Speaker 1: Yoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is a summer special
Speaker 1: of The Front Page, the NSID Herald's daily news podcast.
Speaker 1: While the Front Page is on summer break, we're taking
Speaker 1: a look back at some of the biggest news stories
Speaker 1: and top rated episodes from the podcast in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: New episodes will return on January thirteenth. June twenty this
Speaker 1: year marked thirty years since five members of the Bain
Speaker 1: family in Dunedin were found dead in their family home.
Speaker 1: The one survivor, David, would be convicted of murdering his
Speaker 1: parents and his three siblings. He served thirteen years in
Speaker 1: prison before the Privy Council quashed his convictions and he
Speaker 1: was found not guilty on all charges at a retrial
Speaker 1: in two thousand nine. For the anniversary in June, we
Speaker 1: spoke to longtime Bane advocate Joe Krum for an exclusive
Speaker 1: chat reflecting on his three decades linked to the case,
Speaker 1: as well as exploring our obsession with the case with
Speaker 1: aut professor of pop culture doctor Lorna Piante Farnal. It's
Speaker 1: been thirty years since the killings at Every Street. You're
Speaker 1: a former All Black, a successful businessman, but also known
Speaker 1: as longtime David Bain advocate. What first got you interested
Speaker 1: in this case?
Speaker 2: I was reading the New Zealand Herald one morning early
Speaker 2: in January of nineteen ninety six, and there was a
Speaker 2: little article in the Herald was a picture of five
Speaker 2: or six people in the Octagon and the Meeden the
Speaker 2: Treshoor table selling jams and pickles to raise money, with
Speaker 2: a sign on the front which said David Dane was innocent.
Speaker 2: And the story said that one of the people was
Speaker 2: an elderly woman who was David Bean's music teacher, and
Speaker 2: the other ones were friend that is, from the university
Speaker 2: and drama society belonged to. And the story just grabbed me. Actually,
Speaker 2: I've been a close follower of the Arthur Allen Thomas case.
Speaker 2: Funnily enough, I had broken my leg and was implaster
Speaker 2: sitting at home doing nothing in nineteen seventy when the
Speaker 2: crew murders happened, and that because I was stuck there
Speaker 2: was nowhere to go for nothing to do. I sort
Speaker 2: of read and listened to everything that happened. Anyway, what
Speaker 2: struck me about this article It wasn't like his parents
Speaker 2: or family. These were people who were just friends who
Speaker 2: to go out in the street and do this. And
Speaker 2: I had a visit with my lawyer on some other
Speaker 2: business a few days later, and I said, Tom, do
Speaker 2: you know who the lawyer for the David Daine was?
Speaker 2: And he gave me his name and address or phone number,
Speaker 2: and I contacted him and put my finger in the
Speaker 2: water and there we go. Twenty years later, I was
Speaker 2: still at it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Seen people say that they would never have been a
Speaker 1: retrial without your support of Baine. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2: Oh? Well, I'd go with it. Not being boastful, but
Speaker 2: just I think all the lawyers that I engaged over
Speaker 2: the years would say exactly the same thing. Not only
Speaker 2: would they not have been a retrial, would David Bane
Speaker 2: would still be in prison now. When they ordered the retrial,
Speaker 2: Michael Reid, who was David Baine's QC, Michael Red QC,
Speaker 2: he said, Joe, you have to come down there. We
Speaker 2: can't do this without You're the one with all the
Speaker 2: knowledge and everything else. I said, well, you know, I'm
Speaker 2: not a lawyer. You don't need at the trial. And
Speaker 2: he said, no, You've got to be there. So I
Speaker 2: was there right through the whole thing, and I made
Speaker 2: over the years. I made some very very important and
Speaker 2: crucial decisions for the legal team. And I think it's
Speaker 2: fair to say that David Bain, instead of being happily
Speaker 2: married now two lovely children and the gorgeous wife, would
Speaker 2: still be writing away in the prison. And it was
Speaker 2: the will of the police and the very government officials.
Speaker 2: That's what they would have liked to have happened.
Speaker 1: Well, you were kind of like the face of the campaign, hey,
Speaker 1: and you really took on that role. And to say
Speaker 1: this case was divisive is an understatement. What was it
Speaker 1: like heading the campaign for so long? What kind of
Speaker 1: things did you experience?
