In the hugely popular but often maligned world of true crime, the conviction this week of former Sydney teacher Chris Dawson for the murder of his wife Lynette was a big win for podcast justice.
The blockbuster genre has left a litany of complaints and complications in its wake, sometimes delaying actual justice, occasionally denying it completely.
But in the case of The Teacher's Pet podcast, which shone the brightest of lights on the decades-old unsolved case, with 60 million downloads worldwide, police got their man.
Whether that was despite or because of the podcast depends on who you ask.
Witnesses 'irrevocably compromised'
Some have claimed the pressure of all that attention helped push prosecutors to lay charges, something they'd been unwilling to do in almost 40 years despite two coronial inquests urging them to do so.
Others have been scathing about the role The Teacher's Pet played in almost derailing the carriage of justice.
Even Justice Ian Harrison, who presided over the case, said the series, which delivered a Gold Walkley journalism award for host Hedley Thomas, presented him with huge challenges in reaching his verdict.
"These challenges were often based on the proposition that particular witnesses were irrevocably compromised by the influence upon them of the Teacher's Pet podcast, either because they had developed a predisposition against Mr Dawson as a result of listening to it … or because their memories had been corrupted or supplanted by the publicity that it has generated," Justice Harrison said while delivering his five-hour judgement.
Many legal experts and true crime devotees are torn.
"I'm a big fan of true crime podcasts and listened to The Teacher's Pet eagerly because I like these things and I think investigative journalism in this format has a great role to play" Jeremy Gans, from Melbourne Law School, said.
"But I do agree with the courts that this was not a good podcast in the role it played; talking to witnesses who were just about to become part of a criminal case and involving police commissioners and coroners and the like who should never have gotten involved."
'Justice is not a form of entertainment'
Michael Bradley, managing partner at Marque Lawyers, points to the fact the case was run before a judge, rather than a jury of Mr Dawson's peers, due to fears a jury could be more easily prejudiced by the intense media attention.
"We have a jury system for a reason, because in principle, we believe that a trial in front of a jury of 12 of your peers is superior to a trial in front of a single judge," he said.
Mr Bradley says this could form a key plank of an appeal, which has been flagged by Mr Dawson's lawyers.
"He would probably say, 'Well, I have been prejudiced, I've lost an opportunity to [a trial by jury].'"
More broadly, on the topic of true crime entertainment, he says the potential for journalists to deliver justice, where police have fallen short, must be weighed up against the chance the publication could ultimately destroy any chance of a conviction.
"There is a clear and compelling public interest in people who have committed crimes being prosecuted and, if guilty, convicted," Mr Bradley told ABC's This Week program.
"So that's, you know, beyond doubt."
"But balanced against that is the harm that can be done both to the ability of an accused person to get a fair trial and to the system of justice as a result, because justice is not a form of entertainment."
Jury could be considered 'too vulnerable'
Mr Bradley also points to the recent decision in the delayed trial of a man accused of assaulting former Morrison government staffer Brittany Higgins.
"It's been put off for a number of months on the basis the judge concluded that it was unsafe at that point, that there was too much out there and the jury would be too vulnerable to all of the publicity that was going around."
And he believes there'll be many more examples of justice delayed — or denied — in the years ahead due to the explosion in popularity of true crime.
"The risks are definitely going up," Mr Bradley said.
"There will be cases quite probably where, because of the way that a case against a person has been reported … a court will conclude that, no, this person cannot get a fair trial.
"And as a result, justice won't be done and that's the worst outcome."
