R v Forrest
[2014] NSWSC 612
•20 May 2014
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Forrest [2014] NSWSC 612 Hearing dates: 13.03.14-14.03.14, 17.03.14-21.03.14, 24.03.14-28.03.14, 31.03.14-01.04.14, 03.04.14-04.04.14, 07.04.14-11.04.14, 14.04.14-16.04.14, 19.04.14 Decision date: 20 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hidden J Decision: Verdict of guilty
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - trial by judge alone - murder - premeditated killing for financial gain - circumstantial case Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ms Kerry Forrest (accused)Representation: Counsel:
C Patrick (Crown)
MG Ainsworth (accused)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SE O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission (accused)
File Number(s): 2011/49657
reasons for verdict
The accused, Kerry Forrest, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of William Adamson, alleged to have been committed at Campbelltown between 13 and 17 April 2010. It is the Crown case that she administered to him a large dose of a morphine based pain killer, MS-Contin, causing his death from morphine toxicity. It is also the Crown case that the killing was premeditated, motivated by financial gain.
The case against the accused is circumstantial. Mr Adamson was an elderly man, and Ms Forrest had been his carer. By way of background, the Crown relies upon evidence that she became extensively involved in his financial affairs, that she gained access to a large amount of his money, and that she was gambling heavily on poker machines. As to the killing, the Crown relies upon detailed evidence of her movements, as recounted by her or as proved by other evidence, around the time of Mr Adamson's death and immediately after it.
Ms Forrest did not give evidence. That, of course, was her right and I draw no inference against her on that account. What I must decide is whether the evidence I do have establishes her guilt of the murder beyond reasonable doubt. There is no basis for the alternative verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and neither the Crown prosecutor nor Ms Forrest's counsel, Mr Ainsworth, suggested that there was. Very little of the evidence in the Crown case is challenged. The crucial question is what inferences can be drawn from it.
Background
Mr Adamson was 84 years old at the time of his death. He had been living at a home in Kareela, which he owned. In September 2009 his wife, Beryl, died after a long illness. She had a son, John, from a previous relationship. He was a child when she married Mr Adamson, who brought him up as his own son. He is now in his mid-sixties. There were no other children. Mr Adamson also had two sisters, Elizabeth and Eva, both of them living on the north coast of New South Wales. It seems that in the years leading to his death he did not have regular contact with John or his sisters.
During Beryl's last months she had had the services of carers. After her death Mr Adamson advertised for a live-in carer. This was not for health reasons. He was reasonably fit for his age and was mentally alert. He was retired, in his earlier years having been a real estate agent and having also been involved in property development. However, in recent years he had been engaged in the development of an invention of his, a water saving device known as the Rainsaver. At the time of his wife's death he was still trying to market it.
Ms Forrest was 50 years old at this time. Forrest was her married name, but the marriage had broken down. However, she continued to use that name at times, while she used her maiden name of Jewel at other times.
Ms Forrest answered the advertisement and, after an interview in September 2009, secured the position. One of Mrs Adamson's carers, Ms Evelyn Smith, was present at the home on that day. Mr Adamson told her that Ms Forrest was suitable because, among other things, she had office experience, she could teach him how to use the internet, and she could help in the process of marketing the Rainsaver. It seems that his management of his financial affairs left something to be desired. A bookkeeper whom he had engaged in 2008, Ms Debra Keegan, described his organisational ability as "messy." Shortly thereafter, Ms Forrest moved into the home.
In 2008 Mr Adamson had obtained an advance of a little under $276,800, to fund the development and marketing of his invention, from Homesafe Solutions Pty Ltd, a Victorian based company. This was by a process known as equity release, which was available to elderly people to borrow on the security of their homes with repayment to be made from their estate upon their death.
He had incurred considerable expense, including through the engagement of a patent attorney, who had obtained a trademark for his product in 2006, and a marketing consultant, who worked on the project between 2005 and 2008. That consultant, Mr Peter Windgrove, set up a company and a website for the promotion of the device. In 2007, one thousand of the devices were manufactured but very few of them were sold. Circumstances at the time were such that, in Mr Windgrove's view, Mr Adamson had "missed the boat." However, Mr Adamson refused to accept this and decided that he would take over the marketing of the product himself.
Unfortunately, the device remained a commercial failure. By the time Ms Forrest moved into the Kareela home, Mr Adamson had spent the money he had received from Homesafe Solutions. He had no savings, his only income was a pension, and his only asset was the home.
As I have said, an important part of the Crown case is Ms Forrest's interest, and increasing involvement, in Mr Adamson's financial affairs. In November and December 2009, she was sending emails to Ms Keegan and to his accountant, Ms Annette Tasker demanding access to his financial records. This led to an acrimonious exchange of emails, which I need not recount.
On 11 January 2010, Ms Forrest rang Homesafe Solutions on several occasions, seeking information about the details of the equity release system. Among other things, she asked whether more than one loan could be taken out. She also enquired about a situation where a home owner who had obtained a loan remarried and then died. Her enquiry was directed to the position of the surviving spouse in relation to the home. She did not identify herself, saying that her enquiries were purely hypothetical and that she was doing a course relating to equity release.
These calls were recorded according to the routine at Homesafe Solutions, and a computer record was kept of the telephone number of the caller. Each of the calls was made from the home phone of Mr Adamson. Recordings of the calls, together with a transcript, are in evidence: exhibit 31.
Three calls on 11 January were answered by the same employee at Homesafe Solutions. The fourth and last call was answered by a different employee, but that person was apparently aware of the previous calls. She referred to the fact that Ms Forrest had phoned earlier, which Ms Forrest firmly denied, saying that this was the first time she had rung. When the employee pointed out that all the calls had come from the same telephone number, Ms Forrest said that she was not the only one at the place where she was calling, falsely claiming that there were fifteen people there.
It is apparent from the whole of the evidence that the relationship between Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson was a friendly one. Ms Forrest told her daughter, Kara Forrest, that he had expressed interest in marrying her but she thought it might have been a joke. A number of witnesses gave evidence of Mr Adamson telling them that he thought of marrying her or, indeed, that they had discussed marriage. However, for the most part, he recounted this to the witnesses in such a way that they did not take it seriously.
Early in February 2010, arrangements were put in place for the sale of the Kareela home. Ms Forrest made several further calls to Homesafe Solutions enquiring about calculation of the payout to that company on the sale. In these calls she identified herself and directed her enquiries expressly to the loan to Mr Adamson. In evidence, part of exhibit 31, are calls on 12 February, 9 March and 22 March 2010. During the call of 9 March she handed the phone to Mr Adamson so that he could confirm to the Homesafe Solutions employee that she was acting on his behalf. He said that she was his "secretary" and that she did everything. He also discussed with the employee briefly the proposed sale of the home.
After the call of 12 February Ms Forrest's enquiries, including those of 11 January, came to the attention of a senior member of the Homesafe Solutions staff, Ms Dianne Shepherd. Ms Shepherd phoned Mr Adamson to confirm his connection with Ms Forrest. He said that she was taking care of his affairs and acting for him. Within the ensuing 24 hours Ms Forrest phoned Ms Shepherd. She appeared upset, expressing concern that Ms Shepherd had divulged information of a private nature. She claimed that her enquiries in January had been in relation to her grandmother, not Mr Adamson. Neither of these calls was recorded because in both of them Ms Shepherd was using her direct line.
Home sale
The sale of the home was placed in the hands of an estate agency, The Holt Property Group. In early February 2010, two real estate agents from that organisation went to the home and spoke to Mr Adamson and Ms Forrest. The first of them was Ms Maureen De Souza, who went to the home for the purpose of a market appraisal. The second was Ms Susan O'Neill, who went there with other staff from her office for what was called a group inspection.
