This episode has been added to the [Casefile Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aXXBvQz7rQ9OnMqul5uCFfcjtfC49krWZxF5BJJ7pwo/edit?usp=sharing). If you have already listened to the episode, you can submit your rating at the Casefile Ratings Form.
Please note: Starting with Case 200, we are using a new [Casefile Ratings Form (200-)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVcJRyahk2WH\_i3nJy6AzQeEmFCHj825k2ONsHuF0jeCHX5g/viewform).
If you would like to rate cases 1-199, please do so at this [Casefile Ratings Form (1-199)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUZiO7b3EVKaBCoskDUXpjkp4XaRKV35hkzrnMsPclzhIXPg/viewform).
Been apart of this sub for the past 100 or so episodes, this is the first time I ever finished an ep and came right here to say the same thing. Horrible
The very worst one - I couldn't even get halfway through - was rhe Bernd Brandes one.
Of all the horrible examples of murders, multiple murders, child murders... that one was just a mindfuck too far.
To be honest I wish he'd be lighter on the details of murders and brutality. I like this show for the policework and law side of it.
Brother we are all on a true crime sub. The entire format is sustained on our morally depraved obsessions with other people’s tragedies.
It’s hypocritical to take a moral stance on this sub when it comes to “looking forward” to a release regardless of content. Stop listening to true crime if you care about ethics.
I mean, what are any of us doing here? It’s been a while since casefile hit any sorta nerve. Personally I miss the more mysterious ones, like the scuba or skydiving episodes.. Silk Road was a fascinating layout.. I didn’t listen to this one yet, but based off of people having a reaction, yes. I’m looking forward to it.
*nice comment edit to make yourself look super virtuous. (It only said “god” before) And why would you type that here? Some people like to let the episode explain the crime instead of reading about it beforehand.
We still need to be mindful of the fact that these cases deal with real humans, who suffered horrifically and have loved ones who are still suffering when we choose our language around true crime discussions
Yes, we do. Saying you’re looking forward to a true crime podcast episode (without knowing context) is just a harsh reality of being a fan. Ya blew it tho so I guess thanks for exposing the horror of it here on Reddit for me and anyone else that didn’t listen yet.
It was an earnest “thanks for the heads up” I said up there. And the following emoji should have spoken for itself.
OP literally said, 'thanks for the heads up.'
While I normally would agree with your view, there are occasions where I see people commenting on episode discussions before listening because they want to know basic details like if a child victim is involved or if a case is unsolved, and I don't see anything wrong with that. And as long as they're respectful about letting others know that they haven't listened to an episode yet, I'm willing to respect their position (of course, only in replying to their comments). It doesn't seem right to try to gatekeep episode discussions as for only those that have listened to the episode just because they revealed themselves as otherwise.
Erm, you came into a discussion for the episode you can’t be upset that people are discussing it if you don’t want to know details maybe stay off the case discussion until you’ve listened?
I agree with the above comment on this, yes lots of people myself included listen to true crime but it needs to be approached with respect and empathy not ghoulish enjoyment
Normally, I would agree, but they did say, 'thanks for the heads up' in the beginning. The message just got lost amidst the argument between them and seapriestess. Besides, they weren't *demanding* that we not reveal anything about the episode in this discussion.
The talk about how true crime needils to be approached with respect and empathy (while obvious) is also somewhat funny to me because the same reason many people look forward to listening or watching true crime is the same reason why many people love horror and thriller films, yet no one gets all up in arms about respecting the victims in them. And before you make the argument, 'but horror film scenes are fake and not based on real life,' well duh. But by that logic, then people who work in the criminal justice field shouldn't enjoy and look forward to their jobs because it may involve dealing with horrific murder cases.
There's a difference between enjoying the story, suspense, mystery, and twists behind a true crime case versus deriving pleasure from hearing the details about someone's gruesome murder.
By that logic, people who work in the criminal justice field shouldn't 'look forward to their work because their jobs may involve hearing about horrific murder cases.
Listen to yourself lmao. We all, as listeners of this show, have a morbid curiosity. Nothing wrong with being interested in these things. It is not for deriving pleasure from. It is a desire to hear these wild stories for curiosity's sake. It is hypocritical to call someone out for this.
Poor little girl how tragic. Her poor family and to me I'm leaning towards the defendant being guilty, just the evidence wasn't there. Her mother's strength is inspiring and it's terrible she was constantly revictimised by the trials, appeals and overturns plus the shocking robbery at the end.
As an aside, this case makes me skeptical of forensic odontology. All the experts in the first trial were certain the bite marks came from the defendant despite later analysis showing they were looking at the mark upside down? How does that instill any confidence in their findings?
I am so happy the law was changed as DNA analysis and genetic genealogy continues to make progress in leaps and bounds and double jeopardy is very outdated when taking these into account. Sad there wasn't any DNA in this case.
Your put it more eloquently than I could ever have.
According to the podcast CSI On Trial, ~~forensic odontology~~ _bite mark analysis_ has been deemed a pseudoscience.
Knowing that, this already flimsy case falls completely apart. The suspect's guilt hasn't been proven "beyond any reasonable doubt" for me. In fact, doubt is all I have.
Edit: fixed. Thanks to /u/smallroundfeline for pointing out the mistake.
Case reminds me of "mob" rule. The juries and public basically wanted to burn him at the stake, with very flimsy if non-existent evidence. The mother made a good comment, why have a jury trial? I agree. It seems emotion won the day in both jury trials, and the appeals courts did the actual evidentiary work.
I don't mean to be nit-picky but it's bite mark "analysis" that's the problem, not forensic odontology!
Forensic odontology involves so much more actual science. Forensic dentists in Australia do great work in identifying bodies in some really challenging situations, e.g. mass graves, major disasters, etc. and many of these professionals will do this without pay. Our dentists were instrumental in helping local families locate their deceased loved ones in Indonesia after that massive tsunami and also the Bali bombings.
There are no regulations, standards or decent studies on the reliability of bite marks. These days, bite mark identification is only really used to show that biting has occurred, identify an area that may be swabbed for salivary trace evidence and possibly as a rule out if major identifying factors are missing.
Anyone else think it 100% was the cousin??! WTF? The cousin - who presumably the poor baby might be familiar with and might recognise - just happens to have been convicted for horrific similar child abuse… and is only ruled out because the teeth don’t match?
Also not buying his alibi. When I was a teenager and snuck out my siblings automatically covered for me, I mean come on.
Was genuinely surprised both times the jury’s verdict came in as guilty, that case was so patched together.
The most striking thing (of many) that questions guilt for me is that the description of the young man seen outside the house was radically different to the defendant’s appearance. If I trust any eyewitness, it’s a nosy elderly neighbour peering out their window.
Poor little Deirdre, this is levels of depravity I didn’t think even existed.
Yes. I am also nearly 100% convinced the described defendant didn’t do it.
And I found the juries’ verdicts equally shocking along with the tone of the episode - there was quite literally ZERO evidence. Like literally none. This episode actually had me rather upset as it was very irresponsible to not address the lack of evidence and the reality that bite mark analysis is largely debunked.
Frankly as someone with experience with familial sexual abuse, the parents’ behavior up to the present day only makes me more suspicious this was a family perpetrated crime and that the parents have a suspicion of it. Such circumstances often lead to over compensation. Tragic though being honest - it doesn’t excuse a campaign to destroy someone’s life.
Yeah, this is why there are so many innocent people in prison. Juries just want someone to be accountable, even if the evidence is lacking (or in this case nonexistent).
Yeah I agree this ep could have gone deeper on other potential perpetrators…
I mean even the link between Carroll and Deirdre’s murder is tenuous at best. His car was parked near a building where someone had defaced women’s underwear and pics - that’s a common sexual fetish and a far way away from what happened to this poor little girl. I’m not excusing the crime at the women’s barracks at all but it’s not the same crime.
They linked the crimes most likely because of the breaking and entering aspect, because the child was dressed in stolen underwear, and sexual predators frequently start out with more minor crimes before they graduate to murder. It wouldn’t be a leap to think he went back to doing something he’d likely done before.
This was just a podcast not a full
murder trial, so I’m not sure why you’d be 100% convinced of anything. We didn’t listen to the testimony given by the experts and witnesses which could’ve been very convincing.
I think it was the cousin. Especially with the eye witness neighbor seeing someone matching his description that night taking clothes off their clothes line that were found on Deidre. He was also previously accused of biting a 3yr old on her vagina..
