R v Novakovich
[2016] SASC 132
•18 August 2016
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v NOVAKOVICH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SASC 132
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley
18 August 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE
Nikola Novakovich was charged on Information with the crime of murder contrary to s 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The particulars of the charge against him were that on 4 August 1990 at Coober Pedy he murdered Karen Michelle Williams. Upon his arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. He elected to be tried by Judge alone.
The case presented by the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. There was no direct evidence that established that the accused killed the deceased.
The prosecution case was that the accused killed Karen Williams in the early hours of the morning of 4 August 1990 around Coober Pedy after giving her a ride in a car he was driving from outside a business called “Sergio’s” in Hutchison Street. The prosecution alleged that the accused dumped her body down a mineshaft. At the time the accused was 18 years of age and Karen Williams was 16 years of age.
The principal prosecution witness assisted police in gaining evidence through a covert police operation. Counsel for the accused objected to the admission of the evidence of the statements made by the accused on the basis that the statements were not made voluntarily, or in the exercise of the Bunning v Cross discretion or the fairness discretion.
Held:
1. The evidence of the covert police operation conducted in 2013 using Aleksander Radosavljevic is not excluded (at [169]).
2. The accused is acquitted of murder (at [212]).
3. The accused is acquitted of manslaughter (at [212]).
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34KA; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1); Public Sector Act 2009 (SA) s 5(6), 6, referred to.
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; R v Jelicic [2016] SASC 57; Barca v The Queen 133 CLR 82; R v Kamleh [2003] SASC 269; R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159; Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391, considered.
R v NOVAKOVICH
[2016] SASC 132Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone
Reasons for Verdict (modified to reflect suppression orders made pursuant to s 69A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA)).
STANLEY J.
The charge
Onus of proof
The charge of murder
Accused has not given evidence
Agreed facts
Circumstantial case
Credibility and reliability of witnessesView
Overview of the prosecution case
Forensic disadvantage to the accused by delay
Admissibility of evidenceProsecution witnesses
Witnesses to the events of 3-4 August 1990
Eva Williams
Loretta Renato Bartos
Dimitrious Alexander Palmer
Raelene Kayleen Williams
Maria Warren
Marsha Nyree Ester Warren
Savvas Georgiou Procopis
Rick Patrick Campagna
Andrew Procopis
Jennifer Kinney Williams
Jack Katatjunti Crombie
Anthony Crombie
Panayiota Haralambos Niaros
Simon Boland
Jonathon Edward Riessen
Paul CrombieBevan John Russell
Witnesses called at the request of the accused
Robert Wayne Dodd
Lulu Renee Boland
Corinna Valeeta Stuart
The evidence relating to observations of the accused and Karen Williams by Claudette Noble
Claudette Jayne Noble
John Zarpas
Tony ZarpasAndrew Paul Jaloshin
Witnesses to events in and around Mount Gambier in 2013
Maureen Patricia Austin
Susan Marie Steele
Evidence of admissions
Deborah Sharon Lightfoot
Alleged accomplice Aleksander Radosavljevic
Aleksander Radosavljevic
Conversations between Mr Radosavljevic and the accused in 2013
Giordana Susa
Karolina Radosavljevic
Zoltan Farkas
Police witnesses
1990 Coober Pedy
George Adams
Nigel Campbell
Neville George Talbot
David Paul Hunt
David Andrew Boorman
Michael John Edwin StandingChristopher John Pearman
Current Investigation
Paul Joseph Ward
Colin Douglas Haigh
Stephen David PattersonJason Scott Edwards
Mineshaft searches
Andrew Thomas Shiels
Terry Ross Murphy
The conversations between the accused and Mr Radosavljevic in 2013
Objection to the admission of evidence of the conversations between the accused and Mr Radosavljevic in 2013
Voluntariness
The fairness discretion
Public policy discretion
Admission of evidence of statements made by the accused to Mr Radosavljevic during the covert police operationEvidence of statements by the accused
Conversation with Sergeant Talbot on 7 August 1990
Statement to Detective Hunt on or about 1 October 1990 – Exhibit P28
Statement to Detective Boorman 10 October 1990 – Exhibit P29
Record of interview with Detective Boorman 12 October 1990 – Exhibit P30
Evidence at 1995 Coronial Inquest – Exhibit P78
Record of Interview with Detective Ward on 1 August 2012 – Exhibit P54
Evidence of Rick Patrick CampagnaEvidence of Savvas Georgiou Procopis
Findings of fact
Has the prosecution proved the accused guilty of murder?
