Episode 6: It's in the File

Summary

---

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.

---

Transcript

[Acast Host]

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

[Kara Berry]

La Brega is back this season. We're spending time with the people and symbols that represent Puerto Rico.

[Helen Thomas]

We're proud boricuas.

[Jules Thatcher]

And what does that mean?

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

And we are still in the fight.

[Kara Berry]

We're telling stories about champions from a place worth fighting for. Stories that will inspire you no matter where you're from.

[Liz Porter]

Wow.

[Kara Berry]

This is La Brega Campeones. Listen early and ad free with Fubudo. Plus.

[Acast Host]

Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.

[Helen Thomas]

It took nearly 30 years for homicide detectives to start looking into Julie Garcia Soleil's case again. But it was one that prominent detective Ron Iddles believed could be solved by the new cold case unit that he'd persuaded the powers that be to set up in the early 2000s, just after he'd returned from a US sabbatical, he'd been studying how the FBI and police across North America investigated unsolved murders. Realising the significance of such a specialised approach, Victoria's first cold case team only lasted a couple of years. Yet in that time, Julie's case was reopened and her sister Gayle informed that she might have to return to Melbourne if it went to court. In the end, this didn't happen. But as her mother recalls, that prospect dismayed her.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

She said, mom, they're opening up Julie's case again in Australia and 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.

[Helen Thomas]

No one was charged, as we know. But in 2003, new statements were taken from several key witnesses police had spoken to 28 years before. These included no comment interviews from John Joseph Power and John Grant. Tommy Collins had died years before, so there's only his original unsigned statement on record. Experienced detectives like to think that answers to old cases like Julie's are in the file. They're to be found if you just keep check, check, checking. And maybe in this case, it is. My name's Helen Thomas and thanks for listening to Julie's gone. This is episode six. It's in the File. The coronial brief Prepared by Detective Sergeant Steve Trevaris in 2016 isn't the full police file that veteran investigators rely on. And while it contains no straightforward answer to Julie's disappearance, it does make clear what was gleaned. Originally, three men went to see her at home that night. They had a few drinks, ate some pizza and then she vanished. No one has seen her since that first night in July 1975. And the main persons of interest have remained the same John Joseph Power Reese, Tommy Collins and John Grant. It also makes clear that detectives believe Julie was murdered in her apartment. Now, this theory seems to contradict what Sister Xenovia says she witnessed one night in 75. A young woman being dragged kicking and screaming, from the public telephone box in front of her convent in North Melbourne. Three men, they came, they grabbed her, Grabbed her and put her into the car. And she lost her shoe. Yeah. Or does it? As we know, police didn't speak to the sister or her mother superior, who also says she saw three men at the phone box that night, or their neighbour, Robert Platt, until last year, when Detective Trevoris finally interviewed them 49 years later. In other words, police didn't have information that might have assisted their assessment of what they found in the apartment. Did the men, Sister Zenovia says, force the young woman out of the phone box, drive her the short distance back to her flat to attack her? This doesn't really make sense, but seems more consistent with the summary of evidence that that coroner, Sarai Hinchey, was presented with by police. According to this document, Julie's bra, panties and pyjama pants were on the kitchen floor. There were 10 full bottles of beer on the kitchen table, while in the bedroom there were two straps from a nightie which had been cut or torn from the garment and lying over the ironing board, a torn portion of a belt on the floor and a pyjama top lying on the bed. The outer clothing, which she'd been wearing when her sister went out, was all located in the bathroom. Her spectacles, contact lenses, house keys, purse and contraceptive pills were all located inside the flat. Missing from the apartment and never recovered was the nightie from which those two straps had been torn, a black handled carving knife, $125 in cash, and a full length black cape. Ruth Garcia Soleil remembers her daughter making that cape before she left for Australia.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

She and Gail got into sewing. Gail started it first. When you're raising three daughters and one of them wants all these expensive clothes, you can't afford it. And I said to Gail, you want those things, you learn how to sew. Because she was taking Home EC classes were being taught still and. And the schools did, and she was learning to sew. So I told her, you pick up the material, I'll take you for that. So that's how it started. And soon Julie was sewing. They Had a blast. Julie made the most beautiful cape. I often wonder what ever happened to that cape.