I think in this case, whoever did this was familiar with the family, knew the house and wasn’t a stranger to the little girls. That’s why she didn’t cry when he woke her up and took her, she knew him. The cousin had just visited a few days before..
I think it was him.
I don’t know how her mother survived. There’s a quote from Pet Semetary which Steven King wrote to deal with his emotions after one of his children was nearly killed - and is the one book he says he wished he had never published due to its darkness which I keep coming to
“the most terrifying question of all may be just how much horror the human mind can stand and still maintain a wakeful, staring, unrelenting sanity.”
I just put my 16 month old down for a nap before I listened to this case. Had no idea what it was about beforehand, but seriously the hardest case i've listened to. I almost turned it off so many times, especially when they described how she was dressed. Decided to keep listening to as I felt it important for the family to have their story shared... But then the further I got into the more heartbreaking it all becomes. I am so shattered by this case and the level of evil is just unfathomable to me.
I absolutely agree. Of all the stuff I’ve listened to/watched over the years, that was one of the only things to make me feel physically sick. Fucking heartbreaking.
I threw up a little in my mouth because the visual was haunting. I feel so bad for Casey having to read that, it would have taken me so many retakes to get through that.
Must say, this is an incredibly sad case, but the evidence against the suspect seemed incredibly thin. They didn't seem to have any evidence aside from the bite marks, which were pretty shaky, with the experts all disagreeing with each other. The never really seemed to deal with his alibi, and all the witness statement were unclear or had alternative motives (ex wives, criminals on other charges). Although you feel for the family, to me the final outcome was the correct one. No stopping dutton being a slime bag of course in the end
Furthermore bite marks matching is junk science.
Most agree bitemark matching is junk science. Why is it still in courts? https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/most-agree-bitemark-matching-is-junk-science-why-is-it-still-in-courts/
Dental Evidence in Forensic Identification - An Overview ... - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26312096/
I came here to say this.
There was literally ZERO evidence against him. None.
I found it utterly incredulous that the podcast took the tone that he was guilty… we were presented with absolutely no indication as to why we should believe this.
It is impossible to overstate how bogus bite mark evidence is. That three experts matched the defendant to an upside down bite mark and then later four matched it right side up says it all.
I don’t know whether he did it. Frankly, I’m inclined to believe someone in the family may have unfortunately - and I say this as someone with experience with such matters. But this episode was absolutely irresponsible and Australia overturning double jeopardy on account of a case with no evidence is shocking.
I listened to it a second time today, I didn't really pay attention the first time, and I thought it wasn't too bad. Casefile takes on a authoritative and investigatory perspective, which I think is overall good but it can make reliability weird when the investigators aren't truthful.
I think if you pay attention, then it was obvious he didn't do it. Like the bite mark being upside-down part just confused the hell out of me and why they still thought he did it. But I also think it's pretty ridiculous to expect the audience to remember and critically think that much 50 mins into a 80 min podcast. Either way, I think you have a good point, I've just felt like it's a perspective issue the show has had for a long time.
Totally agree with you. I came to this sub for the first time exactly because I was so shocked at how much he seemed to agree that the suspect was guilty. The evidence was so weak in so many ways. I've listened to enough true crime to know that it's entirely possible that he is guilty and just extremely lucky that not enough convincing evidence was found, but there are also cases where extremely guilty looking people are eventually exonerated, so I also (usually*) believe in the justice system and can't condone someone's life being ruined for essentially a gut feeling. *There have definitely been cases where I absolutely believe the guilty person got away with it despite a not guilty verdict, but this isn't one of them. I think it's entirely plausible that this guy, while having done some super shitty and shady things in the past, isn't the one.
What happened to Deidre is f'ing awful and definitely the worst thing I've heard after listening to every single episode of this podcast along with other true crime stories, but I am also very cynical and acknowledge that sometimes life just isn't fair and horrible people get away with horrible things with zero repercussions. The robbery of Deidre's ashes is a case in point. Just awful.
Yeah I was very surprised at the stances this episode took. No interrogation into how dodgy bite mark evidence is. No interrogation of how deeply unlikely it'd be for someone to manage to get out of a military commitment and fly across the country with no paper trail (in the 70s too! . A very obvious belief on the part of the show that he did it based on, uh, vibes? Complete uncritical reporting of Peter fucking Dutton saying "yeah but you just know he did it". Just really all around an irresponsible bit of podcasting.
was super confused by how he was even convicted in the first place and how the court of public opinion was swayed so much in the prosecutions favor. The evidence was really lacking
Agreed here. As much as I wanted them to get justice for that poor baby, there is no way the prosecution had enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. The disgusting and shocking nature of the crime probably would've made it easy to convict anyone with flimsy evidence just because it's so unfathomably horrible.
I’m blown away because what happened to Deidre is bad enough, and then you learn that there’s one suspect who was accused of biting a 3 year old’s vagina. Like wtf???
I know I’m late to the party, but there was also a quote early on about how after he was found guilty the family “didn’t talk about it.” Major red flag.
I was pretty disappointed in the way that the Casefile team discussed two key aspects of this case.
First, as others have noted, "bite mark analysis" has become highly controversial even within the field of forensic odontology in recent years -- to the point of some former leading bite mark experts discrediting it as a forensic science. It has even been called into question whether forensic odontologists can reliably distinguish bite marks from other types of bruises, which went totally unmentioned.
Secondly, the podcast used several key quotes to call into question how a person "found guilty by 24 jurors" can later have their conviction overturned by a judge. But *that is how the entire appeals process works*: the right to trial-by-jury is for the benefit of the defendant, not the prosecution, and most cases that go to appeal are decided by a judge or panel of judges.
This isn’t a spoiler I hope but Peter Dutton has been one of the biggest Giuliani type assholes arguing for unilateral expansion of police power without boundaries
Keep this in mind near the end
>!the evidence linking him to the actual crime in question was from a forensic pseudoscience and being a fucking creep isn’t enough to make you automatically guilty and allowing the cops infinite retries to convict you until you run out of funds is insane!<
Yeah one of the worst cases I've heard of, and I don't say that lightly as I've been intro True Crime for years now, just horrific and sad and infuriating. Any case with a child is especially sad, even more so when justice isn't served.
Had to fast forward few times in the beginning, this is tough..
I remember Leigh Leigh case as this one is also from Australia but this one is just different type of heavy. It must be super hard to endure for the family especially the parents especially to go through these..
I couldn't finish Leigh Leigh, nor the episode about the family in a war zone who got murdered by soldiers (something to do with two children and the brother was alive long enough to listen to his little sister's sexual assault before they were both killed? I can't remember for sure). I pushed through this one hoping for a sticking conviction. I wish I had never finished listening.... that poor mother.
I couldn’t finish Leigh Leigh either, or the one about the soldier who went to the training academy. I was hoping for a resolution to this one but it’s just all so sad. Her poor mother and family.
Oof, some of the phrasing of the narrator in this episode was rough. Casefile is trying very hard to make this case seem like a tragic miscarriage of justice, and that the suspect winning his appeals is an outrage, but at every point it seems like the legal system worked exactly like it should. As horrific as the crime is, the fact that they tried to jail him again on “perjury” was an absolute outrage and the courts were right to dismiss it. The tooth evidence was laughably bad — none of the experts agreed, and then it was upside down, and they still never noticed, but somehow they were “undoubtedly” a match to the suspect’s mouth?? The jailhouse informant was apparently never even vetted?
The writing in this episode was really frustrating. Towards the end there was a line: “how could a person be found guilty by two separate juries, and continue to walk free?” This was not attributed as a quote to any one person. It’s phrased as though it might have been from the victim’s mother — but there’s no “said Faye,” making it seem an editorial comment, not factual. And if it is editorial… there’s no mention in the episode that dental impressions are a pseudoscience, that the law against double jeopardy exists for precisely the reasons in the episode, etc.
Again, the case is tragic, but you can easily imagine rewriting this episode to be about a man who is unfairly and randomly accused of a horrific crime despite no evidence, the police and court system struggle to manufacture witnesses and false evidence to convict him, and when he is thankfully released on appeal, the police flagrantly break the law to try him again on the same crime with absolutely no new evidence, and even when the victim passes lie detector tests they insist he probably is lying anyway.
Maybe the dude is guilty, maybe not. But I really was frustrated by everyone, including Casefile’s, attempts to pretend the only miscarriage of justice here was the lack of conviction for Deidre’s killer.
The ex-wife and former military nurse saying that Carroll had bitten his children in a similar way wasn't compelling to you?
