A surprise attack

Sun was born in South Korea in 1979. His parents split up when he was very young, and although his father moved to Australia, he remained in Korea with his mother and his younger brother. Sadly, she was not able to care for them both, and the boys ended up in a State institution where conditions were poor, and discipline was harsh. They weren't reunited with their father until 1994 when they made it to Australia to live with him and his new wife. There were some initial rough patches, but Sun ended up getting along well with his new stepmother.

As Sun had a fairly poor grasp of English, he didn't spend much time at school, turning instead to various unskilled jobs. He was a pretty placid guy, but was prone to acting impulsively on occasions, and had picked up a habit of smoking pot.

Late one evening in April 1997 Sun went to his friend Justin's house to buy some pot. Another friend of Justin's, named Kyle, was also at the house. Sun and Kyle hadn't met before, and did not take to each other. It seems they got into some sort of argument while they were there. Kyle left Justin's shortly after, and Sun hung around for a while, smoking with Justin. He didn't think anything more of the fight with Kyle, and certainly had no plans to see him again.

Sun decided to leave before it became light, and headed off towards his car, parked in a street nearby. Little did he know, Kyle had decided to lie in wait for him, still angered by the fight earlier that night. He armed himself with a knife and hid behind a tree. When Sun walked past, Kyle grabbed him and threw him to the ground. Sun quickly pulled out a knife of his own, a small, folding knife, and as Kyle came towards him a second time, he lunged forwards and stabbed him in the neck and head. The neck wound penetrated Kyle's upper spinal cord and he died instantly.

Sun had clearly been taken by surprise at Kyle's ambush, having thought he'd left a while ago. It was still dark, and he was frightened when thrown to the ground. Although the knife was more of the pocket kind than anything else, and wasn't carried for protection or to injure anyone, unfortunately he managed to take a life with it, even in a fight that only lasted a few seconds.

Sun phoned Justin and told him what happened, and that he'd killed Kyle, although he hadn't meant to. Justin rang him back later in the morning and asked Sun to meet him at Wollstonecraft. When he got there, Sun told Justin that a member of the '5T' gang had also been there at the fight, and the gang was now demanding $30,000 from him to keep quiet about the matter. Justin met up with Sun again later on, and gave him $2,000 to help him out.

Of course, the story about the gang was a lie, and led to Sun being charged with 'obtaining money by deception', in addition to the murder charge. It is not clear why he chose to take this tack, but by the time police got hold of him, they agreed that he was well aware of the enormity of what he had done, and was clearly regretted his actions. He said of Kyle "even though he started the scuffle, he did not deserve to die".

Sun went on trial for murder, but pleaded guilty to manslaughter as soon as it was offered by the Crown (on the second day of his trial).

Due to some confusion about Sun's age (he was actually 17 at the time but believed he was 18) he was detained in the adult prison at Long Bay. He found this experience terrifying. He said he was assaulted by prison officers on one occasion, and was constantly in fear of being sexually abused. Things were a bit better after he was moved to Silverwater Jail, and he managed to get some part time prison work as a sweeper.

He was eventually transferred to Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre once his true age was established through Korean records, but things were a lot worse there. Readers may recall rioting that took place at Kariong in March and April of 1999. It doesn't appear that Sun took an active part in the riots, but the environment was still a harsh and frightening one to be in.

At the end of April Sun was moved to Mount Penang Juvenile Justice Centre, and was unfortunately involved in two rather violent incidents. In one he was just trying to stop a younger boy from being assaulted by a group, and ended up with a fractured cheekbone, that required surgery. In the other incident he turned out to be the aggressor, assaulting another resident who was arguing with him.

Nonetheless he was not regarded as a problem by staff, who described him as "compliant and cooperative" and "a thoughtful, mature young man" who was "not a management problem." It appears in the isolated incident of aggression that perhaps two years of incarceration finally got the better of him, and he snapped.

Sun made the most of his time in custody by furthering his education - not only improving his English, but also studying maths and visual arts. He was on track to complete his School Certificate, and also planned to do his HSC.

He was sentenced to seven years in prison, with a non-parole period of four years. He appealed the harshness of this sentence. A review by the Appeal Court found he was a good man, with strong family support, who was unlikely to re-offend. They reduced his sentence to five years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

Sun was released on 13 February 2000.

Death in custody

Yuskel Sancar was in custody in Junee Prison, along with Mustafa Pehlivan. They had become friends during their time together. On the afternoon of May 10, 1994 they were both walking along a prison walkway that connected the Control Centre to Cell Block ‘C’. On the way they passed the doors to the Administration Office, Medical Centre, Education Centre, the Gym, and finally C-Block. They ran into fellow inmates Timothy Orr and Charles Wicks.

There had been some bad blood between Sancar and Orr over their use of heroin inside the prison. Orr had been taunting Sancar, and had also broken the glass window of Sancar’s cell. Orr demanded Sancar give him some of his heroin - Sancar refused, saying he’d already sold it to someone else.

Sancar was carrying half of a pair of scissors, which he had shaped and sharpened into a dagger using the grinder in the Industry Section of the jail. This type of weapon is generally known as a ‘shiv’. Sancar claimed he took the shiv with him when he left his wing that day because he feared he might be at risk from some sort of attack from Orr, who had apparently made threats against his life.

They were outside the Education Centre when a fist fight broke out, Orr taking on Sancar’s friend Pehlivan, and Sancar fighting Wicks. During the skirmish, Sancar pulled out the shiv and stabbed Wicks twice in the chest. The first stuck him near his sternum, penetrating the aorta, and the second hit him on the right side of his chest, penetrating the lung, diaphragm and liver.
Both stab wounds were potentially fatal. The first could not be treated, and the second, if taken alone, would have caused death if not treated.

Wicks staggered along the walkway and collapsed outside the Medical Centre. Despite this convenient location and the swift efforts made to help him, Wicks died within minutes.
Sancar threw the shiv into the Education Centre, and it was found there a short time later by staff.

At trial, Sancar gave the following evidence:
“Q: You knew it was likely to kill him, you stab a man in the chest?
A: I stabbed him in the side.
Q: You stabbed him in the side and then to the front?
A: That’s right.
Q: You knew that it was likely to kill him, didn’t you?
A: No, I did not know it would kill him.
Q: You knew it would cause serious bodily harm to him?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And you did it nevertheless?
A: That’s right.
Q: And you didn’t really care what injuries the stabbing caused him, did you?
A: No, I never.
Q: Sorry?

