BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item on Under Investigation broadcast on Channel 2 on 6 April 1994 dealt with

the murder of a member of an Italian family in Wellington in 1957 and examined the

role of forensic science in identifying and convicting the offender.

Mr Pavan, on behalf of his family, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the

broadcaster, that his family found offensive the suggestion that the victim allegedly

had a romantic interest in the murderer's teenaged girlfriend. He also complained that

the photographs of the victim's body were offensive to his relatives and alleged that

their use was probably illegal.

While acknowledging Mr Pavan's concern about the impact of the photographs on the

family of the victim, TVNZ observed that given that almost 37 years had elapsed,

they took on an historic interest. Turning to the matter of the love triangle, TVNZ

explained that it played a very small part in the overall item, but that it appeared to

have been a significant factor in the animosity between the victim and his murderer. It

noted that the court testimony bore out this allegation and declined to uphold the

complaint that the item had not dealt with the victim fairly. Dissatisfied with that

response, Mr Pavan referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(a)of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to determine one aspect of the

complaint and declined to uphold any other aspect.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its usual practice, the

Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The importance of the role of forensic science in identifying and convicting a murderer

was the theme of one of the items on Under Investigation broadcast by Television

New Zealand Ltd on Channel 2 on 6 April 1994. The item recounted how the police

investigator achieved a conviction and how he pioneered some techniques now

routinely used in police investigations.

In detailing the murder which was committed, the item suggested that a motive might

have been that the victim (Mr Odorico) had a romantic interest in the murderer's

girlfriend. In addition, it was reported that a sum of money had been stolen.

The Pavan family, members of the victim's extended family, complained to TVNZ

that it was offensive to turn the focus of the blame on the victim by suggesting that he

had a romantic interest in the murderer's girlfriend, when in fact the motive for the

murder was robbery. The family also expressed its concern that photographs showing

the victim's body were shown, and alleged that they probably had been illegally

acquired. They described the considerable distress caused to members of the family

when the photographs of their uncle's body were shown and noted that no attempt

had been made to contact any member of the family before the programme went to air.

The family described the suggestion of a romantic interest as a slur on their uncle's

character and referred to a letter published in a newspaper in the early 1970s in which

Ms Serci (the young woman) disclosed that there was no such relationship and that

the whole story had been fabricated by the defence to save La Mattina (the murderer)

from hanging. Arguing that the whole item was distorted and the research incomplete,

the family maintained that it presented an inaccurate and unfair version of the events

and when the inaccuracies were pointed out to TVNZ, it should have made a

correction.

In its initial response, TVNZ considered the complaint only under standard G4 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

It denied that there was anything illegal in the use of the photographs, explaining that

they had been provided by the police. It suggested that the lapse of time of 37 years

since the murder gave the photographs an historic interest. With reference to what it

described as the "love triangle", TVNZ argued that the reference was brief and played

only a small part in the item. TVNZ provided a transcript from the court proceedings

which it argued supported the theory that the victim had a romantic interest in Ms

Serci, and suggested that the rivalry between the two men was a significant factor in

the animosity between them.

In their referral to the Authority, the Pavan family complained that TVNZ had failed

to examine the complaint under the relevant standards of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, and suggested that the following standards should have been

included. The first two standards require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

The remaining standards read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G16 News should not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary

panic, alarm or distress.

G17 Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their

families or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect

sensitivity and understanding for the feelings and privacy of the

bereaved.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

G21 Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

V12 The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of

violent and distressing material from either local or world trouble spots

calls for careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail

carried. Should the use of violent or distressing material be considered

relevant and essential to the proper understanding of the incident or

event being portrayed, an appropriate prior warning must be

considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays

especially disturbing images, such as:

- ill-treatment of people or animals

- close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

- views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

- violence directed a children or children in distress.

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown

during general viewing times.

In response, TVNZ again emphasised its regrets that the broadcast of the item caused

distress to the family. It repeated that the murder case had historical significance

because it marked an important milestone in the use of forensic evidence by the New

Zealand Police.

