R v Gavare - [2011] SASC 142

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GAVARE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2011] SASC 142
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kelly
30 August 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - PROOF AND EVIDENCE - MOTIVE
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - STANDARD OF PROOF - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Criminal trial by judge alone - accused charged with murder - accused pleaded not guilty - victim elderly woman - circumstantial evidence - defence case that accused’s former partner responsible - innocent explanation for accused’s possession of deceased’s property subsequent to deceased’s disappearance - accused spontaneously stole from deceased’s home but did not kill deceased.
Held: accused guilty of murder - no reasonable possibility accused’s former partner responsible - no reasonable explanation for totality of the evidence other than guilt of accused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, referred to.
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321; R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 92, considered.

R v GAVARE
[2011] SASC 142
Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone
KELLY J.
Introduction

Angelika Gavare is charged with the crime of murder. The particulars of the charge against her are that on or about 3 December 2008 at Reynella she murdered Vonne Isabelle McGlynn. Upon her arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. Ultimately the trial proceeded before me as a judge sitting alone.
In considering the issues which arise for determination I have at all times borne in mind that the accused does not have to prove she is innocent. The accused is not to be convicted unless and until I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt on this charge.
The case against the accused is entirely circumstantial. Therefore I cannot find the accused guilty of murder unless I conclude that there is no reasonable explanation of all the evidence which I accept, other than that the accused is guilty of the crime of murder. To put that another way, if there is any reasonable explanation other than that the accused committed the murder of Ms McGlynn, then the accused must be acquitted.
The crime of murder is committed when a person deliberately and unlawfully causes the death of another person while at the same time intending to cause death or grievous bodily harm. That is the general proposition. The matters which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt therefore are:
1That the act or acts of the accused caused the death of Ms McGlynn;
2That the act or acts of the accused which caused the death were conscious and voluntary, that is to say that they were the result of the exercise of the accused’s will and were not the result of an accident;
3The act or acts of the accused which caused the death were carried out with the intention of either killing Ms McGlynn or at the very least causing Ms McGlynn grievous bodily harm. By the term grievous bodily harm I mean really serious bodily harm. The intention necessary for the crime of murder must exist at the time when the act or acts which caused the death were carried out;
4Finally the killing was done without any lawful justification or excuse such as lawful self‑defence.
There has been no suggestion in this case that there was any lawful reason for the killing of Ms McGlynn. I proceed therefore on the basis that the first three elements of the crime of murder are the live issues in this trial.
I make it clear at the outset that in this judgment when I use the terms “accept”, “satisfied” or “proved” I mean accept, satisfied or proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Motive
Although motive is not an element of the crime of murder and the prosecution do not need to establish one, nevertheless, in this case, it is an important piece of circumstantial evidence in the case against the accused.
The prosecution case is that the accused killed Ms McGlynn for monetary gain. Indeed, it is contended by the prosecution that after the murder of Ms McGlynn the accused took steps preparatory to selling or renting Ms McGlynn’s home. On 9 December 2008 the accused attempted to withdraw $2,000 from Ms McGlynn’s savings account at the Morphett Vale North branch of the ANZ Bank using Ms McGlynn’s debit card and a forged power of attorney. On the prosecution case, the accused went to the ANZ Bank at Morphett Vale on 9 December 2008 confident that Ms McGlynn would never return to obstruct her plans. This confidence was attributable to the fact that the accused well knew that Ms McGlynn was dead. She knew Ms McGlynn was dead because the accused killed her. That is the prosecution case.
The defence case is that the accused did not kill Ms McGlynn. All the accused did was take advantage of the fact that she knew from her contact with Giuseppe Daniele on the nights of 3 and 6 December 2008 that Ms McGlynn was dead, and then spontaneously decided to benefit from the situation by stealing from Ms McGlynn. On the defence case she went so far as to forge a power of attorney with a view to selling the property of Ms McGlynn but she did not kill Ms McGlynn. Her crime was to steal not to kill. That is the defence case.
It is therefore necessary to examine all of the evidence carefully to determine first what evidence I can accept and what I cannot accept. Then I need to consider what inference or inferences I can safely draw from the evidence which I accept.
Since the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence of a disparate nature I intend to first review the evidence. After reviewing that evidence I will then make appropriate findings of fact and consider what inference or inferences should be drawn from the evidence which I accept. Finally, I will consider whether the totality of the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime of murder.
Evidence
Vonne McGlynn
In the course of the trial I heard evidence from a number of witnesses who all knew Ms McGlynn either as a neighbour or a friend. Some of these witnesses spoke generally about Ms McGlynn’s usual habits and her lifestyle.
The evidence about Ms McGlynn came from her brother, Donald Smallwood, neighbours Sharon and Roger Zadow, Andrew Wagenknecht and Therese Molloy. There was evidence from other witnesses, whose statements were agreed, about dealings they had with Ms McGlynn from time to time. These witnesses included Paul Arbery from Endeavour Tours, the Red Cross staff who spoke with her daily and staff at the local McDonalds restaurant which Ms McGlynn frequented. Ms McGlynn was an independent, intelligent and well travelled woman who at the age of 83 was still in reasonably good health and was quite active. She was often seen by neighbours walking to and from the nearby shops and pottering about in her garden. Staff at the local McDonalds at Sherriffs Road, Reynella often served Ms McGlynn bacon and egg muffins for breakfast. She usually went to McDonalds when the breakfast menu was still open, which was until about 10.30am.
She had a good relationship with her near neighbours Sharon and Roger Zadow and Mr Wagenknecht. From time to time Sharon Zadow offered help to Ms McGlynn in the form of offering her a lift in her car, however Ms McGlynn only occasionally accepted. In the 17 years Sharon Zadow lived next door at 8 Somerfield Avenue she estimated that she had only been inside Ms McGlynn’s home about eight times. Nevertheless they were good neighbours and from time to time Sharon Zadow cooked meals, particularly curries, which she shared with Ms McGlynn. Ms McGlynn always let the Zadows know when she was going away on a trip which lasted longer than a day. The Zadows would put the rubbish bins out for Ms McGlynn while she was away and collect her mail. Bin night for the residents of Somerfield Avenue, Reynella was Tuesday night for collection early Wednesday morning. Roger Zadow described Ms McGlynn’s house as neat and tidy whenever he saw it.
Although Ms McGlynn had a key to the Zadows’ house she never gave the Zadows a key to her house. From time to time Ms McGlynn would help the Zadows out by feeding their chickens and taking their dogs for a walk on occasions when the Zadows went away.
Around August 2008 Sharon Zadow took Ms McGlynn to the medical centre after she broke her arm. One of those trips was on 26 August 2008. After Ms McGlynn broke her arm she had a plaster cast on it and Meals on Wheels came around for her. She also had help to shower. It was in the course of one of the trips to the medical centre after her arm was broken that Sharon Zadow had a conversation with Ms McGlynn about a visit she had from a young woman wanting to be her carer. According to Sharon Zadow, Ms McGlynn told her that the woman told her she knew Ms McGlynn had broken her arm and said she wanted to be her carer. Ms McGlynn responded that she did not need a carer. Sharon Zadow said Ms McGlynn seemed quite annoyed by that incident.
Sharon Zadow also purchased a toaster for Ms McGlynn on 4 September 2008 from the Good Guys at Noarlunga and took it to Ms McGlynn’s house and set it up for her. She identified the toaster[1] seized from the accused’s house at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs as the same toaster she purchased for Ms McGlynn.
[1] Exhibit P103.
Sharon Zadow saw Ms McGlynn for the last time pottering around in her front yard on Tuesday 2 December 2008. She said that she went over to Ms McGlynn’s house on about 4 or 5 December 2008, after she received a number of messages on her phone machine about Ms McGlynn. It was then she noticed that the bins were in a different position to the normal position they were stored. They were usually by the fence but on that day they were stacked up outside the garage.
On 3 December 2008 the regular Red Cross telephone call to Ms McGlynn’s number was answered sometime between 7.00am and 9.00am. On the morning of 4 December 2008 it was not answered and police were contacted. The Red Cross volunteer, Mrs Beryl Brook, who made the call on 4 December 2008 said that Ms McGlynn had said nothing about going away to her on the last occasion they spoke. She said it was unusual for Ms McGlynn not to answer without first notifying Red Cross that she did not need a call if she was going to be away.
Therese Molloy was a neighbour and close friend of Ms McGlynn. Ms Molloy and her family lived across the road from Ms McGlynn. It was her three children whose photographs were found in the folder[2] of Ms McGlynn’s property seized from the accused’s house at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs. When the Molloys moved away from Somerfield Avenue, Ms Molloy kept in contact with Ms McGlynn by telephone and Ms Glynn would visit the Molloys at their new home. Ms McGlynn never asked the Molloys for any help although on occasions, like the Zadows, Ms Molloy gave her meals which she happily accepted. Some time in 2008 Ms McGlynn told Ms Molloy that she had broken her arm. The last conversation which Ms Molloy had with Ms McGlynn was in November 2008. During the course of that conversation they discussed her arm, which was not too good, and that at some stage someone had been to Ms McGlynn’s house, knocked on the windows and offered to be her carer. Ms McGlynn seemed to be upset about it.
[2] Exhibit P17.
Andrew Wagenknecht was the neighbour who lived on the other side of Ms McGlynn at 4 Somerfield Avenue. He said from time to time he offered Ms McGlynn a lift which she never accepted, however he did recall offering to help her one day after she had fallen and broken her wrist. Another lady came to help Ms McGlynn so he left to pick up his children. Mr Wagenknecht also expressed the opinion that the reconstructed statue seen in the photograph[3] might have been the same statue that he saw in Ms McGlynn’s backyard on the back patio. He was not sure about that.
[3] Exhibit P238.
Donald Smallwood is the younger brother of Ms McGlynn. He described his sister as very reserved, very independent and parsimonious when it came to spending money. She even had the same fridge in her kitchen that he had purchased for her in 1958 and it was still in perfect working order. He said he believed she had very few close friends but those she did have she treasured. He spoke to his sister from time to time by telephone from his home in Queensland. Eventually he persuaded her to take calls from the Red Cross on a daily basis. The Red Cross offer that service to elderly people and it is a system whereby basically each day a phone call is made to check on an isolated person’s welfare. Ms McGlynn nominated two contacts in the event that she did not answer a phone call. Donald Smallwood was one and Roger and Sharon Zadow were the other nominated contact.
