Speaker 1: It's in the news today, but it was actually on
Speaker 1: TV Reload the podcast last week Airline. Welcome back guys
Speaker 1: to TV Reload. My name is Benjamin Norris, and on
Speaker 1: this podcast I go behind the scenes with the biggest
Speaker 1: players in television. Each episode you will get a front
Speaker 1: row seat with content makers like executive producers, writers, editors,
Speaker 1: and casting agents, plus the talent that we see on
Speaker 1: our screens. TV Reload reloads the shows that you're currently
Speaker 1: watching and gives you a better insight into our television
Speaker 1: industry and our streaming services. Today on the podcast, I
Speaker 1: have two guests joining me to discuss their extraordinary work
Speaker 1: on the two part series Clamont A Killer amongst Us,
Speaker 1: which debuted last night on Network ten and concludes this
Speaker 1: evening at seven point thirty. The series will be available
Speaker 1: on ten Play and if you want to catch up
Speaker 1: on this brilliant documentary, I do suggest you do so.
Speaker 1: I was lucky enough to preview this series and straight
Speaker 1: away I lined up this chat with ten publicity. Dan
Speaker 1: Brown joins me from Joined Up Films. He is the
Speaker 1: executive producer creative to rector on the series and his
Speaker 1: insights today and how we managed to produce this series
Speaker 1: with empathy and integrity is fascinating. He is joined by
Speaker 1: network Executive producer at Network ten, Kieran Flannery, who shared
Speaker 1: Dan's vision for the story and should be really proud
Speaker 1: of the finished product because it is first class storytelling
Speaker 1: in the genre of true crime. The story of the
Speaker 1: Clamont murders rocked Western Australia for decades with no resolution
Speaker 1: and with many people aware of a killer walking amongst
Speaker 1: their community. It is one of Australia's most notorious cases,
Speaker 1: and while we have the men behind bars, there's a
Speaker 1: lot to discuss as the series unpacks DNA technology, the
Speaker 1: police's dedication, and it also includes stories from the victims
Speaker 1: of these horrendous crimes. We will talk about the popularity
Speaker 1: of true crime and why it's currently a phenomenon, what
Speaker 1: sort of integrity was needed to tell the story properly,
Speaker 1: some of the decisions in what makes the final cut,
Speaker 1: and how they manage to get so many people to
Speaker 1: be included in this series. However, let's get started with
Speaker 1: today's guest. I'd like to welcome Dan Brown from Joined
Speaker 1: Up Films and Karen Flannery from Network ten to TV Reload.
Speaker 2: I have to tell that story was the tricky bet.
Speaker 2: We didn't want to just do a straight retelling of
Speaker 2: the event.
Speaker 3: Today mark's the end of a dark chapter in its history.
Speaker 2: But many questions from they unanswered.
Speaker 3: In any true prime documentary about serial killings or murders,
Speaker 3: of course, the victims and the families are massive focus,
Speaker 3: and so they should be.
Speaker 1: It all started decades agot. Young innocent women taken away
Speaker 1: from their families are.
Speaker 3: Going to shock. I think there has to be a
Speaker 3: really strong reason in your storytelling behind that.
Speaker 2: How can he go thirty our years committing the most
Speaker 2: painous crime. We had psychologists on hand to talk to
Speaker 2: them to make sure that we were doing the right
Speaker 2: thing by them. These girls got plucked from the quietest,
Speaker 2: most trusting areas in Australia. The bar has been raised.
Speaker 2: You have to do these things well. They have to
Speaker 2: be smart, They have to multi layers.
Speaker 1: Hi, guys, thank you so much for coming on the
Speaker 1: podcast and talking about Clamont a killer amongst us. We
Speaker 1: do have two English accents here, so I'm going to
Speaker 1: have to try and help the audience differentiate who I'm
Speaker 1: talking to. But you know, we'll try and work it out.
Speaker 3: Would you like me to do another accent.
Speaker 1: If you can do the accent convincingly and it's not distracting, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: be yourself. We have Dan Brown from Joined Up Films.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us to talk about the Clamont Murders,
Speaker 1: The Killer among Us, which did debut last night, and
Speaker 1: we have a conclusion this evening on Network ten.
Speaker 2: Oh look, it's such a I'm so delighted that you're interested.
