Episode 24: Children Overboard Scandal and political lies

Episode 24: Children Overboard Scandal and political lies

Episode 24 sees Brad Oakes and Steve Van Aperen examine political lying, deception and public trust, asking how governments can mislead without always stating an obvious falsehood. They distinguish between direct lies, evasive answers, omissions and “obfuscation”—making an issue deliberately unclear or confusing. The pair also consider whether some lies can be protective or justified, such as withholding sensitive police information or sparing grieving families unnecessary distress, while arguing that political deception is far more consequential when it shapes public attitudes and policy. The episode centres on the Children Overboard Scandal during the 2001 federal election. Senior government figures claimed that asylum seekers aboard a vessel had deliberately thrown children into the ocean in an attempt to force a Navy rescue. Steve explains that he later interviewed and polygraph-tested senior public servant Mike Scrafton, who had been asked to view naval videotapes for evidence of the alleged act. Scrafton said he saw no such evidence, and Steve says he passed the polygraph examination. Brad and Steve argue that images of children on a boat and children in the water were used to manufacture a powerful inference, despite there being no footage showing anyone throwing a child overboard. They describe the episode as an example of a politically useful story overtaking the underlying facts, reinforcing a tough-on-immigration message during an election campaign. They broaden the discussion by comparing the scandal with international and domestic examples: the intelligence claims used to justify the Iraq War and Australia’s Robodebt scheme. In each case, they focus less on party politics than on the way official certainty can survive unanswered questions, flawed assumptions and contrary evidence. Their concern is not merely that an initial claim may be wrong, but that institutions and ministers can keep repeating it after serious doubts emerge. The hosts discuss the human cost of this process, particularly where misleading claims influence attitudes toward asylum seekers, lead to war, or leave welfare recipients facing incorrect debt notices, financial pressure and psychological harm. Van Aperen concludes that lie detection has limits when key information remains secret or officials simply refuse to answer directly. Still, both hosts encourage listeners to pay attention to contradictions, unexplained changes of position and answers that avoid the question asked, rather than accepting confidence as proof of truth. LINKS Book Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click here [https://www.stevevanaperen.com/] Get coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here [https://hardknockknocks.com/] Learn more about Fool Me Twice by visiting www.foolmetwice.com.au [https://foolmetwice.com.au/] ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.

Episode 23: One lucky kidnapping with Rob Blezard

Episode 23 of Fool Me Twice features hosts Bradford Oakes and Steve van Aperen in conversation with Rob Blezard, a Victoria Police detective with a 35-year career. Blezard outlines his path from joining the force in 1988 to working ten years in uniform at city, Kew, Heidelberg and Brunswick stations. Brunswick, he explains, was an especially formative posting: busy shifts, experienced sergeants and constant exposure to street crime, drugs and repeat offenders taught young officers how to investigate, observe and act decisively. He later moved into Crime Command, working in gaming and vice, organised crime, armed crime, homicide and specialist taskforces. His career included investigations into the Vicki Jacobs and John Furlan murders, along with an eight-year San Diego Task Force operation that resolved forty non-fatal shootings linked to Middle Eastern organised-crime networks. The discussion highlights the persistence of criminal groups and the importance of intelligence, detailed records and patient follow-up. The episode’s central story is an urgent kidnapping investigation. Police initially knew only that an intercepted caller had said, “We’ve got him. Where do you want us to take him?” They had no confirmed victim, location or complete list of offenders. A detective travelling to the incident room stopped for fuel after collecting a forgotten phone, noticed a suspicious car, and wrote down its registration. Unbeknown to him, the kidnapped victim was inside and trying to attract his attention. Investigators identified the suspected kidnapper through a repeatedly used false name, traced his phone to Frankston, and called dozens of local hotels. Surveillance found his motorbike outside one motel, while another hotel—beside Frankston Police Station—confirmed that five people had checked in under his name. The Special Operations Group entered the room and rescued the victim, who had been detained for six or seven hours, severely tortured, assaulted with a machete, and forced to play Russian roulette. The abduction stemmed from a failed gun deal. The victim had arranged a $10,000 firearm purchase, but the seller took back the weapon while retaining the cash. The buyers assumed the victim had stolen their money, found him and abducted him to force repayment. Five offenders were later imprisoned. Oakes, van Aperen and Blezard use the case to show how coincidence, instinct and diligent police work can save a life. Recording a registration number, connecting aliases, reviewing intelligence and making methodical local inquiries turned scattered fragments into a successful rescue. The episode closes with lighter stories from policing, but reinforces how quickly minor criminal disputes can turn violent. LINKS Book Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click here [https://www.stevevanaperen.com/] Get coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here [https://hardknockknocks.com/] Learn more about Fool Me Twice by visiting www.foolmetwice.com.au [https://foolmetwice.com.au/] ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.

