Showing posts with label life sentence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life sentence. Show all posts

07 July, 2010

The Territory in the Sixties

Da Costa and Andreas Koklas first met in 1967, when they both drove to Melbourne in Koklas’ ute. In January 1968 they set out to drive back from Melbourne to Darwin. Da Costa said Koklas had asked him to share the driving, in return for a free trip. The route they followed went through Ipswich and Mt Isa. From there they reached Camooweal, and from there set out on the Barkly Highway on 13th January, on route to Darwin. Sometime late that afternoon, Da Costa was seen in Koklas’ ute near a place called Frewena, and later in the day at a place called Three Ways, both on the Barkly Highway. That evening, he sold a movie camera and projector to the licensee of a roadhouse at Three Ways, and also offered to sell him a watch. He also sold a transistor to another person. These items all belonged to Koklas.

From Three Ways Da Costa, instead of continuing on to Darwin, drove the ute south again, eventually reaching Melbourne on 22 January. He sold the ute to a car dealer there, using the name Koklas. A number of Koklas’ personal items were still in the ute when it was sold.

Da Costa then headed to Western Australia. On 30th January he went to a branch of the NSW Savings Bank in Fremantle and identified himself as Koklas. He presented a bank book issued in Darwin that bore Koklas’ name. He attempted to withdraw $150 from the account but was only paid $30. The Bank Manager told him he would have to speak to the Darwin branch before releasing any more funds. The manager kept the bank book and told Da Costa to return the next day, however he did not appear.

Da Costa was later interviewed by police in a Fremantle hotel where he was staying. In his room police found a number of articles, including a Northern Territory Drivers Licence belonging to Andreas Koklas, clothing bearing Koklas’ name. Da Costa told police about the bank book, and he was taken to the branch where he attempted to make the withdrawal.

When questioned, he said that Andreas Koklas was a Greek man he had known in Darwin, but he had returned to Greece, and that Da Costa had used Koklas’ name to open the account in Darwin. He said he had done this to avoid paying maintenance to his wife.

Two aboriginal men named Pompie Turner and Sleepy Charlie were stockmen on a cattle station, and were driving along the Barkly Highway from Avon Downs Station on 13th February 1968 when their car broke down about nine miles from Soudan Station. They walked along the road looking for water, and began to notice a smell like that of a dead animal. They investigated, to find the body of a man lying close to a small tree, partly covered with broken bushes and leaves. It was clothed in a singlet and underpants. They did not touch it, and instead walked back in the direction of Avon Downs Station where they were picked up by another car and taken to the police station, where they reported their discovery.

The next day the boys went with a police officer named Cox and pointed out the location of the body. It appeared the dead man (later identified as Andreas Koklas) had suffered very serious injuries. A large area of his skull had been crushed in, and on one side of his chest seven ribs, and on the other side ten ribs, had been crushed and fractured. These injuries would have caused immediate death.

The body was in a state of decomposition and disintegrated when moved. The attending doctor determined that the injuries could have been caused if a heavy rock was dropped on the head and body of Koklas while he was lying on the ground. A stone about 14-16 inches long and 12 inches deep and wide was found nearby. It weighed 35 pounds. Dried blood stains were found on the bottom of the rock, which matched Koklas’.

Over the following weeks further interviews took place between Da Costa and the police. On 17th February police told Da Costa that the body of a man named Andreas Koklas had been found on the side of the road on the Barkly Highway. Da Costa asked “Is Koklas dead?” and was told that he was. Da Costa was asked when he had last seen Koklas, and he said they had travelled together to Melbourne last year, and that he had last seen him there shortly before Christmas.

He was asked about being in possession of Koklas clothing, and he said Koklas had given it to him. The bank book also showed a withdrawal of $150 in Ipswich on 11th January, which Da Costa said was made by himself. He said he did not know where Koklas’ ute was, and denied driving it in the Northern Territory on the 13th and 14th January. He said he knew nothing about Koklas’ death.

Later, Da Costa decided he wanted to tell police the truth about the bank book. He told police that he had stolen it from Koklas while they were on their way from Darwin to Melbourne in Koklas’ ute.

Da Costa was told “I should tell you that I understand that Koklas was killed by a rock and it is possible that there was a fight.” Da Costa replied “I don’t know anything about how he died”.

Da Costa then made a written statement to police, which contained some inconsistencies with the earlier things he had told them. He said he had riven with Koklas from Melbourne to Ipswich where Koklas had withdrawn the money from the bank. At Ipswich Da Costa said they met a truck driver known as George, who was on his way back to Melbourne. He asked George if he would give him a lift back to Sydney, took his things out of Koklas’ ute and had been driven back to Melbourne, leaving Koklas in Ipswich. He said his reason for doing this was because he had just stolen the bank book from Koklas’ glove box.

Da Costa said the last time he was on the Barkly Highway was back in about July 1967. He said Koklas had sold his own movie equipment and transistor at Three Ways back in December 1967 when the two of them were on their way to Melbourne.

Part way through this interview, Costa stopped and said “Look, we better stop this. Look, we had an argument. I do not want to waste any more time. You know all about it… We had an argument on the Barkly. I did not know that he was dead, I just panicked and shot off. I will never forget what he said to me. I did not want to kill anybody, Andreas and I were friends, and I just panicked. I am sorry to have wasted your time, I should have known better. I should have told you before. I suppose my life is finished now. There is no need to talk about it. You know all about it.”

Da Costa said the argument was about money - Koklas had changed his mind from their initial agreement, and told him he would have to pay part of the cost of the trip to and from Melbourne, which was $300. Once they reached Camooweal Koklas had threatened him to pay up immediately. After leaving Camooweal the car had overheated along the Barkly Highway and they had pulled over. Koklas said he was worried about the wheel, so he got out the car jack and a piece of iron pipe that he used as the jack handle, and checked the wheel.

The topic of money came up again, and Da Costa refused to pay his share. He told Koklas “You Greeks are all the same - money-hungry bastards”. Koklas responded by hitting him and Da Costa “bashed him back quite a few times“, knocking Koklas to the ground. Koklas got up again holding the iron pipe and “came at me with it”. Da Costa slipped and fell, and said that Koklas hit him several times with the iron pipe while he was on the ground.

Da Costa said “not far from where I was lying was a rock. I grabbed for it and lying then as I was, I threw the rock at him. He dropped and let go of the pipe at the same time. I was not happy. I got up and I was going to hit him again, but I didn’t hit him again. He said ‘Please Joe, don’t hit me again, please put water on my head’. I was mad at him at the time, and on my right-hand side were two small little branches of the tree where he was sitting previously. I got hold of them and shoved them at him. I waited a little longer. I asked him a couple of times to get up. He wouldn’t and I opened the front, the left door of the car”.

