I’m writing to address the statements made by Maryrose Cuskelly in an article published in Crikey last month. I’m writing to defend my objection to this author’s inclusion in the Bendigo Writers Festival (BWF). I’m writing to outline my objections to the content of Cuskelly’s true crime book, Wedderburn: A True Tale of Blood and Dust, and how it was contrived. I’m writing to provide my first-hand insight into the pain, distress and utter devastation that this book’s very existence has inflicted on myself and my immediate family.
Firstly, the festival. When I discovered that Maryrose Cuskelly was to attend the BWF I was distraught. Why had no one flagged this author and her book as potentially controversial, as a locally sensitive issue? After all, the town of Wedderburn, after which the book is named, is just 75kms north of Bendigo. Two of the three victims whose murders the book claims to explore were born and bred in Bendigo. I thought all I would have to do was alert the organisers of the festival to this and they would rectify what I thought was surely an oversight. How wrong I was.
I made repeated attempts to contact the festival director through request for phone calls, which went unreturned, and emails, which were met with silence. I then turned to the local city council. After my initial appeal was denied, I then emailed and approached local politicians and festival sponsors, to gather support for my appeal to be at least acknowledged. Eventually, I and three other family members arranged to meet with Cr Rod Fyffe and Mayor Margaret O’Rourke who recognised our distress and acted upon it. This led to the author withdrawing from the festival.
How dare we, as the family of the victims — the victims were my brother, mother and step-father — request that this festival that my husband and I attend not support, promote and seek to profit from a book that has inflicted further trauma to myself and those I hold most dear?
We never made threats to disrupt the festival as Cuskelly states and, as we never directly contacted the author. If she felt intimidated then it was nothing we did. I object most strongly to Cuskelly’s statement that there was “pressure brought to bear in ways that were, I’m led to believe, intimidatory and aggressive”.
Ours was a simple appeal for respect for my mother and brother in their hometown.
As a former school librarian I am a lover of the written word, and indeed I can understand the value of the true crime genre, where it is written by professionals, sanctioned by the families, supported by judiciary and police, in an attempt to help solve cold cases or explore issues. But, in my opinion, Cuskelly’s book serves no such purpose.
Wedderburn was contrived through Cuskelly’s link to the perpetrator of this crime in her words “through an accident of knowing someone who knew someone…” and her “luck” in the courtroom, in approaching the two members of the family, that she did. My two older siblings, to whom I am estranged, contributed to the book. I was never approached by Cuskelly. Through my consultation with the 10 surviving children of the victims, only five were approached — of these, three declined. I believe that consensus within the victim’s families should have to be sought, before a book such as this can be written.
I must say, I wouldn’t have contributed even if I had been asked. Does that matter to anyone? Is my family now public property because we suffered a horrific event?
As the fifth anniversary of the event approaches I am still, and at times quite desperately, trying to work through my understanding of that night and the events leading up to it. I am trying to find a way forward, but I find I am still stuck. There has never been a day with any kind of peace of mind since this happened.
Publishers and their authors need to recognise and be accountable for the added distress and trauma that can potentially be caused by the insensitive publication of books such as this. I have repeatedly dissuaded several family members from reading this book because I greatly fear the impact it may have on their mental health. I know what it has done to mine.
Frequently I am stuck in my chair unable to find any enthusiasm to engage in day-to-day tasks and the lives and interests of those around me. Yes, I am still grieving and deeply affected by the events of October 22, 2014, but my failed appeals for the withdrawal of the book also left me feeling powerless and hopeless. Now my little win with having Cuskelly withdraw from BWF is being re-framed as an unwarranted attack.
Victims of crime and their families need protections. We are completely defenceless to becoming fodder and prey for journalists and would-be authors. Why must we be subjected to more trauma? Haven’t we been dealt enough?
Note: Maryrose Cuskelly has said she attempted to contact Rosalee Clark via a family member when writing her book. You can read her initial statement about BWF and the book here.
While recognising the pain of family members in revisiting this account if they choose to, surely the book has to be judged on its literary merits. I believe it is quite a significant contribution to our cultural definition. When we lived in Wedderburn we would have regarded Peter Lockhart as one of our best friends and the character as portrayed in this book closely resembles the person we knew, and the town we knew and enjoyed was absolutely there. The author has done a remarkable job in recreating a country town, its personalities and the impact of such a traumatic event but more particularly the way in which the plot unfolds allowing the reader to see the complexities and how the interplay developed such tragic consequences.
My only criticism is that by using the title ‘Wedderburn’ makes the town wear the cost of notoriety, whereas these tragic murders could just as easily have happened in any country town of that size in Australia and certainly have. The events leading up to this were not unique and as a society we cannot hide from the fact these dreadful actions occur and this book is a thoughtful contribution to our understanding. I am very disappointed the Bendigo Writers Festival has succumbed to the pressure-the Festival is diminished.
Not your family! You are obviously not who you say you are, or you wouldn’t be happy about what is in the book about Peter. I am sick of people telling me how I should feel about something they cannot possibly understand.
I think you could easily check your assertion by asking Trevor Bailey who is also a subject in the book. My husband taught him.
Just spoke to my brother-in-law, Trevor Bailey. laughs. you are just one of those people who uses your 50 plus yr old acquaintance of the victim and Trevor as your little claim to fame! you kind of people come out of the woodwork frequently. You have NO understanding of how this has affected us all.