A: No, I never.
Q: You thought that this act could cause his death but you were prepared to take the chance?
A: With my life pending, yes.”

Sancar stated that Wicks had thrown the first punch, after which he had to restrain Wicks from grabbing a knife from his own waistband. He said he could see the butt of a knife, so he grabbed hold of Wicks’ to stop him. He said he couldn’t run away because Wicks was in front of him, and that he realised sooner or later, he was going to have to let go of Wicks’ wrist. He pulled out his shiv, then let go of Wicks’ hand. He said Wicks tried to get his knife and did not back off.

When it was suggested to Sancar that there was no need to stab Wicks, he replied “I was going to talk my way out of it, was I?” He insisted that he did not know the stabbing would kill Wicks. He was prepared to risk injuring Wicks in order to save his own life.

Timothy Orr have evidence that he saw Sancar with his head down, doing “rips to the stomach”, or upper-cuts, to Wicks. He said that before Sancar grabbed the shiv from his pants, he was being punched by Wicks and had his head down.

Another prisoner, Henderson, said he saw Wicks strike a couple of glancing blows to Sancar, who then responded with “a couple of hooked sort of punches” in a round-arm style to Wicks’ upper right-hand side. He then noticed Wicks was bleeding on the upper right side. Henderson didn’t see any weapons.

Prisoner Evans gave similar evidence, although he saw something that looked like a knife in Sancar’s hand. Four other inmates said that both Orr and Wicks had knives, and they were going to get Sancar. One said that after the stabbing he saw Orr throw two knives down a drain in the showers. Mark Van Ryswick (now deceased) made a statement at the time that he knew of threats by Orr and Wicks to kill Sancar.

Sancar stood trial on a charge of murder. His first jury was unable to agree on a verdict, and a second trial commenced. Sancar claimed self-defence, forcing the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had not acted in self defence and that his reaction was grossly out of proportion to the apparent threat.

There was no denying that Sancar intended to cause Wicks serious harm - he had admitted as much in his evidence. His justification was that Wicks was going to stab him first.

The defence submitted that the evidence was so unsatisfactory, particularly from the fellow prisoners who all had something to gain for themselves by assisting the authorities, that the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown had proved its case, and therefore must acquit.

Towards the end of the three-week trial, the defence asked the Judge to tell the jury that if they were not satisfied that Sancar had acted in self-defence, then they could convict him of manslaughter instead of murder. The manslaughter would be on the basis of an ‘unlawful and dangerous act’. They relied on the evidence of Orr, that Sancar had his head down when he was delivering his blows, and therefore did not intend serious harm.

Quite bizarrely, the defence was forced to admit that in asking the jury to convict Sancar of manslaughter, they were actually asking the jury to disbelieve their own client’s evidence, given under oath, and instead accept that Sancar did not infact intend any serious harm to Wicks. Quite a stretch.

Further, the Crown had not actually charged Sancar with manslaughter as an alternative to murder. The Judge refused to put the manslaughter option to the jury.

The jury were sent out to consider their verdict. After a short time they returned with a note to the Judge saying they were having difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict. Given that they had only been deliberating for a very short time, the Judge asked them to go back and discuss it further, and see if they could agree. They jury eventually returned a guilty verdict.

Sancar immediately appealed the verdict, stating the Judge was wrong not to leave manslaughter to the jury as an alternative, and his Honour‘s encouragement of the jury to re-think their decision and come back with a unanimous verdict made the result unfair.

Regarding the verdict, the Judge gave what was known as a ‘Black‘ direction, named after an earlier case. It was not an uncommon course of action, in circumstances where the Judge felt that the time the jury had taken was quite short, as well as other factors. The standard direction is phrased in a way that gives no suggestion of which verdict would be preferred, or that they are obliged to negotiate, or “thrash it out” until they reach a unanimous decision. It merely asks them to consider each other’s views and opinions for a little longer and have a look at the evidence once more. The Judge usually points out that most juries are eventually able to reach a decision, and that they are under no particular time constraint.

The Appeal Court felt there was nothing wrong with the Judge’s actions, and rejected this argument.

With respect to manslaughter, the Appeal Court felt the defence situation was “at the least incongruous”. Not only had Sancar given evidence of his intent to seriously harm Wicks (and was prepared to take the risk he would kill Wicks), but if the defence thought there were facts that supported manslaughter, it should have been raised with the Crown well before the trial. The Court felt that the evidence was all one way. There was simply no evidence, including Orr’s, of the stabbing being unintended.

The High Court had made it clear that where self-defence cannot be established, any killing with intent to kill or inflict serious harm will be murder. The only exception is where there is some other factor, such as provocation, that would justify reducing the charge to manslaughter. The Appeal Court found that in this case there was no such factor, and that the defence were really seeking what is often called a “compassionate verdict”.

The Court saw no grounds for such a “half-way house verdict”, and rejected this ground of appeal also. Sancar remains in custody.

"I'm going to be your nightmare" - Part III

Time of Death
John’s defence called evidence to refute the Crown’s conclusion that Frances died late on the 29th March. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr Botterill, who saw the body in situ at the Wakehurst Parkway and observed large wounds and other smaller injuries caused by animals. His later examination revealed damage to the right eye which could have been an petechial haemorrhage, caused by asphyxiation or being choked/suffocated, but could also have been caused by animals.

He saw a bruise on her neck which he believed was caused within an hour of her death, and was consistent with a broad ligature or strap being applied. He identified a fingernail scratch on her cheek, and another bruise on the left side of her neck that matched those seen when someone is defending themselves from strangulation. There were also defensive injuries on her fingers.

He concluded the cause of death was consistent with strangulation. Based on decomposition he considered the most likely dates of death were 29-30 March. He agreed in cross-examination that determining time of death was notoriously difficult, but believed it was unlikely she was still alive on 31 March, and “extraordinarily unlikely” that she was alive on 1 April. The level of decomposition suggested she had been dead for 4-5 days, and given she was seen alive 5 days before (28 March) he concluded the date of death was the 29th. Dr Botterill was unshaken in his evidence.