Both of them noted that Ms Forrest did most of the talking. Nevertheless, it appeared to Ms De Souza, who seems to have been in charge of the conduct of the sale, that Mr Adamson knew what was happening and assented to what Ms Forrest was saying. Ms Forrest made it clear that they wanted a quick sale. When asked by Ms De Souza when they wanted the house put on the market, she replied, "Yesterday." She said that they were going to build a new home on a block of land in Bundanoon. Mr Adamson told Ms De Souza about the Rainsaver, showing her an area of the house where a number of the devices were stored, and said that one of the reasons they wanted to sell the house was so that he could raise funds to market it.
The next day a sales agreement was completed and in due course, after the home had been open for inspection, a married couple, Mr and Mrs Mullins, expressed interest in buying the home.
Towards the end of February there were negotiations with the purchasers about the sale price, which was ultimately agreed at $690,000. Ms De Souza noted that instructions to her during those negotiations came mainly from Ms Forrest. When agreement was reached, Ms Forrest insisted that the price offered would be accepted only if the Mullins' agreed to the immediate release of $25,000 from the deposit payable on exchange of contracts. To this they did agree. Contracts were exchanged on 1 March 2010, and on 16 March the $25,000 released from the deposit was paid into a joint account of Mr Adamson and Ms Forrest which they had opened a few days earlier.
Also in February 2010, Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson had engaged a conveyancer, Ms Angela Nicholson. Ms Forrest contacted her by phone and, after discussing the work she was to do and arrangements for payment, Ms Nicholson spoke to Mr Adamson to confirm her instructions to act. She prepared the contract of sale which was entered into on 1 March, and was in contact with the purchasers' solicitors. However, she was not to see the transaction through to completion.
In the recorded call by Ms Forrest to Homesafe Solutions on 22 March she spoke to Ms Shepherd. In the course of that conversation Ms Forrest said, "We've dismissed the conveyancer now and so I'll be handling the end of it." The first Ms Nicholson knew of this was during a telephone conversation she had later that day with a representative of Homesafe Solutions. She phoned Ms Forrest, who denied that she had terminated her services, saying that she was calling Homesafe Solutions to discuss whether she should get legal representation.
Ms Nicholson decided to go to the Kareela home to discuss the matter with Mr Adamson and Ms Forrest. She did so the next day, and had a conversation with Ms Forrest about the conveyance, leaving her to understand that she was still acting in the matter. However, Ms Forrest appeared to be in a hurry to go out and ushered her out of the house somewhat peremptorily. Ms Nicholson left but, troubled by the visit, returned to the home. Ms Forrest was not there, but Mr Adamson confirmed that Ms Nicholson was acting for him in the matter, saying that he knew of no suggestion to the contrary.
However, the next day, 24 March, she received a letter from the purchasers' solicitors saying that they would have no further contact with her because they had been instructed by Ms Forrest that she was no longer acting for Mr Adamson. She drove straight to the Adamson home, again to find that Ms Forrest was not there. She had a conversation with Mr Adamson, which she recorded on her mobile phone. An edited disc of that conversation and a transcript are exhibit 35.
It is apparent from that conversation that Mr Adamson did not know that Ms Nicholson's retainer had been terminated. He said that Ms Forrest hadn't discussed anything like that with him and that, in his view, she should "stay to the end." He also expressed concern about the $25,000 expected to have been released from the deposit on the sale of the home, apparently unaware that it had been deposited into the joint account on 16 March. Ms Nicholson rang Ms De Souza, who spoke to him on the phone and told him that this had been done.
By way of explanation of his concern, he told Ms Nicholson that Ms Forrest owned two blocks of land in the Southern Highlands area, that she had a buyer for one of those blocks and that they were going to build a house on the remaining block. He described it as a "spec" house and, apparently, understood that they would be moving to Tweed Heads. A barn was first to be erected on the land, which would be temporary living quarters and a storage area. He understood that the money from the deposit was to be used to engage a building company and to pay for tradesmen who would be needed. Indeed, he believed that on that very day Ms Forrest was going to the building company to make an initial payment of $3,000.
He described this as a "business deal" which he had with Ms Forrest. He told Ms Nicholson that Ms Forrest was his secretary and the manager of the company promoting his invention. He said that she was "more capable at it" than he was, so that she "does everything, she hires and fires and does everything." He added that at that stage he could not afford to advertise the Rainsaver, because he had spent $400,000 on the development of it and was "broke."
During this meeting Ms Nicholson had Mr Adamson sign a memorandum of transfer, which had been sent to him by the purchasers' solicitors. She also had him sign a costs agreement in respect of her services.
That same evening Ms Forrest left a message on Ms Nicholson's home voicemail. It expressed Ms Forrest's disapproval of Ms Nicholson's conduct that day in strident terms. She said that she was "horrified" that, while she was out, Ms Nicholson had gone to the house again "to get Bill to sign something without me being there." She expressly terminated Ms Nicholson's services, saying that they were not going to pay her bill and that she should return all their paperwork by mail. She added that Ms Nicholson could communicate with her by email, but was not to ring her or to come to their home. When Ms Nicholson heard this message she recorded it. That recording, together with a transcript, is exhibit 37.
The next morning, 25 March, Ms Forrest came to Ms Nicholson's home and knocked loudly on the door. Ms Nicholson did not admit her, but from outside she expressed herself, in a raised voice, to be very unhappy that Ms Nicholson had been to see Mr Adamson without her being there. Ms Nicholson called the police and, in due course, through the mediation of the police officer, she was handed a letter from Ms Forrest terminating her services.
Ms Nicholson was never paid for her work. She believed that she had handled the matter competently and was never told why her services were dispensed with.
For some years Ms Forrest had owned a block of land at Bundanoon. In 2002 she made an application to subdivide it. For reasons which were explained by a town planner at the relevant Council, Mr Michael Carpenter, and which need not concern us, that proved to be a very long process. It was finally released for subdivision in November 2010, although Ms Forrest had sent an email to the Council requesting its release on 29 March of that year. Contrary to Mr Adamson's understanding conveyed to Ms Nicholson, it was certainly not the case that Ms Forrest had two blocks of land, for one of which there was a buyer.
In early March 2010, Ms Forrest attended a display village at Warwick Farm conducted by building company, Masterton Homes, where she saw a sales consultant, Mr Dino Novak. She enquired about the construction of a home on the property at Bundanoon. She struck Mr Novak as being knowledgeable about the matter and "very genuine". In due course the company prepared a quotation of $310,000 for the type of home she wanted. Mr Novak told her of that quotation by telephone on 16 April 2010, the day on which Mr Adamson was found dead. During the conversation, Mr Novak said, she seemed "very keen" and said that she would be coming in to leave a deposit. Again contrary to Mr Adamson's belief, she had not paid a deposit and never did so. Mr Novak had no further contact with her.
In 2007 Ms Forrest had entered into an agreement with an estate agency, Highland Rural Real Estate, to sell her block. In the event, it was not sold until December 2010 when it was in the hands of a different agency. However, it was still with the original agency in April of that year. The licensee, Mr Henry Ramage, gave evidence that on 17 April he received a note of a phone message from Ms Forrest enquiring whether anything was happening with the sale. As will be seen, the message was actually left after hours on the preceding day, 16 April.
On 20 April 2010, Ms Forrest attended the premises at Narellan of a company known as Capital Steel Building South West. There she saw the proprietor, Ms Michelle Paradjik and sought a quotation for the construction of a large shed. She said that it would be used partly as a temporary residence, and said something to the effect that there was a settlement coming her way. She prepared a quotation, but Ms Forrest asked for a further quotation as she was trying to economise on the construction. A second quotation was prepared on 1 May, but Ms Paradjik did not hear from Ms Forrest again and the shed was never proceeded with.