Speaker 2: You know, you spend a lot of time coming up
Speaker 2: with these ideas and a lot of time crafting them,
Speaker 2: and then you put them out in the world and
Speaker 2: you hope that they do well. And you know, the
Speaker 2: response we've had so far has been fantastic, and the
Speaker 2: fact that you're picking up on all of the nuances
Speaker 2: that we've really spent a lot of time crafting is
Speaker 2: really gratifying. So thanks for having us.
Speaker 1: Well, this must have been under your skin for quite
Speaker 1: some time and now people are finally getting to watch it.
Speaker 1: Are you keen to hear what people have to say
Speaker 1: after sinking their teeth into the next part this evening?
Speaker 2: You always put these films out with a sense of trepidation.
Speaker 2: You hope that you've done the best that you can
Speaker 2: and you know that it's going to be received well.
Speaker 2: But it's been a long time. I think we've sort
Speaker 2: of worked out maybe December twenty twenty is when we
Speaker 2: went into paid development on this, so we started the
Speaker 2: journey with ten around then. It took about a year
Speaker 2: to you know before almost a year before it got
Speaker 2: fully commissioned because we wanted to make sure we were
Speaker 2: telling the right story for the right reasons. And then
Speaker 2: it's you know, it's been we were at least six
Speaker 2: seven months in the edits week after we'd filmed everything,
Speaker 2: just really sort of crafting it. So it's been a
Speaker 2: lot of hard work.
Speaker 1: We also have Kiaren Flannery from Network ten and you're
Speaker 1: here to talk about your involvement. Hey, Benjamin how I
Speaker 1: this story spans decades and has had Australians you know,
Speaker 1: glued to all the twists and turns. Do you think
Speaker 1: that for audiences out there, what do you think that
Speaker 1: they're going to learn from this retelling of the story.
Speaker 3: There's a lot in it, you know, with two ninety
Speaker 3: minute episodes, it covers a lot of ground. But I
Speaker 3: think the thing that sort of resonates the most for
Speaker 3: me is really the human story of the investigators and
Speaker 3: what they went through as well as I mean, in
Speaker 3: any true crime documentary about serial killings or murders, of
Speaker 3: course the victims and the families are massive focus, and
Speaker 3: so they should be, and they are in this as well.
Speaker 3: But I think the access that we had to the
Speaker 3: investigators through WA Police was something that sets this documentary apart.
Speaker 3: And I think often you ignore the human toll it
Speaker 3: takes on the people who are trying to find a killer,
Speaker 3: especially when they can't find him or her, And for
Speaker 3: me that is I think that, yeah, that human face
Speaker 3: on the investigators is something that people will take away.
Speaker 3: Did you know the story before you watch the documentary?
Speaker 1: And we all know it to a certain extent, but
Speaker 1: absolutely not with the detail, do you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Like you know, if you mentioned the Clamont murders, I
Speaker 1: would know certain parts of it, but I absolutely didn't
Speaker 1: know it was him, and so that was a revelation.
Speaker 3: The variability of how much people know about the case
Speaker 3: is huge, Like there are people who I think in
Speaker 3: way everyone knows all about it, right, it's sort of
Speaker 3: part of the discourse and almost popular culture over there.
Speaker 3: But once you sort of get to the Eastern States.
Speaker 3: It's kind of it's variable. Some people know it really well,
Speaker 3: some don't. And I think the way that Dan's team
Speaker 3: told the story is actually really clever because it's they
Speaker 3: assume that you don't know anything, which is good.
Speaker 1: It's the best way that you can make a documentary
Speaker 1: like this, though, I think, is to assume that the
Speaker 1: audience doesn't know everything and to take them on a journey.
Speaker 1: And I think also having the time to do it
Speaker 1: over two episodes was important.
Speaker 2: There really was a lot to tell, and there was
Speaker 2: a lot of nuance, and that's really what we wanted
Speaker 2: to do was get to the heart of the emotion
Speaker 2: of what it was like to be there, what it
Speaker 2: was like to live through this, what it was like
Speaker 2: to be one of the victims or the victim's family,
Speaker 2: but also what it was like to be the police
Speaker 2: who were investigating this, because you know, that's a pretty
Speaker 2: teneteous effort to be able to solve this crime after
Speaker 2: so long and there was so much pressure on their shoulders.
Speaker 2: So to tell that story from a human perspective but
Speaker 2: from all all department that was really the key, and
Speaker 2: we wanted to be able to make this show and
Speaker 2: be able to look at the families in the eye
Speaker 2: and know that we had done this with dignity and
Speaker 2: with respect, with empathy. You know, we spent a lot
Speaker 2: of time crafting it, a lot of time in the
Speaker 2: edits week, like, we held it back from going to
Speaker 2: the network. I know, maybe a month, maybe two months,
Speaker 2: a long time more than you know I've done on
Speaker 2: anything else I reckon, because we just couldn't get this wrong.
