Fire!

A fire broke out in Manuka St, Wentrworthville in the early hours of the morning on Australia Day 1995, completely destroying the house of Shanti Krishna and Ram Lingam. Both were home, along with their young son. Ram Lingam suffered serious burns in the fire.

It was quickly realised that the fire was deliberately lit. There was unmistakeable and undisputed evidence that petrol, from a tin usually stored in the garage of the house, had been scattered through two rooms of the house. Ram Lingam had also been doused with petrol himself.

It was also undisputed that the fire could only have been caused by Shanti Krishna or Ram Lingam.

Mr Lingam was in hospital for several weeks. He was interviewed in February by an insurance investigator - Shanti held a policy covering the property for fire damage. He said he had been asleep on the floor of the living room when he was awakened by flames. He denied that he had lit the fire himself.

He as interviewed again in March, this time by police. He again denied lighting the fire. In October he gave evidence at a coronial inquest into the fire and maintained his evidence.

Shanti was also interviewed by police, in January and April. She also denied responsibility for the fire.

In 1996, the DPP charged Shanti Krishna with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm to Ram Lingam with intent to murder, and in the alternative, with intent to inflict GBH. She was also charged with arson and fraud, in that she intentionally caused damage by fire to gain from the insurance policy.

In April 1997 Ram Lingam approached police with his solicitor and stated that he had in fact started the fire, because he was attempting to commit suicide. He repeated this version in another interview in October.

However the Crown proceeded with the charges, despite a circumstantial case, and the evidence of Mr Lingam. They hoped to damage his credibility through cross-examination, and expert evidence that challenged the description he gave of the fire. They also hoped to establish that because of the poor state of the relationship between Shanti and Ram, she had a motive to kill him.

However, the jury rejected the Crown’s case, although after lengthy deliberation. The Crown had presented a good deal of evidence that contradicted Ram’s second version of events, and submitted it should not be accepted. Once his suicide story was rejected, the circumstantial case for the Crown would be quite strong.

Shanti Krishna then applied for costs against the Crown, and was successful.

Murder in the Twenties...

On the 14th of December 1932, a young girl named Bessie O’Connor was driven in a stolen motor car, a Blue Essex Sedan, from Redfern to the Royal National Park, by the thief of the car, where she was then killed by repeated blows to the head, and was stripped naked. The car was returned to near where it had been stolen from in Centennial Park.

The main issue at the trial was the identity of the person arrested by the police and charged with Bessie’s murder - Eric Roland Craig. Witnesses had identified him at two places where the car had stopped on its way to the National Park, as well as witnesses that had seen him at a place where he stopped on the return journey, after the murder.

None of the witnesses had known Craig previously, and each only saw him for a brief period of time. Of the six witnesses called, only four were able to positively identify Mr Craig at his trial. Of that four, one was not able to pick him out of a row of men at all. Another was also unable to pick him out, but said the person ‘might be like him’. Only one man selected Mr Craig from the lineup.

One witness, Mr Harvey, was the proprietor of a garage at Brighton-le-Sands, and was working on the evening of December 14th. He said that the Essex sedan stopped at his garage that evening, and the driver wanted to put water in his radiator, driving off immediately after Harvey had done this. At the trial, Harvey identified the driver of the car as Eric Craig.

More interestingly though, he described Craig’s passenger. He said “there was a girl sitting in the front seat of the car, on the left side. She was a girl with a full face. She had rather bright eyes. She struck me as being a happy sort of girl, rather wide mouth. She had a long mouth, I would say. She gave me the impression that she was rather happy. She had that look. I should say she was about 18 years of age. I have the impression that she was wearing some beads around her neck. I could not say what they were.”

Another witness, Mr Lawrence, spoke of seeing a sedan stopped in the street near Bessie’s house in Redfern, around the time that she would have been taken. A girl resembling Bessie got out and went in the direction of Bessie’s house, and after a short time returned. The witness had a conversation with the driver of the car, and said he was not Mr Craig. This witness knew Bessie O’Connor and he swore that when he heard of the murder he concluded that the girl he saw was Bessie.

He was taken to see a lineup including Eric Craig, and did not identify him as the driver. He was harshly cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor at trial, which was quite unjustified. Nevertheless he held true to his evidence.

The only other evidence implicating Mr Craig was a statement which one witness, Mr Brown, claimed he had made. When he stopped at Tom Ugly’s Point on his return journey from the National Park, the driver of the Blue Essex Sedan said to the witness that he was on his way to Liverpool. He said his name was Stone, and that he lived on Station Street.

There was further evidence that Mr Craig knew a family named Stone, and that he believed they lived in Station Street.

Police gave evidence that when Craig was arrested on 7th January 1933 and escorted to the scene of the crime, he became very agitated and said “Don’t take me there”. This was also used in an attempt to prove Mr Craig’s guilt,

Two separate juries were unable to agree, but a third eventually convicted Craig. He appealed, arguing that there should be a new trial on the basis that new evidence had come to light that potentially showed that some other person was the murderer.

It appeared that a man named Crothers, who was in custody on 12 January 1933 on another criminal charge, made a statement to the police that at about 7:30pm on the night of the murder he was driving a car in Granville when he picked up a man whom he drove to Darlinghurst. He left the man there and promised to pick him up at the same place at midnight and drive him back to Granville. Crothers said that he waited for that man at the arranged place from midnight until 2am when he arrived carrying a parcel. Crothers drove him back to Granville and dropped him off, after which he discovered the man had left his parcel in the car. When he unrolled it, he found it contained a pair of trousers saturated in blood, and a motor tyre lever. He hid these items at the motor garage where he worked.

Once he was in custody, other prisoners advised him to report it to police. Crothers described the man he had picked up, and although he did not know his name, he had met him before in Parramatta Gaol in 1931. Crothers was taken to the motor garage by police, but he failed to find the tyre lever. He did find a pair of trousers, however they were not blood stained.

After Craig was formally committed for trial on February 1933, Crothers again contacted police. He had now been released from jail, and told police that Craig had not committed the murder, and he could now tell them more than he had at first. He made a more elaborate statement that described his movements in detail. In particular, Crothers said that on the return journey from Darlinghurst his passenger told him he had been out to Sutherland with a girl, and had left her there. Crothers said that when he got to the garage he examined the things that were left in the car and found a pair of trousers, a blood-stained lady’s handkerchief wrapped around a tyre lever, which was also blood-stained.

