July 30, 2024 • 17 mins
A defamation case sparked by the Shandee’s Story podcast poses the question: can journalists publish evidence that calls a court finding into doubt?
Find out more about The Front podcast here. You can read about this story and more on The Australian's website or on The Australian’s app.
This episode of The Front is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Stephanie Coombes and edited by Joshua Burton. Our team also includes Lia Tsamoglou, Jasper Leak, Kristen Amiet and Tiffany Dimmack.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You can listen to the Front on your smart sneaker
every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's
on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, July thirty one.
(00:30):
Drama in the bush as regional airline REX fights to
stay in the air.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
REX is in a.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Trading halt amid fears it's on the brink of collapse,
but it's the only carrier on dozens of routes to
remote locations. Inflation numbers come out today and it's not
going to be pretty. Analysts they're expecting a jump in
price growth to three point eight percent in the year
to June, raising fears of yet another interest rate rise
(00:58):
next week. You can be the first to know when
the figures come out at the Australian dot com Doreyu.
John Perros was acquitted of murdering his ex girlfriend Shandy Blackburn.
Then a coroner said he did in fact kill Shandy. Now,
a defamation case by Paris against The Australian poses the
(01:19):
question is it okay for journalists to question the finding
of a jury? Today, Day two of Paris's bold bid
to show his reputation was seriously harmed by the Australians
podcast Shandy Story. John Perros has always denied wrongdoing. It's
(01:44):
one of the most harrowing cases in Australian history.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I just yelled out as anyone got a torch, then
goo's got my baby.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
The verdict in Missus Chamberlain's case guilty for mister Chamberlain guilty.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
Missus Chamberlain was then sentenced to life in Chris.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Today it has ended with the fourth coronial inquest finding
that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by dingo, as her parents
had claimed from the beginning.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The story of Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael, whose
nine week old baby Azaria died at Ularu in nineteen eighty.
It's one of our greatest miscarriages of justice. A family's
life ruined by a wrongful conviction. A jury found them guilty.
Three decades later a coroner, examining fresh evidence, said they
(02:31):
were not guilty. This is Coroner Elizabeth Morris in twenty twelve.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
Please accept my sincere sympathy on the death of your
special and loved daughter, insists her Azaria. I'm so sorry
for your loss. Time does not remove the pain and
sadness of the death of a child.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
The case of Azaria Chamberlain was invoked in the Queensland
Supreme Caught on Wednesday by Justice Peter Applegarth. He's hearing
another case where a jury's decision went the opposite way
to a coroner.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
The coroner found the dingo did it? A Darwin jury
finds Lyndy Chamberlain did it. The coroner was right.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
This is the matter of John Perros. He was acquitted
by a jury in twenty nineteen of murdering his ex
girlfriend Shandy Blackburn, but he was found by a coroner
in twenty twenty to be the murderer. We're using a
voice actor to bring you the judge's words as spoken
in court.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So don't we have something similar here that the jury
acquitted The tone of episode thirteen is doing their duty.
They should have acquitted on the evidence that was before them,
but the coroner made these findings on additional evidence.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
The judge was questioning David Helvajian, a barrister representing John
Perros in his defamation case sparked by the Australians Blockbuster
investigative podcast Shandy's Story. Perros has always denied killing Shandy,
just as Applegarth is asking this. Just like in the
Chamberlain case, the jury in John Perros's case did not
(04:15):
have the same evidence that the coroner was later able
to consider. The podcast pointed this out and even quoted
Shandy's mother saying if she was on the jury, she
would probably have acquitted Perros because the evidence just wasn't there.
So the judge wants to know. Isn't the podcast allowed
(04:37):
to point this out? Here's what David Helvajian, representing John Perros,
told the court.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
My submission still stands that episode thirteen causes serious harm
because of the removal of any doubt. It imputes murderer
and tells the listener why they can be sure of murderer.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
This case is a big deal, not just for us
at The Australian, but for journalism more generally. If a
jury makes one finding and a coroner makes another, how
are journalists supposed to report? Shandy Blackburn was left to
die in a gutter in the North Queensland tropical city
(05:17):
of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. She'd been stabbed more
than twenty times as she walked home from work. Her
ex boyfriend John Perros was charged and acquitted of the murder,
but a coroner who compelled Perros to give evidence found
he did stab Shandy to death. That would have been
the end of it, because once acquitted, Peros could not
(05:40):
be tried again without fresh evidence, until investigative journalist Headley
Thomas came along with his twenty twenty one podcast for
the Australian Shandy's Story. This is a moment from episode
one of shandy Story.