The defence called Dr Ellis, a forensic pathologist, who based his opinion on photographs, Dr Botterill’s report and weather reports from that period. He believed that death more likely took place on 31 March, and that any earlier was very unlikely. He could not say what the cause of death was, but disagreed that the right eye injury was indicative of strangulation. However, he was not able to rule out strangulation or suffocation. Under cross-examination he conceded death could in fact have occurred on the 29th. He also had to concede that Dr Botterill was in a far better position to make any conclusions, having been at the scene, rather than relying on photos.

There was also entomological evidence about the lack of significant fly larvae, or maggots, on the body. This suggested the body had not been there more than 40 hours, i.e. since 31 March. Dr Ellis in particular relied on this factor when coming to his conclusion. However much of this evidence was based on optimal breeding conditions, which according to weather reports, were not present during the time period.

Two people gave evidence of possible sightings of Frances after she disappeared. Marie Wiltshire said that about 4:15pm on Friday 31st she saw a girl in a car travelling north on the freeway near Berowra who appeared to be gagged and distressed, looking out the rear window. She said the girl was in tears, and had brown eyes and curly shoulder-length dark brown hair. She rang ‘000’ almost immediately. On 2 April her husband told her about a body being found on the Wakehurst Parkway at Narrabeen, so she went to Gosford Police station where she was shown photos of Frances. Marie said she was “one hundred percent sure” it was her. The car was an older model “faded red” Ford.

However under cross-examination several difficulties in her evidence were exposed, namely that she was travelling in the opposite direction, and the person she was in the back of a car parked at the side of the road, looking through the rear windscreen. Yet she was able to describe her in great detail, including the colour of her eyes, and the fact she had tears in them. Also, at the police station she was only shows photos of Frances Tizzone, and no-one else of similar appearance.

Interestingly, off-duty policeman John Gardiner was at his home in Umina at about 9:30pm on Friday 31st listening to the radio, when he heard a female voice screaming out from some distance away. He also heard a male voice arguing with her, and both voices were becoming louder. He went to his window and saw a red Ford Falcon sedan approaching a roundabout outside, and the male driver was swearing at the female passenger. The female was crying and looked distressed, calling out to him to let her go. The Falcon had a “patchy faded red roof”. He said the female looked about 20-years-old with wavy shoulder length hair, wearing a dark top, and looked to be Mediterranean or Middle Eastern in appearance, with an Australian accent. He said the next morning he saw a picture of Frances Tizzone in the paper and it was the same person.

Again, this evidence was challenged given it was a fleeting view of a moving vehicle at night. (If it was not Frances, it is nonetheless worrying that some poor girl was clearly in some trouble in a red Falcon that night - hopefully she didn’t end up like Frances.)

Fibres
Fibres from the carpet in John's Honda CRX were matched to fibres found on Frances's boots when her body was found. The Crime Scene Examiner sampled several at the scene (as well as photographing and preserving the boots), then took samples at all the sites at the Uni where Frances had been on the 29th, and of the Tizzone‘s home and car. They were all sent to an analyst, who also took samples from the carpet in John’s Honda CRX and Toyota Corolla. Microscopic examination led him to conclude that the fibres matched. He also concluded that the fibres on the shoes did not match any from the Uni, or the Tizzone’s home or car. He conducted further test that showed the fibres from the carpet in the Honda were easily transferred to various shoes, and were easily lost when the shoes were worn on a hard surface.

The particular carpet was manufactured in Japan exclusively for use in 1990 and 1991 Honda CRX vehicles. Only 296 of these cars were distributed in Australia, and 291 owners were contacted and stated that they were not in the Frenchs Forest area between 29 March and 2 April 1995.

The analyst was extensively cross-examined but did not alter his conclusions. These were also supported by Dr James Robertson, the Director of Forensic Services of the Australian Federal Police. Dr Robertson also stated that in his experience, he found fibres did not stay on the soles of shoes for long, five to ten paces at the most. The defence suggested fibres might be caught in striations, or roughened parts of the soles, however after examination of the boots he could not find “any convincing example” of such fibres being caught.

The Manager of the Testing Services Division of the Melbourne Institute of Textiles gave evidence that apart from the Honda’s carpet, there were virtually no polyester carpets used in Australia in the commercial or residential field. John Cauce, a chartered textile technologist, stated that the carpet in the Honda CRX 1990/91 models never appeared in any carpet installed in any Australian-made car, such carpet has never been manufactured in Australia, and that it was a very unusual blend of fibres.

The defence called Dr Ross Griffith, a textile technologist, to dispute this evidence. He said the Crown’s evidence was questionable on a number of highly technical reasons. However under cross-examination he was forced to back down somewhat from his position, and agreed that Dr Robertson was a leading world expert in relation to fibre transference. The suggestion that the fibres might have stuck there longer due to some unknown sticky substance was unconvincing. Ultimately he said “I have not said that this is open and shut and there was not transfer from this carpet to that boot”.

The Crown submitted that there was no question that the fibres came from the Honda, and that meant Frances had been in his car, after which she almost certainly never walked again.

After a long trial in 1998 John Serratore was convicted for murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 13 years. He immediately appealed his conviction on numerous grounds.

Appeal
In particular, he relied on the fact that the Trial Judge had directed the jury that, because the Crown case was a circumstantial one, they had to be satisfied of four elements beyond reasonable doubt, before they could convict:
(a) that on the evening of 28 March 1995, John and Frances arranged to meet the following evening; and
(b) that John left work between 3:45 and 4pm on 29 March 1995; and
(c) that Frances was killed on 29 March 1995; and
(d) that Frances was in John’s Honda CRX shortly before her death.

The Appeal Court felt that on the evidence, the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of elements (a) and (b). On element (a) the Court found it “incredible” that Frances’ mother did not tell police (or her husband) about the proposed meeting between the two, and “incomprehensible” that she didn’t ask John about it when she phoned him later that evening. One Appeal Judge stated “Her explanations for not doing so I find totally unconvincing” and coupled with Antonella’s (Frances' sister) sketchy evidence about the phone call from John, the Court said the jury could not be satisfied that the family knew about any arranged meeting.

On element (b) the Court said that given the conflicting evidence about which day John left work early, they could also not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the 29th was the definitely the day.

