[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
The witness described how a car would likely appear after a couple of weeks in the elements, saying that it would pick up dirt and rainspots, and indeed fingerprints on it would be erased after a time, but that he was struck by how clean the exterior of the car was, and he'd assumed it had been cleaned and then parked under cover until he'd examined it. On the interior of the car, he again expressed amazement at how thoroughly it seemed to have been cleaned. He noted there were not even smudges on the rearview mirror, steering wheel, door handles, indicator lever, handbrake, gearstick, or seat adjustment levers.
The only prints found in the car were on the street directory in the glovebox, and some newspapers. The witness had identified prints on the street directory using the chemical ninhydrin, and matched most prints to Deceased. One print he matched to Accused B - a left index finger print on a page showing a map of the suburb where the street where Deceased's car was found, and on the other side of the page showing where Business Premises and Restaurant were located. The witness demonstrated how the print was likely to have been formed in the configuration found, as if Accused B had turned and held the page between these two maps. While the witness demonstrated this, he wore rubber gloves, as he said he was reluctant to handle anything that had been treated with ninhydrin.
Crown then had the witness describe prints found on a window envelope recovered from Business Premises. The envelope was printed stationery from Hardware Store, and contained several prints of Accused A.
Cross-examination was brief and did not touch on much that seemed particularly relevant, mostly going over many of the same points that the Crown had made. Defence did make a point of asking if the envelope appeared to have been handled by Accused A many times, or just once or twice, and the witness said in his opinion it had been handled many times. Defence then asked if the witness could tell how long Accused B's fingerprint had been in the street directory, and the witness said it was impossible to tell.
In a recess, we immediately expressed surprise that the witness didn't want to touch the street directory, whereas we had all handled it with bare hands already! Nobody had told us the fingerprinting chemical - which was still clearly visible as a red stain on the book - was at all dangerous. We discussed how the car had apparently been cleaned in a very professional manner, with all possible places where a fingerprint might be found being wiped clean. The fact that this expert considered the car to have been parked under cover made us think for the first time that the car had quite possibly not been sitting on the street for 4-5 weeks before being found, but might have been kept in a garage or similar and only dumped a day or so before being found. We raised the possibility that it had been kept at the Business Premises for some time, or the more fanciful idea that Accused B had been using the car to get around and finally decided to clean it off and dump it.
Witness 14. Police detective who investigated the case with Witness 10. Crown had the witness read from a statement he had made earlier concerning his role in the investigation. He had questioned the Restaurant owner and an employee, with Accused A standing outside and visible through the window, as to whether they recognised him, but they did not.
The witness went over the questioning of the petrol station employee again - the one who Deceased's girlfriend had reported had seen someone possibly resembling Deceased on the night he disappeared.
Cross-examination was brief. It centred on an interview the witness had conducted with Deceased's estranged wife. She had told the witness that she had connections in the "Melbourne underworld." Defence was presumably trying to establish yet another suspect for the possible murder of Deceased.
Re-examination by the Crown was simple. Crown asked if, when Deceased's estranged wife had made this claim about being connected to the Melbourne underworld, she was intoxicated. The witness said yes.
The judge called a halt to proceedings before lunch in order for the barristers to go through legal argument over admissability of evidence to be given by the next witness, so we were excused. On the way out through the jury room I pointed out that the petrol station in question, where the employee reported possibly seeing Deceased, was on the wrong side of the road to drive into if one was travelling from Restaurant to the city, as the Crown and Defence had been saying might be the case. I know the street in question, and there is another petrol station on the correct side of the road for easy access, just one block away. So anyone driving that route and wanting to stop at a station would naturally choose the other one, not the one where the employee reported the sighting.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]