1
00:00:01,840 --> 00:00:04,640
Speaker 1: We are only going to get better, like our evidence

2
00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:06,680
Speaker 1: is only going to get better as we go through,

3
00:00:06,800 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: as people come forward.

4
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:10,320
Speaker 2: And I would have been heartbroken if I had to

5
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:12,960
Speaker 2: turn around to her and say I can't broadcast that

6
00:00:13,039 --> 00:00:15,320
Speaker 2: interview because the lawyers won't let me.

7
00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:17,680
Speaker 1: He could have really blown up that we were giving

8
00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:20,720
Speaker 1: his daughter a voice to express her opinion about this.

9
00:00:21,079 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 2: He looked furious. It was almost like he knew this

10
00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:25,239
Speaker 2: day was coming.

11
00:00:25,400 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 1: The classic thing of not denying the black and white

12
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:33,440
Speaker 1: allegation did he murder and actually picking up and denying

13
00:00:33,479 --> 00:00:36,920
Speaker 1: and having a go about all these other peripheral matters.

14
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,560
Speaker 2: Welcome to the ninth update episode of De Rochelle. You're

15
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:46,720
Speaker 2: behind the scenes access to this live podcast investigation series.

16
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 2: I'm your host, Ashley Hanson. Investigative journalism can uncover extraordinary stories,

17
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,160
Speaker 2: but it also involves a huge amount of commitment and

18
00:00:57,280 --> 00:00:59,000
Speaker 2: work before you even.

19
00:00:58,800 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 3: Push the record button.

20
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 2: From deep dives into thousands of documents and interviews with

21
00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:09,959
Speaker 2: former cops, witnesses and experts, to the extensive research our

22
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:11,880
Speaker 2: team carries out in the background.

23
00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:15,080
Speaker 3: There's a lot you don't hear in the final edit.

24
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:19,839
Speaker 2: But beyond journalism, there's another layer that's just as critical

25
00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:25,080
Speaker 2: the legal one. Investigating Rochelle's case in real time brings

26
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 2: major legal challenges, especially when it comes to serious allegations

27
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:32,560
Speaker 2: and key evidence that comes to light in the cold

28
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:37,440
Speaker 2: case investigation. Like dear Rochelle, for the first time, we're

29
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:40,440
Speaker 2: lifting the lid on that side of things. Joining me

30
00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 2: is Justin Quill, media and litigation lawyer and partner at

31
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:48,040
Speaker 2: major law firm Thomson Gear. Justin and his team have

32
00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:52,520
Speaker 2: been advising us, guiding us through complex legal territory as

33
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 2: we've navigated Rochelle's case.

34
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 3: Justin, welcome, great to be here.

35
00:01:56,840 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 4: Ash.

36
00:01:57,200 --> 00:02:01,280
Speaker 2: Firstly, tell me what does a media litigation lawyer do?

37
00:02:01,640 --> 00:02:02,960
Speaker 2: How do you spend your days?

38
00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:06,800
Speaker 1: I guess I'd describe myself as a content lawyer. I'm

39
00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 1: really about the content. I'm not doing agreements and deals

40
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:17,519
Speaker 1: between companies. I'm talking to edits and journalists about what

41
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:20,880
Speaker 1: we can put in newspapers or on TV or in podcasts,

42
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:24,359
Speaker 1: and then if something goes wrong, someone sues, or there's

43
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 1: a contempt of court issue, then I'm defending us about

44
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:29,360
Speaker 1: that content.

45
00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:30,960
Speaker 4: So everything is content for me.

46
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,480
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get content published and then if there's

47
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,840
Speaker 1: any issues with that content that's published, then I'm trying

48
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,800
Speaker 1: to mop up those issues and go to court and

49
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:41,560
Speaker 1: try and defend us.

50
00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 2: Why do unsolved cases like for shells require careful legal

51
00:02:45,600 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 2: consideration in the oversight before publishing.

52
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:53,919
Speaker 1: There's a whole stack of reasons why needs legal oversight.

53
00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:58,000
Speaker 1: One of the main ones is deformation, of course, because

54
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:01,520
Speaker 1: when we're looking at a cold case, as was the.

55
00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:04,960
Speaker 4: Case here, you know, you start to zero in on.

56
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:10,239
Speaker 1: People and you start to suspect that this suspect is

57
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:13,200
Speaker 1: perhaps the person who may may well have done it,

58
00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:15,560
Speaker 1: and that's that's defametry, and so you've got to be

59
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:18,960
Speaker 1: careful that we make sure we've got defenses.

60
00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:23,320
Speaker 4: We've sent podcasts in the in the past where.

61
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:26,360
Speaker 1: People have zeroed in on a particular person and it

62
00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 1: turns out, yes, they did do it. Well, that's all fine,

63
00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:31,880
Speaker 1: but what if they didn't, And we've got to be

64
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 1: we've got to be alive to that possibility and making

65
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:38,760
Speaker 1: sure that we can defend whatever we publish in a

66
00:03:38,800 --> 00:03:42,200
Speaker 1: podcast in court if someone decides to su us. There's

67
00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:44,960
Speaker 1: other things as well. You know, there might be victims

68
00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:48,760
Speaker 1: of sexual offense issues. You can't identify victims of sexual offenses.

69
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:51,640
Speaker 1: There could be family court stuff, you know, if there's

70
00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:54,480
Speaker 1: intervention orders that involve kids, or there's a there's a

71
00:03:54,520 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 1: bust up and there's a custody dispute. We've got to

72
00:03:58,040 --> 00:04:02,000
Speaker 1: be live to that be contempt of court issues as well.

73
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:06,360
Speaker 1: So there's all sorts of issues legal issues I have

74
00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 1: in my mind when I'm reading a story or listening

75
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,080
Speaker 1: to a podcast, I've got like probably dozens of things

76
00:04:13,080 --> 00:04:16,080
Speaker 1: that I'm sort of going through in my mind. Yep,

77
00:04:16,160 --> 00:04:18,520
Speaker 1: that's fine, that's fine. Oh, I better think about this one.

78
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:20,440
Speaker 1: How am I going to deal with that? That's fine,

79
00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: that's fine. Oh what about this other issue? So there's dozens,

80
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:26,479
Speaker 1: but probably the big ones defamation, contempt of court, and

81
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:29,640
Speaker 1: then all the other things like victims of sexual offense, identification,

82
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 1: things like that.

83
00:04:30,360 --> 00:04:33,120
Speaker 2: And can you tell us more about your experience in

84
00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 2: defamation and defending publishers like News Corp. And I know

85
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 2: you've defended Channel ten as well on some really high

86
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:41,840
Speaker 2: profile cases.

87
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:45,800
Speaker 1: I started in nineteen ninety seven. After a little while,

88
00:04:45,839 --> 00:04:47,800
Speaker 1: I sort of moved up the ranks and ended up

89
00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:51,160
Speaker 1: taking over the practice, and we've then built this practice.

90
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 1: Now I think it's fair to say we've probably got

91
00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:55,320
Speaker 1: the biggest practice in the country. Not probably, we do,

92
00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 1: and we do act for all of Channel seven, Tail nine,

93
00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:02,800
Speaker 1: Channel ten. Then we've got NewsCorp of course, some Fairfax

94
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,360
Speaker 1: and so where we've defended them and everything from say

95
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:10,640
Speaker 1: the Bruce Lheman case for Champ ten, We've done plenty

96
00:05:10,680 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: of fairly high profile ones for news called news car

97
00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:17,599
Speaker 1: was literally I think my first day in the office

98
00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:19,960
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety seven, I think the first file I

99
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,960
Speaker 1: got was a news Corp file. So I've been acting

100
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:28,080
Speaker 1: for a news carp for literally decades. So back then

101
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 1: it was more heavily skewed to defamation. You know, deformation

102
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:35,880
Speaker 1: was a bigger issue, especially in Sydney. It was a

103
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:39,880
Speaker 1: bigger issue than it perhaps is now. There's less deformation

104
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:43,320
Speaker 1: out with. The laws have changed slightly. I think they're

105
00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:47,920
Speaker 1: still too plaintive friendly, but they are not quite as

106
00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:50,279
Speaker 1: plaintive friendly as they were perhaps ten years ago.

107
00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:52,880
Speaker 2: What is the message that gets sent to the public

108
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:56,640
Speaker 2: when plaintiffs fail in their bid to suit?

109
00:05:57,120 --> 00:06:01,240
Speaker 1: Look, I can't tell you what you would have to

110
00:06:01,279 --> 00:06:04,320
Speaker 1: say about me on the front page of a newspaper

111
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:06,640
Speaker 1: to make me want to sue I think it is

112
00:06:06,720 --> 00:06:10,240
Speaker 1: just such a bad idea to soon Now you look

113
00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:13,880
Speaker 1: at Ben Roberts Smith, Bruce Werman, like they're probably the

114
00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:17,719
Speaker 1: post boys for why you would not sue. You also

115
00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:22,440
Speaker 1: have Hollywood celebrities who take take something nasty said about

116
00:06:22,440 --> 00:06:25,520
Speaker 1: them and turn it into something massive, you.

117
00:06:25,520 --> 00:06:27,839
Speaker 4: Know, a little bit like the barber strais at effect.

118
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 1: You know, like it's a bad idea generally, and what

119
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:34,360
Speaker 1: you never get You never make money out of defamation

120
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:35,320
Speaker 1: if you're a plaintiff.

121
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:38,520
Speaker 4: People see these big payouts.

122
00:06:38,760 --> 00:06:41,480
Speaker 1: Someone's got three hundred thousand dollars or four hundred thousand.

123
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:45,040
Speaker 1: What most plaintives don't even realize is that they might

124
00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: have to spend a million dollars on a case, and

125
00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 1: if they win it, they get their costs back, but

126
00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:53,760
Speaker 1: that's only usually sixty or seventy percent, So they're out

127
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:56,479
Speaker 1: of pocket three or four hundred thousand that might be

128
00:06:56,520 --> 00:06:58,960
Speaker 1: paid for by the three hundred or four hundred thousand

129
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:02,279
Speaker 1: dollars images award. So basically they get back to zero

130
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:04,040
Speaker 1: and they make no money out of it, and they're

131
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:06,719
Speaker 1: risking if they lose, spending.

132
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:08,920
Speaker 4: A million dollars and having to pay the publisher.