Has the prosecution proved the accused guilty of manslaughter?Verdict
The charge
Nikola Novakovich (the accused) is charged on Information with the crime of murder contrary to s 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). The particulars of the charge against him are that on 4 August 1990 at Coober Pedy he murdered Karen Michelle Williams.[1] Upon his arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the trial proceeded before me as a judge sitting alone, pursuant to an election filed by the accused in accordance with s 7(1) of the Juries Act 1927 (SA).
[1] In the course of these reasons it is convenient at times to refer to Karen Michelle Williams as Karen. I intend no disrespect in doing do.
Onus of proof
In considering the issues which arise for decision I have at all times directed myself that the accused does not have to prove his innocence. The accused is presumed to be not guilty of the charge against him unless and until I am satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the charge against him and nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt will do. It is not enough for the prosecution to show a mere suspicion of guilt nor to show that the accused is probably guilty. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt also applies to each and every element of the offence charged against the accused. Where, in the course of these reasons, I indicate that I find something proved, or I say that I am satisfied about something, that means that I have so concluded beyond reasonable doubt.
The charge of murder
A person commits murder if he causes the death of another person deliberately and unlawfully while at the same time intending to cause death or grievous bodily harm. There are a number of elements which must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of murder. The prosecution must prove that:
1.The act or acts of the accused caused the death of Karen Williams;
2.The act or acts of the accused were conscious and voluntary, that is to say that they were the result of the exercise of the will;
3.The act or acts of the accused which caused the death were done either with the intention to kill Karen Williams or with the intention to cause her grievous bodily harm. Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. The intention must exist at the time when the act which caused the death was committed; and
4.The killing was done without any lawful justification or excuse, such as lawful self-defence.
In this case the body of Karen Williams has not been found. Accordingly, the prosecution must prove that she is dead and that she was killed by the accused, deliberately and without lawful excuse.
If the accused is not guilty of murder, manslaughter is an automatic alternative verdict of which the accused may be found guilty. The elements of manslaughter the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt are:
(1)that the accused killed the deceased;
(2)that the act which caused the death was a conscious and voluntary act, that is to say, it was deliberate rather than accidental;
(3)that the act was unlawful, that is to say, not performed in self-defence as the law defines it; and
(4)that the act was at the same time dangerous. An act is dangerous for this purpose if a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have realised that the act exposed the deceased to an appreciable risk of serious injury or harm.
Accused has not given evidence
At the conclusion of the prosecution case the accused elected not to give evidence nor call any witnesses in his defence. I should make it clear that the accused was not obliged to give evidence. He was entitled to refrain from giving evidence and to rely upon the failure by the prosecution to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. As that is his right, no adverse inference can or should be drawn against him as a result of exercising the right given to him by law.
Agreed facts
At the conclusion of the prosecution case the following facts were agreed:
1.Karen Williams’ date of birth is 4 June 1974.
2.Aleksander Dinulovic’s date of birth is 4 or 5 October 1936.
3.On 7 August 1990 at about 11:30 a.m. Officer Kerry Penny took the missing persons report Exhibit D39 from Eva Williams.
4. The following exhibits are aerial images obtained from the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and taken on 11 June 1992:
4.1P2
4.2D3
4.3P23
4.4P25
5.On 10 March 1996 Wendy Marie Lawrie gave a statement to police. In that statement she said the following:
“Sometime three years or more ago, Keeny [Jennifer Williams] was in Adelaide. We were having a few drinks, going from pub to pub. Kenny told me that she saw what happened to Karen Williams. She told me that after she went inside the house in Coober Pedy, she heard screaming. When she looked out of a window she saw that it was Karen who was screaming and that she was being chased by some aboriginal men. She didn’t tell me the names of the men. I don’t think she knew them. She said she didn’t go and help Karen because she was frightened by what she saw.”
6.On 18 August 1990 Joseph Miller provided a statement to police regarding his memory of events on Friday evening 3 August 1990 and Saturday morning 4 August 1990. He told police that he saw Karen Williams at Sergio’s Restaurant at about 5:30 – 6 a.m. on Saturday 4 August 1990. He said his last contact with her was walking home from Sergio’s Restaurant. He said Karen Williams walked off on her own, walking up Post Hill Road. He told police that he, [Suppressed] and Jennifer Williams then walked to Patricia Fatt’s house. He said he did not see her again.