[Helen Thomas]

Is this the black cape that she had in Melbourne?

[Jules Thatcher]

Yes.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

Oh, it was just lovely.

[Helen Thomas]

And she made that at home in California?

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

Yes, she made that and other things. It was absolutely wonderful because the sewing machine was going all the time.

[Helen Thomas]

And tell us just a little bit about that cape. Do you remember what it was made of?

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

Oh, gosh. It was a heavier material, of course.

[Helen Thomas]

Was it like a velvet?

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

No, it wasn't a velvet. No, it was, you know, if you've ever seen nurses who wear their capes, it's a heavy material like that.

[Helen Thomas]

Was Julie wrapped in that cape that her mother described so vividly and taken out of the apartment that night, or did she put it on herself after things somehow got out of control and rushed down to the street hoping to reach a public point of safety? John Power would tell detectives she was wearing a black caftan when she left to make the phone call. Fifty years on, the easy answer is we don't know yet. It's possible this crucial query might still be resolved. This makes the detail in the Coroner's brief even more critical in terms of trying to work out what happened that night. I applied to the Coroner's Court for permission to look at it early in 2023 and was eventually given approval to, quote, access documents from investigation into the death of Julianne Garcia Soleil later that year. This included a transcript of proceedings of the inquest before Judge Hinchey, her finding and the inquest brief compiled by the Homicide Squad and presented to the Coroner's Court in October 2016. This in turn included a case summary, exhibits list and witness statements taken over a 28 year span that provide compelling detail. For instance, this brief reveals that John Power was placed under surveillance by the Armed Robbery Squad. It also helps explain what's not in the file. A statement from Power at the time of Julie's disappearance. Police apparently spoke to him in the presence of his solicitor early in the investigation, but, quote, although he gave an account of his movements, he declined to make any statement whatsoever. Unquote. Liz Porter, author of Cold Case Past Crimes Solved by New Forensic Science, has researched many legal documents and was keen to look at this one.

[Liz Porter]

Well, at that point they couldn't call it a murder scene, but they called it the scene where a missing person had been and they have done. They have fully fingerprinted the flat, they've taken fingerprints of all people known to have recently frequented that flat and comparisons revealed that they match. There's no prints from anyone unknown there. The chemist took samples of what appeared to be blood from the kitchen, from a tea towel located on Julie's bed, from the bathroom, from a stairwell and telephone booth opposite the plait. The blood in the telephone booth, the stairwell and the tea towel were from three different people. So we don't actually know whether the blood in the telephone booth was Julie's. Could be anybody's.

[Helen Thomas]

And you're talking about the initial investigation in 1975?

[Liz Porter]

That's right. And semen was located on the crotch area of the panties as well, which under modern circumstances would be considered a crucial discovery. Of course, this was pre DNA analysis. But the crucial, and for me, incredibly disappointing detail that I then read in the file is that no exhibits from the flat have been retained. So, unfortunately, if they had been retained, they might have been analysed later and they might have found their way into the police forensic lab's freezer. But that never happened.

[Helen Thomas]

So let's just be clear on that point. No exhibits from the apartment have been retained by police. Nevertheless, Porter is impressed by the way forensic inquiries were carried out in Julie's apartment 50 years ago. So while they didn't do an extensive doorknock in the days after she vanished from Canning street, or have much of a presence at all in the area, they did gather as much forensic information as they could, first in 75 and again in 2003.

[Liz Porter]

They threw their, well, their best people at it at the time. All their scientists are good, but the people who were on this investigation were people that ended up as very eminent scientists at the lab. One of the first at the scene was David Gidley, who went on to become director of the lab, and he didn't leave the lab until 2003, but he was at Julie's flat on 4 July 1975.

[Helen Thomas]

The good thing is, from what you're saying, they did take it seriously, even though at this point Julie is considered to be missing.

[Liz Porter]

Absolutely, they took it seriously. They were sampling her clothes, looking for semen samples, looking for sweat residue, looking at hairs in a brush. 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. Equally interestingly was Moving on to 2003, when the investigation became a murder investigation, they sent very eminent forensic scientist Stephen Gutowski back to the flat and he carried out testing on the underside of the carpet in the lounge room and bedroom. Given that no results from this are presented in the coroner's report, I have to assume that no results were found. And that's kind of to be expected, really, after that length of time.