133
00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:13,000
Speaker 1: Let's say six hundred thousand, so they're risking one point

134
00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:18,000
Speaker 1: six million to win zero. And I often say to

135
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:19,960
Speaker 1: people who come and ask me, should I sue so

136
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:23,160
Speaker 1: and so, I say, take your money, go down to

137
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:25,200
Speaker 1: the casino. I'll put it all on red or black

138
00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:28,680
Speaker 1: and you'd be much better off. Cases like Lerman and

139
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:31,960
Speaker 1: Ben Roberts Smith tell people that it's a bad idea

140
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:32,440
Speaker 1: to sue.

141
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:35,840
Speaker 2: In terms of our case and our investigation into the

142
00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 2: unsolved murder of Rochelle Childs, there were multiple persons of

143
00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:45,920
Speaker 2: interest and there was a suspect, Kevin Stephen Corell. How

144
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 2: did you analyze that risk before we published?

145
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 1: You came to me right at the start, before you

146
00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: sat in front of a microphone. You came to me

147
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 1: and said, look, here's what we've got so far on

148
00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: this case. And before we even talk about someone being

149
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:06,800
Speaker 1: a suspect, we need to be able to know that

150
00:08:06,840 --> 00:08:08,840
Speaker 1: we're going to be able to prove that they were

151
00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:09,560
Speaker 1: a suspect, that.

152
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:13,680
Speaker 4: There are reasonable grounds to suspect they're guilty of this crime.

153
00:08:14,360 --> 00:08:17,400
Speaker 1: So firstly, I'm looking at, Okay, where are the risks

154
00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:18,080
Speaker 1: are going to be?

155
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:19,440
Speaker 4: You know, is there a contempt of court?

156
00:08:19,520 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: Is there a victim of sexual offense type risk in

157
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: this or is it all deformation? And if it's all defamation,

158
00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:30,960
Speaker 1: then who is the person who we are most at

159
00:08:31,040 --> 00:08:33,600
Speaker 1: risk to? You know, who are we most likely to

160
00:08:33,720 --> 00:08:37,160
Speaker 1: be defaming? It might be defaming a few people, and

161
00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:39,440
Speaker 1: then I'm thinking, Okay, well, how do we defend that?

162
00:08:40,040 --> 00:08:44,920
Speaker 1: And the most important way to defend something is to

163
00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:49,319
Speaker 1: be really careful and cautious about the imputations or the

164
00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:52,920
Speaker 1: meanings you convey in what you broadcast.

165
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:56,360
Speaker 4: So to be really simple about that.

166
00:08:56,840 --> 00:08:59,599
Speaker 1: Rather than saying someone is guilty of a crime, we

167
00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:02,360
Speaker 1: only want to say they're a suspect that there are

168
00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:06,840
Speaker 1: reasonable grounds for suspecting that they may have committed a crime.

169
00:09:07,280 --> 00:09:10,080
Speaker 1: So once we sort of set some ground rules like that,

170
00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:12,960
Speaker 1: then I'm looking at, Okay, what evidence have we got

171
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:17,720
Speaker 1: to prove that they there are reasonable grounds for suspecting

172
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:19,160
Speaker 1: What are those reasonable grounds?

173
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:21,880
Speaker 2: What do you think the risk was of Kevin Correll

174
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 2: leaving the imputation that he was suspected of murdering Rachelle

175
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:30,040
Speaker 2: Childs And what gave you comfort to believe that that

176
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 2: was fair and accurate reporting?

177
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:34,480
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that's a great question.

178
00:09:34,559 --> 00:09:38,720
Speaker 1: So by the time we got to be to do

179
00:09:38,800 --> 00:09:43,360
Speaker 1: the first podcast. I was pretty relaxed about our ability

180
00:09:43,400 --> 00:09:47,120
Speaker 1: to prove at the very least, at the very least

181
00:09:47,200 --> 00:09:49,200
Speaker 1: that there were reasonable.

182
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:50,400
Speaker 4: Grounds for suspecting he did it.

183
00:09:51,600 --> 00:09:55,959
Speaker 1: And I was very comfortable about that now on what basis, Well,

184
00:09:56,000 --> 00:09:57,920
Speaker 1: there was a whole sack of things. I mean, we'd

185
00:09:57,960 --> 00:10:00,320
Speaker 1: almost have to go through the whole podcast here is

186
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:04,080
Speaker 1: to do that. But you know, some of the big

187
00:10:04,080 --> 00:10:09,080
Speaker 1: ones was the phone data, you know, increases in technology

188
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 1: that allowed us to say what he said about his

189
00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:15,600
Speaker 1: whereabouts probably wasn't correct, some of the evidence about the

190
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:20,240
Speaker 1: way he turned up the day after the murder he's

191
00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:23,720
Speaker 1: conduct A big one, of course, was when his daughter

192
00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:28,000
Speaker 1: Jazz came forward and what she said about this the

193
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:33,079
Speaker 1: bikey story, where he said to her, I've never said

194
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 1: that it was done by bikes, and Jazz said she

195
00:10:37,720 --> 00:10:40,240
Speaker 1: knew that he had said that he'd said that to her,

196
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,679
Speaker 1: So you know that that's just I've just, off the

197
00:10:43,720 --> 00:10:45,640
Speaker 1: top of my head just named a couple of the

198
00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:49,560
Speaker 1: key things, the whole stack of things. And I think,

199
00:10:49,800 --> 00:10:53,760
Speaker 1: as I said to you before we got into episode one,

200
00:10:54,280 --> 00:10:58,200
Speaker 1: I remember saying, we're only going to get better like

201
00:10:58,320 --> 00:11:00,560
Speaker 1: our evidence is only going to get or as we

202
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:03,679
Speaker 1: go through, as people come forward. Jazz a perfect example,

203
00:11:04,440 --> 00:11:10,200
Speaker 1: the phone data expert coming forward as well. You know,

204
00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:12,720
Speaker 1: we've got to set amount of evidence as we go

205
00:11:12,760 --> 00:11:15,880
Speaker 1: into episode one, and it's not like that evidence is

206
00:11:15,920 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: just suddenly going to disappear. Jaws possible that some of

207
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:23,480
Speaker 1: it might get undermined a little bit, but generally speaking,

208
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:27,440
Speaker 1: the evidence you've got remains, and then all you do

209
00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:30,679
Speaker 1: as you go along, you usually find that you're going

210
00:11:30,720 --> 00:11:33,160
Speaker 1: to build on that evidence, whether it be in relation

211
00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:34,839
Speaker 1: to Kevin, or it might have been someone else it.

212
00:11:34,800 --> 00:11:37,240
Speaker 4: Might have been. As we rolled along through it, Well, there.

213
00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:41,200
Speaker 1: Were reasonable grounds for suspecting Kevin wasn't the person, but

214
00:11:41,600 --> 00:11:46,520
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that Joe Smith over here, that evidence

215
00:11:46,559 --> 00:11:48,400
Speaker 1: doesn't come out and all of a sudden our podcast

216
00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:51,640
Speaker 1: might have taken a very different turn towards them. So

217
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 1: I was sort of mindful of all of that, and

218
00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:57,439
Speaker 1: then I guess i'd overlay this really important point.

219
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:01,520
Speaker 4: And I don't want to unnecessarily pump.

220
00:12:01,320 --> 00:12:03,839
Speaker 1: You up here, Ash, but you know it was all

221
00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:07,000
Speaker 1: your hard work when you came to me and I said, yeah, sure,

222
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:08,720
Speaker 1: I'll look at what you've got to give you an advice,

223
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:11,360
Speaker 1: and I thought that won't take me too long. And

224
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:15,800
Speaker 1: then you've given me an absolute plethora of material and

225
00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:18,719
Speaker 1: I could see how hard you'd worked on it, and

226
00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 1: court transcripts, all these historic data, people you'd interviewed, and

227
00:12:23,960 --> 00:12:25,920
Speaker 1: it was really the thing that gave me a lot

228
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:28,440
Speaker 1: of comfort was the hard work that had gone into it.

229
00:12:28,520 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 1: And there's no as is always the case, there's no

230
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:37,280
Speaker 1: substitute for hard work, and getting your approach.

231
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:39,560
Speaker 4: Was very open minded at the start.

232
00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:41,960
Speaker 1: There's a whole stack of people that could be we're

233
00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:45,559
Speaker 1: investigating this cold case and I don't know who it is,

234
00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:49,120
Speaker 1: but I'm going to do the work in order to

235
00:12:49,880 --> 00:12:53,280
Speaker 1: try and expose either who it is or just at

236
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,040
Speaker 1: least expose some of the data so that.

237
00:12:55,960 --> 00:12:58,640
Speaker 4: People can form their own opinions.

238
00:12:58,920 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 1: But it was hard work and that open attitude that

239
00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 1: should be the case for investative journalism that gave me

240
00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:07,319
Speaker 1: a lot of comfort.

241
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:09,240
Speaker 3: Well, thank you for those compliments.

242
00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:12,600
Speaker 2: It has been a big investigation and a team effort

243
00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:15,520
Speaker 2: to get to this point. When you're working on these

244
00:13:15,559 --> 00:13:19,640
Speaker 2: stories behind the scenes your end, how many people are

245
00:13:19,679 --> 00:13:22,600
Speaker 2: assisting you in your analysis and advice.

246
00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 1: We've got a very big team here a dozen people

247
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: in the Thompson Gear Media team. But on something like this,

248
00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:32,600
Speaker 1: you really have to get into the detail of it.

249
00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 1: You've got to understand how this fact impacts this fact

250
00:13:35,640 --> 00:13:40,120
Speaker 1: and then explains this fact. And so you can't really

251
00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:43,559
Speaker 1: have a stack of people working on it. It's just

252
00:13:43,640 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 1: going to cost too much if everyone's going to be

253
00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:49,360
Speaker 1: across all of the details. So, for example, this podcast

254
00:13:49,400 --> 00:13:53,360
Speaker 1: was really just me and Samantha mcgek. Samantha's a senior

255
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:57,960
Speaker 1: associate who's worked with our team for I don't know

256
00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:04,640
Speaker 1: more than ten years. Samantha was across every single detail.

257
00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:07,959
Speaker 1: And of course we're looking at we're looking at you

258
00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:10,800
Speaker 1: all your draft scripts, We're looking at the evidence, we're

259
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:12,920
Speaker 1: looking at the interviews, we're looking at emails that we're

260
00:14:12,960 --> 00:14:16,600
Speaker 1: going out to ask people for their response to things.

