[ << previous | index | next >> ]
| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
Crown read the evidence given by Witnesses 47 and 49, stating that when they found the car it appeared dirty, covered with dust, and if it had been in the street for a few weeks. Crown then showed the witness the photos of the car taken in the police garage, on which we had seen obvious dirt. Crown then asked the witness to explain his statements given in evidence earlier that the car was "clean" when he examined it.
The witness explained that to him, "clean" meant it was in a good condition for the purposes of obtaining fingerprints. The amount of dirt and grime he could see on the car in the photos would not constitute a significant hindrance to that process, so in his terminology, he would consider it "clean". He made the comparison to a car that might be retrieved from a river, coated with mud and so on.
We thought Defence would raise the point that this witness had said in his earlier evidence that the car appeared to have been "recently washed, then stored under cover", but Defence did not call the witness on this. Overall, we thought this was the most crucial point, and it hadn't been addressed at all! However, we did learn that the witness' definition of "clean" was a technical one which was not really inconsistent with the dirty state of the car we had seen in the photos. This seemed to satisfy most, if not all, of the jurors, that there hadn't been deliberate tampering with the car by police before the fingerprint analyst was called in. We speculated that the reason neither barrister had bothered to really get to the bottom of this cleanliness discrepancy was because they didn't consider it important to their respective cases. In which case, it would be reasonable to assume that there was no implication of police evidence-tampering on either of their parts. Indeed, we guessed that both Crown and Defence were probably sitting in the courtroom wondering why the jury was so interested in a seemingly trivial part of the case that was not being contested by the barristers. Probably this conclusion more than anything indicated to us that this witness' testimony was not worth questioning further.
Witness 58. Witness 6, the police detective who led the murder investigation. We were surprised to see this witness called again to the stand. Crown tendered some photographs of the Business Premises of Security Company, that this witness had taken just a few weeks ago. They showed large windows, blocked by internal vertical blinds, and partially obscured from the street by shrubbery. Crown pointed out that the foliage had obviously grown somewhat since the time of Deceased's murder. Interior photos showed the garage area and a connecting door to the office area.
Defence went to pains to establish how many exterior windows there were and how many of them were visible from the exterior. Defence suggested that anyone in the car parking area behind the building could see into the rear windows of the offices, but the witness disagreed with this. Defence reiterated the point that the shrubbery at the front had grown since Deceased's murder.
In a break, we weren't sure why this witness had been recalled, or what the point of these photos was. Apparently Defence was trying to establish that the offices were not well concealed places for the committing of a crime, but Crown had already pointed out the blinds and the fact that they were present at the time of Deceased's murder.
Witness 59. Forensic pathologist who performed post-mortem examination of Deceased. This witness described in great detail his autopsy examination of Deceased. Deceased's mother, who had been sitting in the upstairs section of the public gallery ever since giving her evidence, left the court when this witness began describing Deceased's body. Deceased's girlfriend, who had been sitting with her for the past few days, stayed throughout.
The witness described the process of decay of a body, indicating that gas bloating will cause a body to float within a week or so in temperate waters such as those where the body was found. The weight of chain found on Deceased would counteract that of course, and possibly keep the body down several weeks. The witness described the marine growth he found on the body's clothing, and described how he took samples of it for analysis, considering it to be possibly the best indicator of the time the body had been underwater, since the decay process was too variable to provide a narrow estimate.
Interestingly, the bullet hole in the back of Deceased's neck was euphemistically termed a "defect". The witness' external examination indicated no other wounds or markings, except for a small gash in the left cheek, with bruising/bleeding pattern consistent with being sustained at or near the time of death. This was not a bullet exit wound.
