July 19, 2024 • 26 mins
Hi Guys, welcome back to TV Reload. Thank you for clicking or downloading on today’s episode with Adam Shand and Steve van Aperen both involved in the new true crime investigation series The Hunters which starts this Monday night at 7:30 on channel Seven and you can also catch it on 7 plus.
The premiere TV special The Hunters: Mr Cruel involves legendary investigative crime journalist Adam Shand and “The Human Lie Detector” Steve van Aperen blow open Australia’s most notorious cold case.
Together they uncover new evidence and revelations that promise to turn these cases case on their head, challenging the assumption that Mr Cruel was escalating his crimes, culminating in the murder of Karmein Chan, and the theory that this was the work of one man.
For the first time, a Mr. Cruel survivor speaks out on the program and hopefully long forgotten DNA found will potentially put a monster behind bars?
- Adam Shand will talk about how his journalistic career has changed since podcasting and what he thinks of standard of podcasts in the true crime space.
- Steve van Aperen will unpack his ability to read people and I will find out how he knows when he is talking to liar?
- We will talk about the Mr Cruel case and what viewers will learn from facts never before seen.
- Plus the way in which they found contributors affected by these crimes. How they ethically and honestly featured their stories to hopefully gain more attention to solve these crimes.
There is so much to unpack with Adam and Steve. So sit back and relax as we unpack the world of “The Hunters”
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 (00:00):
It's in the news today, but it was actually on
TV Reload, the podcast last Deep Thereby. Hey guys, welcome
back to TV Reload. Thank you for clicking and downloading.
On today's episode with Adam Shand and Steve Van Apern,
both involved in the new true crime investigation series The Hunters,
which starts this Monday night at seven thirty on Channel
seven and you can also catch up on on seven Plus.
(00:22):
The premier TV special The Hunter's Mister Krul involves legendary
investigative crime journalist Adam Shand and the human light detector
Steve Van Apern, who blow open Australia's most notorious cold cases.
They uncover new evidence and revelations that promise to turn
these cases on their heads, challenging the assumption that mister
Krule was escalating his crimes culminating in the murder of
(00:44):
Carmen Chan and the theory that this was the work
of one man. For the first time, a mister Cruel
survivor speaks out on the program and hopefully long forgotten
DNA found will potentially put a monster behind bars. Adam
Shand will talk about how he's journalistic career has changed
since podcasting and what he thinks of the standard of
podcasts in the true crime space. Steve van Apperin will
(01:08):
unpack his ability to read people, and I'll find out
how he knows when he's talking to a liar. We
will talk about the Mister Cruel case and what viewers
will potentially learn from facts never before seen. Plus we
will discuss the way in which they found contributors affected
by these crimes, how they ethically and honestly featured their
stories to hopefully gain more attention to solve these crimes.
(01:31):
There is actually so much to unpack with Adam and Steve,
as you can imagine if you probably can tell that
I've still got my cold, which is slightly annoying. But guys,
sit back and relax as we unpack the interesting world
of the hunters. Hi, Adam and Ben, Hey, how are.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You both rank? Beren? How are you good?
Speaker 1 (01:48):
But I'm with one of those things where it's a
podcast and I can't see you, so we'll have to
try and work out who's got the talking stick when
who gets to talk?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Just gives me an advance for Steve's very handsome and
I run it got pale by comparis and I've got
to chance.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
To you take it. I'll just pop in every now
and again.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Well, thank you for coming on the podcast and talking
about the Hunters. I have to say this show really
pricked my ears because I grew up in Templestow. When
I saw the story coming around, I was like, I
really want to talk to you guys about this great No.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
I think it's it's a story that gripped Melbourne from
the beginning. It's a story that was played out in
the Melbourne suburb. Everyone knew someone who lived near or
knew somebody else. They worked with. The parents no parents,
so that was safe to leave their kids at home
when this really began. So it is a story that
touched people like very few other stories I've covered in
forty years.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Mate, It's surprising to me that in my forties that
I have so many memories of three particular cases that
when I watched your show, I realized that I had
created those memories as facts because it had been such
a long time since i'd sort of thought about it.
Is that an interesting thing to hear, you know?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I think that you know, we can all relate to
traumatic events, and like Adam said, I mean these actions
where you know, young girls I mean were help captive
for long periods of time, sexually assaulted. Really is and
was every parent's nightmare, and you know, really did change
the faith of Melbourne in so far as how safe
(03:15):
are our children? And it really affected not just you know,
the community, but a lot of the investigators on Spectrum
Task Force. They were so moved by what happened that
you know, they were inundated with hundreds and hundreds of
members offering to help in search door knocks, you know,
looking at houses and exists in any way they could.
(03:36):
I mean, let's not forget you know, thirty thousand houses
were searched, you know, twenty seven thousand potential suspects were canvassed.
So the investigation with forty task force detected across means
dollars to run. So it was like an investigation that
had never really been seen in Victoria. No, that's right.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I think the other thing that really exposed was the
fact that the cases that were reported were just the
tip of the iceberg. In the late eighties, there was
no rape squad in Victoria. The matter of rape and
particularly crimes against children were almost treated to social welfare issues.
So many things were never reported. And even now when
I talk about this case with people, they talk about
someone who was potentially a suspect, potentially knew something. It
(04:16):
was never reported. So this is a very deep, dark,
nasty chapter of Melbourne's history that needs to be cleared up.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We've moved a long way from that.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Do you think that the way in which the internet works,
in terms of everyone having an opinion or wanting to
retell their version of the story, cloud's you know, the truth,
does it make it harder to get to the bottom
of maybe what has actually happened.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Well, my view there is, I mean, we're now more
connected than we ever have been, and I having spent
fourteen years in the place, I'd like to consider myself
an optimist. And people do know, people do talk. I'm
convinced that there are people out there that, after this
show goes to air, will start talking. And I think
(04:59):
that sure there'll be you know, some people come forward
and it might be trivial or benign, but it could
be someone out there or several people out there to
have the key or information, no matter how small, that
could make a huge difference in this case.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Brother, you've got to be Optimius working with me and you know,
and the thing is that, as you've seen in our show,
there was a very critical piece of biological evidence which
has never been run. And back in eighty eight when
this was first collected, the database of forensic material and
Victoria was tiny, you couldn't use it. But now it's vas.