In November 2008 Donald Smallwood had a conversation with his sister. She was not in good condition as she had a fall and damaged her wrist and was complaining about it not healing. On the night of Tuesday 2 December 2008 he had the last conversation with Ms McGlynn.
He said that she at no stage ever exhibited any interest in renovating her home. His impression was that she was very happy with her cosy little house at Reynella. She never asked him to accept a power of attorney from her and he thought to do so would be totally out of character for her.
Ms McGlynn also spoke to Donald Smallwood on one occasion about a conversation she had with a woman who come to her front door and banged on it and then went around to the back door and banged on it asking Ms McGlynn if she needed a carer.
From the evidence of these witnesses which I have no difficulty in accepting, a very clear picture of Ms McGlynn begins to emerge. I infer from all of the evidence that Ms McGlynn was a very private, independent woman who travelled extensively both on short and multiple day trips. She always let the Red Cross and her neighbours the Zadows know when she was going to be absent from her home for more than a day. Her neighbours and close friends only occasionally went in to visit Ms McGlynn in her home. When they did her house was always neat and tidy. She would never have left her house in the state it can be seen in the photographs.[4] It is highly improbable that any stranger or person she had only just met would be invited into her home. It is also inherently improbable that she would entrust her affairs, financial or otherwise, to anyone else let alone a virtual stranger.
[4] Exhibit P233.
6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella
I turn now to the evidence about the state of the house at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella in the days immediately after 3 December 2008.
The fact that the police ultimately retrieved very little, if any, evidence of any forensic value to the investigation is not surprising after an examination of the evidence about what did happen.
The police involvement in this matter in the initial stage appears to have been somewhat haphazard and uncoordinated. Police attendance at the property on 4 December 2008 was prompted by the phone call from the Red Cross to the police after Ms McGlynn failed to answer the Red Cross phone call that morning. The second attendance of police later on 4 December 2008 appears to have been prompted by neighbours reporting that the front door was open.
Constable Linney, a probationary constable, was the first police officer who went to the house at about 10.26am. He arrived with Constable Hill who talked to the neighbours whilst Constable Linney checked the house. He noted that at least one of the bins was in the same position as others later observed it to be in front of the garage as shown in the photographs.[5] He did not notice any roof tiles missing and he did not go inside the house. The first police officer to actually gain access to the house was Constable Riding from the Christies Beach patrols. He broke a window at the rear of the house and entered through the laundry cutting himself on the way in. He then tried to wash his hands in the sink in the bathroom and in the kitchen. He observed that there was a hole in the ceiling where the manhole cover should be. He went through every room in the house and noticed plastic bags in only one of the bedrooms. Generally speaking he described the house as in a much tidier condition than the photographs[6] showed. The significance of that I will come to later.
[5] Exhibit P233, photograph 2.
[6] Exhibit P233.
Sergeant Brewer from the Christies Beach Police Station was the next police officer to arrive at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella just before 1.00pm on 4 December 2008. He did not go inside but he left a contact card to let the resident know that the police had entered the house and damaged the rear window. That card was placed in the letterbox. He left the property at 1.30pm that day.
Sergeant Brewer went back to the property again between about 11.00am and 11.20am on Friday 5 December 2008. Once again he did not go inside the house. He checked the letterbox and the calling card he had left was still there.
On the evening of Thursday 4 December 2008 three uniform police, Constables Chilman, Bailey and Williams, went to the property at about 9.50pm in response to neighbours reporting an open front door. Constable Williams went in to every room of the house. He recalls the kitchen, laundry and two of the bedrooms and bathroom all having the same appearance as they do in the photographs.[7] Constable Chilman who was with Constable Williams and Constable Bailey during that search of the house had a different recollection to her colleague. She recalled that the kitchen had a much clearer bench than shown in the photographs[8] and the floor had more stacked plastic bags rather than bags strewn about. She recalled there were some differences in one of the bedrooms however in the two other bedrooms she thought the appearance of the bedrooms was very similar to that seen in photographs. However, notwithstanding that difference of recollection what is striking about the observations of the police officers who went to the home at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella on 4 December 2008 is that between about 11.30am when Constable Riding was there and 9.50pm at night somebody obviously had been there. The description of the house later that night is very different to the appearance that Constable Riding described earlier that day.
[7] Exhibit P233.
[8] Exhibit P233, photographs 14-20.
On Friday 5 December 2008, apart from Sergeant Brewer who went to the house in the morning and did not go inside, the three constables, Chilman, Bailey and Williams all went back to the property later that evening sometime around 7.30pm. Although Constable Chilman initially said that they had gone back to the property at 4.20pm she later acknowledged that she had no real memory and it was sometime after 4.20pm that they went back to the property. Both Constables Williams and Chilman described the house as in much the same condition as it was the day before. On this occasion Roger Zadow requested permission to restore the missing roof tiles. Up until that point it would appear that Roger Zadow was the only person who went to 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella who noticed the roof tiles being dislodged. The police told him it was appropriate to board up the window and fix the tiles and that is what he later did.

On Saturday 6 December at about 5.30pm Constable Williams returned to 6 Somerfield Avenue. He observed that a letter he had seen in the mailbox the day before was missing but the police card Sergeant Brewer had left was still there. On that occasion Roger Zadow told him he had already replaced the tiles on the roof. The police officers returned again at about 9.45pm that night and went through the bins at the southern end of the driveway. They observed that there were three different types of rubbish bins and they were all either full or almost full.
On Tuesday 9 December 2008 two other police officers, Constable Smart with Sergeant Atkinson went to 6 Somerfield Avenue and Constable Smart climbed on to the roof. Sergeant Atkinson assisted Constable Smart to enter the roof space via the manhole and he used a torch to have a look around. It was on 9 December 2008 that the photographs[9] 1-60 were all taken.
[9] Exhibit P233, photographs 1-60.
In light of this evidence I do not find it surprising that the only shoe impressions found by the police were consistent with either Roger Zadow or one of the police officers boots, and the only bloodstains found inside the house were consistent with either Ms McGlynn or Constable Riding who cut his hand. I also infer from the evidence of Constable Riding and the other police officers who went to the house at 6 Somerfield Avenue on 4 December 2008 that someone went into the house between Constable Riding’s visit and the visit of the police at around 10.00pm that night and left the house in much the same state as seen in the photographs.[10] It is possible that the process of packing up the house had begun before Constable Riding’s visit and that further packing was done in the days after 4 December 2008, however I am satisfied from the evidence of the police who went there on 4 December 2008 that someone was definitely there on that day.
[10] Exhibit P233.
The Pusher
On 25 February 2009 the police found a pusher[11] in some bushes adjacent to the bikeway on the eastern side of the Expressway in the Christies Creek area. I visited that area during the view on 3 August 2011.
[11] Exhibit P236.
I am mindful of course that what I saw on the view is not evidence in the trial; however the view did assist my understanding of the proximity between the accused’s home and the various locations where police found either the remains of Ms McGlynn or various pieces of statue said to have come from Ms McGlynn’s home.
The bikeway which runs adjacent to the bushes where a number of items were found can be accessed from Scottsglade Road from either the southern end or the northern end, the point being that the whole of that area is easily accessible from 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs. On the evening of 25 February 2009 the accused’s sister Agnese Dombrovska saw an item of news about the discovery by the police of that pusher. The image she saw on the television looked familiar to her and she rang the police. Later the police showed her that pusher. Agnese said that it was familiar to her because she had used one like that to take her children to the playground around the corner from her mother’s home. She noticed the fault in her mother’s pram, namely the missing screw underneath the pram across the joint wheels diagonally with the result that the lower beam was dangling down.
The evidence of Agnese and Inara Dombrovska was that Inara had at least three prams at the home at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella when she was running the family day care business from that address. Both Agnese and the accused had used pushers from their mother’s home. Agnese Dombrovska said she could not be 100 per cent sure whether the pram retrieved by the police was the same pram that she had used from her mother’s house. She acknowledged that when she spoke with the police about the pram she described it as dark blue with small brown teddy bears on it. She was asked about that in cross‑examination and said this:
Q.That's right, and the pattern of the pram that your mother had, did that have small brown teddy bears on it.
A.Could be. It was definitely neutral pattern that could be used for boys and girls. For some reason I, in my memory, had it that it was teddy bears but I'm not a hundred-per-cent sure because it's always covered by a child. When you kind of put the kid in the pram you don't see the actual pattern, you see a child.
Ultimately Agnese acknowledged that she could not be 100 per cent sure about the pram.
She was shown a photograph of a pram[12] sitting on the front verandah at the accused’s house on the day the police searched her house and acknowledged that it appeared to be the most recent pram which the accused had for the accused’s younger daughter Francesca but she was not sure about that either.
[12] Exhibit D2.
Inara Dombrovska was not able to identify the pram which the police showed her. Her evidence was that she had a number of prams which both the accused and Agnese borrowed from time to time. When she left the house at 20 Somerfield Avenue she no longer had any need for them and did not take them with her. What she did when she left was to either give things away or sell them and even put up a sign outside stating that things were for giving away. Inara did not know what happened to the pram which was often outside the front of her home. She said the prams had no importance for her when she left and simply does not remember what happened to them.
A number of witnesses gave evidence about the sighting of a woman with a pusher at various locations in the Christies Creek area between December 2008 and late January 2009.
Benjamin Moulton, a parks technical officer for the Onkaparinga Council in December 2008 said he was in the Christies Creek area at a point in the reserve on Monday 8 December 2008 at about 1.00pm. At one point he noticed a woman walking along a dirt track on the northern side of the Christies Creek area pushing a stroller. He said she was walking with a small dog which was possibly unleashed. The closest he got to the woman was about 15 metres. Later in April 2009 this witness was shown a photographic array. He identified a photograph which he thought was a photo of the woman he saw on 8 December 2008.
Another woman, Cassandra Hasse, who resided at 37 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs, gave evidence about some observations she made of two woman one day in late January 2009, either on a Wednesday or a Friday, when she was washing her car on the front lawn of her home. She gave evidence that a thin red headed woman with medium long red hair walked past her property and back again as she was washing her vehicle. About half an hour later she saw the same woman walking along the street with another woman and one of them, she is not sure which, was pushing a stroller. The second woman she described as about five foot five of medium to solid build with mousy brown blonde hair about shoulder length. This woman was wearing glasses however she was not able to say if they were sunglasses or not. In the stroller on the part where a child would sit was a light blue bag with a drawstring. The bag appeared to have something in it as there were some protrusions and she heard a knocking noise like two things banging together as the woman pushed the stroller past her house. This witness also picked a photograph from a photographic array later of a person she thought resembled the woman with the stroller. Ms Hasse said that the woman who she observed pushing the stroller past the laneway in her house returned about 10 minutes later without the stroller and without a bag and walked back up the hill along Scottsglade Road. She telephoned the police on 26 February 2009 after she learned from a relative that the police had found a stroller near the Expressway and other suspicious items.