Da Costa took out a plastic water bottle and poured some water on Koklas’ head. He then put the iron pipe and jack back in the car. “I didn’t know what to do for a while. I got in the car to go”.


He was shown a photograph of the body with the large stone lying next to it and said “yes, that is the rock. That is where I left it”. He said when he left Koklas he “was lying under a tree. He was standing up when I hit him with the rock. When he dropped he did not move and I did not touch him any more. I then put the leaves over him”. Looking at the photograph of Koklas’ body, he said “I put those leaves there”.

He was asked whether he removed any clothing and he denied doing so. He said he had covered Koklas with leaves because “Andreas had blood coming out of his head. It was very hot. I thought he might die”. He was asked why he did not take Koklas back to Camooweal, if he was so worried, and he said “I just panicked and wanted to get away”.

He confirmed that this had happened on a Saturday afternoon, and that “it was the same day I sold the camera and things at Three Ways”.

On the flight back to Darwin, he told his accompanying police officer “Yes, Yes, I just want to clear it all up. If I tell you I tell the Court. There will be no need for you to tell the Court because I will tell the Court everything. How I hit Andreas and how I left him there. I am glad it is all over. Don’t you worry, I will tell the Court everything. I suppose I will hang. Andreas was my very good friend…. Like I told you, after I hit him with the stone I panicked and ran away. I ran about a mile, no cars came along. I went back. I got in the car and drove away.”



The Crown case was that Da Costa had in fact deliberately bashed in Koklas’ skull with the rock, and was not acting in self-defence, as he claimed. The Crown also said Da Costa was responsible for other injuries found on Koklas’ body, but Da Costa said that either somebody else killed Koklas with those injuries, or that he died as a result of the rock to the head, after which somebody came along and inflicted the other injuries after death.

He said that the “rock” he threw hit Koklas “somewhere on his face, his head” and that after he had poured water on Koklas’ head “he kept looking at me but he didn’t say anything” and that his eyes were ‘”blinking”. Before he left Koklas he told him “if one of us has to walk and if it is good enough for me to walk, it is good enough for you to walk or get a lift”.

Dr Bromwich, who conducted the post mortem, gave evidence that such a rock, dropped from a distance between one foot and ten feet, would cause the massive injuries seen on Koklas. The doctor also testified that the rock produced could not have been thrown with one hand, and even if it had been thrown in a shot-put manner, it is unlikely it would have brought about the damage seen to Koklas’ skull.

Da Costa was questioned about the rock at his trial”
“Q: You have seen the big rock in court?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the rock you threw at him?
A: Impossible sir, no, I couldn’t.
Q: What sort of rock was it you threw at him?
A: It was just a rock a bloke could lift with one hand. I was lying down when I threw it.”
Da Costa was not asked whether he did or did not drop the ‘big rock’ on Koklas.

Da Costa was convicted. He appealed, but was rejected. He was sentenced to life.