He said the handkerchief had the letters ‘B O’ embroidered in one corner. He said he took the tyre lever and handkerchief, and hid them under the house of a friend in Merrylands. He then said that two days before making his statement, he met the man at Merrylands. He said he did not know his name, but gave a description of him, and previous occasions on which they had met.

On February 15th 1933 Crothers called in at the office of the Inspector of Police, who agreed to go with him to the address at Merrylands to get the articles from under the house. Crothers then said ‘No, they are not there; I have shifted them’, but he refused to say where he had moved them to. He promised to bring them to the Detective office the next day, but did not do so.

Craig was found guilty of murder on 8th June 1933. On June 15th Craig requested an interview with his solicitor from prison. A fellow inmate of Craig’s claimed he was closely associated with Crothers. This prisoner said that he sent Craig the name and address of Crothers, as a person who could give him valuable information. Craig told this to his solicitor, and as a result Crothers was sought out once more.

On 19th June Crothers and the solicitor’s clerk made a search at the house where Crothers said he had placed the handkerchief and tyre lever, but neither of these items was discovered. Crothers swore that after the solicitor’s clerk had left, he spoke to the owner of the house and told him the reason for their visit. The house owner then telephoned his daughter, who made a statement to police, that some three or four months earlier she had been clearing out rubbish from the back of the house when she found what she thought was a lady’s handkerchief. It was very stained and dirty, and she did not pay much attention to it, and thought it probably went out with the rest of the rubbish.

As a result, Crothers and the solicitor’s clerk made a further search, and the handkerchief was discovered on the rubbish heap. The initials ‘B O’ were sewn in the corner, and the stains reacted positively for blood when tested.

The Appeal Court considered Craig’s application for a new trial, and was of the view that except for the handkerchief, the absurdity of Crothers’ story meant it did not deserve serious consideration. The only explanation for the convoluted nature of his tale was that he was attempting to tell just enough of the facts within his knowledge to find Craig innocent of the killing, whilst at the same time attempting to clumsily protect some other person.

Crothers’ criminal history did not do him any favours either, showing that he was accustomed to sensational fabrications, and tended to seek notoriety.

Eric Craig appealed this decision to the High Court. It agreed with the Appeal Court’s assessment of Crothers’ evidence, however it also chose to examine the other identification evidence, which it found to be highly suspect.

Mr Harvey’s (the garage proprietor) evidence was criticised, as it seemed he was unconsciously relying upon the photo of Bessie that was published in the newspapers from around December 17th, as well as other descriptions of her, rather than his real recollection of the girl that was in the car. He did not volunteer his information until January after Craig was arrested, although police officers had visited his garage several times. There was also a substantial reward for information by this time.

Harvey was only taken to the jail to see if he could identify Craig until March 1933, three months since he had seen the car, and only five days before Craig’s trial. Craig’s photograph had appeared frequently in the press by this stage. Harvey was presented with a lineup that included Craig. He pointed to Craig and said “This is the type of man so far as I can recollect … the man was more tanned then, and he wanted a shave”. Harvey then asked Craig to speak, then confirmed it was him.

The other witnesses had also had ample opportunity to see pictures of both Bessie and Eric Craig in the newspapers before they made their identifications. One initially described the person she saw driving the car as having “fairly broad Irish features”, which Mr Craig clearly did not.

This evidence was considered unsatisfactory, and highly dangerous to be used as a basis of identification.

Further, although Crothers’ evidence was dismissed as a likely fabrication, the High Court noted that it had in fact been available to the police well before Craig’s trial, however they chose not to pursue it, as it did not tend to show that Craig was the offender. However they were under an obligation to disclose all material to the defence, no matter what their opinion of it, and failure alone constituted grounds for a new trial, even if it turned out that evidence was quite useless.

Finally, the High Court felt that Craig’s exclamation of “don’t take me there” to police when told “we are going to where the girl Bessie O’Connor was murdered” and his agitated state were not necessarily signs of guilt. The police had just described to him the amount of blood found and the position of the body, both of which were rather gruesome facts. The High Court felt Craig’s comment was normal, and reflected the natural revulsion of an innocent person against being compelled to visit the scene of a grisly murder. The evidence was too prejudicial and should not have been given to the jury.

This prejudicial evidence, coupled with the failure by police to tell the defence about Mr Crothers‘ evidence, and the unreliable identification evidence, led to the High Court ordering a new trial for Craig. He was not convicted.

Calabrian conflict

Domenico Barca, his sister Grazzia and her husband Raffaele Petula were all born in the Italian province of Calabria. Domenico and his family had emigrated to Australia some twenty-two years prior, and has been a naturalized Australian citizen for fourteen years. He lived with his wife in Cambridge Park, NSW, and the Petulas lived in St Marys.

For most of 1973, Grazzia and her husband had been having arguments, not only about money, but also his personal behaviour, towards other women, and his children.

On the morning of 27th September 1973 Domenico was helping Raffaele build a shed on his land at St Marys. They all ate lunch together at around 11:30am. After, Domenico and Raffaele left in Domenico’s car. Domenico said he then dropped Raffaele at the train station at around 12:45, to catch the train to work. Domenico then said he went to two hardware shops to buy nails, and returned to Raffaele’s at around 1pm. He remained there working on the shed until returning home to Cambrige Park at around 5:45pm.

Raffaele was seen at a bar in St Mary’s at around 12:30 to 1pm that day, and had ordered a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade. He was not seen again.

On Friday evening, 28 September 1973, Raffaele’s body was found in a rubbish dump in a lonely area of bush at Llandilo, NSW. It was partially concealed by some branches, a mudguard and a sheet of felt. It appeared he had been shot twice in the head with a .22 rifle. His skull was fractured, and in the opinion of the doctor performing the post-mortem, this was most likely caused by heavy clubbing over and around the head with a blunt object or instrument. There were some marks on his limbs that suggested he might have been dragged by two persons, but there was also evidence that Raffaele had been shot at or near the place where he was found.

The doctor was of the opinion that death occurred approximately twenty-four to twenty-eight hours before the post-mortem examination took place, as rigor mortis had set in. This placed time of death between 7:30pm and 11:30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973. However, the Crown case was that the murder occurred between 1:00pm and 3:00pm on Thursday 27th, and that the doctor was in error in her estimation of the time of death. The contents of Raffaele’s stomach were an important factor in arriving at this determination. On the day, he had eaten a meal at 11:30am, of potato chips, olives, cheese, salami and capsicum or chilli. The state of digestion of the food indicated that he would have died at most an hour after eating.

