Casefile True Crime - Case 243: Deidre Kennedy

Episode Date: April 15, 2023

*** Warning: This case involves a child victim *** On April 14 1973, the Kennedy family awoke in their Ipswich, Queensland unit to discover the unthinkable. 16-month-old Deidre Kennedy was missing from her cot, having been abducted by an intruder overnight. --- Narration – Anonymous Host Research & writing – Elsha McGill  Creative direction – Milly Raso Production and music – Mike Migas Music – Andrew D.B. Joslyn Sign up for Casefile Premium: Apple Premium Spotify Premium Patreon This episode's sponsors: DoorDash – Get free delivery plus 50% off your first order of up to $20 value with promo code ‘FILE’ SimpliSafe – Get a free indoor security camera and 25% off your order  For all credits and sources, please visit casefilepodcast.com/case-243-deidre-kennedy

Our episodes deal with serious and often distressing incidents. If you feel at any time you need support, please contact your local crisis centre. For suggested phone numbers for confidential support, please see the show notes for this episode on your app or on our website. Today's episode involves crimes against children and won't be suitable for all listeners. Friday, April 13, 1973 was an exhausting day for the Kennedy family. 24-year-old Faye and her two young daughters, 5-year-old Stephanie and 17-month-old Deirdre, had just returned home to the small Queensland city of Ipswich after a six-week trip visiting

relatives further up north. It had required a 17-hour bus ride home and none of them had gotten much sleep. Faye's husband Barry was recovering from knee surgery and the effort of hobbling around on crutches left him drained of energy. They took it slow that day. Stephanie and Deirdre were often excitable around bedtime, but as night approached they got ready for bed without protest. Faye prepared Deirdre's favourite meal, tomato soup with a side of asparagus spears.

After giving the girls a bath, Faye put Deirdre into a fresh nappy with a waterproof cover on top known as a pilcher. She then dressed her in a singlet and a new pair of pink pyjamas adorned with bunny motifs. Deirdre was excited about her new pyjamas and showed them off proudly to her father. The Kennedys lived in a two-bedroom single-story unit. Stephanie and Deirdre shared a small bedroom at the end of the hallway adjacent to their parents. The two girls were incredibly close.

Stephanie doted on her baby sister whom she affectionately called a DD. At 7.30pm, Faye placed a sleepy Deirdre in her cot near the bedroom door. An hour later, she tucked Stephanie into her bed below the open window. Faye and Barry spent some time together before retiring to bed at around 10 o'clock. Faye checked in on her daughters one last time. Both girls were sleeping soundly. Faye pulled the aluminium sliding window and curtain shut before tenderly tucking the girls in and leaving the room.

She fell asleep easily, worn out from the long day. The following morning, Faye was awoken suddenly by Stephanie shaking her shoulder. The five-year-old looked concerned. Wake up, she said. Deirdre's not in her bed. Faye Kennedy loved nothing more than being a mother. She cared for her two daughters full-time while Barry supported the family by working as an instrument fitter for the Royal Australian Air Force.

It was this role that had recently landed the Kennedys in Ipswich, located 40km west of Brisbane. Barry was transferred there in late 1972 and the family settled into the two-bedroom unit on Short Street. There's was one of four units in a small cream brick block owned by the Air Force. The move was just temporary while they awaited assignment of a bigger house. But the unit's location on the edge of town, just 350m from Limestone Park and a 15-minute drive from the Air Force base in the nearby suburb of Amberley, suited them fine for now.

The slow pace of Ipswich matched the Kennedys' small-town mentality. Having been raised in the outback, Barry and Faye were country kids at heart. Quiet and trusting, they had lived relatively sheltered lives and believed in the best of people. When the couple awoke to find baby Deirdre wasn't in her cot, they desperately searched their house. The 17-month-old had only recently started walking, having scooted around on her bottom until she'd managed to find her feet.

She was still shaky on her legs and there was no way she could have climbed out of her cot or opened any doors on her own. Regardless, the Kennedys looked through the small unit, checking under beds and furniture as they called Deirdre's name. They searched outside before knocking on their neighbour's door. She hadn't seen Deirdre or heard anything out of the ordinary. The green open spaces offered by Limestone Park made it a popular recreation spot for residents of Ipswich.

Located just a few minutes drive from the town centre, the sprawling park was framed by a blend of residential streets and main thoroughfares. And children alike frequented the area to exercise, play sports, and walk their pets among the mostly flatland dotted with a scattering of native trees. Ostrana Westy Mills was one such resident. The sun had barely risen on the morning of Saturday, April 14, 1973, as Westy trodded one of his horses across the Dewey Oval. There were few other people around, save for a jogger and a duo with a dog.

As Westy passed a public toilet block on the western edge of the park, he noticed something hanging off the edge of the flat tin roof. He pulled his horse to a stop so he could get a closer look. At first, Westy thought it was a ragdoll. He then realised what exactly he was looking at. Westy cried out in shock, help, there's a baby here. Westy Mills desperately climbed onto the toilet block roof and retrieved the baby's body. It was a young girl who had died a violent death.

She was wearing a pink pajama top, but her pajama bottoms and nappy had been removed and tossed aside. In their place was women's underwear, a pair of blue panties, elastic step-ins with suspenders and a silk half-slip skirt. The local police were summoned along with detectives from Brisbane. The site made even the most seasoned investigators recoil. The baby's face and neck were covered in bruises and there was bruising to her lower thigh. There was a small abrasion near one of her eyes and on her upper lip.

She had been sexually assaulted and strangled. Around this time, a neighbour of the Kennedy family ran to the police station as neither of them had a phone. As soon as the officer on duty heard that a baby was missing from Short Street, he had no doubt. The baby in Limestone Park was Deirdre Kennedy. Ipswich's chief of police remarked, This, by its circumstances, is the most brutal murder I have ever seen.

Barry Kennedy was summoned to identify his daughter. He couldn't bring himself to tell Fay exactly what had happened, just that Deirdre had been killed. The devoted parents were beside themselves. They tried to hold it together for Stephanie's sake, but they were consumed by guilt as they blamed themselves for what had happened. Although Fay had checked the unit and closed the girl's window before she went to bed the night before, she hadn't locked the door.

