July 30, 2024 • 15 mins
From our daily news podcast The Front, John Peros' defamation action against Hedley Thomas, Shannah Blackburn and the publishers of The Australian.
For free daily news, search 'The Front' wherever you listen, and subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode.
This episode is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Stephanie Coombes and edited by Jasper Leak.
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 speaker
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 Tuesday, July thirty.
(00:30):
Aerial patrols of Australia's Northern coastline have slumped, with operations
sovereign Borders cutting back flights by twenty percent each year,
even as boat arrivals increase. It's the first challenge for
new Immigration and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. The militant
Construction Union CFMU could be in administration for years. That's
(00:55):
according to New Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt. In an
exclusive interview now at The Australian dot com dot you,
John Perros, the man acquitted of murdering Shandy Blackburn, is
suing Shandy's sister, journalist Hedley Thomas, and the publishers of
(01:15):
The Australian over our podcast Shandy's story. In today's episode,
why John Perros says the episode caused him serious harm
and what the publishers say in reply. Before we start.
(01:35):
This episode contains some adult language. One matter of fact
it was him. That's Shanna Blackburn, the sister of Shandy Blackburn,
who in twenty thirteen, at the age of twenty three,
was murdered in a stabbing frenzy by someone who is
still at large. Pros the man you heard Shanna accusing
(02:03):
has always denied killing Shandy, his ex girlfriend. Those words
spoken by Shanna in episode thirteen of The Australian's investigative
podcast Shandy Story are now the subject of a defamation case.
John Perros is suing Nationwide News, the company that publishes
The Australian, and Shanna herself, as well as our national
(02:26):
chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, who reported and hosted Shandy Story.
We've used voice actors throughout this episode to bring you
the words spoken in the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
These are the.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Words of Barrister David Helvajian, acting for Peros.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Episode thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
known to society.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
This hearing is not the defamation trial. It's a pre
trial hearing to determine whether or not John peer Ross
was caused serious harm by the publication of episode thirteen
of Shandy story released in December twenty twenty one. Shandy
was violently murdered on February ninth, twenty thirteen, as she
(03:17):
walked home from work after midnight. The killer stabbed Shandy
dozens of times, leaving her to die in a gutter.
If you've listened to Shandy's story, you'll remember this harrowing
audio of the person who discovered her body on a
Mackay street calling triple O.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Is she awake?
Speaker 5 (03:39):
No?
Speaker 6 (03:39):
Is breathing? Third? She don't look at all man, so
concern to me?
Speaker 7 (03:45):
Is she breathing at all?
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Available?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
No?
Speaker 1 (03:51):
No, not at all, not at all?
Speaker 7 (03:53):
What is your name?
Speaker 5 (03:54):
What is your name?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
In twenty fourteen, Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, a talented
local boxer and diesel fitter, was charged with Shandy's murder.
He was found not guilty.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
When a jury found John Perros not guilty of Shandy
Blackburn's murder in twenty seventeen, it left her family and
the Mackay community with even more questions. He was accused
of stabbing Shandy Blackburn more than twenty times on her
way home from work in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That verdict meant Peros was free to get on with
his life. But in twenty nineteen, a coroner conducted an
inquest into Shandy's death. The coroner, David O'Donnell, compelled John
Perros to give evidence after Perros initially refused on the
ground that the evidence would tend to incriminate him. There's
(04:47):
a rule in coronial proceedings that evidence given under compulsion
in an inquest cannot be used in other proceedings. On
twenty one August twenty twenty, the coroner found Perros had
in fact killed Shandy with a bladed instrument. The coroner
also said he believed the evidence of certain witnesses about
John Perros, including that Peros had said to friends phrases
(05:11):
like this about Shandy, I fucking hate that cunt, and
something like she would be better off dead. I hate
her and I would love to stab the cunt. We've
used a voice actor to bring you those words. From
the coroner's findings, the coroner also found that a white
(05:33):
ute seen on CCTV near the scene of Shandy's death
at approximately the time of her death was in fact
John Perros's car. Peros said he couldn't remember whether he
had driven on that street at that time or not.
But even though the coroner found John did kill Shandy,
he was not charged again because Perros had already been acquitted.
(05:57):
The legal principle of double jeopardy means you can't be
tried for the same offense twice. There are exceptions, including
when fresh and compelling evidence that wasn't presented in the
first trial becomes available. But Peros has not been charged again.