Domenico initially claimed that he had an alibi at the time, namely that he was purchasing roofing nails at a local store. However there was some question that these invoices may have been altered. He was interviewed about this by police:

“Q: You will remember that on thr 4th October this year, you came to this police station.

A: Yes, I remember.

Q: At the same time you produced these two receipts to me: (Domenico is shown Receipt No. 36 from Gabriels Builders Hardware, dated 27.9.73; and Receipt No. 42461 from Homemakers Store dated 26.9.73) Are those the two receipts you showed to me?

A: Yes

Q: Do you agree that at the time you produced those receipts to me you told me that you were given them at the time you obtained the nails?

A: Yes

Q: And do you agree that at the time you handed me those receipts they were in a very crumpled condition?

A: Yes

Q: Do you remember that when you handed me those receipts I asked why they were crumpled?

A: Yes, I told you I had them in my pocket since I got the nail.

Q: Since 4th October, we have made enquiries at Gabriels Hardware Store, St Marys, and have been informed that Receipt No. 36 was not issued to you at the time you got the nails at all, but was issued to you on 2nd October, and at your request back-dated to 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I went there on Tuesday and asked them to give me a receipt for the nail and the lady was there. I wanted to see the one that served me, but he wasn’t there, and I say I bought four pound of nail and they didn’t give me the receipt. I said ‘Do you remember the time I left here was about five to one?’. She say ‘I can’t remember’.

Q: Why did you go back to Gabriels on Tuesday and ask them for a receipt dated 27 September?

A: It was very important to me to have the receipt.

Q: Why was it very important to you?

A: So if anyone ask me I could say that’s my receipt where I bought the nail.

Q: Why was it important to show anyone where you bought the nails?

A: If someone ask me it handy to have.

Q: And do you say that is the only reason why you went back to Gabriels and had the receipt back-dated?

A: The only reason.

Q: We have also made enquiries at Homemakers Store at St Marys, and have been informed that on Tuesday 4th October, you also visited that store and asked for this Receipt No. 42461 for two pound of nails to be back-dated to 26th September 1973. Why did you do that?

A: If anyone ask me for the receipt it handy to have it.

Q: And do you ask for receipts for everything you buy?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you normally get the receipts at the time you buy the articles?

A: It never worry me if I get or not.

Q: If it does not worry you if you get the receipts or not, why did you go back and especially get these receipts back-dated?

A: When I been here first I did not have the receipt with me, and then I better go back and ask to give me the receipt, to show to you where I been that days.

Q: Why didn’t you tell Detective Sergeant Sawyer that you did not have a receipt for the nails, but if he went to the store the people would remember you?

A: No one ask me, I not worry about it.

Q: But you did worry enough about it to go back to the store and ask them to back-date the receipt for you?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that you asked the woman at Gabriels Hardware to write on the docket that you purchased the nails about one o’clock?

A: I ask her to put a time on the receipt and told her I was there about five t one and she told me they don’t put time on the receipt.

Q: When you asked her to put a time on the receipt, was that to try and show that you were at Gabriels Building Store purchasing nails about one o’clock on the Thursday 27th September 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that when the man at the Homemakers Store first wrote this receipt (Domenico shown Receipt No. 42461) that he put the date of the docket 2nd September 1973?

A: Yes, I agree.

Q: And do you agree that you asked him to alter the date to 26th September?

A: Yes

Q: And we have been informed that he overwrote the 26th over the date, and then you said to him ‘That is no good, I don’t want it written over, I will have to have another docket’?

A: Yes, I tell him that.

Q: Would you care to tell me why you didn’t want it written over?

A: To make him careful, he do it properly next time.

Q: I suggest to you that the reason you did not want the date altered was that you wanted anyone inspecting that docket (points to Receipt No. 42461), that docket, to believe that it was written out on 26.9.73?

A: Yes. Could I have a glass of water?”

Ammunition that matched the kind used to kill Raffaele was found under Domenico’s house, hidden in a sock. Domenico initially denied having a rifle, but the police told him were going to search his house for a rifle the next day. Immediately upon leaving the police station he returned home, and at 2am emerged carrying a large parcel. He put it inside his car and drove off towards the Nepean River. The police intercepted his car and found the rifle under the back seat, wrapped in material with a sock over the end of the barrel. This matched the sock in which the ammunition was found. Domenico later told police that he had found the rifle buried under his house:

“Q: How did you come to find this gun?

A: After I leave you last time, I was worried about the bullets that were found under my house. I couldn’t go to sleep, I got my lead light out and got under the house and found the gun.

Q: I find it difficult to believe that any person would make a search underneath their house at two o’clock in the morning on the off-chance that a gun might be hidden there. Further, from what you have told us, it is apparent that at the time you were spoken to by the Police, you were headed away from the Penrith Police Station, and in fact were driving towards the river or the gravel pits. Have you anything to say about that?

A: All right, I will tell you. When you told me last night that the Police would come back in the morning to look again for the gun, I knew they would find it, so I dig it up and put it in my car. I never tell my wife. She had a headache, so I told her I would go to the chemist to get something for her. I knew I had to get rid of the gun tonight.

Q: Is this the gun used to kill Raffaele Petula?

A: Yes.”

Later in the police interview:

“Q: We have been informed that during the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had a very big argument at the house, in your presence. What do you have to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that question.

Q: We have been informed that during the course of this argument your sister Grazzia accused Raffaele of misbehaving towards his daughters. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: As at the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, did you know that Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had had many fights about money, land, and Raffaele’s conduct towards his daughters?

A: That is their business. I won’t answer that.

Q: Di you know that Raffaele is well known in the public bar of the St Mary’s Hotel?

A: I wouldn’t know this.

Q: We have made inquiries at the St Marys Hotel, and we have been informed that Raffaele did not go to the public bar of that hotel on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September. We have also made enquiries at the St Marys Railway Station and have been informed that Raffaele did not catch the 1.03pm train or the 1.18pm train from that Railway Station on that day. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I dropped him there and he go to work.

Q: We have made inquiries at the shops in Queen Street, and from the taxi drivers operating from the taxi rank at the St Marys Railway Station, and not one person saw Raffaele in Queen Street, or near the St Marys Railway Station on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September 1973. Although he was seen in the area by a number of people on the preceding Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I still say I left him at the taxi rank at twelve forty five.