[Helen Thomas]

As Liz Porter says, Steve Kurtowski was the forensic expert assigned to Julie's apartment in 2003, 28 years after she and her sister had lived there. It was an unusual assignment, but he doesn't remember going there.

[Steve Kurtowski]

At approximately 9am on Saturday 1 March 2003, I attended at Flat 9, 26 Canning Street, North Melbourne, in the company of Detective Senior Constable Trewafas and others. I carried out scientific testing on the underside of the carpet in the lounge room and bedroom. I collected a sample of carpet from an area approximately 135cm from the north wall and 37cm from the west wall of the lounge room. I lodged this sample with the Evidence tracking section on March 3, 2003, as Item 1 for possible further analysis by the Biology Division.

[Helen Thomas]

And that's signed and dated?

[Steve Kurtowski]

That's signed and dated, yeah.

[Helen Thomas]

Now, having read that statement, Steve, which is Obviously yours, from 2003, do you remember going to Julian Gale's apartment in North Melbourne?

[Steve Kurtowski]

No, I don't, no. It's too long ago.

[Helen Thomas]

So. Well, it is a long, long time ago. Was it unusual to go to a scene like that so long after, in this case, the disappearance occurred?

[Steve Kurtowski]

Oh, yes, it's quite rare, but obviously the results were somewhat underwhelming and I don't remember.

[Helen Thomas]

And yet you found something and you sent it off to be tested?

[Steve Kurtowski]

I did, yes, according to the statement.

[Helen Thomas]

But looking through this file, we can't see that it has been tested.

[Steve Kurtowski]

No, no, we can't see that it was actually passed on to the Biology Division. Well, there's no statement from a member of the Biology Division here in the park.

[Helen Thomas]

Is that odd to you?

[Steve Kurtowski]

I would have thought someone would have picked it up and would have written something to the effect that nothing was found. If that was indeed the case, Steve.

[Helen Thomas]

Scientifically, let's talk about what you might have found. I mean, you obviously found something, some sort of stain under that carpet. How much Was possible in 2003? What could have been made of that sample?

[Steve Kurtowski]

Well, DNA testing was around at that time, so that could have been done on relatively small amounts of blood. But the luminol test, which presumably are used, is not totally specific for blood. So whatever was found may not have even been blood.

[Helen Thomas]

A lot of the original samples were not saved. I wonder whether you would have any view as to whether this piece of evidence would be still in existence Somewhere in a very safe file within the lab.

[Steve Kurtowski]

Look, I can't comment on that. Very little got lost is all I can say.

[Helen Thomas]

I wonder about these cases. You know, what chances scientifically are there of in this instance, getting that sample, retesting it now, and coming up with something positive in the sense that it leads to more information, it leads to someone, hopefully, that was there in the apartment that could tell us something.

[Steve Kurtowski]

Well, as I say, I can't say that what was found was actually blood. If it was blood, then. Then there's a possibility that you could get a DNA result. It's very old. It would be. I mean, there's nothing visible. I wouldn't think so. The quantity would be extremely small. But, yeah, there might be a chance.

[Helen Thomas]

Thank you for listening. We'll be back after a short break.

[Fin AI Representative]

AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90 of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at fin.

[Helen Thomas]

AI, there's no chance Liz Porter has forgotten the era in which Julie disappeared. She's a few years younger, but has a pretty good sense of how she might have agreed to meet with three men who she didn't really know in her apartment.

[Liz Porter]

It was that time, it was the 70s, and people were very freewheeling about things like that. I don't think. Well, I think back about myself, actually, because, you know, I was also Young in the 70s, and some of the things that I did at the time in terms of meeting, you know, groups of men and not thinking anything about it, and nothing ever did happen to me, but I look back now and think it could have.

[Helen Thomas]

You know, it's interesting you say that because one of her colleagues, Jules Thatcher, who we hear from in the first episode, they weren't close friends, but she remembers Julie very well. And she said, like her, she was really naive. She was 19, nearly 20, but 19 and quite naive.