So my question to Victoria police and investigators on this
is what's happened to the DNA that's still there? Can
(05:36):
you look at it against later offenses? Because the thing
is this idea that he's dead or gone away, I
think is just bolicked. So there's nothing's no eedan to
support that. So I think he's still out there, and
I hope he's watching on the night we go to air,
and that he had to chew up his back for
the first time a decade. If it's only one offender.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
By the way, if it is only one offender, but
I think at the same time, you know, what's groundbreaking
about the show, and I don't want to take away
from the viewers watching it, is that there are multiple
theories about that possibility, that it is not just one person,
that it could be a multiple scenario. It's quite interesting
when you look at that. When it comes to DNA
and the work that's been done around the world on
unsolved crimes, it appears to be the biggest leap in
(06:12):
getting some of these cases solved. Why wouldn't the Victorian
police be focusing in on what DNA that they have, Like,
what's your theory on not pursuing that more while we're.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Going to take into a camp back there. Back then,
you know, there wasn't DNA wasn't widely used. I remember
in the old days going to crime scenes unless we
could do with blood groupings, whereas now DNA has come
such a long way. And I'm shunning an agreement with
Adam here. I mean, if we've got or detectives have
DNA samples, you know, whether collected from the crime scene
(06:45):
or in the locality, I mean, and they're stored and
this is the big question, you know, is it stored?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Where is it?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Can it be accessed and can it be matched on
a national database to potential sex offenders. I mean, I
believe that somewhere the evidence is there. But it's all
very well to have certain pieces of evidence, but we
need to maxim to an offender.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Yeah, but I think we can frame that Steve actually
agreed with me once first time, and not we work together.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
It comes from a journalistic background. I come from an
investigative crime factual background, so I'm about getting to the truth,
not necessarily telling a story. But Adam is a little
bit different like that, because Adam would have been a
fantastic detective because he is so dedicated, He's so driven,
And I've worked with many detectives in my life, but
I've never worked with anyone who is so clued up
(07:31):
and such a good inquisitive person. And you know, this
is how these crimes are going to be solved.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Yeah, and I agree with that. They I agree with
all that, of course, both.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Of you can. I just say it was really interesting
at certain points when I watched the dynamics of the
two of you talking, and I think both of you
have just kind of articulated exactly what I saw just
now by talking to me. But watching the dynamics of
the two of you and the different angles that you
came at seemed quite clear to me as a viewer.
I could see passion and I could see facts being gathered,
(08:03):
and I wondered whether or not it Sometimes whilst you
two get together and discuss these things whether you clash.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, there's about my driving. Apparently he's always bagging my driving.
But the other one was when we're to do a
door knock right and we're knocking on this door were
we do not quite know who's on the other side
of it, and then Steve is standing off to the side.
I'm saying, Steve, why an't you sending for it? In
case someone shoots us, you'll get the bullets. But thank
you very much, partner, you know. So that's the kind
of relationship.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
With I put up with, you know, Nurse Steve be
going to see he's a.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Wonderful forensic thinker who actually takes my kettle off the
boil a bit. It makes me think more and also
thinks about the corroboration about evidence. You know, it's not
just color and movement, but I think plenty of color
and movement. What Steve does as well, by the way
you see some of the episodes later on when he
gets a couple of people on the light detector and
the eye detect machine made his phenomenal. And I can't
(08:51):
wait for those episodes to come out because you can
see how useful this tool is and the range of
behavioral skills and the attitude to stee brings. You know,
this is going to really help us results in the future.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Steve, you are an ex cop and in the first
episode we are introduced to you as the human light detector.
I mean, I don't think the skill set is something
that you are trained to have. I actually think that's
something that's innate within us. Like if you're a person
who can read people, well, when did you know that
you had the skill to recognize that you're talking to
(09:21):
a liar?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well? I was always interested in psychological profile and what
made serial killers and serial sex offenders pick and I
went over to the FBI and back then the behavioral
sciences unit was in Quantico. But you know I always
said this, I was a question asker and more than that,
I always thought I was a good listener. I mean
I could go to crimes and I can tell you
in minutes whether you know the scene is stage, whether
(09:45):
the offenders spend time with the victim post mortem, or
the body's been moved, all that type of thing. But
I think it's about having good effective observation and skills,
but also about analyzing the content and structure of what
people say. I've trained intelligent data to investigate it, and
I tell them I'm not here to teach you how
to interview. I'm here to introduce the psychology understanding what
(10:06):
makes people do what they do, but how to get
the best out of them when we interview them. So
I think we all had the ability to work out
if somebody is using BS on it, but I put
a methodology behind it, looking for verbal, nonverbal paralinguistic styles.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
I think the combination of my sort of self taught
journo type skills and stays very formal, scientific based skills,
it's quite complementary. And I think there's been moments where
someone sort of passed the polygraph that failed the interview
and it's just raised as questions. I mean, these things
are never feel through, so it's just it's another way
of examining the truth, turning it over and you know,
(10:42):
seeing how far we can get with it. It's a
tremendous combination. But you need to mend my career, Adam.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
We must be really enjoying this format of podcasting and
being able to tell stories in long form and delve
a little bit deeper. Being a journalist that has been
working for so many years. How has podcasting changed the
way which you do your work? Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Change everything. I mean, like you're seeing so many true
crime movies documentaries are coming from podcast now. This series
actually began from a podcast. I was working on Mister
Crule for an unnamed podcast platform, and I said, I
think I'm underselling this. So I spoke to Channel on
seven and WTFN and we realized this was a much
bigger thing. So one became sick. That was really on
(11:22):
the basis of reaching out to the audience in a
way that podcasting does better than anything else, and television
is sort of learning how to frame stories in that way.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
On that, why do you think the true crime has
become such a popular category amongst podcasts and television shows?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Well, going back to the forties and the fifties, Raymond
Chandler that a crime story is one that begins with
the tragedy, that the possibility of a happy ending, and
that's a story arc that actually endures to this day.