Speaker 7 (05:54):
Shandy and John were sometimes in passionate all consuming love,
ended up times in deep self doubting despair at their exhausting,
abusive rows. The jealousies were toxic. John had made no
secret of what he called his serious trust issues.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
In that first episode, Headley explored doubts over who really
killed Shandy.
Speaker 7 (06:18):
I've interviewed Mackay, friends of John Perros, and talked to
others at length off the record. They described John as
gentle and caring, a tough fighter in the boxing ring,
but a good natured soul and loyal to a fault.
A bit intense in relationships, yes, but surely not a murderer.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Perros is not complaining about the first twelve episodes of
this podcast. He says episode thirteen defamed him by suggesting
the jury got it wrong and he was in fact
a murderer, and that's why he's suing Nationwide News, publisher
of The Australian, Headley Thomas, and shandy sister Shanna Blackburn.
(07:01):
The Australian's lawyers want the judge to listen to episodes
one to twelve as well, because they say there's a
huge amount of context and background that ensures the podcast
is fair to Perros and allows the audience to make
up its own mind. Peros's lawyers are arguing in court
that most Australians were unaware of the coroner's finding that
(07:21):
Peros was a murderer. They say because Shandy's story was
wildly popular, sitting at the top of the podcast charts
for months, it caused serious harm to his reputation. A
date has not yet been set for the full hearing
of this trial. What's happening right now in the Queensland
(07:42):
Supreme Court is a high stakes preliminary hearing where Dowd's
obtained sc counsel for the defendants. That is the Australian
Headley and Shanna is attempting to have Peros's case thrown
out before the case even begins. It all turns on
a notion called serious harm under defamation law. Perros has
(08:02):
to demonstrate the publication he's complaining about episode thirteen caused
him serious harm, but Siptain says that can't possibly be
the case.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
The coroner's finding is a true fact. Episode thirteen has
said nothing more than the conclusion to which the coroner came.
He is a killer. The real cause of the harm
to the plaintiff's reputation is because the coroner made a finding.
Had it not been for that finding, this podcast may
never have been made.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Episode thirteen included emotional interviews with Shandy's mother and sister,
and examinations of how the coroner had before him evidence
that Dury never got to hear. For example, the coroner
had access to CCTV of what he accepted was John
Perros's car driving near the scene of Shandy's murder, and
evidence about when John Perros's phone was turned on and off.
(08:55):
The coroner had access to John Perros's initial record of
interview with police, and the coroner compelled Perros to give
evidence something Peros didn't want to do for fear of
incriminating himself.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
To say of somebody that they are a murderer. It's
been found that he's a murderer. To call him a murderer,
or to say yeah, I agree with that finding. What
more harm does that do? How is its serious harm?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Just as Peter Applegarth put this to Dowd's obtain, Episode
thirteen presented all these facts, but it also endorsed the
coroner's findings and suggested the jury got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
It bolsters the coroner's finding to something that may be right,
may be wrong, probably right, to something that is definitely right.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
They are true facts that there was evidence that was
heard by the coroner that was not heard by the jury.
Episode thirteen was a revelation of those facts that were
part of the finding and providing some explanation to the listeners.
How could he have been acquitted? Well, it was made
plain the coroner had evidence the jury didn't have.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
After the break exactly what Episode thirteen said. Original investigative
reporting is what we do at The Australian every day.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
In a world of.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Misinformation and hot takes, you can invest in reliable, credible
journalism for a lot less than the price of your
morning coffee. Right now, it's a dollar a week for
the first four weeks. Check us out at the Australian
dot com dot ayu and we'll be back after this break.