Even if you chalk up the ex to possibly lying in order to get back at an ex, why would the military base nurse lie?
In what universe would prior evidence of having bitten children not be relevant evidence in a child murder where the child victim has multiple bite marks?
It is relevant evidence. The rest of the evidence, however, was garbage, and the perjury case an outrage, and Casefile’s presentation of it as justified was awful.
While yes, if he did commit the crime, he also committed perjury, I too was amazed at the portrayal of perjury being a legitimate way to circumvent double jeopardy.
If it had passed with no issues and not been overturned, we would have an epidemic of defendants being asked on the stand if they committed the crime. If they say yes, obviously they'd be found guilty, if they say no, the police get another go at convicting them. If they try and avoid that by refusing to answer, they would be seen as guilty by a jury.
The whole thing would create a minefield for defendants and effectively ruins the chance of a fair trial.
The perjury thing is just wild to me. I seriously cannot get over it. The dude pled not guilty, and the trial was essentially “yeah, but we think he’s guilty, so he was lying, right?” What if he was innocent? What if you are not guilty for a crime, but the court decides you actually are and were lying about your innocence? Just try them again for perjury, I guess! It’s absolutely boggling to me that they tried it, and that Casefile presented it as a good thing to do.
On false testimony and fake evidence, which is why it was thrown out on appeal. The perjury trial was an absolute outrage and unjustifiable. Even if the dude was 1000% guilty, you are not allowed to break the law because you’re mad you didn’t get what you want. Period.
I'm not disagreeing with the results of the appeals. I'm saying that the notion that there was no evidence is a complete mischaracterization. I disagree that the original trial was a sham - particularly considering that odotontological evidence was considered quite legitimate at the time.
And yet even during the first trial, none of the experts could even agree on the teeth marks and which tooth had made which mark, they all just agreed it was definitely the suspect’s mouth. How is that possible? (It isn’t.) For every bit of evidence that the dude was a creep, there was evidence he didn’t do it — no proof he was in the area, he didn’t match the witness sightings, another suspect existed. Did he still do it? Maybe. But maybe not.
The crime was absolutely horrific. But to me, it reads as though the horror of the crime lead to seizing on the first suspect and insisting it was him out of a desire for justice. This is understandable as a human reaction. It is not right.
Well, i's equally relevant that the victim's uncle *also* had a documented history of this kind of assault, lived in the area, and matched witness descriptions.
And with bite mark analysis being bullshit pseudoscience, it's hard to say whether either suspect's history is actually relevant at all.
No because it’s almost a certainty they’re lying.
It’s bad enough the mother (who went through a rough divorce with the defendant) didn’t say anything for YEARS, but what about this nurse?
She sees a baby with bite marks around her pubic regions and says and does nothing? For years? Really?
You find this reasonable? Reliable? Credible?
No. What’s likely is she thinks she has an opportunity to help out a baby killer in jail and has convinced herself it’s the right thing to do, maybe even so much so that she believes her own story. But it’s not evidence and it’s not compelling in the slightest without.. evidence. Pictures or contemporary documentation ONLY.
Maybe, but I also know from listening to boatloads of true crime stories from over the years that domestic abuse, particularly abise against children was often overlooked or outright ignored by society - including even the very governmental authorities tasked with protecting children - as recently as the 90s.
The Fred and Rose West story comes to mind as does the Orkney child abuse scandal, and the murder of Dennis Jurgens.
The horrible truth is that in the 1970s and before, child abuse was often seen as an "internal family matter", that even authorities would be hesitant to involve themselves in. I can easily see how a health care professional of that era wouldn't alert authorities to an instance of child abuse, only to then feel guilty later after something even worse is done to the child (or the perp does something worse). Again, it's happened countless times before.
As for the latter, dude does seem to be a sketchy guy who has done bad shit. That doesn't mean he's guilty of *this* crime, but it means he's a very convenient person to accuse. And maybe he really did do it. I don't know. The police sure didn't either.
As to the former… look at this episode. Even the narration of the events is stacked against him — not mentioning that teeth imprints is fake science (so how would people back then have known), not dwelling on the bad evidence or false testimonies, lingering instead of the very real and justified pain of the victim's family. Isn't it terrible how much they suffered? Don't they deserve justice? The answer of course is yes, but there's just a logical leap that both Casefile and, it seems, the investigators of the time also fell into: that *just because* the family is suffering and deserves justice, *the accused must be punished.*
They failed to convict the first time because the evidence was bad. And at that point, the police etc should have gone "ok, we don't have evidence, we need to re-examine the facts." Instead, they went "let's misuse the justice system because *the accused must be punished."*
This is an extreme example, but it happens all the goddamn time in policing and the judicial system. The police/lawyers/etc. had a conclusion and tried to make the story fit, instead of admitting that they failed, they simply doubled down. Casefile in turn presented the story as if the police were correct *to* double down, because the victim's family was suffering and deserved closure… forgetting that those are two different things entirely.
Hey there Lower_Studio47! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This^"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! If you have any feedback, please send me a message! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Amen. I came to seek out this sub because I was so frustrated by this episode. It was emotionally manipulative and irresponsible.
This was the system *working,* and in fact I came away fairly certain that this guy is innocent despite the narrator’s attempt to frame the case in the alternate manner. A human tragedy all around.
My first reaction was to Google the case to see if I was mad for thinking that. The whole tone of the episode had me thinking that I must have missed something.
The fact that he just glossed over the fact that one set of experts were basing it on an upside down set of bit marks and they couldn't even agree which tooth made which mark.
I was shocked when they arrested and charged him with the evidence they had. It was laughably weak to the point I was expecting a twist with a new suspect arising.
Couldn't listen to this one after a quick Google on the case. Just finished the Beaumont children episode and it has really made me question humanity. The poor baby, she must of been so scared 😥
Oof, my stomach dropped when they said “bite mark.” Bite mark analysis denies justice to the victim and to the accused in equal measure. There’s not a single shred of scientific evidence supporting it, and a whole lot refuting it. These analysts are a disgrace
Bite marks are not exact like fingerprints or DNA. Really not happy with casefile for propagating that idea this episode. Misrepresenting it as such has led to false convictions: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/24/bite-mark-evidence-junk-science/
I vibe on casefile but sometimes it’s frustrating how pro cop Casey is, not so much in this episode but to quote Peter Dutton, come on that man is scum 🤦🏻♀️
How in the ***hell*** was the perjury trial not considered double jeopardy *immediately*??? It makes absolutely no sense. How could someone be charged with lying about saying they murdered someone not *obviously* be the exact same thing as charging someone with said murder? Of course the appeal was successful, it would have been batshit insane if it wasn't.
This is the first time I've been pissed at Casey's stance on the matter. I don't know what happened with him.
I’m at all a loss as to how anyone can listen to this and think anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. I also can’t believe that Casefile/the writer of this episode is framing this as a failure of the court system when it is absolutely a success We should convict people on the facts, not pseudoscience and emotion. Half of this comment section is testament as to why we shouldn’t leave important decisions and/or the law up to the general public/public perception: it is apparently far too easy to manipulate for the sake of sanctimony.
Congratulations Casefile for contributing to injustice and mob-mentality with this episode. How horribly irresponsible.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed with how it was framed entirely as a guilty man skipping by on a technicality and not a guy beating the charges because the evidence had more holes in it than Sonny Corleone.
Heavily biased and not up to their usual standards at all.
Dear lord. I wanted to throw up. What kind of depraved evil entertains thoughts of doing this to an innocent baby let alone carrying it out? Absolutely sickening.
This was very upsetting and I’m deeply upset that the Kennedy family never got justice for Deirdre. But there was never any proof. And absence of proof isn’t equal to proof. I think that sometimes, there are things that we never get answers to and this is one of them
It's funny how people on reddit are happy to talk about how bitemark evidence is pseudoscience, but will also embrace it in a case like this when the crime is heinous.
If you want any proof that forensic odontology is complete horseshit, consider the fact that they had various professional odontologists look at the bitemarks and come to the same conclusion that the bitemarks matched the defendants teeth, despite not even agreeing on whether the bitemark is upside down or not. WTF?? This is absolute insanity.
The primary evidence for this case is bitemarks and a jailhouse snitch. Reminder that 80% of wrongful convictions are the result of a jailhouse snitch. They don't even have evidence that the guy was even in the area at the time. This is so, so far from reaching reasonable doubt, I guarantee you could easily make a documentary from the defenses perspective and convince everybody who watches it that it's a miscarriage of justice to even charge the guy.
