Gary was convicted for shooting Anthony Tapley on 19th August 2001. There was no body, no murder weapon, only DNA evidence that was, in the report of the appeal judge(s), "not sufficient to convict," and an eye witness statement from a convicted double murderer with plenty of incentive to lie. Reid subsequently admitted to have lied under oath at Gary's trial. But Gary is still in gaol. WHY?


Gary's alleged motive for the crime was over a $100 debt. The trial judge had a real problem with this and the debt, which was to Ramah Goodlet, was repaid in full. Evidence by other witnesses had implicated unknown drug lords in threats and beatings of Anthony just prior to his disappearance over a large sum of money. These "unknown" people were know to police but the matter was never investigated. WHY?


Also just prior to Anthony's disappearance he had written a letter to his solicitor "coming clean" in his involvement in the drugs trade. He told his friend at the time that the letter implicated "bent police" and he was going to try and make a deal so he would not serve any gaol time, as he was terrified that he would be killed in gaol. WHERE IS THIS LETTER? 


The only witness to a threat towards Anthony by Gary recanted her evidence claiming police threats and intimidation in the molding of her evidence. Her testimony was deemed unreliable even though her drug habit (at the time of the trial) had been overcome and she had realised what the police had made her do under duress. WHY UNRELIABLE NOW?


Gary is not a forensic scientist and if he had committed such a crime (not likely) there would have been evidence. Even digging up the driveway and testing everything in the adjacent area failed to show anything except for a stain on a gate that "may" have belonged to Anthony but could not be determined to be blood and was probably saliva or skin. All this after a person was shot six times... not likely. A blood stain found on a gate was positively deemed to be animal blood which supports the theory that there had been no "cleanup."


To call the human stain DNA evidence is misleading as people normally associate DNA evidence as conclusive proof which in this case it was not. In fact the lack of DNA evidence should have born more weight in discrediting Reid's testimony. But the evidence was presented and then the trial judge erred in the summary of this evidence to the jury. The DNA evidence was deemed admissible and in the appeal Justice Wheeler claimed the trial judge had not erred when in fact he had. WHY?


Gary was supposed to have disposed of the body by bonfire. The only witness to Gary being present at the bonfire placed him there before the date of the murder. This evidence was changed by a last minute dash by the DPP to the witnesses' home to ensure the evidence aligned with the DPP's time-line. WHY?  Fresh evidence will refute this change of time by the witness, which again highlights the distortion of facts by the DPP.


The bones found at the "farm" where not identified as Anthony's remains and the fragments (fingernail size) and quantity of the bones (19) were not deemed to belong to any known person male or female. In fact they could have belonged to multiple people. Carbon dating failed to determine when they were placed there, and the bones were discovered in an area that was well known to be an Aboriginal burial ground. Also burning a body in a bonfire and burying the remains will produce much larger fragments than those found.
The "farm" was frequented by many people and not owned by Gary. Gary did not deny having a bonfire on the date the witness originally placed him there but it was a family affair with many children present. Yet the "bones" evidence was still submitted, and the Crown's witness changed his statement under the insistence of the DPP. WHY?

There was huge media exposure to the Zircon Task forces activities and Gary's case was first. Common sense indicated that Gary would not get a fair trial in Perth and applications to move the trial to another state failed. WHY?

The whole saga of Gary's incarceration has many more questions than answers but the most important question is... given Reid's deal with the police and DPP and the fact that he was deemed to have lied by other trial judges and juries (and his own admissions under oath), then WHY HAS REID'S LIFE SENTENCE WITH A 15 YEAR NON-PAROLE PERIOD NOT BEEN RE-EVALUATED? The answer to this most important question holds the key to Gary's innocence!


Throughout the trial the DPP used a ploy of naming  witnesses to keep them out of the courtroom and then not calling them. Those people, including Les Hoddy, could have helped Gary in his defence, but they did not get to hear the evidence by Reid and others until after the trial when it was too late to offer rebuttal evidence.


Gary's income was investigated by another task force looking into unexplained wealth. He was found to be "above board" as he kept good records of all his trucking business dealings.

Gary is not a criminal and does not deserve to be where he is today.