15 April, 2010

The night nurse - Part II

Brendan then took police to the dam where the machete had been thrown and 'buried by Vester':
"Q: Will you just show me again where Vester took the girl’s pants off - underpants?
A: Under a tree near No. 2 oval.
Q: And had he assaulted her in any way at that point?
A: No, he didn’t. No.
Q: Did she walk with him to the tree at No. 2 oval?
A: Yeah. ‘Cause she had no other choice.
Q: Why didn’t she have any other choice?
A: He had the blade pressed to her throat and, and he had her by the head, and his hand over his mouth, over her mouth.
Q: So was he dragging her at all?
A: No, she co-operated and that, and we could lead her.
Q: Which way do we go now?
A: Keep going.
Q: And where did he take her bra off?
A: At the same place where he took her pants off.
Q: And then after he took the bra and pants off, what did he do then?
A: He told her to lay down. She laid down.
Q: Yeah. What happened then?
A: He told me to hold both her legs.
A: Did you hold them?
A: I had no other choice, so I grabbed them.
Q: OK. Now, um, you held her legs. Did he have sexual intercourse with her?
A: Yeah.
Q: And how long did he do that for?
A: Ah, five, ten, fifteen minutes, maybe?
Q: And where did you have the knife when he was doing that?
A: He had it up against her throat still.
Q: What part of the hospital did you go into? Where was the car?
A: Right on the other side.
Q: On the other side. Are you prepared to walk up this way with me? Walk up this way here?
A: No.
Q: On the other side of the hospital, was it?
A: Yeah.
Q: And that’s on actually the Walgett side?
A: Yeah, in the car park there.
Q: And what room did you go into to get the nurse?
A: In the, what’s that ward, the maternity ward, I think it is. It used to be the maternity ward.
Q: Can you see that room from here?
A: No, you can’t.
Q: Right. Well, just indicate to me over there where you, where the car was?
A: Right over the other side.
Q: Right, and which way did you take the girl out?
A: He took her out the back door.
Q: And where were you?
A: I had to follow him. I was in front of him.
Q: You were in front of him?
Q: Yeah.
Q: Yeah. And what, she went, er, around which way of the hospital did you go?
A: And started walking around on the grass.
Q: Right.
A: And took her back inside then.
Q: He took her back inside?
A: Yeah.
Q: Why was that?
A: Eh?
Q: Why was that?
A: I don’t know. They can come back out this way and go back that way.
Q: Right.
A: Over towards No. 2 oval.
Q: And whereabouts, whereabouts, where’s No. 2 oval?
A: On the other side of the old Walgett Rd.
Q: On the other side of the old Walgett Rd?
A: Yeah.
Q: Are you prepared to take us down there?
A: No.
Q: Eh, just to indicate some things to me?
A: No.
Q: Well, in which direction was the tree that, er, the girl was under when he had sex with her?
A: Well, straight across there from where I’m standing now.
Q: Straight across. Alright. And when, um, after he had sex with her, what happened then?
A: We went for a walk and towards the airport. That over there. Straight across there…
Q: And did he have sex with her again?
A: No, he just started walking around.
Q: Where was she?
A: Ah..
Q: Yes, go on, sorry.
A: She was still in the ground. He still had the blade to her throat.
Q: He had the what to her throat?
A: The blade.
Q: The blade?
A: Yeah.
Q: Mm?
A: And he was walking around, talking to himself..
Q: What was he saying?
A: He was saying ‘What am I going to do, what am I going to do?’. And he was asking me - worthless shit - ‘I can’t tell you what to do‘.
Q: Mm?
A: ‘You got us into it cunt, you get us out of it‘.
Q: And then what happened?
A: And then he started walking again and then he spotted the police, and he told us to jump down and we all jumped down there and then he was there talking for a while, waiting for you fellas to go. When the police left, ah, they went up that way for a walk, went up that way for a drive and we got up again and I just kept walking and I got about from here to the phone booth away and I heard her scream then.
Q: How many times did she scream?
A: Once.
Q: Did you hear any other noise?
A: Just Vester saying…
Q: Sorry?
A: Just Vester saying ‘You gutless cunt. Come back here and help me’.
Q: And when did you see Vester again?
Q: When we got over here at the rest area. The rest area back there now.
Q: So you walked down to the rest area?
A: Yeah, I met him up there.
Q: And when you last saw the girl, what was she wearing?
A: She was wearing blue, blue jeans on. Woman’s jeans and that was it.
Q: When Vester… Sorry, blue jeans?
A: Yeah, them woman’s jeans, what nurses wear.
Q: And, ah, she had those on when you last saw her?
A: Yeah.
Q: What did she put them… Did you put them back on after Vester had intercourse with her?
A: Yeah, we put ‘em back on her.
Q: Alright. And, um, ah, when you, when you saw Vester, where did he have the machete?
A: When?
Q: When you last saw him over here at the rest area.
A: He had ‘em both down his shorts, down the side of his tracksuit.
Q: What do you mean both?
A: He had, he had the, the, ah, I can’t…
Q: The scissors?
A: The scissors on his shoulder, pulled it out, put it down the side and put the machete there too.
Q: Did they have, did the scissors have blood on them?
A: No, not the scissors, no.
Q: Did the machete have blood on them… on it?
A: I don’t know, I couldn’t see. It was right over there in the dark.
Q: How do you know the scissors didn’t have blood on them?
A: Eh?
Q: How do you know the scissors didn’t have blood on them?
A: Well, when he ripped if off, he just ripped it off like that, there.
Q: What, over here at the rest area?
A: Yeah - them too, with the machete.
Q: Right, um, what, what, at what point did, um, did Vester take her underpants off?
A: At the point where he was going to have sex with her.
Q: At the tree?
A: At the tree.
Q: Alright
A: Mm.
Q: Did you see the old man that was in the hospital at all?
A: I heard him…
Q: What was he saying?
A: He was singing out for the nurse.
Q: Mm. Do you remember what he was saying?
A: He was just saying ‘Nurse, Nurse, where are ya?’ and Vester grabbed her and took her back to the old fella, and Vester was standing around the corner and he had the blade behind the nurse.
Q: Mm?
A: And she was talking to the old fella.
Q: Yeah.
A: And he was saying he wanted to go to the toilet and she was saying ‘yeah‘, she was saying what Vester was tellin her to say, then when he went to the toilet - the man walked up the - ‘What doin?’ He said ‘Hold her just here’. So I grabbed her the way he was holding her.
Q: Did you have the knife in your hand then?
A: No, he had it. He must have knocked him on the head with it. He must have knocked him in the head with it. I just heard this ‘toonk, toonk, toonk’, and then a crash on the ground.
Q: Right.
A: And then, we come back then. Got the girl off me and went back outside again and started to talking around, goin on stupid, talking to himself. He was spinning me out bad, so that’s when we cut across there.
Q: Yep. Alright. OK, now you’re sure you wont indicate from this road, from this road, where you went if we drive down a little bit further?
A: -
Q: Will you indicate the No. 2 oval to me if we drive?
A: I’ll point it to you. But…
Q: Well, if we walk down there now, will you indicate it to me?
A: No, not walkin’
Q: Righto, drive, OK. Will you hop into the back of the car then?
A: -
Q: Now just indicate to Detective Adams which way you want him to drive.
A: Straight down.
Q: Did you discuss, um, with Vester what you were going to do before you got to the hospital?
A: Yeah, we were just comin up to get a car.
Q: What were you going to do with the car?
A: We were, he wanted me to take him up to Mungindi.
Q: Right.
A: Stop here.
Q: Stop here. OK, if you just hop out of the car for me and just indicate to me where you went on No. 2 oval..
A: -
Q: Alright, well just indicate to me what direction.
A: We went from the car over there, straight across.
Q: Sorry, just say that again?
A: Went from that car, went straight across the back of the, where the car sittin, come down that isle there, that, whatever it is, that stair thing anyway, and went from there, went straight across that - to No. 2 oval, the goal post that standin up…
Q: And all, and, ah, did Vester have the knife to the woman’s throat during all that time?
A: All that time.
Q: And, er, what did he, what did he say to her about the knife?
A: He said, said “You scream bitch, you going to get it. I’ll cut your throat you cunt. Simple as that, you slut”.

Brendan’s defence claimed that he had an intellectual disability, and was also too drunk to have agreed to anything that night. If he agreed to anything, it was just to stealing a car. A psychologist who conducted tests on Brendan said his level of intellectual disability meant he was “more vulnerable” to police questioning, more likely to yield to pressure, and “more susceptible” to any leading questions put to him by police. She said he would be “slow on the uptake” and take a while “to work out what was going to happen”.

The Crown called another psychiatrist who felt that if Brendan’s disability was as severe as the defence said, there would have been obvious signs that it would have been easy for others “to pick up”. Constable Mayers, who had dealt with Brendan often in the past, and Gary Trindall, the Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer who also regularly dealt with Brendan, also gave evidence. Mayers said “I think Brendan Fernando’s very intelligent, and especially within the population of Walgett, he would be right up there so far as being one of the most intelligent people there”. He had seen Brendan give lengthy answers to difficult questions in the past.

Trindall knew 95% of the Aboriginal population in Walgett and had known Brendan for 16-17 years. He had had hundreds of conversations with Brendan, and had never had any difficulty understanding him, or being understood. As far as his intelligence was concerned, he said “he is average of anybody in Walgett”.

