DM's Jury Duty

[ << previous | index | next >> ]

For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places.

Day 2

Evidence

Witness 1. A police detective began by describing the recovery and state of the body. Several photographs, as well as the chain - two lengths of 3/8 inch galvanised chain, 11.9 metres and 5.7 metres long - blue plastic sheeting, and five D-shackles found on the body, were tendered as evidence. One D-shackle was rusted and clearly older than the other 4, which were quite new looking, but a dull grey colour. We saw photos of the body as found, unwrapped, and on the autopsy table. There were also photos of a flatbed utility vehicle, owned by Accused A, which when examined by the police had attached to its towbar a D-shackle similar to those found on the body, an x-ray of Deceased's head, showing bullet fragments inside the skull and jaw areas, and specimen jars containing the bullet fragments. The D-shackle attached to the vehicle was new, similar to the four newer shackles on the body, but shinier.

The Defence barrister for Accused A cross-examined and brought to light the fact that the detective had investigated the business premises and Accused A's vehicle, including using chemicals designed to detect small traces of blood, and had found no evidence of any blood at all. He also asked if the detective knew if the D-shackle found on Accused A's vehicle might not be of a different coating than the ones found on the body. The detective said he didn't know - that was a question for a metallurgist. The Defence took care to point out the lack of an exit wound on the body.

The Crown Prosecutor then asked in re-examination if the purpose of the plastic bag secured over Deceased's head might be to prevent blood from spilling, if the plastic sheeting had been spread on the floor might it not prevent any blood from spattering in the Business Premises, and if the wound location was such that the man would have died instantly and thus not bled much anyway. The detective confirmed all these. The Crown asked if the different appearance of the D-shackles on the body and on the vehicle might be caused by the ones on the body having been immersed in estuarine water for several weeks, and the witness said maybe, but that was really a question for a metallurgist.

Witness 2. The man who found the body. He lived on the river shore and saw a snag in the river one morning, and went out in his boat to investigate, finding it to be a body. He called the police on his mobile. He described the location and what he saw.

The Defence asked some questions about the flow of the tide in the river, and established that the witness had not seen the body the day before. The bridges upstream were mentioned, and the witness admitted that objects coming from the bridges could drift downstream to the place where the body was found. The defence asked if the witness knew a couple who lived near him, and he said he'd never met them. The defence asked if the witness knew those people owned the building in which the Business Premises of Accused A's company was located, but he didn't.

Witness 3. Neighbour of Witness 2, who stayed with the body while the police came to retrieve it. I don't think he really added very much.

After these witnesses, it was clear to the jury that this was not going to be an easy case to decide. Everything seemed to have multiple explanations, and it seemed clear the prosecution had no "smoking gun" evidence to clearly indicate the accused had in fact committed this crime. Given what we know so far, it seems clear that it is the most plausible explanation, but there's plenty of room for doubt.

[ << previous | index | next >> ]