[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Witness 30. Flatmate of Accused B. She said that she had met Accused B and they lived together, but mostly kept separate lives and didn't really become friends. She said Accused B had a computer, which she used occasionally. She said Accused B smoked a particular brand of cigarettes, and no other brand. She knew this because she bought them for him occasionally when going out.
Accused B occasionally got behind in paying his rent. Accused B suffered from epilepsy.
Witness 31. Security guard and friend of Accused A.
Witness 32. Security supervisor formerly working for Former Security Company (FSC). This witness was an older man who sat nervously and slowly answered the questions put to him in a painstakingly and annoyingly literal manner. He had been a supervisor of security at a venue where Accused B had worked. He described having problems with Accused B showing up late for shifts and leaving early from shifts.
Some time after Deceased had disappeared, but before being found dead, and certainly before this witness had been approached by police investigating Accused B, the witness had typed up a report on Accused B's behaviour on the job. The witness said this was a standard practice he did with troublesome employees under his supervision, to cover himself in case any investigation later required such notes. This report had included a comment that Accused B had made, about Accused A "owing him big time".
Defence asked if the witness had written the report on Accused B before learning Deceased had been found dead. The witness said no, which confused Defence. Defence produced the document containing the report the witness had previously described writing, at which point the witness said he had typed the report, not written it.
Defence went to town on this witness. Defence read part of the typed report on Accused B: a long, convoluted sentence with a lot of very large words used in incorrect contexts about Accused B complaining about a room being too hot and the witness writing something about Accused B not understanding that nearby electrical equipment would make the room hot. Defence said, "That's just nonsense, isn't it?!"
In jury discussion, this witness became the new favourite for some degree of ridicule, displacing Witness 27. He was extremely defensive about everything and clearly had an inflated and misguided sense of his own importance and intelligence.
Witness 33. Former Business Partner B of Deceased. The witness described a basically corroborative account of the history of Former Security Company (FSC). He said he was frequently a mediator between Deceased and Former Business Partner A, who simply did not get along because of a "basic clash of personalities."
Crown asked straight out, "Were you involved in the murder of Deceased?"
Witness answered levelly, "No."
Witness 34. Business manager at Security Company, personal friend of Accused A, personal fitness trainer of Deceased. This witness handled day to day business administration of Security Company on behalf of Accused A, making him the senior employee.
The witness confirmed he was at Business Premises early in the evening of the day Deceased disappeared. He said he saw Accused A, Accused B, and Deceased there. He said Accused A asked him if he would give Accused B a lift to the railway station, but that he had refused because he was tired and didn't feel like it. He said he left about 18:45.
Under cross-examination, Defence asked if Accused A had ever told the witness that Deceased was not to hear anything about any aspects of the business, and the witness said no. The witness also said that when Deceased arrived at the Business Premises for his meeting with Accused A, they had greeted each other with a playful boxing stance.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]