This wasn't unusual, Ipswich was considered a safe city and it was customary for residents to leave their doors unlocked. It wasn't in Fay or Barry's upbringing to be overly vigilant about securing their home. Police visited Short Street to look for evidence. Although Fay was certain she'd clicked the sliding window closed, it was now slightly ajar. Police dusted the property for unknown fingerprints. They'd already uncovered some on the door of the toilet block at Limestone Park.

No foreign prints were detected on the Kennedy's window, but there was one on the front door. It couldn't be determined whether the killer had accessed the house via the door or the window. If they'd used the door, they would have had to skulk quietly down the short hallway at the risk of waking the parents. Had they used the window, they would have had to climb over Stephanie's bed. But the five-year-old hadn't stirred at any point, nor did she recall hearing or seeing anyone enter the room.

Deirdre was painfully shy and her parents had no doubt that she would have cried if woken by a stranger. But no one in the Kennedy household had heard Deirdre crying. Although they couldn't rule out the possibility entirely, investigators didn't think that Deirdre had been strangled at the same time she was abducted. Either the killer had managed to scoop Deirdre up without waking her, or the rest of the family had been so exhausted from their long day that they'd slept through her tears. 73-year-old Cecil Carroll lived next door to the Kennedy's in a large, single-story

house. The two properties were separated only by some overgrown shrubs. Cecil bordered there with the eight-member Borscht family and mostly kept to himself in his bedroom at the end of the house. On the night of Friday, April 13, Cecil hadn't been feeling well and was resting in bed. As he lit up a cigarette at around 10pm, he noticed something moving outside of his bedroom window. The window opened out to the home's wraparound veranda, which housed the makeshift washing

line. At first, Cecil thought it was one of the Borscht kids, but as he watched on, he realized it was a male who looked to be aged between 18 and 20 years old. He was about 172cm tall, with a slender build of around 63kg. His hair was collar length and light brown to blonde in colour. After watching for a few minutes, Cecil realized the prowler was taking items from the washing line. He got out of bed and alerted the patriarch of the household, Arthur Borscht.

Arthur went outside and checked the veranda. There was no one there. He told Cecil to go back to bed. Shortly after, Arthur looked out the window and noticed the male figure walking towards the Air Force units next door. It was difficult to see anything through the darkness, but the figure appeared to be in his late teens and around 170cm tall. It was only upon closer inspection the following day that the Borschets realized several items

were missing from their washing line. A pair of blue panties, elastic step-ins, and a silk half-slip skirt. The undergarments that Deirdre Kennedy had been dressed in. Police showed Cecil Carroll a photographic line-up of potential suspects, but he ruled each of them out as the prowler. Another resident of the household, 12-year-old Paul Borscht, had been at a barbecue with friends earlier that evening. He told police that when he returned home, he saw a young man walking in the direction

of Limestone Park. He was carrying something white over his shoulder. Police ultimately ruled Paul's sighting out, but they had no doubt that the man Cecil spied outside his window was the same person who killed Deirdre. News of Deirdre's death rattled the community. People not only felt deeply for the Kennedy family, but also feared for the safety of their own children. It was in everyone's best interest that the case be solved fast, and the public came forward

with any details they thought could help. Investigators considered whether the killer could have assaulted Deirdre at another location or inside a vehicle before dumping her body in Limestone Park. Witnesses reported seeing four different vehicles in the area on the night in question, but nothing pointed towards a clear suspect. Police urged the public to report anyone who was acting out of character in the days following the crime. They considered the possibility that more than one person could have been involved, but deemed

it much more likely that the perpetrator had acted alone. Extensive door knocks were carried out in a bid to determine whether any young males were absent from their homes on the night of Friday, April 13. Over three and a half thousand local males voluntarily provided their fingerprints to eliminate themselves from the investigation. And sex offenders and psychiatric patients were checked and ruled out. Several leads emerged, but none that led to any breakthroughs. Police deduced the killer either lived locally or was very familiar with the area.

The toilet block in Limestone Park was mere minutes from the Kennedy's unit, so it was probable that the killer had chosen that destination on purpose rather than stumbled upon it by accident. Given that the Kennedys were relatively new to the area, mostly kept to themselves and had no known enemies, it seemed unlikely that this was a targeted attack. It was more likely the work of an opportunistic predator. Forensic examination of Deirdre's body determined she'd died by strangulation. The bruises on her face and neck had been made by a human hand.

No semen or other bodily fluid was detected, but the killer had left behind a single pubic hair and some hair like fibres. Although DNA profiling didn't exist at the time, there was one other clue. On Deirdre's left thigh, just above the knee, were two small curved bruises about one and a half centimeters long. It was a human bite mark. The bite hadn't been hard enough to break the skin, but the bruising was visible enough for dental experts to determine that the killer had an unusual set of teeth.

Based on the irregular pattern of the bruises, the killer likely had a protruding overbite. This meant that their top and bottom teeth didn't meet when their jaw was shut and their front teeth stuck out. The bruising also indicated that there was a slight deformity to the killer's two front teeth. It was possible the teeth were chipped or broken. At the time of Deirdre's murder, her father Barry's knee injury had left him incapacitated. Even moving around the unit was a struggle.

Regardless, the police had to consider all theories and they couldn't exclude the possibility that Deirdre had been killed by someone closest to her. After all, it would explain how she was carried outside without raising an alarm. Barry Kennedy's teeth were compared to the bite marks. They didn't match. The grieving father was quickly eliminated from the investigation. Barry was close with his cousin, Keith Kennedy, who lived just 40km away in the Brisbane suburbs. The two had spent time together in Ipswich the day before Faye and the girls returned

home from their trip to Longreach visiting relatives. According to the Book of Justice in Jeopardy by Debbie Marshall, while Barry didn't think his cousin was capable of hurting Deirdre, the police thought otherwise. Three years earlier, Keith had been accused of biting a three-year-old girl on the vagina. He was tried for the indecent assault of a child and found not guilty for reasons of insanity. The incident brought great shame to Keith's family and it was never talked about. For investigators, Keith Kennedy seemed like a promising suspect.