Colleen Parsons was walking with her grandchildren near the footbridge on the walkway at the Christies Creek area in late December but before Christmas 2008. When Ms Parsons approached the bridge over the creek she observed a man and a woman standing on the edge of the creek with a pusher which was a dark coloured pusher. She saw a number of black plastic bags and one green bag. Ms Parsons and her grandchildren moved on straight away as the people were staring at her. Ms Parsons described the woman as between 30 and 40 with blonde to light brown wavy hair. She said because of their appearance her first thought was that they might be drug addicts or alcoholics or homeless people.
The circumstances in which Ms Hasse and Ms Parsons observed the woman in connection with a pusher are such that it is simply not possible to draw any inference from their evidence that the woman with the pusher was the accused. Moreover, some of the circumstances tend to suggest that the people observed by Ms Hasse and Ms Parsons might well have been completely unrelated to this matter. In reaching my conclusion about the pusher found by the police on 25 February 2009 I have not relied on the observations of the witnesses Hasse or Parsons.
The evidence of Benjamin Moulton on the other hand is not inconsistent with a description of the accused. Nevertheless his evidence is of quite general nature and on its own is quite neutral.
I am also mindful of the fact that not one of these three witnesses identified the accused as the person they observed with the pusher. In fact two of them, Mr Moulton and Ms Hasse, identified photographs of an unrelated person as the person they thought they had observed.
Nevertheless I have reached the conclusion that the pusher[13] is a pusher from Inara Dombrovska’s home at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. Further, I am satisfied that the accused did have access to the pushers, including P236 originally kept by her mother at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella and that from time to time both she and Agnese used one or more of them.
[13] Exhibit P236.
The fact that the accused also owned a pusher which she kept at her house at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs does not undermine that conclusion. The descriptions given by both Inara and Agnese Dombrovska of the pusher at Inara’s home are not necessarily inconsistent with the pusher found. I do not regard the misdescription relating to the teddy bear pattern by Agnese Dombrovska when first spoken to by the police as particularly significant in all of the circumstances. What is significant about Agnese Dombrovska’s description of the pusher she used is the position of the missing screw at the base of the pusher. The pusher[14] has a missing screw in the identical position described by Agnese Dombrovska.
[14] Exhibit P236.
Moreover I do not regard Inara Dombrovska’s uncertainty about the pusher[15] as undermining the conclusion that the pusher was in fact originally kept at her home at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. I regard her explanation for why she was unable to identify the pusher as perfectly understandable for a woman in her position. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the pusher found by the police on the bikeway originally came from Inara Dombrovska’s property. As such it was readily accessible to the accused. The fact that DNA recovered from the base of the seat on the pusher is consistent with the DNA of Ms McGlynn points strongly to the conclusion that at least some of the remains of Ms McGlynn were transported to the Christies Creek area where they were found in that pusher. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the pusher was used in connection with the disposal of at least some of Ms McGlynn’s remains and/or the disposal of other items of property namely the statues found at the various locations marked finds 1-6.[16]
[15] Exhibit P236.
[16] Exhibit P235B.
Inara Dombrovska
Inara Dombrovska is the mother of the accused. I was impressed with this witness. Although it was obvious that she found the experience of coming to court to give evidence in the trial of her daughter extremely difficult, her testimony was factual, unemotional and consistent and I have no hesitation in accepting the truth of this witness’s testimony. That is not to say that there were not some ambiguities about certain aspects of her testimony and I will deal with them shortly.
Inara Dombrovska knew Ms McGlynn by sight. From time to time she saw her walking up and down Somerfield Avenue. She knew that Ms McGlynn lived on the same street. Apart from seeing her walking to and from the shops she had never spoken to Ms McGlynn other than to say hello. In particular Inara Dombrovska denied ever going to Ms McGlynn’s house in the second half of 2008 offering to be her carer. She first became aware of Ms McGlynn’s disappearance on the television news report. She recognised the picture of Ms McGlynn on the television news as the lady who lived down the street.
On 3 December 2008 she went to Caffé Buongiorno at O’Halloran Hill with other family members to celebrate the accused’s birthday. There was the accused, her boyfriend Ejaz and the accused’s children Dita and Francesca. Inara Dombrovska said that they returned home from that celebration before 9.00pm. When questioned closely about that time she maintained that it was after 8.00pm when they arrived home but she could not be sure of the time. She thought it took approximately 20 minutes to get home from Caffé Buongiorno.
It is not clear from Inara Dombrovska’s evidence when she first had a conversation with the accused about the disappearance of Ms McGlynn. The police came to Agnese’s house and Inara Dombrovska said the next day Agnese asked the accused for an explanation about why the police had been to her house. The response the accused gave was not very convincing according to Inara Dombrovska who explained that she was not communicating very much with the accused at the time because she was disappointed about the accused having had a complaint made against her in connection with the illegal use of a credit card at work.
She testified to a conversation which occurred on Christmas Eve 2008. After the arrival of the accused and her children at Agnese’s house Inara Dombrovska asked the accused to go out into the backyard with her. There they had a conversation concerning the disappearance of Ms McGlynn. Inara Dombrovska said she gave the accused an ultimatum that if she did not tell the truth about what had happened in relation to Ms McGlynn they would not be able to celebrate Christmas Eve together. Although she was not clear on the sequence of the conversation Inara Dombrovska testified that the accused told her she had been watching Ms McGlynn for “some time” and that she went to her house while Ms McGlynn was at McDonalds. She made Ms McGlynn “unconscious” and searched her house. After she made Ms McGlynn unconscious she went back to her home and returned to Ms McGlynn’s house later that evening. The accused told her that she then wrapped Ms McGlynn in plastic and sheets and took her somewhere south out of the city. She did not say how she got her out of the city. Nor did she say how the accused rendered Ms McGlynn unconscious. Inara Dombrovska, perhaps not unnaturally, said she was in shock during this conversation. She did not recall specifically what her response to being told these things was as she could hardly imagine that her daughter was responsible for the death of Ms McGlynn.
Inara Dombrovska had seen a television news story about the disappearance of Ms McGlynn in which it was mentioned that the accused had been at a bank. According to Inara Dombrovska the accused told her that she had faked a power of attorney from Ms McGlynn and that she had ordered a stamp in order to complete the witnessing to Ms McGlynn’s signature.
As I have remarked earlier it is not entirely clear when all of these things were said to Inara Dombrovska and in what particular conversation or conversations, however I am satisfied that the accused did say these things to her mother.
At one stage the accused told her mother she was certain the police would never find Ms McGlynn. During the Christmas Eve conversation Inara Dombrovska believes the accused told her that with the power of attorney she wanted to sell Ms McGlynn’s house and buy another house. She also told her mother that she had got into Ms McGlynn’s house through the roof. After the accused told her mother these things it was all too much for Inara Dombrovska and she asked her daughter to leave.
With regard to the property of Ms McGlynn found in the accused’s house, this witness testified she saw a little wooden table with carved legs and a toaster on top of it when she had gone to the accused’s house on 6 December 2008 to celebrate the accused’s birthday at her home. She thought that the table was somewhat unusual for the accused. The accused told her mother that she had bought the table in a garage sale. Inara Dombrovska has no memory of ever buying a toaster oven for the accused.
With regard to the pusher[17] Inara Dombrovska was not sure whether she had ever owned that pusher, however she did agree that she owned many pushers of different colours and it could have been one of them. She agreed that she told the police in January 2010 she did not recognise the pram shown to her as one of her own. Inara Dombrovska made it clear that after she had moved out of her house in Somerfield Avenue in 2008 she did not take any of the prams with her and they were not uppermost in her mind so she does not really know what happened to them. There is no doubt in her mind that the accused often borrowed one of the prams from her after Francesca was born.
[17] Exhibit P236.
Inara Dombrovska agreed with the proposition put to her in cross‑examination that there was an occasion when the accused asked her to look after the children at the accused’s home. When Inara Dombrovska arrived the police were at the accused’s house and wanted the accused to go to the police station with them. On this occasion when the accused arrived home and Inara Dombrovska asked what the police wanted to speak to her about the accused told her it was about stealing. Inara Dombrovska did not press the accused on that occasion for any more details as she was already aware of other instances of stealing and felt very disappointed in the accused. It was only after the police had been to Agnese’s house on 19 December 2008 that Inara Dombrovska asked the accused what this was all about.
In cross‑examination Inara Dombrovska agreed that during the Christmas Eve conversation the accused did say to her in answer to her mother’s questions words to the effect of “yeah mum, I climbed in through the roof and hit her on the head and put her in the backyard”. She agreed that the tone of the accused in this conversation was of a sarcastic nature and clearly intended to convey to her mother that the accused wished her to stop questioning her about the topic.
Although Inara Dombrovska was not clear about the number of times that she babysat the children for the accused in December 2008, she was clear that there was an occasion between 3 December and the following Sunday 7 December 2008 when the accused asked her to mind the children for a couple of hours. This was not the occasion when she went to the house and the police were there. All she could remember about that occasion was that she did not have to prepare the dinner and she did not know where the accused had gone or what she had been doing and did not ask her either. I am satisfied that there was an occasion between Wednesday 3 December and Sunday 7 December 2008 when Inara Dombrovska did look after the children for a couple of hours. It could well have been on the afternoon of 3 December 2008. There is nothing in Inara Dombrovska’s testimony, either in chief or in cross‑examination which is inconsistent with that possibility.
Amanda Jayne Patterson

This witness was an inmate at the Adelaide Womens Prison at the same time as the accused. She testified to a number of conversations with the accused over a wide-ranging number of topics. According to Ms Patterson the accused told her straight-out that she had murdered Ms McGlynn. She had told this witness that she was the carer of Ms McGlynn when Ms McGlynn wanted to stop the relationship she murdered her because “I always get my way”. According to Ms Patterson the accused told her that Ms McGlynn gave her money, passports and furniture. The accused seemed convinced that if the police could not find the head or the hands there would be no case against her.
The accused said to this witness that it had been a hot day when she killed Ms McGlynn, that she had taken Ms McGlynn by surprise then dumped her body, put it in the boot of her car and then drove it away. She said she had done this after she had put the children to bed and went back to Ms McGlynn’s house.