Q: We have caused the photograph of Raffaele to be published in the local newspapers, and requested that any person who saw him in between the time you say you left him at the St Marys Railway Station and when he was found in the bush at Llandilo, to contact the police, but not one person has reported seeing Raffaele after you say you left him. Have you anything to say about that?

A: No, I have nothing to say about that. I left him at the station, that’s it.

Q: If you had left him at the station as you say, would you expect some person to have seen him somewhere after you had driven away?

A: Oh yeah.

Q: We have been informed that between 12 noon and 2.30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973, two persons saw Raffaele in the public bar of the Waggon Wheel Hotel, which is situated in the Great Western Highway, St Marys. Have you anything to say about that?

A: Well, look, I have nothing to say about that.

Q: We have been informed that Raffaele was served with a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade which he carried from the hotel into the street. Do you know anything about that?

A: I know nothing about that.

Q: Do you deny that you were the person to whom Raffaele took the schooner of lemonade on that day?

A: I have nothing to say about that.

Q: Do you agree that when I interviewed you on 4th October 1973, that you told me that you did not like beer very much?

A: Yes, I agree with that.

Q: And do you also agree that during the course of the same interview you told me that you often preferred to drink a schooner of lemonade?

A: Sometime.

Q: Have you been to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys with Raffaele?

A: Yes, on Wednesday night I go there with him from my sister’s place. I was to go home and he say to me ‘You drop me at the pub’. I drop him at the pub, and he say ‘You come in’. I go in with him and I had a lemonade and he had a beer. Then he said ‘You have another one’. I say ‘No, I go home now’. He say ‘All right’, and I drive him back home to his place, and I reach my place at ten o’clock. That was a late night I had.

Q: On that occasion which bar did you have the drink?

A: We had the drink in the bar on the corner of the street.

Q: Did you drink the lemonade on the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: And how many beers did Raffaele have on that occasion?

A: He had only one.

Q: Did you and Raffaele drink your drink whilst you were standing at the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: When you drove Raffaele to him home on Thursday 27th September 1973, did he have his coat with him?

A: I don’t remember.

Q: We have been informed that when Raffaele went to the Waggon Wheel Hotel and bought the glass of beer and the glass of lemonade he was wearing his coat, that is on Thursday 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: When I drop him at the station at twelve forty-five, he no have a coat. He have the shirt with the sleeve rolled up.

Q: Are you absolutely sure of that?

A: Oh yeah, sure.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: Do you remember being interviewed by Detective Sergeant Sawyer at the Penrith Police Station on 30th September, this year?

A: Oh yeah

Q: Do you remember Sergeant Sawyer saying to you ‘Can you tell me what clothing Raffaele was wearing when you last saw him?’, can you remember him asking you that?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you remember telling the Sergeant ‘I know he was wearing a shirt with squares, I didn’t much notice’.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, do you agree that there is no mention there that Raffaele is not wearing a coat?

A: Well, he probably not ask me.

Q: Do you know that Raffaele’s coat was found back at his house after he was found dead?

A: No.

Q: Were you at the Petula home all day Friday 28th September 197u3?

A: Yes.

Q: And were you there on Saturday 29th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Sunday 30th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Monday 1st October 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you still say that you have no knowledge that Raffaele’s coat was found in the kitchen of his home after he was found dead?

A: I don’t know.

Q: If Raffaele was wearing that coat when he was served with the lemonade and beer at the Waggon Wheel Hotel on Thursday 27th September, can you tell me any way it could get back into his house if he did not return to the house or leave the coat in your car?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: When you were last spoken to by the Police, you did not say anything about seeing Francesca going to the school at the time you arrived back at your sister’s place. Can you tell us why you did not say this before?

A: Probably I forgot.

Q: We interviewed your sister Grazzia here today and for the first time since this inquiry began, she informed us that you arrived at her home on Thursday 27th September just when Francesca was stepping into the school yard. Do you think it unusual that both you and your sister though of this incident which set the time of your return to your sister’s place?

A: No, not unusual.

Q: Would you agree that this may suggest that you and your sister Grazzia have talked about this and decided to tell the Police that the time you got back to your sister’s place on that day was just when Francesca was walking back into the school?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that since the death of Raffaele you had a conversation with Grazzia at her house, and she ask you why you did not return to the house until two o’clock on Thursday 27th September, and you said you were buying the nails, and not to mention it to the Police. Did that conversation take place?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that between 28 September and 4th October 1973 you were at your sister Grazzia’s home, and you were overheard to say ‘For money or anything else Calabrians will let you go, but for honour they will kill you for sure’. Did you say that?

A: Yes, I did say that.

Q: And what did you mean by that?

A: What I said.

Q: Were you suggesting that Raffaele was not killed for money or anything else, but for honour and nothing else?

A: Yes.

Q: And did Mrs Petula say ‘That’s for sure. Whoever kill him, kill him for honour and nothing else. They put a cross on him by shooting him one in the nose and one in the ear’. Did she say that?

A: I didn’t hear her say that.

Q: Did you hear anyone say that they had put a cross on Raffaele?

A: No.”

Domenico was interviewed again in November of that year:

“Q: I am now going to ask you some questions in relation to the murder of Raffaele Petula on Thursday 27th September 1973.

A: You have got the gun and you have got me. What more do you want?

Q: From our inquiries, we believe that you did not drive Petula to the St Marys Railway Station as you have previously stated, but went with him to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys. Is that right?

A: You know where I went, I am the only one Raffaele would buy lemonade for.

Q: We believe that within one hour of leaving the Petula home, you drove him to an area of bushland at Llandilo where, after hitting him over the head, you killed him by shooting him twice in the head with that gun (points to rifle on table).

A: That’s the gun all right, but I don’t want to tell you what happened until after I see my father.

Q: Were any other persons involved in the shooting of Petula?

A: I won’t answer that.

Q: Would you care to tell us why Raffaele Petula was murdered?

A: Because he is a mongrel, that’s why.

Q: What time do you say you arrived back at your sister Grazzia’s place that afternoon?

A: What did she tell you?

Q: I am not prepared to tell you what your sister told me at this time.

A: After I have seen her I will tell you.

Q: We are satisfied that you were responsible for the death of Raffaele Petula, and you will be charged with his murder. Is there anything further that you want to tell us, or any statement you wish to make before we complete this interview?