Episode 22: Anatomy of a murder crime scene – Part 4

This final episode wraps up the podcast’s “anatomy of a murder” storyline (hear episode 1 [https://foolmetwice.com.au/episode-19-anatomy-of-a-murder-crime-scene-part-1/], episode 2 [https://foolmetwice.com.au/episode-20-anatomy-of-a-murder-crime-scene-part-2/] and episode 3 [https://foolmetwice.com.au/episode-21-anatomy-of-a-murder-crime-scene-part-3/]) by moving from the crime scene into offender profiling, suspect analysis and a likely investigative conclusion. Steve Van Aperen, drawing on his policing experience and his work on The Hunters [https://wtfn.com/case-studies/the-hunters/], joins Bradford Oakes for a conversation that balances dark subject matter with their usual dry humour. The episode opens lightly, with Steve describing his frustrations in a golf bunker, before shifting into serious questions about robbery, sentencing, bail laws and the way violent offending can escalate. A key early discussion examines the difference between burglary and aggravated burglary. Steve explains that aggravated circumstances make the offence more serious, particularly where violence, injury or confrontation is involved. This leads into a broader conversation about robberies “gone wrong”, criminal consequences and the frustrations many police feel when repeat offenders are released on bail. The main focus is the murder case the pair have been unpacking across multiple episodes. Steve and Bradford review the known evidence: the victim appeared to attend the location willingly, had possible disputes involving money or damaged property, and may have been meeting someone he knew. Steve stresses the danger of tunnel vision in investigations, explaining that detectives must test every hypothesis rather than forcing evidence to fit their first theory. The episode explores several offender profiles. A planned underworld-style execution is considered possible, given the firearm, isolated meeting place and quick exit. However, Steve also notes that the scene was not especially clean or professional. Another possibility is a personal or criminal dispute that escalated unexpectedly. Other theories, including jealousy or random robbery, are treated as less likely, especially because cash and valuables were apparently left behind. Steve identifies “Mick” or “Mickey”, a person connected to an active dispute mentioned by the victim’s brother, as an important line of inquiry. He explains how investigators would examine phone records, vehicles, associates, firearms access, search warrants and possible surveillance to build a clearer picture. Throughout, Bradford Oakes asks practical, audience-focused questions, helping Steve explain police methodology, offender behaviour and investigative objectivity. The episode closes by reinforcing that homicide investigation is a puzzle built from motive, evidence, alibis and disciplined reasoning. LINKS Book Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click here [https://www.stevevanaperen.com/] Get coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here [https://hardknockknocks.com/] Learn more about Fool Me Twice by visiting www.foolmetwice.com.au [https://foolmetwice.com.au/] ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.

