[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
The witness continued by describing roughly what we already knew about the operation of Former Security Company (FSC), which he'd part owned together with Witness 33 and Deceased. The witness was a serving police prosecutor during the time he part-owned FSC.
The witness described how his involvement with FSC was investigated by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), since serving police officers were not allowed to moonlight with other jobs. He was not charged with this, however. There had been an incident involving another serving police officer working as a security guard for FSC, doing security work at a pub. The witness had been called to testify in the case against that officer. Later he was charged with lying under oath in that case, with two counts of perjury. In his own hearing, the witness was found not guilty to one count, but guilty to the other. He was sentenced to serve periodic detention, two days a week.
Crown asked the witness if during the investigations into him, the PIC charged him with allegations that he'd been selling illegal drugs. The witness said yes, but that all police investigated by the PIC were forced to answer allegations of selling drugs. He said that he was never convicted of any drugs-related offence. Crown asked if the witness had ever appeared in media coverage, being shown in a videotape selling drugs; the witness said, "Absolutely not." Just as the witness said this, Accused B had a coughing fit, which looked very much like it was caused by rampant disbelief of what the witness had just said.
Crown asked about the periodic detention, tendering a document showing the witness' attendance at the specified prison on specific dates. The first days of detention were two weeks before Deceased disappeared. The night Deceased disappeared was a night immediately before that week's detention, which began at 7am. The witness said that during the time he was serving detention, he developed a habit of going out for dinner with his mother, sister, and/or a good friend for dinner on the night before his detention was to begin. He would also go out for breakfast with the same friend on the morning he was released again, two days later. He said he did this every week for the full duration of his detention.
If this was indeed the case, then clearly the witness was having one of these dinners on the night Deceased disappeared - a strong alibi. However, the witness could not name specifically which of the three dinner partners would have been with him on that particular night, nor what restaurant they had gone to. He did describe three particular restaurants and the streets they were on as being really the only ones they frequented.
Questioning moved on to the witness' relationship with Deceased.
Crown asked, "Were you involved in the murder of Deceased?"
Witness answered, "Absolutely Not."
Crown asked, "Did you arrange to have Deceased killed?"
Witness answered, "Absolutely Not."
Crown asked when was the last time the witness saw Deceased. The witness said it had been some 15 months before he disappeared. With the break-up of FSC, he'd had no reason to see Deceased, and with all the other things happening in his life at the time he had not really given much thought to Deceased.
After learning that Deceased had been murdered, the witness agreed to meet with a police detective (Witness 10) in a park and discuss what he knew of Deceased. The witness said he didn't trust any police at that time and would rather have avoided them, but agreed to talk to Witness 10 because he knew him by reputation. However, the witness refused to give a formal statement, because he said he would rather not have to deal with police on a formal level.
Cross-examination began immediately after a recess. Defence opened by asking if the witness had had a coffee with his housemate friend during the break. The witness admitted he had. Defence asked if he had discussed the case or the evidence he was giving; the witness said no.
Defence then went into great detail over the reasons why the witness didn't offer to give a police statement, how he couldn't remember where he had been or who he was with on the night Deceased disappeared, and how he might bear some resentment or hostility towards Deceased over the fact that Deceased was never called to give evidence to the PIC.
Defence asked where the witness and his friend had gone for breakfasts on the day he was released from detentions. The witness replied with the name of one particular cafe, saying they always went to the same place.
Many times the witness responded to pointed questions by Defence with, "I can't remember," or, "I don't recall," or similar. In a later recess, Juror D said that she had been watching Accused B during this witness' evidence, and Accused B had been marking off on two separate post-it notes, keeping a tally of how many times the witness said "I can't remember" and "I don't recall." Accused B had looked up at one point and seen Juror D looking at him. The next time the witness said "I don't remember," Juror D had seen Accused B wait for half a minute, with an eye on the jury box, and then mark it off on his post-it note.
During this witness' evidence, two police detectives (Witnesses 6 and 10) sat in the public gallery. During much of the previous evidence over the past days, either one or the other of these detectives - usually Witness 10 - was present in the public gallery. This was the first time both of them were present.
The impression I got of this witness was that he felt he didn't owe the police or the Crown any favours, and that he was only appearing in court because he'd been subpoenaed. He knew the Crown had a suspect in the murder of Deceased, and he didn't care if what he was saying made the Crown's case any easier or harder. I didn't get the feeling that he particularly had anything of his own to hide in this case. I commented to the other jurors that if this witness had in fact killed Deceased, why hadn't he taken care to establish a more credible alibi?
Witness 36. Friend of Former Business Partner A. This was the friend who lived with Former Business Partner A (Witness 35) and his mother. This witness corroborated Witness 35's story concerning the dinners on the nights preceding his attendance at periodic detention, in as far as he said Witness 35 always had them. Crown asked fairly few questions, simply seeking to establish the corroboration, and that the witness had known Witness 35 for many years.