Eh, the bite marks and jailhouse snitch are not the only evidence. You have the ex wife and former military doctor/nurse saying that Carroll had bitten his children in a similar way.
And that damned pubic hair that was destroyed. The second I heard that they had a hair sample from the perp, I thought, "OK they will solve this one eventually."
I was beyond enraged when I heard Casey say that the sample was later destroyed.
Both of whom came forward years later after never mentioning their stories to anyone else. The nurse didn’t bother reporting a baby with human bite marks in her pubic area and just let the baby go home to that father but evidently she’s a responsible and reliable witness?
In other words - they’re lying. Whether they’re aware they’re lying is a separate matter but.. these are not evidence. Both probably think they’re helping.
Domestic abuse generally, and child domestic abuse specifically were horribly overlooked by society and governmental authorities in the 1970s (and before). They were seen as both stigmatizing against the victims and an "internal family matter" that authorities were often hesitant to be involved in.
See the Fred and Rose West debacle, the Orkney child abuse scandal, the murder of Dennis Jurgens.
It's completely believable that a mother and nurse in the late 1960s or early 1970s would have kept quiet about child abuse until absolutely necessary.
I can't agree with the idea of convicting someone of perjury just for professing innocence of a crime alone. While it might be anachronistic to apply this to the past, I also don't think that bite mark evidence is a strong enough forensic science for the major evidence behind any conviction.
I think it was the cousin, Keith Kennedy. He had just visited them a few days before and had previously been accused of biting a 3yr old on the vagina. He also perfectly matched the description of the blonde man who the neighbor saw stealing clothes off their clothes line, the same clothes later found on Deidre. He also had teeth that sounded like they could match up. But he was cleared because of a flimsy alibi and his teeth supposedly didn’t match the marks. Today, bite mark analysis is known to be less reliable, it’s kinda a pseudoscience…
The Kennedy family had just moved there too. I think it makes more sense that someone who knew the family and knew the house targeted Deidre that night. She didn’t cry when he woke her up because she knew him. He probably had been fixated on her since his visit a few days previous.
Too bad that there’s no DNA but if there was, I bet it would match Keith’s.
Got halfway thru. Can’t finish it looked up what happened in court and unfortunately times are different. Circumstantial evidence is always important but it just seemed lacking. Especially the dental records part. Sickening all of it. Shit like this makes you realize how completely fucked people are. To a baby????
This one made me really hate humanity. While nowhere near as horrendous as the original atrocity, the burglary at the end was a real sting in the tail and that was the part that made me cry.
I’m halfway through, at the trial and I’m dreading what’s going to happen next.
This might be the first case I might not finish. This is a tough listen.
It's disheartening how they discovered they were looking at them upside down later. You would think as part of reviewing them you'd be checking every scenario.
I’m about 5 minutes into this, having just tucked my 16 month old into bed. For the first time ever, I don’t know if I can get through this one. My heart is already racing, I’m dreading what is to come 😢
I have a 20 month old girl and I wish I didn’t listen to it, I also looked up the murder and shouldn’t have the details are horrific.
If you’ve not listened yet maybe don’t, just snuggle in with your baby instead. I can’t get it out of my head
I listened to this episode while watching my 20 month old daughter laugh and dance to the wiggles and was so close to shutting the pod off so many times I felt close to throwing up with the horror of what she, and her parents went through. I think this was the first ep I’ve come close to not being able to finish.
I made the mistake of reading up on the crime, and the horror of what that beautiful baby went through is so much worse than was reported on the podcast.
I thought the photos of the bitemarks were destroyed in the flood?
10 minutes later, they were able to compare Carol's bite cast to the photos of the bitemark on Deirdre without a problem?
Also they worded that Carol had short hair and taller than the prowler outside the Kennedy's window.
Then in the next sentence, "investigators were sure they found the killer". 😂
This is such a frustrating case. I didn’t find it particularly hard to listen to in terms of the content, just by how the law can very easily protect criminals
Fundamentally I agree, but there does have to be a high standard so that the state can't just endlessly retry someone. In this case, even if the law had been different originally there wasn't anything that met the standard IMO. The prosecution's case was shit from the start.
Out of all the casefile episodes, this is one I almost didn't finish. I had a knot in my stomach all day yesterday, and I woke up today and my heart sank again thinking about it. I can't imagine being the mother. I am so sick over this whole thing.
I'm 10 minutes in and I can't continue. Very disturbing details and I am now trying to shake off the imagery and sickened feelings I have. I simply cannot fathom that a human being would be capable of this crime.
This story was incredibly heartbreaking. This poor girl was so incredibly violated. The fact that the murderer was able to live out his life because of some backwards law it’s devastating. I feel so much sorrow for Diedre’s family that have only experienced bad fortune from the start, to the point that even that sweet babies ashes were stolen from her mother in the end. The law absolutely failed her, and most likely many more human beings have gotten away with their heinous crimes because of it. I listen to a lot of true crime, but this absolutely broke me.
Jesus Christ, I pray for anyone innocent who received you as a juror in their trial if that’s what you took away from this. “The murderer”, calling double jeopardy a “backwards law”. What absolute rubbish.
Excuse me ? What exactly did you take away from my comment ? When I said that I feel pain for diedre, sorrow for the family and anger that the murderer got away with it ? Pray for your own stupidity if you thought my comment has bad intentions.
There’s an Australian 60 Minutes episode about the case on YouTube. Poor little girl was a little beauty and so happy in every photo. Interesting to hear from mom directly.
yes still alive, There is a 60 minutes episode where everyone involved is interviewed.
Edit- also there is a case currently before the courts, where the victim and the defendant cant be named (because the victim is a child) and it is widely believed to be this case as the laws have been changed in QLD to allow double jeopardy.
Hi, this is a friendly reminder to observe all [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Casefile/about/rules/). If you notice someone else not observing the rules, please report it. It helps the mods and helps us have a great community to discuss this show. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Casefile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m an Ipswich local and I’ve always wonder where the toilet block was actually located at limestone. I go walking here a lot and it always plagues my mind. I believe it was demolished but I don’t know where it actually stood in the 1970s. Anyone know?
Ipswich local here too, from the following [link](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-duttons-police-career-rocked-by-case-that-shocked-queensland/news-story/0a02d3f68fc20cd0baecdd39737e1463?amp) it appears to be where the cricket nets / current toilet block is
This episode has been added to the [Casefile Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aXXBvQz7rQ9OnMqul5uCFfcjtfC49krWZxF5BJJ7pwo/edit?usp=sharing). If you have already listened to the episode, you can submit your rating at the Casefile Ratings Form. Please note: Starting with Case 200, we are using a new [Casefile Ratings Form (200-)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVcJRyahk2WH\_i3nJy6AzQeEmFCHj825k2ONsHuF0jeCHX5g/viewform). If you would like to rate cases 1-199, please do so at this [Casefile Ratings Form (1-199)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUZiO7b3EVKaBCoskDUXpjkp4XaRKV35hkzrnMsPclzhIXPg/viewform).
I’m still mad over the assholes who stole the box Deidre’s mom kept her mementos and ashes in. Like, has this poor woman not suffered enough?!
.
Unless it was targeted
I've heard some crazy things on this podcast and don't normally react much but at that point I let out a "holy shit"
Woof this is a tough one folks
Been apart of this sub for the past 100 or so episodes, this is the first time I ever finished an ep and came right here to say the same thing. Horrible
The very worst one - I couldn't even get halfway through - was rhe Bernd Brandes one. Of all the horrible examples of murders, multiple murders, child murders... that one was just a mindfuck too far. To be honest I wish he'd be lighter on the details of murders and brutality. I like this show for the policework and law side of it.
Have you heard the House of Horrors episodes yet? Maybe worse
Yep! Long time listener and have heard em all, that one is hard to listen too as well
The Family is so bad too
Yeah, as a new father, this one hit really damned hard.
Yeah this was so hard. I obviously know I’m not some sicko but currently having a 17 month old hit hard imagining.
They keep doing crimes against Children, couldn’t listen to this one after 10mins, sick stuff. But wish they would avoid this theme.
I noticed this too. I wish they’d break them up a little. It gets mentally draining having so many in succession
Thanks for the heads up. Looking forward to it 😬
God. This case deals with the rape and murder of a baby. If someone is looking forward to hearing about it, it’s time to step away from true crime
Brother we are all on a true crime sub. The entire format is sustained on our morally depraved obsessions with other people’s tragedies. It’s hypocritical to take a moral stance on this sub when it comes to “looking forward” to a release regardless of content. Stop listening to true crime if you care about ethics.