Episode 21: Anatomy of a murder crime scene – Part 3

In Episode 21 of Fool Me Twice, Bradford Oakes and Steve Van Aperen return to their ongoing “anatomy of a murder” scenario, using a fictional targeted shooting in a Melbourne laneway to explain how homicide investigations really unfold. They begin by recapping listener questions from the previous episode, including the old detective advice to keep your hands in your pockets at a crime scene. Steve explains Locard’s exchange principle: every contact leaves a trace, whether fingerprints, fibres, DNA, or material carried away on shoes. From there, they discuss why preserving a scene “in situ” matters, using examples of contamination and misplaced evidence. The conversation also revisits “thrill kills,” which Steve defines as killings motivated by the pleasure of killing rather than revenge, greed, anger, or another conventional motive. He contrasts these with targeted murders, noting that random, pleasure-driven crimes can be much harder to solve because there may be no link between victim and offender. They then return to the fictional case: a 27-year-old man with possible organised-crime connections is found shot dead beside a roller door in an inner-city laneway. Steve explains how detectives would assess his clothing, possessions, damaged phone, missing wallet, blood patterns, cartridge cases, tyre marks, cigarette butts, drink containers, footwear impressions, and an unlatched security gate. Bradford regularly tests assumptions, while Steve cautions that each clue may be important, irrelevant, or misleading until supported by evidence. A major theme is that homicide scenes are rarely neat. Steve describes how investigators would secure CCTV, photograph and video the scene, preserve evidence, remove the body only after forensic approval, attend the autopsy for continuity, and later analyse clothing, biological traces, ballistics, toxicology, and gunshot residue. He also explains how cartridge cases can indicate a semi-automatic weapon, while projectiles may help link a firearm to a shooting. The episode balances grim investigative detail with Bradford’s humour, including jokes about crime-show clichés, police language, courtroom rituals, and his own youthful court appearance. It ends with the pair acknowledging that they have only covered the initial crime-scene actions. The next episode will move into associates, motives, and the investigative matrix. LINKS Book Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click here [https://www.stevevanaperen.com/] Get coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here [https://hardknockknocks.com/] Learn more about Fool Me Twice by visiting www.foolmetwice.com.au [https://foolmetwice.com.au/] ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.

Episode 20: Anatomy of a murder crime scene - Part 2

In this episode of Fool Me Twice, Brad Oakes and Steve Van Aperen return to their “anatomy of a murder” exercise, using a fictional Collingwood laneway shooting to unpack how real homicide investigators think. Steve begins by answering listener questions from the previous episode, including why an old detective once told him to keep his hands in his pockets at a crime scene. His explanation centres on Locard’s theory of transfer: every contact leaves a trace, whether it is fingerprints, fibres, hair, DNA, coffee cup residue or carpet particles carried away on a shoe. Brad keeps the discussion lively, testing Steve’s expertise with the sorts of questions an ordinary listener might ask. Could a criminal really wipe away fingerprints? Why does “in situ” matter? What exactly is a thrill kill? Steve explains that crime scenes must be preserved in their original state, because even an object that looks out of place may have an innocent explanation. He also describes thrill killings as murders committed for pleasure rather than a more obvious motive such as revenge, greed or anger. The pair then return to the imagined murder case. A 27 year old man, possibly linked to organised crime circles, is found shot dead near a roller door in a Melbourne laneway. There is no weapon, no obvious robbery, a damaged phone, cash, keys, cartridge cases, tyre marks, cigarette butts, drink containers and possible footwear impressions. Steve walks through each detail carefully, stressing that evidence can be significant, irrelevant or misleading until it is tested against the broader investigation. The episode also covers ballistics, gunshot residue, defensive wounds, blood patterns, CCTV, police running sheets and the importance of autopsies. Steve makes it clear that homicide work is not neat or quick. Investigators must preserve continuity, photograph and video evidence, attend the post-mortem, collect clothing for forensic testing and build a case piece by piece. Brad balances the grim subject matter with humour, including riffs on police jargon, court language and an unfortunate borrowed suit worn to court. By the end, Steve has only finished explaining the initial crime scene response. The next stage, he says, will involve known associates, possible motives and an investigative matrix. LINKS Book Steve Van Aperen as your next keynote speaker: Click here [https://www.stevevanaperen.com/] Get coached in stand-up comedy with Brad Oakes: Click here [https://hardknockknocks.com/] Learn more about Fool Me Twice by visiting www.foolmetwice.com.au [https://foolmetwice.com.au/] ---------------------------------------- Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy [https://acast.com/privacy] for more information.