[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Crown re-examined the evidence given about distances along the street outside Restaurant. He asked if the witness was mistaken in his initial estimate of 200 metres. The witness said he was. Crown asked why that might be the case. Witness said that he had been confused and might have been thinking of the total distance from the Restaurant around the corner to the car, not merely to the street corner.
And we left early the day before so they could argue the legal technicalities of allowing this line of questioning?!
Defence for Accused B asked for some details concerning the arrest of Accused B. The witness confirmed that when Accused B was arrested, he led them willingly into his bedroom to allow the police to retrieve his mobile phone (already tendered as evidence), and the bullets seized by the police were on open display on a shelf in that room. The witness also confirmed that Accused B freely agreed to an oral DNA swab.
Witness 10. Police detective involved with investigating the murder case. The Crown asked the witness to read from statements outlining his involvement in the investigation, including the obtaining of warrants, planting of listening devices in the Business Premises and the car of Accused A, subsequent search of the Business Premises, and arrests of Accused A and Accused B.
Tendered as evidence:
The Crown asked about details of the voice recorder monitoring of the Business Premises, and referred to one conversation in particular between Accused A and Accused B. Crown asked if the witness would recognise the voices of the Accused if the tape was played to the court, and the witness said he would. There was a tape player on the barrister's desk (which hadn't been there previous days), so we naturally thought we would get to hear this tape, but it wasn't played, or even tendered as evidence.
The Crown questioned the witness on details of the statement by Hardware Store Employee that the chain he had sold to Accused A had been cut into three pieces. Crown said that a second statement was taken later from the Employee, and the witness agreed. Crown began asking about the second statement and Defence objected, stating that the Employee was a later witness and this line of questioning was inappropriate for this witness. The judge upheld the objection.
The Crown produced samples of marine growth recovered from the clothing of Deceased. These had been sent for analysis to a marine invertebrate expert. Expert had produced a written report stating the organisms were polychaete worms of the genus Spiochaetopterus. These have a planktonic embryo stage, following which they settle on sea bottom surfaces and grow a tube in which they live. They do not settle on clean surfaces, requiring the presence of bacteria first, and would take "a few weeks" to grow to the size recovered from Deceased's clothing. I noted in the jury room afterwards that the date of this report was Day 4 of this trial, only two days ago! So clearly the police are still working to find any new evidence they can to help convict the Accused. The point of this evidence seemed to be to establish that the body must have lain in the water for some weeks before being recovered, putting the time of death in a very short window following Deceased's disappearance.
The Crown asked about the witness' involvement with investigating the lead initiated by Deceased's girlfriend on the day after Deceased disappeared. The witness said he personally called one of the phone numbers indicated on the phone company record listing calls from the petrol station where an employee recalled seeing someone matching Deceased's description. The subscriber at that number had had the number for 5 years, and had never heard of the Deceased or the Security Company.
During questioning of this witness on Deceased's girlfriend, Juror D had noticed that Accused A cast his eyes down and fiddled with his hands, avoiding looking at the witness. She reported this to us in a recess afterwards, contrasting this to the normal behaviour of Accused A, which was to actively look at the witness, judge, barristers, and jury, keeping his eyes on the proceedings and writing notes in a notebook. During subsequent cross-examination, I looked at Accused A when the topic of Deceased's girlfriend was raised, and I noticed he cast his eyes down and fidgeted with his hands - unusual behaviour that I had not noticed him doing at any time before.
Crown had the witness confirm he had interviewed the Handyman who performed work for the Property Maintenance Company owned by Accused A (the company to whose credit account the chain and D-shackles were charged). This interview had been recorded on videotape. The Crown showed the witness a videotape, which he identified as the tape containing that interview. Crown produced a transcript of the tape. The tape and transcript were marked for court identification but not yet entered as evidence - and we heard no more about them at this point.
Defence cross-examined the witness. Defence asked about the examination of Deceased's car, asking the witness if anyone else had physically examined the car before he had seen it two days after it had been towed to the police station. The witness said that the car had only been examined visually and photographed, and nobody had touched it until he saw it. Defence produced police running sheets indicating that a fingerprint expert had taken swabs of the car on the day it was towed.
Defence tendered a document from a legal office, being the written resignation of Deceased as a director of the Security Company, dated 1999 (i.e. prior to the date of drawing up of the contract for subcontracting work to another security company).