Speaker 2: Well, it's hard for anybody who wasn't close to me
Speaker 2: over those years to understand is just how vicious the
Speaker 2: assault on me personally was. I brought a different perspective
Speaker 2: in the sense that you as a well known person,
Speaker 2: being a formal all black, and that made the police
Speaker 2: and the Justice Department officials see me as more of
Speaker 2: a threat, I suppose to the normal person who might
Speaker 2: be fighting against an injustice. Right from the very beginning.
Speaker 2: It was amazing when my name first became public as
Speaker 2: being working for David the number of police cars that
Speaker 2: would be driving past our house. We lived in the country,
Speaker 2: myself and a life and three children. That stage I
Speaker 2: separated from my wife soon after. One night, not long
Speaker 2: after we'd separated, she'd been shopping in the evening. It
Speaker 2: was in the winter time, and she went to get
Speaker 2: in the car and two eyes approached her, and they
Speaker 2: were both private investigators to follow me around and try
Speaker 2: and dig up as much dirt on me as they could,
Speaker 2: and they thought that the children wife might be a
Speaker 2: great source of information for them. They sort of did
Speaker 2: all they could to persuade her to spill as much
Speaker 2: dirt on me as what she could, but she didn't.
Speaker 2: She rang me up and told me what happened. Then,
Speaker 2: of course, after I wrote the first book, which really
Speaker 2: is what started the major controversy, the police sued me
Speaker 2: for defamation. And I think that I can say fairly
Speaker 2: accurately that I'm the only person that the police have
Speaker 2: ever sued the defamation in New Zealand's history.
Speaker 3: Jo Karam, why are you doing this?
Speaker 1: He is guilty as.
Speaker 4: Can't be wrong, and the government.
Speaker 2: Of cries can't all be wrong.
Speaker 5: Surely, I don't know how well informed you are, but
Speaker 5: the jury did not hear all of the evidence. Much
Speaker 5: of the evidence they did here was wrong. The detective
Speaker 5: in fact who sued me admitted under oath during my
Speaker 5: trial that his evidence on a most crucial matter was wrong.
Speaker 5: The other detective be sued me under cross examination made
Speaker 5: the statement that if he'd been asked, he would have
Speaker 5: told the whole truth.
Speaker 1: You've mentioned before it had been tough, and I liked
Speaker 1: this quote. You're sometimes represented as being a raving redneck
Speaker 1: who had lost the plot, and it seems like you've
Speaker 1: been on the receiving end, especially a lot of public
Speaker 1: backlash over the years. What kind of toll has that
Speaker 1: taken on you thirty years down the track.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't say it's the toll lives with me now.
Speaker 2: I mean, if I look at the case now in retrospect,
Speaker 2: I have a great personal satisfaction and the feeling of trial.
Speaker 2: But as I said before David Dane, which will probably
Speaker 2: be writing in jail instead of being happily married, it
Speaker 2: gives me a great deal of bribe and satisfaction that
Speaker 2: my stick ability and or work I did and if
Speaker 2: I put into it a result than that.
Speaker 1: You've said the campaign costs you millions over the years
Speaker 1: were you surprised going in how much it actually cost
Speaker 1: to challenge the legal system, because first cab off the
Speaker 1: rank was getting someone over to the Privy Council way
Speaker 1: and you donated what like twelve grand.
Speaker 2: The initial thing was with Michael Guest, David's original lawyer,
Speaker 2: and I didn't think you'd get to the Privy Council
Speaker 2: in London for twelve thousand dollars. I was recentably well
Speaker 2: off at that time and the case he was bringing
Speaker 2: seemed to be quite powerful to me. In fact, that's
Speaker 2: when my association with the case just became public. What
Speaker 2: I discovered on that visit and soon after was that
Speaker 2: Michael Guests, David's original lawyer, did a terrible job, and
Speaker 2: so one of the first major decisions I made was
Speaker 2: to sack him, and I arranged for Colin Wisnoll CAC
Speaker 2: and Dunedin to work with me to investigate whether or
Speaker 2: not he thought there'd been a miscarriage of justice that
Speaker 2: was challengeable through the proper channels, and that after working
Speaker 2: with me for twelve months, he agreed that there was,
Speaker 2: and we lodged the petition to the Governor General.
Speaker 1: Would you do it all again?