Therefore to convict John, the jury must have ‘misunderstood’ the judge’s directions, leading to a miscarriage of justice, requiring the Court to quash the conviction, even if on the remaining evidence it was still reasonable for the jury to convict. (Another wonderful legal technicality, arising out of the Hilton Bomber case.)

Notably, one Appeal Judge rejected John’s appeal, stating that on the facts the jury was entitled to enter a guilty verdict. His Honour pointed to the answers John gave Constable Hall when first questioned about Frances, saying he got home that day “about 5pm”, suggesting he had infact left work early, plus the call from his friend Luke at 6:30, who was told he wasn’t home. His Honour also felt Mrs Tizzone’s reluctance to mention the arranged meeting, particularly to her husband, was because she had not yet told him the fact that the couple were seeing each other again. The Judge did not find Antonella’s inconsistencies particularly relevant, in that it wasn’t overly important who Frances was talking to, rather it was the fact that she was arranging a meeting for the next evening, and sounded stressed. Coupled with the evidence of the fibres from the car, this made a compelling case. However, this Judge was in the minority.

The saving grace for the Crown was the fact that the majority of the Appeal Court decided that the Trial Judge’s direction to the jury (that they must be satisfied about the four elements listed above) was actually wrong in itself. So they ordered a new trial, saying all the evidence could be used again, but this time the jury should be told that they need to be unanimous on the basic elements of guilt, but not necessarily on the bases for coming to that conclusion. (Again, very technical - essentially they need to be satisfied that John caused Frances’ death, but not specifically on the four points listed by the first Judge.)

So in 1999 John’s appeal was allowed, his conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered. But before a new trial could start, the Crown appealed that decision to the High Court of Australia. The Crown wanted the jury’s original conviction to stand, and relied heavily on the arguments of the minority Judge above. The High Court refused the Crown’s appeal, and a new trial began in the NSW Supreme Court in 2000.

The new jury heard the same evidence. This time, they were told they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:
(a) Frances Tizzone was dead; and
(b) her death was caused by a deliberate act, done with intent to kill (or cause really serious injury); and
(c) John Serratore was responsible for her death in one of the following ways:
(i) he did it himself; or
(ii) he was present, helping someone else do it; or
(iii) he arranged someone else to do it.

The jury came back with a guilty verdict.

At sentence, the Judge found that the killing was premeditated, and John had shown no remorse. “This was a brutal and awful crime. A young woman, of considerable promise, was lured into a trap and slain … Although on one view, a crime of passion, it was smouldering, vindictive passion, which had more to do with revenge than love.”

He was re-sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years (increased by one year from the last time). John again appealed his conviction and sentence, but this time it was rejected by all three judges. He then appealed to the High Court, but he was rejected once more.

John Serratore will be eligible for release on 17 May 2012.

"I'm going to be your nightmare" - Part II

Back Together
It appears the John and Frances got back together not long after the AVO was made, although its not clear exactly when. Frances told her friend Natasha Skiadopoulos she was seeing John again, and asked her to act as a go-between so they could made plans. She saw her doctor for the morning-after pill in December. Later she told Natasha that John was still grabbing her and hitting her, and that she wanted to break up with him but was finding it hard to do so.

They went together to Monica Kollar's 21st in late January, but the next week she told Monica she was confused - sometimes John was angry with her, and sometimes he was OK. Three weeks later they went to Bondi with Monica and her fiancé, but John was angry, demanding Frances go home with him in his car. However three weeks after that the four all went to Manly together, and the couple were affectionate with each other. This was about three weeks before Frances died.

In February Frances told Patricia she was giving the relationship another go, but did not tell Santo. Patricia found cards from John under Frances's bed - a 21st birthday card (Frances turned 21 on January 9th) and a Valentine's Day card. Both were from John. Frances also gave John a Valentine's card which spoke of reigniting "our flame which was once burning quite strongly" and "it will take time for our love to become as strong as it was earlier". It concluded "I don't want any abuse like was previously experienced. I want the old Johnny, the one I had when we first met". The pair were seen cuddling and embracing at Natasha's 21st on 18th February, and two days later Frances again saw her doctor for the morning-after pill.

John's workmates said Frances would phone him about once a day, but these calls stopped about two weeks before she died. Around this time Frances told Patricia she was thinking of ending the relationship because she just could not forget all the things that had happened in the past.

Bassam Radwan and his girlfriend Zahia saw John waiting for Frances at Burwood station. He gave them a lift home, and drove past Frances's bus stop, saying "she mustn't be here or she must have gone home already. Later he told Bassam "Don't think I've forgotten, I am just thinking for the moment. I'm only just sleeping with her... Don't think I've forgotten about it, I'm still going to do it... If anyone says anything or asks you questions, just deny everything. Deny everything. If any police ask you anything, deny anything that happened". John denied these conversations ever took place.

Another friend of John's, Manolis Kasdaglis said that in January 1995 John told him "something about humiliating her and stuff, you know, embarrassing her and things like that". In cross-examination, it was put to John that he also told Manolis that he would get Frances back or make life hell for her. He replied "I think at that stage, on the spur of the moment, I was upset" and when asked if he said those things, he replied "not exactly in those words but I said I am embarrassed or something like that". He also said it was back in November 1994, at the time of the AVO.

At Jadranka Vulic's 21st on March 18 the couple seemed happy, cuddling and talking to one another, and were basically together the whole evening. But a week later Frances phoned Jadranka and said John was harassing her at Uni, and "he had hit her once repeatedly".

The arrangement to meet
Frances received a call from John on the evening of 28 March. Her 15-year-old sister Antonella, who shared a room with Frances, overheard her saying “I don’t want to meet you… or else what? why are you speaking to me this way… OK I‘ll meet you tomorrow afternoon after Uni. I will meet you at the station. I will bring the card but make sure you bring the bag“. Antonella did not know at that stage that Frances was seeing John again, but said she sounded “sort of scared“ like she used to when talking to John. She said she told her mother she “thought she was speaking to John”.

Antonella was cross-examined as to why she didn’t include much of this in her initial statement to police. In Santo’s statement he said that Antonella told him the next day that Frances had been arguing on the phone about meeting someone the next day after Uni, but she “didn’t take much notice because she didn’t think it was John on the other end of the phone”. She answered “not sure” to most of the cross-examination, which was regarded as “unimpressive”. It was also established that she was doing school work at the time, and had the TV on in the background.