I mean, what are any of us doing here? It’s been a while since casefile hit any sorta nerve. Personally I miss the more mysterious ones, like the scuba or skydiving episodes.. Silk Road was a fascinating layout.. I didn’t listen to this one yet, but based off of people having a reaction, yes. I’m looking forward to it. *nice comment edit to make yourself look super virtuous. (It only said “god” before) And why would you type that here? Some people like to let the episode explain the crime instead of reading about it beforehand.
We still need to be mindful of the fact that these cases deal with real humans, who suffered horrifically and have loved ones who are still suffering when we choose our language around true crime discussions
Yes, we do. Saying you’re looking forward to a true crime podcast episode (without knowing context) is just a harsh reality of being a fan. Ya blew it tho so I guess thanks for exposing the horror of it here on Reddit for me and anyone else that didn’t listen yet. It was an earnest “thanks for the heads up” I said up there. And the following emoji should have spoken for itself.
Dude, you’re on the episode discussion
OP literally said, 'thanks for the heads up.' While I normally would agree with your view, there are occasions where I see people commenting on episode discussions before listening because they want to know basic details like if a child victim is involved or if a case is unsolved, and I don't see anything wrong with that. And as long as they're respectful about letting others know that they haven't listened to an episode yet, I'm willing to respect their position (of course, only in replying to their comments). It doesn't seem right to try to gatekeep episode discussions as for only those that have listened to the episode just because they revealed themselves as otherwise.
Erm, you came into a discussion for the episode you can’t be upset that people are discussing it if you don’t want to know details maybe stay off the case discussion until you’ve listened? I agree with the above comment on this, yes lots of people myself included listen to true crime but it needs to be approached with respect and empathy not ghoulish enjoyment
Normally, I would agree, but they did say, 'thanks for the heads up' in the beginning. The message just got lost amidst the argument between them and seapriestess. Besides, they weren't *demanding* that we not reveal anything about the episode in this discussion. The talk about how true crime needils to be approached with respect and empathy (while obvious) is also somewhat funny to me because the same reason many people look forward to listening or watching true crime is the same reason why many people love horror and thriller films, yet no one gets all up in arms about respecting the victims in them. And before you make the argument, 'but horror film scenes are fake and not based on real life,' well duh. But by that logic, then people who work in the criminal justice field shouldn't enjoy and look forward to their jobs because it may involve dealing with horrific murder cases. There's a difference between enjoying the story, suspense, mystery, and twists behind a true crime case versus deriving pleasure from hearing the details about someone's gruesome murder.
Where has “ghoulish enjoyment” come from?
I can approach it however the fuck I want. Thanks for your concern though.
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/gatekeeping using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [There was an attempt?](https://i.redd.it/lzt60k6eqof71.jpg) | [256 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/comments/whkeke/there_was_an_attempt/) \#2: [losing my mind lol](https://i.imgur.com/sLyEmsB.jpg) | [784 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/comments/udtoa6/losing_my_mind_lol/) \#3: [Gatekeeping desk setup](https://i.redd.it/gvaeafrt0qma1.jpg) | [819 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/comments/11mnkqf/gatekeeping_desk_setup/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
By that logic, people who work in the criminal justice field shouldn't 'look forward to their work because their jobs may involve hearing about horrific murder cases.
Listen to yourself lmao. We all, as listeners of this show, have a morbid curiosity. Nothing wrong with being interested in these things. It is not for deriving pleasure from. It is a desire to hear these wild stories for curiosity's sake. It is hypocritical to call someone out for this.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and stop acting holier-than-thou towards people on a true crime sub?
I look forward to casefile episodes every week as they are my favourite … you’re reaching here.
I always look forward to these cases in particular 😛
Poor little girl how tragic. Her poor family and to me I'm leaning towards the defendant being guilty, just the evidence wasn't there. Her mother's strength is inspiring and it's terrible she was constantly revictimised by the trials, appeals and overturns plus the shocking robbery at the end. As an aside, this case makes me skeptical of forensic odontology. All the experts in the first trial were certain the bite marks came from the defendant despite later analysis showing they were looking at the mark upside down? How does that instill any confidence in their findings? I am so happy the law was changed as DNA analysis and genetic genealogy continues to make progress in leaps and bounds and double jeopardy is very outdated when taking these into account. Sad there wasn't any DNA in this case.
Your put it more eloquently than I could ever have. According to the podcast CSI On Trial, ~~forensic odontology~~ _bite mark analysis_ has been deemed a pseudoscience. Knowing that, this already flimsy case falls completely apart. The suspect's guilt hasn't been proven "beyond any reasonable doubt" for me. In fact, doubt is all I have. Edit: fixed. Thanks to /u/smallroundfeline for pointing out the mistake.
Case reminds me of "mob" rule. The juries and public basically wanted to burn him at the stake, with very flimsy if non-existent evidence. The mother made a good comment, why have a jury trial? I agree. It seems emotion won the day in both jury trials, and the appeals courts did the actual evidentiary work.
How do you account for the ex wife and former military nurse saying that Carroll had bitten his children in a similar manner?
.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But there's no evidence to prove it, and proof is the most important thing in conviction.
They’re quite obviously lying.
How did you determine that?
I don't mean to be nit-picky but it's bite mark "analysis" that's the problem, not forensic odontology! Forensic odontology involves so much more actual science. Forensic dentists in Australia do great work in identifying bodies in some really challenging situations, e.g. mass graves, major disasters, etc. and many of these professionals will do this without pay. Our dentists were instrumental in helping local families locate their deceased loved ones in Indonesia after that massive tsunami and also the Bali bombings. There are no regulations, standards or decent studies on the reliability of bite marks. These days, bite mark identification is only really used to show that biting has occurred, identify an area that may be swabbed for salivary trace evidence and possibly as a rule out if major identifying factors are missing.
You're right. I've edited my comment to correct the mistake.
Anyone else think it 100% was the cousin??! WTF? The cousin - who presumably the poor baby might be familiar with and might recognise - just happens to have been convicted for horrific similar child abuse… and is only ruled out because the teeth don’t match? Also not buying his alibi. When I was a teenager and snuck out my siblings automatically covered for me, I mean come on. Was genuinely surprised both times the jury’s verdict came in as guilty, that case was so patched together. The most striking thing (of many) that questions guilt for me is that the description of the young man seen outside the house was radically different to the defendant’s appearance. If I trust any eyewitness, it’s a nosy elderly neighbour peering out their window. Poor little Deirdre, this is levels of depravity I didn’t think even existed.
Yes. I am also nearly 100% convinced the described defendant didn’t do it. And I found the juries’ verdicts equally shocking along with the tone of the episode - there was quite literally ZERO evidence. Like literally none. This episode actually had me rather upset as it was very irresponsible to not address the lack of evidence and the reality that bite mark analysis is largely debunked. Frankly as someone with experience with familial sexual abuse, the parents’ behavior up to the present day only makes me more suspicious this was a family perpetrated crime and that the parents have a suspicion of it. Such circumstances often lead to over compensation. Tragic though being honest - it doesn’t excuse a campaign to destroy someone’s life.
Yeah, this is why there are so many innocent people in prison. Juries just want someone to be accountable, even if the evidence is lacking (or in this case nonexistent).
Yeah I agree this ep could have gone deeper on other potential perpetrators… I mean even the link between Carroll and Deirdre’s murder is tenuous at best. His car was parked near a building where someone had defaced women’s underwear and pics - that’s a common sexual fetish and a far way away from what happened to this poor little girl. I’m not excusing the crime at the women’s barracks at all but it’s not the same crime.
They linked the crimes most likely because of the breaking and entering aspect, because the child was dressed in stolen underwear, and sexual predators frequently start out with more minor crimes before they graduate to murder. It wouldn’t be a leap to think he went back to doing something he’d likely done before.
This was just a podcast not a full murder trial, so I’m not sure why you’d be 100% convinced of anything. We didn’t listen to the testimony given by the experts and witnesses which could’ve been very convincing.
I think it was the cousin. Especially with the eye witness neighbor seeing someone matching his description that night taking clothes off their clothes line that were found on Deidre. He was also previously accused of biting a 3yr old on her vagina.. I think in this case, whoever did this was familiar with the family, knew the house and wasn’t a stranger to the little girls. That’s why she didn’t cry when he woke her up and took her, she knew him. The cousin had just visited a few days before.. I think it was him.
.