The witness described the path of the bullet, determined by using a metal probe to trace the hole through the neck, as passing through the vertebra at the base of the skull, severing the spinal cord just below the brain stem, and shattering the front of the verterbra. The bullet itself shattered on impact with the bone and only small fragments of it remained. The witness described this bullet wound as causing almost instantaneous death, by severing the connections between the brain and all the nervous and muscular systems, including the respiratory and circulatory systems. Bleeding would have been minimal, since no major blood vessels were hit, restricted only to blood in the immediate skin area. Crown asked if the plastic bag fixed over Deceased's head by the elastic strap would be a good way to prevent any blood from the wound being deposited on the surrounding area. The witness agreed this would certainly prevent any blood escaping, and would also do so when the body was moved or transported in a vehicle.
About this time, a group of primary school children, about 10-11 years old entered the public gallery of the courtroom, presumably on an educational excursion. The judge stopped the proceedings and said to Crown, "I don't think this evidence is suitable for primary children." Crown said, "Yes, I agree." The judge asked a court officer to explain to the teacher accompanying the children the nature of the evidence currently being heard. The teacher quickly ushered the children back out. When they were gone, the judge said, "There's enough of this on video games nowadays, they don't need to hear about it in real life."
The witness continued describing the internal examination. He said that peeling back the skin layer over the skull revealed internal bruising on the left side of the top of the head. The amount of blood flow evident in the bruise indicated it had been received at or close to the time of death. The internal organs all appeared normal and healthy, and a liver sample indicated no drugs in the body. Crown asked a question about whether the bruise could have been from a blow strong enough to cause death; the witness said most likely not. The judge interrupted and said, "I don't think there's any contention that this man died of a gunshot wound, is there?" Defence answered no.
Crown had the witness confirm that the stomach was completely empty of food, and asked how quickly food, particularly a meal of pizza, would normally stay in the stomach. The witness hedged a little, but said that typically fatty food such as pizza would be expected to remain in the stomach for 2-4 hours, possibly longer if it was a large meal.
Crown asked if their was any evidence of the body having been thrown off a bridge from a height to land in a river. The witness said that if the body had been dropped in a vertical position, he would definitely expect to see bone fractures on the limbs from impact with the bottom of the river. He was not so sure about if the body had been dropped in a horizontal position, but said it would probably be likely that fractures would be evident in that case too. Crown then had the witness confirm there were no fractures evident.
Crown asked the witness if, from his experience, he could come to any conclusion about the type of bullet used. The witness said the small amount of metal found in the body, lack of any exit wound, and the fact that the bullet had evidently shattered when it struck bone, indicated that it was most likely a 0.22 calibre bullet. He explained in some detail the effects of different types of bullets on a body.
The witness described forensic examination of the area around the bullet wound for evidence of powder burns and stippling due to small pieces of propellant powder embedding in the flesh, as might be expected from a close firing distance. There was no evidence of either, but the presence of the beanie over the head, which showed a hole lined up with the bullet wound, could easily have prevented any such evidence from having reached the skin. The beanie had been examined by a police forensic investigator, who found many microscopic pieces of residue in the beanie material, containing nitrocellulose. This indicated that the gun was held within a few centimetres of the beanie when the shot was fired.
In cross-examination, Defence asked the witness if 0.22 bullets were typically used in "what might be called execution-style killings". The witness agreed that they commonly were, because of the effects he had indicated about a shattering bullet being more likely to inflict serious damage than a larger bullet that penetrated the body.
Defence asked about a phenomenon in which microscopic particles of blood and flesh "splash" out of a bullet wound at the time of impact, and can subsequently be detected at the scene of the crime. The witness said he was familiar with the effect, but that mostly the particles were found on the gun, as the bullet leaving the barrel creates a momentary vacuum effect in the barrel which sucks the particles in. In most cases, such particles could not be found on, for example, the hand of the shooter, or the surrounding area. The witness said that the beanie would also severely restrict the production of such evidence.
Before we left today, a court officer informed us that Crown intended wrapping up his case on the next day. Then it was Defence's turn to call witnesses, if he so desired. Defence does not always call witnesses. Then would be the summing up of the cases by Crown, Defence, and the judge, followed by jury deliberation. The summing up could take anywhere from one to four days, depending how involved it is.
[ << previous | index | next >> ]