[Liz Porter]

Yes. Well, I think I would never have considered myself as naive. But you never do that. Part of the naivete is considering that you're not naive.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

Yeah.

[Liz Porter]

And so there's this extraordinary trust and interest in the world and you just don't think that people are going to do you harm. Clearly, that was her situation. And as you say, those three men had visited her in the office that afternoon. Another indication of the sort of freewheeling. I mean, these days nobody. Well, when people are in the office, nobody has social visitors to the office, even in newspapers.

[Helen Thomas]

Ok, let's come to the summary in more specific detail. I mean, you've read so many of these. What really leaps out at you? What is one of the most salient points that you find in this summary?

[Liz Porter]

The thing that jumped out at me was that the Powers blood was tested much later in 2003 and then it was analysed in 2004 and they actually determined his blood type as a negative, which is only 1 in 16 people. I mean, there are rarer blood types, but still it's one of the rarer. And there's this terrible sense of frustration that they didn't know that at the time. They tested everything they could at the time, I gather, but I think a lot of those tests don't perform well when the blood is dried and a bit decomposed. This wasn't an immediate forensic response. I'm not blaming the scientists there. It wasn't an immediate police response because she was a missing person, not a murder victim at that point.

[Helen Thomas]

Through the decades, the search for Julie has been riddled with contradictory statements, starting with the accounts that Collins, Grant and Power gave about leaving her apartment and and driving home. Late in 1975, a former prisoner who knew John Power in jail claimed that Power and Tommy Collins had killed the young Californian and buried her in a mine shaft in Smithsdale in country Victoria. He also suggested she'd been kept in an empty house opposite the Smithsdale milk Bar. Police searches proved both claims to be untrue. Another bad actor told Homicide a few years later that he, Collins POW and another man had had been involved in taking photos of Julie, possibly pornographic, and then buried her. This couldn't be confirmed. Decades later, a son of Tommy Collins, boxing trainer, was spoken to by police. He told them that he'd heard from an unnamed source that Power had driven Julie down to a building site at the wharves and buried her. The next day, the site was concreted over. He said he was told the name of the street but had forgotten it. Something like Dreyfus Street, Port Melbourne. He claimed Power was working there at the time as a painter and docker. He wouldn't name the person who'd supplied the information and claimed he was scared of Power, whom he knew well. Police were unable to take this inquiry further or validate the claim. Perhaps most confounding was what Frances Osborne, John Power's former wife, told detectives in 2003 that she'd gone to bed early on July 1, 1975, and her husband had arrived home early the next morning asking for a rag to clean up his car because their puppy had piddled in it. In her statement, she says he seemed rushed and never came to bed that night, nor was he at home when she woke up. Later that day, Tommy Collins and his wife came round. According to the summary, Frances Osbourne said both were agitated. Collins was mentioning a white piece of tape and commenting that nothing had been said about it in the papers. She was suspicious of the visit and believes Collins had something to do with the disappearance. Collins wife Patricia also told police she recalled her husband being in a bit of a panic at the time Julie disappeared and going to Power's house with him. In her statement, she says, quote, I can remember us sitting in the kitchen or lounge room. I can remember Tommy being nervous and John Power not being there. I can imagine they were trying to get their story straight as they were aware they were at her flat and could be deduced as being suspects. Now we know that Tommy Collins had been out with Julie the night before she vanished. In the unsigned statement he gave on July 3, 1975, he told police that he'd met her, quote, about a week before at Southdown Press Library when I was inquiring about soul food, unquote. Early on the evening of June 30, he says he picked her up at her apartment to look at a nightclub that was for sale in St Kilda. He dropped her back home at about 11 the next day. He says that he and John Powell went to see her again. At Southdown Press, journalist Andrew Rule.

[Andrew Rule]

It's hard to look down, you know, the very opaque tube at the past. Neither of us knew Julie Garcia Soleil of what she was like. One thing I'd take a punt on is that somebody like Tommy Collins was probably. Boxing is an element. There's an element of showbiz about it, you know, it's the entertainment industry and a lot of people in boxing were good talkers. They're used to, as they say, making a gate. That means getting people to come to the fights. And he was a good talker, not a bad looking bloke, a bit of a con man. And I suspect that the likes of Tommy Collins Having been an Australian champ, was used to being able to impress, you know, young women and all the rest of it. And that makes sense to me that Tommy Collins would be on the lookout to impress any young woman that he ran against somewhere. And he ran against Julie Garcia Soleil.