Turning first to the use of the photograph, TVNZ expressed its belief that its status

fell outside the ambit of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It recorded that it was

legitimately acquired from the NZ Police and a copy had also been received from a

secondary source.

On the question of defamation of the victim and his family, TVNZ pointed out that

the dead cannot be defamed, and that it deliberately avoided mention of any surviving

members of Mr Odorico's family.

TVNZ rejected the suggestion that the programme offered the love triangle as a motive

for the murder, explaining that it was merely mentioned as part of the evidence which

led police to link La Mattina with the victim. It noted that theft was identified as the

reason for the murder in the opening sequence when it was observed that a large sum

of money was missing from the till, and further emphasised when it was reported that

bloodstained money was found in La Mattina's clothing.

Turning to the complaint that standard G5 was breached, TVNZ denied that it had

transgressed any law in New Zealand in the production and presentation of the item,

maintaining that the case had genuine historical interest because of the role of forensic

science in securing the conviction.

Rejecting standards G14 and G16 as inapplicable, TVNZ observed that those

standards specifically applied to news programme and that this item was not a news

programme but rather a historical documentary.

Expressing its regrets again that the item had caused the family distress, TVNZ

pointed out that the historical examination of prominent criminal cases was not

unusual and that literally scores of cases had been re-examined by all branches of the

media over the years. It maintained that after 37 years it was not unreasonable to

make an assessment within an historical perspective.

TVNZ rejected the Pavan family's suggestion that the item made the victim appear a

"shady" character, stating that there was no evidence of that in the item.

Finally, TVNZ rejected the complaint that standard V12 was breached by showing the

close-up of the dead body. It noted that the standard pointed to the need for relevance

and editorial discernment, and argued that the picture was relevant to the story in

which the emphasis was on the forensic evidence gathered at the scene of the murder.

It denied that it was used gratuitously.

The Authority considered first the suggestion that a motive for the murder was that

Mr Odorico was romantically interested in Ms Serci and that this was a cause of the

animosity between him and La Mattina. While it acknowledged that the robbery angle

was pursued in the opening sequence of the item, that information was conveyed at

the same time as the photographs of the body were displayed. The Authority

considered that for many viewers, the shock of seeing the victim's body would have

dominated their attention and they may not have recollected the information conveyed

about the robbery. Later, when the love triangle theory was suggested, the visuals

showed a picture of the house which Mr Odorico owned, and in which La Mattina

was a tenant, and the implication was made that there was animosity between the two

men because both had a romantic interest in Ms Serci.

In order to assess the importance of the love triangle allegation at the time of the court

trial, the Authority sought from TVNZ information about the evidence it relied upon

to reach its conclusion. TVNZ provided a quotation from the court transcript, in

which Ms Serci responded to questions about an incident when Mr Odorico visited La

Mattina's flat while she was there. It explained that the producer of the programme

was entitled to draw the conclusion from Ms Serci's sworn evidence that Mr Odorico

had designs on her. TVNZ also pointed to the recollections of those involved in the

inquiry.

In addition, the Authority researched the detailed newspaper stories written about the

hearing and noted that the allegation that there was an association between Mr

Odorico and Ms Serci was reported in The Dominion on 19 October 1957. The

Authority decided that even if the suggestion was, as the Pavan family suggested, a

fabrication by the defence, nevertheless it was reported at the time. It did not consider

that the brief reference to the matter in the item breached broadcasting standards and

declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the complaint that TVNZ should not have used the photographs of

the badly beaten body, the Authority decided that in spite of the passage of time, the

photographs had been used gratuitously. While the Authority accepted that it would

have been difficult for TVNZ to have located the family to advise that they were

preparing the item and to seek their permission to do so, it considered that TVNZ

should have anticipated that family members, as well as other viewers, would have

been distressed by seeing such a gruesome scene. Had the Pavan family complained

that the use of the photographs was a breach of standard G2, the standard requiring

broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency, the Authority would

have been inclined to uphold the complaint. However, that standard was not raised

and in the Authority's view, standard G4 – dealing justly and fairly with people – does

not apply to deceased people. Accordingly the Authority declined to uphold this

aspect of the complaint.