He knew the family and the Ipswich area and had a past history of offending. Furthermore, Keith was blonde and roughly 177cm tall, not too far off from the young man-seen prowling around the Kennedy's unit on the night Deirdre was taken. His dentition was also unique in that there was a significant gap between his two front teeth and they slightly protruded. The police questioned Keith Kennedy, who claimed he'd been at home with his brother and sister on the night Deirdre was abducted. Keith's fingerprints and dental records were compared against those found at the crime

scene. There was no match. Months continued to pass and the investigation languished. By January 1974, ten months had gone by with no major breakthroughs. A coronial inquest was held, but nothing significant was uncovered. The largest base of the Royal Australian Air Force is located in Amberley, a suburb 13km west of Ipswich. Over 5,000 people are employed there, many of whom live on site.

In the early 1980s, female members were housed separately in a double-storey cream brick unit block. On the morning of February 4, 1982, they awoke to a crude surprise. Overnight, someone had scaled up the drainpipe on the side of the building and broken in via an open window, leaving men's boot prints on the wall in the process. They then entered one of the women's dorm rooms. One of the sleeping women had photographs of herself sitting at her bedhead. In them, she was wearing revealing clothing.

The prowler quietly gathered the photos, careful not to make a sound. He sulked around in the dark, collecting several pairs of women's underwear and Air Force uniforms. The communal laundry room was located on the ground floor. There, the prowler took his loot and laid it out on an ironing board. He slashed the crotches of the underwear and cut holes from the nipple section of the bras. He did the same thing to the uniforms before debasing the stolen photographs and fleeing into the night. When residents of the unit block discovered the scene the next morning, they were horrified

by the violation. Military police were notified immediately. Two officers had been patrolling the airbase in the early hours of the morning and had noticed that a car had been parked near the boundary fence surrounding the women's quarters. Noting it as out of place, they'd written down the registration number. It now seemed very possible that whoever owned this vehicle was responsible for the perverted break and enter. Officers checked the Air Force records and quickly identified its owner.

Thank you for listening to this episode's ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support Casephile to continue to deliver quality content. 26-year-old Raymond Carroll was an electrical fitter who lived on the Amberley base with his wife and two young daughters. A member of the Air Force since the age of 17, he'd followed in the footsteps of his late father, a military man who had moved his family to various postings across Australia. Police questioned Raymond Carroll about why his car was parked near the women's quarters in the early hours of February 4.

Carroll said they were mistaken. There had been a function at the golf club earlier that evening. He'd attended the event but was home before midnight. Carroll's wife backed this up, saying her husband was home by 11.30 and didn't leave their house again. The prowler had left fingerprints on the photographs found in the women's laundry room. Police obtained Carroll's prints and compared the two. It was an indisputable match.

Raymond Carroll claimed he had no idea how his prints ended up on the photos and maintained he had nothing to do with the break and enter. With no prior criminal record, it did seem an odd crime for a seemingly respectable married military man. But for interviewing officer Corporal John Rowley, his encounter with Raymond Carroll had raised a more serious question. Carroll had told Rowley that before joining the Air Force in 1973, he'd lived with his mother in Ipswich.

Their home was on Quarry Lane, just around the corner from Limestone Park. This location, coupled with Carroll's apparent fetish for women's underwear, had Rowley thinking about the unsolved murder of baby Deirdre Kennedy. Although nine years had passed since Deirdre's death, it was a case Rowley could never forget. As he spoke with Raymond Carroll, another detail was too obvious to ignore. Carroll had a protruding overbite and distinctly crooked front teeth. Corporal Rowley became fixated on the possibility that Raymond Carroll could have been responsible for Deirdre Kennedy's murder.

The underwear, the proximity, the unusual dentition, had all seemed to fit. But as a defense officer, Rowley's resources were limited and he was soon reposted, making it difficult to access any further information. Six months after interviewing Carroll about the break and enter at Amberley, Rowley was having lunch with an old colleague, Detective Sergeant John Reynolds. Reynolds had worked on the Deirdre Kennedy investigation from the outset, and like many others who were involved, he continued to be haunted by the case. Rowley presented Reynolds with his theory that Raymond Carroll could be involved.

Detective Reynolds' interest was immediately peaked. He was given permission to reopen the case as the lead investigator, but when he started looking into it, he discovered that valuable information had been lost. In the summer of 1974, the year after Deirdre's murder, floods had ravaged Ipswich. Thousands of homes and businesses had been damaged, including the basement of the Ipswich police station where evidence was stored. Missing from the Deirdre Kennedy file were records of the extensive door knocks that were conducted around Ipswich straight after her murder.

These contained information about every male who was at home on the night that the crime occurred. Although this was a major setback, one of the most crucial pieces of evidence remained. The photographs depicting the killer's bite mark. In 1973, Raymond Carroll had been 17 years old and was living with his mother and younger siblings on Quarry Lane. Their home was just 600 metres from the Kennedy's unit on Short Street and just 700 metres from the toilet block at Limestone Park.

If Raymond Carroll was indeed responsible for taking and killing Deirdre, it meant the entire crime could have occurred within a small triangular radius that could be walked on foot in under 10 minutes. In October 1983, investigators on the Kennedy case visited the Air Force base in Amberley to approach Raymond Carroll for the first time. They were forthright about their reason for wanting to question him. Carroll said he wasn't even in Queensland at the time that Deirdre Kennedy was murdered. He'd enlisted in the Air Force earlier that year and had been completing his basic recruitment

training in the small South Australian town of Edinburgh. The 10-week course ran from February 9 until April 19, after which Carroll said he travelled to the Wogga-Wogga Air Force Base in New South Wales to undergo electrical training. At no time did he return to Whipswitch. Carroll insisted he had nothing to hide. Although he was reluctant, he agreed to provide fingerprints, hair samples and a plaster cast of his teeth. A forensic expert deemed that Carroll's hair was of similar colour and texture to the hairs

found on Deirdre's body, but in the days before DNA profiling, there was nothing to conclusively say the hairs belonged to Carroll. This compared the fingerprints with those found at the Kennedy's flat as well as the toilet block at Limestone Park. They didn't match. Then again, it couldn't be determined for certain that the prints found at the crime scenes definitely belonged to the perpetrator. The toilet block in Limestone Park was a public space and it was possible that the prints

had been made by an innocent community member. The print on the Kennedy's front door could have come from any number of people who had visited the unit in recent times. Then there was the issue of Carroll's alibi. Air Force records confirmed that Carroll had indeed graduated from the training course in Edinburgh on April 19, 1973. Reports were only granted leave under special circumstances, typically for a serious family emergency.

