'Forensic Investigators': a case study of the Port Arthur coverup
Over the last few years, one of the more educational programmes that has appeared on Australian commercial television is Forensic Investigators. Despite being into its third series, the programme, whose executive producer is Fiona Baker, still has not touched Port Arthur. Given that this is the largest murder case in Australian history, and given the official claims that it is an open and shut case in which the perpetrator has correctly been identified and sentenced to life imprisonment, I decided to get in touch with Baker to find out what her reasons may be for ignoring what would seem to be a showcase study in Australian criminal forensics.
BELOW: Fiona Baker of Forensic Investigators:
I rang Southern Star, FI's production house, and learned that no programme had been made about Port Arthur because there were 'all kinds of legal issues' - and, anyway, it was left up to the discretion of the producer what programmes get made. Since I wanted to clarify the question of the 'legal issues,' I asked to speak to the programme's producer or to be given his or her email address. It seems that the FI office was determined to obstruct my attempt to contact Baker by fobbing me off with an email address for a certain L. Killesteyn, whose actual connection to the programme I could never discover. (Killesteyn being a rather uncommon surname, L. Killesteyn might possibly be related to Ed Killesteyn, Australia's Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. If so, L. Killesteyn's relationship to FI could plausibly involve supervising the programme from the government end.)
In any case, it wasn't hard to deduce Baker's email address from Killesteyn's (lkillesteyn@sstar.com.au), and I soon confirmed Baker's email to be fbaker@sstar.com.au. I then sent Baker the following email message:
"I recently rang Southern Star's production office to request a copy of the show I erroneously assumed you would have done on Port Arthur.
After I learned that no show on Port Arthur had been made, I asked whether there were any plans to make one, and I was assured that there weren't because there were 'all kinds of legal issues.'
The office then obstructed me in my efforts to contact you by refusing to give me your email or contact number. I must admit to being shocked to discover that you're so inaccessible. It would seem that you're treated like royalty there. Anyway, now to the matter I wish to talk to you about.
What I want to find out is 1) why there are no plans to produce a programme on the biggest murder case in Australian history and 2) what sorts of 'legal issues' might inhibit you from touching the story.
Recently, in an interview with the Bulletin, former Tasmanian premier Tony Rundle, stated that it was a pity there had been no trial in this case because if there had been a trial, the evidence would have been released to the public and that would have saved the nation all the 'conspiracy theories' that have proliferated over the years.
Since of course it's never too late to release the evidence - and I think the public has a right to know what the evidence actually is - wouldn't your programme make an excellent vehicle for making this evidence available to the public at long last?"
I received a response shortly afterwards:
"Thanks for your email. I understand that you called when I was out of the office.
I agree Port Arthur is a story of great interest, and if covered by the media needs to be handled with great care as there are many survivors and relatives of victims who need to be considered. [NB: This is the 'wall of bogus hypersensitivity' I referred to in my previous post, "The Port Arthur massacre: the media coverup continues."]
My staff member was correct in the fact that we will not be including the case in our third series. The main reason for this is the format of our show. Forensic Investigators looks at the investigation of crimes that need to be solved. That is, where an offender has not been identified. The show looks at how evidence is gathered to find and then link an offender to the crime.
My other concern in covering this story later in the year for our program is that it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.
I thank you for your interest in our program and your thoughts about including Port Arthur in it.
I hope you will understand the reasons for its omission."
I wrote back thus:
"I found this an intriguing response. Are you saying that no evidence was gathered to link Bryant to the crime? Presumably Tasmania Police did so, or else they wouldn't have identified him as the perpetrator! What's more, they did so in record time, which surely makes the forensic investigation of the case one of the swiftest and most efficient on record. Wouldn't that make a perfect subject for a programme?
As for the idea that the idea that 'it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.' It sounds to me here as if you are presuming to speak for the victims and relatives here. I find it striking how often people in the media tell us what the victims and the relatives want. How do you know they wouldn't like to know how Bryant was identified as the perpetrator? [NB: I know for a fact that some of the victims and relatives are not convinced of Bryant's guilt and would very much like to know how he was ID'd as the perp.]
In any case, even if you did make a programme about the case it wouldn't be on television for a good while yet, presumably."
