[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Crown then described how police detective Witness 8 had approached this witness several months later, seeking clarification of some points in the first statement, and taking a second statement. In this second statement, the witness said that he may have misremembered cutting the chain into three pieces, and could not be sure if he had cut it into two or three pieces. He had thought about this only a week or so after making his first statement, and concluded then he may have been wrong, but did not contact the police to rectify his statement, only doing so when approached again by the police.
The second statement described how the witness thought he had misremembered the events described in his first statement, including the description of the purchaser and how many pieces he had cut the chain into. The witness did recall that selling that amount of chain was unusual, and he could remember only ever selling that much chain to two customers, one of whom he recalled well because he was a regular customer. The witness described the regular customer as the manager of a nearby McDonalds, and has having also bought 15 metres of chain not long before the date when Accused A bought it.
Defence cross-examined the witness, and we thought he would tear this guy to shreds. He was fairly gentle, however. Defence simply went over the witness' statements, commenting that surely his memory was better soon after the sale, rather than a further 7 months later when he must have served hundreds of other customers in the meantime. The witness carefully replied that indeed his first statement was made at a time when he thought his memory of the sale was stronger, but reflection soon afterwards made him doubt how good his memory of the event actually was - a point he had rectified when giving his second statement.
And that was about it. After such a build-up, with most of yesterday devoted to legal argument over admissability of evidence, and the knowledge of how important this witness' evidence was to the overall case, it was really quite an anticlimax. Crown told the judge that the next witness had been called to the court, but was still on his way. He would be arriving shortly, but in the meantime suggested a break. The judge agreed and we left for the jury room. The description of the chain buyer caused a little confusion with some jurors, but as we discussed it, we concluded that since the description was clearly not a match to Accused A, it was very likely that the witness' recall of the sale to Accused A in his first statement might be similarly incorrect on other points - particularly the cutting into three pieces.
We started a new game of Scrabble, this time relaxing the rule that we could only use words in the transcript to include any words to which we could ascribe some relevance to the case. An early word was DOZE, which was heartily agreed to by all players. A few minutes later we were summoned back into the court.
Witness 39. McDonalds manager who bought chain at Hardware Store. This witness made a fairly brief appearance. He recalled having bought chain at Hardware Store and, with the help of a receipt signed by him, stated that it was two months prior to when Accused A had bought chain there. He remembered what the chain was for - he had bought 15 metres of chain in a single length to be used to rope off access to part of the car park at the McDonalds he managed. It was 5/16 inch galvanised chain. The receipt indicated that it had been sold to this witness by Witness 38.
Crown asked if the witness remembered how Witness 38 had measured the chain; the witness said he had measured a one metre length with a ruler, then doubled that over to measure additional metres. Crown asked if the witness measured the chain after he bought it, and how long did it turn out to be; the witness replied that he had, and it was actually almost 19 metres long.
Defence simply had the witness reiterate that the chain he had bought was 5/16 inch and sold to him in a single length.
Witness 40. Administration assistant at Security Company. This was the fourth person working at the office of Security Company, after Accused A, and Witnesses 34 and 37. Crown opened by confirming her name and then asking the bombshell question, "You live with Accused A in a relationship, correct?" She answered, "Yes."
Crown had the witness describe how long she had known Accused A, and that she had been in a relationship with him for some time, then had a break, then got back together around the time Security Company started up from the ashes of Former Security Company. She described normal business operations at Security Company, and her duties, which included general office administration, doing the payroll, and so on.
Crown asked the witness what time she left work on the evening Deceased disappeared. She answered without any hesitation, "Around 6 o'clock." She said that as far as she recalled, nobody else was at the Business Premises when she left. Crown asked her about what happened on the next day. The witness described Deceased's girlfriend (Witness 15) visiting the office in the morning, looking for Accused A to find out what he knew of Deceased's whereabouts. She told her that Accused A wasn't in. Witness 15 said he might still be asleep, since she had phoned him a couple of times in the early hours of the morning. This witness said she would try to contact him. The witness said Witness 15 returned later in the day, again looking for Accused A.