Settlement of the sale of the house was fixed for Monday, 12 April 2010. Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson moved their property out over the weekend of 10 and 11, a matter to which I shall return. They both attended the settlement at the office of the solicitors for Homesafe Solutions. That company had forwarded to the solicitor handling the matter, Ms Evelyn Gardis, a document signed by Mr Adamson authorising Ms Forrest to represent his interests at the settlement.
The settlement having been completed, Mr Adamson and Ms Forrest checked in that night at the Maclin Lodge Motel at Campbelltown. What occurred between that Monday and the Friday, 16 April, is crucial to the Crown case, and I shall deal with it later. It is necessary at this stage to trace the movement of the proceeds of the sale of the home. That has been the subject of a considerable body of evidence, but it can be summarised relatively briefly.
Sale Proceeds
I have referred to the joint account opened by Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson. It was opened on 25 February 2010 at the Miranda branch of Bankwest. The bank officer who attended to them noted that Mr Adamson was silent for most of the transaction, and appeared to be happy to let Ms Forrest do most of the talking. The account was one upon which either of them could operate and, in the event of one of them dying, the funds were to be paid to the survivor. Two types of account were opened, a high interest internet account known as the TeleNet account, and an account for everyday use known as the Lite Direct account. It is unnecessary to examine the TeleNet account, which was only briefly in credit. It is the transactions on the everyday account which are significant. That account could be accessed by an ATM card.
As I have said, the $25,000 released from the deposit on the home was paid into that account on 16 March 2010. This was effectively the whole of the funds in the account. Thereafter, from 17 to 29 March, there was a series of withdrawals from the account which almost exhausted it. (I put to one side a dishonoured cheque, the circumstances of which need not be recited, which put the account into debit at the end of March.) Some of these withdrawals were by ATM for relatively small amounts. However, others were for substantial amounts withdrawn at the Miranda branch. Those withdrawal vouchers, signed by Ms Forrest in the name of Jewel, are in evidence. Three of the ATM withdrawals were made at the Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club where, it will be seen, Ms Forrest gambled on poker machines.
The ATM withdrawals were made using a card in Mr Adamson's name. However, I am satisfied that it was Ms Forrest who was using it. This is apparent from the withdrawals at the Leagues Club, which she frequented and where she gambled regularly. Moreover, I accept that Mr Adamson did not know that the $25,000 was in that account until 24 March, during his conversation with Ms Nicholson. Of course, not only had the money been deposited into the account; by that time the lion's share of it had been dissipated.
Upon the settlement of the sale of the home on 12 April 2010, a cheque for the net proceeds, $318,822.75, was deposited into the account. At that point the account had been in debit. Ms Forrest withdrew $8,500 on the following day, suggesting that a special clearance of the cheque had been obtained. On the next day, 14 April, she obtained a bank cheque for $285,000 and withdrew $8,900 in cash, this being the majority of the proceeds of the sale. This was two days before Mr Adamson was found dead in the motel room.
On the same day, Ms Forrest opened an account in her own name at the Parramatta branch of the Credit Union of Australia and deposited the bank cheque for $285,000 into it. By the end of April the funds in that account had been largely exhausted by cash withdrawals and substantial transfers of money to two accounts which she held with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). Those transfers were effected by Credit Union cheques. In this manner, on 20 April $100,000 was deposited into her CBA account at Lindfield and $50,000 into her CBA account at Granville. On 21 April a further $100,000 was deposited into the Granville account. The Granville account had been opened in October 2009, and the Lindfield account in December of that year.
On 20 April she opened a new CBA account at Macarthur Square, and on 28 April she transferred substantial sums from the other two accounts into that account. $126,000 was transferred from the Granville account, and separate amounts of $60,000 and $10,000 were transferred from the Lindfield account. Thereafter, up to the end of June, there were numerous transfers of funds out of that account.
Within months the funds in these accounts had been wholly or largely exhausted. As I have said, the joint account at Bankwest was down to an insignificant amount by the end of April. Of the CBA accounts, by the end of June there was a balance of roughly $90 in the Granville account and effectively a nil balance in the Macarthur Square account. By the end of August there was an insignificant balance in the Lindfield account.
The depletion of these accounts was due in large part to Ms Forrest's gambling. The evidence about this was given by the gaming managers of four clubs to which she belonged and at which she gambled on poker machines: Parramatta Leagues Club, Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club, Campbelltown Catholic Club and the Wenty Leagues Club (at Wentworthville). In each of those clubs she was regularly in attendance and became known to the gaming managers. In all of the clubs except the Wenty Leagues Club she was often observed to be playing more than one machine at a time. The gaming manager at the Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club described her as a "high roller." Bank statements for the Bankwest account and the CBA accounts at Granville and Lindfield record numerous cash withdrawals at those clubs.
In each of the clubs members could insert their membership cards into the machine when playing it, so as to earn points depending upon the amount of money played. Those points entitled them to certain benefits, such as food and drink. When the card was used a computer record of the pattern of gambling was created, setting out the date and time of each play and the amount won or lost by the player. These records relating to Ms Forrest's gambling are in evidence. For the Parramatta Leagues Club records between July 2008 and May 2010 were produced, for the Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club records between November 2009 and October 2010, for the Campbelltown Catholic Club records for discrete periods between April 2009 and January 2011, and for the Wenty Leagues Club records between November 2009 and September 2010.
Unsurprisingly, all these records disclosed that Ms Forrest's wins were exceeded by her losses. It is sufficient to refer to the calculation of her total losses by Mr Philip Bennett, a consultant with extensive experience in the club, hotel and gaming industries. From the club records, extending over the period from July 2008 to January 2011, her losses totalled $334,798.51. For the period from 16 March 2010 to January 2011 the total loss was $136,458.66. Of course, these clubs records are confined to figures recorded while she was using her card. If there were occasions when she played the machines without doing so, there would be no record of the amount of money involved.
In evidence is a document from Centrelink disclosing that between January 2009 and September 2010 Ms Forrest was receiving a disability support pension, the gross payment over that period being $34,483.15. Between December 2009 and April 2010 she also received a carer's allowance, the gross total being $1,010.45. Between August and September 2010 she received a small amount as a pensioner education supplement. These payments were made into the Lindfield CBA account, and appear to be her only income during those periods. Plainly enough, the primary source of the funds she used for gambling from March 2010 was the proceeds of the sale of the Kareela home.
12-16 April
As I have said, in the evening of Monday, 12 April 2010, Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson checked in to the Maclin Lodge Motel at Campbelltown. At about 10.50pm on Friday, 16 April, Ms Forrest called the 000 emergency line, apparently very distressed, telling the operator that Mr Adamson was unresponsive and was not breathing. An ambulance arrived a little after 11pm, and the officers found that Mr Adamson was dead. He was lying on one of two beds in the motel room and one of the officers, Jason Patterson, observed post-mortem lividity, conveying that he had been dead for an extended period of time.
Police arrived not long thereafter, and I shall summarise their observations shortly. Sergeant Rachel Fawcett spoke to Ms Forrest, who told her that on the Monday she and Mr Adamson had walked a considerable distance in the Sydney CBD, that on the Tuesday he was fine, but that on the Wednesday he said that he felt exhausted and lay down in the late afternoon. She said that on the Thursday she went out without waking him, and did not wake him when she returned. She then said that on the Friday she again went out and came back in the afternoon. She went to wake him, to find that he was "stiff, cold." She then made contact with a general practitioner, Dr Mao at Wetherill Park. She said that Mr Adamson went to that doctor because he had a heart problem.
Interview
In the early hours of 17 April, she was interviewed at Campbelltown Police Station by Detective Senior Constable Lynch and Constable Milat, the interview being electronically recorded (exhibit 29). The interview covered a range of matters, but at this point I shall focus upon her account of the days leading up to the Friday.