I think people do want to get behind either detective,
you know, solving the crime, or they feel empathy with
the victim, they feel anger, they feel it. Actually it's
(11:56):
a factor of their own lives, the lack of justice,
people's faith. There's many, many reasons, but it's certainly what
I find amazing though, is the amount of women who
love true crime then, you know, and not just you're
not just your common or garden, the really goryous I
call them a stabby. I love this sort of really really.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Even what could I do?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
So it's certainly a very big growth category and it's
taking over Steve.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Do you think that, like, do you think that it's
about the human studying in a certain way? Do you
think that men and women are fascinated equally about this
even though it is so gory, even though it is
so confronting, there seems to be something quite compelling about it.
And I wonder whether or not the way in which
it's being packaged up gives it that beginning in the
middle and an end which is quite satisfying.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
You know.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Is that probably why we see more revelations in podcasts
instead of leaving them open ended?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Yeah, look, I think you know, firstly, I think a
lot of people do have an insociable advertite for crime.
I remember I was in Washington, DC and I had meetings.
We see our Discovery Network and they were telling them
the stats that I think ninety seven percent of the
audience has seen, but they'd tune out when you know
there's not a successful resolution. So effectively, you know, we
(13:08):
I think we are inextricably drawn into these tales and
these cases. And I think also people generally do want
to help. I found that when I was working without them.
You know that people if they have information, they want
to talk about it. And in one of the episodes,
you know, people did have information but they were never
canvassed by the police. And I think podcasts like Adam
(13:31):
mentioned it and very effective way of getting the story
out there, but also inviting community conversations and that, and
this is what gets people talking and refreshing memories. And
sometimes even when I was an investigator, you know, the
smallest piece of information people just discount, wouldn't think it's important,
but sometimes they can be the key in solving these cases.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I think there's always somebody out there, and I think
one of the catstrides of our series of someone knows
someone that knows something and getting it out there is
the key, and people are just a r I think
that one can really be solved. We chosen stories also
with the basis that we can add something there is
a possibility of a resolution because there are thousands and
thousands of podcasts that most of them are garbage that
(14:11):
they just they start from a full prement. They don't
have any new information. They they're long on the sensation
and the golriness that they have no public benefit, no interest,
no actual resolution. There's made more work to the police
following up erroneous lead. We're very very careful to go
through our stories to make sure that they that they
stood up. There wasn't just because it was a great
story and we wouldn't met the truth get in the
way of that. But you know, it's really important because
(14:32):
I wouldn't be involved in it's not Steve. I think
that's the thing Eve, when I come in there not
As you know, fresh young journal is trying to make
a name, trying to resolve cases that we've grown up with,
live with no people affected by it, and that's that's
been really pleasing and fulfilling about this.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Do you think there should be an industry standard though,
because you kind of touched on something there which is
a bit of a bugbear for me, and that is
that anyone can have a podcast. Anyone can tell a story,
anyone can pretend they've gathered the facts, but can it
be very misleading to audiences who may not necessarily understand
that the people that they're listening to may just be
not fact checking their stories.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
It's like opinions and backsides. Everyone's got a podcast day,
So yeah, absolutely, I mean, let people do that. It's
just entertainment, but it doesn't persuade us from our mission.
I think, you know, which is obviously not in podcast land.
It's in television land. So there's a big audience at
home that's lived with these stories and they know them
and they want resolutions. So you know, if podcasts flow
on from there and they and they, you know, take
(15:28):
our material and do something else with it, great, but
make sure it's factual. And that's that's what we strive for.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
During production meetings, you know, there's a great depth of
conversation about sticking to the facts. And you know what
we also have to be mindful of is victims families
and we owe it to them. So you know, family
members do have a voice for their loved ones, and
that's I think Adam and I are pretty much show
on the Saint Page here. You know, we are both
(15:54):
stipers for fact and detail. We're not interested in assumptions
and opinions. Let's back it up with scientific, medical, forensic,
or corbitive evidence.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
He dragged me, kicking and screaming.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
To his page, Steve. It was interesting. I don't know
if you can hear it in my voice, but I
have tonsilatis. So that's really great for a podcast. Sorry
to my listeners, but it was kept me awake last night.
So I listened to a little podcasts and I typed
in mister Crawl and started listening to as many podcasts.
And it was interesting because I found a ex police
officer who I was going to mention, but then I
(16:26):
just thought, well, well, let's not call him out in case,
you know, you've got a strong opinion about this. But
he presented a very strong theory that a very recognizable
bank robber that was known in Victoria was actually mister Krule,
and then further developed story and and unfolded where he
believed that he knew who mister Krule was. I don't know,
(16:46):
did you hear that podcast? What do you think about
ex police officers well, joining podcasts like this to talk
about it well.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Then actually followed up a the misfortunate of him to
do that, and it simply wasn't true. True, No one
is true. I actually do it, not the whole that
they're indicating. And I found neighbors that are there. In
that period, the police were well aware of that well
known bank robber being in that area though, watching him
because of some robberies he was doing. If he was
taking girls in there, he was the most clever ductor
of all time because there was a neighbor across the
(17:13):
road as the biggest pig of all time, kept the
curtains and all the time. So this is the problem, Ben,
People don't go and do the work. But I don't
go on having a herald sun rand that story as well.
No one bothered to go and knock on the door,
you know. And the thing is the kids of that
bank robber who were shot there at at Tullamarine Airport
during a bank robbie, they have to live with this
sort of stuff where suddenly their father, who was a
(17:33):
good crook of bank robber, suddenly he is a child
molested abductor. And the thing is that everyone, God, that's
a good story. Let let it sit there. It's outrageous
and defametory and that you know, if only the dead
could sue normally would probably make a fortune.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
It's interesting, this is my interpretation when I was watching
watching your show and having my own ideas about things.
Could mister Crawle or the idea of mister Coole, who
was you know, the original tag name for this perpetrator
have maybe in buy a multiple people to copycat those attacks.
Do you think that there's a chance that because there
was so much information about the attacks presented to the
(18:08):
media about who this person was, that maybe it gave
evidence to the fact that this person was getting getting
away with it. Is there a chance that you have
believed that these are copycat situations?