Speaker 2: I would definitely do it all again, and I wouldn't
Speaker 2: change I wouldn't be able to change anything, because if
Speaker 2: I didn't be as feisty and determined and out spoken
Speaker 2: and voiced things publicly as I did, I'd be just
Speaker 2: like the Watson case now, struggling on twenty three years later,
Speaker 2: hoping for the best and expecting the worst. So the
Speaker 2: only thing I did wrong was have a faith in
Speaker 2: the powers that be that they would take my concerns seriously.
Speaker 2: That they didn't, and so when they treated me the
Speaker 2: way they did, I treated them the same way back.
Speaker 1: Over the last fifteen years. How much of your time
Speaker 1: is still spent protecting David and I guess his new
Speaker 1: family now as well.
Speaker 2: David actually said to me after the two thousand and
Speaker 2: three decision of the Court of Appeal, and I was
Speaker 2: sitting with him in prison. I think I might have
Speaker 2: been shedding it through tears, and I was looking in
Speaker 2: the eye and saying, I just can't believe this, and
Speaker 2: they right have. I got this all wrong, David, and
Speaker 2: you've been bullshitting me all along. And David looked at
Speaker 2: me and said, Joe, you're doing tougher lag than me.
Speaker 2: He said, I am innocent, and I'll never ever admit
Speaker 2: enough fight on somehow that you need to get on
Speaker 2: with your life glowing away. And as I said, I
Speaker 2: wrote a letter of the Court of Appeal and told
Speaker 2: them that they were wrong, and I go to the
Speaker 2: Privy Council and that's what I did. But in terms
Speaker 2: of protecting David, the biggest thing was since the retrial,
Speaker 2: that is the biggest thing for me, was to get
Speaker 2: him some compensation. And so after Binny's report was throwing
Speaker 2: out in twenty twelve, I then had to fight on
Speaker 2: for another four years to finally get him about a
Speaker 2: million dollars in twenty and sixteen, which gave him the
Speaker 2: opportunity of creating And he was married by then and
Speaker 2: he had one child by then, which gave him his
Speaker 2: wife at least the opportunity of creating a life for
Speaker 2: themselves and some privacy. But since that time and David
Speaker 2: and I agreed it well at his wife that it
Speaker 2: was their life and they would live at how they
Speaker 2: wished to where they wished to, and to make decisions
Speaker 2: for themselves. I offered that anytime they even needed to
Speaker 2: meet a help them, I would, but that they would
Speaker 2: basically get on with their life in their own way,
Speaker 2: which is what I've done.
Speaker 1: And they're doing well. Do they manage to kind of
Speaker 1: avoid being bothered?
Speaker 2: Well, they have done extremely well. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: another thing about all the nonsense that's been written by
Speaker 2: so many people. I must say that most of it
Speaker 2: has come out of the christ Church Press, with Martin
Speaker 2: Van Dyanam leading the charge. As you know, Van Dayna
Speaker 2: wrote the story which New Zealand just went along with
Speaker 2: that naturally enough that David Dane had sort of scarped
Speaker 2: off to Australia with his wife and that's where he
Speaker 2: was living. That was totally untrue. David never went to
Speaker 2: Australia to live. He had one short holiday there on
Speaker 2: the Gold Coast with his wife, but he never contemplated
Speaker 2: living there and never went there at all, And eventually
Speaker 2: they shifted to where they now live. His wife has
Speaker 2: a very very good job, is highly respected and they've
Speaker 2: built a great life for themselves. They've got two children
Speaker 2: who are doing exceptionally well and as as far as
Speaker 2: they've got great support, need work in the community where
Speaker 2: they are and whether or not what's happening now with
Speaker 2: this anniversary and the scrutiny on things will change that.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I'm sure David will holding me
Speaker 2: if anything does have.
Speaker 1: And have you spoken to him recently, I mean just
Speaker 1: checking in with him. I guess I'm given it thirty years.
Speaker 2: We speak to each other regularly, not every day or
Speaker 2: every week or anything, but sort of once a month
Speaker 2: or two months. We've never got old and wag on
Speaker 2: the phone and talk about how things are going. He
Speaker 2: talks about his family and what he's doing for work
Speaker 2: and so on. And I've talked to him recently about
Speaker 2: thet I media scrutiny that's been going on, and he said, look,
Speaker 2: we're living a happy life. We've got a good support
Speaker 2: network around us, and I just wanted to sort of
Speaker 2: just keep my head down and be tap with my
Speaker 2: family and close friends. So that's what you're doing.