Ms Patterson is a witness whose truthfulness and credibility must seriously be in doubt. Her antecedent report[18] tendered in these proceedings evidences a woeful record of dishonesty. A psychologist who examined Ms Patterson for the purpose of court proceedings in which she was involved described her as suffering from depression, anxiety and borderline personality disorder. He described her behaviour as neurotic and attention seeking. The statements attributed to the accused were allegedly made to this witness at a time when Ms Patterson was still serving a sentence of imprisonment and was facing another sentence for further offences of dishonesty. She had much to gain by telling the police about her conversations with the accused and the evidence demonstrates that she did in fact gain much. The sentence she ultimately received was merciful and in deed might be thought to be explicable only if a discount for her cooperation with the authorities is taken into account. Even more concerning is the fact that Ms Patterson appears to have attempted to fabricate material to benefit her in the course of her previous sentencing. Two exhibits tendered[19] during her cross‑examination support the inference that Ms Patterson is the author of those documents which are fabrications. Other matters were put to Ms Patterson in cross‑examination from which I infer that this witness has continued to lie and cheat even after she was released from prison in late 2010.
[18] Exhibit D1.
[19] Exhibits D12 and D13.
The prosecutor has suggested that the conversations which this witness allegedly had with the accused on the topic of the missing head and hands of the body of Ms McGlynn is particularly significant as it demonstrates esoteric knowledge on the part of the accused. I cannot agree with that submission, however it is not necessary to analyse in any further detail the reasons why as I have decided that I simply cannot accept or rely on any of the evidence of this witness. It might be true that there are some aspects of the conversations described by Ms Patterson with the accused which are plausible in light of other evidence, on the other hand there are some aspects of the evidence of Ms Patterson the details of which are markedly inconsistent with other evidence. I do not intend to try and resolve any of these difficulties in light of the fact that I have such a deep sense of unease about the truthfulness of Ms Patterson that I am simply not prepared to act on her evidence. In the end the only use which I have made of Ms Patterson’s testimony is to consider whether there is anything in the evidence given by Ms Patterson which might support the defence case or which raises as a reasonable possibility that the accused is innocent of this charge. I note that the defence did not seek to rely on anything in the testimony of Ms Patterson in support of the accused’s defence but nevertheless I have considered her testimony in that light. Apart from that I have not acted on Ms Patterson’s evidence.
Giuseppe Daniele
I turn now to the evidence of Giuseppe Daniele. This witness was presented by the prosecution late in the prosecution case at the request of the defence. Mr Daniele was previously in a relationship with the accused. In fact Francesca, the younger child of the accused born on 19 December 2005, is his daughter.
In cross-examination a number of matters were put to Mr Daniele to the effect that he, not the accused, is the person responsible for the death of Ms McGlynn on the night of 3 December 2008. He was first questioned generally about whether he had ever travelled to the accused’s house at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs in early December 2008. He agreed that in December 2008 he did drive past the house at 72 Scottsglade Road because he wanted to establish the current address of the accused. He explained that he had been to see a solicitor in Wakefield Street and was told that before he could commence proceedings for access to his child the lawyer would need to have an address for the accused. He described what he saw when he drove past 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs. He saw a Commodore which he did not recognise parked across the lawn and he saw a white vehicle which he believed was the accused’s backed into an open garage. Questioned further he said:
Q.Are you able to tell us what night you think it was that you drove past Mrs Gavare's house.
A.I can't be certain, but I know it was a Saturday night.
Q.Do you think it was in fact a Wednesday night.
A.No, absolutely not.
Q.Wednesday, 3 December 2008.
A.I don't think so. I just recall it being a Saturday night.
A series of questions was then put to Mr Daniele suggesting the following scenario; that on the night of Wednesday 3 December 2008 Mr Daniele was driving down Somerfield Avenue, Reynella when he had some kind of accident as a result of which he went looking for the accused. He burst into her home and demanded that she go back to Somerfield Avenue with him. That eventually she did so following him in her own car and they then both entered the home of Ms McGlynn where she sat seriously injured. Then Mr Daniele and the accused moved Ms McGlynn into the backyard, Mr Daniele put a box of items into the boot of the accused’s car, gave her the keys to Ms McGlynn’s house and told her to leave. He threatened to kill the accused or her family if she went to the police about the matter. That is the main thrust of the suggestion put to Mr Daniele in cross‑examination. He denied those allegations.
It was evident from the manner in which Mr Daniele gave evidence in court that he had not, prior to being questioned in court by Mr Algie, directed his mind specifically to his movements and whereabouts on the night of Wednesday 3 December 2008. He was later recalled to give further evidence about his movements on the night of 3 December 2008 in light of a development which seems to have occurred after he spoke with his sister Ms Maria Nudo who was also called as a witness by the prosecution.
After discussion with Ms Nudo Mr Daniele realised that the night of 3 December 2008 was the twelfth birthday party of his nephew Damien, Ms Nudo’s son. Mr Daniele having recalled that fact then realised that he along with a number of other members of the wider family attended a birthday party at his sister’s home in Rose Park to celebrate his nephew’s birthday.
Ms Nudo was also called to confirm the details of the birthday party on that night and generally speaking, who attended. Ms Nudo explained that their family always celebrate family birthdays on the actual birthday. In 2008 that day fell on a Wednesday and she recalled being particularly inconvenienced by the fact that she had to host about 30 to 35 family members midway through the week. In these circumstances I find that the reasons ultimately given for being able to pin down Mr Daniele’s whereabouts on the night of Wednesday 3 December 2008 are convincing.
I take into account the evident fact that the relationship between Mr Daniele and the accused ended badly for both of them and, it would seem, quite acrimoniously, in the context of litigation commenced by the accused concerning an alleged assault upon her by Mr Daniele. Indeed at the time when these events were unfolding in December 2008 Mr Daniele was also plainly contemplating commencing litigation in order to seek custody and/or access to his daughter Francesca.
Nevertheless, taking all of these circumstances into account, I am satisfied that Giuseppe Daniele was an honest witness and gave a truthful account of his movements on the night of 3 December 2008.
Generally speaking his evidence was given in a spontaneous manner. It was obvious that when first cross‑examined about his movements on the night of 3 December 2008 Mr Daniele had never previously given any particular thought to what he had been doing on that night. His incredulity in response to the suggestions put to him that he was involved in the death of Ms McGlynn was obviously genuine.
The fact that Mr Daniele’s sister was later able to recall that he was at her son’s twelfth birthday party in Rose Park provides some objective confirmation of Mr Daniele’s evidence that he was not in Reynella at least in the early part of the evening of 3 December 2008.
I have no hesitation in accepting Mr Daniele as a witness of truth. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Daniele had nothing to do with the disappearance and death of Ms McGlynn.
Statements to the Police
In the course of the investigation into the disappearance of Ms McGlynn, in the days after 3 and 4 December 2008 the accused participated in a number of interviews with the police. The accused was eventually arrested on 26 February 2009. The interviews which formed part of the prosecution case took place between 9 December 2008 and 6 January 2009. Some of the interviews were lengthy and wide‑ranging. It is convenient therefore to summarise some of the main points from each of the interviews before considering what use can be made of those interviews.
The first conversation which any police officer had with the accused was on 9 December 2008. After the accused attended at Morphett Vale North branch of the ANZ Bank attempting to withdraw money from Ms McGlynn’s account the teller, Emma Hampton, phoned the missing persons department at the police. She spoke with Constable Robyn Ferraro who ultimately spoke with the accused over the telephone. In that conversation the accused, in response to a question from Constable Ferraro as to why she was withdrawing money from Ms McGlynn’s account, said that she was a friend who helped Ms McGlynn with odd jobs around the house and that she was asked by Ms McGlynn to withdraw money from her account to do some improvements on her house. Constable Ferraro asked the accused if she knew if Ms McGlynn was missing to which the accused replied no. The accused told Constable Ferraro that it was unusual for Ms McGlynn to go away without telling anyone and that she would usually tell someone. She told Constable Ferraro that the arrangement to do the improvements on Ms McGlynn’s house had taken place sometime in the first week of November at Ms McGlynn’s house. The accused told the police that she had last seen Ms McGlynn on 27 November 2008 at her house. At that time she was her usual self. When Constable Ferraro asked if Ms McGlynn mentioned going away anywhere the accused volunteered that Ms McGlynn had booked a holiday for a week and it was while she was away that the accused intended to do the work and improvements on her house. The accused said she did not know where Ms McGlynn intended to go except that it was somewhere on the peninsula. She also told Constable Ferraro that Ms McGlynn had booked a holiday with a tour company. Constable Ferraro asked for a copy of the power of attorney that the accused had presented to the bank and that was the end of the conversation.
The day after the accused attended the ANZ Bank three police officers from the Christies Beach CIB went to the accused’s house at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs and searched the house. During the course of their attendance at the house they had a conversation with the accused.
At that stage police were investigating a possible fraud relating to the use of Ms McGlynn’s debit card by the accused on 9 December 2008.
In that conversation the accused told the police:
·That Vonne (as the accused described her) gave her an enduring power of attorney.
·Ms McGlynn wanted her to pull out old carpets and repaint walls.
·She gave the accused her debit card on 27 November 2008.
·The accused signed the power of attorney at Ms McGlynn’s home.
·Ms McGlynn told her where she was going on holidays but the accused could not remember the name of the place.
·Ms McGlynn left no contact details.
·The accused intended to withdraw $2,000 from the bank account of Ms McGlynn for repairing carpets and walls.
·Accused has the keys to Ms McGlynn’s home because Ms McGlynn wanted her to check on the house.
·Accused did check after she went to the bank when she was told what had happened.
·The last time the accused was in Ms McGlynn’s house was yesterday (meaning 9 December 2008).
·The accused went there straight after she had been to the ANZ Bank.
·She saw the broken back window and the police note there.
·She has the original power of attorney document and gave it to police.
·The accused wrote her name and Ms McGlynn’s name on the power of attorney form.
·Ms McGlynn took it, then brought it back for the accused to sign. The accused went to see her again to sign the power of attorney.
·Accused said she cannot remember the day she signed the power of attorney.
·Ms McGlynn did not tell her the exact date when she was going to be back.
·The accused first met Ms McGlynn when living on Somerfield Avenue in 2006 when her daughter Francesca was about two months old.
·She signed the power of attorney in Ms McGlynn’s house. No Justice of the Peace was present.
·The accused does not know about the Justice of Peace stamp on the power of attorney.