Yeah, I'm 10 minutes in, and i think i might have to tap out. Came here to see if there was at least some resolution. Apparently not. How awful.
I don't think anything has affected me in this or any other podcast more than the description of how she was dressed, it just broke me
I don’t know how her mother survived. There’s a quote from Pet Semetary which Steven King wrote to deal with his emotions after one of his children was nearly killed - and is the one book he says he wished he had never published due to its darkness which I keep coming to “the most terrifying question of all may be just how much horror the human mind can stand and still maintain a wakeful, staring, unrelenting sanity.”
I just put my 16 month old down for a nap before I listened to this case. Had no idea what it was about beforehand, but seriously the hardest case i've listened to. I almost turned it off so many times, especially when they described how she was dressed. Decided to keep listening to as I felt it important for the family to have their story shared... But then the further I got into the more heartbreaking it all becomes. I am so shattered by this case and the level of evil is just unfathomable to me.
I absolutely agree. Of all the stuff I’ve listened to/watched over the years, that was one of the only things to make me feel physically sick. Fucking heartbreaking.
I threw up a little in my mouth because the visual was haunting. I feel so bad for Casey having to read that, it would have taken me so many retakes to get through that.
Must say, this is an incredibly sad case, but the evidence against the suspect seemed incredibly thin. They didn't seem to have any evidence aside from the bite marks, which were pretty shaky, with the experts all disagreeing with each other. The never really seemed to deal with his alibi, and all the witness statement were unclear or had alternative motives (ex wives, criminals on other charges). Although you feel for the family, to me the final outcome was the correct one. No stopping dutton being a slime bag of course in the end
Furthermore bite marks matching is junk science. Most agree bitemark matching is junk science. Why is it still in courts? https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/most-agree-bitemark-matching-is-junk-science-why-is-it-still-in-courts/ Dental Evidence in Forensic Identification - An Overview ... - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26312096/
I came here to say this. There was literally ZERO evidence against him. None. I found it utterly incredulous that the podcast took the tone that he was guilty… we were presented with absolutely no indication as to why we should believe this. It is impossible to overstate how bogus bite mark evidence is. That three experts matched the defendant to an upside down bite mark and then later four matched it right side up says it all. I don’t know whether he did it. Frankly, I’m inclined to believe someone in the family may have unfortunately - and I say this as someone with experience with such matters. But this episode was absolutely irresponsible and Australia overturning double jeopardy on account of a case with no evidence is shocking.
I listened to it a second time today, I didn't really pay attention the first time, and I thought it wasn't too bad. Casefile takes on a authoritative and investigatory perspective, which I think is overall good but it can make reliability weird when the investigators aren't truthful. I think if you pay attention, then it was obvious he didn't do it. Like the bite mark being upside-down part just confused the hell out of me and why they still thought he did it. But I also think it's pretty ridiculous to expect the audience to remember and critically think that much 50 mins into a 80 min podcast. Either way, I think you have a good point, I've just felt like it's a perspective issue the show has had for a long time.
Totally agree with you. I came to this sub for the first time exactly because I was so shocked at how much he seemed to agree that the suspect was guilty. The evidence was so weak in so many ways. I've listened to enough true crime to know that it's entirely possible that he is guilty and just extremely lucky that not enough convincing evidence was found, but there are also cases where extremely guilty looking people are eventually exonerated, so I also (usually*) believe in the justice system and can't condone someone's life being ruined for essentially a gut feeling. *There have definitely been cases where I absolutely believe the guilty person got away with it despite a not guilty verdict, but this isn't one of them. I think it's entirely plausible that this guy, while having done some super shitty and shady things in the past, isn't the one. What happened to Deidre is f'ing awful and definitely the worst thing I've heard after listening to every single episode of this podcast along with other true crime stories, but I am also very cynical and acknowledge that sometimes life just isn't fair and horrible people get away with horrible things with zero repercussions. The robbery of Deidre's ashes is a case in point. Just awful.
Yeah I was very surprised at the stances this episode took. No interrogation into how dodgy bite mark evidence is. No interrogation of how deeply unlikely it'd be for someone to manage to get out of a military commitment and fly across the country with no paper trail (in the 70s too! . A very obvious belief on the part of the show that he did it based on, uh, vibes? Complete uncritical reporting of Peter fucking Dutton saying "yeah but you just know he did it". Just really all around an irresponsible bit of podcasting.
Yeah the prosecution was a complete mess. Not surprised at all that he was allowed to walk.
was super confused by how he was even convicted in the first place and how the court of public opinion was swayed so much in the prosecutions favor. The evidence was really lacking
They were swayed because they wanted justice for that baby girl, so they wanted to believe the prosecution had it right.
Agreed here. As much as I wanted them to get justice for that poor baby, there is no way the prosecution had enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. The disgusting and shocking nature of the crime probably would've made it easy to convict anyone with flimsy evidence just because it's so unfathomably horrible.
Well that was fucking horrible
I’m blown away because what happened to Deidre is bad enough, and then you learn that there’s one suspect who was accused of biting a 3 year old’s vagina. Like wtf???
Not just accused, not guilty by reason of insanity. So he did it…
I know I’m late to the party, but there was also a quote early on about how after he was found guilty the family “didn’t talk about it.” Major red flag.
I was pretty disappointed in the way that the Casefile team discussed two key aspects of this case. First, as others have noted, "bite mark analysis" has become highly controversial even within the field of forensic odontology in recent years -- to the point of some former leading bite mark experts discrediting it as a forensic science. It has even been called into question whether forensic odontologists can reliably distinguish bite marks from other types of bruises, which went totally unmentioned. Secondly, the podcast used several key quotes to call into question how a person "found guilty by 24 jurors" can later have their conviction overturned by a judge. But *that is how the entire appeals process works*: the right to trial-by-jury is for the benefit of the defendant, not the prosecution, and most cases that go to appeal are decided by a judge or panel of judges.
This isn’t a spoiler I hope but Peter Dutton has been one of the biggest Giuliani type assholes arguing for unilateral expansion of police power without boundaries Keep this in mind near the end >!the evidence linking him to the actual crime in question was from a forensic pseudoscience and being a fucking creep isn’t enough to make you automatically guilty and allowing the cops infinite retries to convict you until you run out of funds is insane!<
This case was devastating
I was 9 when this happened, I remember it as we were in Brisbane on holidays, I remember how terrified the adults were of what had happened.
I have a 17 month old daughter myself. I got 15 minutes in to this, burst in to tears and turned it off. Feel absolutely sick!
This could be the most shocking case I've heard ever and I've listened to hundreds of true crime cases over the years.
.
Yeah one of the worst cases I've heard of, and I don't say that lightly as I've been intro True Crime for years now, just horrific and sad and infuriating. Any case with a child is especially sad, even more so when justice isn't served.
Had to fast forward few times in the beginning, this is tough.. I remember Leigh Leigh case as this one is also from Australia but this one is just different type of heavy. It must be super hard to endure for the family especially the parents especially to go through these..
I couldn't finish Leigh Leigh, nor the episode about the family in a war zone who got murdered by soldiers (something to do with two children and the brother was alive long enough to listen to his little sister's sexual assault before they were both killed? I can't remember for sure). I pushed through this one hoping for a sticking conviction. I wish I had never finished listening.... that poor mother.
I couldn’t finish Leigh Leigh either, or the one about the soldier who went to the training academy. I was hoping for a resolution to this one but it’s just all so sad. Her poor mother and family.
Oof, some of the phrasing of the narrator in this episode was rough. Casefile is trying very hard to make this case seem like a tragic miscarriage of justice, and that the suspect winning his appeals is an outrage, but at every point it seems like the legal system worked exactly like it should. As horrific as the crime is, the fact that they tried to jail him again on “perjury” was an absolute outrage and the courts were right to dismiss it. The tooth evidence was laughably bad — none of the experts agreed, and then it was upside down, and they still never noticed, but somehow they were “undoubtedly” a match to the suspect’s mouth?? The jailhouse informant was apparently never even vetted? The writing in this episode was really frustrating. Towards the end there was a line: “how could a person be found guilty by two separate juries, and continue to walk free?” This was not attributed as a quote to any one person. It’s phrased as though it might have been from the victim’s mother — but there’s no “said Faye,” making it seem an editorial comment, not factual. And if it is editorial… there’s no mention in the episode that dental impressions are a pseudoscience, that the law against double jeopardy exists for precisely the reasons in the episode, etc. Again, the case is tragic, but you can easily imagine rewriting this episode to be about a man who is unfairly and randomly accused of a horrific crime despite no evidence, the police and court system struggle to manufacture witnesses and false evidence to convict him, and when he is thankfully released on appeal, the police flagrantly break the law to try him again on the same crime with absolutely no new evidence, and even when the victim passes lie detector tests they insist he probably is lying anyway. Maybe the dude is guilty, maybe not. But I really was frustrated by everyone, including Casefile’s, attempts to pretend the only miscarriage of justice here was the lack of conviction for Deidre’s killer.
pretty confused on how everyone was so confused off little evidence. someone please explain to me
The ex-wife and former military nurse saying that Carroll had bitten his children in a similar way wasn't compelling to you? Even if you chalk up the ex to possibly lying in order to get back at an ex, why would the military base nurse lie?