(10:48):
In court on Tuesday, David Helvajian, the barrister representing John Perros,
took the judge through the transcript of episode thirteen and
explained why he believed it caused serious harm to his client.
We'll play the lines from the episode with David Helvagian's commentary.
We've used a voice actor to bring you David Helvagian's words. First,
(11:08):
you'll hear the real audio from episode thirteen with Shanna
Blackburn speaking to Headley Thomas.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
One matter of fact, it was.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
Him, how can you be so sure?
Speaker 5 (11:21):
And then we have these lines that I say directly
go to this publication establishing that the acquittal was wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
and it's undeniable when you have seen all that evidence
together that there is any other person responsible.
Speaker 7 (11:49):
For this, then what you are saying is that he's
got away with murder.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
App I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
To episodes thirteen, my submission is the most likely inference
is people know the plaintiff is one of two suspects,
they know about the coroner's findings. There's a question in
their minds why there's a dichotomy between a jury acquittal
within two hours versus a coroner's findings. Mister Perros is
(12:22):
a suspect with mister William Daniel, and there's a big
question mark as to who really committed the murder.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Helvajian had earlier presented as evidence a few anonymous Reddit comments,
including these.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
One hundred percent he did just listen to this. Her
ex absolutely did it.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
That kind of certainty is what episode thirteen provides, and
that's where serious harm arises.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
In episode thirteen, Headley Thomas tells the audience John Perros's phone,
which was rarely turned off, had been switched off on
the nights before Shandy's murder. Headley spoke to Vicky Blackburn,
Andy's mother.
Speaker 7 (13:01):
Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
But Vicky and Shammer and the cops knew it.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
He went to three nights, he did the same thing.
Speaker 7 (13:18):
He turned his phone off at the same time. He
tried that for three nights and got a successful.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
that night she was walking home from work the prior
knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
In my submission, David Helvagian read to the judge words
in the episode from former detective Scott Furlong. He and
Headley were discussing the fact that some of the evidence
that was before the coroner had not been put to
the jury. She is got Furlong talking to Headley in
episode thirteen. Scott Furlong speaks first, so what.
Speaker 8 (14:06):
Would the baggyars detective know about prosecuting a case or
trust the process?
Speaker 9 (14:13):
I hear that at the same time as you've said,
you're so disappointed because in your view, you arrested the
right person, so therefore the process you've trusted has freed
the killer.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Yeah, take that one.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
To bed with you.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's hard to get the hair around that it is.
Speaker 8 (14:34):
But yeah, you feel you've let the family down, You
feel you let the community down to have a not
guilty verdict when you know in your heart of hearts
that there's somebody that's responsible for her murder and you
arrested that person and put them before the courts. We
did our part.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
We caught the killer.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
In my opinion, here's how David Helvajan described that in
court on Tuesday.
Speaker 5 (14:59):
Now, if comments like that do not remove any doubt
in the listener's mind, it actually gets worse in my
respectful submission.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
wouldn't know well, forensic scientist Kirsty Wright. She examined why
the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John Perros's
car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's work
led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's entire
(15:29):
DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told the
court it all added up to a strong insinuation. In
the episode, that the coroner was right and the jury
was wrong, and he said it was all made worse
by the fact The Australian is a high quality publication.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
This is an investigative true crime podcast with experience, credibility, expertise.
It's not a headline or a two column piece.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Helvagian also said episode thirteen presented itself as the final
conclusion that Peros did it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Episode thirteen so leads to certainty that it causes serious harm.
How can it otherwise when you have such a credible
publication interviewing the investigative police officer, the mother of the victim,
the sister of the victim, a DNA expert, a criminal
lawyer who says it's bad evidence. Those will point in
my respectful submission to the end of the story.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Justice Peter Applegarth has reserved his decision and will be back,
possibly at the end of August, but more likely in
September to let John Perros and the defendants know their fate.
Thanks for joining us on the front, and don't forget
to join ours. Subscribers at the Australian dot com dot
au
You can listen to the Front on your smart sneaker
every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's
on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, July thirty one.