I am still awaiting a reply from Baker. Of course, I do not actually expect to receive one. As any one who has actually studied the case knows, the problem is that there are no forensics linking Bryant to the massacre. Forensic Investigators can't possibly touch Port Arthur because there is nothing for it to 'investigate.'
BELOW: Fiona Baker of Forensic Investigators:
I rang Southern Star, FI's production house, and learned that no programme had been made about Port Arthur because there were 'all kinds of legal issues' - and, anyway, it was left up to the discretion of the producer what programmes get made. Since I wanted to clarify the question of the 'legal issues,' I asked to speak to the programme's producer or to be given his or her email address. It seems that the FI office was determined to obstruct my attempt to contact Baker by fobbing me off with an email address for a certain L. Killesteyn, whose actual connection to the programme I could never discover. (Killesteyn being a rather uncommon surname, L. Killesteyn might possibly be related to Ed Killesteyn, Australia's Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. If so, L. Killesteyn's relationship to FI could plausibly involve supervising the programme from the government end.)
In any case, it wasn't hard to deduce Baker's email address from Killesteyn's (lkillesteyn@sstar.com.au), and I soon confirmed Baker's email to be fbaker@sstar.com.au. I then sent Baker the following email message:
"I recently rang Southern Star's production office to request a copy of the show I erroneously assumed you would have done on Port Arthur.
After I learned that no show on Port Arthur had been made, I asked whether there were any plans to make one, and I was assured that there weren't because there were 'all kinds of legal issues.'
The office then obstructed me in my efforts to contact you by refusing to give me your email or contact number. I must admit to being shocked to discover that you're so inaccessible. It would seem that you're treated like royalty there. Anyway, now to the matter I wish to talk to you about.
What I want to find out is 1) why there are no plans to produce a programme on the biggest murder case in Australian history and 2) what sorts of 'legal issues' might inhibit you from touching the story.
Recently, in an interview with the Bulletin, former Tasmanian premier Tony Rundle, stated that it was a pity there had been no trial in this case because if there had been a trial, the evidence would have been released to the public and that would have saved the nation all the 'conspiracy theories' that have proliferated over the years.
Since of course it's never too late to release the evidence - and I think the public has a right to know what the evidence actually is - wouldn't your programme make an excellent vehicle for making this evidence available to the public at long last?"
I received a response shortly afterwards:
"Thanks for your email. I understand that you called when I was out of the office.
I agree Port Arthur is a story of great interest, and if covered by the media needs to be handled with great care as there are many survivors and relatives of victims who need to be considered. [NB: This is the 'wall of bogus hypersensitivity' I referred to in my previous post, "The Port Arthur massacre: the media coverup continues."]
My staff member was correct in the fact that we will not be including the case in our third series. The main reason for this is the format of our show. Forensic Investigators looks at the investigation of crimes that need to be solved. That is, where an offender has not been identified. The show looks at how evidence is gathered to find and then link an offender to the crime.
My other concern in covering this story later in the year for our program is that it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.
I thank you for your interest in our program and your thoughts about including Port Arthur in it.
I hope you will understand the reasons for its omission."
I wrote back thus:
"I found this an intriguing response. Are you saying that no evidence was gathered to link Bryant to the crime? Presumably Tasmania Police did so, or else they wouldn't have identified him as the perpetrator! What's more, they did so in record time, which surely makes the forensic investigation of the case one of the swiftest and most efficient on record. Wouldn't that make a perfect subject for a programme?
As for the idea that the idea that 'it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.' It sounds to me here as if you are presuming to speak for the victims and relatives here. I find it striking how often people in the media tell us what the victims and the relatives want. How do you know they wouldn't like to know how Bryant was identified as the perpetrator? [NB: I know for a fact that some of the victims and relatives are not convinced of Bryant's guilt and would very much like to know how he was ID'd as the perp.]
In any case, even if you did make a programme about the case it wouldn't be on television for a good while yet, presumably."
I am still awaiting a reply from Baker. Of course, I do not actually expect to receive one. As any one who has actually studied the case knows, the problem is that there are no forensics linking Bryant to the massacre. Forensic Investigators can't possibly touch Port Arthur because there is nothing for it to 'investigate.'