A: (long pause… Barca starts to cry). I have lost everything. My wife, my beautiful children. It would be better if the mongrel was still alive. I don’t want to talk about it anymore. I am finished with it. All I want to do is go home to my family.”

A fellow Calabrian, Salvatore Manna, was called as a witness by the Crown, and gave evidence of what he said was a Calabrain custom - if a woman was dishonoured by her husband, he was liable to be killed according to a special custom, called ‘putting a cross on him’. The husband would be shot twice through the head. One bullet was to be fired through the nose, and the other through the ear, so that the path of the two bullets intersected in the skull to form a cross.

Salvatore further stated that the first responsibility to vindicate the honour of a woman rests upon her father. He was cross-examined about this:

“Q: Do you know very much about this Calabrian custom that you have mentioned?

A: Only what I have heard and been brought up with, you know.

Q: Is this something you came to know about in the first twelve years of your life in Calabria, or have you heard it among people in Australia?

A: No, well, I have been brought up in the Calabrian custom way, and what I have heard amongst Calabrians.”

Grazzia and Domenico Barca’s father Carmello lived at Llandilo, not far from where Raffaele‘s body was found, however there was no evidence at all that Mr Barca Snr was implicated in the murder.

Although the Crown case was circumstantial, the evidence, when taken together, was compelling. The ammunition under the house, the attempt to dispose of the gun, the attempt to create an alibi with the hardware receipts, the sighting of the pair at the Waggon Wheel on the afternoon of the killing, and Raffaele’s coat somehow returning to his house without him.

The defence on the other hand contended that the time of Raffaele’s death was in the evening of the 27th, according to the post mortem report, and that Domenico was at home with his family by this time and could not have committed the offence. The defence asked the jury to reject the Crown’s argument that the killing occurred in the early afternoon, and pointed to evidence of other food in Raffaele’s stomach that were not part of the luncheon meal at Domenico’s. The defence also pointed out that the man who discovered the body had been in the area at the time the Crown say the killing occurred, and had not heard any shots.

The defence also argued that the evidence could just as easily point to Domenico’s father Carmello Barca having killed Raffaele, particularly in light of the Calabrian custom. Domenico was merely hiding the gun and ammo for his father.

It emerged during the course of the trial that Carmello Barca had in fact shot and killed a Mr Perri, the first husband of his daughter Grazzia Petula. Apparently he had also been incensed at Raffaele’s behaviour, and had threatened him on more than one occasion with dire physical consequences.

The defence suggested that after lunch, and a drink together on Thursday, Domenico had in fact driven his brother-in-law Raffaele to his father Carmello’s house and left him there, returning to Grazzia’s house.

Grazzia Petula initiall maintained that Domenico had returned to her house at 1pm that day. However, at the trial, she admitted that he had not in fact returned until around 3pm. She said that she had earlier given a false statement because Carmello Barca, her father, had threatened to stab her if she did not.

Nonetheless the trial judge directed the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that the father had been involved, despite the submissions of defence counsel, and that even if he had encouraged his son to follow out the Calabrian honour killing, this did not absolve Domenico’s guilt, as the mere executioner.

Domenico did not give evidence at his trial, but made a short statement from the dock:

“There are some things with reference to this case that I do not want to say. What I do want to say is that I did not see Raffaele Petula alive after Thursday. I did not kill him or take any part in his killing. I personally do not follow this custom, this Calabrian custom, to kill for honour. I cannot say anything else in reference to this, but please believe me, I am not guilty. That is all.”

The jury convicted and Domenico was sentenced to life. He immediately appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which dismissed it. He took his appeal further, to the High Court.

The High Court felt the trial judge was wrong to tell the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that Carmello Barca had been involved. Whilst it was correct that Carmello himself was not on trial, there was in fact some circumstantial evidence that pointed to his involvement, at the very least. Whilst the High Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge Carmello with Raffaele’s murder, there was enough to put a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether Domenico had in fact shot his brother-in-law. It would certainly go a long way to explaining Raffaele’s rather cryptic statements about what he could tell, and what he could not.

The High Court quashed Domenico’s conviction.

All for a mango... Part II

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. They were satisfied that it was Tang who had inflicted all the stab wounds.

The sentencing Judge felt that Tang's attack on David was a spontaneous reaction to protect his younger friends, and while that explained his actions, it certainly did not justify them. His Honour felt that Tang had not intended to kill David, but had nevertheless intended to cause him very serious harm. David Laxale was an unarmed member of the public who was merely protecting his property. Despite his use of a weapon, Tang's youth and good references were taken into account, and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 11 years.

David's family reacted strongly. His brother Jean-Pierre said "11 years is not enough for murder. He'll be out when he's 29 - my brother died when he was 29 - he'll still be a young man... If someone's convicted of murder and found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, the law should be that you serve 25 years, and that's it. People will then think about the consequences before they commit the crime."

Tang appealed his conviction. His defence argued that Jason, Andrew and Luke were accomplices in the stabbing, and all had motives to minimise their own participation in the events. They pointed to the post-mortem evidence of the possibility that more than one knife was used, and the evidence that at least one other of the boys was carrying a knife.

Another major appeal point concerned Tang's first interview with police, where he had replied "no comment" to their questions. Although he had not made any confession, his denials were seen as "significant admissions", particularly in relation to the knives. When compared with the police interviews conducted with Andrew, Jason and Luke, Tang's responses cast a poor light on his credibility, and it was inevitable that he was judged unfairly.

This became a major problem when it was revealed that Tang had not given correct information about his age. Although he admitted lying at first, he subsequently told police his real name, and gave them what he believed was his real date of birth, in January 1979. His mother also gave his date of birth, but in February 1979. In any event, it appeared to police that Tang was 18 years old at the time of the attack, and therefore he was treated like an adult.

As it turned out, once birth records were obtained from Cambodia, he was actually born in September 1979, making him only 17 at the time of the attack, and therefore a juvenile. When juveniles are interviewed by police, there must be an adult present at all times, and they must receive advice from a legal representative about the right not to answer questions and make admissions. The defence argued that the interview was therefore illegally obtained, and should not have been played at Tang's trial.

The Crown argued that the police had no way of knowing Tang's date of birth was incorrect, and therefore they had not done anything wrong. It also argued that in any case, the interview had not really affected the outcome of the trial.