(00:30):
Drama in the bush as regional airline REX fights to
stay in the air.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
REX is in a.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Trading halt amid fears it's on the brink of collapse,
but it's the only carrier on dozens of routes to
remote locations. Inflation numbers come out today and it's not
going to be pretty. Analysts they're expecting a jump in
price growth to three point eight percent in the year
to June, raising fears of yet another interest rate rise
(00:58):
next week. You can be the first to know when
the figures come out at the Australian dot com Doreyu.
John Perros was acquitted of murdering his ex girlfriend Shandy Blackburn.
Then a coroner said he did in fact kill Shandy. Now,
a defamation case by Paris against The Australian poses the
(01:19):
question is it okay for journalists to question the finding
of a jury? Today, Day two of Paris's bold bid
to show his reputation was seriously harmed by the Australians
podcast Shandy Story. John Perros has always denied wrongdoing. It's
(01:44):
one of the most harrowing cases in Australian history.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I just yelled out as anyone got a torch, then
goo's got my baby.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
The verdict in Missus Chamberlain's case guilty for mister Chamberlain guilty.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
Missus Chamberlain was then sentenced to life in Chris.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Today it has ended with the fourth coronial inquest finding
that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by dingo, as her parents
had claimed from the beginning.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The story of Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael, whose
nine week old baby Azaria died at Ularu in nineteen eighty.
It's one of our greatest miscarriages of justice. A family's
life ruined by a wrongful conviction. A jury found them guilty.
Three decades later a coroner, examining fresh evidence, said they
(02:31):
were not guilty. This is Coroner Elizabeth Morris in twenty twelve.
Speaker 6 (02:36):
Please accept my sincere sympathy on the death of your
special and loved daughter, insists her Azaria. I'm so sorry
for your loss. Time does not remove the pain and
sadness of the death of a child.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
The case of Azaria Chamberlain was invoked in the Queensland
Supreme Caught on Wednesday by Justice Peter Applegarth. He's hearing
another case where a jury's decision went the opposite way
to a coroner.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
The coroner found the dingo did it? A Darwin jury
finds Lyndy Chamberlain did it. The coroner was right.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
This is the matter of John Perros. He was acquitted
by a jury in twenty nineteen of murdering his ex
girlfriend Shandy Blackburn, but he was found by a coroner
in twenty twenty to be the murderer. We're using a
voice actor to bring you the judge's words as spoken
in court.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So don't we have something similar here that the jury
acquitted The tone of episode thirteen is doing their duty.
They should have acquitted on the evidence that was before them,
but the coroner made these findings on additional evidence.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
The judge was questioning David Helvajian, a barrister representing John
Perros in his defamation case sparked by the Australians Blockbuster
investigative podcast Shandy's Story. Perros has always denied killing Shandy,
just as Applegarth is asking this. Just like in the
Chamberlain case, the jury in John Perros's case did not
(04:15):
have the same evidence that the coroner was later able
to consider. The podcast pointed this out and even quoted
Shandy's mother saying if she was on the jury, she
would probably have acquitted Perros because the evidence just wasn't there.
So the judge wants to know. Isn't the podcast allowed
(04:37):
to point this out? Here's what David Helvajian, representing John Perros,
told the court.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
My submission still stands that episode thirteen causes serious harm
because of the removal of any doubt. It imputes murderer
and tells the listener why they can be sure of murderer.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
This case is a big deal, not just for us
at The Australian, but for journalism more generally. If a
jury makes one finding and a coroner makes another, how
are journalists supposed to report? Shandy Blackburn was left to
die in a gutter in the North Queensland tropical city
(05:17):
of Mackay in February twenty thirteen. She'd been stabbed more
than twenty times as she walked home from work. Her
ex boyfriend John Perros was charged and acquitted of the murder,
but a coroner who compelled Perros to give evidence found
he did stab Shandy to death. That would have been
the end of it, because once acquitted, Peros could not
(05:40):
be tried again without fresh evidence, until investigative journalist Headley
Thomas came along with his twenty twenty one podcast for
the Australian Shandy's Story. This is a moment from episode
one of shandy Story.