Doing so required them to go through a strict approval process. The Air Force had no record of Carroll leaving the training course at any point. A formal graduation parade had taken place in Edinburgh on April 19, 1973, after which the recruits had all posed for a course photograph. Raymond Carroll had already told the police that he'd attended the ceremony but hadn't walked in the parade due to an issue with the number of recruits. Investigators made queries with Air Force officials who confirmed that all graduates were required to march in the parade, regardless of numbers.

They obtained the graduation photo. Raymond Carroll was nowhere to be seen. Investigators began the monumental task of trying to track down each of the 27 recruits from Carroll's course, who were now scattered across the country. They wanted to know if anyone was absent from the graduation ceremony. By this point, over 10 years had passed and memories were hazy. No one could recall any specifics, but there was a vague recollection that someone had left early due to an illness in the family.

According to the book Justice in Jeopardy, one recruit recalled that on the afternoon of April 12, 1973, he was asked to help pack up the belongings of another rookie who'd been called home on compassionate leave. He remembered at the young man clearly because he had a distinct set of teeth that jutted out. His name was Raymond Carroll. Investigators couldn't find any Air Force records to back up the claims that Carroll had been granted leave, nor were there any medical records to indicate there had been

a serious illness within his family that would have warranted him returning home. Instead, investigators turned to the commercial airlines. There were 2,000 kilometers between Edinburgh and Ipswich. If Carroll had been granted leave on April 12, the only way he would have made it to Ipswich in time to kill Deirdre Kennedy on April 13 was if he'd flown. But the airlines were no use. Carroll dictated that domestic records be disposed of after 7 years. Disproving Raymond Carroll's alibi wasn't the only issue.

The prowler who had been witnessed lurking around the Kennedy's unit on the night of Deirdre's abduction was described as being around 172cm tall with collar length light brown to blonde hair. In April 1973, Raymond Carroll's hair was dark brown and as per Air Force Protocol, it was cropped short at the back and sides. He was much taller than the prowler, standing around 185cm. Investigators believed they'd found Deirdre's killer, but they'd need further evidence if a jury was ever going to find Carroll guilty.

They had to dig deeper. Joy Meyers had been a young and naive woman when she met Raymond Carroll in Woga Woga in 1973. The two married and had their first child the following year, a daughter named Kylie, not her real name. Carroll was reposted to Darwin and the family of three relocated. But the marriage was rocky from the beginning and it wasn't long before Joy suspected that Carroll was cheating on her.

The couple divorced in November of 1975 and had little contact from there on with the Joy maintaining full custody of Kylie. Investigators tracked Joy down and questioned her about the marriage. What she told them was shocking. When Kylie was just a baby, there had been four or five occasions where Raymond Carroll had taken her into the bedroom to change her nappy. Shortly after, Kylie would start screaming. Joy went to see what was wrong, but on each occasion Carroll had locked the door and refused

to respond. He'd emerged shortly after with a strange expression on his face, before leaving the house without saying a word. Kylie was too young to talk, but the bruises on her upper thighs spoke for themselves. Joy believed them to be bite marks. She said this abuse was one of the reasons she divorced Carroll. When the investigators divulged the reason why they were making inquiries about her ex-husband, Joy had another revelation.

When the newlyweds had first found out they were expecting a child, Carroll had an idea for a name. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Deidre. Raymond Carroll remarried in 1977 and he and his new wife went on to have twin daughters. By the time Carroll became the focus of the Deidre Kennedy murder investigation, he and his wife had also welcomed a baby boy. Police knew some of the evidence against Carroll was flimsy, but the plaster cast of Raymond Carroll's teeth was examined by a forensic dental expert.

He compared the dental impressions with photos of the bruises on Deidre Kennedy's thigh. The positioning of the bruises lined up with Raymond Carroll's unique overbite and was a fitting size for a 17-year-old male. But the shape of the bruises indicated the killer's front two teeth were slightly deformed. The plaster cast of Carroll's teeth showed no such deformity. Investigators obtained a copy of Carroll's dental records from the Air Force, which were taken during his recruitment in early 1973. Comparing the records to the plaster cast, it appeared his upper teeth had since undergone

some dental work. The 1973 records showed that at the time of Deidre Kennedy's murder, Raymond Carroll's front teeth were chipped and broken, deformities that matched the bruises on Deidre's body. For the dental expert, there was no question. The bite marks on the baby had been made by Raymond Carroll. But if Deidre Kennedy had been killed on April 13 at a time Carroll was supposed to be interstaked, how did his teeth marks end up on her body? Was it possible that the Air Force records were wrong?

On February 27, 1984, two years after the break-in at the Amberley Women's Quarters and almost 11 years after Deidre was killed, investigators decided it was time to make their move. They went to the Amberley base and placed Raymond Carroll under arrest for murdering the 17-month-old. Carroll continued to deny any involvement in the crime. He maintained he was in South Australia at the time and stuck by his story that he didn't participate in the graduation march but was present for the duration. When shown the graduation photo of his fellow recruits, Carroll first pointed to a young

man who looked nothing like him and said it was possible that was him. He then conceded that he wasn't in the shot but explained that he was standing to the side just outside of the frame. He denied ever being granted special leave or having any reason to leave the training course early to return to WhipSwitch. He also denied his ex-wife's allegations that he'd abused their first daughter or that he had a proclivity for stealing women's underwear. The interrogation continued for several hours but at no point did Raymond Carroll crack.

Regardless, he was officially charged with the murder of Deirdre Kennedy. He was taken to Brisbane's Boggo Road Jail but granted bail the following day. News of the arrest rattled Fay and Barry Kennedy. The grieving parents had done their best to move on. Fay had since given birth to a son named Derrick and the family had relocated to New South Wales. As Fay later told ABC's Australian Story, having another child never replaces what you lost but it certainly brought joy to our lives.

The family didn't speak about Deirdre often. Barry had been raised to believe that men didn't cry and he rarely mentioned Deirdre by name. The pain was too intense. By the time Carroll was arrested, Derrick was 11 years old and still didn't know what had happened to his big sister. Having to explain why they'd be going to court, Barry finally sat down and told Derrick the heartbreaking truth.

