[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Witness 22. Financial advisor who worked in adjoining offices to those of Former Security Company (FSC). He described how he'd known Deceased and his Former Business Partners for several years, and their roles in FSC. Deceased ran the business operations, Former Business Partner A was basically a silent partner, Former Business Partner B looked after the accounts.
The witness described how FSC struggled to stay in business, and how it was losing money. He said Deceased had had a meeting with Former Business Partner B, at his urging, to discuss the accounts, with the witness in attendance. Former Business Partner B had become hostile when confronted over the reliability of the accounts and had attacked Deceased, resulting in a "wrestle" on the floor. The witness had broken up the fight.
The witness made an interesting statement: that he didn't consider Deceased missing meetings with him terribly unusual, "because he always got dates and times muddled up." This seemed at odds with evidence given by Deceased's girlfriend (Witness 15), that he was always on time.
Cross-examination was brief, with nothing terribly interesting arising.
After this witness had been excused, the judge dismissed the jury and said we could leave the court, but to be back in time for lunch. Some of the jurors walked over to the Botanic Gardens to sit on the grass for a while. I had been meaning to take some time to browse bookstores in the city, so took this opportunity to do so.
Witness 23. Friend of Deceased. This was the friend Deceased had visited on the day he'd disappeared. The witness reiterated points we'd heard before from other witnesses: that Deceased had been in financial problems related to the break-up of his Former Security Company, depressed because of the break-up of his marriage, but that he was now making an effort to turn his life around, had given up smoking and drinking, had dyed his hair a distinctive blond - which this witness said he found hilarious - and was taking steps to work his way out of debt.
The witness had had a meeting with Deceased the day he had disappeared. Deceased had asked for a loan of $4,000 to tide him over for a couple of weeks until his father could get a similar amount to him - the witness assumed the father had the money in a term deposit and couldn't access it immediately. The witness was happy to loan Deceased this money.
The witness said they had intended to play tennis in the afternoon, but that Deceased "was late, as usual". Deceased talked about his girlfriend and told the witness that he was picking her up later that night, after a meeting with Accused A to discuss the signing of a bank guarantee for some contract Accused A had worked out. The witness had recommended to Deceased that he not sign the application for the bank guarantee, because he did not want Deceased to place himself further in debt. Deceased had agreed not to sign the document.
The witness said the meeting with Accused A was set for 7:30pm, but that Deceased definitely did not leave his home until 7:00pm, as he remembered the TV show they were watching together, which ended at 7pm. The witness said he thought Deceased would be late to his meeting, but again that that was nothing unusual, as he was always late to everything.
I expected Defence to hammer home this point in cross-examination, that this witness said Deceased was always late, in contrast to Deceased's girlfriend (Witness 15), who said Deceased was 100% reliable and never late. But Defence didn't even mention it.
In jury discussion, we went over this point. It seemed that Deceased was only reliable when it came to meeting his girlfriend, and remained constantly late for everyone else. Perhas he was working on his punctuality, or perhaps his girlfriend had him "well-trained" so that he wouldn't dare be late for her. It didn't seem to me that she would be so demanding, though. At any rate, this certainly raised the possibility that perhaps Deceased could not be relied on to contact his girlfriend on time to pick her up on the night he disappeared. If true, this would substantially increase the time window in which he could have met his fate, and open a higher chance that in that time someone other than the Accused could have met and done away with him.
Witness 24. Administration assistant who previously worked as a security guard for Deceased's Former Security Company (FSC). She described how she had worked as a guard for FSC and how she knew Deceased and his Former Business Partners. She said Accused A had also been working as a guard for FSC - the first time we'd heard this fact - and that she knew Accused A better than Deceased.
When FSC had started to go under, the witness had taken a job elsewhere. When Deceased and Accused A set up Security Company, Accused A hired her to run the office as an administrator. She said she had a salary of $50,000 and a car. Accused A and Deceased were paid by time, billing the hours they spent in the office. After a short period of this, Accused A gave himself a salary of $40,000. After a few months, the witness realised that Security Company was losing money and advised Accused A that the business would do better if she was made redundant and left the company. She left as administrative officer, but took up some part time work as a guard for Security Company.
Witness 25. Owner and managing director of security Training Company where Deceased used to lecture. He stated that Deceased had been a lecturer in security training at his Training Company, and one of the best teachers there. The witness said Deceased was a very intelligent man, but unfortunately was hopeless at running his own businesses.
Deceased had approached the witness with a plan to take students who had passed the training course to become security guards, and use those to build a web site database for security companies to find employees. The witness said he thought this was a reasonable idea, but that he had turned down an offer by Deceased to be a partner in the enterprise because he had a very low estimation of Deceased's business acumen and thought it would probably end up losing money. The witness agreed to supply Deceased with student lists, because any method of getting the students employed was obviously good for the reputation of his Training Company.
In cross-examination, Defence asked the witness if security companies contacted him directly when they wanted to find employees. The witness confirmed they did, and that he supplied them with lists of students who would be available for employment. The witness said that if Accused A had contacted him asking for student lists, he would have given them to him freely.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]