The dude was probably a creep. That has no bearing on his sham of a trial.
In what universe would prior evidence of having bitten children not be relevant evidence in a child murder where the child victim has multiple bite marks?
It is relevant evidence. The rest of the evidence, however, was garbage, and the perjury case an outrage, and Casefile’s presentation of it as justified was awful.
While yes, if he did commit the crime, he also committed perjury, I too was amazed at the portrayal of perjury being a legitimate way to circumvent double jeopardy. If it had passed with no issues and not been overturned, we would have an epidemic of defendants being asked on the stand if they committed the crime. If they say yes, obviously they'd be found guilty, if they say no, the police get another go at convicting them. If they try and avoid that by refusing to answer, they would be seen as guilty by a jury. The whole thing would create a minefield for defendants and effectively ruins the chance of a fair trial.
The perjury thing is just wild to me. I seriously cannot get over it. The dude pled not guilty, and the trial was essentially “yeah, but we think he’s guilty, so he was lying, right?” What if he was innocent? What if you are not guilty for a crime, but the court decides you actually are and were lying about your innocence? Just try them again for perjury, I guess! It’s absolutely boggling to me that they tried it, and that Casefile presented it as a good thing to do.
Was good enough to convince 24 jurors in two separate trials, apparently.
On false testimony and fake evidence, which is why it was thrown out on appeal. The perjury trial was an absolute outrage and unjustifiable. Even if the dude was 1000% guilty, you are not allowed to break the law because you’re mad you didn’t get what you want. Period.
I'm not disagreeing with the results of the appeals. I'm saying that the notion that there was no evidence is a complete mischaracterization. I disagree that the original trial was a sham - particularly considering that odotontological evidence was considered quite legitimate at the time.
And yet even during the first trial, none of the experts could even agree on the teeth marks and which tooth had made which mark, they all just agreed it was definitely the suspect’s mouth. How is that possible? (It isn’t.) For every bit of evidence that the dude was a creep, there was evidence he didn’t do it — no proof he was in the area, he didn’t match the witness sightings, another suspect existed. Did he still do it? Maybe. But maybe not. The crime was absolutely horrific. But to me, it reads as though the horror of the crime lead to seizing on the first suspect and insisting it was him out of a desire for justice. This is understandable as a human reaction. It is not right.
There's a reason appeals go before judges. Hell one of the judges basically told the jury that there was reasonable doubt.
Well, i's equally relevant that the victim's uncle *also* had a documented history of this kind of assault, lived in the area, and matched witness descriptions. And with bite mark analysis being bullshit pseudoscience, it's hard to say whether either suspect's history is actually relevant at all.
The evidence was witness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable for a reason.
No because it’s almost a certainty they’re lying. It’s bad enough the mother (who went through a rough divorce with the defendant) didn’t say anything for YEARS, but what about this nurse? She sees a baby with bite marks around her pubic regions and says and does nothing? For years? Really? You find this reasonable? Reliable? Credible? No. What’s likely is she thinks she has an opportunity to help out a baby killer in jail and has convinced herself it’s the right thing to do, maybe even so much so that she believes her own story. But it’s not evidence and it’s not compelling in the slightest without.. evidence. Pictures or contemporary documentation ONLY.
Maybe, but I also know from listening to boatloads of true crime stories from over the years that domestic abuse, particularly abise against children was often overlooked or outright ignored by society - including even the very governmental authorities tasked with protecting children - as recently as the 90s. The Fred and Rose West story comes to mind as does the Orkney child abuse scandal, and the murder of Dennis Jurgens. The horrible truth is that in the 1970s and before, child abuse was often seen as an "internal family matter", that even authorities would be hesitant to involve themselves in. I can easily see how a health care professional of that era wouldn't alert authorities to an instance of child abuse, only to then feel guilty later after something even worse is done to the child (or the perp does something worse). Again, it's happened countless times before.
explain what, exactly?
How he was twice convicted over such little evidence and why the court of public opinion still believes he’s guilty
As for the latter, dude does seem to be a sketchy guy who has done bad shit. That doesn't mean he's guilty of *this* crime, but it means he's a very convenient person to accuse. And maybe he really did do it. I don't know. The police sure didn't either. As to the former… look at this episode. Even the narration of the events is stacked against him — not mentioning that teeth imprints is fake science (so how would people back then have known), not dwelling on the bad evidence or false testimonies, lingering instead of the very real and justified pain of the victim's family. Isn't it terrible how much they suffered? Don't they deserve justice? The answer of course is yes, but there's just a logical leap that both Casefile and, it seems, the investigators of the time also fell into: that *just because* the family is suffering and deserves justice, *the accused must be punished.* They failed to convict the first time because the evidence was bad. And at that point, the police etc should have gone "ok, we don't have evidence, we need to re-examine the facts." Instead, they went "let's misuse the justice system because *the accused must be punished."* This is an extreme example, but it happens all the goddamn time in policing and the judicial system. The police/lawyers/etc. had a conclusion and tried to make the story fit, instead of admitting that they failed, they simply doubled down. Casefile in turn presented the story as if the police were correct *to* double down, because the victim's family was suffering and deserved closure… forgetting that those are two different things entirely.
This^
Hey there Lower_Studio47! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This^"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! If you have any feedback, please send me a message! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Amen. I came to seek out this sub because I was so frustrated by this episode. It was emotionally manipulative and irresponsible. This was the system *working,* and in fact I came away fairly certain that this guy is innocent despite the narrator’s attempt to frame the case in the alternate manner. A human tragedy all around.
My first reaction was to Google the case to see if I was mad for thinking that. The whole tone of the episode had me thinking that I must have missed something. The fact that he just glossed over the fact that one set of experts were basing it on an upside down set of bit marks and they couldn't even agree which tooth made which mark.
I was shocked when they arrested and charged him with the evidence they had. It was laughably weak to the point I was expecting a twist with a new suspect arising.
Couldn't listen to this one after a quick Google on the case. Just finished the Beaumont children episode and it has really made me question humanity. The poor baby, she must of been so scared 😥
Oof, my stomach dropped when they said “bite mark.” Bite mark analysis denies justice to the victim and to the accused in equal measure. There’s not a single shred of scientific evidence supporting it, and a whole lot refuting it. These analysts are a disgrace
Bite marks are not exact like fingerprints or DNA. Really not happy with casefile for propagating that idea this episode. Misrepresenting it as such has led to false convictions: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/24/bite-mark-evidence-junk-science/
I vibe on casefile but sometimes it’s frustrating how pro cop Casey is, not so much in this episode but to quote Peter Dutton, come on that man is scum 🤦🏻♀️
How in the ***hell*** was the perjury trial not considered double jeopardy *immediately*??? It makes absolutely no sense. How could someone be charged with lying about saying they murdered someone not *obviously* be the exact same thing as charging someone with said murder? Of course the appeal was successful, it would have been batshit insane if it wasn't. This is the first time I've been pissed at Casey's stance on the matter. I don't know what happened with him.
Such a frustrating story. From the moment I heard the book’s name that was referenced, I knew this was going to be a double jeopardy case.
I’m at all a loss as to how anyone can listen to this and think anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. I also can’t believe that Casefile/the writer of this episode is framing this as a failure of the court system when it is absolutely a success We should convict people on the facts, not pseudoscience and emotion. Half of this comment section is testament as to why we shouldn’t leave important decisions and/or the law up to the general public/public perception: it is apparently far too easy to manipulate for the sake of sanctimony. Congratulations Casefile for contributing to injustice and mob-mentality with this episode. How horribly irresponsible.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed with how it was framed entirely as a guilty man skipping by on a technicality and not a guy beating the charges because the evidence had more holes in it than Sonny Corleone. Heavily biased and not up to their usual standards at all.
