WEBVTT - From The Front: John Peros v The Australian

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:09.240
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker

0:00:09.360 --> 0:00:13.520
<v Speaker 1>every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play

0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:22.760
<v Speaker 1>the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:29.440
<v Speaker 1>on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Tuesday, July thirty.

0:00:30.440 --> 0:00:34.840
<v Speaker 1>Aerial patrols of Australia's Northern coastline have slumped, with operations

0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:38.400
<v Speaker 1>sovereign Borders cutting back flights by twenty percent each year,

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:42.879
<v Speaker 1>even as boat arrivals increase. It's the first challenge for

0:00:42.960 --> 0:00:50.240
<v Speaker 1>new Immigration and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. The militant

0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 1>Construction Union CFMAU could be in administration for years. That's

0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:58.640
<v Speaker 1>according to New Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt. In an

0:00:58.680 --> 0:01:02.640
<v Speaker 1>exclusive interview now at The Australian dot com dot you,

0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>John Perros, the man acquitted of murdering Shandy Blackburn, is

0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>suing Shandy's sister, journalist Hedley Thomas, and the publishers of

0:01:15.440 --> 0:01:20.680
<v Speaker 1>The Australian over our podcast Shandy's story. In today's episode why,

0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:25.360
<v Speaker 1>John Perros says the episode caused him serious harm and

0:01:25.640 --> 0:01:35.800
<v Speaker 1>what the publishers say in reply. Before we start This

0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:41.840
<v Speaker 1>episode contains some adult language. One matter of fact, it

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>was him. That's Shanna Blackburn, the sister of Shandy Blackburn,

0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:50.520
<v Speaker 1>who in twenty thirteen, at the age of twenty three,

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 1>was murdered in a stabbing frenzy by someone who is

0:01:54.800 --> 0:02:02.919
<v Speaker 1>still at large. Peros, the man you heard Shanna accusing,

0:02:03.360 --> 0:02:09.080
<v Speaker 1>has always denied killing Shandy, his ex girlfriend. Those words

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:12.720
<v Speaker 1>spoken by Shanna in episode thirteen of The Australian's investigative

0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 1>podcast Shandy Story are now the subject of a defamation case.

0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:21.679
<v Speaker 1>John Perros is suing Nationwide News, the company that publishes

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:26.000
<v Speaker 1>The Australian, and Shanna herself, as well as our national

0:02:26.120 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 1>chief correspondent Hedley Thomas, who reported and hosted Shandy Story.

0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:34.880
<v Speaker 1>We've used voice actors throughout this episode to bring you

0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>the words spoken in the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday.

0:02:42.720 --> 0:02:43.240
<v Speaker 2>These are the.

0:02:43.160 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Words of Barrister David Helvajian, acting for Peros.

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 3>Episode thirteen publishes one of the most serious defamatory imputations

0:02:52.480 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 3>known to society.

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:57.120
<v Speaker 1>This hearing is not the defamation trial. It's a pre

0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:00.280
<v Speaker 1>trial hearing to determine whether or not John peer Ross

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>was caused serious harm by the publication of episode thirteen

0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:13.320
<v Speaker 1>of Shandy story released in December twenty twenty one. Shandy

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:17.520
<v Speaker 1>was violently murdered on February ninth, twenty thirteen, as she

0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:22.160
<v Speaker 1>walked home from work after midnight. The killer stabbed Shandy

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:25.680
<v Speaker 1>dozens of times, leaving her to die in a gutter.

0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:30.359
<v Speaker 1>If you've listened to Shandy's story, you'll remember this harrowing

0:03:30.400 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 1>audio of the person who discovered her body on a

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Mackay street calling triple O.

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:38.080
<v Speaker 4>Is she awake?

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:39.080
<v Speaker 5>No?

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:40.480
<v Speaker 3>Is breathing?

0:03:40.600 --> 0:03:40.920
<v Speaker 2>Third?

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.160
<v Speaker 5>She don't look at all man, So concern to me?

0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:48.240
<v Speaker 6>Is she breathing at all?