261
00:14:16,640 --> 00:14:19,840
Speaker 1: We're looking at the front pages. And so Samantha's across

262
00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:24,000
Speaker 1: every single detail and then bringing to me and really

263
00:14:24,040 --> 00:14:27,960
Speaker 1: doing the legwork and the hard work and bringing to me, look,

264
00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 1: hey this, I think this is a real issue.

265
00:14:30,600 --> 00:14:32,640
Speaker 4: You've got to get right across the detail of.

266
00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:35,560
Speaker 1: This and making sure, you know, literally coloring me and

267
00:14:35,640 --> 00:14:38,040
Speaker 1: saying read this you need to be across the detail,

268
00:14:38,520 --> 00:14:42,120
Speaker 1: just ensuring that you have two brains bouncing each other,

269
00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 1: bouncing ideas off each other. I need to otherwise I

270
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:48,720
Speaker 1: could get myself in a bit of an echo chamber.

271
00:14:48,760 --> 00:14:51,360
Speaker 1: I need to be able to say, Hey, Sam, what

272
00:14:51,440 --> 00:14:53,600
Speaker 1: do you think about this? Or have her say hey, Curly,

273
00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:56,120
Speaker 1: what do you think about this? And that's really important.

274
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:00,560
Speaker 1: Also two people reading it, so that you not missing

275
00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:03,880
Speaker 1: details and you're not missing things. Sam was apps I'm

276
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:06,840
Speaker 1: sitting up here talking about my thoughts here, my thoughts

277
00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 1: that there wouldn't have been one thought that I had

278
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:14,320
Speaker 1: on this podcast that didn't involve.

279
00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:15,640
Speaker 4: Discussion with Sam, not not one.

280
00:15:15,800 --> 00:15:19,520
Speaker 1: So it was definitely a team effort, just a small

281
00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:22,560
Speaker 1: team on the legal side as part of the much

282
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:25,120
Speaker 1: wider team working on it.

283
00:15:25,280 --> 00:15:29,840
Speaker 2: Yes, she was a superstar. Just on Kevin Correll before publishing.

284
00:15:30,360 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 2: What was the level of risk to publish so much

285
00:15:34,040 --> 00:15:37,840
Speaker 2: material in relation to him and allegations against him?

286
00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:40,480
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I was reasonably comfortable with the level

287
00:15:40,480 --> 00:15:44,000
Speaker 1: of risk because you'd done all the work and it

288
00:15:44,040 --> 00:15:47,880
Speaker 1: was an investigative journalist pieces defenses in the act, in

289
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:51,080
Speaker 1: the Defamation Act that say, if you're doing this sort

290
00:15:51,120 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 1: of public interest journalism, investigative journalism, and you're balanced, which

291
00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:00,520
Speaker 1: we were. We made sure we conveyed not an imputation

292
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:03,560
Speaker 1: of guilt, but one of only reasonable grants for suspicion.

293
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:07,640
Speaker 1: I was reasonably comfortable with the risk level. But our

294
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:10,880
Speaker 1: risk level usually lowers as we go forward. The reason

295
00:16:10,920 --> 00:16:14,560
Speaker 1: I say that is because the evidence we've got remains.

296
00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:18,920
Speaker 1: But as you're doing the podcast, more and more people

297
00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:21,480
Speaker 1: are coming forward, and more and more evidence is coming

298
00:16:21,480 --> 00:16:25,400
Speaker 1: out of the woodwork, and so you're adding to the

299
00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:28,000
Speaker 1: evidence you've got. So wherever your risk level is on

300
00:16:28,080 --> 00:16:31,560
Speaker 1: day one, usual in writion to a certain person, you're

301
00:16:31,640 --> 00:16:34,360
Speaker 1: usually going to be less as you go forward because

302
00:16:34,520 --> 00:16:39,240
Speaker 1: you're going to get more evidence. There's no better resource

303
00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:44,760
Speaker 1: for police or investigative journalists than the public. And this

304
00:16:44,840 --> 00:16:49,960
Speaker 1: is why for cold cases or crimes generally the police

305
00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:53,680
Speaker 1: often put out rewards. It's to try and entice the

306
00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:59,440
Speaker 1: public to assist them. And having literally thousands of people

307
00:16:59,560 --> 00:17:04,840
Speaker 1: thinking about these sorts of things and perhaps remembering things

308
00:17:04,880 --> 00:17:10,200
Speaker 1: that they'd forgotten at the time and giving information, that's

309
00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:13,760
Speaker 1: the best resource. As good as one investigative journalist could be.

310
00:17:14,200 --> 00:17:19,320
Speaker 1: They're never going to trump ten thousand potential witnesses out there,

311
00:17:19,680 --> 00:17:24,520
Speaker 1: all providing their assistance. So that's why I felt like

312
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:28,160
Speaker 1: the risk levels probably going to improve as we went forward,

313
00:17:28,320 --> 00:17:29,480
Speaker 1: rather than go the other way.

314
00:17:29,600 --> 00:17:33,800
Speaker 2: I remember our first conversation, though, and I was really

315
00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:38,480
Speaker 2: nervous about being able to publish the interview i'd done

316
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:43,000
Speaker 2: with Jane, who had accused Kevin of rape in nineteen

317
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:47,520
Speaker 2: eighty and he was tried under his previous name Kevin

318
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:51,679
Speaker 2: Cornwall and was acquitted. Now, I remember sharing with you

319
00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:55,560
Speaker 2: my concerns about that interview because she gave me her time,

320
00:17:55,760 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 2: she trusted me with her interview, and I would have

321
00:17:58,520 --> 00:18:01,080
Speaker 2: been heartbroken if I had to turn around to her

322
00:18:01,080 --> 00:18:04,359
Speaker 2: and say, I can't broadcast that interview because.

323
00:18:04,600 --> 00:18:07,320
Speaker 3: The lawyers won't let me. Can you take us back

324
00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:08,719
Speaker 3: to that conversation.

325
00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:12,040
Speaker 1: The lawyers are always painted as the bad guys in

326
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:16,320
Speaker 1: these scenarios. Only one other thing to why I was

327
00:18:16,320 --> 00:18:22,280
Speaker 1: comfortable in investigative journalism is trust. Is building trust with

328
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:26,800
Speaker 1: the subjection of your interviews. You know potential witnesses. You know,

329
00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:31,240
Speaker 1: witnesses are everything in every case. So in terms of

330
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:36,080
Speaker 1: the rape cases and the rape allegations, I actually felt

331
00:18:36,160 --> 00:18:41,359
Speaker 1: like those cases assisted us in relation to.

332
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:43,320
Speaker 4: Kevin.

333
00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:46,960
Speaker 1: I think we were closer to conveying in relation to

334
00:18:47,040 --> 00:18:49,119
Speaker 1: him gilt in the part.

335
00:18:49,000 --> 00:18:50,000
Speaker 4: Of those rape cases.

336
00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:54,160
Speaker 1: And if you take the case where he was pardon

337
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:56,359
Speaker 1: the phrase, but which we caught with his pants down.

338
00:18:57,320 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 4: He was in the car with the victim. Police turn up.

339
00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:03,840
Speaker 1: She jumps out of the car, she's half dressed, and

340
00:19:03,920 --> 00:19:06,320
Speaker 1: she runs to the police and says, you know, this

341
00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:09,879
Speaker 1: has just happened. The police walk up and there he

342
00:19:10,080 --> 00:19:13,679
Speaker 1: is literally doing himself up, and he gets taken down

343
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:16,840
Speaker 1: the police station. He pretty much admits it, but his

344
00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:21,600
Speaker 1: excuse effectively was, well, she asked for it. Now, Like

345
00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:24,160
Speaker 1: I mean, even as I say that now, it's hard

346
00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:28,159
Speaker 1: to even imagine in twenty twenty five someone's saying that

347
00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:30,320
Speaker 1: and someone getting.

348
00:19:30,040 --> 00:19:32,320
Speaker 4: Away with it. But they were the bad old days, you.

349
00:19:32,320 --> 00:19:35,080
Speaker 1: Know, I'm happy happy to say, well before my time,

350
00:19:35,720 --> 00:19:39,280
Speaker 1: you know, the nineteen seventies, eighties, maybe even in the

351
00:19:39,359 --> 00:19:44,640
Speaker 1: early nineties, victims were almost the defendants in rape trials,

352
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:47,440
Speaker 1: you know, and evidence led and they were cross examined

353
00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:53,960
Speaker 1: on their sexual history. Now that's not allowed today, nor

354
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:57,960
Speaker 1: should it be. But so you know, she was asking

355
00:19:58,040 --> 00:20:02,280
Speaker 1: for it. Type of attitude would not fly in twenty

356
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:06,360
Speaker 1: twenty five. So I actually felt like, you know, okay,

357
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:09,840
Speaker 1: if he sueses, we're going to be able to prove

358
00:20:09,920 --> 00:20:14,040
Speaker 1: the truth that he raped this woe and perhaps the

359
00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:16,400
Speaker 1: others as well, but at least in relation to that one,

360
00:20:17,400 --> 00:20:18,000
Speaker 1: I felt like.

361
00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:20,320
Speaker 4: We're going to be able to prove the truth.

362
00:20:20,920 --> 00:20:23,639
Speaker 1: And so what we had then and again this is

363
00:20:23,720 --> 00:20:25,440
Speaker 1: quite a technical point, but this is sort of the

364
00:20:25,480 --> 00:20:28,040
Speaker 1: analysis that I was going through.

365
00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:30,440
Speaker 4: What we have is weighing.

366
00:20:30,160 --> 00:20:35,640
Speaker 1: Up just an allegation of reasonable suspicion of murder versus

367
00:20:36,600 --> 00:20:41,480
Speaker 1: actual rape guilty of rape. Now, I think now murder

368
00:20:41,560 --> 00:20:44,000
Speaker 1: might be considered in the eyes of the law, more

369
00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:48,960
Speaker 1: serious than rape, but an allegation of murder a reasonable

370
00:20:49,000 --> 00:20:53,680
Speaker 1: suspicion of murder is not more serious in my view

371
00:20:54,320 --> 00:20:57,960
Speaker 1: than an actual guilty finding of rape. So I thought,

372
00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:02,840
Speaker 1: if he sueses and says, well, you conveyed that you

373
00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:05,840
Speaker 1: know I'm a suspect and I wasn't we turn around

374
00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:08,040
Speaker 1: and say, well, we also said you were a rapist

375
00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:12,440
Speaker 1: and you were. So I actually felt like the rapes

376
00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:17,800
Speaker 1: assisted us in lowering risk in relation to Kevin. That's

377
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:22,760
Speaker 1: a discreet and very specific bit of legal analysis that

378
00:21:22,840 --> 00:21:26,960
Speaker 1: I conducted there, and it's perhaps slightly counterintuitive.