Frances then told her mother Patricia that she and John had agreed to break up but remain friends, and that they were going to meet the following afternoon after Uni so they could return their things to each other. Frances said she wouldn’t drive to Uni, and would call home from Strathfield station once she was finished so that Santo could come and pick her up. She thought this would be around 6pm.

The next day Frances went to Uni with Rima. Towards the end of the day Rima offered her a lift home, but she said she was going to visit a sick relative. There was no evidence of any sick relative, but Frances had not told Rima she and John were seeing each other again, as Rima had made her dislike of John very clear. Frances left around 4:10pm to catch the bus to Strathfield station. When her parents had not heard from her by 8pm, they went to the police and told them of their fears, but nothing about Frances' arrangement to meet John.

Constable Hall rang John's home and told him "Frances Tizzone has not come home and her parents are worried about her, have you seen her? He said "no, I'm not allowed to see her, she took out an order".
"Where have you been this afternoon?"
"I came home from work and have been here all the time".
"What time did you come home from work?"
"About five p.m."
Constable Hall was cross-examined about this at trial, and maintained John definitely said 5pm. Her notes confirmed this.

At about 10pm Patricia rang John and said “are you sure you haven‘t seen or heard from Frances all day?”, and he said No. He said the last time he had seen her was in December, except for once at a party.

There were also major difficulties with Patricia’s evidence. She was cross-examined as to why she did not say anything to John about their proposed meeting - she replied that she wanted him to tell her himself. In evidence she said “well I asked him about three times if he had seen her or knew where she was and he told me he had nothing to do with her and hadn’t seen her since December and I knew that wasn’t true.. Why should I [ask him] if he wasn’t going to admit it to me. Why should I tell him that I knew.”

She was also cross-examined as to why she didn’t tell Constable Hall about the planned meeting, and her answers were “particularly unconvincing“. She said “well, if I had known what had happened to her, I would have… At the time I thought she had gone and met him and they’d lost track of time and then she would be home”.

She had also told police that she did not know how Frances was getting home, which seemed strange given the arrangement to pick her up at Strathfield station after she called. Patricia’s evidence was at odds with Santo’s statement - he said that Patricia told him she had rung Rima and been told she would be late, and be home around 7-7:30pm.

Police came to the Tizzone’s house later that night, and went to Macquarie Uni the next day to speak with her friends. Again no mention was made by the family of the arranged meeting. Later on the 30th police went to the Serratore house, but John wasn’t home. He was asked to contact police, and later that evening he took part in a recorded interview.

He made several statements that were later proved to be untrue. He said that since November 1994 he had only spoken to and seen Frances a few times. He said he had last seen her at Jadranka’s party two weeks before. He denied there had been any sexual relationship since the AVO. At trial he said his reason for lying was to avoid incriminating himself for breaching the AVO. He denied he had anything to do with Frances’ death and also denied most of the violence during their relationship. Police placed him under surveillance from March 30th.

Leaving work early
John said that on the 29th he left work at 4:50pm and went straight home, arriving at about 5:25pm, and did not go out again. He claimed he drove his Toyota Corolla that day and when he got home he parked it beside the Honda CRX. He had a shower and read the paper. His sister arrived home at about 5:45pm. He denied having telephoned Frances on the 28th and arranging to meet her.

His employer at John O’Donnell Customs Agency in East Botany said he had allowed John to leave early one day that week, at about 3:50-4pm, but could not remember which day. He recalled John coming to work upset on Friday 31st, saying his girlfriend had been kidnapped and the police thought he’d done it. John said he hadn’t spoken to Frances for a couple of days. He thought the police were following him. Mr O’Donnell sent him home that morning.

Another employee’s husband, Damien Bower, who was there to help with some furniture at the office, recalled that he went there around 3:15pm on Wednesday 29th March and saw John leave around 3:45-4pm. He was able to recall the specific day because he’d been to hospital (the pathology department at HMAS Penguin) earlier that day. He was seen by Dr Gray who took his blood, and specifically recalled Dr Gray was shaking. Dr Gray was later found slumped at his desk, having suffered a stroke, and died some weeks later.

Damien also remembered he and his wife Sally were annoyed that John left early that day, because that meant they could not leave early. He was vigorously cross-examined on the basis of conflicting medical records but did not vary his evidence.

Nurse Cavanagh, manager of the HMAS Penguin pathology department, was called to clarify whether Damien’s blood sample was taken on the 29th or the 30th, and also cross-examined extensively:

“Q: Either this sample was taken late on 29 March, namely 4 or 5 o’clock or thereabouts, then refrigerated in the hospital, is that right?
A: Yes, that’s true.
Q: Or, alternatively, and much more probably, the blood was drawn in pathology between 7:30 and 8:30am on 30 March. That’s right, is it not?
A: Yes, but you also have to take into account that that day was an abnormal day.
Q: Why are you insisting about the possibility or likelihood or whatever that this blood was drawn on 29 March? Have you spoken to police subsequently to giving your statement?
A: No, I’m not insisting that the blood was drawn on 29 March. I am saying that I do not know what day the blood was drawn because the person who took the blood did not write the date and time they took the blood. That is quite clear.
Q: So the overwhelming probability is that Mr Bower was at HMAS Penguin on 30 March, is that right?
A: Yes, he was.
Q: And the overwhelming probability is that he was not at HMAS Penguin on 29 March 1995, is it no?
A: Yes.
Q: And that he had two days leave from 28 March to 30 March?
A: Yes.
Q: And all the records indicate 30 March and 28 March, do they not?
A: That’s true.
Q: So why do you struggle with the proposition that the overwhelming probability from these records is that the blood was drawn in the Pathology Department on HMAS Penguin on 30 March 1995? What’s your problem with that proposition?
A: I don’t have a great problem with it except I do not have proof that it was drawn then.
Q: What more proof do you need? Every document you have seen refers to 28 March or 30 March. What more proof do you want?
A: I want the proof of someone having written on the form that they actually took the blood and what time and date they took it. Other than that we cannot say.
Q: I see, even though every piece of paper talks about 28 March and 30 March, you’re saying you need a document from somebody to say, ‘I drew blood from Mr Bower on 30 March at X time’, is that right?
A: Usually the collector would say, ‘Collected by so-and-so at 0800 on 30 March’.
Q: Presumably if the blood was drawn on 29 March, such a document would have been in existence, is that right?
A: Yes, they would have written it on the request form but not necessarily because people don’t conform to that requirement. That’s the problem. That’s the whole problem.”