Speaker 3 (18:19):
The fact was Melbourne at night was a dangerous place
in the subject. There wasn't just one or two, There
was plenty of these sort offenders out there. So we
see a range of crimes being committed, and yes, you
know they are copying each other to some extent, but
there's also we were seeing a lot of sex offenders
and other people with mental health issues being the institutionalized
in Victoria in the eighty This was one of the
(18:40):
consequences of that, So we have to look at the
legis sort of settings and say forth going on. But
I mean, I think you know, I mean, if you
wanted to copy this sort of a heinous crime where
you're taking young girl out of your other house, you know,
and abducting them and keeping them for multiple hours, possibly
of murdering them, that ain't any copycat I've ever seen.
You know, this is a very sick individual and they're
still out there and people know them.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yeah, my thoughts. We always look for particularmos and there
were a lot of red herrings in this mister Craul case,
and people are going to copy who knows. You usually
find that if a person has a particular course of conduct,
a particular MO is a particular language uses, you know,
(19:23):
typical you know, the same ties or restraint devices and
so on. You know, it's a criminal enterprise that they're
satisfying whether their needs, and a lot of them are opportunities,
but make a mistake. A lot of them plan. So
in this case, I think you find most of the
venders you know that commit sexual offenses know what they're doing,
(19:47):
plan what they're doing. Sometimes that may be opportunistic, but yeah,
doesn't spurn you copycats potentially, but usually in my experience
is sometimes there's mental health issues. Like Adam said, are
they copying because they just see what notoriety or are
they really offenders that praying and stalking their victims.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
And the problem we had back then was the basket
of suspects full of apples, oranges, pomegranites and other different
kinds of fruit, all fruits, all similar but not exactly
the same. And there was the lack of experience in China.
And I'm not just not cridative just the time of
the time, it's like experience and actually sorting out what
this person was. I mean, we had the head of
crime in Victoria. The in Victory police saved this guy
as a monster. He was told the exact opposite. This
(20:27):
guy's going to be a quiet individual who probably works
in community service or in schools or something like that.
He's not going to look like a monster. Yet we
have this enduring picture of this monster behind a balaklava,
which in fact is not mister Cruel. And I think
if you watch our show People, you'll see that they
did their best. But really from the beginning, this investigation
fell on its face and never got up. They tried
(20:48):
its best, and they have a whole bunch of facts
and myths, myths and legend that are still persisting to
this day.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
The fact that the photo of common Chan used predominantly
in the media was a much younger seemed to me
to be a much younger photo of her. It was
maybe almost nine months before a different photo was used.
Is that one of the most startling things when you
look back in twenty twenty four to this particular case
of common Chen. Do you look back now and see
(21:14):
that as being a huge issue.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
When it comes to witnesses and memory. We know memories
can be frailed in that. But I think from my perspective,
I think some of the mistakes and some of the
way some of the investigations were handled, you know, lack
of communication between task forces and that type of thing
is disappointing, you know, from an investigative methodology. You know,
(21:37):
when you've got forty detectives and some are talking to
others and not talking to lead investigators, I mean that
is problematic in itself. So and in some of the
other cases in the series, we've seen quite clear cases
of apathy, you know, lack of interest, lack of experience,
of skills, lack of investigative now which have all had
(21:59):
a flow on effect and obviously can effect investigations. Well,
that's how really hard the police involved really tried hard,
particularly those on the ground. I can't criticize them. The
problem was that the higher ups, the profile and so forth,
they decided this was one offender and they created an
identicate picture which to this to this day and it
simply was not the case. So we you know, it
closed up a lot of avenue.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
It said that it's more than likely that all these
cases are connected, when they did not have the evidence
to say so. In fact, the biological evidence, as we
deal with during our show, shows that they were never connected.
So you have a situation where you might have three
at best, and even that's some speculation, and there possibly
only two really that you can definitively say on the
basis that says a burden the proof. There's one guy
(22:43):
that was the problem. And the public pressure on the
task force to catch the villain as that were like
a Gotham City villain, like the penguinyl, you know, this
type of thing that mister cruel, you know, was so
great that they were actually chasing a ghost and they
let him get away.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Unfortunately, because of that, was it hard to get the
contributors to agree to telling that story? And were you
worried about pulling them in to a TV series like this?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
For sure. I've spent a long time on this case,
five or seven years researching it, and I'm staying the
victims over a long period like that, and I had
to find a reason that they should because it simply
wasn't enough that we could make a big splash and
go on television and get in the headlines, because they've
got to live with that story afterwards if there's still
no result. So the onus was on us to find
some new evidence that would justify them taking the risk
(23:25):
of going on television and you know, dealing with all
the issues around that. So I felt we were very
sure by the time we rolled cameras that we had
a significance of that a purpose and there wasn't just
for our pleasure and advancement.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
If I can just add something to that. You know,
there was a lot of conversations leading up to some
of these interviews, and you know, we were always mindful
of a number of things, and that was the safety
and wellbeing and the psychological care of people we've spoken
to and whatnot, because the whole basis of this show
is to do it in a professional, ethical manner, and
(24:01):
I think that we achieve that in some of the people.
And if they didn't take us into their trust, I'm
quite sure they wouldn't be involved. But you know, we
all had a common purpose, and I found that I
was very impressed with, you know, not just the production crew,
but Adam's approach, because, as Adam knows, when you're dealing
(24:23):
with different people and victims, you have to tread very
carefully because if it's not done correctly, perhaps ramifications and
we were quite mindful of that. And having dealt with
many many victims in my past, you know, I've found
that they want a boys and they want it to
be told in such a way that it is effective.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And sincere absolutely, what if something from behind the scenes
of the show, something that you learned, sort of a
behind the scenes secret about getting this show up and
running that the audiences won't say, kind of a behind
the scene secret of dances.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
I'd learned to think that when I was first approached
about this, I think we were mindful. We wanted to
produce the show that wasn't just a story reconstruction, interview
a couple of witnesses that actually really delved deeply into
the facts, you know, the investigators, all the information that
(25:19):
could really make a difference. So my takeaway was that
we had a show that was very concise, very specific.