·The accused has been to the Christies Beach court.
·The accused intended to start work on Ms McGlynn’s house in the week of 9 December 2008.
·The accused told Ms McGlynn when talking at her house that she had been doing renovations of her own. Ms McGlynn said perhaps the accused could help her as well.
·They discussed mainly the floors.
·Ms McGlynn did not give the accused any contact details as the accused understood that she was going to move around.
·The accused expected Ms McGlynn back in the beginning of January.
·The accused says Ms McGlynn’s phone number was either 8381 3390 or 3899.
·Accused does not call Ms McGlynn often.
·The accused says she had done a power of attorney for her mother and sister about two years ago. Accused says she knows about powers of attorney. That you can go to a lawyer or draft it yourself. Accused also displayed knowledge of the details of the procedure necessary to create a power of attorney and that it needed to be signed in front of a JP.
·The accused said Ms McGlynn gave her documents for secure keeping.
The second interview with the accused was on 19 December 2008 again at her home at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs. The same two police officers Charlton and Watt were present for this interview and much of the same ground was covered again.
In that interview:
·The accused said again that she got the debit card from Ms McGlynn on the morning of 27 November 2008.
·She thinks she was at TAFE between 9.00am and 12.00pm that day so caught up with Ms McGlynn between 1.00pm and 4.00pm.
·Ms McGlynn independent and mentally ok and does her own shopping. Walks to the shops.
·Accused never noticed anything about her arm.
·Accused said she used to pop into Ms McGlynn’s house and have a cup of tea with her.
·“All old ladies, they, you know, tell their stories”.
·Ms McGlynn talked mostly about her travels and how she bought things from overseas.
·Accused thought she had travelled to Malaysia or perhaps Venezuela.
·Accused never took Ms McGlynn anywhere in her car.
·Never saw any plaster on Ms McGlynn’s arm.
·The accused considered Ms McGlynn a close friend. Rang her sometimes to check on her.
·Ms McGlynn never telephoned her.
·The accused once in a blue moon telephoned Ms McGlynn.
·Accused visited Ms McGlynn maybe eight times in the last two years.
·The accused sometimes cooked and brought a meal to Ms McGlynn.
That interview continued later on in the afternoon and evening of 19 December 2008 at the Christies Beach Police Station. In the second half of that interview the accused said:
·The last time she went to Ms McGlynn’s house was a Wednesday to put out the bins and check the house.
·On 27 November 2008 Ms McGlynn told the accused she was going away and gave her the debit card and the power of attorney.
·Ms McGlynn said she was going to contact the accused on the phone. Ms McGlynn has never rung the accused on the phone.
·The accused first spoke to Ms McGlynn about house renovations on 11 November at Ms McGlynn’s home.
·Ms McGlynn did not tell the accused when she was going away or where.
·The accused had a feeling that Ms McGlynn was coming home at the beginning of January.
·The accused last saw Ms McGlynn on 27 November 2008.
·Accused’s mother does not know Ms McGlynn.
·Even if Ms McGlynn did tell the accused where she was going the accused cannot remember names.
·The living room was to be renovated and the carpet in the whole house as well.
·Ms McGlynn wanted a natural finish on the floor and wanted the walls to be painted in cream.
·The accused had not started pulling up carpets at the date when the police spoke to her.
·The accused intended to do the renovations herself.
·The accused denied that she had begun to pack up the house.
·She thought the house was a bit messy the last time she visited.
·Specifically on 27 November 2008 the accused said there were no bags in the kitchen.
·The last time she visited she saw things in the bedroom on the bed which looked like medicine. She made these observations when she took the bins out on Wednesday.
·When asked which Wednesday the accused eventually agreed that she put the bins out after she went to the bank on 9 December and agreed that she must have put the bins out twice.
·When she saw all of the stuff around the house it was the second time she put the bins out.
·Later in the interview the accused denied that she did anything with the bins on either 3 or 4 December 2008. Still later she confirmed that she had only taken the bins out once.
·The accused was asked about the power of attorney and said the idea was hers but when asked why she could not answer.
·The accused agreed that she asked Ms McGlynn at some stage if she could be her carer. Ms McGlynn declined and said she was fine and did not need it.
·Ms McGlynn has never been to the accused’s house.
·The accused was questioned whether she had anything of Ms McGlynn’s at her house. She said she did not.
·The accused mentioned Ms McGlynn’s brother and that she knew that he lived interstate in Queensland.
·The accused said Ms McGlynn spoke of her brother and told the accused that if anything happened to her to contact her brother. She did not leave the phone number for her brother.
·The accused admitted she wrote the details in the power of attorney document as she has neater writing than Ms McGlynn.
·Ms McGlynn never asked her to fill out any other documents for her.
·This was the first time Ms McGlynn ever asked the accused to look after her house.

When asked by the police what she thought might have happened to Ms McGlynn she said:[20]
[20] Exhibit P35A, pp 27-28.
Q.Mmm. Have you got any ideas, what do you think’s happened to her?
A.Phew, shew, hers age, just and what can happen, that age, you know, like old people, they just wander off
Q.Yeh. Generally, we find them pretty quickly though, old people
A.Pardon?
Q.Generally, we find them pretty quickly, they don’t go far
A.Yeh
Q.Mmm
A.Um, you know, like ah, and if, I don’t know what sort of medical condition she’s got, whether she’s got conscious, lost consciousness or?
Q.No, she hasn’t touched her bank accounts, and that’s the other thing that’s really interesting, is that
A.No, I, I’ve, when I’ve watched the ones those Missing Persons Unit, then I remember, there’s this older man whose got heart problem as well
Q.Yeh
A.And when they found him on a last minute, when he was very dehydrated and, and really badly needed his medication, so he survived, so, something like that I’m thinking
·The accused said Ms McGlynn never mentioned her broken arm and the accused did not notice it perhaps because she saw her only in November and before that in June or July, but not in between.
·The accused saw Ms McGlynn on 11 November and took the power of attorney with her on that day.
·When the accused was further pressed about the power of attorney she responded by saying that she could not answer.
The fourth and final interview with the accused took place at the accused’s house on 6 January 2009. In that interview Detective Brevet Sergeant Fitzpatrick commenced the interview by warning the accused that she was now considered to be a suspect in the murder of Ms McGlynn. In that interview the accused:
·Agreed that she only ever popped in to see Ms McGlynn, never made an arrangement beforehand.
·She told Ms McGlynn that she was renovating her own house and it was in that context that the topic of renovating Ms McGlynn’s house came up.
·On the day that she found out that Ms McGlynn was missing she walked through the house to check and saw lots of shopping bags on the floor which she thought was unusual.
·She thinks Monday 8 December 2008 was the last date she ever went to Ms McGlynn’s home.
·On 3 December 2008 the accused thinks she dropped her daughter off at school. Went to Caffé Buongiorno for dinner that night and returned home by 9.00pm or 10.00pm.
·On Thursdays she should be at TAFE.
·Francesca goes to day care and she picks her up between 3.00pm and 4.00pm.
·The accused cannot specifically remember what she did on 4 December 2008.
·Friday she might have gone “mad shopping” by which she meant she was shopping for a party on Saturday.
·She repeated that the keys and debit card of Ms McGlynn’s were given to her on 27 November 2008.
·At one stage she peeled off a bit of carpet in the living room to check what was underneath. There was no underlay. There was a natural wood underneath.
·The accused had not called the man who was going to do the sanding yet.
·She told Ms McGlynn that it would cost about $2,000.
·Ms McGlynn gave her debit card and said she would give the accused a call and give her the pin number later. She never did so the accused went to the bank.
·The accused gave her own phone number to Ms McGlynn on 27 November 2008.
·On 27 November Ms McGlynn gave her keys, debit card and power of attorney to the accused while sitting at the table in the living room.
·Questioned further about the power of attorney the accused gave a number of contradictory and confusing answers.
·The accused said when the keys were handed to her Ms McGlynn told her which was the front and which was the back key.
·On 8 December at 10.00am she entered the house of Ms McGlynn.
·On that morning she saw the note from the police explaining why the window was broken, saw the bag in the bedroom with medicines in it.
·When the accused was asked why she waited two weeks to go to the bank she explained that Ms McGlynn told her that she might be back in the beginning of January so she was planning in her own mind how much time was needed for things.
·Accused admitted typing in Ms McGlynn’s address in Google Maps on her own computer.
·Admitted typing in the address of Ms McGlynn’s brother on Google Maps. Explained that if something goes wrong she was told to contact him so was curious.
·Accused told the police she had never Googled forensics such as DNA.
·When asked what she thought when she saw the note from the police in Ms McGlynn’s house the accused said:[21]
[21] Exhibit P180A at 62-65.
Q.What did you think when you saw that?
A.Oh went; what did I think
Q.Mmm
A.Oh just picked it up read it, what did it say
Q.What did you think, I mean it’s not everyday you go in someone’s house there’s a note lying on the floor from the police, what, what did you think?
A.I wondered what’s this about getting, that’s all
Q.When you read that note
A.When I read that note
Q.When; what did it make you think about?
A.Think about
Q.Yeah
A.Police got nothing else to do than just trash other people windows
Q.Oh okay, did you
A.And say that’s not out fault, okay
Q.Okay well that’s one of the things you thought of. Did you see in the line there that it said “police were very concerned about her welfare” and that we would but that’s the reason why they’ve broken in?
A.I think so yes
Q.Yeah is the reason why obviously the police do things like that
A.Yeah
Q.When you saw that we were concerned about our welfare
A.Yeah
Q.Were you concerned about her welfare?
A.Ahm yeah I straight away asked myself where is she yeah, there straight away I thought I started thinking like where is she, yeah
Q.What did you do?
A.What did I do
Q.Mm when you started thinking about her welfare, cos we were worried, so what did you do after you read that note?
A.That yeah, picked up the note then, then went through the house
Q.Yep
A.Around the house
Q.Yep
A.Outside and ah didn’t find anything
Q.Mm
A.Like didn’t find her
Q.So you read the note and then you went around the house and saw all those bags?
A.Yes
Q.You mentioned before
A.Yes, yes
Q.Concerned?
A.Hmm yeah a bit unusual
Q.Unusual okay
A.Yeah
Q.How so, what, would you say unusual?
A.Unusual that all the bags are there, yeah
Q.When you read the note and then thought this is unusual what did that lead you to think?
A.Ohm lead you to think, ah thought what “what’s going on here”, that’s what I thought
Q.Okay and then what did you do with the note?
