[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
The witness recognised the scrap of pink plastic string tied to one end of the chain as a leader indicator, used to indicate the end of the chain so it could be found easily when looking in the storage drum.
Crown also showed the witness the five D-shackles found on Deceased's body, and the shackle found on Accused A's car. The witness said that the rusted shackle was mild steel, the four unrusted shackles were hot-dip galvanised, and the shackle found on Accused A's car was zinc electroplated. So although the four unrusted shackles on Deceased's body and the one on Accused A's car were all zinc-plated, a different plating mechanism was used.
Defence only really asked one question in cross-examination, about how much Chinese chain the witness supplied in a year. The figure was around 150,000 metres. Defence left it there. We figured he was trying to imply that there was an awful lot of chain of this type sold in Australia every year, but he neglected to mention that this was a total over at least four different sizes.
Witness 42. Security guard working night patrol duty for Security Company on the night Deceased disappeared. This witness arrived at Business Premises for his night patrol shift at 5pm on the night Deceased disappeared. He said he saw Accused A, Accused B, and Witness 34 there. He saw someone arrive who matched the description of Deceased, but was not introduced. This person went into Accused A's office and the door was closed behind him.
This witness' job was to travel out to premises from where alarm calls had been received. When not visiting such premises, he would stay at Business Premises. If the night was quiet, he would go out for coffee. On the night Deceased disappeared, he received his first call at 7:20pm. He was out attending to several consecutive calls, until he returned to the Business Premises at 11:03. The calls he attended involved an open fire door setting off an alarm at one site, several times in succession, and having to enter another building to switch on an alarm that had accidentally been left off.
While out of the Business Premises, this witness diverted the phone for Security Company to his mobile, so he could answer any incoming calls during his night shift. He received two calls from Deceased's girlfriend during the night, who was ringing for Accused A's phone number so she could ask him about Deceased's whereabouts. The witness said he didn't give her Accused A's number at first, because he didn't think it was prudent, but later relented when he became concerned for Deceased's girlfriend, since she told him she was locked out of Deceased's flat.
The witness said that a week or two later, Accused A asked him to deliver a sum of cash to Accused B, and then a few days after that had him take an envelope containing money to Accused B.
Under cross-examination, Defence had the witness confirm an estimation in his police statement that when he returned to Business Premises he thought it unusual that the meeting between Accused A and Deceased was over already. The witness tried to go on to explain that he was busy when out patrolling and thought that less time had passed than really had.
Defence had the witness confirm that the money sent to Accused B by Accused A was, in the first case a single $50 note, and in the second case a slim envelope containing only one or two notes.
Witness 43. Managing director of a Security Monitoring Company (SMC) who monitored the alarm systems at Business Premises of Security Company. This witness explained the notation on the alarm system records which had already been tendered as evidence.
The records showed that the alarm was turned off by Employee 2 (Witness 40) at about 8:40am, which the witness confirmed was consistent with an employee opening the office for business. The next entry was the alarm being activated at 9:58pm by Employee 1 (Accused A), consistent with the last person leaving the office at night. The alarm was switched off again at 11:03 by Employee 6 (Witness 42), the night patrol guard returning after dealing with several alarm calls at other premises.
Witness 44. Owner of Restaurant where Accused A said he and Deceased had dinner. This was an Eastern European man who appeared not to understand some of the English said to him. He was, however, clever enough to give the full address of his Restaurant when asked to confirm if he owned it. He slid very smoothly into promotion mode when given this chance, which elicited some large smiles around the court.
Crown asked the witness to describe what he recalled of the night Deceased disappeared. The witness had been cooking and serving that night, which was fairly busy as they ran a special that night. They had eat-in, take-away, and home delivery customers. One he remembered in particular was a very tall man with short blond hair, who ordered, then left for a while, returning when his meal was ready, ate it in 10 minutes, and left immediately. Crown showed the witness a photo of Deceased, who he did not recognise. Crown asked if any other tall men had come into Restaurant that night, in particular two who had eaten and stayed talking there for over an hour; the witness said definitely not.
Crown asked if the witness remembered police detectives coming to his Restaurant to speak with him about that night. The witness said yes, and spoke a name which nobody in the court could understand. After repeating it several times to no avail, Crown asked if he meant the name of Witness 14, and the witness said yes and repeated the name he'd said several times, which could now - with some effort - be interpreted as that name under a heavy accent. Crown proceeded to have the witness confirm that Witness 14 had questioned him about tall men in his Restaurant. Witness 14 had been accompanied by another police officer and Accused A, who had remained outside, and had asked this witness if he recognised Accused A. The witness confirmed he did not recognise him.