Raymond Carroll's murder trial commenced in the Brisbane Supreme Court in February 1985. The prosecution hoped to use the amberly break-in against him. For that offence, he'd been charged with 17 counts including breaking and entering, stealing and wilful destruction of Air Force property. If the jury knew that Carroll had a history of sneaking into people's homes and stealing women's underwear, it would add further weight to their case against him. But in a pretrial hearing, the defence successfully argued that Carroll's prior offence couldn't be presented.

The jury would have to reach their verdict without being privileged to this information. The prosecution's case therefore relied on three major factors. One, that Raymond Carroll had given a false alibi. Two, that he had a propensity for biting small children. And three, that the bite marks on Deirdre Kennedy's body were a match to Carroll's teeth. The defence put it to the jury that the case against their client was entirely circumstantial. Valuable records had been lost by both the Air Force and the police, which meant there

was nothing to confirm that Raymond Carroll was in South Australia when Deirdre was killed. However, as the defence pointed out, there were no records to confirm that he wasn't. Not a single witness had placed Carroll in Ipswich at the time of the crime, nor was there any evidence to suggest he was anywhere near the area. Raymond Carroll was now 29 years old and almost 12 years had passed since Deirdre Kennedy was murdered. This meant that memories were hazy and witnesses were susceptible to influence. Several former Air Force recruits and one instructor testified to remembering that Raymond

Carroll had been sent home prior to the graduation parade due to an illness in his family. However, another recruit testified that on the day of the graduation, he had a conversation with Carroll in the canteen and introduced him to his family. On the stand, the doctor who had been the Carroll family's general practitioner in 1973 could provide no evidence that there had been a serious illness in the family that would have warranted Carroll being granted compassionate leave. As for the allegation that Carroll had bitten his infant daughter on the thighs, the defence questioned why his ex-wife, Joy Myers, had never reported this to anyone.

She didn't even mention it during their divorce proceedings. On the stand, Joy admitted she'd kept this information to herself, but she adamantly stood by her allegations. The prosecution advised the jury not to put any weight on the fact that Joy didn't report these incidents. As they pointed out, child abuse and incest can be considered shameful to boo topics, and fear often prevented people from coming forward. The prosecution's case was based on the assumption that whoever stole the underwear from next

door to the Kennedy's unit was the same person who killed Deidre. The defence argued that Carroll didn't match witness descriptions of this person. He was taller and with shorter, darker hair. The key witness, Cecil Carroll, who had seen the underwear thief had since passed away. His former housemate, Arthur Borschert, no longer had a clear memory of the person he claimed to have seen walking towards the Kennedy's unit. In terms of physical evidence, it all came down to the bite marks. Three dental experts, known as forensic odontologists, had extensively compared the bruises on Deidre

Kennedy's body with plaster casts of Raymond Carroll's unique teeth. It was a difficult task given that the biter hadn't broken the skin or left any indentations. Furthermore, the bruise marks had been made on a curved three-dimensional surface, whereas the photos the odontologists had were only two-dimensional. As one of the experts explained, the shapes of bruise marks can alter if the body is placed in a different position from that in which it was when the marks were made. The marks on Deidre's body were near the knee, and their shapes might be affected by changes in tensions of the skin caused by extension or flexion of the knee joint.

While their methods differed and they didn't entirely agree on which tooth had made which bruise, all three experts arrived at the same conclusion. The bite marks had been made by Raymond Carroll. However, the defence pointed out that when one of the experts first examined Deidre's bruises in 1973, they had stated that it would, quote, be impossible to establish with any degree of certainty as to who would be responsible for the bite mark to the dead child. The experts had also made their findings using a plaster cast of Carroll's teeth that had

been altered to reflect the state of his dentition in 1973. They didn't have an exact replica of his teeth from the time period. Raymond Carroll took the stand in his own defence. Asked under oath if he killed Deidre Kennedy or had anything to do with her death, Carroll responded clearly, I did not. He denied leaving Edinburgh early or ever biting his youngest daughter, calling the allegations a bunch of lies.

His current wife, with whom he had three kids, also testified that Carroll was an excellent father who rarely disciplined their children. The trial lasted for 19 days. Summing up, the prosecution concluded that Raymond Carroll had a perverted interest in young children, combined with a fetish for stealing women's underwear. It didn't matter that there was no evidence placing Carroll in Ipswich at the time that Deidre Kennedy was murdered, because bite marks on her body identified him as the killer. The defence concluded that there were simply too many variables to identify who had caused

the bite marks, and that the evidence therefore wasn't reliable. In the absence of concrete evidence placing Carroll in Ipswich at the time of Deidre's murder, the judge reminded the jury that to find Carroll guilty, they must believe beyond reasonable doubt that he was the one who caused the bite marks. The jury deliberated for four hours before they returned to the packed courtroom to give their verdict. Guilty. Carroll was asked if he had anything to say.

He responded, I am not guilty. The sentence was handed down immediately. Life imprisonment with hard labour. Carroll and his legal team appealed the conviction immediately. They argued that the evidence presented at trial wasn't enough to sustain a guilty verdict. The prosecution had failed to prove that Carroll was in Ipswich when the crime was committed, and the forensic odontologists hadn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that the bite marks on Deidre's body were his.

Carroll also argued that the unsubstantiated evidence from his ex-wife, alleging that he bit their baby daughter on the leg was damaging and therefore shouldn't have been admissible. The court of criminal appeal agreed. After spending just nine months in prison, Raymond Carroll's conviction was quashed and he was allowed to walk free. News of the acquittal shocked the public, a majority of whom were convinced of Carroll's guilt. Some wanted revenge to get a baby killer off their streets.

Carroll and his family immediately relocated into state. The prosecution argued for a retrial, but their request was denied. The Kennedys were crushed. As though the pain of their loss and enduring the trial wasn't enough, they now had to accept that the matter was once again unresolved. Later that year, a woman contacted the police. She had worked at the Royal Air Force Base in Darwin at the time that Raymond Carroll and his family had been stationed there.

