Call for new inquest to question confessed killer, 50 years on

Cheryl Grimmer’s family is calling for a new inquest to question her confessed killer, half a century on.

Cheryl Grimmer with two of her brothers, Paul, left, and Stephen. Picture: Supplied

NSW police will launch a major review­ into the 1970 suspected abduc­tion and murder of three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer as her family asked the NSW State Corone­r for a new inquest, where a man who confessed to the crime could be questioned under oath.

After formally asking NSW State Coroner Teresa O’Sullivan on Sunday for a new inquest, Cheryl’s brother Ricki Nash said the earlier inquest did not call as a witness the man who had confessed in 1971 to snatching and killing her, “because no one suppos­edly could find him”.

Yet the man — who cannot be named because he was 17 years old when he confessed — was found “within hours” by detective Frank Sanvitale and co-investigator ­Detective Sergeant Damian Loone. Mr Nash said: “Not days, not months, not weeks. Hours.”

At the time of the confession, police did not believe it could be substantiated.

“There’s a lot more evidence now. Surely we can get this guy subpoenaed to come to the second inquest,” Mr Nash said. “We know the first inquest was an absolute balls-up.”

Mr Sanvitale, who recently retired­ as a detective, supported the family’s call for a new inquest.

He reinvest­igated the disappearance of Cheryl from Wollongong’s Fairy Meadow beach and arrested and charged a man in 2017 with her murder.

It was believed to be Australia’s oldest cold case to reach court but the charge was dropped after NSW Supreme Court judge ­Robert Allan Hulme ruled in Februar­y that the man’s detailed confession to the murder as a juveni­le was inadmissable.

Mr Sanvitale said he believed nothing had been done on the case since NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman said in May he would not appeal against the ruling as it would be doomed to fail.

Cheryl’s family was told last week that a highly qualified investigator from the State Crime Command would review the case.

That would occur after the state’s homicide squad located the brief of evidence, which was ­probably in archives, the family was told. A police spokeswoman said on Sunday that the brief had not gone into archives. She said the case was expected to undergo a major review and Wollongong ­detectives had been consulting with the homicide squad.

Cheryl was on a day out at the beach with her mother and three older brothers when she vanished from a shower block. Her body was never found. An inquest concluded in May 2011 with coroner Sharon Freund ruling Cheryl was dead but the cause of her death was unknown. “What became quickly (apparent is) this was not a case of a missing girl but a girl abducted by an unknown male outside the change sheds,” Ms Freund said.

Mr Sanvitale backed calls for a second inquest. “I’m angry about it and I think justice has not been done in this case — the police investigation, everything,” he told The Australian.

“There should be an inquest now. The girl went missing in 1970 and the first inquest we had was held in 2011. You’ve got to be bloody kidding. I just don’t understand what’s going on with this case.”

The Australian previously revealed the events surrounding the investigation had contributed to Mr Sanvitale retiring from the NSW Police Force on medical grounds in April after more than 20 years’ service.

He confirmed it had taken only hours to locate the alleged killer during the reinvestigation. “In 2011 they went there, they said: ‘We can’t find this guy.’ We found him in three hours,” he said.

“This case, from day one, has been absolute crap. If I was the family I would be suing.” He added: “The Australian people, ­especially the Illawarra community, should know what is happening with one of the most high-profile cases in Australia.

“If this was your daughter, would you be happy with the police investigation?”

The man’s confession to two police officers in a juvenile facility was legally taken and freely given.

But the law now requires a parent, other adult or lawyer to be present for child confessions to be admissible. Justice Hulme found the laws applied retrospectively and noted the “particular vulnerability” of the accused in ruling out the use of the confession.