379
00:21:27,000 --> 00:21:29,840
Speaker 4: You know, you might have thought that I was going to.

380
00:21:29,760 --> 00:21:33,200
Speaker 1: Say, we can't talk about him being a potential rapist.

381
00:21:33,280 --> 00:21:35,320
Speaker 1: That's going to make it riskier. I actually felt it

382
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:36,000
Speaker 1: went the other way.

383
00:21:36,119 --> 00:21:39,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, that did surprise me because you said to me,

384
00:21:39,840 --> 00:21:44,000
Speaker 2: don't find more victims, and there were more victims out there,

385
00:21:44,400 --> 00:21:46,919
Speaker 2: and some of them did agree to speak on the

386
00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 2: record as well, which was, like you say, it still

387
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:52,879
Speaker 2: blows my mind that some of them spoke on the record,

388
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:56,359
Speaker 2: and all because they were motivated by the fact that

389
00:21:56,400 --> 00:22:00,480
Speaker 2: it could help in getting justice for Rachelle. Certainly, the

390
00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:04,760
Speaker 2: case against Kevin Corell is very much a circumstantial case.

391
00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:10,280
Speaker 2: Many investigators would describe it as a strong circumstantial case,

392
00:22:10,760 --> 00:22:15,240
Speaker 2: but there was never a charge, so they did fall

393
00:22:15,280 --> 00:22:18,879
Speaker 2: short on finding enough evidence to be able to charge

394
00:22:18,920 --> 00:22:22,240
Speaker 2: him with murder. Let's talk about the phone ping data

395
00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:26,480
Speaker 2: and how that changed the case. My colleague Patrick Carline

396
00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:30,720
Speaker 2: found Dr Matthew Serell at the Mushroom Cook trial in

397
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:33,679
Speaker 2: Melbourne and reached out to him and asked him if

398
00:22:33,680 --> 00:22:38,639
Speaker 2: he'd analyzed Rachelle's mobile phone data from her case, and

399
00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:43,439
Speaker 2: he agreed from your perspective, when that came through that analysis,

400
00:22:43,480 --> 00:22:47,439
Speaker 2: and he was so definitive that it was impossible for

401
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:49,960
Speaker 2: Kevin Corell to have made that six o' eight phone

402
00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:53,080
Speaker 2: call from the Campbelltown area where he says he was.

403
00:22:54,440 --> 00:22:57,639
Speaker 3: What did you take away from that interview?

404
00:22:57,840 --> 00:23:01,639
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought that evidence was really important because unlike

405
00:23:01,720 --> 00:23:05,480
Speaker 1: the evidence about for example, he turned up the next

406
00:23:05,560 --> 00:23:09,560
Speaker 1: day after the murder, and he looked he looked really terrible.

407
00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:11,439
Speaker 4: It looked like he'd had a big night or a

408
00:23:11,520 --> 00:23:12,960
Speaker 4: late night or something like that.

409
00:23:13,119 --> 00:23:18,480
Speaker 1: You know, that's very subjective evidence. Foam Pin data is

410
00:23:18,680 --> 00:23:23,680
Speaker 1: very very objective evidence. It's hard, it's impossible for him

411
00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:27,440
Speaker 1: to argue he being Kevin, for him to argue with it.

412
00:23:27,960 --> 00:23:34,439
Speaker 1: And it really does demonstrate advances in technology from the

413
00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:39,359
Speaker 1: time of the initial investigation and coroner's inquiry to the

414
00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:44,960
Speaker 1: time of your investigation that allowed this data to come

415
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:49,680
Speaker 1: out and so not only causing to question is alibi

416
00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:54,639
Speaker 1: and completely undermines it, it separately puts him in around

417
00:23:54,680 --> 00:23:58,520
Speaker 1: about the vicinity or the area that we think Rachelle was,

418
00:23:59,200 --> 00:24:03,120
Speaker 1: and so it puts him rather than the alibi and

419
00:24:03,160 --> 00:24:04,280
Speaker 1: taking him out of the frame.

420
00:24:04,359 --> 00:24:06,119
Speaker 4: This puts him right in the frame.

421
00:24:06,880 --> 00:24:09,320
Speaker 1: And the other thing then it does is you know,

422
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:11,600
Speaker 1: one of my concerns the entire way through.

423
00:24:11,640 --> 00:24:14,879
Speaker 4: And I know in your question you noted that he

424
00:24:15,000 --> 00:24:15,840
Speaker 4: was never charged.

425
00:24:16,280 --> 00:24:20,000
Speaker 1: True, that is worse than that in some respects there

426
00:24:20,040 --> 00:24:21,640
Speaker 1: was an open finding at the.

427
00:24:21,560 --> 00:24:23,280
Speaker 4: Coroner's in quest.

428
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:25,800
Speaker 1: Now that was something that was in the back of

429
00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:27,080
Speaker 1: my mind the whole way through.

430
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:27,639
Speaker 4: Now, this.

431
00:24:29,440 --> 00:24:33,800
Speaker 1: Evidence, of course about the phone pink data wasn't available

432
00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:34,840
Speaker 1: to the coroner.

433
00:24:34,480 --> 00:24:37,200
Speaker 4: At the time, and so not only is it.

434
00:24:38,520 --> 00:24:41,000
Speaker 1: Undermine his alibi and putting more in the frame by

435
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:46,320
Speaker 1: putting him in the approximate area, but it also then

436
00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:52,200
Speaker 1: allows you to explain away why perhaps that open finding

437
00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:58,639
Speaker 1: occurred and major wonder would in twenty twenty five, with

438
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:04,320
Speaker 1: this phone evidence being available and is our by undermine,

439
00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:07,840
Speaker 1: would would a coroner still make an open finding?

440
00:25:07,880 --> 00:25:09,320
Speaker 4: And I would have thought no.

441
00:25:09,560 --> 00:25:13,200
Speaker 1: But so that's that's why I thought it was really important.

442
00:25:13,359 --> 00:25:17,440
Speaker 1: Fantastic work by Patrick. It's exactly what we're talking about

443
00:25:17,440 --> 00:25:20,119
Speaker 1: this whole this whole case was about. It was about

444
00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:24,920
Speaker 1: investigative journalism, and you know that was just an example

445
00:25:24,960 --> 00:25:26,800
Speaker 1: of investigative journalism at its best.

446
00:25:27,160 --> 00:25:32,440
Speaker 2: Dear Rochelle is a multimedia investigation. So fundamentally there's a podcast,

447
00:25:32,920 --> 00:25:37,359
Speaker 2: but there's also printed articles in newsical papers that go

448
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:43,040
Speaker 2: out nationally, online stories, videos, and social media content. How

449
00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:46,119
Speaker 2: do you analyze the risk for each publication.

450
00:25:46,560 --> 00:25:48,920
Speaker 1: The law is the same whether it be a front

451
00:25:48,920 --> 00:25:51,560
Speaker 1: page of a newspaper versus podcasts or even the six

452
00:25:51,600 --> 00:25:55,920
Speaker 1: pm news, But there are of course different dynamics. In

453
00:25:55,920 --> 00:25:59,960
Speaker 1: a podcasts you might have people going into more detail

454
00:26:00,119 --> 00:26:02,919
Speaker 1: than you will in the front page newspaper article. You

455
00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:08,200
Speaker 1: also have perhaps more music and pregnant pauses and all

456
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:12,360
Speaker 1: sorts of things that can create drama and arguably give

457
00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:15,639
Speaker 1: a different meaning. So you've got to think always about

458
00:26:15,640 --> 00:26:18,679
Speaker 1: the meaning that's being conveyed. I must say it's an

459
00:26:18,680 --> 00:26:21,399
Speaker 1: interesting dynamic as well when you're dealing with someone else,

460
00:26:21,480 --> 00:26:23,359
Speaker 1: you know, like the newspaper.

461
00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 4: Editors then come in and they don't.

462
00:26:26,119 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 1: Not necessarily know the story quite as well as you

463
00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:31,359
Speaker 1: do ash you know, which is not surprising, and so

464
00:26:32,119 --> 00:26:36,280
Speaker 1: you know they're they're critically analyzing how is it that

465
00:26:36,280 --> 00:26:38,000
Speaker 1: we can say this or why are we doing that?

466
00:26:39,040 --> 00:26:44,760
Speaker 1: And so you're then explaining the advice to the newspaper editor.

467
00:26:45,160 --> 00:26:47,439
Speaker 1: Then they've got their own interest you're running the story

468
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:49,720
Speaker 1: in the copy, but you've got to think also about

469
00:26:49,800 --> 00:26:54,080
Speaker 1: headlines and things like that. So there's a whole lot

470
00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:56,640
Speaker 1: of stuff going on, their whole lot of dynamics. Look,

471
00:26:56,680 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I've got to weigh

472
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:02,880
Speaker 1: up all of these factors, and there's dozens, maybe hundreds

473
00:27:02,920 --> 00:27:06,639
Speaker 1: of different factors that go into it. To make sure

474
00:27:07,280 --> 00:27:12,640
Speaker 1: that my advice allows you, guys the journalist, to produce

475
00:27:12,840 --> 00:27:19,040
Speaker 1: content that is commercially valuable and viable, but that.

476
00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:20,199
Speaker 4: Isn't too risky.

477
00:27:20,680 --> 00:27:25,480
Speaker 1: And so it's really about balancing those things, risk versus

478
00:27:25,520 --> 00:27:28,080
Speaker 1: reward and making sure we hit the right balance.

479
00:27:28,320 --> 00:27:31,840
Speaker 2: Just on front pages, and we had a few. You

480
00:27:31,920 --> 00:27:36,119
Speaker 2: took particular interest in the Jazz front page where she

481
00:27:36,440 --> 00:27:41,200
Speaker 2: was openly accusing her father, Kevin Carell, of murder.

482
00:27:42,280 --> 00:27:43,240
Speaker 3: Let's talk about that.

483
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:46,000
Speaker 2: Front page and the work that went into it from

484
00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:47,520
Speaker 2: your side of things.

485
00:27:47,920 --> 00:27:51,080
Speaker 4: Yeah, I remember. I'm from Warnable.