He's got on with his life, including working in the
(06:18):
mining industry in Wa. In December twenty twenty two, he
was found guilty of an assault at a BHP mind sight.
Perros was fined two thousand dollars and granted a spent conviction.
Here's how The West Australian reported it at the time.
Speaker 7 (06:37):
John Perros claimed a trial he was acting in self
defense when he laid into Alexander Gell. The forty year
old fly In Flyout worker, beat and kicked mister Gall
so badly it left him with significant facial injuries and
the loss of a tooth. In court on one day,
John Perros's lawyer argued his reputation was caused serious harm
(07:02):
by episode thirteen of Shandy's story.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
As your honor knows the crime of murder in this
state carries a life sentence. It is probably society's greatest crime.
To label someone the murderer of another person is just
of the highest seriousness. However, to do so as part
of an investigative true crime publication from a mainstream media
(07:26):
company and from a journalist with a credible history in
these matters is even more serious.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
So Helvajin is saying that if this had been published elsewhere,
it might not have caused the same level of harm.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Your honor would know The Australian as a mass media
publication of serious repute. It's not a tabloid or a
daily rag type publication.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
I've got to jump in here to defend tabloids. By
the way, the shape of a newspaper doesn't determine its quality,
and tlenty of outstanding journalists and great journalism in tabloid papers. Anyway,
back to David Helvajian.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Secondly, you ought to be aware of the name Hadley
Thomas and that he is a journalist who not only
led the Shandy Story podcast, but he's also the second defendant.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
At this point, the judge weighed in this is a
voice actor reading justice. Peter Applegarth's words, I.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Made a disclosure before hearing back in April that I
met mister Thomas professionally many years ago, but I haven't
seen him in person or spoken to him for sixteen years.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
In that time period, he has become a brand name
in true crime podcasts.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
He'll forgive me if I haven't listened to his podcasts.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
As of today, approximately three hundred and eighty thousand people
across Australia have heard the Imputation. Episode thirteen had a
far greater reach across Australia than the reporting the coroner's finding.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
And this is where the real case begins. Helvajian On
behalf of Perros says, even though the coroner in twenty
twenty found John Perros killed Shandy Blackburn, his reputation was
largely unharmed until Headley, Thomas and Shandy's story came along
in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
The other inference clearly is a podcast such as this
would not have approximately three hundred and eighty thousand downloads
in Australia if it wasn't credible. So just the fact
it's a highly popular and shared and considered podcast is
the circumstance of publication.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I'm not sure if circulation means something's credible. In America,
at least you have these lunar people who have all
kinds of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Yes, that's a very good point.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Coming up after the break. What lawyers for the Australia
are arguing, as you just heard David Helvagian say, where
a mass media publication of serious repute. He's a subscriber.
You should be too. Join us for just a dollar
a week for the first four weeks at the Australian
dot com dot Au. We'll be back after this break.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Just listen to this.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with
the handle bard Girl twenty three, commenting in early twenty
twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen
of The Australian's podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde our
Buckle agrees.
Speaker 6 (10:52):
One hundred percent he did.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
And another Reddit user, Nora Ldora, says.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
it was the ex. The crime was so personal and
John was abusive to Shandy. It's crazy that he was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
These posts are part of the evidence from John Perross's
lawyers in his claim that The Australians podcast caused serious
harm to his reputation. You've already heard Peros's arguments. This
is what the lawyers for the other side say.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
A coroner made a finding that Miss Blackburn died as
a result of a violent assault where she was stabbed
multiple times after being ambushed in the street. The coroner
found that the plaintiff in these proceedings was responsible for
her death. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Those are the words of Doward Sibtaine. Sc sibtain is
a silk engaged to defend Nationwide News Headley Thomas and
Shanna Blackburn in the defamation action brought by Perros. In
defamation cases, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that
they suffered serious reputational damage by the publication they're complaining about,
(12:06):
and if the material was published to a large number
of people, say hundreds of thousands, courts in the past
have inferred that the reputational harm must be serious. The
Australian's lawyers are challenging this rule. They're saying the plaintiff
doesn't necessarily come to court with a good reputation and
it's up to the plaintiff in this case, John Perros,
(12:29):
to prove that the publication in this case, Episode thirteen
seriously damaged the reputation they had. We've used a voice
actor to bring you Dowd Sibtain's words.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
What is required is for this court to undertake a
determination as to what was the plaintiff's pre episode thirteen
reputation and his post episode thirteen reputation, and then having
done that, to determine whether or not the harm occasion
to his reputation was caused by the publication can concerned.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Often in defamation cases, someone comes before the court to
say they know the plaintiff, the person who's suing, and
was shocked when they encountered the allegedly defamatory publication. They'll
usually say the publication made them think less of the
plaintiff and wonder whether they really had done something wrong.