[Helen Thomas]

Tommy Collins died in 1998, and after struggling with mental and general health issues for years, one of his sons told detectives that in the late 1970s, his father became withdrawn and didn't go out much. He was eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia. In a strange coincidence, he started seeing a counsellor at the Collingwood health centre in 1976, on the corner of Hoddle and Easy Streets, less than a block away from where the two young women were murdered at 147 Easy street early the following year. But reporter John Grant was even closer. He was staying at a colleague's house next door to Susan Bartlett and Suzanne Armstrong the night they were fatally stabbed. As we know, he was cleared of suspicion by DNA evidence in that case 18 months prior to those killings. In his unsigned statement on July 3, 1975, his account of the night includes him leaving Julie's apartment with John Power to get pizza and waiting outside the door of the flat for 15 minutes when they returned after Power suggested Tommy might try the sour with Julie, apparently slang for rape. Eventually, the pair went back inside and.

[John Grant]

Later, quote, the girl said, I'm going to make a phone call. She then left the flat, still in the same clothes and a pen in her hand. She was wearing a dark pair of slacks and a top which was not the button up type, unquote.

[Helen Thomas]

John Grant stated he didn't know Julie was missing until a colleague, veteran crime reporter Jack Darmity, told him that her flat's covered in blood and you were the last to see her. I told him nothing had happened. But as we know, he also spoke with Jules Thatcher. You remember, she worked with Julie in the newsroom library. And she says she went to find Grant after Julie's sister rang to see if she'd made it to work.

[Jules Thatcher]

I sort of let everybody know what the phone call was about. I got in touch with Mr. Grant and told him about the phone call, and he basically just ran away, ran off.

[Helen Thomas]

Did he mention Tommy Collins?

[Jules Thatcher]

Not by name. I don't recall. But he did say that he'd brought the other two that he'd introduced at the library to Julie's apartment.

[Helen Thomas]

Okay, so that was the first time you raised it with him. And then I think a couple of days later, you had another conversation with him.

[Jules Thatcher]

Yes, it may even have been the next day, we were passing in the corridor and I made reference to it and he said he hadn't been there, didn't know what I was talking about, didn't know anything about it, hadn't tried.

[Helen Thomas]

To contact Tommy Collins?

[John Grant]

Mm.

[Jules Thatcher]

Mm. No. Hadn't, no.

[Helen Thomas]

And how did he see him at that point? What was his demeanour at that point?

[Jules Thatcher]

At that point, his demeanour was a lot more relaxed. Yeah. 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.

[Helen Thomas]

So he actually said to you he left on his own? On his own and the other two blokes were still with Julie?

[Jules Thatcher]

Yes, correct.

[Helen Thomas]

Which is not what he told the police.

[Jules Thatcher]

Oh, no, I know. That's why I was really confused for a while, because I thought, why would he tell me one thing and then tell the police something different? And I wanted the police to know.

[Helen Thomas]

And when you told them that, what was their response?

[Jules Thatcher]

Well, they listened to what I had to say, but it was almost as though they were a little bit dismissive. So that's it?

[Helen Thomas]

They reopened the matter as a cold case back in the early 2000s. Do you think they were looking at it in a different light? Were they taking it more seriously?

[Jules Thatcher]

I do, yes.

[Helen Thomas]

Jules Thatcher's memory of her exchange with John Grant five decades ago varies significantly from her statements to police in 75 and 2003. But she's now adamant that he told her he left Julie's apartment on his own that night, leaving her with Tommy Collins and John Power. Intriguingly, Julie's sister's statement adds another variation to the initial conversation Jules Thatcher had with Grant. Gail told police, I rang back about.

[John Grant]

20 minutes later and Jules told me that he told her everything was alright and that they'd left when they'd been asked to at about 11pm she also said he told her that they all went with Julie to make the phone call and then gone back to the flat with her.