Mick Jackson gave evidence at the trial, and stated that he had been with the Fernandos, but they all just smoked some pot and then he went home. This evidence came as quite a surprise to the Crown, given his earlier statement to police (that he had left them on the street after Vester went to get a screwdriver). The Crown was given permission to cross-examine him on this:
“Q: Michael, you have a copy of your statement with you?
A: Yes.
Q: Might I take you to paragraph 5? You mentioned in that paragraph that you ran into a number of people near the tyre service. See that?
A: Yes.
Q: You started talking to Lindsay Morgan?
A: Yes.
Q: While you were doing that you saw Vester and Brendan Fernando walk out of the laneway opposite the tyre service?
A: Yes
Q: You said that in evidence, did you not?
A: Yes.
Q: You said at paragraph 6 ‘Vester and Brendan walked straight past me at first.’ See that?
A: Yes.
Q: ‘Down Fox Street in the direction of the hospital.’ Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: You also said ‘They then called out to me.’ Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And ‘Vester said, ‘Hey Mick, do you want to come and steal a car with us?’. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘They were not very far away when they called us out. Just at the far end of the tyre service.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘I reckon that Lindsay would have heard them call out this to me'.
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘I then left Lindsay and started walking towards Vester and Brendan who had stopped and were waiting for me at the end of the tyre service.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said in paragraph 7 ‘At the beginning when I got to where they were standing I said ‘No, I do not want to go.’ You said that?
A: No.
Q: Did you say in the statement, ‘No I don’t want to go.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘Then Vester said ‘Don’t worry about anyone grabbing you Mick. I’ve got a machete here’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘He then pulled up his shirt, which I think was a white T-shirt, and showed me a blade of what looked like a machete, which was sticking upwards out of his pants.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘The machete was actually tucked inside his track pants that he was wearing, and was covered over the top by the shirt.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘I can’t remember anything else about the track pants because I didn’t pay attention to them.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘The blade was silver and black in colour and was about this long.’
A: Yes.
Q: You indicated about 20 to 30 centimetres?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘The blade was straight but it curved around towards the end.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘I didn’t see the handle of the machete.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then in paragraph 8 you said ‘Vester then went on to say ‘If anyone grabs you I’ll kill them.’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said ‘I didn’t say anything in reply but Brendan said, ‘We will go up to the top end. There should be some good cars up there.’
A: Yes.
Q: And the top end was where the hospital was, was it not, and the airport, is that right.? A: Yes.
Q: Vester said, ‘When we steal the car, we’re going to go up to Queensland. We’ll be right, Mick, I’ve got people up there’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘We then started walking off along Fox Street towards the top end of the town which is where the hospital and the airport is’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘Vester then said, we are going home to get a jumper first, do you want one’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I said, no, I will be right’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘We then turned left into Sutherland Street and kept walking down to Peel Street where we turned right and walked down to the corner of Peel and Dewhurst Street’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘Vester walked into his sister, Wendy Fernando’s house on the corner’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I know Vester stays there because I have been to the house before and seen him staying there’?
A: Yes
Q: Then you said, ‘While we were walking along, Vester and Brendan were talking, but I wasn’t listening to what they were saying’?
A: Yes.
Q: Paragraph 9: Then you said, ‘When Vester walked into the house I kept walking down to Dewhurst to Cynthia Hickey’s house which is only two houses down from Wendy Fernando’s’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I just wanted to get away from Vester and Brendan because I didn’t want to get involved with them in stealing the car’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I just jumped the back fence of Cynthia’s place and walked the back way home to Dundas Street’, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘The back way, I mean back across Dewhurst through some paddocks, a church on the corner of Sutherland Street, then through some flats before walking up Arthur Street?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I arrived at about 1 am so it would have been about twelve midnight when I last saw Vester and Brendan’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I last saw Brendan walking back down Dewhurst towards Fox Street while Vester went inside his sister’s house’?
A: Yes.
Q: Paragraph 10: You said, ‘While we were walking towards Wendy’s house in Dewhurst Street, I also remember Vester saying something about getting a screwdriver from his sister’s to break into the car’?
A: Yes.
Q: You said, ‘He actually said to me, ‘do you want the screwdriver?’
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I said, ‘no’, because I did not want to go with them to steal the car’?
A: Yes.
Q: Par 11: You said, ‘I don’t remember anything that Brendan was wearing that night, I only remember the white T-shirt and track pants that Vester was wearing’?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you said, ‘I wasn’t really paying much attention to how they were dressed’?
A: Yes.
Q; Par 12: You said, ‘I thought that Vester and Brendan –
OBJECTION BY DEFENCE.
DEFENCE: This has never been an area which he went into in examination in-chief. He has never given the witness an opportunity to give evidence about this.
HIS HONOUR: I withdraw that question.
CROWN PROSECUTOR: Q: You said, Michael, that you had seen Vester Brendan coming out of the laneway opposite the tyre service?
A: Yes.
Q: You said you spoke with them?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you notice anything about them, about their sobriety?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you notice?
A: They were a bit drunk, they were staggering a bit.
Q: What about when they were talking to you, could you understand what they were saying?
A: Yes.”

Jackson was then cross-examined by the Fernandos’ defence barrister, and he denied that the things he said in his statement actually happened, including many of the comments made to him by Vester Fernando. He said he had “made up” these things because he was afraid of being charged by police for having been a “cockatoo” for the Fernando cousins.

However the Crown Prosecutor then put to Jackson that he had been asked at the preliminary committal hearing in Dubbo whether he had been worried about going to the police on the day he made the statement, and he was forced to agree that he had said No.

There were also the statements of Muriel Dennis, Janette Dennis and Tanya Murphy, who all spoke to Jackson on the night of the 10th December. They all said that Mick had told them that on the 8th he had walked to the hospital with the Fernandos. Jackson denied ever having said this to the three girls.

In relation to an accused person’s right to silence and the right not to give evidence at trial, the Judge gave the jury what is known as the Weissensteiner direction. This applies where there is incriminating evidence against an accused person, and that person continues to maintain his or her silence, when it is obvious that he or she personally knows exactly what went on. In that situation, the jury can infact hold it against the accused person, contrary to popular belief (probably caused by too much American television!). The UK have also done away with the right to silence, so the failure of an accused person to say anything about the charges against them, will be held against them.

Both cousins were charged with the murder and aggravated sexual assault of Sandra Hoare. They were tried together in lengthy proceedings, and eventually both were found guilty of her murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Brendan was also found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, and Vester was found guilty of aggravated assault with intent to have sexual intercourse. They each received 10 years prison for the sexual assaults.

Both Ferandos appealed both their convictions and their sentences, on numerous technical points, in particular the conflicting evidence of Mick Jackson, the Judge‘s direction regarding the right to silence, the nature of the police interviews, a request for separate trials, and many other issues. In a long judgement, the Appeal Court rejected all their appeals. The Court also found the life sentences were appropriate, given the heinous nature of the crime.

The cousins then took their appeals to the High Court. Once more, all points were rejected.

Both Brendan and Vester Fernando are currently in prison for the term of their natural lives.

UPDATE: In 1999 Vester Fernando murdered his cousin Brendan at Lithgow Jail. He is now serving double life sentences.

14 April, 2010

The night nurse - Part I

Brendan and Vester Fernando were cousins, both in their late 20’s. In December of 1994 Vester was staying at Orana Haven in Brewarrina, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, and Brendan was staying with his girlfriend near Walgett.