Speaker 1: How are you feeling?
Speaker 2: What was it like to hear that phrase not guilty
Speaker 2: repeated five times today?
Speaker 6: I was a huge release for me, to be honest,
Speaker 6: I just in some respects it took a huge weights
Speaker 6: off my shoulders. But it's also shown me that I
Speaker 6: love all these people, and this fantastic man here has
Speaker 6: gone through and it's just it's all coming at once.
Speaker 1: Do you think New Zealand needs to move on.
Speaker 2: Well, I think what needs to happen this Black Hands
Speaker 2: and Bain and thing is what it did. It had
Speaker 2: an enormous effect. I mean it turns. I mean younger
Speaker 2: people tend to listen to podcasts. I know that's changed now,
Speaker 2: lots of people do. But all of the people who
Speaker 2: were too young to follow the case and know about
Speaker 2: the case, there are only reference about the case is
Speaker 2: not only the podcast. But then New Zealand n Air
Speaker 2: granted five million dollars to Warner Brothers to do that
Speaker 2: television three part doco drama on this thing. What I
Speaker 2: think needs to happen and answer your question, somebody should
Speaker 2: put out five million dollars to have an investigation into
Speaker 2: what went wrong, who did what, when did they do
Speaker 2: it and why and get some accountability. Not for the
Speaker 2: purpose of vengeance on all the people who did do
Speaker 2: things wrong, as I don't think David or me want
Speaker 2: to see any of them get locked up, even though
Speaker 2: they deserve it, but to make sure or put things
Speaker 2: in place to try to ensure that something like this
Speaker 2: never happens again.
Speaker 1: You're saying instead of giving money to the likes of
Speaker 1: a three part docco.
Speaker 2: Series which was a pointless It was pointless, a proved
Speaker 2: and I think it added nothing to the story, and
Speaker 2: in fact it wasn't even very didn't get very good ratings.
Speaker 2: But that you know, it creates controversy and.
Speaker 1: Unnecessary and I suppose retraumatizers as well. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is probably a period of David's life that he doesn't
Speaker 1: really want to reflect on too much.
Speaker 2: Well exactly, but not only in I mean, I know
Speaker 2: his extended family have ditched him and taken aside of
Speaker 2: the police, but I don't think they want all the
Speaker 2: stuff regurgitated over and over and over again, because you know,
Speaker 2: as much as I think they were wrong in the
Speaker 2: way they behaved, each tended family that is, and not
Speaker 2: supporting David. However, of course, it was their brother and
Speaker 2: sister and and nephews and cousins who also lost their
Speaker 2: lives and say they've been through a great deal of
Speaker 2: trauma as well. And the reurgitating of what happened is
Speaker 2: no help to anybody. But what would be a help
Speaker 2: would be to try to ensure that these practices are
Speaker 2: well and truly in the past and put things in
Speaker 2: place to make sure they don't happen again.
Speaker 1: Is it time for New Zealand to leave David and
Speaker 1: his family alone?
Speaker 2: Well, it would be much easier for them to leave
Speaker 2: him alone if the facts of the case were properly
Speaker 2: put on the table and his innocence was acknowledged instead
Speaker 2: of trying to portray him, as we've talked about with
Speaker 2: the various podcasts and so on, as a killer living
Speaker 2: amongst us. It's pretty obvious what happened, and the only
Speaker 2: valuable thing that can be done for the case is
Speaker 2: to learn from the mistakes that were made by the police,
Speaker 2: by the Crown Law Office in Wellington, by the judges
Speaker 2: at the Court of Appeal, and by politicians. He could
Speaker 2: have all put a stop to this way back in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety seven when I went and told them, I mean,
Speaker 2: what happened in the retrial is exactly what I told
Speaker 2: them would happen if there was a retrial and I
Speaker 2: was proven right thirteen years later. You know, I'd never
Speaker 2: had any experience in law or criminal cases, and if
Speaker 2: I could see how clearly what the case was by myself,
Speaker 2: then all these people could have seen it. If it
Speaker 2: wasn't for their institutional bias which they brought to play
Speaker 2: on the case. An answer your question, yes, leave it alone,
Speaker 2: or if you're going to touch it, at least acknowledge
Speaker 2: the shortcomings and all of the authorities. When I went
Speaker 2: to see the police originally, it never would have been
Speaker 2: all this controversy if they'd sat down with me and
Speaker 2: discussed and worked out the way forward. I didn't want
Speaker 2: to write books about the case. I didn't want to
Speaker 2: have all this controversy and have David writing away prison
Speaker 2: for thirty more years. But instead of that, their response
Speaker 2: was to try and destroy all the evidence. The controversy
Speaker 2: is at the feat of the authorities, not a David
Speaker 2: to mine.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Joe, David, Bain, Scott Watson, Grace Mulane,
Speaker 1: Heavenly Creatures, the Crew Murders. Some cases have captured Kiwi's
Speaker 1: imagination and focus over the years more than others, So
Speaker 1: why do we care about some cases rather than others?