The Appeal Court rejected the Crown's argument, stating that the interview, and the cross-examination of Tang about his responses, was "devastating in its effect", and that had the jury only seen his oral evidence at trial, they may well have acquitted him. Also, despite the police not deliberately doing anything wrong, it didn't change the fact that there was a real chance Tang would not have answered the questions the way he did, if he had been given some proper legal advice, and had an adult present.

The Appeal Court ordered that a new trial be held.

This time around, the Crown case rested on the evidence of Jason - that he saw Tang with a bloody knife and heard him admit to stabbing Laxale three times. Jason admitted being in possession of a knife himself, as he had at the first trial, but despite extensive cross-examination, denied he had inflicted any of the other four stab wounds on Laxale. In any case, Jason had been granted an immunity from prosecution when he decided to admit having a knife.

Tang gave new, different evidence at his second trial. He admitted going to the park with the others, and then deciding to go and steal some fruit. They stole a mango from a house in Berala (not Mrs Laxale's yard) which Jason then cut up with a knife. Tang said he also saw Andrew with a butterfly knife earlier that evening, but he was not sure if the two were the same.

He admitted that when they got to the Laxale's mango tree, he was the one who jumped over the fence and started throwing the fruit back over to the other boys. He saw a barely dressed man run out of the house yelling, and grab his friend Andrew. Tang said he jumped into the attack to help Andrew, but was then punched by David himself. He said he fell to the ground, dazed, and when he looked up he saw Jason stabbing David with the knife in his right hand. He was a few metres away at that point, and entered the fight again to help his friends. That was how he came to have blood on his pants. He saw David get up and then fall back down again, and they all fled the scene together.

When they stopped at the tap, Tang said to Jason "you stabbed him, didn't you?" and Jason replied "yeah". They all stopped and washed blood from themselves. Tang said he heard Luke say to Jason "you're fucked". He looked at Jason and saw the knife in his hand, so he took the knife from him and washed it under the tap, before handing it back again. At this point, he realised it was the same butterfly knife he saw Andrew with earlier.

He said he couldn't remember if he phoned Manu that night, but might have done so, to see if Manu was home, so that he could go and stay there. Then he went home and got his sister's car and drove to Manu's place, where he stayed until he was found by police.

Tang said he had not told anyone about this before because he wanted to protect his younger friends, and he was also fearful of the consequences. He said he was particularly afraid of Jason and Andrew. He again denied going to Andrew house the next morning to get the punching bag, or threatening him while he was there.

The Crown submitted to the jury that they should reject Tang's evidence, and find that he had inflicted at least two of three stab wounds upon David, and even if Jason had also stabbed him, Tang was still guilty of murder and should be convicted.

The jury agreed, and once again returned a verdict of guilty. Clearly, they rejected Tang's new version of events - even though they did not know about his police interview. Jason had far greater credibility in front of the jury - his surprise evidence about the mobile phone call (which was immediately confirmed by the telephone records) gave his version of events a lot of weight, and the fact that he had freely admitted that he was also carrying a knife, gave his story a "ring of truth".

As before, the Judge approached the sentence on the basis that Tang had not intended to kill David Laxale, but had nevertheless intended to inflict grievous bodily harm. It was another case of the dangers of carrying knives, and their potential to be used with fatal consequences. Applying the principles of double jeopardy, the Judge did not impose a greater sentence than he had received the first time around (although his Honour felt a bigger sentence was justified), and sentenced him to 15 years in prison once more, with the same non-parole period of 11 years.

Jean-Pierre Laxale was again outraged, stating that Judges gave no consideration to victims or their families when making decisions: "A maximum sentence of 15 years is so frequently reduced to 11 years... If it happened to one of their sons I guarantee they would change the law. You can serve more time in prison for fraud than for murder - that doesn't add up."

David's sister-in-law Lana told supporters outside court that "I'd like to saw how proud I am of the Crown Prosecutor [Barry Newport QC]. It was a very difficult trial because of the way the jury was kept blind about the previous trial."

Tang appealed his conviction once more. This time, his appeal concerned the fact that Manu and his father Joe were not called as witnesses, as it seemed they may have been able to provide crucial evidence. They may have been able to confirm whether Tang did in fact stay at their house on the night of he 23rd, whether Manu's mother served him breakfast the next morning, and whether he worked for Manu's father Joe on Monday 24th, as he claimed. Manu may also have been able to give evidence about the contents of the phone call that the records showed Tang made to his house from his mobile phone on the night of the 23rd - in particular, whether Tang had made any reference to "trouble" or "stabbing", or whether he was just finding out if he could stay over that night.

Lastly, Manu may have been able to confirm or deny Tang's claim that he collected the punching bag from Andrew one month beforehand, when Manu and Lee were there, as opposed to the morning after the stabbing, as Andrew claimed.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Judge gave the jury what is known as a Jones v Dunkel direction. They were told that they should not speculate about what a witness, who was not called to give evidence, might or might not have said. More importantly, they were told that since Tang did not call Manu or his father to give evidence, the jury must conclude that they would not have said anything to support his case.

However, the Judge made a crucial error. The Jones v Dunkel direction cannot be given against an accused person, because it basically reverses the onus of proof (the Crown must prove every element of the charge against the accused - the accused has the presumption of innocence on his side, and does not have to prove anything). The direction can only be given against the Crown. The Judge should have told the jury that they must conclude that Manu and his father would not have said anything to assist the Crown case.

As a result, the Appeal Court overturned Tang's conviction once more, and again, a new trial was ordered.

The third trial for the murder of David Laxale began in 2004. By this stage, Tang had been in jail for over seven years. He was suffering from depression and had been attacked in jail by other prisoners, and was generally in poor health. The trial proceeded as before, although Luke was now living overseas and could not be located. Tang chose not to give evidence this time around.

The jury took only one hour and 20 minutes to acquit Tang of all charges. He walked free from custody, to the joy of his vocal support group "Friends of Choi Tang" who had been protesting his innocence outside the court every day. They emphasised David's dying statement that he'd been stabbed by "a Lebanese" and the fact that the mangoes Tang had removed from the tree were twisted off by hand, not cut with a knife. "Choi was [previously] convicted simply on the stories of three people who were originally accused and charged with a crime and committed for trial. They did a deal with the public prosecutor and got off scot-free."

