The Night Driver podcast: Local cop wracked by false rumours

It is the simple question that has frustrated Brad Hosemans as much as it has detectives investigating Janine Vaughan’s murder: where was he the night she went missing?

Former detective Brad Hosemans. Picture: Ross Schultz

It is the simple question that has frustrated Brad Hosemans as much as it has homicide detectives investigating Janine Vaughan’s murder: where was he the night she went missing?

The local cop’s name had been bandied about in the months after Janine vanished during a night out with friends on Friday, December 7, 2001, as town residents gossiped about the possible identity of her mystery abductor.

When queried by investi­gators, Hosemans denied having anything to do with her dis­appearance. He told them he had never met her and was not in Bathurst at the time; he had been four hours’ drive away, near Newcastle, visiting his mother, and returned only after Janine was already missing.

■ Subscribers of The Australian will be able to hear The Night Driver podcast before the rest of the nation, exclusively in The Australian app. Episode seven is available now. Subscribe to The Australian here, and download the app via: Apple App Store | Google Play Store

However, his mobile phone records would later indicate this was wrong, and he had returned to the NSW country town the day before she disappeared.

The discrepancy would be a key point of investigation for the Police Integrity Commission.

In late 2005, the anti-corruption watchdog, tasked with exposing serious misconduct in the NSW Police Force, launched a probe into rumours about Hosemans and his alleged involvement in Janine’s disappearance.

The PIC wanted to know whether he had made an innocent mistake regarding his whereabouts the night she went missing or was lying.

Hosemans told the inquiry it was a mistake. He said he had been asked about it months after she vanished and had relied on his credit card statements to determine his whereabouts on relevant dates.

His statement reflected a purchase of petrol on Friday, December 7, 2001, which indicated to Hosemans he had returned to Bathurst after Janine was seen getting into a mysterious small red car at about 4am that day.

Credit card statements often reflect the date transactions are recorded by the bank rather than when they are made.

“I don’t have an independent recollection of my movements. I would concede that if the (mobile phone) records indicate I was in the Bathurst area on 6 December, that could well be the case,” he told the inquiry.

Hosemans had been linked to Janine by circumstances that his accusers believed could be sinister: in the months before she vanished, he had asked a female friend about her.

Her mother, Jenny, said Jan­ine had told her Hosemans was interested in her but they had never spoken or been out.

Her friends told police she had shared different versions of his purported interest with them.

Hosemans has always rejected any suggestion he was involved in Janine’s disappearance and maintained they did not know each other. “I asked one question in relation to that person (Janine). I hadn’t expressed an interest. I hadn’t taken it any further,” he told the inquiry.

“It was in the course of a general conversation with a shop ­assistant who was a friend of mine, and that’s as far as it went. I did no more.

“I have never met her.
I have never spoken to her. I have never sent flowers. I have never been on a date.”

The former cop’s mother, Anne Hosemans, told The Night Driver podcast she blamed herself for contributing to her son’s error. “That was my fault. That was exactly my fault. At the time, I said it’s impossible. Bradley was staying here,” she said.

“But apparently Bradley had gone home the day before. So it was me who kept reminding Bradley, how can you be blamed for something when you were staying here?”

Mrs Hosemans was not the only person who thought she was with Hosemans the night Janine vanished. Stephanie Young, a Bathurst woman with whom he shared an intimate relationship, told the inquiry she also thought she had been with him.

■ READ MORE: The Night Driver — the new podcast from the investigative journalist who brought you The Teacher’s Pet

However, while she was a prolific diary keeper, her journal contained no entries for the crucial December dates surrounding Jan­ine’s disappearance.

After she finished giving evidence, she contacted staff at the PIC and told them she had discovered a page that had been missing from her diary on which she had recorded the words from a text message she had supposedly received from Hosemans on Friday, December 7, 2001.

She said the message indicated she had been with him the previous night when Janine was out on the town.

Stephanie was recalled as a witness but the PIC was sceptical about the authenticity of her newly recovered diary note.

After two years of investi­gations and hearings, the PIC concluded Hosemans had no case to answer and should not be prosecuted for any criminal offence.

But the commission accused Stephanie of “knowingly giving false or misleading evidence” relating to the missing diary page.

No proceedings were issued against Stephanie, who said she had been unfairly stitched up by the commission.

Incensed by the finding, she complained to the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission — a watchdog set up to ensure the PIC conducted its investigations appropriately.

After reviewing all the mat­erial, the head of IPIC, Peter Moss QC, was staggered by what he considered an unacceptable, publicly funded witch hunt that had done “enormous damage” to the reputations of Hosemans, the detectives who investigated him and Stephanie.

The retired judge said there had been a “clear and significant failure” by the commission to be fair.