Dear Jonathon, If Your Implication Is That the Intent of Our Story Was to Be

From: Llewellyn, Mark Sent: Friday, 5 August 2011 5:42 PM To: Jonathan Holmes Cc: Sashka Koloff; Lin Buckfield Subject: RE: Media Watch inquiry re 'Mystery in the Outback' Dear Jonathon, If your implication is that the intent of our story was to be an uncritical advocate of Bradley John Murdoch then nothing could be further from the truth. To draw a link between the Australian Story report on Farquharson (which was a disgraceful whitewash) and ours (which contains the strongest rebuttals to the claims put by Murdoch and Andrew Fraser) is offensive. For example, to the issue of inconsistencies in Joanne Lees initial account to police (and her so-called „detached‟ public demeanour which became the subject of scuttlebutt) we quite deliberately ran this from Commander Colleen Gwynn, a lead investigator in the case, "… a lot of people didn‟t understand her as a so called grieving victim but for me her as a person isn‟t really important. I thought she was one of the most amazing witnesses I had ever struck as a police officer. Having dealt with a lot of criminal matters, her recollection of the event and attention to detail was unbelievable. The fact that she survived such an ordeal is testament to her courage and resilience through what is quite an amazing event to go through." In the telling of the story we then included this interview with investigative journalist and author, Paul Toohey, about the service station security vision of Bradley John Murdoch hours after the attack, “Clearly <it‟s> Bradley John Murdoch. It's not anyone else. It's him. He walks into that truck stop. He's probably got the body in the back of the car at that very moment and it‟s probably bleeding everywhere. He doesn‟t know whether the cops have been alerted, he doesn‟t know what‟s happening around there, as it turns out they haven‟t been alerted. Joanne‟s still hiding in the bush and is just about to be picked up by a truck driver. He doesn‟t know that... He fills up the car, buys his iced coffee, heads off.” This is hardly the sort of interview you would put in a story if the intent is to create the impression that Bradley John Murdoch is an innocent party. Then, later in the story, this from the sentencing judge, “Mr. Murdoch, You needlessly cut short the life of a young man who had an extremely bright future.” Regarding the issues of the „incorrect identification‟ of the dog and the „hole in back of the vehicle‟ these were critical issues in the trial and Murdoch‟s defense. The account given by Joanne Lees in the crime scene re-enactment had never been heard, nor that of Murdoch‟s brother. In our story we concluded, quite deliberately, our examination of these issues with this comment from Paul Toohey, “There were inconsistencies in Joanne Lees' story about her attacker and about the sequence of events. For instance, she believed she was pushed from the front cabin of the vehicle into the back. She got the description of the dog a little bit wrong. Her description of Bradley Murdoch was pretty good if you look back on it. But as the lawyer who prosecuted Bradley John Murdoch said, she wasn't sitting there taking notes. She was experiencing the most terrifying thing that could happen to any person - more terrifying than being in a war zone. In a war zone, you know what's going to happen - you know what to expect. In this case, this had come right out of the blue, she wasn't taking notes. The reason Paul Toohey‟s comment about seeing Peter Falconio‟s blood at Barrow Creek was put where it is in the story and not where you suggest we should have placed it is because it addressed the claim made immediately prior by Andrew Fraser that Peter Falconio has been seen alive by four new witnesses. It was intentionally put there as a direct rebuttal to Fraser‟s claim that Falconio is alive having faked his death. Toohey says, “If Peter Falconio has staged his own disappearance and is alive somewhere then I think it‟s about time that Pete came out. Pete‟s not alive. Pete‟s dead. I saw the pool of blood on the road. The guy‟s dead. He’s not coming back.” Jonathon, my view is that it is stronger and has more relevance here than where you as Executive Producer would put it. I‟d also make the point that we ran the exchange between Fraser and Rahni Sadler on the issue of the four „new‟ witnesses at length because, 1. we found his answers increasingly incredible and, 2. because it finally led to the critical admission that Fraser has not spoken to any of the so-called new witnesses. · RAHNI SADLER So, how many people do you say saw him in the days after the disappearance? · RAHNI SADLER Why didn't these people come forward earlier? · RAHNI SADLER It seems odd that they would conceal this information in one of the most high-profile trials in Australia. · RAHNI SADLER Four different people all concealing information? It just seems unbelievable · RAHNI SADLER How have these people emerged? · ANDREW FRASER Pardon? · RAHNI SADLER How have these people emerged? · ANDREW FRASER They've come... (MUTTERS) They've come forward to people we know and who they know have had a high profile in relation to the defence and have said, "We've got something to tell you." · RAHNI SADLER And you're yet to speak to them? · ANDREW FRASER Yet to speak to them. Andrew Fraser‟s theory that Peter Falconio staged his own disappearance is central to his claim that Falconio is alive which is central to Murdoch‟s case for a re-trial. Having exhausted his appeals, Murdoch needs to produce new evidence to re-open his case, which is why Rahni Sadler pursued the claim so vigorously including this, “Isn't it fairly extreme to stage your own disappearance, never see your family and friends again, just to break up with your girlfriend?” Soon after we included the Toohey grab, “There's no question in my mind that he <Murdoch> did it. There's no question in the mind of anyone who sat through that case, and I dare say that applies to his own defence team, that he's guilty.” You may hold the view that that „grab‟ „skewered the story or to quote yourself quoting yourself about the Farquharson story, “that no mere television program should broadcast without compelling new evidence” but I‟d ask does that mean we should never have reported on one of Australia‟s most high profile cases on its tenth anniversary? Murdoch and Fraser are intending to mount a public campaign to re-open his case which will happen regardless of Sunday Night. My belief – and our intention – was to thoroughly test their claims including and especially their claim of four new witnesses who have „seen‟ Falconio. We did that. I think it is an absurd argument, as you seem to be suggesting, that a court story can never be revisited once the decision has been handed down. What other limits on free speech would you like to impose while you are at it? I also know the Australian Story on Farquharson well. We interviewed his ex-wife Cindy Gambino for our own report – probably the best account done on that tragic case. The sin of the Australian Story piece was the sin of omission; of deliberately keeping facts from the audience that didn‟t suit the case they (Australian Story) were putting. In contrast, in our story we very, very deliberately sought to test and counter every proposition being put by Murdoch and Andrew Fraser. Why did we include the grab “lying bitch” from Murdoch? Jonathon we did so because it revealed his menace. It goes to his character. You ask were Peter Falconio‟s parents informed by Sunday Night that it intended to air Bradley Murdoch‟s assertions of innocence as well as air Andrew Fraser‟s allegation that their son had staged his own disappearance and is still alive? The answer to both questions is “yes”. Rahni Sadler first had contact with the Falconio family back in April when she was on assignment in the UK, and met them at their home. Some weeks later Mr and Mrs Falconio wrote to Rahni seeking help in organising a visit to Australia to coincide with the 10th anniversary of their son's disappearance. They eventually decided to postpone this plan but maintained email contact with Rahni. It was last Friday morning UK time, three days before the story was broadcast, that Rahni sent the Falconio's the following email:. "The story we put together is going to air this weekend. It will be on Sunday night Australian time, very early Sunday morning your time. I want to make sure you know what is in our story, so that it does not surprise or upset you. By the same token, I don't want to tell you detail that you don't want to know. If you'd prefer not to know, please stop reading now. Bradley John Murdoch is still proclaiming his innocence. He spoke out from jail in phone calls we got recordings of. So our story contains audio of his voice claiming he didn't do it. He has a two man team working from Melbourne to try to get a retrial.

Load more