Turning to the Pavan family's assertion that TVNZ's use of the photographs was in

breach of standard G5 because they were illegally procured, the Authority considered

that this was a matter which was outside the ambit of its jurisdiction. It declined to

determine this aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the complaint under standards G14 and G16, which apply to news,

the Authority agreed with TVNZ that the standards were not applicable to a

programme such as Under Investigation which is of the documentary genre. However,

it noted that the essence of those standards was contained in standards G1 and G19

which were both considered by the Authority.

The Authority then considered the complaint that standard G17 was breached because

the item was distressing to the family. On previous occasions, the Authority has

interpreted this standard to mean that a breach will occur when there is unwarranted

intrusion into the grieving of a family or friends by filming their distress. It did not

believe the reconstruction of a crime 37 years after the event was in breach, although it

did acknowledge that the family was disturbed by the photographs of the body of

their uncle. The Authority declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Next the Authority examined the complaint that because the whole item was distorted,

standard G19 was breached. It understood the family's concern when it said that the

item implied that Mr Odorico was a somewhat shady character. However, the

Authority did not believe that the item had been edited in such a way as to distort the

facts of the original event. As presented, the facts accorded with the contemporary

accounts of the murder and the trial. Accordingly the Authority declined to uphold

this aspect of the complaint.

The Authority then considered the argument that because the errors of fact were not

corrected by TVNZ when drawn to its attention by the Pavan family, standard G21

was breached. However TVNZ did not accept that there was a factual error in the

broadcast and was therefore not bound to make the correction. The Authority

declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally the Authority considered the complaint that standard V12 was breached

because close-up shots of the battered body were shown. The Authority noted that

the standard applies to "violent and distressing material from either local or world

trouble spots... ." It concluded that the standard applies to filming of present day

occurrences such as riots and wars and was not applicable to the presentation of an

event which occurred 37 years previously. Accordingly it declined to uphold this

aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to determine one aspect

of the complaint and declines to uphold any other aspect.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
1 December 1994

Appendix

Mr J J Pavan's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 26 April 1994

Mr J J Pavan of Johnsonville, on behalf of his family, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about an item on Under Investigation broadcast on Channel Two on 6

April 1994. The item examined the death of Angelo Odorico and recounted the use of

fingerprint evidence by the prosecution to identify and convict his murderer, Angelo

La Mattina.

Mr Pavan complained that it was offensive to imply that Mr Odorico had romantic

designs on La Mattina's girlfriend and requested that TVNZ correct the statement,

which he alleged was a slur on the good name of a respected member of the Italian

community.

He also expressed concern about showing the victim's body on television, alleging that

the photographs used were illegally obtained.

Mr Pavan attached a letter he had written to the producer of Under Investigation in

which he complained:

That the programme strongly implied that the motive for the murder was a

love triangle when in fact it was robbery. Anna Serci eventually disclosed in

approx 1972 Dominion Sunday Times that there was no love triangle and that

the defence lawyers "cooked up the scheme" to save him from the gallows. It

didn't wash with the jury.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 1 June 1994

In its response, TVNZ explained that it considered the complaint in the context of

standard G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. While noting that it

understood Mr Pavan's concern about the impact of the pictures on the victim's

relatives, it observed that some 37 years had elapsed since the murder and that the

photographs now assumed a historic significance.

Referring to the matter of the love triangle, TVNZ quoted an extract from the court

transcript in which the young woman was questioned by the prosecution lawyer

about a visit made by Mr Odorico to La Mattina's flat while she was there. In

TVNZ's view, the programme maker was entitled to use the material and to draw the

conclusion that Mr Odorico had designs on the woman since the testimony was a

matter of public record. It accepted that Ms Serci may have later denied what was

said in court, but noted that even had the producers known of such a letter, it did not

have the weight of testimony given under oath.