Crown showed the witness the photos of his Restaurant submitted as evidence and had him confirm they were such. Crown then showed him photos of the interior of Restaurant and asked the witness what he could say about them. The witness turned a photo around to show the court and pointed to a man in it, and said the name of Witness 14 again. This almost cracked up everyone in the court, but we managed to maintain composure as the Crown patiently asked if the photos showed the interior of Restaurant. The witness confirmed this and then indicated where on the photo the tall man sat.
Crown had a lot of trouble getting the desired responses from this witness, as often he would look blankly, clearly not understanding the questions. Crown had to rephrase several times in order to get some answers, and occasionally clearly did not get the answer he wanted or expected. Defence had the same problems during cross-examination, and didn't get very far with this witness.
Witness 45. Employee at Restaurant. This was a friend of Witness 44, and casual worker at his Restaurant. He was working there, serving customers and taking phone orders on the night Deceased disappeared. He corroborated Witness 44's story about a lone tall man eating there quickly and leaving, and the lack of any pair of tall men spending some time in the Restaurant. The only difference was that this witness understood English a bit better, and said that he could not be sure if the tall man in the restaurant that night was the same as the photo of Deceased or not, because he didn't see him for very long.
Defence produced a police running sheet showing that the officer who recorded this witness' statement had written that the witness had said the photo showed the same man as was in the Restaurant that night. Defence confronted the witness and said if the police officer interviewing him wrote this, then the witness must have said that it was the same man. The witness resolutely refused to agree to that, insisting he never said it was the same man. Defence hammered this point a couple of times, then asked, out of the blue, "In your day job you're a construction engineer, aren't you?" The witness said he was, then Defence said, "No more questions, your honour."
Witness 46. Police detective who took statements from Witnesses 44 and 45. This witness confirmed he had taken the statements from Witnesses 44 and 45, and had made a statement of his own just two weeks ago. Crown asked what was in his own statement. The witness said he prepared it from his own running sheet recorded a month after he interviewed Witnesses 44 and 45, which said that Witness 45 said the man in Restaurant was the same as the photo of Deceased. Now, however, he had seen a copy of Witness 45's statement, which said that Witness 45 was not sure if it was the same man or not, so had to admit that his own statement and the running sheet on which it was based were in error. The witness said he now believed Witness 45's statement to the effect that Witness 45 could not say if the man in Restaurant was Deceased or not.
Defence went ballistic in cross-examination. He said, "You prepared this statement just two weeks ago, and that was given to counsel as an indication of what evidence you would be giving in court today, and now you're changing your mind and saying that Witness 45 never said what you say he said in this statement?!"
Defence said that surely this witness' memory of his interview with Witness 45 a month after he did it was better than now, and the witness agreed, but insisted that his memory then was also incorrect. Defence went over this attack from a dozen different angles, effectively calling the witness incompetent in multiple ways. The witness stuck by his story, only admitting that he had made a mistake and now believed the statement made by Witness 45. Eventually Defence gave up in disgust.
Witness 47. Petrol Station employee who saw someone resembling Deceased. This witness described how police had approached her for a statement about a month after the date when Deceased disappeared. She had seen a "tall, gangly man with blond hair" in the Petrol Station. Crown asked her how long she had seen him, and she replied, "Two seconds." Crown showed her the photo of Deceased, and she said she couldn't tell if that was him or not.
Witness 48. Council Ranger working parking patrol. This witness described how she had been working with a new recruit on a day some weeks after Deceased disappeared - before his body was found. She described how she and her partner had walked up a street and seen a car which looked abandoned. She said it was dirty, covered in dust, and had twigs on it and collected under the wheels, which only happened if the car was parked in the street for several days. The car also had dented panels and a long scratch down one side. On checking the registration she found it had expired. She called the local police station to report the vehicle and see if it was stolen or wanted in a hit and run case, since she considered the damage consistent with a hit and run. The police told her not to touch it and that they would handle the car's investigation and removal.
Crown showed the witness photos of Deceased's car, which she recognised as the one she described.
We found this evidence amazing, in light of the previous discussions over the dirtiness or cleanliness of the car. This witness sounded very experienced and like she knew what she was talking about when she described the dirt on the car and twigs under the wheels as indications it had been there for some time. This made Witness 13's statement that when he examined the car it appeared "unusually clean" even more puzzling.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]