We knew what the goals were, and we have the
ability now to reach out to many, many people that
can really make a difference. That was probably the thing
that meant the most to me For me.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
We was driving thousands of commas with Steve. A couple
of small incidents occurred when he suddenly began so that
my driver. It was terrible, I make the stupid but
what really that time gave us a lot of time
to get to know each other, to understand what made
each other chick and how we could add value to
these stories. And we were in quite a dynamic, changing
environment and there was a lot of planning on the runs,
(26:02):
and it was just an absolute pleasure to see the
professionalism of sun like Steve coming into our world. And
occasionally he turned to me in the middle of some chaos,
critis whatever did you say television filming because it's exactly
like this, mate, exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
The two of you are so my guys, thank you
so much. That's okay. The two of you are so
good in this show. I hope that people listening to
this check this show out. It's so fantastic, it's gripping,
it's everything that you want from a true crime television show.
And I'm so happy that Channel seven have worked with
the two of you on this. So yeah, congratulations on
the show boys, and yeah, I can't wait to watch
more of it.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Thanks you, good on you. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
See Elena
It's in the news today, but it was actually on
TV Reload, the podcast last Deep Thereby. Hey guys, welcome
back to TV Reload. Thank you for clicking and downloading.
On today's episode with Adam Shand and Steve Van Apern,
both involved in the new true crime investigation series The Hunters,
which starts this Monday night at seven thirty on Channel
seven and you can also catch up on on seven Plus.
(00:22):
The premier TV special The Hunter's Mister Krul involves legendary
investigative crime journalist Adam Shand and the human light detector
Steve Van Apern, who blow open Australia's most notorious cold cases.
They uncover new evidence and revelations that promise to turn
these cases on their heads, challenging the assumption that mister
Krule was escalating his crimes culminating in the murder of
(00:44):
Carmen Chan and the theory that this was the work
of one man. For the first time, a mister Cruel
survivor speaks out on the program and hopefully long forgotten
DNA found will potentially put a monster behind bars. Adam
Shand will talk about how he's journalistic career has changed
since podcasting and what he thinks of the standard of
podcasts in the true crime space. Steve van Apperin will
(01:08):
unpack his ability to read people, and I'll find out
how he knows when he's talking to a liar. We
will talk about the Mister Cruel case and what viewers
will potentially learn from facts never before seen. Plus we
will discuss the way in which they found contributors affected
by these crimes, how they ethically and honestly featured their
stories to hopefully gain more attention to solve these crimes.
(01:31):
There is actually so much to unpack with Adam and Steve,
as you can imagine if you probably can tell that
I've still got my cold, which is slightly annoying. But guys,
sit back and relax as we unpack the interesting world
of the hunters. Hi, Adam and Ben, Hey, how are.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You both rank? Beren? How are you good?
Speaker 1 (01:48):
But I'm with one of those things where it's a
podcast and I can't see you, so we'll have to
try and work out who's got the talking stick when
who gets to talk?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Just gives me an advance for Steve's very handsome and
I run it got pale by comparis and I've got
to chance.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
To you take it. I'll just pop in every now
and again.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Well, thank you for coming on the podcast and talking
about the Hunters. I have to say this show really
pricked my ears because I grew up in Templestow. When
I saw the story coming around, I was like, I
really want to talk to you guys about this great No.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
I think it's it's a story that gripped Melbourne from
the beginning. It's a story that was played out in
the Melbourne suburb. Everyone knew someone who lived near or
knew somebody else. They worked with. The parents no parents,
so that was safe to leave their kids at home
when this really began. So it is a story that
touched people like very few other stories I've covered in
forty years.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Mate, It's surprising to me that in my forties that
I have so many memories of three particular cases that
when I watched your show, I realized that I had
created those memories as facts because it had been such
a long time since i'd sort of thought about it.
Is that an interesting thing to hear, you know?
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I think that you know, we can all relate to
traumatic events, and like Adam said, I mean these actions
where you know, young girls I mean were help captive
for long periods of time, sexually assaulted. Really is and
was every parent's nightmare, and you know, really did change
the faith of Melbourne in so far as how safe
(03:15):
are our children? And it really affected not just you know,
the community, but a lot of the investigators on Spectrum
Task Force. They were so moved by what happened that
you know, they were inundated with hundreds and hundreds of
members offering to help in search door knocks, you know,
looking at houses and exists in any way they could.
(03:36):
I mean, let's not forget you know, thirty thousand houses
were searched, you know, twenty seven thousand potential suspects were canvassed.
So the investigation with forty task force detected across means
dollars to run. So it was like an investigation that
had never really been seen in Victoria. No, that's right.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I think the other thing that really exposed was the
fact that the cases that were reported were just the
tip of the iceberg. In the late eighties, there was
no rape squad in Victoria. The matter of rape and
particularly crimes against children were almost treated to social welfare issues.
So many things were never reported. And even now when
I talk about this case with people, they talk about
someone who was potentially a suspect, potentially knew something. It
(04:16):
was never reported. So this is a very deep, dark,
nasty chapter of Melbourne's history that needs to be cleared up.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We've moved a long way from that.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Do you think that the way in which the internet works,
in terms of everyone having an opinion or wanting to
retell their version of the story, cloud's you know, the truth,
does it make it harder to get to the bottom
of maybe what has actually happened.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Well, my view there is, I mean, we're now more
connected than we ever have been, and I having spent
fourteen years in the place, I'd like to consider myself
an optimist. And people do know, people do talk. I'm
convinced that there are people out there that, after this
show goes to air, will start talking. And I think
(04:59):
that sure there'll be you know, some people come forward
and it might be trivial or benign, but it could
be someone out there or several people out there to
have the key or information, no matter how small, that
could make a huge difference in this case.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Brother, you've got to be Optimius working with me and you know,
and the thing is that, as you've seen in our show,
there was a very critical piece of biological evidence which
has never been run. And back in eighty eight when
this was first collected, the database of forensic material and
Victoria was tiny, you couldn't use it. But now it's vas.