TVNZ maintained that the rivalry between Mr Odorico and La Mattina appeared to

have been a significant factor in the circumstances of Mr Odorico's murder.

TVNZ expressed its regret that the item had rekindled the grief of members of the

family, but added that it did not believe it had acted improperly in using information

from court records to illustrate the development of forensic science techniques in New

Zealand. It declined to uphold the complaint.

The Pavan Family's Referral to the Authority - 6 August 1994

On behalf of the family Ms Philippa Pavan referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Ms Pavan rejected TVNZ's claim that the photographs were obtained from either an

active member of the New Zealand Police Force or the Police department. She advised

that she had written to the police seeking confirmation that the photographs had been

released with their approval.

Ms Pavan complained that the item had not dealt fairly with Mr Odorico.

Commenting on the allegation about the "love triangle" Ms Pavan contended that it

defamed Mr Odorico's good character and, noting that the young woman was

pregnant, questioned his morality. She argued that the transcript of the testimony

given in court did not lead to the conclusion that there was such a relationship, yet it

was stated as fact by the reporter.

Ms Pavan maintained that TVNZ should have considered the complaint under

standards G1, G5, G14, G16, G17, G19, G21 and V12. She stated that the facts were

grossly distorted because it was suggested that the love triangle was the motive for the

murder when in fact the jury found it was theft. She added that by stating that

Odorico had designs on his murderer's girlfriend, it implied he was responsible for his

own death as opposed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was alleged that standard G5 was breached because the photographs were used

illegally. Ms Pavan provided evidence that there is a 70 year embargo on police files

unless permission is granted by the Commissioner of Police to release the information.

She advised that she had requested confirmation of the release form from the New

Zealand police and noted that she had asked TVNZ for a copy of the release form but

that it had not been provided.

Referring to standard G14, which requires that news be presented accurately,

objectively and impartially, Ms Pavan alleged that not only was the report not

accurate, but that a thorough investigation had not been completed and the angle on the

story was totally biased in order to sensationalise the facts. She added that the family

did not think the programme was impartial.

Turning to standard G16, Ms Pavan stated that as a member of Mr Odorico's family,

she and other relatives were distressed when they saw the item which contained

photographs of her uncle's battered body. Further distress was caused to the family

when it was suggested that her uncle was involved with the murderer's girlfriend. Ms

Pavan noted that no apology was ever offered to the family, nor was any attempt

made to contact them before the item was broadcast. She commented that even though

the murder was 37 years ago it was still a fresh tragedy to the family.

Ms Pavan complained that standard G17 was breached because no attempt was made

to avoid her family's distress by warning them in advance of the programme. She said

that the family found the whole story a character assassination of the victim and was

totally tasteless.

Standard G19 was breached, continued Ms Pavan, because the whole item was

distorted and the research was incomplete. She maintained that the story made her

uncle seem like a shady character and this was totally untrue. She complained that the

use of the gruesome was gratuitous.

Ms Pavan noted that 2 days after the item was screened, she contacted TVNZ to

advise it of the family's distress and seeking corrections of the errors. TVNZ's failure

to do so caused a breach of standard G21, according to Ms Pavan.

Finally, Ms Pavan alleged that standard V12 was breached by the inclusion of the

close-up photographs of Mr Odorico's body. She questioned how the photographs

were relevant to the item and added that not only was it illegal to use them, but also

sickening.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 September 1994

TVNZ again expressed its regrets that the family had been disturbed by the item,

arguing that the item was shown because the murder case 37 years ago was a

particularly famous one and marked an important milestone in the use of forensic

evidence. It believed that item contributed to the public's understanding of the

development of forensic testing and was a significant historical record.