A.Ahm I think put it in my bag
Q.Put it in your bag?
A.I think so yeah
Q.Ring the police?
A.Oh police already knew it, cos I spoke to police on the phone at the bank
Q.Did you tell then when you spoke them, what did you tell them when you spoke to them on the phone at the bank?
A.Ohm, they ask me that ahm they are concerned about Miss McGlynn’s we; welfare
Q.Aham
A.Ahm that she’s missing and they ask me when did I see her last
Q.Hm
A.Yeah
Q.Did you tell them that you had the keys to her house?
A.No
Q.Did you tell them that you had ah any; di; did you discuss with them anything that we’ve just, you know talked about here today?
A.No but
Q.About the plans that you made with her
A.I say that in the past, all that information to the ah, ah investigation unit, and do I mind if I get contacted by them and I said “no”
Q.But you didn’t mention to them the discussions that you’ve told us about that you had with ah Mrs McGlynn?
A.No why would I?
Q.Well I would suggest that ah the police were worried about where Mrs McGlynn is
A.Yeah
Q.That she’s possibly a missing person and that you spoke to her about
A.Yeah
Q.Where she was going or if she was going away and that she’d asked you to look after house, I would have suggest that that was something quite important, to tell Missing Persons that, but that’s my suggestion
A.No I am different person
That is a brief and by no means comprehensive summary of some of the relevant topics canvassed by police with the accused in those interviews.
It can be seen from the foregoing summary that the accused made a number of contradictory statements throughout the interviews with the police on a number of topics, most importantly on the topics of her relationship with Ms McGlynn, the last occasion she spoke with Ms McGlynn, the number of times she went to 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella and in relation to the power of attorney.
There is no need to try and resolve these inconsistencies as the accused in evidence has admitted that she lied to the police in those interviews. However what the accused said to the police forms part of the evidence before me and I have not overlooked those interviews when considering whether on the whole of the evidence there is any explanation consistent with the accused’s innocence. I note that the defence did not seek to rely on anything said by the accused to the police in support of the accused’s defence but I have considered those police interviews in that light.
The Accused
At the conclusion of the prosecution case the accused elected to give evidence. I am mindful of the fact that she was not obliged to do so. She could have refrained from giving evidence and relied upon the failure by the prosecution to prove the charge against her beyond reasonable doubt. As the accused did give evidence and submit herself to cross‑examination I have assessed her evidence on exactly the same footing as the evidence of all of the other witnesses and it is to that evidence I now turn.
The accused denied killing Ms McGlynn. In evidence she said that on the night of 3 December 2008 her former partner Giuseppe Daniele turned up at her house at about 9.30pm or 10.00pm. He threatened her. He told her that he had an accident and demanded that she go with him to Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. The accused said she agreed to go with him because she was frightened of him. She travelled in her own car behind him and when they arrived at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella they went into the house via the front door which Mr Daniele opened with the keys of Ms McGlynn. Inside the accused saw a seriously injured Ms McGlynn sitting on the sofa in the lounge with blood on her head and on her clothes. She felt for a pulse and could not feel one. Mr Daniele asked her to assist him to take Ms McGlynn outside. They did so and left her on the pavement outside. He then had a look around the house, picked up a table and put it in the accused’s car. She took an oven. She was not entirely clear whether she did so at the suggestion of the accused or of her own volition but eventually Mr Daniele told her to put the toaster in the car. He then gave her the keys to the house, put a box of things in the boot of her car and told her to leave. On 6 December 2008 Mr Daniele returned to her house, knocked on the front door and told her again not to say a word about the night of 3 December 2008.
The accused admitted that in all of her interviews with the police she had lied. She was asked why and said this:
A.I lied because I felt that once I started lying I could not stop lying and just I had to continue with the story I made up.
The accused denied that she had anything to do with packing up the house at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. In fact she denied going back to the house at all between the night of 3 December when she was there with Mr Daniele, and Tuesday 9 December 2008, being the day she went to the ANZ Bank. With regard to the evidence of Inara and Agnese Dombrovska it is fair to say that the accused whilst admitting that some of the topics referred to by the witnesses in their evidence were canvassed in conversation with her, that her mother and her sister had misunderstood the context in which the conversation occurred. Specifically the accused said that Inara Dombrovska misunderstood the sarcastic response of the accused to her mother’s questioning about her involvement with Ms McGlynn’s disappearance.
The accused’s evidence about the conversations she had with Inara and Agnese Dombrovska is puzzling. On the one hand she agreed that she did say some of the things her mother alleges that she said in the conversation they had on Christmas Eve 2008. However she maintained that both her mother and her sister misunderstood the thrust of the Christmas Eve conversation in one vital respect. The accused said, that instead of telling her mother that she had been watching Ms McGlynn for quite a while, that she went Ms McGlynn’s house at a time when the old lady was at McDonalds, she went into the house through the roof, she made her unconscious and searched her house and went back in the evening, wrapped her in plastic and sheets and took her out of the city somewhere south, that those things were actually mentioned in the context of a sarcastic rhetorical question to her mother along the lines of “do you really think I stalk old ladies, get in their house through the roof, wait for them and knock them cold when they come home?”.
The accused later categorically denied that she had wrapped up Ms McGlynn in plastic and sheets and taken her somewhere south. Curiously however she did not deny telling her mother that Ms McGlynn was hidden in the backyard.
The accused was asked why she thought it necessary on 5 January 2009 to tell her mother that what she had previously said was not true. The accused explained that she had to clear it up with her mother that she was not serious and that her mother should not take her seriously. Her answers are revealing:
Q.Why did you feel the need to tell her later that what you said was not true if you were being sarcastic.
A.Because I felt that I had to just clear that up with my mother, that I wasn't serious, that she shouldn't take it serious, what I said.
Q.What was it that you said that, in your view, she misunderstood.
A.Well, I wanted to make clear to her that I haven't stalked Vonne McGlynn, that I haven't broken into her house, that I haven't definitely stunned her.
Q.You wanted to clear those up because you told her that you had done those things on the first occasion; is that right.
A.I did not say 'I've done her', I said to her 'Do you think that I really would do things like that?', such as this.
Q.Yet if you said that what language were you using.
A.50/50.
Q.You can communicate with your mother well enough.
A.On occasions, yes.
Q.Because it's a very different thing to say 'Do you think I have done those things', to say that on the one hand and yet on the other hand to say 'I've done those things'. It's a very different conversation, isn't it.
A.Exactly.
Q.And she has misunderstood all of it.
A.The reason I said to her couple of days later what I've said, 'Don't take it seriously because none of it is true' was to make sure that she hasn't misunderstood me.
I simply cannot accept the accused’s explanation of the conversations she had with her mother and sister on Christmas Eve 2008 and 5 January 2009. By 5 January 2009 at the very latest the accused must have realised that the police investigation was intensifying not abating. Indeed the very next day when Detective Fitzpatrick spoke with her he told her outright that she was a suspect for the murder of Ms McGlynn. In my view the conversation on 5 January 2009 between Inara Dombrovska and the accused was an exercise in damage control on the part of the accused for she knew she had already said too much.
I have already commented elsewhere in my reasons on the evidence of Inara Dombrovska. There is nothing the accused said in evidence which causes me to doubt that Inara Dombrovska accurately recounted the main things said to her by the accused on Christmas Eve 2008. Even if Inara Dombrovska was confused about how many conversations she had with her daughter earlier and when the topic of the power of attorney came up, I am in no doubt that what the accused said to Inara Dombrovska on Christmas Eve came as a terrible shock to Inara Dombrovska. Her daughter was virtually confessing to the killing of Ms McGlynn. I do not accept that she misunderstood her daughter in the way suggested by the accused. There is no dispute that the accused’s tone during the conversation was sarcastic however that is not quite the point. The accused’s statements about her involvement in the disappearance and death of Inara Dombrovska’s elderly neighbour is not a matter about which Inara Dombrovska is likely to be mistaken.
As I have remarked elsewhere I was impressed with this witness. Her evidence generally was measured and careful. For example she made no extravagant claims about her familiarity with and knowledge of the pusher which the police showed to her. She simply did not know whether she had ever owned that particular pusher and said so.
Even allowing for the different nuances in translation from Latvian to English, I am in no doubt that on Christmas Eve 2008 the accused told her mother that she waited for the old lady to come back from McDonalds, that she had been watching her for some time and when the old lady returned home she stunned her. It is a fact that Ms McGlynn regularly went to McDonalds for breakfast. Anyone who had been watching her movements would know that she regularly went there. That reference to waiting for the old lady to come back from McDonalds has the ring of truth about it.
The accused acknowledged that the last time she saw Ms McGlynn she was near to death but denied having anything to do with her death. She said that at some stage she decided that she would take advantage of the situation and try to benefit herself. She admitted that she had forged the power of attorney, had made phone calls to the Onkaparinga Council and the Salvation Army and admitted that she had searched on the internet because she was making preliminary inquiries contemplating that she might sell Ms McGlynn’s house.
The prosecution have suggested that the admitted lies told by the accused on important topics such as her relationship with Ms McGlynn, her last conversations with Ms McGlynn, her attendance at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella between 3 December and 10 December 2008, and the drafting of the power of attorney document, are all lies told out of a consciousness of guilt.
It is true that the accused has admitted to telling many lies to police both in her records of interview and to the constable who first questioned her on 9 December 2008 after she had attended at the ANZ Bank and attempted to withdraw $2,000 from Ms McGlynn’s account. The accused also admitted lying to Ms Patterson.
There is therefore no doubt that the accused has told a number of lies. I am conscious of a need for caution in the use I make of the admitted lies of the accused. In Edwards v The Queen,[22] which remains the leading authority in relation to the instructions required in a jury trial where the prosecution place reliance on admitted lies as evidence probative of guilt. The Court said:[23]
A lie can constitute an admission against interest only if it is concerned with some circumstance or event connected with the offence (i.e. it relates to a material issue) and if it was told by the accused in circumstances in which the explanation for the lie is that he knew that the truth would implicate him in the offence. Thus, in any case where a lie is relied upon to prove guilt, the lie should be precisely identified, as should the circumstances and events that are said to indicate that it constitutes an admission against interest.
[Footnote omitted]
[22] Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193.
[23] Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 at 210-211.