In this hearing, Justice Peter Applegarth wandered aloud whether he
(13:22):
would be presented evidence from anyone along those lines. A
person not a Reddit user like Nora Ladora or bard
Girl twenty three, who says they considered Perros a good
person before hearing episode thirteen and considered him a murderer afterwards.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
I'm trying to grapple with what the plaintiff says was
the harm to his reputation, because traditionally we've had plaintiffs
who come along and they say I was well regarded
in my community, and then after the Courier Male published
that article, people treated me finally in the street and
invitations dried up, and I lost my job, and I
(14:01):
was walking down the street and someone yelled out, you crook.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I can assure your honor. There is none of that,
not one word. What there is first losing his job.
He lost his job around the time of episode one.
There isn't a single person on a hearsay basis or
otherwise who has said I heard episode thirteen and this
is what I thought of him. It's somewhat curious the
plaintiff is not giving evidence on this, but the evidence
(14:28):
what there is, the scant evidence, requires such a tortured
and fanciful approach to inferential reasoning that your honor could
not conclude that he suffered serious harm.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Peros's counsel, David Helvadjian, said he did tell the defense
lawyers they would not be putting on any more evidence,
but in fact, if the matter proceeds to trial, his
side would potentially be adding more evidence of damage to
Peros's reputation, and Helvagian said regardless, the Reddit posts were
evidence of episode thirteen helping people make up their mind
(15:00):
ends that John Perros was a killer.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
That evidence is rebuttal evidence to the idea that there's
a settled view in the community that he is a
violent killer, because otherwise, why else would they feel the
need to post and share. The Reddit comments show it
was episode thirteen that caused the harm.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Thanks for joining us on the front. You can keep
up with this story, listen to Shandy story yourself, and
read all our outstanding journalism right now at the Australian
dot com dot au
You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
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 Tuesday, July thirty.
(00:30):
Aerial patrols of Australia's Northern coastline have slumped, with operations
sovereign Borders cutting back flights by twenty percent each year,
even as boat arrivals increase. It's the first challenge for
new Immigration and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. The militant
Construction Union CFMU could be in administration for years. That's
(00:55):
according to New Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt. In an
exclusive interview now at The Australian dot com dot you,
John Perros, the man acquitted of murdering Shandy Blackburn, is
suing Shandy's sister, journalist Hedley Thomas, and the publishers of
(01:15):
The Australian over our podcast Shandy's story. In today's episode,
why John Perros says the episode caused him serious harm
and what the publishers say in reply. Before we start.
(01:35):
This episode contains some adult language. One matter of fact
it was him. That's Shanna Blackburn, the sister of Shandy Blackburn,
who in twenty thirteen, at the age of twenty three,
was murdered in a stabbing frenzy by someone who is
still at large. Pros the man you heard Shanna accusing
(02:03):
has always denied killing Shandy, his ex girlfriend. Those words
spoken by Shanna in episode thirteen of The Australian's investigative
podcast Shandy Story are now the subject of a defamation case.
John Perros is suing Nationwide News, the company that publishes
The Australian, and Shanna herself, as well as our national
(02:26):
chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, who reported and hosted Shandy Story.
We've used voice actors throughout this episode to bring you
the words spoken in the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
These are the.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Words of Barrister David Helvajian, acting for Peros.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Episode thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations
known to society.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
This hearing is not the defamation trial. It's a pre
trial hearing to determine whether or not John peer Ross
was caused serious harm by the publication of episode thirteen
of Shandy story released in December twenty twenty one. Shandy
was violently murdered on February ninth, twenty thirteen, as she
(03:17):
walked home from work after midnight. The killer stabbed Shandy
dozens of times, leaving her to die in a gutter.
If you've listened to Shandy's story, you'll remember this harrowing
audio of the person who discovered her body on a
Mackay street calling triple O.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Is she awake?
Speaker 5 (03:39):
No?