Danielle Seidl, another employee, was asked what time John finished work that week, and said “no I am not a hundred percent sure but I know on the Wednesday that he and Damien was in the office, he (Damien) was quite ill and I remember him wanting his wife to come home early, and John [O’Donnell] let John Serratore go home early, but I can’t remember what time of the day it was”.

Luke Yatris, a friend of John’s, said he phoned him at home at about 6:30pm on the 29th but Mrs Serratore said he was not home. John and his mother both gave evidence that he was in fact home when Luke called, but he did not want to speak to Luke, so he told his mother to tell him he was not home.

John denied leaving work early on the 29th. He said the day he left early was actually Thursday 30th, after his sister telephoned and said the police wanted to speak to him. He left about 4pm. His sister Barbara and his parents generally supported his evidence. He maintained that he arrived home about 5:30pm on the Wednesday, and that he had seen his neighbours Sam Vitaliti and Vince Mazzotta in the street as he pulled in. Rather suspiciously, Vitaliti and Mazzotta seemed to have separate but virtually identical conversations with him. They also gave almost identical evidence that they had watched the start of the 5pm news on Channel 10 and had both come outside after about 10-15 minutes to watch their respective children play. The Judge found this to be a “remarkable coincidence” and thought is smacked of collusion.

To be continued...

"I'm going to be your nightmare" - Part I

John Serratore and Frances Tizzone grew up near each other in Croydon Park. They went to different high schools, but started going out together in Year 8 and 9. In Year 10 they broke up, and Frances went out with a boy named Joe Elia. John didn’t see her again until 1993, when Frances was studying science at Macquarie Univeristy. The started dating again, and in May Frances brought John home to meet her parents. The relationship, however, was a stormy one and became increasingly volatile. Frances found John to be jealous, obsessive and violent. The relationship began to sour, and they broke up in late 1994 when an restraining order (AVO) was taken out against him, but by early 1995 they were apparently back together again. Nonetheless Frances had mixed feelings about their reunion, and decided that she wanted to end the relationship for good.

On the evening of 28 March Frances spoke to John on the phone and agreed to meet him the next day on her way home, to give back some of each other's belongings, signalling the end of the relationship. She said she would phone home for a lift at about 6pm when she finished. The next day Frances went to university as normal, but ended up leaving early at about 4:20pm, telling a friend she was going to visit a sick relative. She never called home, and was not seen alive again.

Frances' partly decomposed body was found on 2 April 1995, in bushland near the Wakehurst Parkway in Frenchs Forrest. Her blue Sportsgirl bag with her university books and purse were found nearby. It was estimated she died late on 29th March. She was 21 years old.

22-year-old John was charged with Frances' murder. The Crown case was entirely circumstantial, and it was put to the jury on two alternates bases: that John either killed Frances himself; or he arranged for someone else to do it.

The Crown called evidence from friends and family of Frances. They spoke of occasions when Frances had told them that John was verbally abusing her, physically assaulting her, following her to Uni and sitting in her classes, always calling her on the phone, always wanting to know where she was. Needless to say John was not a student at Macquarie Uni and had no business being there.

The defence objected to this evidence on the grounds that it was hearsay, however the Crown argued that much of it was in fact direct evidence - classmates who saw John at Uni, witnessed the phone calls, saw the bruises and scratches on Frances' body, and saw her distressed and crying immediately after being with him.

Background evidence
Rima Aboud-Raad, a fellow student, often saw John in Frances' classes, and also saw him hit her and push her into a brick wall. She overheard a conversation between them where John said to Frances "You're coming home with me" and she replied "No, I'm not" after which John grabbed her hand and said "Yes, you are". Rima said John looked angry and was very forceful, and Frances turned to her and said she was going home with John. Rima said she looked unhappy.

Frances' mother Patricia Tizzone heard her daughter constantly arguing with John on the phone, and in June 1994 saw a bruise on her face. She said she had hit it against a door. Patricia also saw bruises on her arms, and fresh nail marks. Frances admitted they were made by John, and also told her about John coming to her classes at Uni, and also yelling at her male friends so that they did not talk to her anymore. In August 1994 Patricia went into her daughter's bedroom to find her crying. Frances said that John would often stand outside her window and watch her, and this time when they argued he had punched her through the flyscreen. Patricia saw that Frances had a red, cut lip, and the flyscreen was broken with a hole in it. Patricia also saw John grab Frances by the neck and shake her on another occasion.

In September Frances went to the theatre with her friend Michelle Kaltoum to see 'Jesus Christ Superstar'. After the show John was waiting for her outside, and they all went to Darling Harbour together. After a while Frances told Michelle she was going outside for a walk with John. 20 minutes later Frances returned, distressed and crying, and said that John had hit her a few times about the face, and head-butted her in the head, because he demanded she go home with him. In John's evidence he said that he had just "slapped her in a fight".

The defence also objected to this evidence, but the Crown argued that it showed the nature of the relationship between the two, and also showed a tendency on John's part to be obsessive and domineering, making it difficult for Frances to break up with him. There was also evidence that he falsely accused her of getting back together with her ex Joe Elia, humiliated her in front of her family by referring to an abortion, and threatened Frances and her family when they were at court in November 1994.

The AVO
In the fight that led up to those court proceedings, Patricia saw John and Frances outside the front of their house arguing, and saw John hit her across the face. Patricia called her husband Santo and they all went out the front. Santo asked John what was going on, and he replied "You ask for answers about when she was pregnant and had the abortion." Of course, this was the first time Frances' parents had heard about any pregnancy or abortion.

John gave evidence about this event. He said that when Frances came out he confronted her about Joe Elia, and asked "Is there something going on? Are you seeing Joe?" He said she had a guilty look on her face, but she denied it, so he said "Don't lie to me, I just saw him." Frances said she was only speaking to Joe and wasn't seeing him but John slapped her in the face "because she liked to me and she was seeing her ex-boyfriend. I suppose I lost my temper". Then her father came out and started shouting, saying he was going to hit him, so John pushed him.