Speaker 7 (05:54):
Shandy and John were sometimes in passionate all consuming love,
ended up times in deep self doubting despair at their exhausting,
abusive rows. The jealousies were toxic. John had made no
secret of what he called his serious trust issues.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
In that first episode, Headley explored doubts over who really
killed Shandy.
Speaker 7 (06:18):
I've interviewed Mackay, friends of John Perros, and talked to
others at length off the record. They described John as
gentle and caring, a tough fighter in the boxing ring,
but a good natured soul and loyal to a fault.
A bit intense in relationships, yes, but surely not a murderer.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Perros is not complaining about the first twelve episodes of
this podcast. He says episode thirteen defamed him by suggesting
the jury got it wrong and he was in fact
a murderer, and that's why he's suing Nationwide News, publisher
of The Australian, Headley Thomas, and shandy sister Shanna Blackburn.
(07:01):
The Australian's lawyers want the judge to listen to episodes
one to twelve as well, because they say there's a
huge amount of context and background that ensures the podcast
is fair to Perros and allows the audience to make
up its own mind. Peros's lawyers are arguing in court
that most Australians were unaware of the coroner's finding that
(07:21):
Peros was a murderer. They say because Shandy's story was
wildly popular, sitting at the top of the podcast charts
for months, it caused serious harm to his reputation. A
date has not yet been set for the full hearing
of this trial. What's happening right now in the Queensland
(07:42):
Supreme Court is a high stakes preliminary hearing where Dowd's
obtained sc counsel for the defendants. That is the Australian
Headley and Shanna is attempting to have Peros's case thrown
out before the case even begins. It all turns on
a notion called serious harm under defamation law. Perros has
(08:02):
to demonstrate the publication he's complaining about episode thirteen caused
him serious harm, but Siptain says that can't possibly be
the case.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
The coroner's finding is a true fact. Episode thirteen has
said nothing more than the conclusion to which the coroner came.
He is a killer. The real cause of the harm
to the plaintiff's reputation is because the coroner made a finding.
Had it not been for that finding, this podcast may
never have been made.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Episode thirteen included emotional interviews with Shandy's mother and sister,
and examinations of how the coroner had before him evidence
that Dury never got to hear. For example, the coroner
had access to CCTV of what he accepted was John
Perros's car driving near the scene of Shandy's murder, and
evidence about when John Perros's phone was turned on and off.
(08:55):
The coroner had access to John Perros's initial record of
interview with police, and the coroner compelled Perros to give
evidence something Peros didn't want to do for fear of
incriminating himself.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
To say of somebody that they are a murderer. It's
been found that he's a murderer. To call him a murderer,
or to say yeah, I agree with that finding. What
more harm does that do? How is its serious harm?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Just as Peter Applegarth put this to Dowd's obtain, Episode
thirteen presented all these facts, but it also endorsed the
coroner's findings and suggested the jury got it wrong.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
It bolsters the coroner's finding to something that may be right,
may be wrong, probably right, to something that is definitely right.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
They are true facts that there was evidence that was
heard by the coroner that was not heard by the jury.
Episode thirteen was a revelation of those facts that were
part of the finding and providing some explanation to the listeners.
How could he have been acquitted? Well, it was made
plain the coroner had evidence the jury didn't have.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
After the break exactly what Episode thirteen said. Original investigative
reporting is what we do at The Australian every day.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
In a world of.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Misinformation and hot takes, you can invest in reliable, credible
journalism for a lot less than the price of your
morning coffee. Right now, it's a dollar a week for
the first four weeks. Check us out at the Australian
dot com dot ayu and we'll be back after this break.
(10:48):
In court on Tuesday, David Helvajian, the barrister representing John Perros,
took the judge through the transcript of episode thirteen and
explained why he believed it caused serious harm to his client.
We'll play the lines from the episode with David Helvagian's commentary.
We've used a voice actor to bring you David Helvagian's words. First,
(11:08):
you'll hear the real audio from episode thirteen with Shanna
Blackburn speaking to Headley Thomas.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
One matter of fact, it was.
Speaker 7 (11:17):
Him, how can you be so sure?