Defence asked a string of questions which seemed designed to catch the witness out in a tiny inconsistency. Defence asked who else would be at the dinners with him and Witness 35; the witness answered Witness 35's mother and sister. Defence asked how many sisters Witness 35 had; witness answered two. Defence asked which sister was the one who joined them for dinner, the older or the younger; witness said, "They're twins... I don't know which one came out first." At this, the whole court had a brief burst of laughter - barristers, judge, jurors, people in the public gallery. It was stifled quickly though - I guess the solemnity of the proceedings squelched any extended jollity.
Defence continued by asking for details of the restaurants they went to. The witness described a couple of places in general terms, which matched what Witness 35 had said, but added that they went to a few other places too. Defence then asked where they went for breakfast on the days of Witness 35's release from detention, and the witness described a few different places. Many times the witness responded to pointed questions by Defence with, "I can't remember," or, "I don't recall," or similar.
During this witness' evidence, the same two police detectives (Witnesses 6 and 10) sat in the public gallery as during Witness 35's evidence. Witness 35 himself also sat there. Juror A said he had been keeping a close eye on the witness and Witness 35, to see if they were exchanging eye contact or signals of any sort, but he said the witness almost never looked up in the direction of Witness 35. As soon as this witness was dismissed, Witnesses 6, 10, and 35 got up and left the public gallery in something of a hurry.
Witness 37. Firearms training expert. This witness described how he had been a security guard working for FSC, and how he had moved to Security Company. He gave firearms training lectures to guards who worked at Security Company, and was employed in administrative duties in a position just below that of Witness 34.
Crown asked if the witness ever told people during firearms theory lectures about shooting people in the base of the brainstem. The witness said he did, because when he was giving the course, students inevitably asked about the best way to kill somebody with a gunshot, so he told them that up front to forestall the question, but with the proviso that during security work one should always shoot at the centre of exposed body mass, as being the easiest target to hit. Shooting at the brainstem would require shooting someone from behind - in which case the person is not a threat to you - requires extreme accuracy, and is instantly fatal. Neither of these conditions applies or is desirable when a security guard is required to use a firearm. The witness said Accused A had attended one of his courses during which he had told the attendees this.
The witness described the firearms held in a locked room at Business Premises, listing each model and calibre of weapon exactly. All the weapons were either 0.357, 0.38, 0.40, 0.45, or 9mm pistols or revolvers.
The witness said that Accused A had asked him if he could get some subsonic 0.22 ammunition for him. It had taken the witness a while, and every time Accused A had seen him, Accused A had pestered him about it, until the witness finally gave him some of this ammunition. Accused A had told him he wanted the ammunition for "shooting rabbits".
Accused A also asked the witness if he knew any "friendly" gun dealers, who could help with obtaining additional guns for which Security Company was not licensed. Accused A had then asked if a gun could be modified after having fired a round so as to appear in later tests not to have been fired. The witness said he thought this was a very unusual question at the time, and told Accused A yes, but that it would take a lot of work to do so.
The witness said that when he was working on the Business Premises at Security Company, the offices of Accused A and Witness 34 - which had not previously had locks on them - had locks installed, and Accused A instructed the witness to keep the offices locked whenever Deceased was on the premises. Accused A also told the witness not to discuss the subcontract to Another Security Company (ASC) with Deceased.
The witness said that Accused B was always paid every week by way of a cash cheque, and then given a lift to a nearby bank to cash the cheque immediately by one of the staff, even when other employees were owed money and not being paid on time. The witness himself was eventually owed some $8,500 by Security Company in unpaid salary, while Accused B never missed out. The witness had the impression that Accused A and Accused B were good friends, and that some swapping of favours was going on. The witness said that he had once seen a piece of paper on Accused A's desk indicating that Accused B owed Accused A $2,800. He had later seen other papers indicating the amount owed by Accused B had grown to around $5,000.
The witness described the brands of cigarettes smoked by Accused A and Accused B - two different brands. The brand he specified for Accused B matched the brand given by Witness 30 as being smoked by Accused B. The witness said Accused B regularly drank Coca-Cola. The witness had also seen inside Accused A's car, and said he saw several empty and half-empty bottles of Lucozade in it. This was significant because the receipt from the petrol station at which Accused A's charge card had been used on the night Deceased disappeared showed the purchase of cigarettes of both brands that Accused A and Accused B smoked, and bottles of Lucozade and Coca-Cola.
The witness described having seen a small metal runabout boat on a trailer in the garage at Business Premises, approximately around the time Deceased disappeared. He said the boat had been there for a few days. He said it was similar in appearance to one that a police detective had shown him photos of on an earlier occasion, but that the boat he had seen looked newer than the one in the photos. Crown retrieved the set of photos of the boat from Boat Hire, but did not show them to the witness.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]