

But also you've got me thinking about the frequency with which somebody else encourages a murder, whether it's, you know, to the extent that they literally solicit a murder, pay for it or whatever, or manipulate somebody into committing murder. In the case you were talking about earlier, where the security guard was murdered by his partner's lover, was she implicated in the planning of that or in

[B]

the commission of that? She was and we charged her because she's the one that told her lover the routine of her husband.

[A]

Yes. Okay.

[B]

He's at this factory, at this particular factory. I know his routine, he'll be there. So the lover goes there, lay in wait, into the bushes expecting him to come along and that's when he set upon him. No witnesses, it's just an industrial side of some sort. So.

[A]

Yeah, but you were able to implicate

[B]

her through that because he then he's not then protecting her, he's going to do some big time. So to lessen his involvement to Say, yeah, well, she put me up to it. Yeah, I did it.

[A]

And I couldn't have known these details without.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Right, exactly. And that's where other ones are then sort of set up. I had another investigation of again, another Anson. And there's a deceased female, naked. Deceased female. She's in a room that's been smoke affected. She's in front of a computer and she's got one foot up on the desk and looking at this computer. We go into the lounge room and there's sex toys in the lounge room and stuff. And so, long story short, we then find out through her phone records that she'd been seeing a male escort. We tracked the male escort down. We knew petrol was used in the arson attack and it comes out through this escort. We end up locking him up. He was living in Fitzroy street in St Kilda. He then came out and said, okay, they were having erotic sex in the lounge room and he asphyxiated her accidentally. Accidentally.

[A]

That's supposed to be a sex.

[B]

Exactly, yeah. No crime.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Concerning adults, but he's panicked. He then panicked, made it look like that she was having a fetish in front of the computer, left her naked, goes away, get some petrol, comes back, sets fire to the place. Now all he had to do is say, okay, this is what we were doing. The crime scene would have supported that and he wouldn't be weary going to be charged with it. But the fact he then covered it up in that regard, it becomes then, I suppose, of making a decision. What can the evidence prove? Asphyxiation. Was it a result of a sex act or the fact he just lost it and choked her anyway, you can't prove it, but had he come forward, would have given him more credibility. But by then doing anything further to conceal the crime, you know, you become more sinister and say, you become less believable, let's put it that way.

[A]

So this is what great movies are made of, though. These, like, terrible life choices make great movies. But, you know, when people just like. It seems to me that most murders come from someone snapping in a moment.

[B]

Is that correct?

[A]

Fair to say?

[B]

Yeah, it's fair to say, absolutely. Because, you know, they don't go out. There are the ones that actually plan it and do this type of thing. But something that's spontaneous and say, well, one thing leads to another and it becomes more sinister. Instead of saying, I made a mistake. And that's where you sit down with a suspect in the interview room and say, yeah, you're mucked up, we can't bring it back. So either you gotta accept the mistake you've made and let's make the best of it and not go on. You've then you know a person's died and then let's get rid of the body. Let's do that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Get a report that a leg has been found at the Brooklyn tip in a plastic bag. And it's amazing the things you learn with people don't give much thought to rubbish. No, not much thought at all. And so these people that work in tips, it's a science. Whilst they're bowelbirds and they're looking out, they've got the bulldozer and they're always looking out for stuff and it's fantastic and stuff. And anyway they're pushing the bulldozer and they're quite good. And he happened to push this bag and this is fate and luck that this leg was exposed.

[A]

Oh God.

[B]

So we go down. Yep, certainly has been chopped off. No, not chopped off, been cut off. And that starts the investigation. So we stop the tip operations. We bring a big swag of people in, start going through looking for more body parts. We finally get a bit of a body part with the hand or the tattoo. We identify the person. We know this person's residing in Yarraville, he's a low level drug dealer. And then we get a connection and I still remember it, there's a house in o' Farrell street in Yarraville, he's got a connection. We built up a connection between him and these particular three people that lived in this place. In o' Farrell street, one thing leads to another. So we just knock on the door. It's opened up by one of the offenders. He tells us to have sex and travel. Okay, so it's a bit odd, slams the door in our face. So we come back with a warrant because we've got the connection, we're still finding all the body parts. We end up finding all the body parts at the tip except for the head.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

So we execute the warrant, we go into the.

