From Jonathan Holmes
"But to my mind, that interview doesn’t justify the programs.
Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan...
You know journalism with mediocrity (say D+ for good measure) and you should know that "in my view" is a trick used by poor hacks and hell-bent commentators to talk about something they don't know anything about. By this you also show you have no idea about the law... The Australian Story program, I remember somewhat, alluded to some new evidence quite clearly, although the story was not so much about these than the way families can be divided by loved ones in the cooler — but you failed to recognise all of this, in your desire — for whatever reason — to demolish an ABC program that was totally 100 per cent legit.
Is it possible that in your desire to play top gnarler, you collected your "evidence" from a kid at a school fete who would have assured you: There was no new "fresh evidence" on the lollipop — All without CHECKING THE new FLAVOUR?...
To cut a long story short, report from the Sydney Morning Herald related yesterday (2/12/11):
So significant was the forensic evidence to the Crown case that counsel for prosecution, the newly appointed Director of Public Prosecutions, Lloyd Babb, SC, all but conceded yesterday that Gilham was entitled to a retrial.
The NSW Criminal Court of Appeal judges found that Mr Gilham was entitled to a retrial. However, he may in fact be acquitted with the judges electing to reserve their decision on this matter until a later date.
Mr Gilham gave his wife Robecca Gilham a long hug when the decision was announced, while supporters cheered in the courtroom.
He has been ordered to provide a $100,000 surety and report to Gordon police station once a week, while he must reside with his wife in their home in St Ives.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gilham-walks-from-court-after-murder-conviction-quashed-20111202-1o9wb.html#ixzz1fKqWHScI
Well if this is not an Australian story, nothing else ever would be...