Speaker 6 (03:39):
Is breathing? Third? She don't look at all man, so
concern to me?
Speaker 7 (03:45):
Is she breathing at all?
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Available?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
No?
Speaker 1 (03:51):
No, not at all, not at all?
Speaker 7 (03:53):
What is your name?
Speaker 5 (03:54):
What is your name?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
In twenty fourteen, Shandy's ex boyfriend, John Perros, a talented
local boxer and diesel fitter, was charged with Shandy's murder.
He was found not guilty.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
When a jury found John Perros not guilty of Shandy
Blackburn's murder in twenty seventeen, it left her family and
the Mackay community with even more questions. He was accused
of stabbing Shandy Blackburn more than twenty times on her
way home from work in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That verdict meant Peros was free to get on with
his life. But in twenty nineteen, a coroner conducted an
inquest into Shandy's death. The coroner, David O'Donnell, compelled John
Perros to give evidence after Perros initially refused on the
ground that the evidence would tend to incriminate him. There's
(04:47):
a rule in coronial proceedings that evidence given under compulsion
in an inquest cannot be used in other proceedings. On
twenty one August twenty twenty, the coroner found Perros had
in fact killed Shandy with a bladed instrument. The coroner
also said he believed the evidence of certain witnesses about
John Perros, including that Peros had said to friends phrases
(05:11):
like this about Shandy, I fucking hate that cunt, and
something like she would be better off dead. I hate
her and I would love to stab the cunt. We've
used a voice actor to bring you those words. From
the coroner's findings, the coroner also found that a white
(05:33):
ute seen on CCTV near the scene of Shandy's death
at approximately the time of her death was in fact
John Perros's car. Peros said he couldn't remember whether he
had driven on that street at that time or not.
But even though the coroner found John did kill Shandy,
he was not charged again because Perros had already been acquitted.
(05:57):
The legal principle of double jeopardy means you can't be
tried for the same offense twice. There are exceptions, including
when fresh and compelling evidence that wasn't presented in the
first trial becomes available. But Peros has not been charged again.
He's got on with his life, including working in the
(06:18):
mining industry in Wa. In December twenty twenty two, he
was found guilty of an assault at a BHP mind sight.
Perros was fined two thousand dollars and granted a spent conviction.
Here's how The West Australian reported it at the time.
Speaker 7 (06:37):
John Perros claimed a trial he was acting in self
defense when he laid into Alexander Gell. The forty year
old fly In Flyout worker, beat and kicked mister Gall
so badly it left him with significant facial injuries and
the loss of a tooth. In court on one day,
John Perros's lawyer argued his reputation was caused serious harm
(07:02):
by episode thirteen of Shandy's story.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
As your honor knows the crime of murder in this
state carries a life sentence. It is probably society's greatest crime.
To label someone the murderer of another person is just
of the highest seriousness. However, to do so as part
of an investigative true crime publication from a mainstream media
(07:26):
company and from a journalist with a credible history in
these matters is even more serious.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
So Helvajin is saying that if this had been published elsewhere,
it might not have caused the same level of harm.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Your honor would know The Australian as a mass media
publication of serious repute. It's not a tabloid or a
daily rag type publication.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
I've got to jump in here to defend tabloids. By
the way, the shape of a newspaper doesn't determine its quality,
and tlenty of outstanding journalists and great journalism in tabloid papers. Anyway,
back to David Helvajian.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Secondly, you ought to be aware of the name Hadley
Thomas and that he is a journalist who not only
led the Shandy Story podcast, but he's also the second defendant.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
At this point, the judge weighed in this is a
voice actor reading justice. Peter Applegarth's words, I.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Made a disclosure before hearing back in April that I
met mister Thomas professionally many years ago, but I haven't
seen him in person or spoken to him for sixteen years.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
In that time period, he has become a brand name
in true crime podcasts.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
He'll forgive me if I haven't listened to his podcasts.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
As of today, approximately three hundred and eighty thousand people
across Australia have heard the Imputation. Episode thirteen had a
far greater reach across Australia than the reporting the coroner's finding.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
And this is where the real case begins. Helvajian On
behalf of Perros says, even though the coroner in twenty
twenty found John Perros killed Shandy Blackburn, his reputation was
largely unharmed until Headley, Thomas and Shandy's story came along
in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
The other inference clearly is a podcast such as this
would not have approximately three hundred and eighty thousand downloads
in Australia if it wasn't credible. So just the fact
it's a highly popular and shared and considered podcast is
the circumstance of publication.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I'm not sure if circulation means something's credible. In America,
at least you have these lunar people who have all
kinds of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Yes, that's a very good point.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Coming up after the break. What lawyers for the Australia
are arguing, as you just heard David Helvagian say, where
a mass media publication of serious repute. He's a subscriber.