Sandra Hoare was a young nurse on duty at Walgett District Hospital. Her fiance saw her dress for work before he drove her to work. She wore a white shirt and blue slacks, with a bra, panties, white sockettes and shoes. Her hair was pulled back in a pony-tail.

In the very early hours of 9 December 1994, the Fernando cousins abducted her from the Peg Cross Ward at the hospital, sexually assaulted her, and finally killed her.

Sandra’s body was found in a paddock about 400m away from the hospital. She was naked except for her slacks, shoes and sockettes, plus some material around her neck. The zippered fly of her slacks was undone, and they were held together with a single button. Her bra and panties were never found.

She had some cuts on her jaw, and two very severe wounds on her neck. One wound was more than halfway around her neck, mainly to the left back side, severing several muscles, the jugular vein and vertebral artery. That alone would have caused her death, but the second wound was across the front of her neck, passing through the larynx and into the voice box. No semen was found on or inside her body.

Many witnesses saw Vester and Brendan that night in Walgett. Vester’s sister Wendy said he turned up at her house in Walgett at about 6pm with his overnight bag. He was then driven to a pub and was last seen there at about 10pm. The next time she saw him was at her house the next morning.

Robert Walford saw the Fernandos around midnight, and remembers getting involved in a fight with Vester that went on for about half an hour. During the fight, Vester grabbed him by his shirt with his left hand, and Robert saw he was holding a machete in the other.

Sharada Morgan saw Brendan and Vester in a Walgett street early in the morning of 9 December. Sharada was with her brother Lindsay and another person, when she saw a police car approach, and then saw Brendan throw a knife into the bush as the car passed. After that she saw Brendan go and get the knife back and give it to Vester, who put it down his shorts. Later she saw both Fernando boys and their friend Mick Jackson walking towards the hospital.

At the trial she was cross-examined:
“Q: Remember you said, or it was suggested to you, that you said at the hearing at Dubbo, the preliminary hearing at Dubbo, that it was Vester you saw with this knife and not Brendan. Do you remember those questions a minute ago?
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you remember at the preliminary hearing suggesting that the thing you saw was shaped like a knife. Do you remember answering like that, page 49.40, 15 August 1995. Do you remember giving an answer like that?
A: Can you say that again?
Q: Do you remember when you gave some evidence at Dubbo. You went along to the court at Dubbo and some people asked you some questions there. Do you remember that?
A: Yeah.
Q: You were asked some questions about what you had seen and about this knife. Do you remember those questions?
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you remember saying there ‘It was shaped like a knife, that’s all I know’. Do you remember giving an answer like that?
A: No.
Q: You do not remember that at all?
A: I said it was shaped - I said - when he said to me ‘How do you know it was a knife’, I said ‘Anyone knows a knife when they see one’. That’s what I said.
Q: You also said ‘It was shaped like a knife. That’s all I know’?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you mean there that what you saw was something that was shaped like a knife?
OBJECTION (CROWN). ALLOWED.
Q: Do you mean there that what you saw was something that was shaped like a knife?
A: Yeah.
Q: Well, do you agree you answered in that way at the hearing at Dubbo?
A: Yeah.
Q: I am sorry, what was that?
A: Yeah.
Q: Are you really saying that what you saw was not a knife but something that was shaped like a knife?
A: It was.
Q: You then assumed, it must have been a knife because it was shaped like that, is that right?”

The Crown then took the witness back to her evidence in the Dubbo hearing:
“Q: Is this what was said at the lower court. This question was put to you: ‘Q. Is that the time that you say you saw Vester throw…
A: Yes.
Q: … a knife into the bushes‘?
A: Yes.
Q: Could it have been something else?
A: It was shaped like a knife, that’s all I know.
Q: It was shaped like a knife?
A: Yes.
Q: So it may have been something that was shaped like a knife?
A: How can you get something shaped like a knife?
Q: I don’t know. You answer the question.
A: Uh, no.
Q: So you are saying that ‘what you saw’ and you answered ‘Was a knife‘. Is that right?
A: Yeah.”

Lindsay Morgan agreed he saw the Fernandos in the street at 1am or 2am on the 9th. He saw Vester holding a machete in his right hand, and Brendan was walking beside him. He heard Vester ask Brendan to go back to the hospital and steal a car, and they both asked Mick Jackson to come with them. He then saw them head towards the hospital.

Mick Jackson told police on 11 December that he had seen the Fernando boys in the street on the night of the 8/9th, and Vester asked him to come with them to steal a car. Vester said “Don’t worry about anyone grabbing you Mick, I’ve got a machete here”. Vester then pulled up his shirt and showed him a blade and said “if anyone grabs you, I’ll kill them”.

Residents at Orana Haven had seen Vester with machetes in the previous days, including David Doolan, Bruce Scott and Derek Pitt.

Jackson told police that Vester said he was going to his sister’s place to get a screwdriver to break into the car. Jackson left them after this.

Mrs Wells’ car, parked in the hospital grounds at around 10:45pm by her boyfriend Adam Jackson who worked as a nurse at the hospital, was broken into that night. Adam went over to the Peg Cross ward where Sandra worked (and where the car was also parked) at around 2:45am to visit her, but she wasn’t there. He did find a patient with a head-wound, and noticed blood in the building. On his way back he saw the broken window on the car, and saw damage to the lock and ignition. He also noticed tapes and sunglasses were missing from the glove box, plus a photo of Mrs Wells’ children.

When police later searched Wendy Fernando’s house, where Vester claimed to have spent the night, they found a clear cassette cover with part of a cassette tape inside, with ‘Bon Jovi Bed of Roses’ printed on it. The other part of the Bon Jovi tape, and the cardboard insert from the cover, were found at the base of a tree near the levee bank of the dam. Police also found a bag in the boot of the car Vester travelled in shortly after Sandra’s death. It turned out to be Vester’s bag, and contained the photo of Mrs Wells’ children (torn) plus other items from her glove box.

Two machetes were found in a dam near Sandra’s body, and medical experts agreed either one could have been used in the attack. A screwdriver was found near the machetes. Bruce Scott from Orana Haven said he saw Vester showing a black-handled machete to other residents, and agreed it looked like the one that was found in the police search. Derek Pitt also stated that Vester had shown him three knives while at Orana. When shown the two machetes police found, he said they were “similar to the ones I have seen”. Vester denied all of this.

At an area the police investigated Mrs Wells identified her stolen sunglasses.

It had rained heavily at about 2:30am in Walgett on 9 December, and the soil there was heavy, tending to be sticky when wet and sticking to the soles of shoes. There were muddy shoe-prints in the hospital ward where Sandra had been abducted, and around Mrs Wells’ damaged car. There were shoe prints in the soil across the front of the hospital building and near a set of steps at the end of the ward.