Speaker 2: It needed it was so important.
Speaker 3: And you know, often when when when a production company
Speaker 3: holds back from showing me something, it's normally not a
Speaker 3: good thing. But in this instance, it was a really
Speaker 3: really good thing, and it was great you know when
Speaker 3: when and that extra time they took was well worth it.
Speaker 1: You could tell that there was a lot of respect
Speaker 1: for these people who had to talk about something that's
Speaker 1: the hardest thing that's ever happened to them in their life.
Speaker 3: It's respect as well. It's respect for the surviving victims. Obviously,
Speaker 3: the way they are treated is very respectful, and there's
Speaker 3: respect for the families because it's not about pouring over
Speaker 3: you know what it's like to lose someone close to you.
Speaker 3: It's not kind of that kind of gratuitous pouring over history.
Speaker 3: But I think there's a lot of respect and empathy
Speaker 3: for the police in the way that Dan and the
Speaker 3: team tackled it. You know, the police don't shy away
Speaker 3: from the fact that mistakes were made. With twenty twenty
Speaker 3: vision in hindsight, you can always look back on a
Speaker 3: case that long and find the places where they might
Speaker 3: have done something different. But the documentary doesn't choose to
Speaker 3: pick over that. It respects the fact that those police
Speaker 3: officers cared deeply and they did their best, and I
Speaker 3: think that really comes across and even where they can
Speaker 3: look back and say we would have done it differently,
Speaker 3: it's from a place of maximum effort. And I think yea,
Speaker 3: the empathy really applies not just to the victims Batchel,
Speaker 3: to the investigators as well, which I think is quite
Speaker 3: unique in this kind of documentary.
Speaker 2: Our starting point was the first people that we spoke
Speaker 2: to were Wendy and Liz, So the surviving victims, and
Speaker 2: that's some of the people I've worked with. Jacque and
Speaker 2: Willinge and Lisa Dupenoa did a really good job of
Speaker 2: developing relationships with those guys and really cared about them,
Speaker 2: and we had psychologists on hand to talk to them
Speaker 2: to make sure that we were doing the right thing
Speaker 2: by them. This was going to be a cathartic and
Speaker 2: useful experience for those guys, and I'm really sure that
Speaker 2: it was, having spoken to them and seen them over
Speaker 2: the journey. I remember we did a show reel, We
Speaker 2: did a taste of Real to show Channel ten. You know,
Speaker 2: Wendy and Liz, and their interviews were brilliant, really strong,
Speaker 2: angry interviews. And then the second time we interviewed them,
Speaker 2: they were still super strong, but some of the anger
Speaker 2: had dissipated because they were being heard. That was one
Speaker 2: of their biggest problems, that no one had been listening
Speaker 2: to them. And you know, we had to balance their
Speaker 2: story because they survived with the grief and trauma that
Speaker 2: the other families went through, you know, and get the
Speaker 2: balance in the storytelling right between those things. But it
Speaker 2: was really that level of sort of how these crimes
Speaker 2: were treated at the time, or how fences against women
Speaker 2: were treated at the time, and how victims were often
Speaker 2: treated back in times gone by, and how that has
Speaker 2: now changed and is changing constantly. That was a really
Speaker 2: important part of the film. It was sort of their underneath.
Speaker 2: It's not the main driver, but it was definitely a
Speaker 2: big part of the story that we wanted to tell.
Speaker 2: The courage of these women to come forward. They had to.
Speaker 2: Both of those women had to get suppression orders removed
Speaker 2: to be able to talk.