7.On 4 March 2013 Joseph Miller provided a statement to police. In that statement he asserted that he, Karen Williams, Jennifer Williams and [Suppressed] walked to Patricia Fatt’s house on Medway Drive. He told police that he, Karen Williams, Jennifer Williams and [Suppressed] all entered the house, went into a bedroom and went to sleep. He said Karen Williams had left the house by the time he woke later that day.
8.It is agreed between the prosecution and defence that the two accounts given by Mr Miller are not accurate. In those circumstances neither the prosecution nor defence have called Mr Miller and do not rely on his version of events.
9.On 27 October 2008, Cabinet authorised the increase in the reward for 40 matters from $100,000 to $200,000. Karen Williams was on the list of people to whom the increase applied. SAPOL were not formally advised of the increase and at all relevant times held no documents supporting the increase.
10.The accused gave evidence in the Coronial Inquiry on 3 May 1995. An edited transcript of his evidence is P78.
11.On 1 September 2014, Gordana Susa spoke with Ms McDonald and Brevet Sergeant Ward at the Office of the DPP. Gordana Susa told Ms McDonald there were three persons involved in the holdup and murder. They were Aleks Radosavljevic, Old Aleks and another person whose name was never mentioned.
12.The first occasion that Deborah Lightfoot told anyone that the accused said in Easter 1997 that he “put her down a mine shaft”, was to Mr Pearce, the prosecutor, at court immediately prior to her giving evidence.
13.Jennifer Kinney Williams gave evidence to the Coronial Inquiry in 1995 that Karen Williams was sitting in the back of the accused’s car during the trip from Sergio’s.
14.On 7 July 1990 the accused was living at Ice Cream Hill, Coober Pedy when his HZ Holden Sedan UCP-409 was found to be un-roadworthy and defected by Constable Adams.
15.On 15 August 1990 when the accused was living at St Nicholas Street Coober Pedy, the HZ Holden Sedan UCP-409 was examined by a Motor Transport Department Inspector at the Coober Pedy Police Station and further structural defects identified.
16.On 19 August 2012 Police held a media press conference in relation to the Karen Williams investigation. The three disks containing media broadcasts of this press conference are tendered together as D80 and the transcript marked for identification.
17.On 7 November 2013 ABC News published an article entitled “Karen Williams murder: Man arrested over teenager’s SA outback disappearance in 1990”. A copy of the article is tendered as D82.
18.On 8 November 2013 Adelaide Now published an article entitled “Man’s arrest leads to new search for missing Coober Pedy teenager Karen Williams”. A copy of the article is tendered as D83.
19.From 30 June 2013 to 21 August 2013 Sue Steele made a number of phone calls to Nikola Novakovich and Debra Chislett. The disk containing the following calls is tendered as D84 and the transcript marked for identification.
a. 30/6/2013 at 9.31, referred to in the transcript at page 488;
b. 22/7/2013 at 10.54, referred to in the transcript at page 488;
c. 22/7/2013 at 10.56.09, 10.56.44, 10.58.18, 10.58.52, 11.01.01, 11.01.42, 11.05.49, referred to in the transcript at page 489/90;
d. 14/8/13 at 18.47 referred to in the transcript at page 490/91;
e. 20/8/13 at 15.29.54, 15.30.19, 15.35.19, 15.35.38, 15.36.32, 15.36.52, 15.59.22, 16.00.28 and 18.16.34, referred to in the transcript at page 491/93;
f. 21/8/13 at 19.20.22 referred to in the transcript at page 494.
20.On 22 July 2013 Channel 10 aired a program “Wanted” that featured Karen Williams. The disk containing this program is tendered as D86 and the transcript marked for identification.
21.From 24 July 2013 to 29 July 2013 Channel 10 reported about the dig in Coober Pedy. The disk containing these programs is tendered as D88 And the transcript marked for identification.
22.On 18 August 2013, YouTube channel Crime Stoppers South Australia published a video clip titled “13-84-Karen Williams-Coober Pedy”. The disk containing this program is tendered as D90 and the transcript marked for identification.
23.On 6 November 2013 YouTube channel SA Police News published a video clip titled “Police arrest a man for Karen Williams”. The disk containing this program is tendered as D92 and the transcript marked for identification.
24.Shortly after 9:04 p.m. on 7 July 2007 the accused underwent a Forensic Procedure at the Port Pirie Hospital. The forensic procedure orders were read to the accused by Detective Goodwin in the presence of Detective Hall. Four vials of blood were taken from the accused in the course of the forensic procedure.
25.The accused’s DNA was obtained from samples taken on 26 November 2004, 19 December 2005 for unrelated matters and on 2 August 2012 for this matter.
