“For those true crime podcasters who hanker after the recognition that high audience numbers bring – and who doesn’t? – there are some vexing questions, especially when the topic is an unsolved crime,” writes columnist HUGH SELBY. 

Remember The Teacher’s Pet podcast from 2018? This was a foray by The Australian into true crime grit. It paid off. The audience numbers were estimated to be tens of millions. 

Former teacher Chris Dawson was subsequently convicted of his wife’s 1982 murder and will die in a NSW jail.

Some four years earlier the American Serial Podcast series looking at the case of Adnan Syed, the Baltimore teenager convicted of the murder of his recent ex-girlfriend, had record-breaking audiences, a multiple of The Teacher’s Pet.

Poor Adnan went back to court too many times seeking to have his conviction overturned. Luck finally went his way when a lawyer delved deep into some filed records. The result was that the true killer was identified and Adnan was released.

In both these cases it was poor police work that was the primary cause of decades long injustice.

Both the journalists behind these podcasts, Hedley Thomas, of The Australian, and Sarah Koenig, who joined the New York Times when it acquired Serial, went on to make podcast series about other fascinating crimes.

There is a 2025 interview with Ms Koenig under the heading “Sarah Koenig on crafting stories, finding light amid tragedy”. There are many thoughtful offerings in that interview. I like this one: “Koenig is willing to do what many people today are not: listen”.

Mr Thomas is now involved in a podcast series called Bronwyn. According to The Australian: “Bronwyn Winfield disappeared 31 years ago from the idyllic surf town of Lennox Head. She was a devoted mother of two little girls, and was going through a painful separation from her husband… (He) has always maintained Bronwyn just went away and denies any wrongdoing”. It is up to Episode 34 

There’s no denying the widespread interest in “true crime”, be that by way of court reporting, TV shows such as 60 Minutes, books about this and that solved or unsolved crime, and podcasts.

What is it that brings and sustains that interest, indeed fascination? Just last year some experts in law and journalism at the University of North Carolina shared their thoughts. 

People, like you, me and our neighbours, “are drawn to these sensational stories by curiosity about the motivations of the criminals, concerns about justice and the legal system and the thrill of solving a real-life whodunnit.

“True crime’s appeal stems from a sense of justice and feeling that the justice system broke down in some cases.”

And, besides, let’s not pretend that we don’t like the escapism and the entertainment.

For those writers and producers who hanker after the recognition that high audience numbers bring – and who doesn’t? – there are some vexing questions, especially when the topic is an unsolved crime.

Ms Koenig’s Serial was made post-conviction. The core of her program was doubts about the evidence used to convict Mr Syed.

By contrast, The Teacher’s Pet was focused on achieving a prosecution of Mr Dawson, a person not then charged with a crime.

Mr Dawson later had a murder trial by judge alone. A key ground for that outcome was a belief that the very success of the podcast made it difficult to empanel a jury that would be free of the persuasive effects of that podcast.

Which brings us back to Bronwyn. This week The Australian published an article about this series under the heading: “DPP insider breaks ranks on Bronwyn”. 

Billed as an “exclusive”, it reports that an insider from the NSW Office of Public Prosecutions has “broken ranks”, “was never comfortable with the treatment of the evidence relating to Ms Winfield” and “observed corners being cut”. All well and good, and no doubt well meant. Just one little bitsy problem: the insider was never a lawyer.

The article does mention that the then director declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence.

The article says nothing about the processes followed by experienced trial advocates within the office to screen what cases go to trial and what don’t.

Which is not to say that the right result is always reached, but it is an answer to the well-meant beliefs of a non-lawyer. 

It is not, and never can be, a simple reliance upon what a witness or witnesses have said in an interview. What they have said or written is subject to the rules of evidence that govern admissibility and require reliability.

Put even more simply, strong suspicions do not equate with evidence that a court (be it a jury or judge alone) can receive.

The article was on stronger grounds when it pointed to the lack of external accountability of decisions made by the prosecutor’s office to prosecute or not to prosecute.

There are sound policy reasons why the courts cannot intrude into that process (and these have been stated by the High Court); however, a tribunal could and should be empowered to do so.

Given the public appetite for true crime stories, and allowing that these podcast series can bring justice where injustice rules, we can only ask that their makers pay close attention to enhancing, not damaging our quest for justice. A non-lawyer insider doesn’t cut the mustard.

Former barrister Hugh Selby is a CityNews columnist, principally focused on legal affairs. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.