She said that on the Tuesday Mr Adamson complained of being tired and having a sore back. They remained in the room and watched television. On the Wednesday, she said, he remained in the room while she left to put petrol into their car and to do some shopping at Macarthur Square. It will be remembered that it was on this day she opened the Credit Union of Australia account at Parramatta, a matter which she did not volunteer during the interview. In the afternoon Mr Adamson complained of pain in the back and feeling very tired, saying that he hadn't felt like that in over 50 years. He said that he wanted to lie down for a while, and he lay down on the bed in his singlet and trousers. She covered him with a blanket which she obtained from the car.
I should note at this stage that there was evidence of Mr Adamson having exerted himself during the move out of the Kareela home on the previous weekend. Ms O'Neil, the estate agent, and Ms Mullins, one of the purchasers, saw him on the Saturday packing items of furniture and boxes of the Rainsaver device into his car. Both of them noticed that he appeared rushed and that he had cuts and scratches on both his arms, which were bleeding. Ms Mullins described him as "frazzled" and said that he appeared exhausted and looked unwell. Some neighbours, Mr and Mrs Cowles, had agreed to allow him to store some property temporarily in their garage. He drove to their home to deliver about 35 boxes of the Rainsaver and other items. Mr Cowles noticed him to be "very energetic", apparently able to move all of the goods himself.
In the interview Ms Forrest said that she remained in the room on the Wednesday, watching television. Mr Adamson went to sleep and began to snore really loudly, which to her was unusual. She said that on the following morning, the Thursday, she left at about 6am. Mr Adamson was still asleep and she did not disturb him. She went to Sutherland, where she had an afternoon appointment with a dentist. In the evening she dined at the Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club and she stayed there, talking with people, until "really late." She did not get back to the motel until the early hours of the Friday morning. She got into bed, she said, without checking on Mr Adamson.
She gave the following account of her movements on the Friday. After only a few hours sleep, she again got up early and went straight out. She went to Macarthur Square to do some shopping and to go to a movie. She did not speak to Mr Adamson before she left, but left him a note saying that she had gone out. She had breakfast at Macarthur Square and, after shopping and the movie, went straight back to the motel room, arriving at about 4pm.
When she entered the room, she said, she noted that Mr Adamson was in the same position, still apparently asleep. She spoke to him but he did not respond. She felt his face, which was "stone cold." He was "white", his mouth was a little ajar and he wasn't breathing. She thought that he had died in his sleep.
She went on to say that she rang Dr Mao who, she said, was Mr Adamson's doctor. Asked why she did not ring 000 at that stage, she said that he was dead and she had always been told that an ambulance will not carry a dead body away. She wanted to have Dr Mao come over to the motel. She spoke to Dr Mao's son, who worked as her receptionist, who said that the doctor could not come to Campbelltown as she had many patients to be seen. After speaking to Dr Mao, the receptionist told her to come over to the surgery. This she did, taking with her a black briefcase of Mr Adamson which had his medication in it.
She said that, upon arriving at Wetherill Park, she waited a long time before Dr Mao saw her. She told the doctor what had happened, including the fact that Mr Adamson had exerted himself while moving the property over the weekend and walking in the CBD on the Monday. She said that Dr Mao refused to go back to the motel with her, saying that she should contact the police or ring 000. Asked by Detective Lynch why she wanted the doctor to go back with her, she said because she was "his doctor" and she felt that that was the right thing "him being her patient, that she should go and take care of things."
Having failed to persuade Dr Mao to come with her, she said, she returned directly to the motel. Upon arrival, she made the 000 call. Towards the end of the interview she said that she never gave Mr Adamson medication. She denied any involvement in his death, saying that she had no idea what caused him to die. She said that he had never discussed taking his own life.
In the light of her account of events, it is necessary to examine her movements, particularly on the Thursday and Friday, as established by other evidence.
Thursday
The motel room had been booked in the name of Mr Adamson, but it is clear that it was Ms Forrest who dealt with the staff at the motel. The booking had been from 12 to 18 April. One night was to be paid for on check-in and the balance for the period (plus a key deposit) was to be paid the following day. There was no payment on the Tuesday, so on the Wednesday morning the manager of the motel, Ms Janine Taylor, rang the room and spoke to Ms Forrest. That day Ms Forrest paid $50 and she paid the balance owing, $660, on the Thursday. That payment was recorded by computer as having been made at 11.59am. The Bankwest statement records an ATM cash withdrawal at Macarthur Square a little earlier, at 11.41am.
At this time both Mr Adamson and Ms Forrest had motor vehicles: Mr Adamson a Lexus, Ms Forrest a Toyota. When police arrived the following night the Lexus was parked outside the motel room, and it was searched. In it was found a JB Hi-Fi bag containing a receipt for the purchase of an item at its Macarthur Square shop, timed at 12.47pm on the Thursday. Also found was a copy of an application by Ms Forrest to the Campbelltown post office for redirection of her mail, with a receipt for payment of the fee on the Thursday timed at 2.09pm.
There is evidence confirming Ms Forrest's attendance at a dentist's surgery at Sylvania at 3.30pm for about an hour. However, her assertion to the police that she left early on Thursday and went to Sutherland cannot stand with the other evidence to which I have referred.
Friday
At about 11.30am on the Friday, Ms Taylor went to the room where Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson were staying. Staff had expressed concern about Mr Adamson because they had not seen him and had not had access to the room for housekeeping from the time they booked in. Ms Forrest said in the recorded interview that a "do not disturb" sign had been on the door, as I understand it, for virtually the whole time they had been there. Ms Taylor saw Ms Forrest leave the room, get into a car and drive off. She recognised her as the person who had paid money on the Wednesday or the Thursday. She appeared unclear as to whether it was on one or both of those days. I am satisfied that it was Ms Forrest that she saw. She entered the room and called out, but there was no response. She saw Mr Adamson on the bed and thought he was asleep.
Call charge records of the mobile phone Ms Forrest was using show that she had phone contact with Masterton Homes in the late morning and later afternoon of the Friday, consistently with the evidence of Mr Novak that he provided her with a quote for the construction of a home by phone that day. At 5.15pm she left a message at Highlands Real Estate. It is apparent that this was the message enquiring about the progress of the sale of her land, which was noted on the following day.
Records of the Roads and Traffic Authority (as it was then known) disclose that in January 2010 Mr Adamson sold the Lexus to Ms Forrest. They also disclose that at 4.25pm on the Friday she attended the motor registry at Campbelltown to transfer the registration of the vehicle into her name.
Dr Mao was not Mr Adamson's treating doctor. She saw him once only, when she measured his blood pressure and conducted an eyesight test required by the RTA. His general practitioner was Dr Phillip Loxley, whose practice was at Sutherland. Ms Forrest had been a patient of Dr Mao for a long time, and for a period up to and including 2010 she had prescribed for her MS-Contin for pain. This is a matter to which I shall return.
According to Dr Mao, in the late morning of the Friday a call was put through to her from Ms Forrest. Ms Forrest told her that, while trying to serve breakfast to Mr Adamson, she found that he had died. She asked Dr Mao to come and see him at the motel. Dr Mao said that there was nothing that she could do for him and that Ms Forrest should ring the police.
This evidence of a phone call in the morning was challenged, and I am not satisfied that there was a call at that time. Dr Mao may have been mistaken about that matter. Her son who worked as her receptionist, Mr Andrew Burkitt, gave evidence of receiving only one call from Ms Forrest that day, and that was in the afternoon, he thought around 3.30. He said that she sounded stressed, saying that she needed to see the doctor urgently that day and that the doctor might need to travel somewhere with her. Mr Burkitt told her that Dr Mao was very busy and it was agreed that she should come to see her at the end of the day. Reverse call charge records relating to the phone at the surgery record one call only from Ms Forrest's mobile on that day, at 4.44pm (in round figures).