26.On 22 June 2013 Detective Carpenter of the Mount Gambier CIB attended at the Mount Gambier Prison and spoke with Bob Reardon.
27.Between 24 July and 15 August 2014 Detective Ward made enquiries of the Coober Pedy Council to locate any toilet block in the vicinity of the Hotel in Coober Pedy. The best enquiries of the police were unable to identify any toilet block in that vicinity since 1990.
28.The following statements were received by police in the course of the investigation into the disappearance of Karen Williams and represent what the witnesses would have said if called to give evidence:
1. D34;
2. D37;
3. D35;
4. D33;
5. D32;
29.The following statements are tendered pursuant to s 34KA of the Evidence Act as the makers are now deceased:
1. D36;
2. Ronald Fatt 9.10.90;
3. Jack John Mumungeranie 9.10.90;
[Suppressed].
33.The accused was first arraigned in the Supreme Court on 11 August 2014.
[Suppressed].
Circumstantial case
The case presented by the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the offence charged is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence that establishes that the accused killed the deceased. There is evidence from Jennifer Williams that the accused drove them, Joe Miller and Karen Williams from Hutchison Street to Patricia Fatt’s house in Medway Drive in the early hours of the morning of 4 August 1990. They alighted from the car with Joe Miller. Karen Williams remained in the front passenger seat of the accused’s car. The car drove down Medway Drive towards Dawes / Jones Streets. They have not seen Karen Williams since. Claudette Noble gave evidence of working at a service station in Hutchison Street at that time. She gave evidence of seeing the accused and Karen Williams in a car driven by the accused which pulled into the service station in the early hours of the morning. She said she watched them drive off down Hutchison Street towards the Stuart Highway and turn left, driving towards Port Augusta. Later that morning she saw the accused drive past the service station in the opposite direction with no-one else in the car. The accused made statements to the police and gave evidence in the Coroner’s Court that he gave Karen Williams a lift in his car from Hutchison Street to Dawes / Jones Street, Coober Pedy, in the early hours of the morning of 4 August 1990. She alighted from his car and walked towards a house to which she had directed him. He drove off and did not see her again. I direct myself that, in order to find the accused guilty, I must exclude beyond reasonable doubt any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. I must consider whether the facts as I find them to have been established prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder or its automatic alternative manslaughter. I direct myself that all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an hypothesis consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence. I cannot find the accused guilty of murder unless I conclude that there is no reasonable explanation of the evidence other than the accused was the person who killed Karen Williams. In other words, if there is any reasonable explanation other than the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be acquitted.
Credibility and reliability of witnesses
In the course of the trial it was necessary to carefully assess the evidence of each of the witnesses. Of course, the evidence of some witnesses was more important than others. I will refer to certain aspects of the evidence of most of those witnesses in due course but in my opinion, with the exception of Mr Radosavljevic, Ms Lightfoot, Ms Susa and Ms Steele, whose evidence I am not prepared to rely upon unless it is independently corroborated, the evidence of Ms Noble to which I refer later in these reasons, and the evidence of Mr Dodd, Mr Riessen, Mr Boland and Mr Paul Crombie, about which I harbour some doubt either because their memories are impaired by alcohol consumption or the existence of a desire to distance themselves from what might have happened on the night of 4 August 1990 or both, each of the witnesses did the best he or she could to give truthful evidence. However, apart from some police officers, who had the benefit of refreshing their memories from contemporaneous notes, the majority of witnesses laboured under the difficulty of giving evidence about events which occurred many years ago.
Karen Williams disappeared on 4 August 1990. The accused was not charged with her murder until 7 November 2013. The trial eventually commenced on 11 June 2015. In the course of the trial many of the witnesses were cross-examined as to inconsistencies between statements made to the police and the evidence that they gave in court. While in such circumstances some inconsistencies are to be expected, it has been necessary for me to take them into account when assessing the reliability of the evidence given at the trial.
In the course of the investigation into Karen Williams’ disappearance and presumed death, the accused gave evidence in a coronial inquest and participated in a number of interviews with police. They are discussed later in these reasons. The accused was eventually arrested on 7 November 2013 and charged with the murder of Karen Williams. At that time he exercised his right to silence and made no further comment about the matter. That also is his legal right and I draw no adverse inference against the accused because after his arrest he exercised the right to decline to answer questions from the police.
The trial commenced on 11 June 2015 and concluded on 6 May 2016. There was a long adjournment from 8 July 2015 to 2 May 2016. I had the advantage of extensive notes made of the evidence heard in 2015, and the transcript of that evidence. I do not consider the delay between hearing the evidence in 2015 and considering my verdict has impaired my recollection and understanding of the evidence.