Defence asked a few questions concerning the taking of a second statement from Hardware Store Employee. The thrust seemed to be implying that the police work had been sloppy in not noticing the discrepancy between the chain found on the Deceased (two lengths, 11.9 metres and 5.7 metres) and the chain as sold to Accused A (three lengths, approximately 5 metres each) - this discrepancy only came up at the bail hearing for Accused A some months after his arrest.
Defence asked at some length about the former business associate of Deceased. The witness confirmed that Former Business Associate was a serving police officer from 1992 to 2000, and also operating a security business in partnership with Deceased (himself a former police officer) in that time, against police force rules that disallow an officer from operating a business without approval from his commanding officer. Former Business Associate was investigated by the Police Integrity Commission and convicted of corrupt behaviour, and sentenced to serve time by periodic detention. The witness interviewed Former Business Associate as part of the investigation into Deceased's death, and Former Business Associate had told him that he believed Deceased to have informed on him, thus leading to his conviction. This had made Former Business Associate resentful of Deceased. Defence asked the witness if Former Business Associate had been "angry" at Deceased; the witness stated that he would not say "angry", only "resentful". Defence had the witness confirm that although these comments were recorded in his rough notes, they were never entered in an official police statement because Former Business Associate refused outright to make or sign such a statement. Defence questioned the witness on usual behaviour of criminals to those they considered to be informers testifying against them, noting that informers must be protected in prison because of possible violence towards them by other inmates, and so on. The witness confirmed that in the criminal culture, informants were held in considerable contempt and sometimes suffered acts of violence visited by those they had informed against.
Defence asked about Deceased's girlfriend, and in particular about her former boyfriend of some years ago. In an interview with the witness, she had described a relationship with Former Boyfriend. This relationship lasted only three months, because of his violent behaviour towards her, and she had sought an Apprehended Violence Order against him. She had said that Former Boyfriend had threatened to shoot her, "and any other person she went out with".
In two swift strokes here, the Defence had produced not one, but two possible other people with motives to kill Deceased! At this point in the proceedings I think all of the jury were rapt with attention and running through myriad scenarios in their heads. This was certainly the main point of discussion in the next recess. We also expressed the opinion that finally we were getting into some really juicy and sordid details of this case. Someone commented that Deceased's girlfriend sure seemed to pick losers. Someone else reinforced the comment, expressed in earlier jury discussions, that all the people involved in this case seemed to have sordid backgrounds, from Former Business Associate to Deceased himself, to the Boat Hire guy!
Defence asked for some details concerning the arrest of Accused A. The witness confirmed that Accused A freely agreed to an oral DNA swab.
Defence had the witness confirm that the listening devices planted in Business Premises and Accused A's car were operated 24 hours a day for several weeks. The witness pointed out unprompted that the device in Accused A's car malfunctioned and so records for it were available for something less than half the time it was planted, and also that in several cases conversations recorded by all devices were muffled or hard to understand.
The Crown re-examined the witness, asking him to clarify some points on the taking of a second statement from Hardware Store Employee. Crown seemed to be seeking to enter the second statement into evidence at this point, to presumably show that Employee had been mistaken about his recollection of how the chain was cut. Defence objected, stating that this seemed like a new line of evidence, not a re-examination of the points made in the cross-examination. Clearly this second statement concerning how the length of chain sold to Accused A was cut is a crucial piece of evidence, that neither side is willing to allow the other any ground on. We only hope that all will be revealed when Hardware Store Employee takes the witness stand.
Crown re-examined the witness' interview with Former Business Associate. The witness stated that, contrary to any belief held by Former Business Associate, Deceased had in fact not informed against him at the Police Integrity Commission.
Crown re-examined the Apprehended Violence Order taken out against Deceased's girlfriend's former boyfriend, producing the actual request for the order. He noted that the document recording the AVO request did not make any mention of a threat to shoot, kill, or harm Deceased's girlfriend, or anyone she may go out with in future. The witness confirmed this.
Witness 11. Police detective involved with investigating the murder case. He made some simple confirmations of police statements outlining his role in the investigation, including taking part in the search of Business Premises and the planting and monitoring of listening devices in Business Premises and Accused A's car.
Defence declined to cross-examine the witness, and he was excused. With the day nearly over, the judge called an end to the day's proceedings.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]