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 2>Available?

0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:51.400
<v Speaker 4>No?

0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 1>No, not at all, not at all?

0:03:53.600 --> 0:03:54.360
<v Speaker 6>What is your name?

0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:59.680
<v Speaker 1>What is your name? In twenty fourteen, Shandy's ex boyfriend,

0:03:59.760 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 1>John Perros, a talented local boxer and diesel fitter, was

0:04:04.560 --> 0:04:08.480
<v Speaker 1>charged with Shandy's murder. He was found not guilty.

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 5>When a jury found John Perros not guilty of Shandy

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:16.840
<v Speaker 5>Blackburn's murder in twenty seventeen, it left her family and

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:21.160
<v Speaker 5>the Mackay community with even more questions. He was accused

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:24.280
<v Speaker 5>of stabbing Shandy Blackburn more than twenty times on her

0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:26.359
<v Speaker 5>way home from work in twenty thirteen.

0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 1>That verdict meant Peros was free to get on with

0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:34.840
<v Speaker 1>his life. But in twenty nineteen, a coroner conducted an

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:39.800
<v Speaker 1>inquest into Shandy's death. The coroner, David O'Donnell, compelled John

0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 1>Perros to give evidence after Perros initially refused on the

0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.800
<v Speaker 1>ground that the evidence would tend to incriminate him. There's

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 1>a rule in coronial proceedings that evidence given under compulsion

0:04:51.720 --> 0:04:55.720
<v Speaker 1>in an inquest cannot be used in other proceedings. On

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:59.359
<v Speaker 1>twenty one August twenty twenty, the coroner found Perros had

0:04:59.480 --> 0:05:04.360
<v Speaker 1>in fact killed Shandy with a bladed instrument. The coroner

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 1>also said he believed the evidence of certain witnesses about

0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:11.680
<v Speaker 1>John Perros, including that Peros had said to friends phrases

0:05:11.960 --> 0:05:16.720
<v Speaker 1>like this about Shandy, I fucking hate that cunt, and

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:20.480
<v Speaker 1>something like she would be better off dead. I hate

0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:24.039
<v Speaker 1>her and I would love to stab the cunt. We've

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.719
<v Speaker 1>used a voice actor to bring you those words. From

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:33.240
<v Speaker 1>the coroner's findings. The coroner also found that a white

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 1>ute seen on CCTV near the scene of Shandy's death

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 1>at approximately the time of her death was in fact

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:45.080
<v Speaker 1>John Perros's car. Peros said he couldn't remember whether he

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:47.919
<v Speaker 1>had driven on that street at that time or not.

0:05:49.040 --> 0:05:51.880
<v Speaker 1>But even though the coroner found John did kill Shandy,

0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>he was not charged again because Perros had already been acquitted.

0:05:57.640 --> 0:06:00.880
<v Speaker 1>The legal principle of double jeopardy means you can't be

0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:05.760
<v Speaker 1>tried for the same offense twice. There are exceptions, including

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:09.720
<v Speaker 1>when fresh and compelling evidence that wasn't presented in the

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 1>first trial becomes available. But Peros has not been charged again.

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:18.240
<v Speaker 1>He's got on with his life, including working in the

0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:22.320
<v Speaker 1>mining industry in Wa. In December twenty twenty two, he

0:06:22.440 --> 0:06:25.839
<v Speaker 1>was found guilty of an assault at a BHP mind sight.

0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>Perros was fined two thousand dollars and granted a spent conviction.

0:06:31.920 --> 0:06:35.279
<v Speaker 1>Here's how The West Australian reported it at the time.

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 6>John Perros claimed a trial he was acting in self

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:44.680
<v Speaker 6>defense when he laid into Alexander Gell. The forty year

0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:48.320
<v Speaker 6>old fly In Flyout worker, beat and kicked mister Gall

0:06:48.480 --> 0:06:52.520
<v Speaker 6>so badly it left him with significant facial injuries and

0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:56.800
<v Speaker 6>the loss of a tooth. In court on one day,

0:06:56.960 --> 0:07:02.000
<v Speaker 6>John Perros's lawyer argued his reputation was caused serious harm

0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 6>by episode thirteen of Shandy's story.