486
00:27:51,160 --> 00:27:53,760
Speaker 1: Originally I was driving home from Warnable when the front

487
00:27:53,760 --> 00:27:56,520
Speaker 1: page came in, So I was in the car looking

488
00:27:56,520 --> 00:27:57,520
Speaker 1: at the headlines.

489
00:27:58,200 --> 00:27:59,680
Speaker 4: We've done the copy, but I was looking at the

490
00:27:59,680 --> 00:28:00,439
Speaker 4: head lines and.

491
00:28:02,320 --> 00:28:06,200
Speaker 1: Discussing it with Ben English, the editor of the Tally

492
00:28:07,200 --> 00:28:12,160
Speaker 1: defamation is like very different to most causes of action.

493
00:28:12,600 --> 00:28:16,000
Speaker 1: You know, if there's a dispute a contractor speit between

494
00:28:16,040 --> 00:28:21,119
Speaker 1: two companies, it's very blackweather. You know, you agreed to

495
00:28:21,160 --> 00:28:23,159
Speaker 1: do this and you didn't do it. There you go

496
00:28:23,200 --> 00:28:24,840
Speaker 1: and you have an argument about it, and you go

497
00:28:24,880 --> 00:28:30,000
Speaker 1: after court. Defamation is very emotional. It's an emotional tool,

498
00:28:30,040 --> 00:28:33,680
Speaker 1: and people are accused of things on a podcast or

499
00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 1: in a podcast, or on a front page of a newspaper,

500
00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:41,479
Speaker 1: they react emotionally. And so I was mindful that this

501
00:28:41,640 --> 00:28:46,480
Speaker 1: wasn't just an allegation being leveled at Kevin by well

502
00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:50,360
Speaker 1: by you ash or by by one of his former

503
00:28:50,800 --> 00:28:56,479
Speaker 1: colleagues at the car yard, like, this was his daughter,

504
00:28:56,920 --> 00:29:01,720
Speaker 1: and I was very mindful of how that might impact

505
00:29:01,920 --> 00:29:03,959
Speaker 1: his decision making.

506
00:29:04,200 --> 00:29:07,320
Speaker 4: And of course could go two ways. He could have really.

507
00:29:07,160 --> 00:29:11,080
Speaker 1: Blown up that we were giving his daughter a voice

508
00:29:11,280 --> 00:29:13,960
Speaker 1: to express her opinion about this, or it could have

509
00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:18,120
Speaker 1: been the opposite. It might have made him sort of

510
00:29:18,120 --> 00:29:21,800
Speaker 1: think about think about his actions. That's a hard thing

511
00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:25,280
Speaker 1: to judge, but I was very very mindful of the

512
00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:29,040
Speaker 1: emotion of that front page and the impact on him. Normally,

513
00:29:29,120 --> 00:29:33,400
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about the reasonable reader because that's what the

514
00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:35,440
Speaker 1: law talks about. But in that case, I was also

515
00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:39,840
Speaker 1: very mindful of not just the reasonable reader, but Kevin

516
00:29:39,920 --> 00:29:40,320
Speaker 1: as well.

517
00:29:40,440 --> 00:29:44,680
Speaker 2: What gave you comfort to approve from your side of things,

518
00:29:44,720 --> 00:29:48,240
Speaker 2: the publishing of Jazz's story and to put it on

519
00:29:48,280 --> 00:29:49,040
Speaker 2: the front page.

520
00:29:49,320 --> 00:29:50,360
Speaker 4: Probably a few things, right.

521
00:29:50,520 --> 00:29:53,880
Speaker 1: Number one, just the all the evidence that we had generally,

522
00:29:54,280 --> 00:29:58,320
Speaker 1: quite apart from Jazz. Number two, this was her opinion

523
00:29:59,120 --> 00:30:02,520
Speaker 1: and that's what she was to she was expressing her opinion.

524
00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:06,240
Speaker 1: And then number three was something specifically about what she

525
00:30:06,600 --> 00:30:10,440
Speaker 1: was saying, and that was Hit denied to her that

526
00:30:10,560 --> 00:30:13,760
Speaker 1: he'd made up this story about Bike's having been the

527
00:30:13,760 --> 00:30:19,840
Speaker 1: ones that cut off Rochelle's finger, and Jazz knew that

528
00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:23,320
Speaker 1: he had told her that, so he told her that

529
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:25,160
Speaker 1: years earlier.

530
00:30:24,800 --> 00:30:26,560
Speaker 4: And then denied it later.

531
00:30:27,120 --> 00:30:31,440
Speaker 1: That was the moment that she felt in her opinion,

532
00:30:31,920 --> 00:30:34,800
Speaker 1: she felt that he had done it, and that was

533
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:37,560
Speaker 1: very specific evidence, and I thought it was great evidence,

534
00:30:37,760 --> 00:30:39,320
Speaker 1: and it was evidence that it was going to be

535
00:30:39,720 --> 00:30:44,720
Speaker 1: hard for him to deny or counter. So I guess,

536
00:30:44,800 --> 00:30:47,960
Speaker 1: were those three things the general evidence we had in

537
00:30:48,000 --> 00:30:51,920
Speaker 1: the case, her really just saying this is.

538
00:30:52,040 --> 00:30:54,600
Speaker 4: My feeling, this is my opinion.

539
00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:57,240
Speaker 1: And then it was that specific evidence that she brought

540
00:30:57,280 --> 00:31:00,680
Speaker 1: to the table about the allegation, and that.

541
00:31:00,840 --> 00:31:04,200
Speaker 4: All his denial that he had made the allegation about

542
00:31:04,600 --> 00:31:06,120
Speaker 4: the bike, he's cutting off her finger.

543
00:31:06,520 --> 00:31:13,120
Speaker 2: You mentioned emotion before, and so many families have estranged relationships,

544
00:31:13,240 --> 00:31:17,040
Speaker 2: and it's not entirely uncommon for a father and a

545
00:31:17,160 --> 00:31:20,120
Speaker 2: daughter to be estranged. So I had to as a

546
00:31:20,160 --> 00:31:26,560
Speaker 2: journalist consider Jazz's motivations for wanting to speak publicly about

547
00:31:26,560 --> 00:31:31,080
Speaker 2: her father and justify that as well, because I wanted

548
00:31:31,080 --> 00:31:33,840
Speaker 2: to be cautious that it wasn't just her way to

549
00:31:33,880 --> 00:31:36,960
Speaker 2: get back at her father because of how he treated

550
00:31:36,960 --> 00:31:40,440
Speaker 2: her over the years. But I did strongly believe that

551
00:31:40,520 --> 00:31:44,720
Speaker 2: her motivation was to help Rochelle's case, because I weighed

552
00:31:44,840 --> 00:31:46,680
Speaker 2: up in my mind, well, what's she going to get

553
00:31:46,680 --> 00:31:50,520
Speaker 2: out of this? You know, she wasn't using her full identity,

554
00:31:51,240 --> 00:31:54,080
Speaker 2: and I think that she was going to come under

555
00:31:54,080 --> 00:31:58,040
Speaker 2: a lot of criticism from her family and also such

556
00:31:58,040 --> 00:32:02,080
Speaker 2: a big step for someone to tag to publicly accuse

557
00:32:02,600 --> 00:32:06,040
Speaker 2: your father of murder. But she felt so strongly about it,

558
00:32:06,080 --> 00:32:10,840
Speaker 2: so I was comfortable. What were your feelings on Jazz's

559
00:32:10,880 --> 00:32:16,680
Speaker 2: motivation and the public interest of broadcasting and publishing her story.

560
00:32:17,120 --> 00:32:19,960
Speaker 1: So you and I were worried about the same thing,

561
00:32:20,040 --> 00:32:23,240
Speaker 1: or considering the same thing, but for different reasons.

562
00:32:23,560 --> 00:32:24,800
Speaker 4: You're thinking about it, as.

563
00:32:24,640 --> 00:32:27,480
Speaker 1: You just sort of said there about the journalistic side

564
00:32:27,520 --> 00:32:29,360
Speaker 1: of things. You know, I don't want to be used

565
00:32:30,120 --> 00:32:37,080
Speaker 1: effectively or give her the opportunity to vent and have

566
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:39,240
Speaker 1: a go when it might not be true. That's good

567
00:32:39,320 --> 00:32:41,440
Speaker 1: journalism to be thinking about those things.

568
00:32:42,080 --> 00:32:45,800
Speaker 4: I'm thinking but for a different reason of the same thing.

569
00:32:46,080 --> 00:32:48,600
Speaker 1: And what I'm thinking about is how is this going

570
00:32:48,640 --> 00:32:50,719
Speaker 1: to work on the witness stand She's got to give

571
00:32:50,760 --> 00:32:54,440
Speaker 1: evidence in as part of our defense of a defamation case,

572
00:32:55,080 --> 00:32:59,320
Speaker 1: and is she going to get ripped apart by a

573
00:32:59,440 --> 00:33:02,160
Speaker 1: smart seeing your counsel on the other side and cross

574
00:33:02,200 --> 00:33:05,640
Speaker 1: examination when they are able to put to her the

575
00:33:05,800 --> 00:33:08,800
Speaker 1: very things you're talking about. You know that you just

576
00:33:08,800 --> 00:33:10,959
Speaker 1: just made this up because you were angry about your

577
00:33:10,960 --> 00:33:11,800
Speaker 1: father because.

578
00:33:11,600 --> 00:33:14,560
Speaker 4: Of X, Y and Z. So we're both thinking about

579
00:33:14,600 --> 00:33:15,400
Speaker 4: the same things.

580
00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:19,640
Speaker 1: Motive is really important one of the things that I

581
00:33:19,840 --> 00:33:20,280
Speaker 1: factored in.

582
00:33:20,360 --> 00:33:22,040
Speaker 4: I'm not sure you and I have actually talked to

583
00:33:22,120 --> 00:33:22,960
Speaker 4: me about this part of it.

584
00:33:22,960 --> 00:33:26,760
Speaker 1: Ash, but it wasn't like you started the podcast and

585
00:33:26,840 --> 00:33:29,920
Speaker 1: Jazz came running out of the shadows and said, hey, hey,

586
00:33:30,200 --> 00:33:30,680
Speaker 1: I'd like.

587
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:31,640
Speaker 4: To tell my story.