Speaker 1: What I thought was really impressive was creating a sense
Speaker 1: of the time. I don't necessarily know whether or not
Speaker 1: this man would have gotten away with what he got
Speaker 1: away with. You know, now that we have the technology
Speaker 1: that we have today, if that was real world now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. One of the things that you said
Speaker 2: earlier about the time and placing people back in that
Speaker 2: time is really important because actually trying to solve these
Speaker 2: crimes without mobile phones, without CCTV, without the internet. You know,
Speaker 2: DNA was in its infancy when this was starting. This
Speaker 2: is you know, almost a history of how to solve
Speaker 2: crime at the same time. And I suspect that, you know,
Speaker 2: there must be a lot of kind of nervous perpetrators
Speaker 2: of crimes that now this technology is available, you're seeing
Speaker 2: them solved. You're seeing more and more crime solved. But
Speaker 2: that was really interesting to me because when you start
Speaker 2: to look at it, you think, well, how did it
Speaker 2: take this long and then when you look back at
Speaker 2: what was available to those people, they did some amazing
Speaker 2: stuff like they DNA swabs every taxi driver, police officer,
Speaker 2: ambulance worker in path. I mean, that was at the
Speaker 2: time just unbelievable. So and just the fact that you know,
Speaker 2: when you start to make this film and you realize
Speaker 2: that all of these the three women were from were
Speaker 2: visiting one pub one one. This is a tiny, tiny
Speaker 2: little community that was so close you know that everybody
Speaker 2: knew everybody. So that made it an incredible story.
Speaker 3: That's part of what I think probably makes this particular
Speaker 3: case really resonate with an audience as well, that it's
Speaker 3: that pub. There's a pub like that in nearly everyone's neighborhood.
Speaker 3: There is that place that people gather. Whether you live
Speaker 3: in the city or in the country somewhere, there's always
Speaker 3: that place where you, as a youth, you'd go all
Speaker 3: the time. That was the kind of the local as
Speaker 3: it were, And I think Claremont as a place and
Speaker 3: those pubs, they almost become a kind of a character
Speaker 3: within within the documentary. And you know, the way that
Speaker 3: Dan and the team sort of created a sense of
Speaker 3: the nineties and what Perth was like back then. It
Speaker 3: sort of feeds into this kind of scary sense that
Speaker 3: it could have happened to anyone and it could have
Speaker 3: been anyone, which is sort of where we got the
Speaker 3: title for the film from as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean I think that was what it was
Speaker 1: for me was I think we all think that we're smart,
Speaker 1: you know, and we wouldn't let this happen to us.
Speaker 1: But it did happened, and it happened again and again,
Speaker 1: and someone was getting away with it, so you know,
Speaker 1: it does sort of you know, permeate with people who
Speaker 1: are watching the show. You know, Dan, how did this
Speaker 1: project come up for you? Because I know you moved
Speaker 1: from quit Are you sorry you moved from England to
Speaker 1: Western Australia. I don't know how did it come across
Speaker 1: your desk?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, I think at first sort of I knew
Speaker 2: of the story, but didn't know that much about it.
Speaker 2: And then when he was arrested after so long, that
Speaker 2: just was a really remarkable ton of events and everybody
Speaker 2: was interested in that story. But how to tell that
Speaker 2: story was the tricky bit. You know. We didn't want
Speaker 2: to just do a straight retelling of the events. All
Speaker 2: of the work that we do generally has other sort
Speaker 2: of societal layers to it. So it was finding the
Speaker 2: way into that through, you know, in a different way.
Speaker 2: So that's how it sort of and finding finding the
Speaker 2: surviving victims and hearing their stories was a really that
Speaker 2: then started us thinking about, okay, how we tell this
Speaker 2: for it more intelligently, I think, But yeah, that was
Speaker 2: we wanted to do something other than just the straight retelling.
Speaker 2: We wouldn't have done it otherwise, we really wouldn't, and
Speaker 2: we did even have you know, we thought long and
Speaker 2: hard about doing it. Even when we were we could
Speaker 2: do it, was you know, we had to do it
Speaker 2: the right way. It was really weighed heavily actually on
Speaker 2: our shoulders that every decision we scrutinized really carefully, even
Speaker 2: down to yeah, we removed any sort of gratuitous words
Speaker 2: from news reports. We cut out you know, naked body
Speaker 2: or whatever it was. We just wanted to make sure
Speaker 2: that we were we were just telling the essence of
Speaker 2: the story and not backing over anybody's grief unnecessarily.
Speaker 1: Karen, what was it about the Clamont murders that made
Speaker 1: Network ten want to tell this story?
Speaker 3: In many ways? I was the perfect test case for
Speaker 3: the pitch, actually, because I had never heard of the
Speaker 3: Clermont serial killing. So I moved to Australia eleven years ago,
Speaker 3: so it was that in that perfect window where the
Speaker 3: case had gone cold. Really, So when when and pitched
Speaker 3: it to us, and I think two and a half
Speaker 3: years ago now that the pitch first came to us,
Speaker 3: it was completely fresh to me, and I was just
Speaker 3: stunned by this story really, and you know, when Dan
Speaker 3: told us it, it it was just a remarkable story.
