Latest / The Front / Can journalists call someone a murderer?

Transcript

Can journalists call someone a murderer? · The Front

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, July thirty one.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Drama in the Bush as regional airline REX fights to
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: stay in the air. REX is in a trading halt
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: amid fears it's on the brink of collapse, but it's
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the only carrier on dozens of routes to remote locations.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Inflation numbers come out today and it's not going to
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: be pretty. Analysts they're expecting a jump in price growth
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: to three point eight percent in the year to June,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: raising fears of yet another interest rate rise next week.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: You can be the first to know when the figures
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: come out at the Australian dot com. Dorau John Perros
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: was acquitted of murdering his ex girlfriend Shandy Blackburn. Then
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: a coroner said he did in fact kill Shandy. Now,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: a defamation case by Paris against The Australian poses the
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: question is it okay for journalists to question the finding
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: of a jury?
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: Today, Day two.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: Of Paris's bold bid to show his reputation was seriously
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: harmed by the Australians podcast Shandy Story. John Perros has
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: always denied wrongdoing. It's one of the most harrowing cases
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: in Australian history.
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: I just yelled out as anyone got a torch, theno's
• 1:51
  Speaker 3: got my baby.
• 1:52
  Speaker 4: The verdict in Missus Chamberlain's case guilty for mister Chamberlain guilty.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: Missus Chamberlain was then sentenced to life and press.
• 2:00
  Speaker 5: Today it has ended with the fourth coronial inquest finding
• 2:04
  Speaker 5: that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by dingo, as her parents
• 2:07
  Speaker 5: had claimed from the beginning.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: The story of Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael, whose
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: nine week old baby Azaria died at Ularu in nineteen
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: eighty It's one of our greatest miscarriages of justice. A
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: family's life ruined by a wrongful conviction. A jury found
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: them guilty. Three decades later, a coroner, examining fresh evidence,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: said they were not guilty. This is Coroner Elizabeth Morris
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: in twenty twelve.
• 2:36
  Speaker 6: Please accept my sincere sympathy on the death of your
• 2:40
  Speaker 6: special and loved daughter, insists her Azaria. I'm so sorry
• 2:45
  Speaker 6: for your loss time does not remove the pain and
• 2:49
  Speaker 6: sadness of the death of a child.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: The case of Azaria Chamberlain was invoked in the Queensland
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Supreme Caught on Wednesday by Justice Peter Applegarth. He's hearing
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: another case where a jury's decision went the opposite way
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: to a coroner.
• 3:08
  Speaker 7: The coroner found the Dingo did it. A Darwin jury
• 3:12
  Speaker 7: finds Lyndy Chamberlain did it. The coroner was right.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: This is the matter of John Perros. He was acquitted
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: by a jury in twenty nineteen of murdering his ex
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: girlfriend Shandy Blackburn, but he was found by a coroner
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty to be the murderer. We're using a
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: voice actor to bring you the judge's words as spoken
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: in court.
• 3:35
  Speaker 7: So don't we have something similar here that the jury acquitted.
• 3:40
  Speaker 7: The tone of episode thirteen is doing their duty. They
• 3:44
  Speaker 7: should have acquitted on the evidence that was before them,
• 3:48
  Speaker 7: but the coroner made these findings on additional evidence.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: The judge was questioning David Helvadjian, a barrister representing John
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: Perros in his defamation case sparked by the Australians Blockbuster
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: investigative podcast Shandy's Story Peros has always denied killing Shandy,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: just as Applegarth is asking this. Just like in the
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Chamberlain case, the jury in John Perros's case did not
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: have the same evidence that the coroner was later able
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: to consider. The podcast pointed this out and even quoted
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: Shandy's mother saying if she was on the jury, she
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: would probably have acquitted Perros because the evidence just wasn't there.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: So the judge wants to know. Isn't the podcast allowed
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: to point this out? Here's what David Helvadjin, representing John Perros,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: told the court.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: My submission still stands that episode thirteen causes serious harm
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: because of the removal of any doubt. It imputes murderer
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: and tells a listener why they can be sure of murderer.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: This case is a big deal, not just for us
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: at the Australian, but for journalism more generally. If a
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: jury makes one finding and a coroner makes another, how
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: are journalists supposed to report? Shandy Blackburn was left to
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: die in a gutter in the North Queensland tropical city
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. She had been stabbed
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: more than twenty times as she walked home from work.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Her ex boyfriend, John Perros was charged and acquitted of
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: the murder, but a coroner who compelled Perros to give
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: evidence found he did stab Shandy to death. That would
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: have been the end of it, because once acquitted, Perros
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: could not be tried again without fresh evidence, until investigative
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: journalist Headley Thomas came along with his twenty twenty one
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: podcast for the Australian Shandy's Story. This is a moment
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: from episode one of shandy Story.