588
00:33:32,640 --> 00:33:36,960
Speaker 1: You had to build trust with her over a significant

589
00:33:37,680 --> 00:33:43,600
Speaker 1: length of time, and slowly, I think is she probably

590
00:33:44,160 --> 00:33:49,200
Speaker 1: you know, the empathy for the victims family. I think

591
00:33:49,280 --> 00:33:53,000
Speaker 1: that drove her slowly to change from a position of

592
00:33:53,560 --> 00:33:57,000
Speaker 1: I don't want to tell my story too, I've got

593
00:33:57,000 --> 00:33:59,560
Speaker 1: to tell my story. You can get a bit of

594
00:33:59,560 --> 00:34:05,800
Speaker 1: an insight into someone's motive depending on how quickly they

595
00:34:05,840 --> 00:34:09,560
Speaker 1: are to say I'll tell my story. If she'd come,

596
00:34:09,760 --> 00:34:12,239
Speaker 1: if she'd wrung you on day one and say, you know,

597
00:34:12,280 --> 00:34:13,879
Speaker 1: where's the studio? I want to come in and tell

598
00:34:13,920 --> 00:34:16,040
Speaker 1: my story, we might have been a little bit more

599
00:34:16,080 --> 00:34:18,719
Speaker 1: suspicious than we were.

600
00:34:20,400 --> 00:34:21,480
Speaker 4: As things unfolded.

601
00:34:21,520 --> 00:34:24,640
Speaker 1: You having to build the trust and draw out of

602
00:34:24,680 --> 00:34:27,120
Speaker 1: her and convince her that it was the right thing

603
00:34:27,200 --> 00:34:30,239
Speaker 1: to do for her to tell her story. So what

604
00:34:30,320 --> 00:34:33,600
Speaker 1: really did she get to gain? Did she have to

605
00:34:33,640 --> 00:34:38,040
Speaker 1: gain from this? Other and quite a lot of heartache frankly, So, yeah, Look,

606
00:34:38,080 --> 00:34:40,360
Speaker 1: I think we're both thinking about the same thing and

607
00:34:40,440 --> 00:34:43,240
Speaker 1: came to the same conclusion, but probably for different reasons.

608
00:34:43,280 --> 00:34:45,680
Speaker 1: You're thinking about the journalism of it, and I'm thinking

609
00:34:45,680 --> 00:34:46,919
Speaker 1: about how it's going to look in court.

610
00:34:47,040 --> 00:34:50,040
Speaker 2: Let's talk now about someone else who was brave enough

611
00:34:50,040 --> 00:34:53,000
Speaker 2: to speak on the record and you had to analyze

612
00:34:53,120 --> 00:34:57,680
Speaker 2: her comments. Was Kevin Carrell's ex wife, who we referred

613
00:34:57,719 --> 00:35:01,440
Speaker 2: to as a Lease in the podcast page. Also another

614
00:35:01,560 --> 00:35:05,560
Speaker 2: episode that was dedicated to her memories of being married

615
00:35:05,600 --> 00:35:08,200
Speaker 2: to Kevin. What were some of the things you were

616
00:35:08,239 --> 00:35:11,919
Speaker 2: conscious of when you were analyzing those comments and what

617
00:35:12,000 --> 00:35:14,919
Speaker 2: you were comfortable in publishing.

618
00:35:14,560 --> 00:35:15,840
Speaker 4: Exactly the same point.

619
00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:22,320
Speaker 1: As a general rule, testimony or evidence or information from

620
00:35:22,680 --> 00:35:28,279
Speaker 1: the ex partner, male or female, you've got to start

621
00:35:28,320 --> 00:35:32,480
Speaker 1: from a position of questioning it and suspicion if you like,

622
00:35:32,680 --> 00:35:37,239
Speaker 1: about the motivation. So in exactly the same way as

623
00:35:37,239 --> 00:35:41,400
Speaker 1: I just described Jazz's position and how you were analyzing

624
00:35:41,480 --> 00:35:46,280
Speaker 1: her motivation, we did the same thing for Kevin's x. Ultimately,

625
00:35:46,560 --> 00:35:49,839
Speaker 1: we're pretty careful about how we did that and how

626
00:35:49,920 --> 00:35:54,160
Speaker 1: we treated that. All the same considerations were at play, Frankly,

627
00:35:54,360 --> 00:35:54,920
Speaker 1: and I'll.

628
00:35:54,760 --> 00:35:57,440
Speaker 2: Just say as well, it is a fast moving investigation,

629
00:35:57,719 --> 00:36:01,680
Speaker 2: so you can't predict who's going to come forward and

630
00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:05,560
Speaker 2: what was going to happen next. So that's why there

631
00:36:05,640 --> 00:36:07,880
Speaker 2: wasn't a lot of notice sometimes that we did have

632
00:36:07,960 --> 00:36:10,799
Speaker 2: to change. And one of the things that came in

633
00:36:10,920 --> 00:36:15,719
Speaker 2: extremely late, and I know my producer to my left here,

634
00:36:15,760 --> 00:36:20,640
Speaker 2: Reese Gunter, he was across the publication of the very

635
00:36:20,680 --> 00:36:25,480
Speaker 2: first response we got from Kevin Correll, which came in

636
00:36:25,560 --> 00:36:30,200
Speaker 2: response to an email I sent him about the allegations

637
00:36:30,280 --> 00:36:34,279
Speaker 2: leveled against him by Elise, his ex wife. What did

638
00:36:34,320 --> 00:36:39,000
Speaker 2: you make of that response? Because he made some very

639
00:36:39,719 --> 00:36:43,799
Speaker 2: strong denials, denied every allegation that I put to him

640
00:36:43,800 --> 00:36:48,240
Speaker 2: in relation to his ex wife, but interestingly, he didn't

641
00:36:48,280 --> 00:36:51,600
Speaker 2: deny murdering or hurting Rachelle.

642
00:36:51,760 --> 00:36:52,120
Speaker 4: Yeah.

643
00:36:52,239 --> 00:36:55,359
Speaker 1: I mean, I think this goes back to the thing

644
00:36:55,440 --> 00:37:00,279
Speaker 1: about defamation being an emotional an emotional cause of action

645
00:37:00,400 --> 00:37:05,239
Speaker 1: and emotional taught And pretty much the only time we

646
00:37:05,360 --> 00:37:10,200
Speaker 1: heard from him with any substance was on that was

647
00:37:10,520 --> 00:37:12,880
Speaker 1: it on that occasion, you know, where he's responding to

648
00:37:12,920 --> 00:37:15,480
Speaker 1: his ex wife, And I think that just speaks to

649
00:37:16,640 --> 00:37:18,799
Speaker 1: the emotion of it and how it sort of really

650
00:37:18,880 --> 00:37:24,160
Speaker 1: hit hit a nerve for him. So, I mean, I

651
00:37:24,200 --> 00:37:28,040
Speaker 1: thought that was I thought that was interesting. And you know,

652
00:37:28,440 --> 00:37:31,800
Speaker 1: people people don't necessarily have a great deal of insight

653
00:37:31,920 --> 00:37:36,080
Speaker 1: into what they're doing and saying and how what they're

654
00:37:36,120 --> 00:37:38,680
Speaker 1: doing and saying will be perceived by others when they

655
00:37:38,719 --> 00:37:41,799
Speaker 1: are emotional and think about it ourselves. You know, when

656
00:37:41,800 --> 00:37:43,960
Speaker 1: you're having an argument with your partner or your friend

657
00:37:44,080 --> 00:37:48,280
Speaker 1: or whatever and you're emotional, you're not necessarily thinking about

658
00:37:48,800 --> 00:37:51,719
Speaker 1: what you're saying and how it's coming across. And I

659
00:37:51,760 --> 00:37:57,080
Speaker 1: thought it was really fascinating that at that time of

660
00:37:57,320 --> 00:38:01,600
Speaker 1: high emotion, when he's responding that he didn't do what

661
00:38:01,800 --> 00:38:04,440
Speaker 1: I know I would do in the calm light of

662
00:38:04,520 --> 00:38:08,000
Speaker 1: day if someone accused me of murder. And that is,

663
00:38:08,920 --> 00:38:11,120
Speaker 1: by the way, before I deal with these allegations for

664
00:38:11,200 --> 00:38:13,480
Speaker 1: my ex wife, I just want to say I am

665
00:38:13,760 --> 00:38:16,920
Speaker 1: innocent of this crime that you are linking me to.

666
00:38:17,680 --> 00:38:17,960
Speaker 4: Now.

667
00:38:18,120 --> 00:38:19,920
Speaker 1: The fact that he didn't he probably didn't even think

668
00:38:19,960 --> 00:38:22,359
Speaker 1: about it because he was so emotional about the life.

669
00:38:22,480 --> 00:38:24,480
Speaker 4: But I do think it gives a bit of an

670
00:38:24,520 --> 00:38:27,640
Speaker 4: insight into his mindset. Now, how much stock you.

671
00:38:27,640 --> 00:38:31,400
Speaker 1: Can put in it is up for debate, but I

672
00:38:31,440 --> 00:38:37,239
Speaker 1: do think it's an interesting little observation about his response

673
00:38:37,440 --> 00:38:39,919
Speaker 1: at that time of high stress and high emotion for him.

674
00:38:40,000 --> 00:38:43,319
Speaker 2: And this was Kevin Correll's response to four questions we

675
00:38:43,400 --> 00:38:46,560
Speaker 2: put to him following an interview with his ex wife.

676
00:38:46,920 --> 00:38:51,360
Speaker 2: Re your fair and balanced inquiry. From the sensationalized headlines

677
00:38:51,400 --> 00:38:54,920
Speaker 2: to your fresh allegations, nothing has been fair and balanced

678
00:38:55,000 --> 00:38:58,600
Speaker 2: during this investigation. Over the past twenty three years, I've

679
00:38:58,600 --> 00:39:02,800
Speaker 2: been interviewed by detective numerous times. I've attended the inquest

680
00:39:03,120 --> 00:39:07,120
Speaker 2: and cooperated with police, supplying my DNA and answering all

681
00:39:07,160 --> 00:39:11,280
Speaker 2: their questions. The new allegations from my ex wife should

682
00:39:11,280 --> 00:39:15,040
Speaker 2: help your podcast ratings and sell your newspaper. So I

683
00:39:15,120 --> 00:39:19,440
Speaker 2: will answer your four questions. I vehemently deny these allegations

684
00:39:19,680 --> 00:39:23,040
Speaker 2: and the answer is no to all four questions.

685
00:39:23,040 --> 00:39:24,840
Speaker 3: Sincerely, Kevin Correll.