The woman recalled that in 1975, there had been several occasions where she'd noticed bruises on Carroll's one-year-old daughter, Kylie. Joy told her they were bite marks caused by her husband. The woman allegedly asked Carroll how he could do such a thing. He simply shrugged. In Australia in the 1980s, double jeopardy laws prevented a person from being tried for the same offense twice. Such laws existed to protect an accused person against the abuse of state power and allowed

them to get on with their lives without further prosecution. It also served to encourage prosecutors to prepare their cases properly the first time round, knowing it would be their only shot. This meant that because Raymond Carroll had already been acquitted of Deirdre Kennedy's murder, he couldn't be charged again. Even if any new evidence emerged in the future. Regardless of the jury's verdict, in the eyes of the law, Raymond Carroll was an innocent man.

Case file will be back shortly. Thank you for supporting us by listening to this episode's sponsors. Thank you for listening to this episode's ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support Case File to continue to deliver quality content. As the years passed, DNA testing for criminal cases was slowly rolled out in Australia. Forensic scientists attempted to test the pubic hair found on Deirdre Kennedy's body, but it was destroyed in the process. By 1997, the use of digital imaging techniques led to some groundbreaking developments in

forensic dental technology. In digital analysis, experts were able to examine scrap marks from an individual's teeth to create a unique barcode. New software had also been developed that allowed experts to transpose images of teeth onto images of bite marks. Photographs from old crime scenes could also be enhanced. Using this new technology, a team of forensic experts analysed the bruises on Deirdre Kennedy's body.

They discovered another set of much fainter bite marks on Deirdre's body that had been missed during the original examination. The assumption had always been that Deirdre was lying down when she was bitten, and that the top bruise on her thigh had been caused by the biter's upper teeth. According to the book Justice in Jeopardy, the new evidence indicated this was wrong. Deirdre had actually been held upside down when the biter struck. The original experts who had given evidence at Carroll's trial had been looking at the bite marks the wrong way around.

While this was a major revelation, one piece of evidence remained undisputed. As forensic odontologist Dr. Alex Forrest later told Australian Story, The bite marks that were inflicted on the baby's thigh, I have no doubt whatever that they were inflicted by Raymond John Carroll. An article spruiking the forensic advances led to renewed interest in the Deirdre Kennedy case and prompted an influx of tip-offs, one of which came from an unexpected source. 38-year-old Trevor Swift had been in and out of jail all of his adult life for a series of offences.

In February 1984, he was serving time in Brisbane's Boggo Road jail when he crossed paths with Raymond Carroll, who had just been arrested for Deirdre Kennedy's murder. Both men were being held in protective custody. According to Swift, he struck up a conversation with Carroll, who asked him, What do you know about bite marks? Swift responded, Mate, as far as I know, they're as good as fingerprints. You're a shot duck. Carroll seemed rattled by Swift's response.

Some time later, Swift asked Carroll what he'd been arrested for. Carroll allegedly responded. The murder of that baby at Ipswich. A day or so later, Swift pressed Carroll to tell him more. Carroll allegedly said that he'd been out stealing women's underwear when he stumbled upon an open window. He looked in and saw there was a baby inside. Things got out of hand.

He abducted the baby, abused her, and then strangled her with a pair of pantyhose before leaving her body on a toilet block. Swift was relocated to another sector of the prison shortly after this encounter, and then eventually transferred to another facility altogether. He told one prison guard about what Carroll had said, but never mentioned it to anyone else. He just assumed that Carroll had been convicted of the crime and never gave it much more thought. With the case now back in the news, Trevor Swift contacted police and provided an official

statement about the alleged confession. There was just one problem. The prison guard he claimed to have told about the encounter had since passed away, and there was no one to vouch for Swift's story. Swift was currently facing multiple criminal charges. It is new that jailhouse confessions can be unreliable, and that there was every chance that Swift was providing this information in the hopes of securing a lighter sentence. At the same time, it was too compelling to ignore.

Despite Raymond Carroll being protected by double jeopardy laws, this new evidence led prosecutors to consider all possible options. After heavy scrutinizing, they identified a potential legal loophole. At Carroll's murder trial, he was asked under oath if he killed Deirdre Kennedy. He responded, I did not. If the new evidence could prove that he'd knowingly lied under oath when he said he didn't kill Deirdre, prosecutors could charge him with perjury instead. A perjury conviction only carried a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, but it

would at least provide some form of closure for the Kennedy family and get a potentially dangerous predator off the streets. By 1999, 44-year-old Raymond Carroll had divorced his second wife and was living in Ipswich with his new partner. On Friday, February 12, police arrived at Carroll's home and placed him under arrest for perjury. He was charged at the station later that day, but released on bail after being deemed a no-flight risk.

Carroll's legal team argued that the new charge constituted an abusive process, and they requested a permanent stay in the proceedings. The judge disagreed, saying the prosecution case was significantly different and stronger than the original murder charge. Carroll was ordered to stand trial for perjury. Investigators were now armed with new dental evidence and a jailhouse confession, but doubts remained that this would be enough to secure a conviction. One of the lingering questions was, if Raymond Carroll was indeed in Ipswich at the time

of Deirdre Kennedy's murder, what was he doing wandering around late at night? He was only 17, and there weren't any shops open in the area. Investigators wondered if he could have been out visiting a friend, or more likely, a love interest. Desley Hill had been a teenager when she and Raymond Carroll began a short romance in 1972. They maintained contact for a couple of years, even after Carroll married his first wife, but things eventually fizzled out between them and they lost touch. Desley moved into state and rarely thought about her distant ex, until March of 2000,

and she opened her door to find a detective standing there. He wanted to speak to her about her relationship with Raymond Carroll. Desley was taken aback. She knew Carroll had been charged with Deirdre Kennedy's murder back in the 80s, but it never occurred to her that she could be of any use to the investigation. The detective tried to jog her memory back to April 1973. Would she recall whether Carroll had visited her at any point during that time? Desley had been living with her parents in Woodridge at the time, a suburb 37 kilometres

east of Ipswich. She recalled that out of nowhere one Saturday night, Raymond Carroll had stopped by their unit. They hadn't seen each other for a while, and Desley was shocked to see him. While they stood around chatting, a news bulletin came on about Deirdre Kennedy's murder. Her body had only been found early that morning. Carroll became visibly agitated. He left in a hurry, saying he had to get home to his sick mother.