Speaker 3: And I went back and actually was at the West Australian,
Speaker 3: I think, did a podcast and there was a lot
Speaker 3: of episodes of this podcast. So I went home that
Speaker 3: day after the pitch and put the podcast on and
Speaker 3: I don't know how many hours of this I listened to,
Speaker 3: but I listened to dozens of hours, and I was
Speaker 3: just completely hooked on the story. And I think immediately
Speaker 3: it was obvious that this is a story that had
Speaker 3: to be told. The timing was just right, with the
Speaker 3: case finally being being ended and you know, the perpetrator
Speaker 3: going to prison, and I think Dan's angle of telling
Speaker 3: the story in a different way and not just retelling
Speaker 3: it as a blow by Blow really resonated with us.
Speaker 3: I think Dan mentioned a moment ago societal layers at
Speaker 3: that time and still to this day. Of course, there's
Speaker 3: a big topic around the way victims, particularly female victims,
Speaker 3: are treated by the media and to a degree by
Speaker 3: the police and society generally, and I think the timing
Speaker 3: felt right to tell this story as well.
Speaker 1: I'd love to know from both of you your thoughts
Speaker 1: on the popularity of true crime, you know, and why
Speaker 1: we have had a rise and popularity for this genre,
Speaker 1: you know, both in podcasts and in television, you know,
Speaker 1: what makes us so invested? Dan, I'll start with you.
Speaker 2: I think anything on the edges of society or the
Speaker 2: extremes of society is generally pretty interesting, you know, and
Speaker 2: you want to feel safe, so you want to be
Speaker 2: able to look at people who commit these kind of
Speaker 2: crimes and think, well, that's not me, or they're different
Speaker 2: to me, or they're a monster. And I think what's
Speaker 2: really interested in this case is that it wasn't well
Speaker 2: they were a monster, but they were just able to
Speaker 2: survive in society. And that's the bit that I think
Speaker 2: is really intriguing to people and why they want to
Speaker 2: learn about cases like this because it just feels like
Speaker 2: it literally was someone next door who was creating these
Speaker 2: terrible events, and you kind of I think true crime
Speaker 2: you want to be able to look at the perpetrators
Speaker 2: and say they're different, because that makes you feel safer.
Speaker 2: That's what I think I mean. And I think that
Speaker 2: there is obviously, you know, there has been such a
Speaker 2: large amount of really good true crime that has been
Speaker 2: produced internationally. Now the bar has been raised. You have
Speaker 2: to do these things well, they have to be smart,
Speaker 2: they have to have multi layers. So I think that's
Speaker 2: probably probably a combination of those things. There's a there's
Speaker 2: a fascination in the worst of society.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look, there's there's a fascination fascination in the
Speaker 3: people who perpetrate these crimes. But there's different types of
Speaker 3: true crime documentary as well. You know, there are documentaries
Speaker 3: that focus on those perpetrators and what is ticking underneath
Speaker 3: it to make them do these things, But there's also
Speaker 3: good old fashioned who done it? And I think you know,
Speaker 3: audiences are well versed in in you know, procedural crime dramas,
Speaker 3: and I think if you can apply those you know
Speaker 3: that there's sort of the rules of procedural crime drama
Speaker 3: to a real life story through documentary, You've got yourself
Speaker 3: something that's even more engaging. Really so, I mean an
Speaker 3: element of it is just people have a good old
Speaker 3: fashion who done it well.
Speaker 1: I think they feel like they can become invested. I
Speaker 1: will share something with the two of you. And I
Speaker 1: started listening to a series of true crime podcasts, and
Speaker 1: after listening to them for a while, I realized that
Speaker 1: all the ones that I was listening to at a beginning,
Speaker 1: in a middle, and an end, and I needed that
Speaker 1: somehow conditioned myself into needing that payoff at the end.
Speaker 3: True. It's true of podcasts a lot, because so often
Speaker 3: podcasts are coming out that are tackling a crime that
Speaker 3: has just been reported or just happened, and you know,
Speaker 3: very often no one has been caught, or it's a
Speaker 3: missing person and they haven't been found and maybe will
Speaker 3: never be found. It's a fair point as well, because
Speaker 3: I think this story probably wouldn't have come to us
Speaker 3: if it hadn't come to a conclusion. I think that
Speaker 3: is it is an important part. If you're going to
Speaker 3: invest three hours of your week into a film, you
Speaker 3: do want a satisfying ending.