The Crown case was that whoever broke into the car, headed to the hospital afterwards.

There were also three sets of footprints leading away from the hospital to the place where Sandra was attacked. At that point, a timbered area near a rugby oval, the ground was disturbed. Specifically, at one end there were two distinct impressions about 30cm apart, and at the other end there was a single larger impression, where police found a black hair elastic. Also found were a pair of scissors with ‘Sandra’ on them, a lens-cleaning cloth, and a small metal button with a thread identical to those on her blouse.

Three sets of footprints led away from that area to where Sandra’s body was found. From there, two sets of prints continued on, about 1m apart. They led to the levee bank where the tape and screwdriver were found. A single set of prints crossed the levee and looped back, then two sets moved onto the street, where they disappeared.

Police took careful impressions of these footprints, and the size matched the size of the shoes Vester said he was wearing that night. The cast of a print taken from near the rugby oval matched impressions from inside and outside the hospital ward where Sandra was working.

However, Vester claimed to be wearing black shoes, while Lindsay Morgan described him wearing brown shoes that night, and Robert Walford described him wearing hobnail shoes or work boots.

Vester gave evidence and denied going anywhere near the hospital, or possessing any machetes. He admitted running into Robert Walford, but said he was only holding a small iron bar that he found. He said that after leaving Walford he ran into Mick Jackson, and all three of them had gone to his sister’s place to have a smoke, and Vester stayed there the rest of the night.

Detective Sergeant Pollock and other police arrived at Brendan Fernando’s sister’s house where he was staying with his sister and her de-facto Colin Morris early on 10 December. He was woken up and asked to go to the police station for questioning.
Det. Sgt. Pollock asked Brendan if he wanted to be electronically interviewed and Brendan declined. Pollock told him he’d have to record that refusal electronically. Before that, Brendan was asked generally about the machete Vester had been seen with the night before:
“Q: Where is the machete now?
A: Vester threw it over the levee bank.
Q: Are you prepared to show us where you threw it?
A: Yeah.
Q: Are you prepared to go with us to show us what happened with the woman and we will have a video made of what you show us?
A: I don’t want to go too close to where it happened.
Q: Are you prepared to go with us to that area?
A: Yeah, but not too close.
This exchange was recorded in Det. Sgt. Pollock’s police notebook, before they arrived at the station to start the electronic recorded interview (ERISP).

ERISP:
“Q: Do you agree to be electronically interviewed?
A: No
Q: Is that no?
A: No, I don’t want to do it.
Q: Right. Are you prepared to be interviewed by way of a typed record of interview. Do you understand that question?
A: Yeah I do, but -
Q: Sorry?
A: I don’t think I can handle an interview at the moment.
Q: You don’t think you can handle an interview at the moment. Do you agree that while I was talking to you earlier I wrote the questions and answers I my notebook?
A: Yeah.
Q: Are you prepared to read this notebook to me, and, um, tell me whether the questions and answers entered there are correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Or do you want… I may have to help you read them. Are you prepared for me to do that?
A: Can’t understand that writing.
Q: You can’t?
A: I can’t understand that writing.
Q: Are you quite happy for me to read those questions and answers to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, what I’ve got written there is you, 12:25am at the house where you were, then your name. You gave an address of 7 Hammond St Goodooga. Right, and your girlfriend’s name. Then my introduction to you and as I told you I am enquiring into the death of Sandra Hoare and I gave you a caution that you didn’t have to answer my questions unless you wanted to, as anything you did say may be later used in evidence. Did you understand that?
A: Yes.
Q: And you said ‘Yeah’. I said I told you, sorry, “I have told you that you were in town with Vester Fernando early yesterday morning. Do you want to say anything about that?’
A: Yes.
Q: And you said ‘No, I only got here this morning’.
I said ‘Is Vester your brother?’
You said ‘No, my cousin’.
I said ‘I’ve been told you were seen with a machete near Fing’s house’
You said ‘No’.
I said ‘Did you go to the hospital yesterday morning about 3am?’
You said ‘No, I didn’t get here until 7am… 7 o’clock‘, I should say.
I said ‘Is Vester in Walgett at the moment?’
You said ‘No, he’s in Brewarrina at a drying out centre’.
I said ‘I have been told you are…’, sorry, ‘I have been told that you have been identified by hour people in Walgett after midnight yesterday, what do you say about that?’
You said ‘I only went there to get the car’.
I said ‘What happened then?’
You said ‘I looked in through a window and said ‘There’s a sheila there’.’
I said ‘What happened then?’
‘Vesta grabbed her and I said ‘What are you fucking doing man?’’
I said ‘Did you assault the old man?’
You said ‘No, he told me to hold onto the girl and he hit the old man’.
I said ‘What happened then?’
And you said ‘He took her and started going scrub’.
I said ‘Did you have sex with the girl?’
You said No, I already had sex. Vester had sex, had it with her’.
I said ‘Were you there when he had sex with her?’
You said ‘Yeah’.
I said ‘What happened to her underpants?’
You said ‘He took them’.
I said ‘What happened to her bra?’
You said ‘He took them too. He put them in his pocket’.
I said ‘Who hit the woman with the machete’
You said ‘He did, I had my back turned walking away’.
I said ‘Did you see him hit her?‘
You said ‘No, I heard screaming but’.
I said ‘Did you try and stop him?’
You said ‘He was the man in control, he had the blade’.
I said ‘Where did he get the machete?’
You said ‘Near the church under a building’.
I said ‘Where did he carry it?’
You said ‘Up his sleeve. He had scissors taped, taped to his shoulder too. This shoulder’ and you pointed to your left shoulder. Is that correct?
A: Mmmm.
Q: I said ‘Were you carrying a screwdriver?’
You said ‘No’.
I said ‘How did you smash the car window?’
You said ‘Vester did that with a machete… With the machete’, I should say.
I said ’Were you drinking yesterday?’
You said ’I was pretty full, I’d been drinking all day’.
I said ’You seem to be able to recall everything though’
You said ‘How could you forget it? It was bad’.
I said ‘Was Vester drinking?’
You said ‘No, he didn’t look it’. Is that all correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you prepared to sign that?
A: Yes.”

Brendan was then asked if he wanted to be interviewed any further about what he said, and he replied “I can’t handle the pressure”.

Further ERISP:
“Q: Do you agree that I asked you earlier if you were prepared to show us where you threw, where Vester threw the machete?
A: Mmm.
Q: Are you still prepared to do that?
A: Mm.
Q: And you are prepared to show us where you went, um, when you went to break into the car early yesterday morning at that hospital?
A: You want me to take you back up there?
Q: Yeah.
A: No -
Q: Hey?
A: No.
Q: Then could you show us where you went at the hospital and where you went with the girl? Not prepared to do that.
A: No, I couldn’t do that.
Q: OK, well, are you prepared to show where Vester threw the machete?
A: Yeah.”