What the evidence does establish is that in the early evening - Mr Burkitt thought at about 5.30 - Ms Forrest arrived at the surgery. At some stage thereafter she spoke to Dr Mao. As the doctor recalled it, she had a conversation with her in the reception area, where she asked the doctor to go to the motel with her to see Mr Adamson. Dr Mao refused, saying that she had not finished seeing patients and advising her to contact the police. It may be that it was at this time that they had a conversation to the effect of that which the doctor attributed to a morning phone call.
Dr Mao confirmed that Ms Forrest had with her a briefcase. They went into the consulting room and Ms Forrest wanted to show her what she said was Mr Adamson's medication in the case. She did not look at the medication, taking the view that it was a police matter and that there was nothing she could do about it.
Although Dr Mao could not recall it, it is apparent that she wrote out a prescription for a month's supply of Ms Forrest's MS-Contin. Records of a pharmacy at Wetherill Park, which she regularly attended, disclose that the medication was dispensed to her at 7.57 that night. Ms Marita Cooke, a registered pharmacist who worked there, explained that there had to be a fresh prescription for each occasion on which the drug was supplied.
Thereafter, Ms Forrest returned to Campbelltown, where she went to the premises of Kennards Self Storage. She and Mr Adamson had hired a unit there on 8 April. They were issued with a key to the unit and they were supplied with a code whereby they could have 24 hour access to it. The use of the code created a computer record of entry into the building, the opening and closing of a particular unit, and departure from the building. This was known as the gate log. Some property was stored in the unit on 8 April, but they were subsequently allocated another unit of a more suitable size.
The gate log in respect of that unit records activity generated by the code on the Friday night. The building was entered at 8.40, the unit was opened at 8.43 and closed at 9.06, and departure from the building was recorded at 9.16.
Ms Forrest then drove to the home of her daughter, Kara at Eldersleigh. At the time Kara was in a relationship with Mr Mitchell Bleakley, who also lived there. Her recollection was that her mother arrived about 9 o'clock. However, Mr Bleakley put it at about 10 o'clock, which I consider to be more reliable. It was Kara's recollection that she arrived in the Toyota.
Both Kara and Mr Bleakley observed Ms Forrest to be upset, Kara describing her as frantic and Mr Bleakley as distraught. She told them that Mr Adamson had died, and that she had been to see Dr Mao but had not yet reported his death. According to Mr Bleakley, they asked her if she had spoken to the police or the ambulance but she said that she had not done so as yet. She also said that she had been out shopping all day and had come back to find that he was dead.
Mr Bleakley drove her back to Campbelltown in his car, and Kara accompanied them. They passed Campbelltown Police Station, which is not far from the motel, but did not stop there. At Ms Forrest's request, she was not driven to the motel but dropped off at a nearby corner.
It will be seen that Ms Forrest's account to the police in the recorded interview of her movements on the Friday was very truncated. More importantly, much of the evidence of her movements contradicts that account, particularly her assertion that she left the motel room early in the morning.
Crime Scene
At about 1am on the Saturday, 17 April, Senior Constable Mark Lester, a qualified crime scene officer, arrived at the motel. A number of photographs of the exterior and interior of the motel room were taken (exhibit 3). There was a front door to the unit and a sliding door at the rear, neither of which showed any sign of forced entry. It was a twin room, and Mr Adamson was lying on the bed nearest to the rear door. He was lying on top of the bedclothes, covered by a blanket. He was wearing a singlet, trousers and socks. He was cold to touch. Senior Constable Lester noticed rigor mortis in his limbs which was easily released once they were moved. He was lying on his right side and there was lividity on that side of his lower body. Senior Constable Lester noticed a slight decomposition smell. From these observations he concluded that Mr Adamson had been dead for about 24 to 48 hours.
There was a cabinet in the room with a television on it. Leaning against the television, supported by a jug, was a note on motel letterhead, apparently the note to which Ms Forrest referred in the police interview. It read as follows:
"Bill
Gone to movies & shops & to do all the things you wanted me to do
Will be home very late
I will try to be very quiet
Have a nice rest
Love Kerry"
On the bedside table next to the bed where Mr Adamson was lying was a box of Phenergan tablets. Next to the box was a partly used blister pack of that medication. There was other medication in the room, including in Mr Adamson's black briefcase, which was on a table. Neither Senior Constable Lester nor other police who were at the scene located in the room any MS-Contin or any blister pack which might have contained that drug. Earlier in the night, before Senior Constable Lester arrived, two female police officers had searched an overnight bag belonging to Ms Forrest. No medication was found in it. Nor was any found in the Lexus.
Expert evidence
A forensic pathologist, Dr Issabella Brouwer, conducted a post-mortem examination of Mr Adamson's body in the afternoon of 20 April. She concluded that he had died of morphine toxicity. A thorough external examination of the body did not reveal any needle marks, although she said that an injection would not necessarily leave a mark. Having said that, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mr Adamson was given to taking drugs by injection, and Mr Ainsworth did not suggest injection as a possible mechanism of his death.
Dr Brouwer had been provided with an account of Senior Constable Lester's observations of Mr Adamson when he saw him. This indicated to her that he had been dead for at least 36 hours, that being the period after which rigor mortis usually starts. She emphasised, however, that that figure was "in no way accurate" because the development of rigor and of decomposition was dependant upon many variable factors, including the temperature of the environment where the body had been. She could not rule out a longer period, perhaps in excess of 48 hours.
I received evidence from two forensic scientists with expertise in toxicology, Dr William Allender and Professor Olav Drummer. They had been supplied with certificates of analysis of a sample of Mr Adamson's blood conducted at the Division of Analytical Laboratories at Lidcombe. These revealed a free morphine content of 3.8mg per litre and, more importantly, a total content of 11mg per litre. Both of them described this as a very high reading, well within the lethal range. They had regard to Mr Adamson's age, his weight of 64.5 kilograms, and the assumption that he had not been consuming morphine prior to the occasion in question and had not developed a tolerance to it.
Both of them were asked to consider how that level of morphine might be achieved by the ingestion of 100mg MS-Contin tablets, the dosage prescribed for Ms Forrest. They were agreed that no precise estimate could be made. However, Dr Allender was of the view that it would have to be in excess of 5 tablets, certainly much more than 2. He described the estimate of 5 tablets as "erring on the side of the conservative", and would not rule out that it might have been as many as 10 tablets.
Professor Drummer emphasised that the calculation of the dose was "particularly difficult, if not almost impossible, with any accuracy." He said that there was a lot of individual variability in this regard, adding that there were processes after death which could increase the concentration of morphine. An estimate would be assisted by analysis of Mr Adamson's stomach contents, but the evidence of Dr Brouwer was that no such analysis was done. He could say no more than at least one 100mg tablet would have to have been consumed. He summed up his position by saying, "So all I can say, it is a very high concentration, represents probably a substantial dose, but I can't narrow it down to a milligram amount of a likely dose."
Dr Allender was firm in his opinion that it would be "impossible" for the reading to be achieved by the consumption of one 100mg tablet. He said that the morphine levels might be slightly higher due to decomposition of the body, but added that morphine is "quite a stable drug." Both experts agreed that the morphine would have been taken orally, and that it would be absorbed more quickly if the tablets had been crushed before being ingested. Professor Allender said that crushed tablets could be put into food, although he would expect there to be an obvious bitter taste. He agreed that the bitter taste might be masked in drinks, such as coffee.
Dr Mao had prescribed for Ms Forrest 100mg tablets of MS-Contin to be taken three times a day. Prescriptions were provided on a monthly basis. Dr Loxley gave evidence that Mr Adamson had been a patient of his since 1986, his last consultation with him being on 19 February 2010. He described some conditions for which he had treated him over the years, including a type of eczema and some problems with his eyesight. He treated the skin problem with different types of cream and also Phenergan, which is an antihistamine. He had never prescribed any morphine based medication for him.
