Case 243: Deidre Kennedy
Added 2023-04-08 07:25:27 +0000 UTCOn 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.
The hunt to find Baby Deidre’s killer rattled even the most seasoned of detectives. What unfolded would become one of the most frustrating cases in Queensland’s legal history, paving the way for changes to the state's double jeopardy laws.
Team:
Anonymous Host - narration
Elsha McGill - research, writing
Mike Migas - production, music
Andrew D.B. Joslyn - music
Milly Raso - creative direction
Comments
Nooooope. I don’t often quit episodes, but I just can’t finish. Anyone that would do something like this does not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as the rest of us. 😢
Megan Brennan
2023-04-13 19:44:23 +0000 UTCSo sad. Such an injustice
mbx
2023-04-13 15:03:45 +0000 UTCThis is one of the only cases I absolutely can’t listen too. I got ten minutes in and I noped out. I hope this disgusting person who did this gets the same treatment someday.
Ashley Batton
2023-04-12 19:06:46 +0000 UTCNot you Bob - see above "hint" - comprehension doesn't grow on trees...
Michael Brodie
2023-04-12 06:37:33 +0000 UTCWow. It's not often that I am surprised by depravity.
Andrea Johnson
2023-04-11 03:20:49 +0000 UTCI couldn't finish the episode because I know how it turns out. It's infuriating. This was the first episode where I didn't want to hear the ending, knowing story beforehand and the result of a lack of justice
Lamar Moore
2023-04-11 01:24:14 +0000 UTCSame this one is so hard to listen to
Kelli
2023-04-10 20:12:55 +0000 UTCHorrendously sad and sick case. Whoever did it should rot in hell. However… 1) bite mark testimony is absolute bullshit and should never be relied upon to convict a person, but only to exonerate: 2) changing the double jeopardy law is a very scary step to take. Finality is critical in criminal cases
Ben Wickert
2023-04-10 02:49:14 +0000 UTCThis episode is really sad. I wonder if the police became so obsessed with the guy that they may overlooked the actual person responsible.
Katherine
2023-04-10 02:05:16 +0000 UTCI have a strong stomach and I often disagree with comments that say it was too much. This was extremely upsetting. I haven’t reached minute 10 and I don’t know if I can do it. The last time an episode was this dark was Case 78 The Janabi Family
J. Chips
2023-04-09 19:07:43 +0000 UTCWhat a truly heartbreaking case. I feel so sorry for the family and the poor little girl
Brendon Gray
2023-04-09 04:29:57 +0000 UTCThat was so disturbing!
Iain Strachan
2023-04-08 21:35:59 +0000 UTCThe brother is so sketchy… Also, what a heartbreaking thought that not only was a precious baby girl taken from her parents once through murder then a second time when her ashes were stolen. 😞 can’t imagine the pain
Monica
2023-04-08 17:53:31 +0000 UTCI’m really confused, too. I thought that bite marks were no longer used because they’ve been proven to be problematic. I can’t remember if it was DNA or fingerprints, but I think that it was 1997 that they said the technology came about that they were talking about being digitalized, maybe what they meant was that was the mindset of people at that time, that it was newly considered to be very accurate. I think if bite marks were supposed to be really super accurate, there would be a lot of convictions happening based on bite mark evidence, because there is a lot of biting that goes on in sexual assault. Aside from using bite mark evidence in general, the here, the evidence itself was flawed. He had had his teeth worked on since then. They altered the cast of his teeth to what they thought it would look like because of that. They were willing to overlook the fingerprint evidence as being necessary for this guy, but it sounds like that was one of the main ways they ruled out the cousin, that the fingerprints didn’t match him. This guy didn’t physically match the witnesses descriptions, and they had to bend over backwards and twist all around, trying to put him there. The cousin had been there the day before, and had been convicted of biting a young girl child previously, but they rule him out by his teeth as seen in a photograph. They use bite mark evidence against who they want to convict, even though THEY HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THE BITE MARKS UPSIDE DOWN. I was really thrown off by this, too. I actually kept checking how much time was left in the podcast, thinking that a reference to a bite mark early on in the podcast had meant that it had been swabbed for DNA. I kept thinking it was going to be, the cousin. I think it’s disturbing the lack of evidence that this man was convicted on twice. I think that the jury was acting with the best of intentions, trying to keep somebody off the streets who could do something so terrible, but I don’t know that this was the right guy. It did crack me up at one point though not in a very honorable way when he had gotten sentenced to life with hard labor, even though it was to me not a solid conviction, I was like, that’s what you get for climbing into women’s windows and being creepy with their lingerie. Even if this guy did it, there just was not enough evidence. At least, as far as bite marks go. And I think there’s reasonable doubt as of him being there. The previous wife saying he bit their daughter, being backed up by somebody else who saw bruises, that’s compelling. I just don’t think you’re supposed to convict on bite marks alone anymore.
Mary Hatchet
2023-04-08 17:33:12 +0000 UTCThis is one of few episodes I’ve had to take a break from. WTF. What a monster. This baby and her family deserved so much better.
Megan
2023-04-08 17:30:25 +0000 UTCWhat a heartbreaking and frustrating case 💔
K. Smith
2023-04-08 13:29:40 +0000 UTCWho did you mean to reply to?
Bob Trenwith
2023-04-08 13:00:06 +0000 UTCThis episode was a fitting tribute to Deirdre Kennedy, a life taken in the vilest possible circumstances, yet a life that has profound significance. When I was a law student I felt the laws concerning double jeopardy were inseparable from the golden thread of justice. But my views changed over the years. With advances in DNA technology I realised the law did need reform.
Michael Brodie
2023-04-08 12:21:13 +0000 UTCYou simply cannot impugn Casefile for quoting the views of another. I simply cannot understand the irrationality and stupidity that seems ever more common in pretty much all comments forums.
Michael Brodie
2023-04-08 12:16:32 +0000 UTCYou misrepresented what they said. They referred to DIGITAL bite mark recognition. Although this is indeed nowhere near as accurate as DNA analysis, the best such tests still have about 99% accuracy. Further, suggesting lack of integrity is suggesting deliberate malfeasance.
Bob Trenwith
2023-04-08 12:14:41 +0000 UTCI did too
Zac
2023-04-08 11:00:55 +0000 UTCI thought they said comparable to fingerprints
Renae Bartlett
2023-04-08 10:17:05 +0000 UTCA very, very sad case.
Zac
2023-04-08 08:56:17 +0000 UTCStating bite mark analysis is comparable to DNA is absolutely absurd and makes me question the integrity of this podcast.
Abigail Treis
2023-04-08 08:54:36 +0000 UTCDoes this mean you'll be releasing this episode to the public a day early next week for the anniversary?
Bob Trenwith
2023-04-08 08:43:10 +0000 UTCOh interesting! This case comes in and out of the news every now and then and I've always been fascinated by it.
SalBee
2023-04-08 08:03:07 +0000 UTC