View
During the trial, I attended at Coober Pedy and viewed various locations around the town which it was anticipated would be the subject of evidence at the trial. I remind myself that the view was conducted to assist me in understanding the evidence of the witnesses. My decision is based upon that evidence assisted by the view.
Overview of the prosecution case
The prosecution case is that the accused killed Karen Williams in the early hours of the morning of 4 August 1990 around Coober Pedy after giving her a ride in a car he was driving from outside a business called “Sergio’s” in Hutchison Street. The prosecution alleges that the accused dumped her body down a mineshaft. At the time the accused was 18 years of age and Karen Williams was 16 years of age. Karen Williams was born on 4 June 1974. She had grown up in Port Augusta and had moved to Coober Pedy at the age of 14 or 15 to live with her father. There she attended TAFE. She was well known and liked in Coober Pedy. A few months before August 1990, her mother moved to Coober Pedy. Karen Williams’ living arrangements in Coober Pedy were fluid. At some stages she stayed with her mother but also with her friend Joanne Dingaman and on occasions with her friend Jennifer Williams.
The third of August 1990 was a Friday night. Karen Williams went with friends to the Opal Inn. She drank a sufficient quantity of alcohol to be affected. She and her friends left the Opal Inn when it closed at about 3 a.m. They went across Hutchison Street to a roadhouse. She spent some time there before proceeding with friends down Hutchison Street to the venue called Sergio’s. She remained there, drinking with friends until approximately 5 a.m. Karen Williams and her friends Jennifer Williams and Joseph Miller were then milling out the front of Sergio’s. They were discussing how they would get home. The prosecution case is that the accused was also part of a group of people milling about Hutchison Street at that time. There was a discussion between the accused and the group of which Karen Williams was a part. As a consequence the accused agreed to give them a ride home. The four of them went with the accused in his car to Medway Drive. Someone amongst the group directed the accused as to where to go. The car stopped in front of a house occupied by Patricia Fatt. Jennifer Williams and Joe Miller alighted from the car. Karen Williams stayed in the car as she did not wish to spend the night at Patricia Fatt’s house. She wanted instead to go to a house a short distance away occupied by her aunt, Rita Dodd where her mother was staying. This house was in Jones Street. Her friends attempted to persuade her to stay with them but she could not be persuaded to get out of the car. Jennifer Williams and Joe Miller entered Patricia Fatt’s house and the accused drove away with Karen Williams in his car. None of her friends have seen or had any contact with her since.
The accused has made statements to the police that he then drove a short distance around a corner at the direction of Karen Williams and dropped her in front of a house. She walked towards the house and he drove off. He said he did not see her again. He maintained this account in the evidence he gave to the coroner in the inquest held in 1995.
The prosecution case is that this did not happen and that at about 5:30 a.m. the accused was observed pulling into the forecourt of the roadhouse on Hutchison Street with Karen Williams in the front passenger seat of his car. He put some petrol in the car and then drove off with Karen Williams still in the car heading in a southerly direction along Hutchison Street. A witness, Claudette Noble, watched the car head towards the Stuart Highway. She said that approximately one hour later she saw the accused driving the same car in a northerly direction on Hutchison Street with no sign of Karen Williams.
It is the prosecution case that Karen Williams was dead by this stage.
The prosecution case is that there is an overwhelming inference that Karen Williams is dead and died that morning. There has been no sighting of her since this time or evidence of her accessing any bank accounts or undertaking any financial transactions, being treated at a public hospital or having any involvement with police. There has been no contact by her with family or friends.
The prosecution case is that the accused killed her because she attempted to blackmail him over his involvement in the armed robbery of an opal miner named Zoran[2] which had occurred a few days earlier. The prosecution case is that the accused and Mr Radosavljevic broke into Zoran’s house wearing masks or balaclavas in the dead of night, armed with weapons, and stole around $1,000 in cash. They were driven to and from Zoran’s house by a friend, Dean Bulovic.
[2] Zoran is in fact Zorislav Vuin. He was referred to throughout the evidence as Zoran. For that reason I refer to him by this name. I intend no disrespect to Mr Vuin.