The perjury trial commenced on October 27, 2000. It was essentially a replay of the original murder trial, with a majority of the same witnesses called and testimonies given. The new evidence submitted was the alleged jailhouse confession, the statement from Desley Hill that placed Carroll in Queensland the day after Deirdre's murder, and the advanced dental forensics that matched Carroll's teeth with the bite marks on Deirdre's body. The defence urged the jury not to place any weight on the jailhouse confession from Trevor Swift.

He was an alcoholic with an extensive criminal history that included dishonesty, and they contended that the information he provided was nothing more than an attempt to secure a lighter sentence for his own crimes. Swift strongly denied this. He was well aware that informants put themselves in danger of being attacked by other inmates. He also pointed out that he'd been in constant trouble with the law his entire adult life. If he was going to make up a story to benefit himself, he would have done it much earlier. Why wait 16 years?

Carroll's ex-girlfriend Desley Hill took the stand to testify that Carroll had visited her parents' home the day after Deirdre was killed. At the time, Desley had been pregnant to a man who ended the relationship once he found out she was expecting. A couple of months later, Desley started seeing Raymond Carroll again. Desley remembered the day that Carroll visited her parents' house because she'd been waiting for a cot to be delivered. Although she admitted she wasn't good with dates, she could place the visit to April

14, 1973, based on the news broadcast about Deirdre Kennedy's murder. Desley's parents had been home at the time, but they couldn't back her story. Both had since passed away. The defense called a Desley story a complete fabrication. Desley couldn't remember the date that her daughter was conceived, but the child was born on July 25, 1973, and was 10 weeks premature. The defense pointed out that this meant Desley had gotten pregnant in early January of 1973 and wouldn't have found out until mid-February.

By the time she claimed to have resumed her relationship with Raymond Carroll, he had already enrolled in the Air Force and been deployed into state. Therefore, her memory of the timings was all wrong. The visit, they said, never happened. Four separate odontologists testified that the bite marks on Deirdre Kennedy's body were a match to Raymond Carroll. They all agreed that the experts had it wrong during the first trial, in that they'd been looking at the bite marks upside down.

The defense argued that the digital imaging technology wasn't accurate, and that testimony provided by some of the experts was fundamentally flawed. A doctor of forensic dentistry who had been involved with over 200 bite mark cases testified that the bruises on Deirdre's body weren't enough to make a positive identification of the biter. While the digital imaging technique was very useful, this expert said it should only be used as an aid in dental analysis, and not as a means of identification. The defense questioned whether the bite could have in fact been made by Barry Kennedy's

cousin, Keith Kennedy. Keith also had a distinct set of teeth, and more closely matched the physical description of the blonde man seen lurking around the Kennedy's unit on the night of the crime. Keith had passed away, but the dental experts could tell just by looking at a photograph of his gapped teeth, that his bite was not a match to the bruises on Deirdre's body. Fay and Barry Kennedy had chosen not to sit through the first trial, but they were present for the perjury case. During the forensic experts go back and forth over what had happened to Deirdre was too

much for the Kennedy's to bear. Fay later told Australian story, all I could think was she was so little, and for someone to do something so atrocious to her, and to discard her little body, just to throw her on a toilet block like she was just trash. The perjury trial lasted for 18 days. Given the amount of time that had passed since Deirdre's murder, the judge instructed the jury to be careful when considering the various witness testimonies. It was possible that individuals were misremembering things or had been influenced by media coverage

or hearsay. He also highlighted the difference in expert opinion regarding the teeth marks in both the murder and perjury trial, and urged the jury not to put blind trust in the expert opinions. In summing up, the judge clarified, quote, The only real issue is whether Raymond Carroll told a lie when in the murder trial he said he did not kill Deirdre Kennedy. If he did kill Deirdre Kennedy, you may think a plane that that was something well known

to him. If you conclude that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that he did kill Deirdre Kennedy, it follows that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused gave false testimony, and the verdict must be not guilty. The next day the jury delivered their verdict. Guilty. Ending down the maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, the judge stated, It is necessary to bear in mind that the sentence being imposed is for perjury, not for murder.

It is important not to let the horrific nature of the crime perpetrated on Deirdre Kennedy and its profound impact on the lives of her family divert attention from that fact. The Kennedy family were relieved by the guilty verdict as it signalled an end of the media attention. But it wasn't over yet. Once again, Raymond Carroll appealed his conviction. His legal team argued that the perjury charge should never have been allowed. Given that the perjury trial was essentially a do-over of the murder trial, they said it

went against the principles of double jeopardy. Furthermore, the amount of time that had passed between the crime and the perjury trial meant there was no way that Raymond Carroll was ever going to get a fair trial. The court of appeal analysed the witness and expert testimony and discovered some major flaws. Jailhouse informant Trevor Swift had testified that his conversations with Carroll had occurred over a number of days following Carroll's arrest for Deirdre's murder. Carroll was only held in Boggo Road Jail for less than 24 hours before being granted bail.

Three appellate judges therefore determined it was unlikely the conversations relayed by Swift ever happened and that he should have never been allowed to testify. They also thought little weight should have been placed on Desley Hill's testimony. Even if Desley's timing was correct and Carroll was in Queensland at the time, it still didn't prove that he'd committed the crime. Combined with the differing opinions when it came to the forensic dental evidence, the court of appeal concluded that the jury's decision was unsafe and unsatisfactory. They agreed that the entire trial had been an abuse of process and should never have

been allowed. For the second time, Raymond Carroll's conviction was overturned and he was allowed to walk free. Community outrage ensued. Faye Kennedy was so shattered by the news that she collapsed when she heard it. How could a person be found guilty by two separate juries and continue to walk free? She questioned what the point was of having a jury trial if a judge could overrule their decision. To Faye, the justice system had failed in every aspect.

She pleaded that the case be sent to the High Court and her request was granted. But the High Court not only concluded that none of the evidence presented at the perjury trial was new and compelling, they also agreed the entire trial was inconsistent with the principles of double jeopardy. Even if the evidence had been compelling, the High Court determined it didn't matter because Raymond Carroll should still be protected by double jeopardy laws. Ms Angelo Vasta, who had served as the judge in Raymond Carroll's murder trial, later told Australian Story.