• 5:54
  Speaker 8: Shandy and John were sometimes in passionate all consuming love
• 5:59
  Speaker 8: and an other times in deep, self doubting despair at
• 6:02
  Speaker 8: their exhausting, abusive rows. The jealousies were toxic. John had
• 6:08
  Speaker 8: made no secret of what he called his serious trust issues.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: In that first episode, Headley explored doubts over who really
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: killed Shandy.
• 6:18
  Speaker 8: I've interviewed Mackay, friends of John Perros, and talked to
• 6:22
  Speaker 8: others at length off the record. They described John as
• 6:26
  Speaker 8: gentle and caring, a tough fighter in the boxing ring,
• 6:30
  Speaker 8: but a good natured soul and loyal to a fault.
• 6:34
  Speaker 8: A bit intense in relationships, yes, but surely not a murderer.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: Peros is not complaining about the first twelve episodes of
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: this podcast. He says episode thirteen defamed him by suggesting
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the jury got it wrong and he was in fact
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: a murderer, and that's why he's suing Nationwide News, publisher
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: of The Australian, Headley Thomas, and shandy sister Shanna Blackburn.
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: The Australian's lawyers want the judge to listen to episodes
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: one to twelve as well, because they say there's a
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: huge amount of context and background that ensures the podcast
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: is fair to Peros and allows the audience to make
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: up its own mind. Peros's lawyers are arguing in court
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: that most Australians were unaware of the coroner's finding that
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Peros was a murderer. They say because Shandy's story was
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: wildly popular, sitting at the top of the podcast charts
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: for months, it caused serious harm to his reputation. A
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: date has not yet been set for the full hearing
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: of this trial. What's happening right now in the Queensland
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court is a high stakes preliminary hearing where Dowd's
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: obtained s C counsel for the defendants, that is, the
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Australian Headley and Shanna is attempting to have Peros's case
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: thrown out before the case even begins. It all turns
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: on a notion called serious harm under defamation law. Perros
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: has to demonstrate the publication he's complaining about Episode thirteen
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: caused him serious harm. Bar Simptain says that can't possibly
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: be the case.
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: The coroner's finding is a true fact. Episode thirteen has
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: said nothing more than the conclusion to which the coroner came.
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: He is a killer. The real cause of the harm
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: to the plaintiff's reputation is because the coroner made a finding.
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: Had it not been for that finding, this podcast may
• 8:29
  Speaker 4: never have been made.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Episode thirteen included emotional interviews with Shandy's mother and sister,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: and examinations of how the coroner had before him evidence
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: that Dury never got to hear. For example, the coroner
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: had access to CCTV of what he accepted was John
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: Perros's car driving near the scene of Shandy's murder, and
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: evidence about when John Perros's phone was turned on and off.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: The coroner had access to John Perros's initial record of
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: interview with police, and the coroner compelled Peros to give
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: evidence something Peros didn't want to do for fear of
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: incriminating himself.
• 9:08
  Speaker 4: To say of somebody that they are a murderer. It's
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: been found that he's a murderer. To call him a murderer,
• 9:14
  Speaker 4: or to say yeah, I agree with that finding. What
• 9:17
  Speaker 4: more harm does that do? How is its serious harm?
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Just as Peter Applegarth put this to Dowd's Obtain, Episode
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: thirteen presented all these facts, but it also endorsed the
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: coroner's findings and suggested the jury got it wrong.
• 9:33
  Speaker 7: It bolsters the coroner's finding to something that may be right,
• 9:37
  Speaker 7: may be wrong, probably right, to something that is definitely right.
• 9:42
  Speaker 4: They are true facts that there was evidence that was
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: heard by the coroner that was not heard by the jury.
• 9:50
  Speaker 4: Episode thirteen was a revelation of those facts that were
• 9:53
  Speaker 4: part of the finding and providing some explanation to the listeners.
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: How could he have been acquitted? Well, it was made
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: plain the coroner had evidence the jury didn't have.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: After the break exactly what Episode thirteen said. Original investigative
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: reporting is what we do at The Australian every day.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: In a world of misinformation and hot takes, you can
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: invest in reliable, credible, journalism for a lot less than
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the price of your morning coffee. Right now, it's a
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: dollar a week for the first four weeks. Check us
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: out at the Australian dot com dot ayu and we'll
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: be back after this break. In court on Tuesday, David Helvajian,
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: the barrister representing John Perros, took the judge through the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: transcript of episode thirteen and explained why he believed it
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: caused serious harm to his client. We'll play the lines
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: from the episode with David Helvagian's commentary. We've used a
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: voice actor to bring you David Helvagian's words. First, you'll
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: hear the real audio from episode thirteen with Shanna Blackburn
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: speaking to Headley Thomas.