So my question to Victoria police and investigators on this
is what's happened to the DNA that's still there? Can
(05:36):
you look at it against later offenses? Because the thing
is this idea that he's dead or gone away, I
think is just bolicked. So there's nothing's no eedan to
support that. So I think he's still out there, and
I hope he's watching on the night we go to air,
and that he had to chew up his back for
the first time a decade. If it's only one offender.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
By the way, if it is only one offender, but
I think at the same time, you know, what's groundbreaking
about the show, and I don't want to take away
from the viewers watching it, is that there are multiple
theories about that possibility, that it is not just one person,
that it could be a multiple scenario. It's quite interesting
when you look at that. When it comes to DNA
and the work that's been done around the world on
unsolved crimes, it appears to be the biggest leap in
(06:12):
getting some of these cases solved. Why wouldn't the Victorian
police be focusing in on what DNA that they have, Like,
what's your theory on not pursuing that more while we're.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Going to take into a camp back there. Back then,
you know, there wasn't DNA wasn't widely used. I remember
in the old days going to crime scenes unless we
could do with blood groupings, whereas now DNA has come
such a long way. And I'm shunning an agreement with
Adam here. I mean, if we've got or detectives have
DNA samples, you know, whether collected from the crime scene
(06:45):
or in the locality, I mean, and they're stored and
this is the big question, you know, is it stored?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Where is it?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Can it be accessed and can it be matched on
a national database to potential sex offenders. I mean, I
believe that somewhere the evidence is there. But it's all
very well to have certain pieces of evidence, but we
need to maxim to an offender.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Yeah, but I think we can frame that Steve actually
agreed with me once first time, and not we work together.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
It comes from a journalistic background. I come from an
investigative crime factual background, so I'm about getting to the truth,
not necessarily telling a story. But Adam is a little
bit different like that, because Adam would have been a
fantastic detective because he is so dedicated, He's so driven,
And I've worked with many detectives in my life, but
I've never worked with anyone who is so clued up
(07:31):
and such a good inquisitive person. And you know, this
is how these crimes are going to be solved.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Yeah, and I agree with that. They I agree with
all that, of course, both.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Of you can. I just say it was really interesting
at certain points when I watched the dynamics of the
two of you talking, and I think both of you
have just kind of articulated exactly what I saw just
now by talking to me. But watching the dynamics of
the two of you and the different angles that you
came at seemed quite clear to me as a viewer.
I could see passion and I could see facts being gathered,
(08:03):
and I wondered whether or not it Sometimes whilst you
two get together and discuss these things whether you clash.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Well, there's about my driving. Apparently he's always bagging my driving.
But the other one was when we're to do a
door knock right and we're knocking on this door were
we do not quite know who's on the other side
of it, and then Steve is standing off to the side.
I'm saying, Steve, why an't you sending for it? In
case someone shoots us, you'll get the bullets. But thank
you very much, partner, you know. So that's the kind
of relationship.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
With I put up with, you know, Nurse Steve be
going to see he's a.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Wonderful forensic thinker who actually takes my kettle off the
boil a bit. It makes me think more and also
thinks about the corroboration about evidence. You know, it's not
just color and movement, but I think plenty of color
and movement. What Steve does as well, by the way
you see some of the episodes later on when he
gets a couple of people on the light detector and
the eye detect machine made his phenomenal. And I can't
(08:51):
wait for those episodes to come out because you can
see how useful this tool is and the range of
behavioral skills and the attitude to stee brings. You know,
this is going to really help us results in the future.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Steve, you are an ex cop and in the first
episode we are introduced to you as the human light detector.
I mean, I don't think the skill set is something
that you are trained to have. I actually think that's
something that's innate within us. Like if you're a person
who can read people, well, when did you know that
you had the skill to recognize that you're talking to
(09:21):
a liar?
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well? I was always interested in psychological profile and what
made serial killers and serial sex offenders pick and I
went over to the FBI and back then the behavioral
sciences unit was in Quantico. But you know I always
said this, I was a question asker and more than that,
I always thought I was a good listener. I mean
I could go to crimes and I can tell you
in minutes whether you know the scene is stage, whether
(09:45):
the offenders spend time with the victim post mortem, or
the body's been moved, all that type of thing. But
I think it's about having good effective observation and skills,
but also about analyzing the content and structure of what
people say. I've trained intelligent data to investigate it, and
I tell them I'm not here to teach you how
to interview. I'm here to introduce the psychology understanding what
(10:06):
makes people do what they do, but how to get
the best out of them when we interview them. So
I think we all had the ability to work out
if somebody is using BS on it, but I put
a methodology behind it, looking for verbal, nonverbal paralinguistic styles.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
I think the combination of my sort of self taught
journo type skills and stays very formal, scientific based skills,
it's quite complementary. And I think there's been moments where
someone sort of passed the polygraph that failed the interview
and it's just raised as questions. I mean, these things
are never feel through, so it's just it's another way
of examining the truth, turning it over and you know,
(10:42):
seeing how far we can get with it. It's a
tremendous combination. But you need to mend my career, Adam.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
We must be really enjoying this format of podcasting and
being able to tell stories in long form and delve
a little bit deeper. Being a journalist that has been
working for so many years. How has podcasting changed the
way which you do your work? Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Change everything. I mean, like you're seeing so many true
crime movies documentaries are coming from podcast now. This series
actually began from a podcast. I was working on Mister
Crule for an unnamed podcast platform, and I said, I
think I'm underselling this. So I spoke to Channel on
seven and WTFN and we realized this was a much
bigger thing. So one became sick. That was really on
(11:22):
the basis of reaching out to the audience in a
way that podcasting does better than anything else, and television
is sort of learning how to frame stories in that way.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
On that, why do you think the true crime has
become such a popular category amongst podcasts and television shows?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Well, going back to the forties and the fifties, Raymond
Chandler that a crime story is one that begins with
the tragedy, that the possibility of a happy ending, and
that's a story arc that actually endures to this day.
I think people do want to get behind either detective,
you know, solving the crime, or they feel empathy with
the victim, they feel anger, they feel it. Actually it's
(11:56):
a factor of their own lives, the lack of justice,
people's faith. There's many, many reasons, but it's certainly what
I find amazing though, is the amount of women who
love true crime then, you know, and not just you're
not just your common or garden, the really goryous I
call them a stabby. I love this sort of really really.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Even what could I do?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
So it's certainly a very big growth category and it's
taking over Steve.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Do you think that, like, do you think that it's
about the human studying in a certain way? Do you
think that men and women are fascinated equally about this
even though it is so gory, even though it is
so confronting, there seems to be something quite compelling about it.
And I wonder whether or not the way in which
it's being packaged up gives it that beginning in the
middle and an end which is quite satisfying.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
You know.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Is that probably why we see more revelations in podcasts
instead of leaving them open ended?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Yeah, look, I think you know, firstly, I think a
lot of people do have an insociable advertite for crime.