This is one of the rare cases where I think the law has been over-technical and in those circumstances I think that justice has not been done. People know that Carroll is responsible for this death when 24 people have said in a properly constituted court that he is guilty. The tentacles of justice just can't reach him. Throughout all the years of legal action, Raymond Carroll never once spoke to the media. In 2006, he broke his silence after 33 years by appearing on current affairs program 60 minutes.

Carroll wasn't paid for the interview, but he agreed to go through with it on one condition. That the producers organised for him to undergo a lie detector test. The polygraph expert hooked Carroll up to the machine and asked him a series of questions. Among them was, Did you kill Deidre Kennedy? Carroll's response was firm. No. According to the lie detector, he was telling the truth.

The interviewing journalist Richard Carlton put it to Carroll that he was actually guilty of Deidre's murder, but had spent all these years successfully convincing himself of the opposite. Carroll bluntly denied this allegation. He stated, I feel extremely sorry for Mrs. Kennedy, for her loss. I honestly hope she does get closure for this crime. But I'm sorry, she is not going to get it at my expense, because I did not do it.

Faye and Barry's marriage didn't survive the trauma of their ordeal. They divorced in the early 90s after 25 years of marriage. Speaking of Raymond Carroll, Faye told Australian story, I believe a good marriage was destroyed by this person. Faye resettled in Ipswich, where she got a job at the local supermarket. One day, she was working behind the checkout counter when Raymond Carroll walked in. He too had relocated to Ipswich, and the very sight of him gave Faye a terrible shock. She refused to serve him, and one of her co-workers had to step in.

According to Faye, Carroll seemed unperturbed by the encounter. Faye Kennedy began working with politicians to petition for changes to be made to Queensland's double jeopardy laws, which they hoped to be dubbed Deidre's law. They argued that the 800-year-old law was outdated and hadn't kept in line with technological advancements or investigative techniques. Unless the laws were updated, a suspect could walk free, even if evidence had since become available that unequivocally proved their guilt. Faye hoped to have 10,000 people sign her petition.

Within 12 weeks, she'd tripled that, with over 33,000 members of the community showing their support. Being in Parliament House, former police officer turned to Member of Parliament Peter Dutton, stated, �The heartbreak felt by Mrs. Kennedy and other brave members of the Kennedy family is absolutely unimaginable. I can tell you that there is no doubt in the mind of Mrs. Kennedy, or anybody with knowledge of this case, that the evidence proves the suspect's guilt.

No doubt at all.� Yet, 30 years after the crime, this killer is allowed to walk free and taunt Mrs. Kennedy by living in her local area and shopping at her workplace. In my view it is a travesty that advances in forensic technology mean nothing in this case, because double jeopardy prevents a retrial to prove the suspect's guilt. And what is worse is that, as the technology improves, more acquittals in the future could be called into question and create the same heartbreaking situation for other families not just in Queensland, but around the nation.

I share a view with Mrs. Kennedy that there is something basically and fundamentally wrong with a legal system that allows a child killer and rapist to walk free. Faye told 60 Minutes If I could change this law for one other family, I've done some good. It just seems so wrong that this can go on. Who else has suffered like I have because of a law? I just feel driven to do this, and I believe I will get this result that I'm looking for. I believe that with all my heart, that the people of Queensland will support me.

I need them to, and I have faith that they will. And they did. In 2007 Queensland's law was amended so that a person previously acquitted of murder could be retried if there was fresh and compelling evidence against them, and it was in the interest of justice to do so. The laws also allowed for a retrial in the case of a tainted acquittal. For example, if a juror had been bribed, Faye told the courier-male she was elated that the changes had been named Deirdre's law, commenting,

We said from the start, this would be her law. Faye eventually moved to the rural town of Lately, 46 kilometres west of Ipswich. In her bedroom, she safely stored items belonging to her beloved baby Deirdre in a pink memory chest adorned with flowers. Inside was Deirdre's baby bracelet, a brooch, an easter egg, a memorial plaque, and an urn containing Deirdre's ashes. Faye kept the chest locked at all times, protective of the only physical possessions that kept her connected to her daughter.

On the afternoon of Sunday, October 3, 2010, the now 61-year-old Faye visited her son's home in a nearby town to watch the National Rugby League Grand Final. When she returned home that evening, she discovered that her house had been broken into. Thieves had gained access via a sliding door before stealing several items, including a laptop and DVDs. In Faye's bedroom, the thieves had broken the lock to Deirdre's memory chest and took the contents from within, including Deirdre's ashes. Faye was utterly heartbroken.

Of all the untouched belongings in her home, she couldn't believe that the thieves had taken her most prized possessions. Though priceless to her, they held no monetary value to anyone else. Faye appeared on ABC News to make an emotional plea for the safe return of her daughter's ashes, saying through tears, I feel like I've lost her twice, and I need to have her back. I just need her home. Police didn't believe it was a targeted attack, and deemed it unlikely that the thieves understood

the significance of what they'd taken. All too aware of the ongoing pain endured by the Kennedy family, police appealed for the thieves to return Deirdre's belongings, and wasted no time investigating the matter. They interviewed over 40 persons of interest and searched several homes, while members of the community rallied together to raise a $3,000 reward for anyone who had information about the crime. But eight months later, the crime remained unsolved. Faye told the Courier Mail,

Some days I'm really low, and other days I think I'm just not going to give up hope. On Saturday, April 13, 2013, relatives of the Kennedy family and members of the Ipswich community gathered in Limestone Park to mark the 40-year anniversary of Deirdre's death. Despite the decades that had passed, the crime still served as a constant reminder that dangers lurked in the most unsuspecting of places. In a rotunda overlooking the oval, a memorial plaque was unveiled in Deirdre's honour. Faye Kennedy told the Courier Mail, I hope it creates awareness and lets children know there are some nasties out there.

The Mayor of Ipswich said the crime changed Ipswich forever, commenting, As a city, we want Faye and her family to know we share her grief and pain. It's a strong reminder to look after our kids. The plaque reads, Dedicated in loving memory of Deirdre Marie Kennedy, We cannot stop the hands of time, nor live again the past, But we shall love and think of you, as long as time shall last. A life that touches others, goes on forever.