I also bear in mind the remarks of King CJ in Harris v The Queen:[24]
The circumstances in which lies told after an accused becomes aware that he is or might be under suspicion in connection with the crime can amount to positive evidence of the commission of the crime must be rare. The tendency of persons under suspicion to wish to distance themselves from the persons or events connected with the alleged crimes and to endeavour to improve their position by falsehood is far too common to enable an inference to be drawn with confidence, in any but the rarest of cases, that lies proceed from a consciousness of guilt. Unjust results can easily flow from a readiness to treat lies of an accused person as positive evidence of guilt. What was said by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in R v Toia [1982] 1 NZLR 555 at 559 in relation to New Zealand can be said with equal truth of South Australia. I quote the passage:
It is regrettable that a mystique seems to be developing in New Zealand about lies in criminal cases. The matter is not really complicated. There are two main ways in which lies by an accused may be important.
First, occasionally they are capable of adding something to the Crown case, whether as corroboration or simply as strengthening evidence. But, as pointed out by this Court in R v Collings [1976] 2 NZLR 104 at 116-117, most lies are not in that category. For example a false denial of being at the scene of the crime often does nothing to help prove that the accused committed the crime; he may simply want to avert unjust suspicion. It is only when a lie is more consistent with guilt than with innocence, as when it suggests that the accused cannot give an innocent explanation, that it can add anything to the case against him. We think that not enough heed may have been paid to the warning given in Collings (supra) against too readily relying on lies as links in a chain of proof. We are fortified in repeating that warning when we note that the Court of Appeal in England in a judgment delivered by Lord Lane CJ has recently stated the law substantially as it was stated in Collings. The case is R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.
Secondly, and more commonly, proved lies by an accused, whether in evidence or in statements out of court, may be relevant to credibility. This is no more than a matter of common sense. They may help the jury to decide whether the evidence for the prosecution should be preferred to an account put forward by the accused.
To jump to the conclusion that an accused who has lied must be guilty is a human tendency that has to be guarded against.
[24] Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321 at 323.
In the context of this matter Mr Algie submits that there are a number of reasons why the accused may have lied and these reasons are quite obvious. For example the accused made no secret of the fact that she had been dismissed from her employment for offences of dishonesty, she admitted that she had forged powers of attorney in the past, she was first questioned by the police in circumstances where she had just attended at the bank and tried to withdraw $2,000 from the deceased woman’s account and, on her evidence, she was fearful that if she exposed Mr Daniele he would harm her or her children.
While the prosecution’s reliance on some of the lies told by the accused as evidence of a consciousness of guilt on her part is not made without proper foundation, nevertheless I consider that in all of the circumstances the appropriate use of the proven lies told by the accused in this case is in evaluating the credibility of the accused, specifically whether I can rely on anything which the accused has said about this matter in evidence before me. I make it clear therefore that I have in evaluating the credibility of the accused thrown into the mix the fact that she has admitted lying to others about this matter, but I have not used the admitted lies told by the accused as evidence of guilt.
Leaving aside the issue of the previous admitted lies in her accounts to others about what happened in December 2008, the accused’s account in evidence of what happened on the night of 3 December 2008 is inherently improbable. In particular her account of the circumstances of Mr Daniele’s attendance at her place on the night of 3 December 2008 is utterly implausible. The accused’s reasons for returning with him in her own car, following him into the house of Ms McGlynn, seeing an elderly woman who she hardly knew seriously injured on the point of death and spontaneously within a few minutes it would seem, deciding to pick up the toaster oven and carry it away is incredible. On her own account the accused’s transition from a state of shock and numbness at this unexpected and shocking turn of events which confronted her to a state of mind where she decided she might as well profit from the situation must have occurred within minutes. Even taking into account, as the accused herself suggested, that she is a different person, I simply am unable to accept such a ludicrous account, even as a reasonable possibility. I have formed the view that the account which the accused gave in evidence of the events of the night of 3 December 2008 was made up by the accused to overcome the problem which she well knew was created by the fact that police found DNA consistent with the DNA profile of Ms McGlynn in the boot of her vehicle.
I reject the accused’s account of what occurred on the night of 3 December 2008 and in the days following. There is no reasonable possibility that what the accused said happened on the night of 3 December 2008 is true.
I bear in mind that even though I have rejected the evidence of the accused that does not relieve the prosecution of the responsibility of proving the case against her beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove her innocence, it is still for the prosecution to prove this charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The question is whether on the basis of all of the evidence which I do accept, the prosecution have proved each and every element of the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Bad Character Evidence
In the course of the trial some evidence was introduced by the accused herself about previous acts of dishonesty committed by her. This evidence falls within the description, for the purposes of a criminal trial, of previous bad character evidence. I am referring now to the accused’s admissions in her examination in chief that she was dismissed from her employment at a newsagency for stealing a co‑worker’s credit card and using it to make different purchases. She also admitted that she stole a drivers licence from another co‑worker and banking records from the mailbox of Mr Dottore which she later used to forge a power of attorney naming Mr Dottore as the donor. The power of attorney which she admitted forging in the name of Mr Dottore was admitted on the application of the defence.[25]
[25] Exhibit D10.
There was other evidence which seems to have come into the trial inadvertently and has no particular relevance on either the prosecution or the defence case. I refer to the evidence of Inara Dombrovska who referred incidentally to her knowledge of previous accusations against the accused that she had illegally used another person’s credit card at work. The accused herself referred to that incident.
The effect of previous bad character is well settled. Where it is not related to the actual issues in the case it goes only to the credit of the accused and not to her guilt.[26]
[26] See R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 at 92 per Bray CJ.
However here some of the evidence of bad character was relevant to an important issue in the trial namely whether the accused had a motive to kill Ms McGlynn as the prosecution contend. On the prosecution case the evidence that the accused forged a power of attorney in the name of Ms McGlynn is an important item of circumstantial evidence relative to motive. That evidence is also related to the accused’s admitted attendance at the ANZ Bank on 9 December 2008 when she attempted to withdraw $2,000 from Ms McGlynn’s account. The prosecution content that the forged power of attorney was the method by which the accused sought to steal money from Ms McGlynn’s bank account and presumably the method by which she contemplated selling Ms McGlynn’s house.
On the other hand the defence led evidence of a previous power of attorney created by the accused in the name of Mr Dottore[27] and the fact that the accused over a year earlier in December 2007 purchased the do it yourself power of attorney kit[28] and other documentation to negative the prosecution suggestion that the power of attorney created by the accused in the name of Ms McGlynn was part of any premeditated plan to kill her. That evidence was led to negative any suggestion that the documents found by the police relating to the power of attorney kit and the other pamphlets to do with powers of attorney were specifically purchased or created for the purpose of stealing from Ms McGlynn. The defence went further and suggested that the existence of these things in the accused’s personal possessions in December 2008 establishes that her pre‑knowledge of how to create a power of attorney and do these things supports her evidence that she spontaneously decided to take advantage of Ms McGlynn’s death once she became aware of it from Mr Daniele on the night of 3 December 2008.
[27] Exhibit D10.
[28] Exhibit D6.
They are the purposes for which the evidence was led on the prosecution and defence case respectively. However the general evidence of bad character, which includes the accused’s admitted acts of theft from other co-workers, is not relevant to any issue at the trial. I am mindful that that evidence does not make it more likely that the accused murdered Ms McGlynn or that she is the type of person who would commit the crime of murder. That is the very purpose for which the evidence must not be used and I make it clear that I have not made any use of the evidence of bad character to reason in that way.
Hearsay Evidence
Evidence of conversations which Ms McGlynn had with several witnesses was led at the trial. In fact this evidence was first elicited by the defence in the cross‑examination of Donald Smallwood who was asked about a conversation he had with his sister sometime after he had learnt that Ms McGlynn had broken her wrist. Mr Smallwood said that Ms McGlynn told him that a woman had come to the front door and banged on the front and the back door at 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. When Ms McGlynn opened the door the woman offered to be her carer to which Ms McGlynn said she did not need a carer. The woman remonstrated with her and said yes you do need a carer and I can do the job to which Ms McGlynn closed the door. Both Sharon Zadow and Therese Molloy also testified to similar conversations on the same topic which they had with Ms McGlynn in the months prior to her death in 2008. I have referred elsewhere in my reasons to these conversations.
The prosecution originally sought to elicit that evidence on the basis that it was relevant to the deceased’s state of mind in particular whether she was ever likely to have entrusted her affairs to a relative stranger and in particular whether she was ever likely to have signed over a power of attorney to such a person.
The police asked the accused directly in one of their conversations with her on 19 December 2008 whether she had ever offered to be Ms McGlynn’s carer. In the interview the accused agreed that she had had such a conversation with Ms McGlynn at her house and that Ms McGlynn declined her offer of help.
As it turned out the accused in evidence in court denied ever speaking with Ms McGlynn let alone asking to be her carer.
Thus, at the end of the trial the evidence about the conversations which Ms McGlynn had about someone offering to be her carer is quite irrelevant. It could never have been used to prove that in fact Ms McGlynn did have a conversation with the accused or with anyone else for that matter about an offer to be her carer. However, as the issue seems to have fallen away after the accused gave evidence I simply record that as far as I am concerned the evidence on this topic has simply fallen away and I dismiss it from my mind. I do not consider it necessary to make any findings about the alleged conversations. I have simply put that evidence aside.
Property Found in the Possession of the Accused
There is no doubt that a number of items of property belonging to Ms McGlynn were found in the possession of the accused. These include:
·Debit card;[29]
·The toaster oven;[30]
·A table;[31]
·Keys.[32]
[29] Exhibit P1.
[30] Exhibit P103.
[31] Exhibit P104.
[32] Exhibit P3.
There were other documents found in the home of the accused. These include:
·A4 notepad containing handwritten notes from the accused;[33]
·Handwritten list found in the accused’s bedroom;[34]
·Blue folder containing various documents including bank statements belonging to Ms McGlynn;[35]
·Expired passports and other photographs belonging to Ms McGlynn;[36]
·Green exercise book containing handwriting of the accused;[37]
·Loose extracts from a diary of the accused.[38]
[33] Exhibit P90.
[34] Exhibit P97.
[35] Exhibit P98.
[36] Exhibit P17.
[37] Exhibit P128.
[38] Exhibit P129.
Of particular significance in P98 are the bank statements of Ms McGlynn which relate to an Access Deeming Account with the ANZ Bank at Morphett Vale North in her name. It is an agreed fact that in the accused’s computer records[39] the accused accessed an ANZ webpage on the evening of 4 December 2008. She typed the words ‘access’, ‘deemed’ and ‘accounts’ in the course of a search of that webpage. This is significant as it appears that within 24 hours of the events of 3 December 2008 described by the accused in her evidence, the accused has gone through the box of material which she said Mr Daniele placed in her boot and found the ANZ bank statements relating to Ms McGlynn’s Access Deeming Account.