Speaker 1: I think I'm quite interested in as well, looking at
Speaker 1: documentary versus scripted drama. You know, when it comes to
Speaker 1: exploring and investigating real life events, do you have a
Speaker 1: massive leaning preference to documentary over a retelling of real
Speaker 1: life events.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I certainly do. I mean, I'm you know, I'm
Speaker 2: the sort of guy that only reads autobiographies and you
Speaker 2: know anything that there's enough interesting real stuff out there
Speaker 2: for me not to get too distracted by drama. And
Speaker 2: I just think you're not to knock any dramas. And
Speaker 2: I would do a drama, but I think you've got
Speaker 2: to be even more careful if you do in a
Speaker 2: drama as to why, you know, as particularly with a
Speaker 2: case of sensitive as this. And there is a drama
Speaker 2: coming out on this that I'm really interested to see.
Speaker 2: But personally, I just I need to make sure I've
Speaker 2: got my reasoning right for telling these stories.
Speaker 3: I think there is there are there are some great
Speaker 3: drama retellings of famous crimes that are brilliant. You know,
Speaker 3: I've watched the House of Gucci not that long ago,
Speaker 3: and it's a remarkable film. But you know, even something
Speaker 3: like that is there's there's always points that are contested
Speaker 3: about the way it's told. If you're going to dramatize
Speaker 3: a story that is fraught with danger, and you know,
Speaker 3: particularly the story like the Claremont serial killings, it's it
Speaker 3: is something that you have to tread very very careful
Speaker 3: on because it wasn't that long ago. The families are
Speaker 3: still around. You have as a great responsibility on the
Speaker 3: producer if you're going to if you're going to fictionalize something.
Speaker 1: Did you both watch the Jeffrey Darmer series, you know,
Speaker 1: by Ryan Murphy? And I wanted to know how that's
Speaker 1: sapped with you. I don't know if one of you
Speaker 1: wants to handle that question or you both do, but
Speaker 1: I'd love to know whether you watched it.
Speaker 2: We delivered this a long time before that came out,
Speaker 2: so it didn't have any influence, and I think it
Speaker 2: would Miami Current would be around. It's a it's a
Speaker 2: great piece of work. The thing for me is, you know,
Speaker 2: we were very careful about one stage in the edit,
Speaker 2: we didn't even have a picture of the perpetrator of
Speaker 2: these crimes, so giving them airtime and making them some
Speaker 2: sort of pseudo hero would be really wrong for me.
Speaker 2: So that's you know, I haven't seen all of the
Speaker 2: DAMA stuff, but that's the that that would be my
Speaker 2: take on it. Just to be careful of what you're doing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you have. There's a lot of choices
Speaker 3: you can make as as a producer of a drama.
Speaker 3: It felt, if I'm being completely honest, it felt of
Speaker 3: little gratuitous For me personally. I found it very hard.
Speaker 3: I think everyone found it hard to watch. I found
Speaker 3: it it was it was gratuitously explicit in places, and
Speaker 3: I think that you have to ask yourself what there
Speaker 3: has to be a reason for that. I think, you know,
Speaker 3: is it furthering your understanding of the character, Is it
Speaker 3: furthering your understanding the motives whatever that is? So you know,
Speaker 3: to Dan's point, you have has to be a real
Speaker 3: if you're going to shock, I think there has to
Speaker 3: be a really strong reason in your storytelling behind that.
Speaker 1: Well, it was terrifying that this man got away with
Speaker 1: his crime for so long. You know, is that a
Speaker 1: sign of the times and the world that you know,
Speaker 1: you guys had to create with this or do you
Speaker 1: think do you think then he would have been able
Speaker 1: to do this in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: I think it's highly unlikely. I think the mobile phone technology, CCTV,
Speaker 2: the internet, you know, I think it would have been
Speaker 2: solved a lot of DNA in particular. I think it
Speaker 2: shows just how far, you know, the police investigative techniques
Speaker 2: have come that I think it would be very hard.
Speaker 2: It would have been solved much.
Speaker 3: Quicker you've got. You've had a few cases in London recently,
Speaker 3: two over the last year of women who have gone missing,
Speaker 3: one who thankfully was found alive. And you see immediately
Speaker 3: as soon as these people go missing, the way the
Speaker 3: police are able to release a blow by blow of
Speaker 3: that person's movement just through CCTV, you know, dash cam cameras.