Speaker 5 (11:21):
And then we have these lines that I say directly
go to this publication establishing that the acquittal was wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Because I've seen more evidence than what was presented at
the trial. We know the evidence that was ruled out
before the trial, we know the evidence that hasn't been seen,
and it's undeniable when you have seen all that evidence
together that there is any other person responsible.
Speaker 7 (11:49):
For this, then what you are saying is that he's
got away with murder.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
App I think it's a letdown in our justice system.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
To episodes thirteen, my submission is the most likely inference
is people know the plaintiff is one of two suspects,
they know about the coroner's findings. There's a question in
their minds why there's a dichotomy between a jury acquittal
within two hours versus a coroner's findings. Mister Perros is
(12:22):
a suspect with mister William Daniel, and there's a big
question mark as to who really committed the murder.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Helvajian had earlier presented as evidence a few anonymous Reddit comments,
including these.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
One hundred percent he did just listen to this. Her
ex absolutely did it.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
That kind of certainty is what episode thirteen provides, and
that's where serious harm arises.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
In episode thirteen, Headley Thomas tells the audience John Perros's phone,
which was rarely turned off, had been switched off on
the nights before Shandy's murder. Headley spoke to Vicky Blackburn,
Andy's mother.
Speaker 7 (13:01):
Now, the jurors in John's murder trial didn't hear anything
about John's mobile phone usage and that inactivity.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
But Vicky and Shammer and the cops knew it.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
He went to three nights, he did the same thing.
Speaker 7 (13:18):
He turned his phone off at the same time. He
tried that for three nights and got a successful.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
Vicki Blackburn, the victim's mother, insinuates that he got lucky
that night she was walking home from work the prior
knight she got picked up by her boyfriend. The insinuation
is he was stalking. Now that evidence wasn't before the jury,
so it's another element that undercuts the acquittal.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
In my submission, David Helvagian read to the judge words
in the episode from former detective Scott Furlong. He and
Headley were discussing the fact that some of the evidence
that was before the coroner had not been put to
the jury. She is got Furlong talking to Headley in
episode thirteen. Scott Furlong speaks first, so what.
Speaker 8 (14:06):
Would the baggyars detective know about prosecuting a case or
trust the process?
Speaker 9 (14:13):
I hear that at the same time as you've said,
you're so disappointed because in your view, you arrested the
right person, so therefore the process you've trusted has freed
the killer.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Yeah, take that one.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
To bed with you.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's hard to get the hair around that it is.
Speaker 8 (14:34):
But yeah, you feel you've let the family down, You
feel you let the community down to have a not
guilty verdict when you know in your heart of hearts
that there's somebody that's responsible for her murder and you
arrested that person and put them before the courts. We
did our part.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
We caught the killer.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
In my opinion, here's how David Helvajan described that in
court on Tuesday.
Speaker 5 (14:59):
Now, if comments like that do not remove any doubt
in the listener's mind, it actually gets worse in my
respectful submission.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Episode thirteen also featured someone who listeners to Shandy's story
wouldn't know well, forensic scientist Kirsty Wright. She examined why
the DNA samples from Shandy's crime scene and John Perros's
car yielded no useful evidence for John's trial. Kirsty's work
led to stunning revelations in the podcast that Queensland's entire
(15:29):
DNA processing system was deeply flawed. David Helvagian told the
court it all added up to a strong insinuation. In
the episode, that the coroner was right and the jury
was wrong, and he said it was all made worse
by the fact The Australian is a high quality publication.
Speaker 5 (15:48):
This is an investigative true crime podcast with experience, credibility, expertise.
It's not a headline or a two column piece.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Helvagian also said episode thirteen presented itself as the final
conclusion that Peros did it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Episode thirteen so leads to certainty that it causes serious harm.
How can it otherwise when you have such a credible
publication interviewing the investigative police officer, the mother of the victim,
the sister of the victim, a DNA expert, a criminal
lawyer who says it's bad evidence. Those will point in
my respectful submission to the end of the story.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Justice Peter Applegarth has reserved his decision and will be back,
possibly at the end of August, but more likely in
September to let John Perros and the defendants know their fate.
Thanks for joining us on the front, and don't forget
to join ours. Subscribers at the Australian dot com dot
au
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.