Referring to the status of the photograph, TVNZ advised that in its view, the matter

was outside of the ambit of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. However, it

reiterated that the photograph was legitimately acquired from the New Zealand Police

and that copies were received both from the police and from a secondary source.

On the matter of defamation of Angelo Odorico, TVNZ pointed out that it was a well-

established dictum that the dead cannot be defamed, and added that it deliberately

avoided mentioning surviving members of the family.

TVNZ rejected the suggestion that the item offered the love triangle as the motive for

the murder. It noted that it was mentioned as part of the evidence which led police to

link La Mattina with the victim, adding that theft was indicated as the reason for the

murder when it was stated that a large sum of money was missing from the till when

the body was found and that bloodstained money was found in the pocket of La

Mattina's clothes.

TVNZ did not believed it had transgressed any law in the production and presentation

of the item and that the case had genuine historical interest.

TVNZ rejected that G14 and G16 were breached because they are specific to news

programmes and this was not a news item.

Referring to the matter of causing distress to the family, TVNZ expressed its regrets

again. It pointed out that the historical examination of prominent criminal cases was

not unusual and that scores of other cases had been re-examined by the media over the

years. Noting that 37 years had elapsed, TVNZ stated that it did not seem to be an

unreasonable time to make an assessment within a historical perspective.

TVNZ denied Ms Pavan's assertion that the item made Mr Odorico appear a shady

character and rejected the claim that G19 was breached.

Referring to the alleged breach of standard V12, TVNZ noted that Ms Pavan had not

quoted the standard in full, and that close-ups of dead bodies could only be depicted if

it was relevant. In this context, TVNZ argued that the picture was relevant because

the emphasis of the story was on forensic evidence, most of which was gathered at the

murder scene.

The Pavan Family's Final Comment - 30 September 1994

Ms Pavan, on behalf of the family, repeated her family's view that it believed the

programme contravened standards G1, G4, G5, G14, G16, G17, G19, G21 and V12 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Turning first to the use of the photograph of the body, Ms Pavan strongly disputed

that it had been legitimately acquired by TVNZ and noted that TVNZ had not

presented evidence to support that assertion. Ms Pavan advised that she herself had

tried to gain access to the photograph but without success although she had been

invited by the curator of the Police College museum (which is not open to the public)

to view the forensic evidence pertaining to the case. The curator of the museum

advised that the film crew were permitted to film parts of the display under

supervision and that the photograph which was used in the programme was not the

same one which was on display in the museum. Ms Pavan wrote:

Suffice to say the photograph used was therefore unlikely to have originated

legally from the New Zealand Police; leaving only the secondary source. Could

this be none other than the self-proclaimed hero of the piece himself, forensic

scientist Lissette? That Lissette has his own files on the case is common

knowledge. We note that he has been asked previously by the museum to

share what information he has but has always declined.

With respect to the alleged love interest in Ms Serci, Ms Pavan described as "bizarre"

TVNZ's claim that the love triangle was the factor that linked La Mattina with her

uncle. She also stated that the family failed to see why the makers of the programme

felt entitled to suggest that Mr Odorico had designs on the young girl and described

that suggestion as an assassination of his good name and character.

Referring to TVNZ's argument that standards G14 and G16 apply only to news and

therefore were not relevant, Ms Pavan noted that the standards came under the wider

heading of News, Current Affairs and Documentaries and applied equally to

documentaries.

In conclusion, she added that TVNZ should have known of the family's existence and

should have had the decency to inform them of the upcoming programme.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 7 October, the Authority sought from TVNZ information about the

material on which the comments about the love triangle were based.

In its response, dated 20 October, TVNZ re-emphasised that the programme made

clear that the motive for the murder was robbery and that the love triangle was

mentioned as part of the evidence which led police to link La Mattina with the victim.

It explained that the references to the love triangle were based both on the recollections

of those spoken to who were involved in the inquiry and on the extract from the court

transcript.

TVNZ noted that the major source of its information was Mr Lissette and another

source was associated with the Police museum at Porirua.