"I told Frances, 'C'mon, tell him. I'm getting my arse kicked in here and its not my fault. Tell him what you have been doing', and she just didn't say nothing, just standing there. We kept on arguing for a little bit longer, screaming at each other, and Frances said 'I was only speaking to him a few times. I never seen him'. When she said that, I don't know, I just told her father about how she was pregnant to me and she had an abortion and he seemed like it was a big shock at the time."

John said he went home and poked his finger through a photo of him and Frances. He agreed in cross-examination that he had accused her of having an affair solely on the basis that he had seen Joe driving his car in her street, and the area where she lived. He was clearly unable to see that the reason Frances' feelings towards him were cooling was due to his own behaviour, rather than the supposed attentions of a former boyfriend.

Later that day Frances and her family went to Burwood police and reported the incident. The next day Santo went to John's house and spoke to his father, Frank Serratore. While he was there John came out and said "the problem is your daughter, she goes off with somebody else, she's a slut, I can prove it to you... I have got some documents, I can prove it to you". He went inside and brought out a plastic bag and showed Santo pictures of Frances at her Year 12 formal, three years earlier. He repeated his comments about Frances having an abortion, and said he wanted to fight. Santo said "come on, throw the first punch, I'm going to kill you". After that John's sister came out and asked Santo to go home, which he did.

John confirmed most of this in evidence, and said he slapped Frances "for what she did to me". The next day Monica Kollar phoned John on Frances's behalf and asked why he had told Santo about the abortion. John replied that she deserved it because she did not stick up for him when he was copping all the blame. The Judge regarded this as "a somewhat unsatisfactory perception of what happened".

That evening John arrived at the Tizzone house and started bashing on the front door looking for Frances. She refused to come out, so he started yelling for Santo to come out and fight him, but Santo just told him to go home. They called the police and told them the whole story.

A Hit Man?

Bassam Redwan was a schoolmate of John's but they had drifted apart until about October 1994. John told him that he'd broken up with Frances and was having a hard time. He said it was her family's fault, and suggested to Bassam that he wanted him to "hurt a lady". He eventually said this was Patricia Tizzone, for “interfering with his relationship“. Bassam said he “wanted me to help him kill her … he wanted her to overdose on pills … to get her back for what she did to him”. John outlined plans to give himself an alibi.

Bassam gave the following evidence:

“A: At first he said 'Tomorrow morning Frances will be going to university, and on the way to university she’ll be dropping her mother off at work, and leaving to go to the university. Where she drops her mother off at work there’s a roundabout’ and he asked me, when she approaches the roundabout to hop in the car with her and drive somewhere down the road - he said she’ll get scared of me and do what I say because she’ll be scared of me and he said ’You make her scared and make sure she swallows the tablets and write out a [suicide] note.’
Q: You told him ’no way’, in other words, you weren’t going to do it?
A: Yes”
Bassam refused, but John kept trying to convince him, asking him “at least a hundred times“.
“A: He just kept on trying to convince me and I kept on trying to talk him out of it, trying to reason with him, tell him ‘I’m not going to do it’ and tell him ‘its not worth it’ and try and make him see.
Q: What happened then?
A: He just got more and more frustrated… and desperate, yeah”

John was saying "you have to help me, if you don't help me I won't get away with it". Bassam said he would tell Frances, Santo, the police, everybody, but that didn't seem to deter John. At one stage he said "my cousin knows some Greeks, hit men, or people from the Cross". Eventually he got angry and frustrated, and offered Bassam his car and around $3,000. Bassam again refused. At first he didn't think John was serious, but began to change his mind.

He went to John’s house the next morning “because I was concerned that he was going to go through with it, whether he was going to go anywhere, and I walked to his house, and my intentions were to stop him, to speak to his father, and his father was not home, and I seen John, I seen John warming his car up… I assumed he was going to do what he said. So I decided to walk down the street around the corner towards my house and also towards Frances’s house. I walked in that direction and within two minutes John came around the corner in his car, and he pulled up beside me when I was walking and he asked me ‘Are you going to help me?’ and I said ‘No’… and he said ‘OK, I’m going to do it myself.”

Bassam went to the Tizzone house and told Frances not to go to Uni that day, and told her and Patricia of John's plans. The Tizzone's phoned the police, and then Frances, her cousin and her mother all went together to the Uni. On arrival, Frances went to class. Patricia and her niece saw John on the campus, so they went to security who called the police. The police approached John and told him Frances did not want to see him and had gone home. They searched his car but found nothing of interest so they asked him to leave, which he did. Constable O'Connor told John there was no need to wreck his life over a woman, and said that he seemed emotional.

John denied ever asking Bassam to help him kill Frances or her mother, and said all they had talked about was John going to the Uni to ask Frances why she had gone with Joe Elia and why she had lied about it. At this time police obtained the AVO, which was valid for six months. As the Tizzone's were leaving court, John said to Frances "you're gone, you're gone... you're dead, its going to cost me money but you're dead". He said to Santo "I'm going to be your nightmare". John later said this was all "on the spur of the moment".

Later that day John went to Bassam's house and asked him if he'd spoken to Frances, and he said "yes, I told them". Bassam knew about the AVO, but John told him "you don't think this is going to stop me, I'll get her six months later". The Tizzone's house was then plagued by phone calls, up to 15 times a day, where the caller would hang up unless Frances answered the phone. These calls were traced to public phones mostly in the Botany area, where John worked.

To be continued...

Exorcism

At about 4:30am on 16 November 1997 local emergency services received a '000' call requesting an ambulance and also, somewhat unusually, a priest. Police were also dispatched and they arrived first, swiftly followed by the ambulance. At the scene they found Jeff Noyes dressed in only green & gold football shorts, spattered with blood.

Constable Lind spoke to Jeff, and fairly quickly came to the conclusion that he was suffering from some sort of delusion that had a touch of religious mania. Jeff told Cst. Lind that his mother had asked him to perform an exorcism upon her, and had needed to be killed. He said that police could not enter until after a priest had arrived.

Nonetheless police gained entry to the home and found the body of Shirley Noyes, Jeff's mother. She was lying on the floor with a small plaque of stained glass placed over her. The injuries she had received were bizarre to say the least, and again religious in nature, such as stigmata-like wounds to the hands and feet. The eventual cause of death was found to be from a severe battering to the head.