I remember I was in Washington, DC and I had meetings.
We see our Discovery Network and they were telling them
the stats that I think ninety seven percent of the
audience has seen, but they'd tune out when you know
there's not a successful resolution. So effectively, you know, we
(13:08):
I think we are inextricably drawn into these tales and
these cases. And I think also people generally do want
to help. I found that when I was working without them.
You know that people if they have information, they want
to talk about it. And in one of the episodes,
you know, people did have information but they were never
canvassed by the police. And I think podcasts like Adam
(13:31):
mentioned it and very effective way of getting the story
out there, but also inviting community conversations and that, and
this is what gets people talking and refreshing memories. And
sometimes even when I was an investigator, you know, the
smallest piece of information people just discount, wouldn't think it's important,
but sometimes they can be the key in solving these cases.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
I think there's always somebody out there, and I think
one of the catstrides of our series of someone knows
someone that knows something and getting it out there is
the key, and people are just a r I think
that one can really be solved. We chosen stories also
with the basis that we can add something there is
a possibility of a resolution because there are thousands and
thousands of podcasts that most of them are garbage that
(14:11):
they just they start from a full prement. They don't
have any new information. They they're long on the sensation
and the golriness that they have no public benefit, no interest,
no actual resolution. There's made more work to the police
following up erroneous lead. We're very very careful to go
through our stories to make sure that they that they
stood up. There wasn't just because it was a great
story and we wouldn't met the truth get in the
way of that. But you know, it's really important because
(14:32):
I wouldn't be involved in it's not Steve. I think
that's the thing Eve, when I come in there not
As you know, fresh young journal is trying to make
a name, trying to resolve cases that we've grown up with,
live with no people affected by it, and that's that's
been really pleasing and fulfilling about this.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Do you think there should be an industry standard though,
because you kind of touched on something there which is
a bit of a bugbear for me, and that is
that anyone can have a podcast. Anyone can tell a story,
anyone can pretend they've gathered the facts, but can it
be very misleading to audiences who may not necessarily understand
that the people that they're listening to may just be
not fact checking their stories.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
It's like opinions and backsides. Everyone's got a podcast day,
So yeah, absolutely, I mean, let people do that. It's
just entertainment, but it doesn't persuade us from our mission.
I think, you know, which is obviously not in podcast land.
It's in television land. So there's a big audience at
home that's lived with these stories and they know them
and they want resolutions. So you know, if podcasts flow
on from there and they and they, you know, take
(15:28):
our material and do something else with it, great, but
make sure it's factual. And that's that's what we strive for.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
During production meetings, you know, there's a great depth of
conversation about sticking to the facts. And you know what
we also have to be mindful of is victims families
and we owe it to them. So you know, family
members do have a voice for their loved ones, and
that's I think Adam and I are pretty much show
on the Saint Page here. You know, we are both
(15:54):
stipers for fact and detail. We're not interested in assumptions
and opinions. Let's back it up with scientific, medical, forensic,
or corbitive evidence.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
He dragged me, kicking and screaming.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
To his page, Steve. It was interesting. I don't know
if you can hear it in my voice, but I
have tonsilatis. So that's really great for a podcast. Sorry
to my listeners, but it was kept me awake last night.
So I listened to a little podcasts and I typed
in mister Crawl and started listening to as many podcasts.
And it was interesting because I found a ex police
officer who I was going to mention, but then I
(16:26):
just thought, well, well, let's not call him out in case,
you know, you've got a strong opinion about this. But
he presented a very strong theory that a very recognizable
bank robber that was known in Victoria was actually mister Krule,
and then further developed story and and unfolded where he
believed that he knew who mister Krule was. I don't know,
(16:46):
did you hear that podcast? What do you think about
ex police officers well, joining podcasts like this to talk
about it well.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Then actually followed up a the misfortunate of him to
do that, and it simply wasn't true. True, No one
is true. I actually do it, not the whole that
they're indicating. And I found neighbors that are there. In
that period, the police were well aware of that well
known bank robber being in that area though, watching him
because of some robberies he was doing. If he was
taking girls in there, he was the most clever ductor
of all time because there was a neighbor across the
(17:13):
road as the biggest pig of all time, kept the
curtains and all the time. So this is the problem, Ben,
People don't go and do the work. But I don't
go on having a herald sun rand that story as well.
No one bothered to go and knock on the door,
you know. And the thing is the kids of that
bank robber who were shot there at at Tullamarine Airport
during a bank robbie, they have to live with this
sort of stuff where suddenly their father, who was a
(17:33):
good crook of bank robber, suddenly he is a child
molested abductor. And the thing is that everyone, God, that's
a good story. Let let it sit there. It's outrageous
and defametory and that you know, if only the dead
could sue normally would probably make a fortune.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
It's interesting, this is my interpretation when I was watching
watching your show and having my own ideas about things.
Could mister Crawle or the idea of mister Coole, who
was you know, the original tag name for this perpetrator
have maybe in buy a multiple people to copycat those attacks.
Do you think that there's a chance that because there
was so much information about the attacks presented to the
(18:08):
media about who this person was, that maybe it gave
evidence to the fact that this person was getting getting
away with it. Is there a chance that you have
believed that these are copycat situations?
Speaker 3 (18:19):
The fact was Melbourne at night was a dangerous place
in the subject. There wasn't just one or two, There
was plenty of these sort offenders out there. So we
see a range of crimes being committed, and yes, you
know they are copying each other to some extent, but
there's also we were seeing a lot of sex offenders
and other people with mental health issues being the institutionalized
in Victoria in the eighty This was one of the
(18:40):
consequences of that, So we have to look at the
legis sort of settings and say forth going on. But
I mean, I think you know, I mean, if you
wanted to copy this sort of a heinous crime where
you're taking young girl out of your other house, you know,
and abducting them and keeping them for multiple hours, possibly
of murdering them, that ain't any copycat I've ever seen.