Not so happy, were David's family. His brother Jean-Pierre said "I feel more hurt actually to know that David has been killed and someone has served seven years for it and that's all. It hurts more now than before, to know the others are out as well... Its pretty bad because the jury doesn't know much about the accused and his background, and what he's done before and after the crime, which I think is wrong... What about him lying under oath in at least one trial? How fair is that?"

Brother Daniel Laxale found the result "pretty shocking... The audacity of the thing is that they all admitted being there, either punching or kicking my brother, I learnt that as a school student, if someone mucked up in class and didn't own up, the whole class went down. For my liking, even if one did the stabbing, all of them contributed. They didn't hold him back, they all contributed with their silence. They were all in it together."

Jean-Pierre added "the jury were not aware of what happened at the last trial. The day after my brother was murdered, the accused was arrested for robbing someone and holding a knife at someone's throat. Why shouldn't this be raised in court? The jury took less than 90 minutes to decide whether he was guilty or not. And to me, that is just not good enough."

Greek Tragedy - Part II

Stephen Anas was also charged with Toula Soravia's murder, but he left for Greece less than a month after the shooting, before he could be arrested. He joined his ex-wife Laurie Sellis and her family in the city of Ioannina, seven hours north of Athens, and adapted his name to Stavros Anastasiatis. Police issued a warrant for his arrest through Interpol, leading to his apprehension in October 1995. The Australian government then attempted to have Anas extradited to Sydney to face trial, but this failed in 1996, as the Greek government said the Australian-born 33-year-old was now a Greek National. However, in a legal first, the Greek goverment honoured an existing treaty agreement and decided to put him on trial in Greece for his role in the killing, charging him with being the 'moral instigator' of the crime.

Anas was under strict bail conditions to report regularly to Ioanninan police, but in August 2007 he failed to do so, and disappeared to Athens. He was then due to stand trial in October 1999, but he claimed he was ill and needed to have his appendix removed, so the trial did not go ahead. It was next listed for May 2000, butAnas managed to avoid trial for the second time by signing up for Greek national miliarty service and joining the army. Upon discovering the legal situation (thanks to extensive negotiations between Australia's Federal Justice Minister and her Greek equivalent) the Greek army gave him leave to stand trial in June, however that trial collapsed.

The fourth attempt at trial began in January 2001, with Anas maintaining his innocence from the dock. Unfortunately the numerous delays had led to one witness refusing to return to Greece anymore, and the remaining eye-witness, Eugene Benitez, was running out of patience. He said he found the process intimidating: "I'll see how I go with this trial, this is bloody nerve-wracking." Benitez had identified Anas as the driver of the white Toyota.

Widower Louis Soravia, who had been fighting for seven years to see Anas tried for the murder of his wife, was also worried. "Its been sort of frustrating. This is the fourth time and definitely if something goes wrong it is hard to predict if we are going to be here next time or not". Although Louis was not a witness to the robbery and therefore not able to give evidence in Australian courts, he opened the case for the prosecution in Ioannina. When trying to tell the court of his 33-year marriage to Toula, and the devastating effect her death had had on his family, he was told by Judge Spiros Mexas to stick to the facts of the case. The defence, led by Ioannina Deputy Mayor Nicolos Gondos, tried to damage Louis' credibility by accusing him of beginning a relationship with another woman just two months after Toula's death. He also admitted he had received $50,000 from an insurance policy on Toula's life. Louis denied his new relationship (with Nicoletta, a Greek woman he married in 2000 in Sydney) began shortly after his wife's death.

Anas' ex-wife Laurie Sellis also gave evidence, maintaining that Anas was innocent, and that he was at home with her at the time of the shooting. She said they were "childhood sweethearts" who had been together since they were 15. Under cross-examination she was forced to admit that before the offence Anas had threatened to kill her, and that she'd taken out a restraining order against him. She also admitted there were problems in her marraige and that they had separated for a "brief" time. She took the opportunity to attack Louis Soravia, saying he had lied about the amount of insurance he received "First of all I know he is married, and I personally know he did not get $50,000. He got $200,000."

Judge Mexas threw out Ms Sellis's 'new' alibi evidence for her husband, saying "Why has it taken you five years to tell a court about this alibi? You have never mentioned it before." He read from previous court transcripts in which Anas claimed he had been at Instint with Jullio Quinteros at the time. She replied that if she had mentioned it in Austalia, Anas would have been breaking his restraining order. However the Judge said the order was not relevant in Greece and threw out her alibi. He also challenged her about other inconsistencies in her evidence.

Eugene Benitez gave his evidence that he recognised Anas as the driver of the getaway car, however ongoing problems with the translation from Greek to English and back again frustrated Mr Soravia, who kept interrupting loudly. He was repeatedly reprimanded by Judge Mexas for interfering with proceedings, and was eventually thrown out of the court. However the Judge later relented and allowed him back in. Benitez was questioned by Mexas: "How could you have seen the driver, when according to the sketch [of the scene] you have drawn for the court, and taking into account that you drive on the left-hand side in Australia, you could only have seen the passenger?" Benitez maintained he had seen Anas. The Judge also asked "In previous testimony you said that you saw the car for one second, now you claim you saw it for four seconds. Which is correct?" Mr Benitez replied "About four seconds."

In the earlier trials in Australia Mr Benitez had said he was wearing sunglasses when he made the observation, but in Greece he stated that they were not really sunglasses but glasses, and that he had also been wearing contact lenses. These inconsistencies led to his evidence being discredited.

NSW Detective Sergeant Jason Breton, who had travelled to Greece several times to give evidence in the case, was found to be ineligible under Greek law because he had previously come into contact with defence witnesses.

Anas eventually gave evidence, and accused Hakki Souleyman of framing him: "Everything Hakki said was a lie." He said Souleyman planned the robbery with Jullio Quinteros, who was a drug dealer: "Hakki knew that Quinteros was responsible but because of his drug addiction he needed Quinteros, so he framed me." Anas then claimed that on the morning of the shooting he was at a pub trying to buy drugs. This contradicted his earlier claim that he was at Instint with Quinteros, and also Ms Sellis' claim that he was at home with her. He was then asked about mobile telephone records that showed he was in the area of the shooting in Summer Hill at the time, but he told the court that Telstra records were wrong, and that this was a "common problem" in Australia.