Speaker 3: I think that if this had happened, you know, if
Speaker 3: this had happened modern day, they would at the very
Speaker 3: least have probably quite quickly found a vehicle. There would
Speaker 3: there would be a lot more to go off. Whether
Speaker 3: they would have caught the guy straight away, I don't know,
Speaker 3: but it would have they would have had more leads,
Speaker 3: that that's for certain.
Speaker 1: And for the contributors like that, you know, you managed
Speaker 1: to find, you know, the real life people to be
Speaker 1: a part of the story. You kind of mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: about it being a bit of a cathartic experience for them.
Speaker 1: How have you gone keeping in touch with them and
Speaker 1: are they nervous about the show going on television.
Speaker 2: We've definitely kept in touch with all the people involved
Speaker 2: and have a on call site available before or after
Speaker 2: broadcast whenever they need some support. And I think I
Speaker 2: don't really know wh they're nervous. I think that they
Speaker 2: want to get this story. They want to be heard,
Speaker 2: and they've written books, they've done some other media, so
Speaker 2: they want to get it out there and to have
Speaker 2: their story told. So I think it's going to be
Speaker 2: It's going to be a really interesting week to see
Speaker 2: how the film is received and what the responses are.
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: How hard was it to get these people involved? I mean,
Speaker 1: was it hard for you to get them involved?
Speaker 2: I think that it spoke, you know, to the efforts
Speaker 2: that some of the people who worked on this show
Speaker 2: went to that they they spoke to them a lot,
Speaker 2: they spent a lot of time with them. They made
Speaker 2: sure not from our perspective, like it wasn't just like
Speaker 2: we wanted to coerce these people into making the film,
Speaker 2: because that would have been wrong. It is the time,
Speaker 2: right for these people to tell their story, and are
Speaker 2: they happy to tell their story. That's a very important distinction,
Speaker 2: because you know, you've got to you have a responsibility
Speaker 2: here and you need to do things right. In terms
Speaker 2: of we took we had a number of conversations with
Speaker 2: the police before they became involved, and that they had
Speaker 2: played such an important role and so grateful that they
Speaker 2: gave us their time, and particularly Paul Ferguson, who had
Speaker 2: left the police force and you know, was reliving this
Speaker 2: again and I feel he felt he had a duty
Speaker 2: to tell this story, that he had been so close
Speaker 2: to it, so close to the family, he needed this
Speaker 2: to be told. And then the journalists who did a
Speaker 2: brilliant job of doing that thing that you talked about,
Speaker 2: the scene setting, the taking you back there, telling you
Speaker 2: what it was like to live through this thing. And
Speaker 2: journalists are good at that because that's how they make
Speaker 2: their living, describing what things events are as they're unfolding.
Speaker 2: And they did a brilliant job, people like Rexhare and
Speaker 2: Alison Fan and Bret Christian and Torran, They did an
Speaker 2: awesome job they painting the picture for us and really
Speaker 2: taking you back to getting the call that some you
Speaker 2: know a body had been found, what it was like
Speaker 2: to be on that you know that that car journey there.
Speaker 2: And there's a shot in the film that I think
Speaker 2: is one of my favorite films in the film and
Speaker 2: it's Paul Ferguson and he's one of the officers and
Speaker 2: he's walking away at crime scene and his shoulders are
Speaker 2: slumped and you can see the weight of this case
Speaker 2: on one human being who's tasked with solving it. I
Speaker 2: thought that and the way that the edit ting handled
Speaker 2: the verdict, I think that's one of my favorite things
Speaker 2: that I've seen in all my time making TV shows,
Speaker 2: just the emotion that comes out in that the verdict
Speaker 2: and the people's faces as they're listening or they appear
Speaker 2: to be listening. Of course they're not listening, but you're
Speaker 2: going back with them and reliving their journey as the
Speaker 2: verdict is read out. As a brilliant piece of documentary
Speaker 2: making by the editing.