[A]

So how do you begin by the way? When you knock on the door, do you say, oh hi, we're just looking for Gary or whoever the victim was. Do you start?

[B]

Oh, no, no, no, you just say, look, Charlie, presenter from homicide squad. Look, we're investing in the. The murder of so and so. So and so.

[A]

You don't try and be cute.

[B]

Exactly. And then because you don't know if they're going to make an admission or whatever and they'll say, well, he said he was here just doing the doorknock. And I then said, oh, well, you're probably here for over this. This particular name.

[A]

Yeah, Right.

[B]

And then about admittability, and you've got to be honest with them. So we get the warrant as we're walking down the hallway and the carpet's squelching, squelch, squelch, squelch, squelch. It's all wet. I'm saying, well, that's odd. And then we then start bringing our forensic people in. They pull up the carpet and it's all diluted blood with water, et cetera, et cetera. Then we had two of the other two, one particular hardhead, and the other two offenders were there. They eventually turned and said, okay, this guy, he owed us 500 bucks or 50 bucks or something. Her life. Cheap is so cheap. He come in here, we hit him with an axe, we killed him. He was living in a bungalow at that stage, so to couple it off to, we then had a bungalow that was burnt down where the deceased lived. So, yeah, this guy said he'd come to our house, he owed us money. One thing led to another. We ended up killing him with a tomahawk. And then we got a angle grinder and cut up the body. The body parts in the bathtub. So we do a door knock. Do you hear any noises? Yeah, we heard this machine going for middle of the night and of course thought nothing more of it. A bit odd, but what, early hours of the morning and you didn't think people get hesitant about reporting things. Yeah, well, what if it's a nothing? And apart from the noise issue, they could have reported noise or machinery been happening. Yeah, but it's not as acute as it is today with the noise issue and Tradie's work and after hours, I

[A]

don't think I'd report it, but I'd certainly note it now. Now I'm very paranoid about things and I'd look to see what time in case the conference came.

[B]

Yeah, that.

[A]

Exactly. Yes, it was at this time.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Or a SAS car. And did you get the number? Yeah, but you can get the number and throw it away. Just have the number.

[A]

Especially with phones now, smartphones, I can snap photos of things all the time

[B]

and just take them, throw it away like we're getting exhibits. Yeah. So we processed the crime scenes. Bloody blood everywhere. Within luminol, we use this particular. So we had to shut off all the street lights and see if there's a blood trial. And they said, oh, what we did, we carry the body parts in bags and put them in garbage bins in the next street.

[A]

They're so lazy they didn't even take it anywhere, didn't have a car. So still you'd think it was important get them up.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

But not by one or figure something out.

[B]

So this again, the signs. Science of rubbish. So on this side of the street they put all. Because I couldn't get over the fact we couldn't find the head. Yeah, they said, oh no, we did it on that street in the garbage bins. So again there's got to be a line in the sand. You can't have all these personnel still at the Brooklyn tip raking and this stuff. And it's amazing that the science with rubbish tips certainly then probably more so now they could tell me that this is the area that the tip that the rubbish has come from.

[A]

Yarraville, from o' Farrell Street, Yarraville. Pretty much, yeah. And they could tell me that's amazing, isn't it?

[B]

It is. So don't think, oh it's willy nilly just rubbish is dumped. They know. So anyway, so we again we had to pay money to use their excavator and then all this stuff. So they've got to run a business, we're holding them up.

[A]

So it's a cost. Yeah, it's a cost. Also you've got a confession, you've got the offenders who've said okay, this other

[B]

hard nose, he wouldn't make admissions but we either two co offenders against him and all this stuff.

[A]

So at some point your bosses or whoever have got to be saying, okay, we didn't find the head, move on.

[B]

Yeah, well they are. But I've then got to balance the family too and say, well I've got the relationship with the family, you haven't. Yeah, and but how do you tell that to me? I've got to be realistic about it and just say, you know what it's like the Ganzitana murder when we're looking for the pistol in the Yarra river, they've got to be lined in the sand. So he said, okay, if the head was here we would have found it. Because they're saying, look, this wouldn't be any deeper. This is the parameters. You found all the other body parts so everything added up. So we said to the family, look, I'm more than happy that it was there, but amazingly we then find out. So we luminole the bloody all the bins to confirm that. We then luminole the garbage truck with the blood in There we all got. So again we go to the nth degree of supporting what we're saying. So on this side of the street where the garbage bins that went to the Brooklyn tip on that side of the street went to the refuse in Dinan Road,

[A]

you reckon they've slung the head into it across the street, I mean across the street.

