DM's Jury Duty

[ << previous | index | next >> ]

Day 7

We were summoned into the court and the judge thanked the jury for bringing this matter to his attention, but said that as long as there was no contact or communication between the Juror in question and the person in the gallery, there was no need for the court to be concerned about it. I think the judge missed the point that Juror E had been made to feel uncomfortable by someone in the gallery.

Witness 12. A close personal friend of Deceased. The witness described how he had been introduced to Deceased by his then wife, who was a close friend of long standing to the witness. Witness and Deceased developed a strong friendship over the following years.

Witness described a business he set up with Deceased. Deceased had been giving security industry training at a Training Company and had an idea to use his knowledge of the people doing the course to set up a web site advertising these people to potential employers. The employers would pay a one-time registration fee, and a one-off placement fee for each employee hired through the site, with a total cost much less than that paid to normal employment agencies. Witness and Deceased set up this site with the intention of making it an equal share business when it began turning a profit. They shared this idea with the owner of Training Company, inviting him to share the business. The witness said that "being a Scotsman, he wasn't keen to part with cash to start it up, so stayed out of it." At this point, I looked at Accused B, who we'd previously been made aware was of Scottish background, and noticed he looked straight at the witness with a long glare.

Since both the witness and Deceased lacked computer skills, they hired Accused B to design and implement the web site. He produced a site that got the idea up and running. Shortly afterwards, Deceased checked the web site log and was puzzled by the low number of hits on the site. He checked several search engines and was dismayed to find that the site was not listed anywhere. He arranged a meeting with Accused B, also attended by this Witness, to discuss this. At this meeting, Deceased became angry with Accused B and Accused B reciprocated, resulting in several minutes of shouted argument. Witness said this ended when Accused B walked out.

The witness said that he thought the web site business would take off and become hugely profitable, allowing them to expand into other areas of recruitment and build a business rivalling large established recruitment agencies. This was cut short when Deceased disappeared. Two weeks later, Accused A had taken all of Deceased's furniture, and his computer, to Business Premises. Accused A met with the witness at Business Premises, and asked for the passwords so that he could access information on the computer. The witness said he did not tell Accused A the passwords, but said he would get back to him. He did not speak to Accused A again for some time. When Deceased's body was found, the witness called Accused A and left a message asking him to call back. Accused A never returned the call. The point being made here seemed to be that Accused A was trying to steal this soon-to-be-flourishing web business from Deceased's computer.

Defence cross-examined the witness at some length. Defence began by querying the witness' valuation of the web site business. Defence asked how many people had been placed by the site in its roughly 12 months of operation. The witness hesitated to name a number, settling on 500.

Defence asked, "So you placed 500 people?"

Witness replied, "No, you asked me to give a rough estimate. That's all it is."

Defence said, "But that's your best estimate at the figure?"

Witness: "No... you wanted me to name a number, so I picked one out of the air."

Defence: "Well don't pick one out of the air. Give me what you think is the best estimate."

Witness: "I don't really know..."

Defence: "Just name a number!"

Defence really got quite agitated and almost hostile at this point. Eventually the witness gave a range of 200-250 people. Defence then calculated how much income this represented, and asked the witness, "That's not much, is it?" The questioning continued in this way for some time, with Defence hammering the point again and again that this web site business seemed to be a hopeless proposition and doomed to lose money. The witness stated that at the time Deceased disappeared, it was not profitable, but that he and Deceased fully expected it to become profitable and very quickly thereafter take off and generate vast amounts of income. Defence made it clear he thought the witness' business acumen was less than wonderful and that the web site represented a loss-making enterprise that Accused A would rather steer well clear of than try to steal. He brought up the reluctance of the owner of Training Company to buy into the business, asking if it was such a great idea and bound to make so much money, why wasn't he interested?

Defence mentioned that Deceased's girlfriend had actually instructed Accused A to take Deceased's belongings and store them at Business Premises, after he had gone missing and his rent was not being paid. The witness said he could not agree with that as he had no knowledge of it. Defence asked who bought Deceased's computer, and the witness said he bought it himself. Defence asked if the money was loaned to Deceased to buy the computer, and the witness said yes, he thought it was given to Deceased by his father. Defence said that no, the money to buy the computer was loaned to Deceased by Accused A, but the witness said he had no knowledge of that.

Defence asked if the witness was aware that Deceased's girlfriend had "underworld connections". The witness expressed surprise and denied any knowledge of this.

During a recess, the jury talked about how naïve this witness appeared to be. He had a dream, of turning a web page coded up by a friend into a huge Internet business... and still seemed to be fully convinced that things would have worked out brilliantly, if only Deceased hadn't gone missing and turned up dead. We also considered the remark by Defence of Deceased's wife having "underworld connections" to be interesting, but reminded each other that the witness had denied any knowledge of such, so we could not assume that she actually did have any such connections. Juror A pointed out that the Crown did not object to the question though - although what this means is hard to say. We need to be careful here not to assume things that have not been proven or stated by a witness.

Defence asked the witness about Deceased's Former Business Partners. Witness described their relationship as having broken down over the failure of their business, and how Deceased "hated" both Former Business Partners. Defence queried whether Former Business Partners also "hated" Deceased; the witness said he had no idea what their feelings were. Defence asked if the witness knew that Former Business Partner A had been investigated and convicted by the Police Integrity Commission, which was confirmed. Witness said that he recalled Former Business Partner A appearing on the media, being recorded dealing drugs in a nightclub.

Defence for Accused B questioned the witness on the work Accused B did in creating the web site. The witness stated that Accused B did a total of about 10 hours work, being paid "either $10 or $20 an hour". A paltry sum by any standard of pay for web design and implementation work beyond strictly amateur. Accused B was still owed this money by Deceased. Defence had the witness point out that no blows were struck in the argument between Deceased and Accused B, and repeat that Accused B was the one who ended the argument by walking away. Defence raised a later meeting between the three, at which the witness described a more amicable feeling between Deceased and Accused B. The witness mentioned that he had driven Accused B to this meeting, "since he didn't drive - or have a car."

This pretty much ended proceedings for the day. As we gathered our things to leave the court, we expressed surprise at this apparent tidbit of information leaked out by the witness - that might have an important bearing on the case! If Accused B cannot in fact drive a car, then what was his fingerprint doing on the street directory found in Deceased's car? If he merely did not own a car, then perhaps finding a print there is not so surprising, since we now knew he had prior dealings with Deceased, and perhaps he needed to get lifts with him.

[ << previous | index | next >> ]