Speaker 3: I think we have to give a lot of credit
Speaker 3: to Dan and his team as well, because, I mean,
Speaker 3: anyone can come up to you as a network and
Speaker 3: say we want to make a documentary about the claimont
Speaker 3: serial killings, or Lindy Chamberlain or any other crime. But
Speaker 3: apart from that producer's ability to tell great stories, you
Speaker 3: need to have access to the people to help you
Speaker 3: tell that story. And that was a massive part of
Speaker 3: this because obviously we were sold on the story and
Speaker 3: we were sold on Dan and the team the way
Speaker 3: they wanted to tell it. But you know, as Dan
Speaker 3: alluded to earlier, we funded some development first off, because
Speaker 3: a lot of work had to be done to make
Speaker 3: sure that that story could actually be told with the
Speaker 3: tools they had. And a credit has to go to
Speaker 3: Dan and the team because you know, the access and
Speaker 3: the relationship they built over a long period of time
Speaker 3: with the wa police or remarkable fruit because you can
Speaker 3: almost sense the trust and honesty between the producer and
Speaker 3: the police in the film. They're very open in a
Speaker 3: way that I don't know I've seen police be in
Speaker 3: a document entry like this, And of course, had the
Speaker 3: trust required with the surviving victims, you know, you don't
Speaker 3: just you don't step forward and talk about this life
Speaker 3: changing event to anyone. You have to talk to people
Speaker 3: that you trust. So there's a huge part of it
Speaker 3: that it's about connecting with other humans and Dan and
Speaker 3: the guys did an amazing amazing job there. And just
Speaker 3: to make a further point on the journalists that Dan
Speaker 3: talked about, you watched the documentary and you realize that
Speaker 3: this event, these these killing, they shaped these journalists' careers.
Speaker 3: These were huge moments for them reporting as well, and
Speaker 3: you know, you can see how much it means to them.
Speaker 3: So I think that the the the assorted cast, whether
Speaker 3: it's the victims, that the journalists and the police, it's
Speaker 3: it took time and work to get there, but clearly
Speaker 3: it's it's it's it's helped Dan deliver on the on
Speaker 3: the vision.
Speaker 1: You know, there's been some amazing technology and science used
Speaker 1: into solving this crime in Western Australia. Do you think
Speaker 1: that what's happened in Claremont gives hope to maybe some
Speaker 1: other people who were still waiting for crimes to be solved.
Speaker 1: I mean what comes to mind for me is mister
Speaker 1: crawl in Victoria. That's a crime that hasn't been solved.
Speaker 1: Do you think that gives hope to other people that
Speaker 1: maybe that too could be solved one day?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely. I think one of the things that I
Speaker 2: hope comes across in the film is just how important
Speaker 2: Dennis Glennar was to making this solving this case. We
Speaker 2: didn't speak directly to Dennis, but from everything I told,
Speaker 2: he drove this investigation, invested a lot of money to
Speaker 2: help the police, and I think that's important that there
Speaker 2: is always someone from the victim's side of the coin
Speaker 2: that is driving this alongside the police, not letting people forget.
Speaker 3: To your point as well, around the forensics, I think
Speaker 3: if you actually look at the if you were to
Speaker 3: pick up the best, you know, the most successful true
Speaker 3: crime documentaries of the last four years, probably three quarters
Speaker 3: of them have been made because of forensic breakthroughs, because
Speaker 3: stories have come back up. There's some great stories and
Speaker 3: crimes that no one thought would ever get solved. And
Speaker 3: I think we'll see over the probably the next five
Speaker 3: to ten years, many more of these being solved and
Speaker 3: many many more films being made about them.
Speaker 1: Guys, before we wrap up, I always ask this on
Speaker 1: the podcast. It's an interesting one to ask when it
Speaker 1: comes to a documentary of this kind of subject matter.
Speaker 1: But do you have a thing of like a behind
Speaker 1: the scenes secret, something that you know was a big
Speaker 1: aha moment or something unusual that happened through the makings
Speaker 1: of this documentary.
Speaker 2: Rex Whore, who was one of a journalist. A lot
Speaker 2: of the archive he had kept himself. No one else
Speaker 2: had it. Ten didn't have it. He'd kept that on VHS.
Speaker 2: That was because he the story was meant so much
Speaker 2: to him. That was like he had so much really
Speaker 2: important material, but he gave to us to tell the
Speaker 2: story and that was that was so important because he
Speaker 2: not only was he a journalist for Channel ten during
Speaker 2: the time, he then became a police media person, so
Speaker 2: he just had this amazing personal archive.
Speaker 1: Guys, I just want to say thank you so much
Speaker 1: for coming on the podcast and talking about Clammont murders
Speaker 1: a killer amongst us. It's a fantastic documentary series that
Speaker 1: you guys should be really proud of. It did debut
Speaker 1: on Network ten on the twenty third of November, and
Speaker 1: we'll conclude on the twenty fourth. If you have missed
Speaker 1: the series and you want to catch up on ten play,
Speaker 1: please do so. But to the two of you, what
Speaker 1: an amazing job and thank you so much for coming
Speaker 1: on and sharing your story.
Speaker 2: Great. Thanks a lot much.
Speaker 1: Cheers