The black briefcase found in the motel room was among the items seized by police. Eight months later, in December 2010, a police officer located an empty MS-Contin blister pack in a compartment in the lid of the briefcase. In February 2011, Ms Virginia Friedman, a forensic biologist, examined the blister pack for DNA, having received a buccal swab taken from Ms Forrest upon her arrest that same month. She found DNA on the blister pack of the same profile as Ms Forrest's. She said that the entire surfaces of both sides of the blister pack were swabbed. No male DNA was located, and no female DNA other than that which was consistent with Ms Forrest.
She cautioned, however, that a large number of factors could affect whether a person leaves DNA on an item, such as the length of time that person was in contact with it and the degree of contact. Moreover, there are factors affecting whether a person is likely to leave DNA on a surface. For example, people holding an object may not leave any DNA on it if they had recently washed their hands. As she put it, "If we don't find somebody's DNA on an item, the most likely reason is that they have not come into contact with it but obviously there are a lot of variables."
After the event
In the police interview on 17 April, Ms Forrest said that she was aware that Mr Adamson had two sisters. Asked whether he had any children, she said that he did not. She was in fact aware of his step-son John, whom he had introduced to her as his son. John Adamson was out of the country on business at the time of his father's death. Before Ms Forrest and Mr Adamson moved out of the Kareela home, he had exchanged mobile numbers with Ms Forrest. He did so because his father never turned his mobile on and was difficult to contact.
Ms Forrest did not contact either of Mr Adamson's sisters to tell them of his death. They found out about it when police contacted Eva. However, it may be that she never had contact with either of them. Certainly, Mr Adamson's older sister, Elizabeth McCarthy, gave evidence that he had spoken of Ms Forrest on the phone but she had never met her or spoken to her.
More importantly, Ms Forrest did not contact John to tell him of his father's death. He found out about it from another source when he returned from overseas. He telephoned her. She told him that Mr Adamson had died in his sleep. He asked why she had not contacted him, and she said that she did not have his contact details. That was not true and, in any event, he was listed in the phone book. They arranged to meet at Parramatta on 19 May.
At that meeting Ms Forrest told John Adamson that she thought that his father had passed away because the work he had done in the course of moving house had been too much for him. She said that she had made funeral arrangements, to which he responded that that was his responsibility as Mr Adamson's son. He asked her about the proceeds of sale of the Kareela home, and she said that that money was committed to Masterton Homes for the building of a house at Bundanoon. He proposed that the issue of the money be settled between them when the house was complete, to which she agreed.
On 24 May 2010, Ms Forrest approached Guardian Funerals at Campbelltown to arrange for the cremation of Mr Adamson. She told the funeral director, Ms Ann Waplington, that he had no living relatives or next of kin and that, as his carer, she was the person responsible for him. However, she made it clear that she had no money to pay for the funeral, so Ms Waplington contacted a colleague, Dorothea Hasley, the manager of a related funeral home, Economy Funerals. Ms Waplington attended to the paperwork for Economy Funerals, including a statutory declaration which Ms Forrest made to the effect that she was responsible for the funeral arrangements as there was no living next of kin.
Subsequently, Ms Hasley was informed by police that Mr John Adamson was the next of kin, and he took over the arrangements for the cremation. About 2 weeks later Ms Forrest phoned her to ask what was happening about the cremation and she told her that John Adamson had undertaken the matter. Ms Forrest said that he was not Mr Adamson's biological son, that Mr Adamson didn't like him, and that she met him after the death and he told her that he wanted nothing to do with the funeral. Clearly, that was not the case.
Telephone intercepts
In January and February 2011, calls to and from Ms Forrest's mobile were being intercepted pursuant to a warrant. A number of those intercepted calls, together with transcripts, are in evidence: exhibit 121. For present purposes it is sufficient to refer to some salient features of them.
Early in January, Detective Lynch (by then a sergeant in general duties) left a number of messages on Ms Forrest's phone asking her to call him. On 12 January, Ms Forrest phoned Campbelltown Police Station to speak to him but he was not there. She spoke to an inspector at the station and complained that she was being "harassed." She said that she was a carer for an elderly gentleman who died while he was in her care. She later said that she cooked his meals and looked after him but did not issue his medications. She added, "I didn't do anything. I was just with him when he died." Later she said, "Well, actually, I wasn't with him when he died. I don't know when he died. He was in a motel room and I was out. But when I came home he was deceased." There is not necessarily an inconsistency here. When she said that she was "with him" when he died, she may have meant no more than that they had been staying together at the motel at that time.
When the inspector suggested that Sergeant Lynch might be conducting investigations for the purpose of a coronial enquiry, she questioned why the coroner should become involved. She said that Mr Adamson had been "buried, cremated." She asked rhetorically, "Why would they do that when someone's elderly?" Apparently, she had assumed that the circumstances of Mr Adamson's death, as she believed the police understood them, would not have warranted such an enquiry.
On 14 January, she had a conversation with her other daughter, Kischa Forrest, which conveys that she believed herself to be under suspicion for involvement in the death of Mr Adamson. She denied any involvement in his death, saying that she would never do something like that to a person who had done her no harm. She also said:
"I am just speechless. ... if I was going to frigging murder someone I would have murdered David Marshall or your father. ... And if they bring up money or anything like that, well, for God's sake I would have ... been able to keep Camden home if I did that to Marshall. ... I would have profited more."
She made an observation to the same effect in another conversation with Kischa on 4 February.
The reference to David Marshall is explained in a statement of agreed facts, MFI V. Mr Marshall was the owner of a home in Mt Colah. On 11 May 1990 he signed a memorandum of transfer of the property to Ms Forrest, and it was registered shortly thereafter. On 22 October 1991, Ms Forrest sold the property for $190,000. On 30 May 1994 she and her husband, Wayne Forrest, purchased a property at Kirkham (also referred to as Camden).
In September 1997, Mr Marshall commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court to recover $190,000 from Ms Forrest and her husband. On 2 April 2001, those proceedings were settled on the basis that Ms Forrest and her husband would pay Mr Marshall $190,000 within 14 days. Shortly thereafter Ms Forrest and her husband sold the property at Kirkham and paid $190,000 to Mr Marshall out of the proceeds of that sale.
On 17 January, despite being aware than an investigation into the death of Mr Adamson was in progress, she rang an auction house in Canberra to enquire about selling a large quantity of the Rainsaver devices. At this time she was living in a unit at Moruya and in the following month, on the day of her arrest, police found 265 boxes of the product stored there.
On 20 January, she phoned a solicitor to seek advice about the effect of the joint bank account. She explained that one of the account holders had died and enquired whether she, as the surviving account holder, was entitled to the money. She explained that the deceased had made a will in which he left the whole of his estate to his son. She appears to have been seeking a basis upon which she could claim to have been legitimately entitled to the money in the account. However, it will be remembered that she transferred most of the funds in the joint account to her own Credit Union account on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 when, on her version of events, Mr Adamson was still alive or, at least, she had no reason to believe otherwise. Of course, there could be no such justification for her earlier dissipation of the $25,000 from the deposit.
Arrest
Ms Forrest was arrested at Moruya on the evening of 14 February 2011. The arresting officers were Detective Senior Constables Anthony Holmes, Dean McGarry and Maria Feher. She was conveyed to Batemans Bay Police Station and during the car journey the officers, mainly Detective McGarry, questioned her under caution. The questioning was recorded, and an edited disc and transcript of it were admitted as exhibit 91.
Ms Forrest generally maintained her earlier account to police of her discovery that Mr Adamson had died and of her movements on that Friday. However, she suggested that she had asked Dr Mao to come back to the motel with her because she wasn't "a hundred percent sure" that he was dead. Asked why she did not call an ambulance, she said it was because "my doctor ... told me what to do." She confirmed that she wanted "my doctor" to come back "because he was under her care."