686
00:39:25,480 --> 00:39:28,880
Speaker 1: And it's important to note the four questions did not

687
00:39:29,040 --> 00:39:34,520
Speaker 1: include did you murder Rachelle? So it's reemond denial is

688
00:39:34,600 --> 00:39:38,400
Speaker 1: not too murdering Rachelle. And one of the things you

689
00:39:38,440 --> 00:39:41,719
Speaker 1: do when you're in court at someone's giving evidence, you

690
00:39:41,840 --> 00:39:47,280
Speaker 1: really watch for exactly what they're saying. Generally speaking, people

691
00:39:47,360 --> 00:39:50,720
Speaker 1: don't lie. They don't they often try and side step

692
00:39:51,680 --> 00:39:54,960
Speaker 1: the core allegation. If we're talking about murder in this case,

693
00:39:55,880 --> 00:39:59,520
Speaker 1: people will often not say I didn't murder the person.

694
00:39:59,560 --> 00:40:02,680
Speaker 1: If they did I didn't murder the person, they'll attack

695
00:40:02,800 --> 00:40:06,239
Speaker 1: other things. You know, it wasn't fair and balanced, is

696
00:40:06,280 --> 00:40:09,239
Speaker 1: what he's saying. You know you're reporting with sensationalists. Well, yeah,

697
00:40:09,280 --> 00:40:15,759
Speaker 1: maybe it was sensationalist. Sensational allegation was being made. That

698
00:40:15,800 --> 00:40:19,840
Speaker 1: doesn't address whether or not that's not a denial to murder.

699
00:40:20,120 --> 00:40:23,640
Speaker 1: And I think it's fascinating that you have him doing

700
00:40:23,680 --> 00:40:27,720
Speaker 1: exactly what it is said that witnesses who are trying

701
00:40:27,760 --> 00:40:31,719
Speaker 1: to not lie, because it's hard for people to just

702
00:40:31,960 --> 00:40:35,839
Speaker 1: actually lie about something black and white, so what they

703
00:40:35,960 --> 00:40:39,000
Speaker 1: usually try and do is avoid the question and pick up,

704
00:40:39,280 --> 00:40:40,120
Speaker 1: pick up something else.

705
00:40:40,120 --> 00:40:41,040
Speaker 4: And that's what he's done here.

706
00:40:41,040 --> 00:40:47,880
Speaker 1: It's the absolute classic, classic case of picking on something

707
00:40:47,960 --> 00:40:51,759
Speaker 1: that he really believes. He would have believed it was sensationalists,

708
00:40:51,800 --> 00:40:55,040
Speaker 1: he would have believed that it wasn't overly fair. That

709
00:40:55,120 --> 00:40:58,520
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that he didn't. It's not true that he

710
00:40:58,640 --> 00:41:02,399
Speaker 1: murdered her. So I find it fascinating that he did

711
00:41:02,440 --> 00:41:07,320
Speaker 1: the classic thing of not denying the black and white

712
00:41:07,360 --> 00:41:11,160
Speaker 1: allegation did he murder and actually picking up and denying

713
00:41:11,200 --> 00:41:14,120
Speaker 1: and having a go about all these other peripheral matters.

714
00:41:14,239 --> 00:41:18,880
Speaker 2: I also sought your advice before we approached Kevin Carrell

715
00:41:19,239 --> 00:41:23,040
Speaker 2: before he even knew that we were investigating him.

716
00:41:23,719 --> 00:41:24,879
Speaker 3: Were you nervous about that?

717
00:41:25,360 --> 00:41:27,520
Speaker 4: Was I nervous about it? No? No, not at all.

718
00:41:27,640 --> 00:41:28,719
Speaker 4: In fact, the opposite.

719
00:41:28,800 --> 00:41:32,680
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the things that are specifically required

720
00:41:32,760 --> 00:41:35,600
Speaker 1: under that public interest journalism defense that I was talking

721
00:41:35,640 --> 00:41:40,000
Speaker 1: about earlier is that you give the opportunity to the

722
00:41:40,040 --> 00:41:45,040
Speaker 1: person you might be making allegations against to respond. And

723
00:41:45,120 --> 00:41:46,960
Speaker 1: so I'm thinking about it from a legal sense, and

724
00:41:47,000 --> 00:41:50,160
Speaker 1: am my ticking boxes in the defamation? You're thinking about

725
00:41:50,160 --> 00:41:52,279
Speaker 1: it from a journalist perspective. Of course you should put

726
00:41:52,320 --> 00:41:53,640
Speaker 1: the allegations to the person.

727
00:41:55,760 --> 00:42:00,040
Speaker 4: And so no, rather than being nervous.

728
00:41:59,719 --> 00:42:05,880
Speaker 1: About at it, I was heartened by the fact that

729
00:42:05,920 --> 00:42:08,600
Speaker 1: we were doing and I felt like it was, if anything, it.

730
00:42:08,520 --> 00:42:10,359
Speaker 4: Was going to less than our risk.

731
00:42:10,640 --> 00:42:13,760
Speaker 1: And of course, if Kevin had been able to say,

732
00:42:15,040 --> 00:42:17,160
Speaker 1: and this is perhaps a silly example, but if he

733
00:42:17,200 --> 00:42:18,680
Speaker 1: was able to say, look, it couldn't have been me

734
00:42:18,760 --> 00:42:21,319
Speaker 1: because here, look at my passport, I was overseas, you know,

735
00:42:21,440 --> 00:42:23,520
Speaker 1: or something like that. If he was able to give

736
00:42:23,640 --> 00:42:28,120
Speaker 1: us something that allowed us to go, oh, actually turns

737
00:42:28,120 --> 00:42:30,880
Speaker 1: out we're on the wrong track here. This guy clearly

738
00:42:30,960 --> 00:42:34,680
Speaker 1: didn't do it. Then that's something we need to know,

739
00:42:34,760 --> 00:42:36,440
Speaker 1: we need to know that, and we would have published

740
00:42:36,440 --> 00:42:41,080
Speaker 1: it and probably changed tax quite significantly. So was I nervous, No,

741
00:42:41,719 --> 00:42:45,400
Speaker 1: I was very comfortable, and in fact I wanted to

742
00:42:45,760 --> 00:42:48,880
Speaker 1: And if, in the highly unlikely event, you were saying

743
00:42:48,920 --> 00:42:51,560
Speaker 1: I don't want to go to him, we would have

744
00:42:51,600 --> 00:42:52,839
Speaker 1: been having an argument.

745
00:42:52,520 --> 00:42:54,319
Speaker 4: About that, because I would have been saying, no, I

746
00:42:54,360 --> 00:42:55,160
Speaker 4: want you to go to him.

747
00:42:55,160 --> 00:42:55,239
Speaker 2: Now.

748
00:42:55,280 --> 00:42:57,640
Speaker 1: Of course you were always wanting to go to him.

749
00:42:57,640 --> 00:43:00,319
Speaker 1: That's good journalism, but yees, and I wasn't us at

750
00:43:00,320 --> 00:43:00,960
Speaker 1: all about that.

751
00:43:00,960 --> 00:43:01,440
Speaker 3: That's good.

752
00:43:01,719 --> 00:43:04,680
Speaker 2: I can't say the same for myself, just because you

753
00:43:04,680 --> 00:43:10,120
Speaker 2: can never predict someone's reaction. And I'll never forget that

754
00:43:10,200 --> 00:43:13,960
Speaker 2: day because of his face and what I saw. I

755
00:43:14,000 --> 00:43:19,360
Speaker 2: saw this moment, this shift that was it was almost

756
00:43:19,400 --> 00:43:21,919
Speaker 2: like he knew this day was coming. He knew this

757
00:43:22,000 --> 00:43:24,600
Speaker 2: had chased him for a long time and he'd been

758
00:43:24,640 --> 00:43:29,160
Speaker 2: avoiding it, and he knew that at some stage in

759
00:43:29,360 --> 00:43:32,800
Speaker 2: later in his life, after all those years, after an inquest,

760
00:43:33,320 --> 00:43:35,719
Speaker 2: that he would get hit up by a journalist and

761
00:43:35,760 --> 00:43:36,359
Speaker 2: a film crew.

762
00:43:36,480 --> 00:43:38,279
Speaker 4: Yeah. I remember wherever I was.

763
00:43:38,719 --> 00:43:40,360
Speaker 1: I was at the football or something like that, and

764
00:43:40,400 --> 00:43:42,960
Speaker 1: I was like, not nervous about it. But I was like,

765
00:43:43,080 --> 00:43:46,759
Speaker 1: I cannot wait to hear what happens here, because we

766
00:43:46,880 --> 00:43:53,160
Speaker 1: are going to get arguably the best insight into, you know,

767
00:43:53,600 --> 00:43:55,640
Speaker 1: whether or not he did this from your.

768
00:43:57,280 --> 00:43:58,160
Speaker 4: Doorstop with him.

769
00:43:58,200 --> 00:44:01,840
Speaker 1: So I was really fascinate to see, you know, was

770
00:44:01,880 --> 00:44:04,000
Speaker 1: he going to stare down the barrel of the camera

771
00:44:04,040 --> 00:44:05,680
Speaker 1: and say I did not do this.

772
00:44:06,000 --> 00:44:08,720
Speaker 4: And was and were you going to come away and say,

773
00:44:08,960 --> 00:44:10,799
Speaker 4: do you know what? I don't know?

774
00:44:11,239 --> 00:44:14,160
Speaker 1: I think I believe it, you know, or was he

775
00:44:14,239 --> 00:44:19,359
Speaker 1: going to make some you know, some some slip up

776
00:44:19,719 --> 00:44:22,279
Speaker 1: and make some admission. Like there were all these sort

777
00:44:22,280 --> 00:44:27,000
Speaker 1: of scenarios that could have really shaped our risk assessment

778
00:44:27,560 --> 00:44:31,000
Speaker 1: and where we're going with the podcast. So so I.

779
00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:32,520
Speaker 4: Was not nervous, but I was.

780
00:44:33,080 --> 00:44:35,920
Speaker 1: I was on edge in a in a I'm fascinated

781
00:44:36,000 --> 00:44:38,480
Speaker 1: sort of way about what was going to happen.

782
00:44:40,840 --> 00:44:44,200
Speaker 2: Kevin Correll, I'm actually Hanson. I'm a journalist from News Corp.

783
00:44:44,440 --> 00:44:47,759
Speaker 2: I'm investigating the murder of Rachelle Charles. Did you kill

784
00:44:47,840 --> 00:44:48,640
Speaker 2: Rochelle Charles?