The crimes had been solved and reported on — anything else in this book is just conjecture. People’s privacy was invaded based on the decisions of persons without qualification to make decisions of what is relevant or of benefit to society. The lack of diligence on the author’s part to follow up consent or provide manuscripts at a stage when editing was still a possibility, the superfluous gossip included, the ill-informed comments and assumptions about family relationships etc, imo, are all examples of very poor authorship and indication of a lack of knowledge and expertise on the issues the author claims she is highlighting. If you knew Peter as you claim you would also see through the stereotypical gibberish. To claim the book is helpful when such glaring oversights about family violence and personality disorders exist is evidence that this type of commentary included in books must be overseen by an appropriate professional. None of it added any knowledge that would help society learn about understanding or preventing crime. The author seems to have included anything she could to tell a story rather than informed discussion about men that kill. There is no information about the murderer that wasn’t freely available.
All of us expect to have a quiet enjoyment of our lives unless we do something to breach that – this family didn’t breach that or do anything that led to, or exacerbated, the crime – their stories and personal information had nothing to do with the crime. It is not a benefit to society to breach, on an uneducated whim, the expectation that we all hold to a private life. Any claim otherwise, in this case, is unethical bullying.
I bought and read this book a couple of weeks ago. I felt it had been written with great care and sensitivity towards the feelings of the victims’ family and their friends. Cuskelly took care to interview the friends and supporters of the perpetrator, as well as the victims’ family members and associates. She was fair to everyone involved. Ms Clark rejected the opportunity to have her opinions included in the book, even though two other siblings did co-operate with the writer.
I agree with the commentator above who said, ” The events leading up to this [murder] were not unique and as a society we cannot hide from the fact these dreadful actions occur and this book is a thoughtful contribution to our understanding.” I am also disappointed that the Bendigo Writers Festival has withdrawn its invitation to Cuskelly.
Ummmm – Ms Clark wasn’t approached. And NO family member was provided with a manuscript prior to publication. And why should her’s or anyone else’s private details, not related to the crime, be included? Don’t we all have some privacy rights? Dreadful events do occur and there is already another chapter and multiple news articles about the crime – so what extra did this book bring? Clarity hasn’t been provided about that. What exactly did it contribute to understanding – lots of broad and sweet statements are being made but none so far have been supportable. Like Ms Clark said, if there’s a valid purpose for the true crime story – fine – but if there’s not it shouldn’t be published. Someone with a writing degree is not in a position to judge what requires the specialty of a psychologist – where was the ethic’s committee on this project?
China girl -I will confirm yet again. I was not approached by the author. She states in the acknowledgements that I ‘chose’ not to contribute. I was never asked in anyway. I suspect she may have approached a family member who steered her away from talking to me? She is just trying to cover up her inadequacy to do a thorough job. Of the 10 adult children of the victims she took the word of two, who had their own agendas.
You say “Cuskelly took care to interview the friends and supporters of the perpetrator, as well as the victims’ family members and associates. She was fair to everyone involved.”
You would have to know the people involved to be able to make such a ridiculous statement. And if you did – you would know she did know such thing!
I appreciate hearing a family member’s perspective on this book. I can understand their hurt – especially when seeing the comments on the cover and the text used to promote the book. The subheading “What does it take to provoke a murder?” and a promotional blurb saying the murderer did some in the community “a favour” are really insensitive and unnecessary. I grew up in a small town and there’s always someone who’ll bag a victim – but why should that be published? Or used as the hook to promote the book? Why resort to victim-blaming, or suggest they provoked this heinous action? He chose to murder them. The author’s words in her Crikey piece were also poorly chosen, saying the victims ‘lost their lives’ – when they were brutally, intentionally, murdered. It’s a problem when writers use soft language that takes responsibility away from the perpetrator and suggests the victims have contributed, or been unlucky. Violence is a choice. While we need writers to investigate and help us make sense of such atrocities, they need to choose their words more carefully – especially around ‘provocation’.
Thanks Helen , when you understand that this author was a friend of a friend of the perpetrator it’s obvious what she was up to … victim shaming. Appalling Allen and Unwin let her get away with it.
“sanctioned by the families, , in an attempt to help solve cold cases or explore issues. But, in my opinion, Cuskelly’s book serves no such purpose”
Do you believe that all investigative journalism should be sanctioned by the families or victims and supported by judiciary and police?
The book wasn’t investigative journalism. Investigative journalists have a code of ethics that should be upheld and the Press Council or MEAA to complain to. Investigative journalists focus on the issue of the crime and provide a report. It is acknowledged that there are some notable gaps in ethical standards with some journalists and their companies. But, that is a different conversation and one to be taken up with the bodies in place that are meant to provide the oversight. The reference to sanctioning by families in this context refers to the True Crime genre and publishing houses that escape scrutiny of any ethical oversight body, panel or law. This author has gone further and attempted (IMO poorly) to provide some form of sociological/psychological diagnosis or commentary, brought in many unrelated factors and named persons irrelevant to the crime. It moves into the area of human research and should attract the same ethical oversight as that type of research which includes the concept of informed consent.
There needs to be something to protect innocent victims of crime , who, just because this horror is visited on my family , we are now seen as public property? We are not protected by any Code of Ethics for ‘TrueCrime’ . I am not against investigative journalism or free speech before you head down that road . I am about respect and the right to privacy for victims of crime and our families. What If this happened to your family? I’m sure any thinking person would want that right too.