[B]

So they put the head in that one maybe because all the bins were full.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

On this side, as a lot of neighbours do, they look and load up the neighbour's bid. Yeah, so. So that's the only excuse. But unfortunately given the overlap in time and the tonnage of rubbish at the Brooklyn refuse dump, it was impossible, it was impossibility cost wise and manpower wise to be able to say, well okay, let's go look for it now. It was probably two or three weeks later and the garbage just impossible in relation to do it. So we were able to then charge the, the people on that. The fact that whilst we would have done it evidentiary wise with the forensic evidence in the house, what we found there, regardless of the admissions by the co offenders that made things a little bit easier. But again it's building it all up and the bizarre nature of it all and you know, the ridiculous nature of it all.

[A]

So the head was never located and

[B]

yeah, all over, couldn't do it. 50500 debt. Yeah, it's ridiculous. You know just quickly we had another quick one. I won't go into the details, details of it but we found another dismembered body in a lake. It was either an arm or some other body part but it was on the back of I think Latrobe Uni. And I said ah, this will be it. I'm driving to the crime scene. I said this will be some prank that. Is there a medical unit attached for you know when they get body parts to do their own examinations on it and someone's just been a joke. And then we then found other body, the body parts and we identified that deceased through a tattoo. Again a bit like the movies. Then we found the torso buried in the bushland some away and it was all the smell got it because it all bloated and stuff and all the limbs have been cut off for identification but we're able to identify this woman. And this particular spot was actually in Heidelberg, the old Olympic Village. And so I said to my video people, we had all the people coming out and okay, it's knockabout area, the Olympic Village for want of a better word. So I said to my video guy look, can you just videotape the crowd? Which he did. And then we go back and look at the videotape. And in the background, some distance away, is two people not taking any notice. And on this, two other people sitting on a fence there. Everyone else, we got 50 or 60 people looking around, trying to find. Because we're digging up this torso.

[A]

Yeah. Rubbernecking. What are the cops doing?

[B]

And as it turned out, the people in the background, they were my offenders. Wow. And they were connected. I then would find out who they were. It didn't make sense, just body language. And then one thing led to another. Same deal, wheelie bin. And they did that, dismembered the body and away they went. Cause we could link the deceased back to their houses. That's why they weren't taking any notice. They were sitting there quite sheepish.

[A]

But offenders do tend to come and sticky beak, don't they, at events like that? I mean, look at Eurydice Dixon's murderer. He came back to the scene when police were.

[B]

Or you're at a crime scene and they'll drive past and see what's happening. All this stuff, it's not uncommon. So that's where you've got to be mindful of when you take the crime scene guard. Or are you mindful as you're sitting there waiting for the undertakers of cars that are just driving past, just get that number and do all this stuff then becomes. It goes on and on and you do as much as you can to try and solve it for the poor old family and get another killer off the street as best you can. And then you say, well, we've done our job. Yeah, but what's he going to get? Is he going to get. Life is now in the hands of the court again.

[A]

Yeah. Not your job.

[B]

Exactly the same way.

[A]

Yeah. Everyone has their part to play, don't they?

[B]

But you don't very much so. And look, I used to be critical a lot with judges and magistrates, but when you think about it, their hands are tied somewhat, as you depreciate, I

[A]

think all of your hands are tied

[B]

because you've all got to tie the precedent. In my 38 years, the only maximum sentence has been put out there is murder. Not for all murders, but they get life. Maximum for murder is life. Some get minimums, some get life. Like pedagogy Pass. No, minimum.

[A]

Yeah, but he killed how many people? He was a serial killer.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

And he got lots of very short sentences for rape prior to that.

[B]

Why? Yeah, exactly. Well, why should one Murder be lesser than the other one. Why did he get life imprisonment and this one not. Well, that's not a serial killer, but it's a multiple. Multiple killer killer, as we stand at the moment and planned.