• 11:15
  Speaker 5: One matter of fact, it was him, how can you
• 11:19
  Speaker 5: be so sure?
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: And then we have these lines that I say directly
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: go to this publication establishing that the acquittal was wrong.
• 11:28
  Speaker 5: Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
• 11:31
  Speaker 5: the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
• 11:35
  Speaker 5: before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
• 11:39
  Speaker 5: and it's undeniable. When you have seen all that evidence
• 11:44
  Speaker 5: together that there is any other person responsible.
• 11:49
  Speaker 8: For this, then what you are saying is that he's
• 11:53
  Speaker 8: got away with murder.
• 11:56
  Speaker 5: I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: To episodes thirteen, my submission is the most likely inference
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: is people know the plaintiff is one of two suspects,
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: they know about the coroner's findings. There's a question in
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: their minds why there's a dichotomy between a jury acquittal
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: within two hours versus a coroner's findings. Mister Perros is
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: a suspect with mister William Daniel, and there's a big
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: question mark as to who really committed the murder.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: Helvajian had earlier presented as evidence a few anonymous Reddit comments,
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: including these.
• 12:35
  Speaker 5: One hundred percent he did just listen to this. Her
• 12:39
  Speaker 5: ex absolutely did it.
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: That kind of certainty is what episode thirteen provides, and
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: that's where serious harm arises.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: In episode thirteen, Headley Thomas tells the audience John Perros's phone,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: which was rarely turned off, had been switched off on
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: the nights before Shandy's murder. Headley spoke to Vicky Blackburn,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: Andy's mother.
• 13:01
  Speaker 9: Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
• 13:05
  Speaker 9: about John's mobile phone usage, and that inactivity but Vicky
• 13:10
  Speaker 9: and Shanna and the cops knew it.
• 13:13
  Speaker 3: He went for three nights. He did the same thing.
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: He turned his phone off at the same time. He
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: tried that for three nights and got successful.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: that night she was walking home from work the prior
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal.
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: In my submission, David Helvagian read to the judge words
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: in the episode from former detective Scott Furlong. He and
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: Headley were discussing the fact that some of the evidence
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: that was before the coroner had not been put to
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: the jury. She is got Furlong talking to Headley in
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: episode thirteen. Scott Furlong speaks first, So.
• 14:06
  Speaker 10: What would the baggyars detective know about prosecuting a case
• 14:11
  Speaker 10: or trust the process?
• 14:13
  Speaker 11: I hear that at the same time as you've said,
• 14:16
  Speaker 11: you're so disappointed because in your view, you arrested the
• 14:20
  Speaker 11: right person, So therefore the process you've trusted has freed
• 14:26
  Speaker 11: the killer.
• 14:28
  Speaker 10: Yeah, take that one to bed with you.
• 14:32
  Speaker 5: It's hard to get your hair around.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: That, it is.
• 14:34
  Speaker 10: But yeah, you feel you've let the family down, You
• 14:37
  Speaker 10: feel you let the community down to have a not
• 14:40
  Speaker 10: guilty verdict when you know in your heart of hearts
• 14:43
  Speaker 10: that there's somebody that's responsible for her murder and you
• 14:48
  Speaker 10: arrested that person and put them before the courts.
• 14:50
  Speaker 5: We did our part.
• 14:51
  Speaker 7: We caught the killer.
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: In my opinion, Here's how David Helvajan described that in
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: court on Tuesday.
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: Now, if comments like that do not remove any doubt
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: in the listener's mind, it actually gets worse in my
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: respectful submission.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: wouldn't know well, forensic scientist Kirsty Wright. She examined why
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John Perros's
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's work
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's entire
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told the
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: court it all added up to a strong insinuation in
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: the episode that the coroner was right and the jury
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: was wrong, and he said it was all made worse
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: by the fact The Australian is a high quality publication.
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: This is an investigative true crime podcast with experience, credibility, expertise.
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: It's not a headline or a two column piece.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: Helvagian also said Pisode thirteen presented itself as the final
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: conclusion that Peros did it.
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Episode thirteen so leads to certainty that it causes serious harm.
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: How can it otherwise when you have such a credible
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: publication interviewing the investigative police officer, the mother of the victim,
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: the sister of the victim, a DNA expert, a criminal
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: lawyer who says it's bad evidence. Those will point In
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: my respectful submission to the end of the story.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: Justice Peter Applegarth has reserved his decision and will be back,
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: possibly at the end of August, but more likely in
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: September to let John Perros and the defendants know their fate.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on the front and don't forget
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: to join ours. Subscribers at Beaustralian dot com dot au