[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Defence moved on to asking questions about the fingerprints themselves, but the Crown objected and the judge disallowed the question as a fingerprint expert was to be called as a witness later and would make a more suitable witness to ask about them.
Defence went over the locations indicated by Accused A to the witness outside Restaurant where Accused A's and Deceased's cars had allegedly been parked on the night when Deceased disappeared, during the meal alleged to have taken place there, according to Accused A's statement. Defence asked the witness to estimate distances between the locations stated by Accused A where the cars were parked and the end of the street. The witness estimated one distance at 200 metres. Defence stated that the street was only 294 metres long and said that 200 metres was a considerable fraction of that. We weren't sure if Defence was actually getting at something with this line of questioning, and concluded that it was more trying to confuse/badger the witness and draw out the cross-examination than anything else.
Defence asked the witness about the two Former Business Partners of Deceased. The witness was led to explain that Deceased had been in business with two other men prior to forming a business with Accused A, and they had fallen out and had an antagonistic break-up of the business. Former Business Partner A was a former policeman (as was Deceased), and had been serving a sentence of intermittent detention for offences investigated by the Police Integrity Commission. Defence led to the conclusion that perhaps Deceased had turned against this business partner and informed on him to the Commission, thus leading to ill-feeling between them. This was the first really sensational new evidence we had heard and clearly provided another person who might have had motive to kill Deceased. Defence continued by asking the witness if he had followed through on this line of investigation. The witness said he had made some inquiries in that direction. Defence asked further questions regarding why that line of investigation had apparently been abandoned, and Crown objected. The judge called a recess to thrash out the legalities of how much of this was admissable evidence, and we sat out of the courtroom for morning tea.
Back in the court, Defence began to ask questions about the petrol station where Deceased's girlfriend had found employees who said they saw a man matching Deceased's description. The phone call records were raised, and Defence asked if the phone company recorded attempted calls that were not picked up, or calls for which no charge was made. The witness said he had no knowledge of how the phone company recorded calls. Defence continued with a further question, to which the Crown objected on the grounds that the witness had no expert knowledge of the details in question. Defence changed to asking whether the witness had made inquiries as to how phone calls were recorded, and if unanswered calls were recorded. The witness had to admit that he had not.
Defence asked about an employee of the petrol station, who had claimed to have seen a man matching Deceased's description on the night he had disappeared. The witness stated that he had not personally interviewed the employee. Defence produced a police running sheet containing a transcript of an interview with the employee. Crown objected that the appropriate witness to ask was one who would be called later, not this one. The judge said that clearly there would be several contentious lines of questioning with this witness and it would be best to discuss them without the jury present. We were removed to the jury room.
We waited and discussed things for some time. Juror B explained details of her numerological analysis of the Accused to some other jurors. She said that Accused A had "four ones", which made him "prone to violent behaviour". Some of us clearly took this with a large grain of salt, while one or two others looked fascinated. Juror B also showed some crystals she had brought to "help her through this difficult process" - two quartz and one moldavite from a meteorite.
We talked about how long and drawn out the proceedings seemed to be, and wished that the barristers would pick up the pace a bit. We discussed at some length the new evidence brought to light by Defence, particularly the revelation that someone else, and a former crooked cop at that, could have had a strong motive to get revenge against Deceased. We discussed the lengths of chain again, and hoped that at some stage Accused A would take the stand and be asked directly where was the chain he bought at the hardware store. Seeing the hardware store employee on the stand, and addressing the question to which Defence had objected yesterday would also be very interesting.
The discussion turned around to how difficult it was so far to make any conclusion, and the hope that somewhere along the way we would be presented with some evidence that would make a decision in this case clear. I am impressed by the level-headedness of the jurors, in that we are all discussing how some evidence we have heard seems to incriminate the Accused, while other evidence seems to offer other possibilities, and jurors keep stating that we have not yet heard all the evidence and that we must keep our minds open at this stage. The weight of the responsibility resting on us is apparent in the more solemn and serious moments when we are talking about the evidence or our possible decisions. At other times, as might be expected, we devolve into chat about other topics, completely unrelated to the case, and can share some laughs. I think we need this to relieve the pressure we are all feeling, and that it's a good thing that we can do it.
Thankfully, all of us get along well enough, and there don't seem to be any overly dominant or retiring personalities. Everyone is getting their say, and the views being expressed are interesting and I think helping each of us to synthesise the flow of evidence in our own minds as we go. It is easy to miss small points in the court, but the subsequent discussion helps remind us all and bring points into focus, as well as drawing connections between things. It is going to be a very interesting next few weeks.
Just before lunch, the Sheriff's Officer came in to advise us that we should begin our lunch break, since the legal arguments without us would continue for some time yet. About ten minutes later, the Officer returned to call us back into the court. The judge informed us that the legal arguments over admissable evidence were likely to go on for a few more hours, and that rather than keep us in the jury room all day, he would dismiss us for the day and we would begin again tomorrow. So we polished off the remainder of the lunch and left early for the day.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]