0:07:06.000 --> 0:07:08.560
<v Speaker 3>As your honor knows, the crime of murder in this

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:13.720
<v Speaker 3>state carries a life sentence. It is probably society's greatest crime.

0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.880
<v Speaker 3>To label someone the murderer of another person is just

0:07:18.200 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 3>of the highest seriousness. However, to do so as part

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:26.600
<v Speaker 3>of an investigative true crime publication from a mainstream media

0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:30.320
<v Speaker 3>company and from a journalist with a credible history in

0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:32.840
<v Speaker 3>these matters is even more serious.

0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:38.040
<v Speaker 1>So Helvajin is saying that if this had been published elsewhere,

0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 1>it might not have caused the same level of harm.

0:07:42.680 --> 0:07:45.600
<v Speaker 3>Your honor would know The Australian as a mass media

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:50.080
<v Speaker 3>publication of serious repute. It's not a tabloid or a

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 3>daily rag type publication.

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:55.320
<v Speaker 1>I've got to jump in here to defend tabloids. By

0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:59.160
<v Speaker 1>the way, the shape of a newspaper doesn't determine its quality,

0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 1>and plenty of outstanding journalists and great journalism in tabloid papers. Anyway,

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 1>back to David Helvagian.

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 3>Secondly, you ought to be aware of the name Hedley

0:08:11.880 --> 0:08:14.960
<v Speaker 3>Thomas and that he is a journalist who not only

0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:19.360
<v Speaker 3>led the Shandy Story podcast, but he's also the second defendant.

0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:23.520
<v Speaker 1>At this point, the judge weighed in this is a

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:28.080
<v Speaker 1>voice actor reading justice. Peter Applegarth's words, I.

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 2>Made a disclosure before hearing back in April that I

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 2>met mister Thomas professionally many years ago, but I haven't

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:38.400
<v Speaker 2>seen him in person or spoken to him for sixteen years.

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 3>In that time period, he has become a brand name

0:08:42.679 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 3>in true crime podcasts.

0:08:44.679 --> 0:08:47.560
<v Speaker 2>He'll forgive me if I haven't listened to his podcasts.

0:08:48.720 --> 0:08:52.200
<v Speaker 3>As of today, approximately three hundred and eighty thousand people

0:08:52.200 --> 0:08:57.280
<v Speaker 3>across Australia have heard the Imputation. Episode thirteen had a

0:08:57.320 --> 0:09:02.439
<v Speaker 3>far greater reach across Australia than the reporting the coroner's finding.

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:08.280
<v Speaker 1>And this is where the real case begins. Helvajian On

0:09:08.400 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 1>behalf of Perros says, even though the coroner in twenty

0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:15.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty found John Perros killed Shandy Blackburn, his reputation was

0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:20.080
<v Speaker 1>largely unharmed until Headley, Thomas and Shandy's story came along

0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:21.440
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty one.

0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:26.480
<v Speaker 3>The other inference clearly is a podcast such as this

0:09:27.000 --> 0:09:30.360
<v Speaker 3>would not have approximately three hundred and eighty thousand downloads

0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:34.400
<v Speaker 3>in Australia if it wasn't credible. So just the fact

0:09:34.480 --> 0:09:37.960
<v Speaker 3>it's a highly popular and shared and considered podcast is

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 3>the circumstance of publication.

0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:45.840
<v Speaker 2>I'm not sure if circulation means something's credible. In America,

0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:49.079
<v Speaker 2>at least you have these lunar people who have all

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:50.680
<v Speaker 2>kinds of conspiracy theories.

0:09:51.720 --> 0:09:53.320
<v Speaker 3>Yes, that's a very good point.

0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 1>Coming up after the break. What lawyers for the Australia

0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:04.080
<v Speaker 1>are arguing, as you just heard David Helvagian say, where

0:10:04.200 --> 0:10:08.360
<v Speaker 1>a mass media publication of serious repute. He's a subscriber.

