[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Under re-examination by the Crown, the official police statement by the employee was produced, confirming the statement recorded in the running sheet on cutting the chain. The Crown then mentioned a later statement made by the employee and was about to produce it as evidence, when Defence objected. The judge called a recess for the jury while he sorted out the legal technicalities of the objection to this evidence.
While out of the court, the jury discussed in some detail the proceedings so far. Several times multiple jurors made the point that we were being shown the same boring evidence over and over in tedious and mind-numbing detail, and that both the Crown and Defence would be doing better if they sped up the proceedings.
We discussed the now seemingly crucial evidence of the pieces of chain. If in fact the hardware store employee had cut the chain into three lengths, then it was unlikely to be the same chain as found on Deceased. If, however, the employee had for some reason not followed Accused A's instruction exactly and sold the chain in two lengths, of approximately 5 metres and 10 metres as measured by him (thus potentially of 5.7 metres and 11.9 metres since it was established his measuring method gave longer lengths than intended), and later recollected this fact, then it would point towards the chain being the same. We noted that neither the Crown nor Defence had made this point explicit yet, nor was there any indication so far that anyone would even ask whether or not this was the same chain. We figured that if/when Accused A is questioned on the witness stand, a crucial question would be "Where is the chain bought the week before Deceased disappeared?" In his own defence, Accused A should surely claim that that chain is somewhere else, and this should be a matter for police investigation. We deemed significant the fact that Defence had not yet attempted to say explicitly that this was not the same chain by offering evidence of other chain in Accused A's possession.
Following the recess, we were led back into the court. The judge declared that the intended evidence was inadmissable, and the Crown declared he was finished with the witness, and he was excused. The judge then said that there would also be some questions over admissability of evidence for the next witness, and we would take another recess immediately so that he could work those out with the barristers before we heard the next witness. So we adjourned again. After another hour or more, we were called back in to the court. The judge said that the details had been worked out, but that it was now almost lunch time, so the best thing would be to break and come back after lunch.
At lunch, Juror B sat down and began calculating numerological totals for the names and birthdates of the Accused. A couple of other jurors took some interest in this, offering their own names and birthdates for calculation. Juror B said she would have to check with a friend tonight for the exact meanings. Someone commented, jokingly I hope, that maybe we should draw up horoscopes for the Accused, in order to help us determine their guilt or innocence.
Lunch gave us the chance to switch to another topic of conversation - the poor quality of the food we were being served. Lunch has each day consisted of cut sandwiches, of a decidedly less than gourmet quality, involving cheap luncheon meats, processed cheese slices, and questionable salad material. Personally I consider a free meal a free meal, but most of the other jurors were vehemently upset by the quality, and Juror A questioned the Sheriff's Officer about the possibilities of getting better food. The Sheriff's Officer told us that unfortunately no alternative arrangements could be made, but that beginning next week we would be entitled to a choice of hot meals instead of sandwiches. He gave us a menu for next week, from which we were to select our own dish each day from a choice of three.
As on each previous day, we were allowed out into the small courtyard adjacent to the jury room for about 20 minutes at lunchtime, always under the watchful eye of a Sheriff's Officer. Today, some of us continued talking about the case as we moved outside, and the Officer instructed us not to discuss the case while outdoors.
During lunch, Juror C took off his shirt, revealing underneath it a T-shirt printed with the comic book character Tintin. The back of the shirt contained a large scene from a book, showing a lynch mob preparing to hang Tintin, which I only noticed once we were back in the jury box and I could see his back. (I commented on this after we retired later and he said he'd been aware of what was on the shirt, but had not really worn it to make any sort of statement. I believe that as we left the jury box, his back would have been turned to the court and the Accused and their counsel would have seen the lynch mob picture...)
Witness 9. Police detective assigned to the task force investigating murder of Deceased. Immediately after lunch, the Crown showed the witness over 100 photos of various locations, including the restaurant Accused A claimed to have had dinner in with Deceased on the night Deceased disappeared, the street outside the Restaurant, Accused B's flat, and Deceased's car (which was found parked in a street in the same suburb as the Business Premises and Restaurant).