Speaker 1: To discuss this further, we're joined now on the front
Speaker 1: page by aut University's professor of Popular culture, doctor Lorna
Speaker 1: Piatti Farnell. Lorna whether it's podcasts, articles, documentaries, TV, adaptations.
Speaker 1: We all seem to love true crime, don't we What
Speaker 1: drives that fascination?
Speaker 7: Well, the fascination which true crime likely comes from many causes,
Speaker 7: and there are probably many reasons as to why people
Speaker 7: enjoy true crime stories so much.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 7: Generally speaking, I would say that the interest in true
Speaker 7: crime likely stems first of all from the curiosity the
Speaker 7: people have about these highly confronting stories. People want to
Speaker 7: know more and find out the motivations of these killers.
Speaker 7: Above all, the exploration of what we could not imagine
Speaker 7: doing and the focus on what it's perceived as different,
Speaker 7: deviant and simply just not fitting in our society. Now,
Speaker 7: I think there is a desire to try and discover
Speaker 7: some form of blueprint over what caused the murderers to
Speaker 7: do what they did, and perhaps even to avoid it
Speaker 7: happening again in the future. Unfortunately, no matter how many
Speaker 7: true crime stories we might watch, this is not simply
Speaker 7: a journey of causality and correlation that applies to every
Speaker 7: single case, So it doesn't quite work like that, but
Speaker 7: still we try and true crime stories for the fans
Speaker 7: they will know this are often very very visceral and
Speaker 7: get into very gory details, so there's probably a certain strange,
Speaker 7: foreuristic side to the fascination, and of course true crime
Speaker 7: is based generally speaking on real historical events it actually happened,
Speaker 7: So there is also a layer of unspoken mixture of
Speaker 7: fear and excitement that goes with the experience as well the.
Speaker 4: Thrill of delving into the crime and all his details.
Speaker 1: Shall we say, yeah, And looking at David Baine as
Speaker 1: an example, it's been thirty years and he's gone through
Speaker 1: two trials now, but we can't seem to leave it alone.
Speaker 1: What do you think motivates people to keep talking about Bain?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 7: What a case like that of Bain and several others
Speaker 7: in a similar category, there is I think, in equal
Speaker 7: parts fascination and repulsion over the fact that the perpetrators
Speaker 7: of the crime of the murders did not kill strangers,
Speaker 7: as it is often the case with a lot of
Speaker 7: true crime stories that we see, but they killed members
Speaker 7: of their family, or allegedly killed members of their family
Speaker 7: as the trial went. Now the people that they should
Speaker 7: have loved the most and cherished the most and cared about,
Speaker 7: and that truly has a certain, should we say, unimaginable
Speaker 7: quality to it. Truly is the call of the unthinkable,
Speaker 7: and of course murder is thankfully unthinkable from the majority
Speaker 7: of people. But when we encounter cases when it does
Speaker 7: happen within family circles, there is a challenge to our
Speaker 7: sense of safety, the pushing of boundaries of our comfort zone,
Speaker 7: which is likely why these particular cases get so much attention.
Speaker 7: And also we should not underestimate the idea that someone
Speaker 7: may have actually been wrongfully convicted of a crime and
Speaker 7: spent time in prison, as that's certainly something that resonates
Speaker 7: with people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we were talking about Scott Watson on the podcast
Speaker 1: the other week and one of our guests noted how
Speaker 1: the name has been Smart and Olivia Hope. The fact
Speaker 1: that we both young, white, blonde made that case stand
Speaker 1: out more. Perhaps, you know.
