Latest / The Front / Can journalists call someone a murderer? (Best of 2024)

Transcript

Can journalists call someone a murderer? (Best of 2024) · The Front

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