[Helen Thomas]

Now, the vagaries of time make it hard to unravel what's fact and what's not in these sad snapshots from the past. Then again, perhaps there's some truth in all these different versions of this sequence of events. Grant told police that after finding out Julie was missing, he went to reporter Jack Darmody's house because, quote, I was.

[John Grant]

Of the opinion I was being hunted over a homicide. He told me I had nothing to fear because I didn't have to say who I was with on the Tuesday night I went to work on the Thursday and because of an about turn by the management of the paper, I received advice that I should take it on myself to tell Senior Sergeant Mead what I knew because the editor of Truth had told me the police were completely sure of who I was with.

[Helen Thomas]

This is the only time John Grant has discussed with police what occurred that Tuesday night in July 1975. At least on the record, 28 years later in October 2003, he made a full no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor and refused to supply police with his blood when requested. He was released without being charged. Again, it's important to note that Grant has never been charged with any crime relating to Julie's disappearance. He's declined to speak to me for this podcast, so unfortunately we can't ask him about these conversations or hear directly from him. What happened that night?

[Andrew Rule]

Well, in 2003, I think John Joseph Power was still with us. Tommy Collins wasn't. And I think that makes sense that John Joseph Power was still about. And the fact that John Grant was reluctant to talk to the police about it probably suggests that he would found it easier to say nothing than to say some things because he probably didn't want to say anything about John Joseph Power and he would probably think or have taken advice that the best thing to do in these circumstances is to.

[Helen Thomas]

Say nothing, which he's entitled to do.

[Andrew Rule]

He's entitled to do.

[Helen Thomas]

John Power also gave what police described as a selective no comment interview in Port Phillip prison in October 2003, where he was on remand while he admitted visiting Julie with the two other men. He said she ran out of the flat in a hurry and said she had to ring someone when she left. She was wearing a black caftan. He said the trio left when Julie didn't return 20 to 45 minutes later. This completely contradicted what he told them a few months earlier, that he left Tommy Collins alone in the flat with Julie when he and Grant left in 2004. Detectives enlisted John Grant to, quote, engage Power and conversation in respect of the disappearance, which he did on two occasions that put police recorded. John Power showed a willingness to discuss the matter, but no evidence was obtained. So again, nothing came of it.

[Jules Thatcher]

I think about her fairly regularly wondering what the hell happened to her and why. There's been no, no satisfactory answer to what happened to her because she was a bit of an innocent, I think, and very trusty.

[Helen Thomas]

This brief was finally delivered to the coroner's office in 2016 and an inquest into Julie's disappearance was held in 2017. One year later, Judge Sarah Hinchley declared that despite no body being located, Ms. Garcia Soleil is deceased, that despite there being no evidence as to the exact circumstances and cause of her death, it was the result of homicide, and that despite extensive criminal investigation conducted by Victoria police, no person or persons have been conclusively identified to date as being responsible for causing her death. The coroner also noted that if new facts and circumstances become available, that allows any person to apply to the court for a determination that some or all of these findings be set aside. Judge Hinchey conveyed her sincerest sympathy to Julie's family and friends and directed that a copy of her finding be provided to Ruth and Fermin Garcia Soleil and senior next of kin. But for some reason that didn't happen until I informed Ruth about the inquest five years later. The coroner's court then sent her the coroner's conclusion, and a family liaison officer talked it through with her. Next time on casefile Presents. Julie's gone.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

I don't want this case to be closed in the dead file.

[Helen Thomas]

The police response has to be immediate. Otherwise you can find yourself almost 50 years down the track still without resolution.

[Ruth Garcia Soleil]

The parents who have to live with this and so many it happened too. Now I know what it feels like.

[Acast Host]

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

[Kara Berry]

Hi, I'm Kara Berry, host of Everyone's Business But Mine. Think of me as your new friend and fellow busybody as I talk about everything under the pop culture sun, from the best way to detect a celebrity breakup or pregnancy to recapping your favorite reality TV shows from the Housewives cinematic universe. Welcome to Plathville, Kardashians, and so much more. So check out Everyone's Business But Mine. Airing multiple times a week everywhere you listen to podcasts.

[Acast Host]

Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.