Asked whether she went straight back to the motel after seeing Dr Mao, she said that she thought so. Asked about her visit to Kara's place, she could not remember whether that was before or after she had made the 000 call. She said that she had left the motel early, between 6 and 8am. When it was put to her that motel staff saw her leave at about 11.30, she denied it.
She repeated her account that Mr Adamson had lay down on the bed in his clothes because he was extremely exhausted. Asked whether he had sought any medication, she said that he had not but that her medication was there. She insisted that it was in the bathroom with all their bags. She said that he had been in pain and postulated that he may have taken her medication when she was not there. She added that he knew that she took MS-Contin for pain.
She claimed that she did contact John Adamson to tell him about his father's death because she felt sorry for him. She added that she and his father had been "very good friends." She maintained that she did not see John as Mr Adamson's next of kin because he was not his natural son. She also maintained that Mr Adamson did not love John like a son and that John wanted nothing to do with the funeral arrangements. She denied that John had asked her about the proceeds of the sale of the home.
Asked why she was withdrawing money "from the accounts", she said that it was because they were going to build a barn on the property at Bundanoon. She claimed that she had made enquiries about the construction of the barn at the Capital Steel company before Mr Adamson died. It was put to her that the money had gone into poker machines, which she denied. She acknowledged that she played poker machines but said that the money had gone into Mr Adamson's business.
All her responses in that interview were false. At Batemans Bay Police Station she secured the attendance of a solicitor and, on legal advice, declined to participate in an interview. Of course, that was an exercise of her undoubted right to silence and I draw no inference against her from it.
Verdict
There is other evidence to which I have not referred, but the material I have summarised is sufficient to determine the matter. I am grateful to counsel on both sides for their helpful final submissions. The Crown prosecutor's submissions are lengthy and detailed but, here also, it is not necessary to deal with all the matters he has raised to arrive at my verdict.
I am satisfied that Ms Forrest misappropriated the proceeds of the sale of the Kareela home, and planned to do so from an early stage. I accept that Mr Adamson was a knowing and willing party to a scheme to sell the home and invest the funds in the construction of a house on the land at Bundanoon. With his background in dealing with real estate and property development, he was no novice in this area and perceived the scheme to be in his financial interests. I accept that he was a willing party to the opening of the joint bank account, as he was to the early release of $25,000 from the deposit, which he also saw to be financially beneficial.
I also accept that he was happy to leave arrangements for the sale and the conduct of it in the hands of Ms Forrest, whom he believed to be competent in administrative matters and whom he trusted. However, I am satisfied that she was in breach of that trust.
Her interest in his financial affairs was demonstrated late in 2009 by her demands upon his bookkeeper and his accountant for access to his financial records. This was followed by her anonymous calls to Homesafe Solutions enquiring about the operation of the equity release scheme. That is a matter about which I shall have more to say later.
She came to control the process of the sale of the home completely, to the extent of seeking to exclude Mr Adamson from it. This can be seen in her phone call to Ms Shepherd at Homesafe Solutions in which she expressed concern that Ms Shepherd had had direct contact with him. This is also a matter to which I shall return. It is even more apparent in her angry reaction to the visit to the home by the conveyancer, Ms Nicholson, and her conversation with Mr Adamson in her absence. I might add that, while she portrayed that as her reason for terminating Ms Nicholson's services, it is clear that she had decided to do so in any event.
Her betrayal of Mr Adamson's trust is clearly demonstrated in the recorded conversation he had with Ms Nicholson on 24 March. I approach that evidence with caution, bearing in mind that it is hearsay. Nevertheless, it has the advantage that there is no doubt about what he said because it was recorded, and I accept it as an accurate account of his understanding and expectations at the time. Plainly enough, he did not know that Ms Forrest had dismissed Ms Nicholson as the conveyancer. Equally, he was not aware that the $25,000 from the deposit had been in the joint account. More importantly, he was unaware that his legitimate expectation about the use of that money had not been met and that, in fact, it had been dissipated by Ms Forrest. In addition, he had been led to believe that progress had been made towards the development, in that a buyer had been found for a block of land and a deposit had been paid to the building company.
Whether Ms Forrest had intended to use the proceeds of the sale of the home to develop the property at Bundanoon I cannot say. What I can say is that, if she did, she did not intend Mr Adamson to share the benefits of that investment with her. At the time of settlement of the sale of the home she had done little or nothing to pursue that investment. She had done no more than seek a quote from Masterton Homes and request a release of the subdivision by the council. Her claim to the police on the day of her arrest that she had made enquiries at Capital Steel about constructing the barn on the Bundanoon property before Mr Adamson died was false. She did not approach that company until 20 April, four days after his death had been reported. There appears to have been no arrangement in place for their accommodation after their sojourn at the motel.
Put shortly, she deceived Mr Adamson about the purpose of the sale of the home and the steps taken in pursuit of it. She withdrew the funds from the sale and used them for her own benefit. She lied about the matter to John Adamson, as she did to the police.
Mr Ainsworth did not concede that Ms Forrest had misappropriated the funds. He argued that the lack of progress towards the development of the Bundanoon property should be seen as inefficiency, and Ms Forrest's withdrawal of the funds as her taking advantage of the situation as it stood after Mr Adamson's death. As he put it, the "doing stage" in relation to the Bundanoon property "didn't match the planning stage", and after Mr Adamson's death she simply "took the money and ran."
I cannot accept those submissions. As I have noted above, her expenditure of the $25,000 from the deposit preceded the death by some time and her transfer of the sale proceeds into her Credit Union account was effected on a day when, on her case, she had no reason to believe that Mr Adamson had died. Viewed as a whole, the evidence of her behaviour points to a calculated course of dishonest conduct designed to gain for herself the proceeds of the sale of the home.
That said, Ms Forrest stands charged with murder, not with an offence of dishonesty. The crucial question is whether there is to be found in this evidence a motive for her to kill Mr Adamson, and whether she did so.
There is nothing in the evidence to raise the possibility that Mr Adamson committed suicide, and Mr Ainsworth did not suggest it. His case was that Mr Adamson may have sought relief through MS-Contin for his pain and exhaustion following his exertion during the move over the weekend and that, being unaccustomed to the drug, he took a dose which was unsafe. He suggested that Mr Adamson might have taken one or two tablets, noting Professor Drummer's evidence that one 100mg tablet could have been enough to produce the high level of morphine which killed him.
Although police who came to the scene did not find any MS-Contin in the room or in the Lexus, or any sign of it, they missed the empty blister pack of the drug which was in the lid of Mr Adamson's briefcase. Mr Ainsworth argued that the tablet or tablets Mr Adamson took could have come from that blister pack, which he then placed in the briefcase with his other medication. That DNA consistent with that of Ms Forrest was on the blister pack was hardly surprising, given that she used the medication, and he relied upon Ms Friedman's evidence that the fact that there was no male DNA on it does not necessarily mean that Mr Adamson did not handle it.
This course of events, he submitted, points to a reasonable explanation of the circumstances consistent with Ms Forrest's innocence. That was so, he said, even if I were satisfied that she had planned to misappropriate the proceeds of the home sale. As he put it, there is a "fairly obvious fault line" upon which the Crown case should be divided between evidence going to her dishonesty, on the one hand, and evidence pointing to murder, on the other. I have given these arguments careful consideration, but I am satisfied that they must be rejected.
It is here that Ms Forrest's phone calls to Homesafe Solutions acquire additional significance. Clearly, she was enquiring as to what her position might be if she and Mr Adamson married and he died. Equally clearly, she did not want him to know that she was making any such enquiry. In the initial calls she sought to remain anonymous, describing her enquiry as hypothetical. In the telephone conversation with Ms Shepherd she claimed that her enquiry related to her grandmother, which I am satisfied was false. I cannot say that at this early stage she had formed the intention to kill Mr Adamson, but it is significant that she had turned her mind to how she might benefit from his death.