785
00:44:49,360 --> 00:44:52,840
Speaker 3: To hear, he turns around quickly and heads back to

786
00:44:52,920 --> 00:44:57,279
Speaker 3: his pajero. Did you lure Rochelle to her death with

787
00:44:57,360 --> 00:44:58,160
Speaker 3: the promise.

788
00:44:57,840 --> 00:45:00,920
Speaker 2: Of a walking short through plenty of Kevin gives me

789
00:45:00,960 --> 00:45:03,920
Speaker 2: a little nudge with his elbow to get the microphone

790
00:45:04,040 --> 00:45:07,120
Speaker 2: out of his space. Why did you change your name, Kevin?

791
00:45:07,680 --> 00:45:20,200
Speaker 2: Why did you change your name? Get out of the way.

792
00:45:18,520 --> 00:45:19,279
Speaker 3: Watch out, dad.

793
00:45:26,560 --> 00:45:29,000
Speaker 1: He gave you nothing in that doorstop. On the Friday,

794
00:45:29,040 --> 00:45:31,440
Speaker 1: I think on the Monday, or maybe it was the Tuesday.

795
00:45:32,480 --> 00:45:34,800
Speaker 1: We sent him all the questions that you were hoping

796
00:45:34,840 --> 00:45:37,120
Speaker 1: to put to him in person, we sent him those

797
00:45:38,440 --> 00:45:39,480
Speaker 1: via email.

798
00:45:39,960 --> 00:45:40,799
Speaker 4: And we did that.

799
00:45:41,520 --> 00:45:43,439
Speaker 1: For the two reasons that we talked about, the same

800
00:45:43,440 --> 00:45:46,080
Speaker 1: reason we read to did the doorstop for the journalistic

801
00:45:46,719 --> 00:45:50,040
Speaker 1: reason of you wanting to give him a genuine opportunity,

802
00:45:50,160 --> 00:45:53,280
Speaker 1: you know, and jumping someone perhaps Okay, maybe he doesn't

803
00:45:53,600 --> 00:45:56,080
Speaker 1: have the calmness to response, and we'll give it to

804
00:45:56,160 --> 00:45:56,680
Speaker 1: him an email.

805
00:45:56,719 --> 00:45:58,440
Speaker 4: We'll be fair with him. So you wanted to do.

806
00:45:58,440 --> 00:46:01,160
Speaker 1: That from a journalistic perspective, and I wanted to do

807
00:46:01,200 --> 00:46:06,279
Speaker 1: it because that's required by the Act to give a

808
00:46:06,320 --> 00:46:10,200
Speaker 1: reasonable opportunity to respond. So that didn't get us anything

809
00:46:10,280 --> 00:46:13,839
Speaker 1: from him that made us feel like we were on

810
00:46:13,880 --> 00:46:14,560
Speaker 1: the wrong track.

811
00:46:14,840 --> 00:46:17,360
Speaker 2: It was a moment there that I thought he is

812
00:46:17,440 --> 00:46:20,640
Speaker 2: going to stop, he is going to talk and then

813
00:46:21,080 --> 00:46:23,480
Speaker 2: he didn't, and he walked back and gave me a

814
00:46:23,480 --> 00:46:27,040
Speaker 2: little nudge, but he looked furious.

815
00:46:27,360 --> 00:46:28,600
Speaker 4: Did you have security with you?

816
00:46:29,080 --> 00:46:31,920
Speaker 3: We did, We did. We had a security guard with us.

817
00:46:32,239 --> 00:46:33,759
Speaker 4: How far off was he?

818
00:46:34,560 --> 00:46:35,680
Speaker 3: It was pretty close to me.

819
00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:41,840
Speaker 2: And he knows that there were genuine concerns about risk

820
00:46:42,400 --> 00:46:47,040
Speaker 2: in terms of his reaction, because so many people had

821
00:46:47,080 --> 00:46:51,160
Speaker 2: told me that he's a violent man, he's a dangerous man,

822
00:46:51,719 --> 00:46:56,759
Speaker 2: and he was a suspect in a murder, so I

823
00:46:56,800 --> 00:46:59,279
Speaker 2: didn't think I would be well received. So it was

824
00:46:59,320 --> 00:47:02,799
Speaker 2: only response conssible that you know, I made sure I'm

825
00:47:02,800 --> 00:47:05,160
Speaker 2: not a cowboy, So I was taking someone with us

826
00:47:05,239 --> 00:47:07,600
Speaker 2: to make sure that not just for me to keep

827
00:47:07,600 --> 00:47:10,920
Speaker 2: me safe as well, but to keep my colleagues safe

828
00:47:10,920 --> 00:47:14,480
Speaker 2: because I was there with a cameraman and a photographer

829
00:47:14,640 --> 00:47:19,600
Speaker 2: and I needed to keep them safe as well. What

830
00:47:19,719 --> 00:47:23,360
Speaker 2: was your reaction when you found out he died in Thailand?

831
00:47:23,600 --> 00:47:26,399
Speaker 1: My first throw was at suicide, and then the next

832
00:47:26,480 --> 00:47:33,160
Speaker 1: thought was that I felt for the Rachelle's family because

833
00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:37,040
Speaker 1: I think they probably felt like that this could have

834
00:47:37,120 --> 00:47:41,239
Speaker 1: been this podcast, in this series could have helped them

835
00:47:41,400 --> 00:47:46,000
Speaker 1: find out exactly what happened in the night in question.

836
00:47:46,120 --> 00:47:51,440
Speaker 1: And it's probable now that that's going to go to

837
00:47:51,520 --> 00:47:55,040
Speaker 1: the grave with Kevin, And you know, I felt I

838
00:47:55,160 --> 00:47:58,200
Speaker 1: felt for them that maybe they weren't going to get

839
00:47:58,239 --> 00:48:02,839
Speaker 1: the resolution that they wanted, you know, maybe for him

840
00:48:02,840 --> 00:48:04,319
Speaker 1: being charged potentially.

841
00:48:04,640 --> 00:48:07,880
Speaker 2: Do you think Jazz could be put on the stand

842
00:48:07,880 --> 00:48:14,000
Speaker 2: and could her evidence be admissible? Perhaps not a criminal proceeding,

843
00:48:14,239 --> 00:48:18,160
Speaker 2: but do you think her evidence is pertinent to a

844
00:48:18,200 --> 00:48:21,560
Speaker 2: coronial inquest if it did happen to resume.

845
00:48:22,080 --> 00:48:27,759
Speaker 1: What's arguably not admissible would be her view of whether

846
00:48:27,800 --> 00:48:29,600
Speaker 1: her father did this or not.

847
00:48:30,000 --> 00:48:31,319
Speaker 4: What is admissible?

848
00:48:31,400 --> 00:48:36,520
Speaker 1: And I think pretty damn important is that evidence.

849
00:48:36,560 --> 00:48:39,640
Speaker 4: We talked about about the story about.

850
00:48:39,440 --> 00:48:43,319
Speaker 1: The bike's cutting off Rochelle's finger and the fact that

851
00:48:44,040 --> 00:48:46,920
Speaker 1: Jazz can give evidence to say he told me that

852
00:48:47,760 --> 00:48:50,680
Speaker 1: he told me that, and yet here he is later

853
00:48:51,480 --> 00:48:53,080
Speaker 1: denying that he ever said that.

854
00:48:54,480 --> 00:48:57,640
Speaker 4: And you know, is it a smoking gun?

855
00:48:58,239 --> 00:48:58,399
Speaker 2: No?

856
00:48:59,000 --> 00:49:01,120
Speaker 4: But does it you know, together with.

857
00:49:01,040 --> 00:49:05,440
Speaker 1: Something like the the phone data, doesn't start to build

858
00:49:05,560 --> 00:49:11,520
Speaker 1: a case. Yes, And so I absolutely think that Jazz's

859
00:49:11,680 --> 00:49:16,000
Speaker 1: evidence would be and should be looked at by a

860
00:49:16,080 --> 00:49:18,480
Speaker 1: coroner if there is to be another.

861
00:49:19,840 --> 00:49:20,600
Speaker 4: Inquest.

862
00:49:21,000 --> 00:49:22,719
Speaker 3: I know that you don't have a crystal ball.

863
00:49:22,760 --> 00:49:26,279
Speaker 2: But what do you think could possibly happen now for

864
00:49:26,480 --> 00:49:29,560
Speaker 2: Rochelle's case from your experience.

865
00:49:29,640 --> 00:49:35,160
Speaker 1: I mean, look, a currenter's inquest is probably well, it's

866
00:49:35,160 --> 00:49:38,719
Speaker 1: a real possibility. I'd love I'd love to think that

867
00:49:38,760 --> 00:49:43,000
Speaker 1: there there's a currenter's in quest. There's a family out

868
00:49:43,040 --> 00:49:50,839
Speaker 1: there still wanting justice. Now, if Kevin did this, the

869
00:49:50,960 --> 00:49:55,200
Speaker 1: justice that the family can get is a finding that

870
00:49:55,360 --> 00:50:01,719
Speaker 1: Kevin Corral murdered Rochelle. They can't get Kevin Corral anymore

871
00:50:01,760 --> 00:50:02,280
Speaker 1: in jail.

872
00:50:03,280 --> 00:50:04,040
Speaker 4: That being the.

873
00:50:04,080 --> 00:50:08,400
Speaker 1: Case, I would have thought a coroner's inquest is the

874
00:50:08,440 --> 00:50:09,400
Speaker 1: appropriate course.

875
00:50:09,880 --> 00:50:10,800
Speaker 4: I hope that occurs.

876
00:50:11,520 --> 00:50:13,359
Speaker 3: Thanks for your time, justin excuse as.

877
00:50:15,680 --> 00:50:18,000
Speaker 2: If you have any information you want to share with me,

878
00:50:18,239 --> 00:50:19,920
Speaker 2: Ashley Hanson, you can.

879
00:50:19,800 --> 00:50:21,080
Speaker 3: Do so confidentially.

880
00:50:21,520 --> 00:50:24,959
Speaker 2: Please send an email to Deroshelle at News dot com

881
00:50:24,960 --> 00:50:30,120
Speaker 2: dot au. Remember eligible news called Australia Digital Subscribers the

882
00:50:30,360 --> 00:50:34,480
Speaker 2: early access to breaking news and developments on Rochelle's case.

883
00:50:34,880 --> 00:50:38,439
Speaker 2: To subscribe and learn more, go to Dealershell dot com

884
00:50:38,480 --> 00:50:39,040
Speaker 2: dot au