0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:11.079
<v Speaker 1>You should be too. Join us for just a dollar

0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:13.679
<v Speaker 1>a week for the first four weeks at the Australian

0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:17.200
<v Speaker 1>dot com dot Au. We'll be back after this break.

0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:31.720
<v Speaker 3>Just listen to this.

0:10:32.080 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 1>Her ex absolutely did it. That's a Reddit user with

0:10:37.320 --> 0:10:41.559
<v Speaker 1>the handle bard Girl twenty three, commenting in early twenty

0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:45.240
<v Speaker 1>twenty two, shortly after the public release of episode thirteen

0:10:45.600 --> 0:10:50.440
<v Speaker 1>of The Australian's podcast Shandy Story, someone called Blonde our

0:10:50.520 --> 0:10:56.800
<v Speaker 1>Buckle agrees one hundred percent he did, and another Reddit user,

0:10:57.000 --> 0:11:00.800
<v Speaker 1>Nora Ldora, says, I'm listening now and I feel it

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:02.559
<v Speaker 1>so clear that it was the ex.

0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:06.840
<v Speaker 6>The crime was so personal and John was abusive to Shandy.

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:11.640
<v Speaker 1>It's crazy that he was acquitted. These posts are part

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:14.800
<v Speaker 1>of the evidence from John Perross's lawyers in his claim

0:11:15.120 --> 0:11:19.199
<v Speaker 1>that The Australians podcast caused serious harm to his reputation.

0:11:20.920 --> 0:11:24.720
<v Speaker 1>You've already heard Peros's arguments. This is what the lawyers

0:11:24.760 --> 0:11:27.439
<v Speaker 1>for the other side say.

0:11:28.280 --> 0:11:31.040
<v Speaker 4>A coroner made a finding that Miss Blackburn died as

0:11:31.080 --> 0:11:33.640
<v Speaker 4>a result of a violent assault where she was stabbed

0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 4>multiple times after being ambushed in the street. The coroner

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:40.720
<v Speaker 4>found that the plaintiff in these proceedings was responsible for

0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:43.800
<v Speaker 4>her death. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:49.160
<v Speaker 1>Those are the words of Doward Sibtaine. Sc sibtain is

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:53.720
<v Speaker 1>a silk engaged to defend Nationwide News Headley Thomas and

0:11:53.760 --> 0:11:58.480
<v Speaker 1>Shanna Blackburn in the defamation action brought by Perros. In

0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:01.640
<v Speaker 1>defamation cases, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that

0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:06.440
<v Speaker 1>they suffered serious reputational damage by the publication they're complaining about,

0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:09.360
<v Speaker 1>and if the material was published to a large number

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:13.480
<v Speaker 1>of people, say hundreds of thousands, courts in the past

0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:18.640
<v Speaker 1>have inferred that the reputational harm must be serious. The

0:12:18.679 --> 0:12:23.040
<v Speaker 1>Australian's lawyers are challenging this rule. They're saying the plaintiff

0:12:23.080 --> 0:12:26.280
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily come to court with a good reputation and

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>it's up to the plaintiff in this case, John Perros,

0:12:29.520 --> 0:12:32.920
<v Speaker 1>to prove that the publication in this case, Episode thirteen

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:38.200
<v Speaker 1>seriously damaged the reputation they had. We've used a voice

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:40.680
<v Speaker 1>actor to bring you Dowd Sibtain's words.

0:12:41.600 --> 0:12:44.120
<v Speaker 4>What is required is for this court to undertake a

0:12:44.200 --> 0:12:48.040
<v Speaker 4>determination as to what was the plaintiff's pre episode thirteen

0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:53.640
<v Speaker 4>reputation and his post episode thirteen reputation, and then having

0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:56.760
<v Speaker 4>done that, to determine whether or not the harm occasion

0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:00.480
<v Speaker 4>to his reputation was caused by the publication can concerned.