You know, this is a very sick individual and they're
still out there and people know them.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yeah, my thoughts. We always look for particularmos and there
were a lot of red herrings in this mister Craul case,
and people are going to copy who knows. You usually
find that if a person has a particular course of conduct,
a particular MO is a particular language uses, you know,
(19:23):
typical you know, the same ties or restraint devices and
so on. You know, it's a criminal enterprise that they're
satisfying whether their needs, and a lot of them are opportunities,
but make a mistake. A lot of them plan. So
in this case, I think you find most of the
venders you know that commit sexual offenses know what they're doing,
(19:47):
plan what they're doing. Sometimes that may be opportunistic, but yeah,
doesn't spurn you copycats potentially, but usually in my experience
is sometimes there's mental health issues. Like Adam said, are
they copying because they just see what notoriety or are
they really offenders that praying and stalking their victims.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
And the problem we had back then was the basket
of suspects full of apples, oranges, pomegranites and other different
kinds of fruit, all fruits, all similar but not exactly
the same. And there was the lack of experience in China.
And I'm not just not cridative just the time of
the time, it's like experience and actually sorting out what
this person was. I mean, we had the head of
crime in Victoria. The in Victory police saved this guy
as a monster. He was told the exact opposite. This
(20:27):
guy's going to be a quiet individual who probably works
in community service or in schools or something like that.
He's not going to look like a monster. Yet we
have this enduring picture of this monster behind a balaklava,
which in fact is not mister Cruel. And I think
if you watch our show People, you'll see that they
did their best. But really from the beginning, this investigation
fell on its face and never got up. They tried
(20:48):
its best, and they have a whole bunch of facts
and myths, myths and legend that are still persisting to
this day.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
The fact that the photo of common Chan used predominantly
in the media was a much younger seemed to me
to be a much younger photo of her. It was
maybe almost nine months before a different photo was used.
Is that one of the most startling things when you
look back in twenty twenty four to this particular case
of common Chen. Do you look back now and see
(21:14):
that as being a huge issue.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
When it comes to witnesses and memory. We know memories
can be frailed in that. But I think from my perspective,
I think some of the mistakes and some of the
way some of the investigations were handled, you know, lack
of communication between task forces and that type of thing
is disappointing, you know, from an investigative methodology. You know,
(21:37):
when you've got forty detectives and some are talking to
others and not talking to lead investigators, I mean that
is problematic in itself. So and in some of the
other cases in the series, we've seen quite clear cases
of apathy, you know, lack of interest, lack of experience,
of skills, lack of investigative now which have all had
(21:59):
a flow on effect and obviously can effect investigations. Well,
that's how really hard the police involved really tried hard,
particularly those on the ground. I can't criticize them. The
problem was that the higher ups, the profile and so forth,
they decided this was one offender and they created an
identicate picture which to this to this day and it
simply was not the case. So we you know, it
closed up a lot of avenue.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
It said that it's more than likely that all these
cases are connected, when they did not have the evidence
to say so. In fact, the biological evidence, as we
deal with during our show, shows that they were never connected.
So you have a situation where you might have three
at best, and even that's some speculation, and there possibly
only two really that you can definitively say on the
basis that says a burden the proof. There's one guy
(22:43):
that was the problem. And the public pressure on the
task force to catch the villain as that were like
a Gotham City villain, like the penguinyl, you know, this
type of thing that mister cruel, you know, was so
great that they were actually chasing a ghost and they
let him get away.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Unfortunately, because of that, was it hard to get the
contributors to agree to telling that story? And were you
worried about pulling them in to a TV series like this?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
For sure. I've spent a long time on this case,
five or seven years researching it, and I'm staying the
victims over a long period like that, and I had
to find a reason that they should because it simply
wasn't enough that we could make a big splash and
go on television and get in the headlines, because they've
got to live with that story afterwards if there's still
no result. So the onus was on us to find
some new evidence that would justify them taking the risk
(23:25):
of going on television and you know, dealing with all
the issues around that. So I felt we were very
sure by the time we rolled cameras that we had
a significance of that a purpose and there wasn't just
for our pleasure and advancement.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
If I can just add something to that. You know,
there was a lot of conversations leading up to some
of these interviews, and you know, we were always mindful
of a number of things, and that was the safety
and wellbeing and the psychological care of people we've spoken
to and whatnot, because the whole basis of this show
is to do it in a professional, ethical manner, and
(24:01):
I think that we achieve that in some of the people.
And if they didn't take us into their trust, I'm
quite sure they wouldn't be involved. But you know, we
all had a common purpose, and I found that I
was very impressed with, you know, not just the production crew,
but Adam's approach, because, as Adam knows, when you're dealing
(24:23):
with different people and victims, you have to tread very
carefully because if it's not done correctly, perhaps ramifications and
we were quite mindful of that. And having dealt with
many many victims in my past, you know, I've found
that they want a boys and they want it to
be told in such a way that it is effective.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And sincere absolutely, what if something from behind the scenes
of the show, something that you learned, sort of a
behind the scenes secret about getting this show up and
running that the audiences won't say, kind of a behind
the scene secret of dances.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
I'd learned to think that when I was first approached
about this, I think we were mindful. We wanted to
produce the show that wasn't just a story reconstruction, interview
a couple of witnesses that actually really delved deeply into
the facts, you know, the investigators, all the information that
(25:19):
could really make a difference. So my takeaway was that
we had a show that was very concise, very specific.
We knew what the goals were, and we have the
ability now to reach out to many, many people that
can really make a difference. That was probably the thing
that meant the most to me For me.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
We was driving thousands of commas with Steve. A couple
of small incidents occurred when he suddenly began so that
my driver. It was terrible, I make the stupid but
what really that time gave us a lot of time
to get to know each other, to understand what made
each other chick and how we could add value to
these stories. And we were in quite a dynamic, changing
environment and there was a lot of planning on the runs,
(26:02):
and it was just an absolute pleasure to see the
professionalism of sun like Steve coming into our world. And
occasionally he turned to me in the middle of some chaos,
critis whatever did you say television filming because it's exactly
like this, mate, exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
The two of you are so my guys, thank you
so much. That's okay. The two of you are so
good in this show. I hope that people listening to
this check this show out. It's so fantastic, it's gripping,
it's everything that you want from a true crime television show.
And I'm so happy that Channel seven have worked with
the two of you on this. So yeah, congratulations on
the show boys, and yeah, I can't wait to watch
more of it.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Thanks you, good on you. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
See Elena
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.