You should be too. Join us for just a dollar
a week for the first four weeks at the Australian
dot com dot Au. We'll be back after this break.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Just listen to this.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with
the handle bard Girl twenty three, commenting in early twenty
twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen
of The Australian's podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde our
Buckle agrees.
Speaker 6 (10:52):
One hundred percent he did.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
And another Reddit user, Nora Ldora, says.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
I'm listening now and I feel it so clear that
it was the ex. The crime was so personal and
John was abusive to Shandy. It's crazy that he was acquitted.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
These posts are part of the evidence from John Perross's
lawyers in his claim that The Australians podcast caused serious
harm to his reputation. You've already heard Peros's arguments. This
is what the lawyers for the other side say.
Speaker 4 (11:28):
A coroner made a finding that Miss Blackburn died as
a result of a violent assault where she was stabbed
multiple times after being ambushed in the street. The coroner
found that the plaintiff in these proceedings was responsible for
her death. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Those are the words of Doward Sibtaine. Sc sibtain is
a silk engaged to defend Nationwide News Headley Thomas and
Shanna Blackburn in the defamation action brought by Perros. In
defamation cases, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that
they suffered serious reputational damage by the publication they're complaining about,
(12:06):
and if the material was published to a large number
of people, say hundreds of thousands, courts in the past
have inferred that the reputational harm must be serious. The
Australian's lawyers are challenging this rule. They're saying the plaintiff
doesn't necessarily come to court with a good reputation and
it's up to the plaintiff in this case, John Perros,
(12:29):
to prove that the publication in this case, Episode thirteen
seriously damaged the reputation they had. We've used a voice
actor to bring you Dowd Sibtain's words.
Speaker 4 (12:41):
What is required is for this court to undertake a
determination as to what was the plaintiff's pre episode thirteen
reputation and his post episode thirteen reputation, and then having
done that, to determine whether or not the harm occasion
to his reputation was caused by the publication can concerned.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Often in defamation cases, someone comes before the court to
say they know the plaintiff, the person who's suing, and
was shocked when they encountered the allegedly defamatory publication. They'll
usually say the publication made them think less of the
plaintiff and wonder whether they really had done something wrong.
In this hearing, Justice Peter Applegarth wandered aloud whether he
(13:22):
would be presented evidence from anyone along those lines. A
person not a Reddit user like Nora Ladora or bard
Girl twenty three, who says they considered Perros a good
person before hearing episode thirteen and considered him a murderer afterwards.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
I'm trying to grapple with what the plaintiff says was
the harm to his reputation, because traditionally we've had plaintiffs
who come along and they say I was well regarded
in my community, and then after the Courier Male published
that article, people treated me finally in the street and
invitations dried up, and I lost my job, and I
(14:01):
was walking down the street and someone yelled out, you crook.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I can assure your honor. There is none of that,
not one word. What there is first losing his job.
He lost his job around the time of episode one.
There isn't a single person on a hearsay basis or
otherwise who has said I heard episode thirteen and this
is what I thought of him. It's somewhat curious the
plaintiff is not giving evidence on this, but the evidence
(14:28):
what there is, the scant evidence, requires such a tortured
and fanciful approach to inferential reasoning that your honor could
not conclude that he suffered serious harm.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Peros's counsel, David Helvadjian, said he did tell the defense
lawyers they would not be putting on any more evidence,
but in fact, if the matter proceeds to trial, his
side would potentially be adding more evidence of damage to
Peros's reputation, and Helvagian said regardless, the Reddit posts were
evidence of episode thirteen helping people make up their mind
(15:00):
ends that John Perros was a killer.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
That evidence is rebuttal evidence to the idea that there's
a settled view in the community that he is a
violent killer, because otherwise, why else would they feel the
need to post and share. The Reddit comments show it
was episode thirteen that caused the harm.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Thanks for joining us on the front. You can keep
up with this story, listen to Shandy story yourself, and
read all our outstanding journalism right now 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.