Judge Mexas dismissed his explanations, saying "What you have said so far does not make any sense at all. We don't have the slightest evidence that Hakki or Quinteros had any connection to this incident. We find it difficult to believe that a friend of yours, a good friend of yours, could accuse you of such a thing. Usually a naive man like Hakki does not lie. He tells the truth." Anas then claimed that Souleyman framed him because he (Anas) was more popular with women - "probably because I am better looking."

In Greece, as throughout most of Europe, criminal trials are conducted under the Inquisitorial system, rather than the Adversarial system seen in Austalia, America, Canada, Great Britain and most other Commonwealth countries. Not only can judges ask questions and cross-examine witnesses, members of the jury are also allowed ask questions of the witness. The four jurors asked "The court has heard how when Hakki told you that Mrs Soravia had been shot, you said "I don't give a shit". Is that true?" Anas said No. He then launched an attack on Louis Soravia, saying he was "very powerful and very dangerous. If I don't get convicted I'll be dead in a month." He also said Louis was a "bad father", and forced his sons to "steal" from the service station because he gave them so little.

Louis and Toula's son Alex, who was a passenger in the car when his mother was shot at point-blank range, was devastated by the accusations levelled at his father. "I am very close to dad, I love him very much and I have a lot of respect for him. And the way they made my dad look was absolutely disgraceful... Its been pretty stressful... Just sitting there across from him and seeing the way he acts makes you realise what type of vermin of society that he actually is. I think in some ways, a conviction, after all we have been through, getting him in jail will be a win for us."

Judge Mexas then questioned Anas about inconsistencies in his earlier evidence, and asked him "So you say you love this country so much, and that you trust this justice system, how many times have you bothered to come to this country? Or is it true that you came here just one month after the murder?" Anas admitted it was true he had never been to Greece before this. He also stated he was allowed to leave Australia because the police did not have enough evidence to keep him there.

Anas' mother, who had travelled to Greece from Melbourne with his father, was next to give evidence. In what was described as bitter, angry and emotional evidence, she dramatically accused Louis Soravia of killing her other son. George, the younger brother of Stephen suffered from diabetes which led to his death in 1996, however she claimed he died after seeing his brother on TV during the investigation. "I feel sorry for Toula Soravia, but I hate her husband. He never came to ask me about my son. That man is the only person responsible for my son's death." She also accused Louis of lying over the amount of insurance money he received. She insisted Steve was a good, church-going son with strong family values: "I am a very proud Greek and I wanted my son to be a very proud Greek as well."


Judge Mexas asked Mrs Anas "Did your son ever take drugs?" She replied that "I have never seen anything like that." Judge Mexas then informed her that the court had evidence of Stephen's involvement with drugs. Mrs Anas also tried to support one of her son's alibis by claiming he had received a parking ticket on the morning of the shooting, however Judge Mexas told her the matter had already been investigated and there was no such ticket.


In summing up, the prosecution described Anas as immodest and arrogant. "This is a man who loves himself to death... He believes that he is intelligent, cool, good looking, and right about everything. He said he wanted to be tried under the Greek justice system because it was so fair. How did he know it was fair when he didn't even know Greece? He just went to Mykonos and Santorini for a holiday". The lawyer said Anas had told a "barrage of lies", painting a massive conspiracy involving the police, the witnesses, the media and the Soravias. "This is a man who grew up playing rugby, which is a violent sport, he loved fast cars, and he went to a very tough school where he said he got into a lot of fights. Therefore he became a very aggressive person. Even his wife said he threatened to kill her and that she took out a restraining order against him." He said Laurie Sellis "had lied through her teeth" when she attempted to give him an alibi.

Mr Katsantonis, one of the most revered lawyers in Greece, told the court Anas was a "smart-arse.. He sat in this court room and told all of us nothing of the incident but only of himself. He told us how he and Hakki had many girlfriends. He told us about his fast cars and what a good athlete he was. He has the typical behaviour of all immigrant criminals who believe that the police hate them, conspire against them, and always gets treated badly by the police." Anas frowned throughout, although earlier he had winked at family and friends, confident of the outcome.

Mr Katsantonis continued his tirade against Anas and his evidence. "Steve Anas' demeanour, his way of communicating, everything about him says 'shit, fuck off''. His parents came into court to tell us what a good kid he was, but when he wasn't believed by anyone in this court, they started blaming the Australian press. Anas even had the nerve to say why didn't Mr Soravia go find him and ask him what happened. However it was Anas who was twenty times obliged to go and tell him 'Louis, I'm innocent, I will help you find out who killed your wife."

The panel of three judges and four jurors acquitted Anas of all charges, by a majority vote of four to three (Judge Mexas and two jurors voted to convict, the other two judges and remaining two jurors voted to acquit). Mrs Anas rushed up to her son, wailing, thanking the Greek legal system and God for freeing her son: "This was God's gift". The presiding Judge, Spiros Mexas stated "Even though I found him guilty on both counts, the jury has ruled against my decision". Mr Soravia was numb: "I am in total disbelief by this court's acquittal." The Greek prosecution said it would consider an appeal, however Louis said it was time to "turn the page" and devote the rest of his life to his family.

As he was put in a van to be returned to military service in Samos, he shouted to his father that he loved him. He also asked that two bottles of whisky be delivered to the Greek police who sat beside him during the trial. Two days later, he flew to Athens instead, as he had been released by the Greek army from completing his military service, due to the time he spent in custody awaiting the trial.

He said "I want to get my life back in order and do everything right, by the law, and just get on with my life. I want to come back to Australia one day, of course I do. I am going to do that one day, whether I do it today, tomorrow, or the next day, I am going to do it one day. I am not scared... I've got to go back to bury my brother... People tell me they are writing that Australia's most wanted is free in Greece. How can I be Australia's most wanted? My God, I have a clean record... I feel I have been unjustly treated by the media and I hope something positive will happen now... I was kept in an army jail for, like, seven months and they said the army is finished for me. I can't believe I am free. Its been a really rough seven months, but I am free."

The news understandably angered Louis Soravia: "I can't believe it. He was supposed to do 15 months [national service]. This is a joke. Its an absolute joke." Anas refused to comment on Mr Soravia, but said "All I know is I feel sorry for Alex Soravia, what he went through is unbelievable. But I have been to hell and back too. Everybody who was involved in that crime, they deserve to be behind bars for the rest of their lives. That's it, you take a life, you lose a life, that's the way it goes. But it doesn't really concern me much anymore."

Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery said that Anas would face arrest if he ever returned to Australia: "This is not the absolute and automatic end to this matter."