During Witness 9's evidence, Witnesses 6 and 8 entered the public gallery on a balcony above the chamber and sat watching proceedings. I noticed that they looked down at the Accused many times, in some cases pointing at them and whispering comments to one another.
The witness read from a statement an account of his part in the investigation, the obtaining and executing of search warrants on the Business Premises and other places involved in the case, the arrests of Accused A and Accused B (on the same day, but in different locations), and their subsequent charges with murder.
The Crown produced several bullets in evidence and the witness identified them has having been seized at Accused B's residence. He identified them as a 0.40 calibre bullet, two 0.357 bullets, and two revolver speed-loaders each holding six 0.38 bullets. Accused B's mobile phone was produced in evidence and identified as such, but no further evidence was presented regarding it. Several newspapers found in Deceased's car were presented, smudged with a dye used by the police fingerprinting unit. A street directory was produced, and identified as having been found in the glovebox of Deceased's car. A map on a specific page was indicated, showing the street where the car had been found abandoned, and the witness gave evidence that that page contained a left index fingerprint matching Accused B.
The Crown presented a statement taken by police from Accused A prior to his arrest (and prior to Deceased's body being found, when the investigation was a missing person case). Witness read the statement to the court. Accused A's statement included words to the effect that he had known Deceased for several years, and had formed a business partnership with him, in which Accused A held a 50% share (notably different to his actual 49% share). He said the meeting on the evening Deceased was last seen was amicable and had continued to dinner in the Restaurant until around 10pm. He said he had been aware that Deceased was meant to meet his girlfriend at 9:30. He said they parted company outside the Restaurant around 10pm, with Deceased's car being parked across the road from Accused A's, near the Restaurant.
The Crown asked the witness to recount when he had accompanied Accused A and questioned the owner and staff of the Restaurant as to whether they recalled seeing Accused A, who they said they did not recall.
The witness went on to subsequent investigation of Accused A's whereabouts that evening. A warrant had been obtained to search a petrol station's credit card receipt records, and a receipt was seized. It showed that Accused A had charged a purchase of 63 litres of petrol, three bottles of soft drink, chips, sweets, and two packets of cigarettes to a credit card at 9:35 pm on that night, at a service station located about 3km south-east of the Restaurant.
Further documents were tendered as evidence: An application at the Hardware Store for a credit account in the name of Property Maintenance Company, owned by Accused A.
The Crown went on to question the witness about an investigation into Deceased's disappearance, following an inquiry made by Deceased's girlfriend of businesses in the area the day after he disappeared. She had determined that two employees of a petrol station south of the suburb where the Business Premises were located recalled seeing someone who matched Deceased's description the night before, and that he had used the public phone there. The police subsequently obtained phone company records of all phone calls made that night from that phone between 7pm and 10pm, and followed them up by contacting the subscriber at each of the three dialled numbers. None of the people thus contacted had ever heard of Deceased or his company. It was clear here the Crown was trying to show that this line of investigation was pursued by the police, but turned up nothing to indicate Deceased had been present there that evening.
Defence began cross-examination of the witness by pointing out a couple of minor errors, including one typographical error, in the witness' printed police statements. The witness freely admitted that each case was in error and explained the correct circumstances of his account. This seemed rather pointless, except as an exercise to discredit the reliability of the witness in compiling a report.
Defence then questioned the witness on the quantity of clothing found in Deceased's car, listed as multiple pairs of underwear and socks, shirts, trousers, and two pairs of shoes. He asked the witness if this could be considered a large amount of clothing to be carrying around in a car. The witness admitted it could be considered that way. I'm not sure where the Defence was leading with this line of questioning - perhaps to an idea that the Deceased had intended to run away from his financial problems.
The day ended before the Defence had finished his cross-examination.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]