[A]

And I think, because it seemed to me that, like, you always had the kind of the voice of the defence team in your head, it seems like judges have the possibility of. What's the word on the appeal?

[B]

They don't like being appealed. No. And as we've discussed with Denia.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Frank Vincent.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

He just rolled the dice. As I've spoken in the first couple of podcasts, he rolled it and said, knowing full well you think he'd appeal. You know what? I'm gonna give you three life imprisonment, no minimum. Take him away. Even though he pleaded guilty.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

He's entitled to a discount.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And sure enough, the defence said, okay, we're gonna appeal. He got life, three lives, minimum of 30, and now he's doing life, no minimum, because the government have stepped in, thank goodness for that, at his parole applications. So what's the purpose of having maximum? But then they're bound by precedent. If I don't follow precedent, I'm going to get appealed against and say, well, you, Honour, you should have done this. And the appeals, the three wise judges in the Supreme Court, the full Supreme Court bench will say, well, no, he should have followed this. Well, I don't know why, whether it's possible. So the government should say, you know what, judges don't take any notice of precedent anymore. And when they then say, oh, we take every case on its own merits. No, you don't, because you do to an extent. But on the other hand, you're then bound by other previous cases. I've had defence barristers say to a judge or magistrate, tell him what the sentence is. Your Honour, my client's in the realm of 15 years for this offence because that's where it sits with other previous cases.

[A]

It just makes you think about how difficult it is for victims, families to manoeuvre it because it is so complex it doesn't seem to make sense to the rest of us.

[B]

I've had cases where I said, look, I'll ring up, because then we are the ones. So we account for all the brief of evidence. We are the ones who get the witnesses there. We then say, and they'll then say to us, they. The prosecutor say through his instructing solicitor, I want these five witnesses. Tomorrow I ring him up and say, look, can you come in here for 10 o' clock or trying to judge how much? I don't know how much cross examination. We don't know the defence of the

[A]

day, I have no idea. It could be an afternoon, it could be five days.

[B]

I'm trying to balance it to say, well, okay, can you come in? Or I might ring him. Look, I'll ring you at 10 o'.

[A]

Clock.

[B]

Look, it's going to be. That might be an indication. Can you come here for two o'? Clock? They come in for two drop what they're doing and they don't get on and they get so frustrated and nervous, I would imagine. Oh, very much so.

[A]

You know, I think about Russell Hill's wife, beautiful woman, you know, during the high country murder trials, which has since been overturned, that guilty verdict. But that lady was a very sweet suburban grandmother and she had to come into court and testify that her husband was having an affair for decades, that she didn't know all of this stuff, very embarrassing, very upsetting and just kind of had to wait her turn. I mean, how do you say it to a person like that? Sorry, they're not going to fit you on today. Can you come back tomorrow?

[B]

No, that's right, that's exactly. Everything revolves around the court system as such. But I. Because. And we are the ones appeasing the witnesses and the families because we've got to keep them on side. Yeah, I remember being attacked one day and again the process with the justices and I had a witness, this particular lady, she was so nervous and you support me, so you say, look, if, listen to the question. If you don't understand it, ask him to repeat it. Give it a lot of thought. If you don't know, don't guess an answer. And that's what you do. You just say, this is what to expect.

[A]

Give them some confidence and say what to expect.

[B]

Because I do it every day, they don't.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So they come into this new field. As you know, you've been in the Supreme Court, however overwhelming it is, the pomp and ceremony with the wigs and you're climbing up these stairs into the witness box and then little overwhelming if

[A]

you're emotional about the case.

[B]

Correct. After acquittals, for example, we might lose a case and there's not very many, touch wood. The people we take it to heart because of, not so much the work that we do, but also for the family who we've got that relationship with. And they end up taking us out and say, come on, Charlie, we know you've done 110%, let's go and have a beer and you go out and have a beer with the families and they know because of our relationship, you're bringing them up to date all the time and they can see the work that we've done and they've got confidence. You need families to have confidence in the investigator.

[A]

Thanks for joining us on Australian True Crime. If you would like any more information about anything you've heard on the show today, or support numbers, just check out the show notes.

[B]

The producers of this podcast recognise the traditional owners of the land on which it's recorded. They pay respect to the Aboriginal elders past, present and those emerging.