A few days after Karen Williams disappeared, the prosecution alleges that the accused contacted Mr Radosavljevic and told him that Karen Williams had alleged she had seen the two of them running from Zoran’s house and demanded a cut of the takings. The prosecution alleges that the accused told Mr Radosavljevic that he had shot Karen Williams and left her body in a burnt out car. The accused said he needed Mr Radosavljevic’s assistance to dispose of the body. It is alleged the two drove out of town to a place where there was a burnt out car. It is alleged that the accused opened the boot to reveal a body wrapped in a blanket. It is alleged they carried the body to the entry of a mineshaft which was covered by an iron sheet. They removed the sheet, threw her body down the shaft and covered the entrance and left.
It is the prosecution case that subsequently the accused made admissions to his former domestic partner, Debra Lightfoot, that he killed Karen Williams and later made implied admissions to the killing in conversations with Mr Radosavljevic which were recorded by the police during an undercover operation in 2013.
Forensic disadvantage to the accused by delay
In this case I am satisfied that the almost 25-year period that has elapsed between the alleged offending and the trial has resulted in a significant forensic disadvantage to the accused. The nature of that forensic disadvantage is that the accused, by the effluxion of time, has been deprived of the ability to adduce evidence that has been lost and deprived of the ability to test the evidence of prosecution witnesses about events that happened so long ago. For example, a number of potential witnesses have died, namely, Aleksander Dinulovic, Peter Woodforde, Simon Murray, Raymond Boland, Arthur Gilbert and Tim Crombie. Wage records from the service station where Claudette Noble said she was working no longer exist. In addition, there is necessarily the risk that memories might fade or alter over that period of time. An example can be found in the evidence of Constable Adams who made notes of his investigations into the robbery of Zoran in 1990 but was unable to recall what his notes meant when giving evidence before me. In addition, particularly in a town like Coober Pedy, where there has been much discussion over many years about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Karen Williams, there is the risk that such discussions have contaminated recollections. I direct myself that I must take that forensic disadvantage into account when scrutinising the evidence.
Admissibility of evidence
I received the evidence of Debra Lightfoot, Lulu Boland and the evidence of the police undercover operation in 2013, using Mr Radosalvjevic talking to the accused, de bene esse. I also received part of the evidence of Jennifer Williams de benne esse. That concerned whether Karen Williams was afraid of Robbie Dodd. I would not admit this evidence. It was plainly hearsay and of very doubtful relevance. Mrs Shaw submits that the evidence is relevant to Karen Williams’ state of mind concerning whether she wanted to go to Rita Dodd’s house that night on the basis Robbie Dodd was staying there. However, the foundation for this submission was not established. There is no evidence Robbie Dodd was staying at Rita Dodd’s house that night.
Mrs Shaw QC, senior counsel for the accused, objected to the admission of the evidence of Debra Lightfoot on two grounds. First, on the basis that the prosecution case is, in effect, duplicitous. She submits that Ms Lightfoot’s evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case such that it is unfair to the accused to have to meet two inconsistent allegations. Second, Mrs Shaw submits that the evidence should be excluded in the exercise of the Christie discretion.
In order to address the objection it is necessary to say something about the evidence of Ms Lightfoot. Ms Lightfoot was the partner of the accused from 1993 to 2007, albeit with periods of estrangement during that time. She is the mother of the accused’s five children. She gave evidence of an incident in 1997 when she alleged she was strangled and raped by the accused who said to her that he had strangled and raped Karen Williams and put her down a mineshaft. I address her evidence more fully later in these reasons.
The prosecution seeks to adduce this evidence on the basis that it constitutes an admission by the accused that he killed Karen Williams. It seeks to call Ms Lightfoot to give evidence of the accused’s guilty mind. I am prepared to admit it on that basis. I am not prepared to admit it on any wider basis as going to proof of the actus reus. On that basis it does not involve the prosecution conducting an inconsistent case in a way that would render the accused’s trial unfair. If I accept the truth of Ms Lightfoot’s evidence, it is highly probative as an admission against interest by the accused. It would be evidence relevant to the issue of whether the accused had killed Karen Williams unlawfully. I consider it more probative than prejudicial. In any event, I can put the prejudicial effect of that evidence from my mind.
I admit the evidence of Debra Lightfoot. I will address what weight, if any, I give it later in these reasons.
The evidence of Lulu Boland was called by the prosecution at the request of the accused. Mr Pearce QC, senior counsel for the prosecution, objected to its admission on the ground of relevance. I indicated that I would receive the evidence de bene esse and I would hear further argument as to its admissibility. Ultimately Mr Pearce did not pursue his objection to its admissibility. I discuss her evidence later in these reasons. It is sufficient at this stage to observe that I do not find Ms Boland’s evidence of assistance.