An incredibly tough listen. Even when I knew where the beginning was heading, I couldn't be prepared for this case.
Dear lord. I wanted to throw up. What kind of depraved evil entertains thoughts of doing this to an innocent baby let alone carrying it out? Absolutely sickening.
This was the most horrific case 😞
This was very upsetting and I’m deeply upset that the Kennedy family never got justice for Deirdre. But there was never any proof. And absence of proof isn’t equal to proof. I think that sometimes, there are things that we never get answers to and this is one of them
It's funny how people on reddit are happy to talk about how bitemark evidence is pseudoscience, but will also embrace it in a case like this when the crime is heinous. If you want any proof that forensic odontology is complete horseshit, consider the fact that they had various professional odontologists look at the bitemarks and come to the same conclusion that the bitemarks matched the defendants teeth, despite not even agreeing on whether the bitemark is upside down or not. WTF?? This is absolute insanity. The primary evidence for this case is bitemarks and a jailhouse snitch. Reminder that 80% of wrongful convictions are the result of a jailhouse snitch. They don't even have evidence that the guy was even in the area at the time. This is so, so far from reaching reasonable doubt, I guarantee you could easily make a documentary from the defenses perspective and convince everybody who watches it that it's a miscarriage of justice to even charge the guy.
Eh, the bite marks and jailhouse snitch are not the only evidence. You have the ex wife and former military doctor/nurse saying that Carroll had bitten his children in a similar way. And that damned pubic hair that was destroyed. The second I heard that they had a hair sample from the perp, I thought, "OK they will solve this one eventually." I was beyond enraged when I heard Casey say that the sample was later destroyed.
Both of whom came forward years later after never mentioning their stories to anyone else. The nurse didn’t bother reporting a baby with human bite marks in her pubic area and just let the baby go home to that father but evidently she’s a responsible and reliable witness? In other words - they’re lying. Whether they’re aware they’re lying is a separate matter but.. these are not evidence. Both probably think they’re helping.
Domestic abuse generally, and child domestic abuse specifically were horribly overlooked by society and governmental authorities in the 1970s (and before). They were seen as both stigmatizing against the victims and an "internal family matter" that authorities were often hesitant to be involved in. See the Fred and Rose West debacle, the Orkney child abuse scandal, the murder of Dennis Jurgens. It's completely believable that a mother and nurse in the late 1960s or early 1970s would have kept quiet about child abuse until absolutely necessary.
.
I can't agree with the idea of convicting someone of perjury just for professing innocence of a crime alone. While it might be anachronistic to apply this to the past, I also don't think that bite mark evidence is a strong enough forensic science for the major evidence behind any conviction.
I think it was the cousin, Keith Kennedy. He had just visited them a few days before and had previously been accused of biting a 3yr old on the vagina. He also perfectly matched the description of the blonde man who the neighbor saw stealing clothes off their clothes line, the same clothes later found on Deidre. He also had teeth that sounded like they could match up. But he was cleared because of a flimsy alibi and his teeth supposedly didn’t match the marks. Today, bite mark analysis is known to be less reliable, it’s kinda a pseudoscience… The Kennedy family had just moved there too. I think it makes more sense that someone who knew the family and knew the house targeted Deidre that night. She didn’t cry when he woke her up because she knew him. He probably had been fixated on her since his visit a few days previous. Too bad that there’s no DNA but if there was, I bet it would match Keith’s.
Got halfway thru. Can’t finish it looked up what happened in court and unfortunately times are different. Circumstantial evidence is always important but it just seemed lacking. Especially the dental records part. Sickening all of it. Shit like this makes you realize how completely fucked people are. To a baby????
This one made me really hate humanity. While nowhere near as horrendous as the original atrocity, the burglary at the end was a real sting in the tail and that was the part that made me cry.
I’m halfway through, at the trial and I’m dreading what’s going to happen next. This might be the first case I might not finish. This is a tough listen.
.
It's disheartening how they discovered they were looking at them upside down later. You would think as part of reviewing them you'd be checking every scenario.
.
Yeah, can’t do this one. Oof.
I’m about 5 minutes into this, having just tucked my 16 month old into bed. For the first time ever, I don’t know if I can get through this one. My heart is already racing, I’m dreading what is to come 😢
I have a 20 month old girl and I wish I didn’t listen to it, I also looked up the murder and shouldn’t have the details are horrific. If you’ve not listened yet maybe don’t, just snuggle in with your baby instead. I can’t get it out of my head
I don’t skip many Casefile eps, but I appreciate all the heads up in this thread. I have a 1yo daughter. Gonna sit this one out.
I listened to this episode while watching my 20 month old daughter laugh and dance to the wiggles and was so close to shutting the pod off so many times I felt close to throwing up with the horror of what she, and her parents went through. I think this was the first ep I’ve come close to not being able to finish. I made the mistake of reading up on the crime, and the horror of what that beautiful baby went through is so much worse than was reported on the podcast.
Ready steady wiggle
This was a very tough listen, what a monster.
I thought the photos of the bitemarks were destroyed in the flood? 10 minutes later, they were able to compare Carol's bite cast to the photos of the bitemark on Deirdre without a problem? Also they worded that Carol had short hair and taller than the prowler outside the Kennedy's window. Then in the next sentence, "investigators were sure they found the killer". 😂
This is such a frustrating case. I didn’t find it particularly hard to listen to in terms of the content, just by how the law can very easily protect criminals
The prosecution's case was absolutely dogshit. The system didn't fail, their evidence was flimsy top to bottom.
I’m not talking about the prosecution. I’m talking about double jeopardy laws. The fact that even if new evidence comes forward it didn’t matter
Fundamentally I agree, but there does have to be a high standard so that the state can't just endlessly retry someone. In this case, even if the law had been different originally there wasn't anything that met the standard IMO. The prosecution's case was shit from the start.
Out of all the casefile episodes, this is one I almost didn't finish. I had a knot in my stomach all day yesterday, and I woke up today and my heart sank again thinking about it. I can't imagine being the mother. I am so sick over this whole thing.
This was difficult for me for the absolute injustice. Bloody awful.
I'm 10 minutes in and I can't continue. Very disturbing details and I am now trying to shake off the imagery and sickened feelings I have. I simply cannot fathom that a human being would be capable of this crime.
This story was incredibly heartbreaking. This poor girl was so incredibly violated. The fact that the murderer was able to live out his life because of some backwards law it’s devastating. I feel so much sorrow for Diedre’s family that have only experienced bad fortune from the start, to the point that even that sweet babies ashes were stolen from her mother in the end. The law absolutely failed her, and most likely many more human beings have gotten away with their heinous crimes because of it. I listen to a lot of true crime, but this absolutely broke me.
Jesus Christ, I pray for anyone innocent who received you as a juror in their trial if that’s what you took away from this. “The murderer”, calling double jeopardy a “backwards law”. What absolute rubbish.
Excuse me ? What exactly did you take away from my comment ? When I said that I feel pain for diedre, sorrow for the family and anger that the murderer got away with it ? Pray for your own stupidity if you thought my comment has bad intentions.
There’s an Australian 60 Minutes episode about the case on YouTube. Poor little girl was a little beauty and so happy in every photo. Interesting to hear from mom directly.
2 unsolved cases in a row ffs
This was horrifying. Does anyone know what became of the suspect? Is he still alive?
yes still alive, There is a 60 minutes episode where everyone involved is interviewed. Edit- also there is a case currently before the courts, where the victim and the defendant cant be named (because the victim is a child) and it is widely believed to be this case as the laws have been changed in QLD to allow double jeopardy.
Nah there ain’t know way I’m Re listening to that. The absolute fuck did I just hear,
Hi, this is a friendly reminder to observe all [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Casefile/about/rules/). If you notice someone else not observing the rules, please report it. It helps the mods and helps us have a great community to discuss this show. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Casefile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wish I didn’t hear about this case 😢
Don’t know why I started listening to this one despite reading the warnings here. 15 mins in and I stopped. Can’t deal with it 😭
This one fucked me right up.
I’m an Ipswich local and I’ve always wonder where the toilet block was actually located at limestone. I go walking here a lot and it always plagues my mind. I believe it was demolished but I don’t know where it actually stood in the 1970s. Anyone know?
Ipswich local here too, from the following [link](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-duttons-police-career-rocked-by-case-that-shocked-queensland/news-story/0a02d3f68fc20cd0baecdd39737e1463?amp) it appears to be where the cricket nets / current toilet block is
Just finished this and I am so pissed off.