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Often in defamation cases, someone comes before the court to

0:13:05.040 --> 0:13:07.960
<v Speaker 1>say they know the plaintiff, the person who's suing, and

0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 1>was shocked when they encountered the allegedly defamatory publication. They'll

0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:14.840
<v Speaker 1>usually say the publication made them think less of the

0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:18.520
<v Speaker 1>plaintiff and wonder whether they really had done something wrong.

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:22.640
<v Speaker 1>In this hearing, Justice Peter Applegarth wandered aloud whether he

0:13:22.640 --> 0:13:25.960
<v Speaker 1>would be presented evidence from anyone along those lines. A

0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 1>person not a Reddit user like Nora Ladora or bard

0:13:29.440 --> 0:13:32.800
<v Speaker 1>Girl twenty three, who says they considered Perros a good

0:13:32.840 --> 0:13:38.560
<v Speaker 1>person before hearing episode thirteen and considered him a murderer afterwards.

0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:42.120
<v Speaker 2>I'm trying to grapple with what the plaintiff says was

0:13:42.160 --> 0:13:46.840
<v Speaker 2>the harm to his reputation, because traditionally we've had plaintiffs

0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:50.400
<v Speaker 2>who come along and they say I was well regarded

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:53.640
<v Speaker 2>in my community, and then after the Courier Male published

0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:57.480
<v Speaker 2>that article, people treated me finally in the street and

0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:01.560
<v Speaker 2>invitations dried up, and I lost my job, and I

0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:05.040
<v Speaker 2>was walking down the street and someone yelled out, you crook.

0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:07.880
<v Speaker 4>I can assure your honor. There is none of that,

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:11.559
<v Speaker 4>not one word. What there is first losing his job.

0:14:12.040 --> 0:14:14.400
<v Speaker 4>He lost his job around the time of episode one.

0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:17.640
<v Speaker 4>There isn't a single person on a hearsay basis or

0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:21.600
<v Speaker 4>otherwise who has said I heard episode thirteen and this

0:14:21.680 --> 0:14:24.560
<v Speaker 4>is what I thought of him. It's somewhat curious the

0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 4>plaintiff is not giving evidence on this, but the evidence

0:14:28.440 --> 0:14:31.960
<v Speaker 4>what there is, the scant evidence, requires such a tortured

0:14:32.000 --> 0:14:35.480
<v Speaker 4>and fanciful approach to inferential reasoning that your honor could

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:38.080
<v Speaker 4>not conclude that he suffered serious harm.

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>Peros's counsel, David Helvadjian, said he did tell the defense

0:14:42.400 --> 0:14:44.840
<v Speaker 1>lawyers they would not be putting on any more evidence,

0:14:45.280 --> 0:14:47.960
<v Speaker 1>but in fact, if the matter proceeds to trial, his

0:14:48.120 --> 0:14:50.960
<v Speaker 1>side would potentially be adding more evidence of damage to

0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:56.160
<v Speaker 1>Peros's reputation, and Helvagian said regardless, the Reddit posts were

0:14:56.200 --> 0:14:59.960
<v Speaker 1>evidence of episode thirteen helping people make up their mind

0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:02.480
<v Speaker 1>ends that John Perros was a killer.

0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:06.440
<v Speaker 3>That evidence is rebuttal evidence to the idea that there's

0:15:06.480 --> 0:15:09.360
<v Speaker 3>a settled view in the community that he is a

0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:13.080
<v Speaker 3>violent killer, because otherwise, why else would they feel the

0:15:13.120 --> 0:15:17.120
<v Speaker 3>need to post and share. The Reddit comments show it

0:15:17.240 --> 0:15:28.240
<v Speaker 3>was episode thirteen that caused the harm.

0:15:28.320 --> 0:15:31.400
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for joining us on the front. You can keep

0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:34.720
<v Speaker 1>up with this story, listen to Shandy story yourself, and

0:15:34.880 --> 0:15:38.720
<v Speaker 1>read all our outstanding journalism right now at the Australian

0:15:38.920 --> 0:15:40.120
<v Speaker 1>dot com dot au