[39] Exhibit P261.
I infer from the admitted possession by the accused of these items of property and from the computer records that the accused had possession of some of Ms McGlynn’s property at least by the evening of the very same day that Ms McGlynn failed to answer the Red Cross phone call, namely 4 December 2008.
From that fact I infer that the accused must have been in Ms McGlynn’s house before she accessed the computer on the evening of 4 December 2008. These facts are yet another pointer to the accused as the person who is responsible for the disappearance of Ms McGlynn on the night of 3 and 4 December 2008. I cannot say when the accused took possession of all of the items of property in Ms McGlynn’s house, however I do infer beyond reasonable doubt from the computer searches undertaken by the accused on the night of 4 December 2008 that at the very least she had access to the contents of Ms McGlynn’s bank statements. On the basis of that evidence it is reasonable to conclude, and I so conclude, that the accused took possession of the keys, the debit card and the financial records of Ms McGlynn on 4 December 2008 if not earlier, on 3 December 2008.
On 5 December 2008 at 1.24pm the accused telephoned the Salvation Army and arranged for the collection of furniture from Ms McGlynn’s home. During that telephone conversation she used the name of ‘Isabella McGlynn’. On 8 December 2008 the accused telephoned the Onkaparinga Council and, using the name ‘Mrs VI McGlynn’, arranged for the collection of rubbish from Ms McGlynn’s property.
From all of the evidence, including the computer records which evidence internet searches by the accused approximate to those phone calls, I infer that the accused took steps as early as 5 December 2008 to clean out the home of Ms McGlynn. Even taking into account the accused’s known movements on 3 and 4 December 2008 including the family dinner at Caffé Buongiorno, the accused’s attendance at the TAFE college on Thursday 4 December, her child care responsibilities and shopping commitments, I am satisfied that the accused had ample time to access Ms McGlynn’s house between Wednesday 3 December and Monday 8 December 2008.
Factual Findings
I set out now some further salient facts which I find proved beyond reasonable doubt. Many of these facts are not in dispute. I make it clear that I have not specifically itemised every finding of fact in relation to each and every item of evidence which I have relied on.
·Ms McGlynn was last seen alive by her neighbours on 2 December 2008 in her front yard.
·On 3 December 2008 Ms McGlynn answered a Red Cross phone call from Bernadette Treloar at about 8.45am.
·On 4 December 2008 Ms McGlynn did not answer four Red Cross phone calls between about 7.50am and 8.45am.
·Ms McGlynn is dead.
·Partial remains of Ms McGlynn were found by police in the Christies Creek area on 23 and 25 February 2009 respectively.
·On 4 December 2008 at approximately 6.50pm the accused tried to access Ms McGlynn’s ANZ bank account online.
·On 5 December 2008 the accused telephoned the Salvation Army store call centre and used the name of Isabella McGlynn to arrange a pickup date for a collection of eight chairs, one sofa and one dining table from 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella for 23 December 2008.
·On 5 December 2008 the accused accessed websites on her home computer related to Tony Smallwood, Salvation Army, The Smith Family, 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella and the Land Titles Office websites.
·On 8 December 2008 at 2.24pm the accused telephoned the Onkaparinga Council and used the name of Mrs VI McGlynn to request a hard rubbish collection from 6 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella.
·On 9 December 2008 the accused went to the ANZ bank at Morphett Vale North and attempted to withdraw $2,000 from Ms McGlynn’s Access Deeming Account.
·When she went to the ANZ bank on Tuesday 9 December 2008 the accused was in possession of Ms McGlynn’s ANZ debit card and a forged document purporting to give her power of attorney from Ms McGlynn.
·On 10 December 2008 the accused was found to be in possession at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs of the following:
·    the ANZ debit card belonging to Ms McGlynn;
·    the keys to Ms McGlynn’s house;
·    the power of attorney describing Ms McGlynn as the donor and the accused as the donee;
·    other personal documents belonging to Ms McGlynn including bank statements, bills and expired passports.
·On 19 December 2008 the accused was in possession at 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs of the toaster oven[40] and the small table.[41]
[40] Exhibit P103.
[41] Exhibit P104.
·On 25 February 2009 a pusher[42] was found in a bush adjacent to the bikeway on the eastern side of the Expressway in the Christies Creek area.
[42] Exhibit P236.
·On the base of the seat of that pusher DNA was extracted from a blood stain. That DNA is consistent with the DNA profile of Ms McGlynn.
·At sometime the accused resided at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella. Sometime after leaving 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella the accused moved to 72 Scottsglade Road, Christie Downs where she resided until her arrest on 26 February 2009.
·Giuseppe Daniele did not kill or injure Ms McGlynn.
·Giuseppe Daniele did not attend at the accused’s home on Wednesday 3 December 2008.
·The accused owned a white Kia bearing registration number WDN 870.
·DNA from the boot kick panel of that vehicle was retrieved. The DNA was consistent with the DNA profile of Ms McGlynn.
·On Christmas Eve 2008 the accused told Inara Dombrovska amongst other things that:
·    she had been watching Ms McGlynn for quite a while;
·    she went to Ms McGlynn’s house at a time when Ms McGlynn was at McDonalds;
·    she made her unconscious and searched her house;
·    she went back home and returned later in the evening;
·    she wrapped the body of Ms McGlynn in plastic and in sheets and took her somewhere south;
·    the police definitely would not find Ms McGlynn.
·The accused told Agnese Dombrovska amongst other things that:
·    The accused was the last person to see Ms McGlynn alive;
·    DNA cannot go through plastic or sheets;
·    DNA is only 95 per cent accurate and what would they have to compare it with.
Conclusions

On the basis of all the evidence which I accept and for the reasons I have previously given I draw the following inferences beyond reasonable doubt from the whole of the evidence which includes of course the facts to which I have just specifically referred.
·The accused had ample opportunity to access Ms McGlynn’s house at 6 Somerfield Avenue on 3 and 4 December 2008.
·The accused was the person who packed up the possessions of Ms McGlynn and put them in bags sometime between 3 December and 10 December 2008.
·The pusher[43] is one of the pushers formerly kept at Inara Dombrovska’s home at 20 Somerfield Avenue, Reynella.
·The DNA found on that pusher[44] is DNA from Ms McGlynn.
·The accused had access to the pusher,[45] however I cannot say and it is not necessary to find, exactly when she took possession of the pusher.
·The pusher was used to transport at least some of the remains of Ms McGlynn to the creek where they were later located by police on 23 and 25 February 2009.
·The DNA found on the boot kick panel of the accused’s car is DNA from Ms McGlynn.
·The accused’s vehicle was used to convey the body of Ms McGlynn at some stage.
·The accused is the person responsible for depositing the remains of Ms McGlynn (described as finds 1 and 2 by the police) in Christies Creek.
·The accused is the person who dismembered the body of Ms McGlynn and disposed of the remains.
·The accused is the person who killed Ms McGlynn.
[43] Exhibit P236.
[44] Exhibit P236.
[45] Exhibit P236.
I cannot accept the submission that before I could conclude that the accused is responsible for the killing of Ms McGlynn I need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the three witnesses, Moulton, Hasse and Parsons all saw the accused with the pusher.[46] I agree that the evidence of the three witnesses is not capable of satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt either that the person observed with the pusher was the accused or that the pusher observed was necessarily the pusher.[47] There is however an abundance of other circumstantial evidence in this case which I accept and from which it can be inferred that the pusher is one and the same pusher that Agnese Dombrovska identified as the pusher she used to take her daughter in the park in.
[46] Exhibit P236.
[47] Exhibit P236.
Furthermore I am satisfied on the basis of all the evidence that it was the accused who deposited the partial remains of Ms McGlynn in the locations where they were found and that she used the pusher[48] to transport at least some of the remains. In all of the circumstances I do not consider that the absence of any eye witnesses who actually saw the accused doing these things undermines that conclusion.
[48] Exhibit P236.
This is one of those cases where the totality of the circumstantial evidence is as powerful as any direct evidence could ever be. Moreover the lack of any forensic evidence found in the house at 6 Somerfield Avenue to suggest that the accused either attacked and/or killed Ms McGlynn there does not militate against the conclusion that the accused was the killer. Indeed, even on the accused’s own account, she was there in the house on the night of 3 December 2008 and she helped drag a bleeding and dying Ms McGlynn to the back patio area of that house. The totality of the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the capacity and the means to dismember the body of Ms McGlynn, place it in plastic bags and transport it to the creek near her home. I cannot make any specific finding as to when she did these things but I am satisfied that she had ample time within which to carry out these tasks secretly. It follows logically and inevitably that the person who dismembered the deceased’s body and concealed it in the creek was responsible for the killing. The combined force of the circumstances in this matter which I find proved beyond reasonable doubt points overwhelmingly to the accused as the killer of Ms McGlynn.
This is not a case of an assault which went too far or a robbery interrupted which had unintended consequences. The totality of the evidence points to the conclusion and I so conclude that the accused wanted Ms McGlynn’s house and she wanted her money. The only way to sell or rent the house and take the property of Ms McGlynn was to ensure that she never came back to stymie the accused’s plans. I have asked myself the question whether there is any other explanation for the evidence which I have accepted which points to a conclusion other than that the accused is the killer of Ms McGlynn. Mr Daniele is most certainly not the killer. It was not suggested nor could it be that Ejaz Ahmed had anything to do with the death of Ms McGlynn and I specifically reject that as a reasonable possibility. There is no other reasonable explanation for the evidence I accept in this case other than that the accused killed Ms McGlynn.
I have directed my mind specifically to the possibility that the accused might have only intended to stun the victim. That is the language actually used at one stage by Inara Dombrovska to describe what the accused told her she did to the victim. An intention merely to stun the victim would not make out the crime of murder. However, for the reasons which I have given, the evidence does not point to this being a bungled robbery which had unintended consequences or to an assault without the necessary intent or to an unfortunate accident. It points to a woman who planned to steal from Ms McGlynn and as part of the plan to steal decided to and did kill Ms McGlynn. Having done so she then needed to hide the body and conceal any evidence which might connect her with the crime. She had ample opportunity to do so. Moreover I am satisfied that the accused knew enough about DNA and forensic evidence to carefully attempt to conceal her tracks.
For these reasons I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who killed Ms McGlynn. She did so by a conscious and voluntary act with the intention of killing her.
I find the accused guilty.