Prosecution witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution:
Witnesses to the events of 3-4 August 1990
Eva Williams
Eva Williams is the mother of Karen Williams. She gave evidence of Karen’s upbringing and her demeanour and conduct in the weeks and months preceding her disappearance. She said Karen grew up on an Aboriginal mission in Port Augusta where she attended primary and secondary school. At the age of 13 or 14 Karen went to Coober Pedy to live with her father. At some stage she lived in Ceduna. In 1990 Karen was living mostly with Joanne Dingaman and occasionally at Rita Dodd’s house. She attended TAFE, had friends and was happy. She said Karen was 16 years of age when she disappeared. Her birthday was 4 June. She gave evidence of last seeing her at the Opal Inn on the night of 3 August 1990 before Eva left with Loret Bartos. She went to Rita Dodd’s house in Jones Street where she was living at the time. She said she had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Loretta Renato Bartos
Ms Bartos was a community welfare worker in Coober Pedy, a friend of Karen Williams and her mother, who gave evidence of Karen’s demeanour and conduct in the weeks and months preceding her disappearance and of going with Karen to the Opal Inn on 3 August 1990 and leaving with Karen’s mother. She said goodbye to Karen before she left the hotel. Karen returned a bracelet she had borrowed which she thought odd. She said she had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Dimitrious Alexander Palmer
Mr Palmer was a friend of Karen Williams, who gave evidence of Karen’s demeanour and conduct in the weeks and months preceding her disappearance and who was with her at the Opal Inn and the Roadhouse on the night of 3-4 August 1990, and observed her through the window in Sergio’s. He said she seemed happy in the days and weeks preceding her disappearance. She had attended the hairdresser on Friday 3 August 1990. He said he had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Raelene Kayleen Williams
Raelene Williams was an acquaintance of Karen Williams who was present at the Opal Inn, the Roadhouse and Sergio’s. She thought Karen was drunk at the Opal Inn. She saw Eva Williams unsuccessfully trying to get Karen into a car outside the hotel when it was closing. At Sergio’s Karen appeared to be asleep. Raelene and Maria Warren accepted a lift home from the accused in his car. She arrived home at about 2:30 a.m. She said she had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Maria Warren
Marie Warren is a relative of Karen Williams, who observed her at the Opal Inn and Sergio’s. Ms Warren went to Sergio’s at the invitation of Ricky Campagna. She recalls seeing Karen at Sergio’s slouched in a corner. She left Sergio’s with Raelene Williams. The accused gave them a lift home. He drove Raelene Williams home before dropping her off. She was unsure what time she arrived home but it was dark. Under cross-examination she said that when they were at the Opal Inn it appeared that Karen did not want to go home with Eva Williams.
Marsha Nyree Ester Warren
Marsha Warren was a friend and distant relative of Karen Williams, who spent the afternoon with her. She described how she had had her hair done earlier that day and was excited about going out that night. Later that night she met Karen at the Opal Inn. She left the Opal Inn after 2 a.m., while Karen was still there, and went with her partner, Tim Crombie, to spend the night at the house of his grandfather, Jack Crombie. They had no keys so she entered through a front window. They went to sleep. No-one was at the house. It was quiet. There were no parties. She woke in the morning when Anthony Crombie arrived at the house around 7 or 8 a.m. She said she had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Savvas Georgiou Procopis
Mr Procopis at that time was known as Savvas Blobell. He was an acquaintance of Karen Williams, who some weeks previously had gone for a drive with her from the Opal Inn for what he described as kissing and cuddling. He saw her that Friday night at the Opal Inn and he followed her when she left and headed for the Roadhouse. They went to the toilets behind the Roadhouse where they were kissing in a cubicle. Jennifer Williams and Jennifer Riessen went to check on them as did Dimitrious Palmer. Sometime thereafter, he, the accused and Karen drove in his car from the Roadhouse to Sergio’s. He was with Karen and the accused at Sergio’s. Later he left with the accused to look for the accused’s car. He did not see Karen again. He dropped the accused at the house of Dean Bulovic at around 4-4:30 a.m. He said he spoke to the accused the day after Karen Williams disappeared. The accused told him that he dropped Karen home.