Jeff freely admitted that he had been the one to kill his mother. He stated that he needed to do so, as she was about to give birth to a demon-child, and had been in a relationship with the devil. He was wearing the green & gold shorts because they were symbolic of Australia - Jeff felt he had done a service to his country, and indeed the world.

Tragically, at one stage he seemed to briefly slip out of his delusional state and become conscious of what he had done, asking police if he could call his sister at Nepean Hospital so that "Mum could be put back together again".

Apparently in the weeks leading up to the killing Jeff's disturbed behaviour had been increasing, and there had been incidents of appalling conduct towards family members, especially his mother. His family described him as being delusional and aggressive, and said that this had begun to take on a religious dimension, when he started raving about the devil and cults. In his interview with police, Jeff claimed he could hear banging on his mother's window, and he believed this was because people were entering her bedroom and having sex with her. He believed she was gaining weight, and came to the conclusion that this was because she was pregnant, and would soon give birth to the devil's child.

Jeff had suffered from prior bouts of insanity, and at one stage had been admitted to Cumberland Hospital in 1996, as well as Bungarribee House in 1997. He had also been in a motorbike accident in 1993, which had resulted in a closed-head injury.

The question for the court was whether Jeff had a defence of mental illness. The psychiatrists who saw Jeff were in agreement that at the time of the offence he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, which led to psychosis, worsened by his use of speed and pot. The Judge concluded that at the time he killed his mother Jeff did not know what he was doing, or if he did, he did not know that it was the wrong thing to do.

Jeff Noyes was therefore found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness. He was ordered to be detained in strict custody in the Long Bay Prison Hospital, until determined fit for release.

As with all patients found not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, Jeff is now a 'forensic patient' under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal reviews his case every six months, and then reports to the Minister of Health. This report contains recommendations as to to where and how Jeff is detained, and how he is medically treated. If the Tribunal ever comes to the view that Jeff is no longer a danger to himself, or any member of the public, then it will recommend his release. That recommendation is considered by the Minister of Health, who in turn makes its own decision about the case and advises the Governor. The Governor may then continue to detain Jeff, or otherwise order his release. If he is released, he may be subject to various conditions such as taking particular medication, living in a particular place, and so on. If Jeff was to breach any of those conditions, he would be detained once more. In some cases, forensic patients go on to become members of society once more, but in other cases they are never released.

A pub fight goes too far...

31-year old David Wright had a relatively unremarkable childhood, although his parents eventually separated and his mother moved up to Queensland. She remarried, but this was short-lived as her new husband became violent towards her. David, who was very close to his mother, helped her move back to Sydney. Not long after she suffered a stroke, and he had been helping take care of her since then.

He left school at the end of year nine and worked as a welder, before moving on to Scanlons Sweets, then Sydney City Council. However in 1991 he was imprisoned for two years and three months after he was convicted for robbery with wounding, after holding up a milk-bar owner in Cabramatta. Apparently the victim grabbed David, and in the process cut himself on the lip and finger.

After his release he was employed in body works, where he had been working part-time under the prison day-release program. He then decided to work as a nurse's aid in a nursing home, and then as a truck-driver for Linfox. An injury to his foot put an end to that and after that David remained unemployed.

He met his first girlfriend Dorothy when he was 14, and they lived together for 17 years, having two children. Although he was a regular pot-smoker, he started using liquid speed when he was 24, and this was when he committed the robbery and was sent to jail. By the time he got out Dorothy had become involved with another man. David tried to get back together with Dorothy, but they fought over the affair and it didn't work out. Dorothy went back to the other man, and is still with him today.

Around this time his mother also suffered her stroke, and it seems both incidents had a big effect on David. He began using heroin but decided to enter a detox program so he could take better care of his mother, but began abusing prescription medications instead. He started spending time with a woman named Petina, but her boyfriend became jealous, thinking the two were having sex. He often threatened David, saying things like "I know where you live". Ultimately the boyfriend made good on his threats and struck David across the face with a crowbar, as well as smashing in his headlights. After this David began to carry a knife for protection.

He began drinking regularly, and on the night of 16 October 1996 was particularly drunk. He was at the Riverwood Inn with some friends, and saw 23-year-old Geoff Compton making a scene. Geoff was drunk, and disrupting several other people in the pub. At about 9:30pm Geoff started arguing with David. It escalated until both left the pub and went to the carpark to have a physical fight. At one point Geoff had David in a headlock and was repeatedly punching him in the head. David pulled out his knife and stabbed at Geoff. Geoff suffered four wounds - two small wounds to the groin and one on his ear, plus a 2cm wound to the heart, which was ultimately fatal. However it was not immediately obvious that Geoff was fatally wounded - people separated the two men and held Geoff over a car bonnet trying to calm him down, while David walked off in another direction.

David had little memory of the incident - he couldn't remember arguing with Geoff inside the pub, but said that as he was leaving Geoff followed him to the door. When they got to the door at the same time, David says he became frightened. He remembers Geoff grabbing him in the headlock and punching him around the jaw and head. Other witnesses agree it was Geoff who started the fight, and that he had been drunkenly harassing other people in the pub all evening. He became quite aggressive towards David, and had been having a go at him all evening, for no apparent reason. Marc Jones tried to reason with Geoff and ended up being abused. Dean Velovich had also taken him aside and tried to reason with him, with no success.

David was interviewed by a psychologist while in custody, and she felt that he had an "exaggerated sense of danger" and a "hypersensitivity" as a result of his earlier assault by Petina's boyfriend. She also felt his prospects were good, as he was now in a stable, loving relationship with a woman named Sarah-Jayne, who he had been living with just before this incident. She remains loyal to him. He was also very concerned about his mother's health, and wanted to be able to care for her. While in custody he was unfortunately assaulted again, and was placed in protective custody.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, on the basis of an 'unlawful and dangerous act'. The Judge took his good personal characteristics into account, while of course noting that David's decision to carry (and use) a knife did not go in his favour. He also considered David's history, the fact he was drunk at the time, and that it was clearly a spontaneous response to a situation he was already frightened of.

David Wright was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. Taking into account the time he had already spent in custody, he was released on 16 March 2003.