The interview was then suspended. Immediately after that, Det. Sgt. Pollock asked Brendan (unrecorded) “Listen, why don’t you show us where you went up at the car, eh?”
Pollock agreed in cross-examination that he was trying “to have him change his mind” about refusing to show police where they took Sandra.

Brendan was then taken in the police car to show them where the machete was disposed of. This was recorded on video, in what is known as a ‘runaround’:
“Q: Now Brendan, do you agree I just spoke with you a little while ago that, um, we are going to now go and you are going to show me where Vester threw the machete?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes. Do you agree that I asked you whether you agreed with having our conversation during this trip recorded on tape?
A: Yeah.
Q: And you do agree with having it done that way?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you understand that on our trip along this way, um, I will have to ask you some questions?
A: Yes.
Q: Now I want you to understand that you don’t have to answer any of those questions or say anything unless you wish to, but whatever you do say will be recorded and later given in evidence. Do you understand that?
A: Yes."

To be continued...

24 February, 2010

"If I can't have her, no-one else will"

Josef Plevac was a Czech immigrant who arrived in Australia in 1977 with his first wife, and daughters Eva and Martina. They divorced one year later, and he married his second wife Dana in 1984. They separated in October 1988. He remained living at their former home in Bossley Park, while Dana and their 5-year-old daughter moved into a flat on the 14th floor of a building in Parramatta. The marriage had been a violent one, and although Josef claimed to be on good terms with his wife, she had taken out a restraining order against him. She was particularly worried Josef would take Natalie away from her, and return to the Czech Republic to live with his mother and other family there.

In February 1989 there was a fire at the Bossley Park home, which destroyed it completely. Josef suffered severe burns and was in hospital for some time, and continued to have regular treatment for his burns. He was initially charged with arson, but the prosecution was later abandoned.

Dana was getting on with her life - she worked as a paymistress, and through this she met Timothy Sullivan. Tim had been in WA looking for a new job and a new home, and Dana had gone over to join him for some time. She came back to Sydney in September to make arrangements for a final move over to WA with Natalie to join Tim. Josef, who worked as a milkman, had also begun dating again, occasionally seeing a woman named Betty Corbis.

At about 8:30am on the morning of September 22nd, Dana and Natalie left their apartment. Dana would take Natalie to school as usual, then head off to her work. As they were making their way to the lift, they were surprised by a man wearing a balaclava. Before they could move, he doused Dana in petrol and set her alight with a match. Screaming, Natalie ran to the closest apartment and was pulled inside to safety. Dana fell to the ground and crawled into the lift. The building manager, alerted by the alarm system that there was a fire on level 14, pressed the lift button. When it arrived at the ground floor, the doors opened to he saw Dana "was very much alight and screaming for help. She came out of the lift, she stopped and she fell over and the flames blew up ... and she was lying there. She was pretty much burning."

Still alive, she was rushed to Westmead Hospital. Before lapsing into unconsciousness, she said she did not know who the masked attacker was, but she was sure it was not her husband Josef, or her boyfriend Tim. She could not be revived, and died in hospital later that day, as a result of third-degree burns to 90% of her body.

A resident of a 2nd-floor unit was about to walk down the stairs when she smelled smoke, and heard a woman crying for help. She saw a man who was naked from the waist up running down the stairs. She saw burns on his back and a bandage on his arm, and he was carrying clothing. He continued running out of the building.

Josef was pulled over by police on Woodville Rd, Parramatta at about 4.20pm that afternoon. He immediately denied killing his wife, and told police he had bought some petrol at a service station that morning, then headed to Katoomba where he had a haircut, before returning to Sydney to visit a friend. He told police he had not seen his wife for several days.

However at his trial he agreed he was in her apartment building that morning. He claimed that Dana still did his ironing, and he had arranged to pick up some shirts from her that morning before going to work. Because he didn't want to be seen breaching his restraining order, he said Dana had told him to wait in the stairwell. He did so, and took his shirt off, so he could put a fresh one on straight away.

Josef said that while he was waiting in the stairwell he heard his wife and daughter screaming, and when he opened the door he saw a man "in black - in blue tracksuit, towel over head - over neck, on the left shoulder, jumping and running down." He saw a fire and panicked, running back to his car. Many witnesses saw a shirtless man running in the area near the apartment, and Josef did not deny that this would have been him.

He then headed to to Katoomba where he went to a hairdresser at about 11:30am. The hairdresser was interviewed, and said that she detected a sooty-like substance in his hair. An assistant at the salon also said he smelt like petrol. Afterwards phoned Betty, and dropped in to visit her at around 3:30pm. She immediately remarked upon his haircut, as she'd seen him the night before. He said he'd had his hair cut in Fairfield. While he was there, he asked her to phone Dana's work for him. She did so, and was told what had happened. When she told Josef Dana was dead, she said he looked shocked, and said "I don't believe it. It can't be"

The police noticed some burns on Josef, and he said these were old burns, from the fire at Bossley Park back in February. A medical officer was called, and gave his opinion that the raw, weeping burns he saw on Josef's upper arm and left side of his chest and abdomen had occurred within the last 24 hours. Josef then agreed that he had received those burns that morning. He said "I saw Dana, and how she was holding clothes - it must have been my clean clothes, it was in the fire. I jumped towards her because I got bandage on my hand. I pull everything out and I must have been burnt, I don't know, and at that stage I completely lost it. I know now, but at that stage I lost it, panicked and I ran. I ran to my car."

Further evidence began to emerge regarding the state of the relationship between Josef and Dana. Eva, Josef's daughter from his first marriage, had visited him in hospital shortly before September 22, where he was receiving continuing treatment for the Bossley Park burns. She said Josef had found out about Dana's relationship with Tim, and complained that he wanted his wife back. He said he felt she had rejected him because he was scarred and ugly and said he wished "she could feel one bit of the pain he was in." Josef agreed he made these comments, but said he was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain. "I was thinking about pain which was in my heart and how I was missing her, nothing else. I didn't kill my wife, I am innocent and if they do a proper job they will find the real killer. That is all what I think."

Garage-owner Antony Valenti knew Josef, who was a regular customer and chatted to him often. Josef had said on many occasions "I can't live without her. I wont let her stay without me. If I can't have her, no-one else will."

