Julie's Gone – Episode 6: "It's in the File"

Casefile Presents | Released July 30, 2025
Host: Helen Thomas

Episode Overview

This sixth episode of Julie's Gone explores the persistent mysteries and lingering questions surrounding the disappearance of Julie Ann Garciacelay in Melbourne, 1975. Through in-depth examination of police files, interviews with journalists, forensic experts, and Julie's family, Helen Thomas uncovers how the failure to retain crucial evidence, decades of contradictory witness accounts, and lost opportunities continue to hinder the case. The episode particularly focuses on what can be pieced together from surviving police and coroner's records, and the frustrations that haunt those still seeking answers.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Cold Case Reopened – But Hopes Dashed

• (01:03) Early 2000s Effort: Homicide Detective Ron Iddles persuaded the formation of Victoria’s first cold case unit, triggering a new investigation into Julie’s disappearance almost 30 years later. Julie’s sister, Gayle, was told she could be required back in Melbourne for court, but this ultimately didn’t happen.
• Quote
  • "She said, mom, they're opening up Julie's case again... she had to go to court and she was very, very upset about having to return for this. And something happened, I don't recall what. It was cancelled." – Ruth Garcia Soleil (01:52)

2. Key People & The Night Julie Disappeared

• (02:20–03:45) Persons of Interest: The same three men have always been central to the police investigation:
  • John Joseph Power
  • Tommy Collins
  • John Grant
• Theory vs. Eyewitness: Detectives believe Julie was murdered in her apartment, though Sister Xenovia recalled seeing a young woman dragged from a North Melbourne phone booth by three men that night. Police did not take statements from these witnesses until 49 years later.

3. The Apartment Crime Scene & Missing Evidence

• (03:45–07:16) Helen details key physical evidence and items found in the apartment:
  • Clothes, spectacles, personal items left behind—all indicative of a sudden disappearance.
  • Missing: Julie’s handmade black cape, a carving knife, $125 in cash, and a nightie.
• Quote
  • "Julie made the most beautiful cape. I often wonder what ever happened to that cape." – Ruth Garcia Soleil (05:47)
• Discussion of the emotional significance of the missing cape and memories attached to it.

4. Forensic Examination – What Was Done & What Was Lost

• (09:05–14:49) 1975 Forensics: Liz Porter describes a thorough forensic sweep for the time (fingerprints taken, blood samples from flat, stairwell, phone booth).
  • Three separate blood samples, but no ability to DNA match at the time.
  • Semen found on Julie’s underwear, "a crucial discovery by today’s standards" (09:57).
  • Missing Exhibits: "No exhibits from the flat have been retained." (09:57) – meaning no chance for modern analysis.
• Quote
  • "If they had been retained, they might have been analysed later… but that never happened." – Liz Porter (09:54)
• (12:48–14:49) 2003 Attempted Forensics: Stephen Kurtowski tested carpet samples nearly 30 years later; no significant results or further testing evident.

5. Context: 1970s Social Attitudes and Naïveté

• (16:42–17:39) Discussion about 1970s culture—young people more trusting, less wary of strangers or groups of men.
• Quote
  • "There’s this extraordinary trust and interest in the world and you just don’t think people are going to do you harm. Clearly, that was her situation." – Liz Porter (17:39)

6. Contradictory Testimonies & Inconsistent Accounts

• (19:06–26:13) Documented inconsistencies from suspects and witnesses:
  • Varied locations and causes of death suggested (buried in mine shaft, under concrete at worksite, abducted at phone booth, etc.)
  • Frances Osborne, John Power’s then-wife, provides suspicious details about her husband's movements (e.g., cleaning his car at unusual hours, agitation among suspects).
  • John Grant's shifting stories to police, colleagues, and Julie's friends.
• Quote
  • "I wanted the police to know… they listened to what I had to say, but it was almost as though they were a little bit dismissive." – Jules Thatcher (26:33)

7. Difficulties in Resolving the Truth

• (27:27–28:28) Contradiction even among Julie’s colleagues and family about who left the flat and in what order; confusion is compounded by the passage of time.
• (28:03) John Grant refused to provide a blood sample or statement during 2003 inquiries but was never charged.

8. Final Inquest and Unanswered Questions

• (31:01–32:21) In 2018, Coroner Sarah Hinchey confirmed Julie's death as a homicide but no perpetrator could be conclusively identified.
• Inadequate communication with Julie’s family about the inquest findings.
• Quote
  • "I don't want this case to be closed in the dead file." – Ruth Garcia Soleil (32:21)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "They tried blood typing, but it was unsuccessful. Bearing in mind this is 1975 and they're still basically doing blood typing at that point, but they were most certainly taking it seriously."
  – Liz Porter (11:40)
• "He actually told me he'd been there and he had left with the two men with Julie, and suddenly he hadn't been there."
  – Jules Thatcher, on shifting statements from John Grant (25:56)
• "This brief was finally delivered to the coroner's office in 2016 and an inquest into Julie's disappearance was held in 2017..."
  – Helen Thomas (31:01)
• "The police response has to be immediate. Otherwise you can find yourself almost 50 years down the track still without resolution."
  – Helen Thomas (32:28)

Key Timestamps

• 01:03 – Cold case unit formed, Julie’s case reopened
• 02:20 – Key witness re-interviewed after 49 years
• 03:45 – Breakdown of scene, missing items, police timeline
• 05:47 – Julie's mother recalls the black cape
• 09:05 – Forensics overview: sampling, missing exhibits
• 12:48 – 2003 forensic revisitation, but inconclusive
• 16:42 – 1970s social context and cultural norms
• 19:06 – Contradictory suspect testimonies, rumored fates
• 22:19 – Analysis of suspects’ personalities and influence (Tommy Collins)
• 24:26 – Direct summary of suspects’ police statements
• 25:05 – Jules Thatcher recalls strange behavior from John Grant
• 31:01 – Coroner’s findings and continued family struggle for closure
• 32:21 – Ruth Garcia Soleil voices hope the case remains open

Episode Tone & Style

Helen Thomas delivers the narrative with forensic clarity and understated emotion, focusing on facts and carefully sourced testimony. Guests, especially Julie's family and colleagues, bring personal warmth, sadness, and frustration. The tone is investigative, reflective, and respectful, underscoring the pain of unresolved loss and the infuriating gaps left by time and error.

Summary for New Listeners

This episode provides a rich, meticulous analysis of what is—and isn’t—known about Julie Ann Garciacelay’s disappearance. It highlights how, despite renewed investigations and advances in forensic science, the lack of preserved evidence and endless conflicting accounts have left the case shrouded in mystery. Moving between official files and deeply personal memories, “It’s in the File” is both a critical look at cold case procedure and a heartbreaking exploration of loss, doubt, and the passage of nearly 50 years.