Crown produced a printout of pager records, listing messages left on Accused A's paging service for the day after Deceased disappeared. Crown had the witness confirm five separate messages at various times during the day, reading:
Crown moved on to the security alarm codes system used at Business Premises. Each employee had a PIN and a user number, with Accused A being user 1, this witness being user 2, and a guard whose name was mentioned being user 6. The records showed that Accused A had left the Business Premises and activated the alarm at 21:58 on the night Deceased disappeared. User 6 had deactivated and reactivated the alarm later that night.
Crown indicated to the judge that it was getting close to morning tea time, and that this witness' evidence was about to move to a new topic which would take some time, so suggested we take the break early. The judge agreed. In the jury room we discussed the amazing revelation that this woman, who had been named a few times in previous evidence, was Accused A's girlfriend. General agreement was that she came across as too confident and cocky, with Juror G stating straight out, "I don't trust her." Most of the rest of us agreed with this sentiment, indicating we thought she was not a very credible witness. I pointed out the fact that she seemed to recall with no problem or hint of hesitation the time that she left work on a specific day several years ago. Juror J pointed out that she was in charge of payroll, but apparently couldn't recall what day of the week pay day was! These, and the fact that she was Accused A's girlfriend, added up to a huge amount of mistrust in anything she might have to say.
After the recess, we returned and Crown said the next piece of evidence was a taped conversation between Accused A and the witness, recorded by the police surveillance plants in Business Premises soon after Deceased's body was found. We were given transcripts to read along as the tape played. The tape contained the witness apparently receiving an invoice from Hardware Store for the chain and D-shackles purchased by Accused A.
She said, "What's this? 15 metres of chain and 5 D-shackles? Did you buy chain?"
Accused A answered, "No."
Witness: "Not at all?"
Accused A: "Never."
Witness: "This is pretty specific. It says 15 metres of chain and 5 D-shackles. I hope the police haven't found four D-shackles and come looking here, and you've got the fifth stored in a cupboard."
Accused A laughed.
This tape was pretty damning evidence, and I felt the whole mood in the courtroom change as it was played. It was difficult to concentrate in the next few minutes as the implications of this taped conversation - the first truly chilling evidence we'd experienced - sunk in.
Crown asked the witness if she had ever seen a boat at Business Premises. She said she had seen a small boat parked on a trailer on the street outside for a couple of days, and had discussed it with Accused A. I noted that this conflicted with Witness 29, who had said he saw the boat in the garage of the Business Premises.
Defence began cross-examination by asking the witness if it was unusual for Accused A to not show up at the office until very late. She said no, since security work often required Accused A to be up late, he would frequently show up late to the office after sleeping in.
Defence asked about the security alarm codes, pointing out that the user number recorded by the system was only a record of which PIN number was entered. The witness agreed that the record showing User 1 activating the alarm at 21:58 merely showed that someone, possibly unknown, had used Accused A's PIN to activate the alarm. Defence asked if it was the case that sometimes the Business Premises would be left without the security alarm being activated; the witness said yes, several times people either simply forgot to activate the alarm or didn't bother.
Defence asked the witness if Accused A had ever instructed her to not discuss any aspects of business with Deceased; she said no. She also said that Accused A had never instructed her to keep the offices locked when Deceased was present. In fact, she said that Accused A had argued with Witness 37 and this witness about letting Deceased have greater access to the office and business records. She said that she and Witness 37 were reluctant to let Deceased put his nose into the business, but that Accused had said, "He has a right to."
Defence read out the description from Witness 38's first statement of the man he recalled having sold chain to. Defence stopped at each point.
"Brown hair, spiked at the front so it looked like it had just been washed. That fits Accused A, doesn't it?"
Witness said, "Yes."
"Solid build, that fits, right?"
"Yes."
"Large upper body, that fits?"
"Yes."
"In fact, the only things that don't fit are the beard, and the height, right?"
"Yes."
Crown re-examined the witness, and really tore into her. He repeated the descriptions given in Witness 38's first statement. "Now, being 6 foot 8, would you say Accused A has a body shape in proportion for that height?" The witness agreed. She also agreed that his build and upper body were in proportion to his height, and not unusually solid or large, and that Accused A certainly had no signs of a gut. "So, in other words, the statements by my learned friend that you just agreed to are actually utter rubbish. No further questions, your honour."
Crown said he had got through the witnesses a little quicker than expected and had no further witnesses ready to be called, so suggested an early end to the day.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]