The console-operator of a local service station also knew Josef as a regular customer, and said he had called in at around 6:30am on the morning of 22 September and bought about 15L of petrol, but he didn't notice whether Josef put it into his car, or a container. 15L was more petrol than would have fitted into the container found at the crime scene.

Natalie Plevac gave evidence at trial, and said she remembered a man splashing something out of a bucket upon her mother and that she went up in flames. The man said nothing, and she saw him go out through an exit door close to the lifts. She ran to get help:
"Q: Can you describe that man any more than in the way you have described him?
A: No
Q: Are you able to recognise that person?
A: Well sort of.
Q: What do you mean 'sort of'?
A: Well I could tell it could have been - it was my dad because, well my mum was wearing high heels and he was about the same height was her, and because of the build.
Q: That is as far as you can say that it could have been?
A: Well, and there was a phone call the night before and it was my dad."

In cross-examination Natalie confirmed that all she could remember was that the man seemed to be dressed all in black and she could not see his face, which was totally covered except his eyes, nor could she see his hair:
"Q: Now, would I be right if I said to you that when you saw that happen on the day you did not know who that man was. Would that be right or not?
A: Yes
Q: And would I be right in saying that you did not know who it was because, well I guess you did not see him for long enough, would that be right?
A: Yes
Q: Would it be right that there was nothing about him that you saw that brought to your mind any person that you knew?
A: No
Q: See, was it the situation that when you saw him on that day and got yourself into the unit of these other people, that you did not know who that man was. Would that be right?
A: Yes."
She confirmed that she told police that she did not know who the man was.

At trial the defence objected to any reference to the restraining order, submitting that it was not relevant to the case. Josef claimed that Dana had no fear of him, and that he had only agreed to the order because of her fear that he would take Natalie to the Czech Republic, which he said was completely unfounded. This was overruled, particularly in light of the evidence of several witnesses who had observed their relationship and testified that Josef had been particularly violent towards Dana. Josef stated "it is true that I called Dana by bad names, ill-treat her, but I was always sorry and apologised to her. I don't looking for any excuse because there is no excuse for my behaviour."

Tim Sullivan in particular gave evidence that Josef had previously tried to run him off the road. He said he was driving near Natalie's kindergarten, when Josef pulled up alongside him and swerved at him, causing Tim to mount the median strip to avoid a collision. The defence objected to his evidence, but was overruled by the Judge, who felt Josef's reaction, upon seeing Tim with Dana and Natalie, was relevant given Josef's statement that if he couldn't have Dana, no-one would.

Josef was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He immediately appealed the verdict. In addition to the objections mentioned above, Josef claimed he had been denied a fair trial because a letter written by Dana had not been used in his evidence, apparently at the advice of his lawyers. He stated that his mother sent him this letter in August 1994, saying she had received it from an anonymous person in Australia. It was an undated, typed letter signed "Dana" and addressed to "Jitka". Josef said Jitka Klasek was a friend of his wife's who was now deceased, and that he recognised his wife's signature at the bottom:

And why am I writing to you? I am now having problems with Pepa [Josef]. He will be going to court in three weeks over the house fire and the problem is in that he knows who has done it and also has evidence. For this reason it would be good if you could extend your holiday stay until such time that Pepa's court hearings are over. He now runs wild, searching for more evidence. You do not have to worry. I talked to Robert [Jitka's son] today and he would visit me on Friday with his friend. They already worked out a plan how to stop Pepa and get him finally to prison. As you know, Pepa is presently alone and everybody is against him. However, he trusts me and therefore it will be no problem. The only problem is with Natalie who talks about Pepa all the time and wants to be with him. However, she will forget about him in time, the same way Eva and Martina forgot [Josef's daughters from his first marriage].
When you ring me on the telephone please be careful because I do not know what Pepa is doing now. Even Pepa's solicitor does not want to talk to me any more about Pepa's problems and it takes me a bit of time to learn everything.
Make the best of your holiday and do not worry at all as I and Robert have everything under control. On Friday I will write you another letter about the outcome of all this.

The 'court proceedings' referred to are the arson charges relating to the Bossley Park fire, which were abandoned after Josef received the life sentence for Dana's murder. Josef felt this letter was proof of a conspiracy by his wife to frame him for her murder.

The Crown submitted that the letter was a fake. The Appeal Court found that Josef's theory was "quite fanciful", and that the jury would still not have acquitted him if they had seen it. The Court confirmed his conviction and life sentence, confirming the Judge's view that this was a "callous, planned and appalling murder."

In 2004 Josef Plevac applied to have his life sentence re-determined under the new "Truth in Sentencing" regime, which was brought in to do away with the existing sentences of 'life'. These life sentences were now thought to be too harsh for human beings, giving them no prospect of release, no light at the end of the tunnel to encourage them to rehabilitate themselves. Previously, almost everyone convicted of murder received a life sentence (i.e. for the term of his/her natural life), unless significant mitigating circumstances could be demonstrated. Now, only a handful of extremely serious cases warrant a life sentence. The Anita Cobby killers are one example.

Josef's lawyers pointed out that by now Josef had spent 15 years in prison, and was 56 years old. During his incarceration he had been a 'model prisoner'. He had completed a manufacturing and engineering program through TAFE, and received good reference from the prison workshop. He was described as polite, co-operative, and a good worker. He also completed a Christian instruction program and had references from an Anglican chaplain and a Catholic priest. His daughter Natalie was being cared for by his first wife, and had minimal contact with him, although he knew she was at university.

Nonetheless he maintained he is innocent of his wife's murder, and that she was involved in arranging the fire at the Bossley Park house, and wanted him dead. "The more Mr Plevac was questioned about the offence, the more evasive he became. Eventually he stated that he knew the true facts about the murder but could not disclose them to a government worker."

A psychologist reported that "he does not seem to have any social support and may be quite lonely. He is grieving over the loss of contact with his daughter from his second marriage as she is now in the custody of his first wife... Furthermore, he has to live with the fact that he is serving a life sentence when he claims he is innocent."

The Crown opposed Josef's application, submitting that the life sentence should stay in place, but if the court was going to set a non-parole period, the remainder of his sentence should still be for life, so that he is effectively on parole forever. The Crown reminded the court that the killing was pre-meditated and planned, with little regard to his daughter's safety, and the fact that Josef had taken active steps to hide his involvement by going to Katoomba to have his haircut, in order to destroy incriminating evidence, as well as distance himself from the scene of the crime. He had shown no remorse for his actions, and there was a risk he could re-offend, particularly if he became involved with another woman.

The Court granted Josef's application. It set a sentence of 25 years, with a non-parole period of 19 years. He appealed this sentence as still being too harsh, but the appeal was rejected.

Josef Plevac was eligible for release on 21 September 2008.