Speaker 3: A couple of really attractive kids doing what a lot
Speaker 3: of kids of that age did, which is their first
Speaker 3: holidays with their friends, not their family, not to mention
Speaker 3: their surnames, Hope and Smart. You know, they were the
Speaker 3: perfect sort of white middle class kids, beautiful, intelligent, their
Speaker 3: whole lives ahead of them. And I think that's what
Speaker 3: capitivated the country who because I think if it was
Speaker 3: you know, as some different people in a small town,
Speaker 3: for example, there wouldn't have been such a huge kind
Speaker 3: of interest.
Speaker 1: Does race and class play into which cases garner our
Speaker 1: attention over others? Do you think?
Speaker 4: I see?
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, if we look at all the research that has
Speaker 7: been conducted in this particular area and on this particular
Speaker 7: topic in several fields, from criminal psychology to gender and
Speaker 7: race studies to cultural and media studies, there is definitely
Speaker 7: for evidence to suggest that, unfortunately, race, gender, and class
Speaker 7: do play central parts in victim and perpetrator definition, in
Speaker 7: the creation of sympathy or lack of sympathy, and the
Speaker 7: attention that the case may actually get in the news.
Speaker 7: There is a lot of stereotyping that happens, and most
Speaker 7: often than not, this can reflect negatively on the victims
Speaker 7: or on the perpetrator. It is regrettable and it is
Speaker 7: essential that we maintain a continuous awareness of this, especially
Speaker 7: when presented with criminal acts in both real life and
Speaker 7: fictionalized accounts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's also seventy years since the Polling Parker and
Speaker 1: Juliet Home murders in what's known as the Heavenly Creature's case,
Speaker 1: So this isn't really a modern phenomenon, is it, well.
Speaker 7: I'm assuming you mean the news and cultural hype of
Speaker 7: a murder rather than wealth, as the latter has been around.
Speaker 4: I think for as long as humans have been around.
Speaker 7: The narrative, shall we say, constructions of a murder, the
Speaker 7: storytelling of a murder, and what part do news outlets
Speaker 7: and media play in Generally, that is not.
Speaker 4: A contemporary occurrence.
Speaker 7: Certainly from the late nineteenth entry onwards with you know,
Speaker 7: famous cases like that of Jack the Ripper, there has
Speaker 7: been a fascination with the idea of crime that has
Speaker 7: been fueled by storytelling, and this has been transported from
Speaker 7: the news or other forms of media such as film
Speaker 7: and television and more recently you know podcasts and the
Speaker 7: like very popular with listeners. And then sensationalization of murder
Speaker 7: has really been occurring ever since news and later media
Speaker 7: audiences have been a thing.
Speaker 4: So absolutely, it's not really a new phenomenon.
Speaker 1: How much does news media drive interest in these cases
Speaker 1: and should there be I guess more consideration from journalists
Speaker 1: in what cases they spotlight?
Speaker 7: I suppose yes, that is a good question, and news
Speaker 7: media have historically been central to drawing public attention to
Speaker 7: particular cases. Especially in building, you know, speculation and fascination
Speaker 7: around particular crimes, especially murders.
Speaker 4: Now the serial killer phenomenon as it's often called, more
Speaker 4: than the murder themselves, and then the public attention around
Speaker 4: it has been intrinsically connected with media attention. Sometimes historical
Speaker 4: facts and popular views can merge, they can blend and
Speaker 4: merge and become one, and some ideas of facts become
Speaker 4: very cemented into people's minds and difficult to shake, whether
Speaker 4: they actually happen or not. So it is always important
Speaker 4: to maintain vigilance over what information is shared and circulated
Speaker 4: about these cases and in our contemporary era, not only
Speaker 4: in official media outlets, but also on user generated content platforms,
Speaker 4: and there are certainly quite a lot of those arounds
Speaker 4: of vigilance, definitely the key.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Lorna. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of The Front Page. You can read more about today's
Speaker 1: stories and extensive news coverage at enzeed Herald dot co
Speaker 1: dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Siles
Speaker 1: with sound engineer Patti Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
Speaker 1: the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your
Speaker 1: podcasts and Tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.