From the opposite perspective, there is some significance in Ms Forrest's conversations with her daughter, in the intercepted phone calls in early 2011, harking back to the transfer of title to a home to her by Mr David Marshall and the litigation which ensued. Too much should not be read into this evidence. As Mr Ainsworth said, it establishes no more than that there had been a commercial dispute leading to litigation, which was settled. No doubt, what she said about the possible advantage of having murdered Mr Marshall (or her husband) was not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that at that time she made comments suggesting that, if a person obtained a benefit in questionable circumstances, the best way to protect that benefit from future challenge would be to eliminate the benefactor.
Ms Forrest's conduct on the Friday, 16 April, is wholly inconsistent with that of a person who has discovered that a friend and companion had died unexpectedly. As I have said, while I do not accept Dr Mao's evidence that Ms Forrest phoned her in the morning, it may be that the conversation which the doctor attributed to that time occurred in the early evening when Ms Forrest came to the surgery. If that is so, Ms Forrest told her at that time that she found Mr Adamson dead while trying to serve him breakfast. It seems unlikely that Dr Mao would be mistaken about Ms Forrest using those words, even though she might be about when the conversation occurred. If so, it was Ms Forrest's account that she realised Mr Adamson was dead some time in the morning. Yet she proceeded during the day to attend to more or less mundane tasks, making phone contact with Masterton Homes and Highlands Real Estate and attending to the transfer of registration of the Lexus, before she contacted Dr Mao to seek help.
However, I have sufficient misgivings about the accuracy of Dr Mao's recollection to put aside her evidence about the reference to breakfast. But even on Ms Forrest's version that she did not discover that Mr Adamson was dead until the late afternoon, serious questions remain about her proved conduct thereafter. The evidence establishes that, after going to Dr Mao's surgery and being told that the doctor could do nothing to help her, she did not return immediately to the motel to raise the alarm. She went to the pharmacy to obtain a supply of her medication, which was dispensed at 7.57pm. She attended Kennards Self Storage at 8.40pm, remaining there for almost half an hour. There is no evidence of what she was doing there. She then went to Kara's home at Eldersleigh, and, some time after 10pm, was dropped back at the motel. Finally, at about 10.50pm she rang 000 to report the death.
Moreover, she clearly lied to the police about her movements during the interview in the early hours of the following morning, at a time when she was hardly likely to have forgotten them. The effect of what she said was that, having waited for a long time at Dr Mao's surgery and then having failed to persuade the doctor to return to the motel with her, she went straight back there herself. That was untrue.
Equally untrue was her account to the police that she had left the motel early on that Friday morning and did not return until the late afternoon. As I have said, I am satisfied that the manager, Ms Taylor, saw her leave the room at about 11.30am. This was a lie, as was her claim that she had also left early on the Thursday morning to go to Sutherland. The evidence establishes that she made an ATM cash withdrawal at Macarthur Square at 11.41am and paid the balance owing to the motel at 11.59am. I am satisfied that her account of leaving early on both days was a lie.
The effect of what she told the police was that she left early on the Thursday and was out until very late and, after a few hours sleep, she left early on the Friday and was out until the late afternoon. This, I am satisfied, was a story concocted to explain why she may not have noticed that Mr Adamson was dead earlier than she claimed she did. On her own account, he had remained in the same position since he lay down on the bed on the Wednesday afternoon.
The effect of the evidence of the ambulance officer, the crime scene officer and the forensic pathologist who conducted the post-mortem is that it was apparent from the condition of the body that Mr Adamson had been dead for a considerable time when he was found. While taking account of Dr Brouwer's evidence of a variety of factors which complicate an estimate of a time of death, it could well be that he was dead by the Thursday morning and I have no doubt that he was by the Friday morning.
It is inconceivable that on the Thursday or, certainly, by the Friday morning, Ms Forrest would have believed that Mr Adamson was still sleeping and not have noticed that something was amiss. One can understand that when Ms Taylor entered the room briefly on the Friday morning she may have thought he was asleep. However, Ms Forrest had the opportunity to observe him over a long period. It was to meet this very question that she gave a false account of her movements conveying that she was largely absent from the room on the Thursday and throughout the Friday and, in particular, was not there during the day.
I inspected the motel room during the course of the trial. It had not changed in relevant respects since April 2010. There were opaque curtains across the rear sliding door. However, there was a small window above the front door, which admitted light. With the interior lights off, the doors closed and the curtains drawn, the room was dim but not dark. To my eye there was enough light to see the furniture in the room and to be able to see a person lying on one of the beds. If, as I am satisfied, Ms Forrest was in the room until well into the morning on both the Thursday and the Friday, she would have been able to see Mr Adamson and it must have been apparent that he was not merely asleep.
I am persuaded that the scenario for which the Crown prosecutor contended is correct. Having caused Mr Adamson's death, Ms Forrest sought the assistance of Dr Mao, with whom she had had a long relationship, asking her to come to the motel in the hope that she would certify his death as being of natural causes, so that there would be no investigation into it. She panicked when Dr Mao refused to help her, and it was for this reason that she appeared to be distraught when she saw Kara and Mr Bleakley. Eventually, she saw no choice but to call 000, but even in that call she did not in terms report his death. Rather, what she conveyed was that she needed help because she had just found him unresponsive and apparently not breathing.
I am satisfied that it was she who put the MS-Contin blister pack into Mr Adamson's briefcase. The Crown prosecutor did not advance any reason why she would have done so, or why she took the briefcase when she went to see Dr Mao. What is clear, however, is that she did handle the briefcase at that time.
I also accept the Crown prosecutor's submission that the note apparently left for Mr Adamson was a sham. As he put it, she "staged the room", leaving the note to suggest that she believed that he was alive when she left on the Friday morning.
I have referred to a number of untruths, which I am satisfied were deliberate lies, told to the police in both interviews, to a number of the civilian witnesses and, apparently, to Mr Adamson himself. The purpose of many of these lies might fairly be seen as an attempt to cover up her misappropriation of Mr Adamson's money. However, her lies to the police about her movements on the Thursday and Friday, and about Dr Mao being Mr Adamson's doctor, have a greater significance. I am satisfied that they were deliberate lies designed to cover up her involvement in the murder, that is, lies born of a consciousness of guilt of the crime charged.
I am also satisfied that she lied when she told police in the interview of 17 April that Mr Adamson had no children. Her subsequent assertion to Ms Hasley at Guardian Funerals, and to the police after her arrest, that she did not see John Adamson as his father's next of kin because he was not his natural son is specious. What she sought to do was to arrange for his cremation without anyone in the family knowing of it, a scheme which was foiled only by the fact that John Adamson became aware of his father's death from another source. That said, this may not have been conduct directed to covering up the murder rather than, as Mr Ainsworth suggested, to ensure her retention of the misappropriated money.
Of course, it is necessary to have regard to the combined effect of all the circumstances proved by the evidence. Having done so, I can find no reasonable explanation of them other than that Ms Forrest misappropriated Mr Adamson's money and killed him to prevent that misappropriation being exposed. She killed him by having him ingest MS-Contin. I cannot be certain how she did so, but it is most likely that she crushed tablets and mixed them with his food. The conflict in the expert evidence about how many tablets would be required to achieve the level of morphine found in him is not one which I can resolve. Nevertheless, in the light of all the circumstances, I am satisfied that she had him ingest sufficient of the drug to cause his death, intending that that would be the outcome.
Accordingly, the elements of murder have been established in this case beyond reasonable doubt and I find the accused guilty.
**********
Decision last updated: 20 May 2014
0
0