Rick Patrick Campagna
In August 1990 Mr Campagna worked at Sergio’s. On the night Karen Williams disappeared he invited Andrew Procopis and Savvas Blobel (Procopis) to Sergio’s. Karen Williams arrived with Savvas Blobel and the accused. He thought she arrived somewhere between about 1 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. He did not think she was affected by alcohol. Some other Aboriginal women arrived 15 to 20 minutes later. Subsequently the accused took a number of people home in his car. There were two trips. The accused returned to Sergio’s to collect “the girls”. Karen Williams went in the accused’s car on this second trip. Mr Campagna thought this group comprised “Karen, Joanne and Raelene”. Mr Campagna said that he and Andrew were the last people left at Sergio’s. He said the accused came back to Sergio’s and wanted to come in but they were closing the restaurant. The accused offered them a lift but they said they did not need one. Mr Campagna thought they probably left the restaurant “on sun up, 5:30, thereabouts”. He said there was no-one else in the car with the accused when he came back. Later in his evidence he said that he thought the accused must have returned to the restaurant around 5:10 a.m. or 5:15 a.m. About a week later he saw the accused in a pub. The accused told him he had dropped Karen at a house near the reserve and when he did so he saw an Aboriginal man peering out of the fence as Karen got out of the car.
Andrew Procopis
Andrew Procopis left Sergio’s around 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. He could not remember whether Karen Williams was there when he left or how he got home. He said that at about that time he was employed at the Mobil service station. He said he did not remember working with anyone called Claudette Noble or Jayne Noble, although he knew someone called Jayne Noble. He conceded, however, that his memory was not the greatest.
[Suppressed]
Jennifer Kinney Williams
Jennifer Williams was a friend of Karen and Jennifer Riessen. She gave evidence of walking to the Opal Inn on 3 August 1990 with Jennifer Riessen. She saw Karen Williams at the Opal Inn. Karen appeared to be drunk at the Opal Inn. She saw her sitting with three or four older men, one of whom was a Greek aged about 40. Jennifer Williams left the hotel when it closed around 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. She went with Jennifer Riessen and Raelene Williams across the road to the service station. She and Jennifer were looking for Karen. They went around the back to the toilets and saw Karen’s feet and another person’s feet under the cubicle door. Shortly thereafter, she observed Karen and Savvas Blobel take off. Soon after she walked towards Sergio’s. She met Joe Miller on the way who told her Karen was at Sergio’s. They entered Sergio’s and she noticed Karen hiding under a table. She tried to talk to Karen but she was very tired and she would not sit with them. They then decided to go home and take Karen with them. They spoke to the accused and he agreed to take them home in his car. The accused drove them in his orange car to Patricia Fatt’s house on Medway Drive. Karen was sitting in the front passenger’s seat. The rest of them were in the back seat. She and Joe alighted from the vehicle. They tried to persuade Karen to come in and stay with them but she insisted that she wanted to go to her mother’s. The accused drove off in a northerly direction with Karen in the car. The others went into Patricia Fatt’s house. Jennifer Williams could hear noise from a party at the Crombie’s house in the next street. She went to bed. Later she heard someone scream. She said the scream came from the direction of the church on Catacomb Road. She looked out of the window and saw the figures of two or three Aboriginal men chasing a girl on a hill on Catacomb Road. She thought it possible that two of those figures could have been Robbie Dodd and Lindsay Baker and that the girl could have been Karen. She said she had not seen or heard from Karen since that night.
Jack Katatjunti Crombie
Jack Crombie gave evidence that in 1990 he lived in Dawes Street, Coober Pedy, with his wife Eileen. At the time of Karen’s disappearance he was away from Coober Pedy with his wife, mining at Mintabie. He asked his neighbours in Dawes Street to keep an eye on the house. Sometimes Eileen’s grandsons, Tim Crombie, Mick Crombie and Anthony Crombie, stayed at their house in Dawes Street. Tim Crombie’s partner Marsha Warren also stayed there.
Anthony Crombie
Anthony Crombie gave evidence that Jack Crombie is his grandfather. In 1990 he was working at the Anna Creek Station. On Saturday or Sunday before he learned of Karen’s disappearance he had returned to Coober Pedy from the Anna Creek Station. He was dropped off at his grandfather’s house in Dawes Street. This was sometime around 9 a.m. He knocked on the front door but no-one answered. He went round the back of the house and climbed in through his bedroom window because he did not have any keys. He thought the house was empty. He commenced making breakfast. Tim Crombie and his partner Marsha Warren then entered the kitchen. It was no later than 10 a.m. at this stage. He said there was no-one else in the house and there were no signs of a party having been held there the night before. He could not recall whether he called out before entering the house but he may have done so. He agreed that there were occasions when he returned to Coober Pedy on the weekends and people would sometimes be staying at his grandfather’s house in Dawes Street but they were always people known to him.
Panayiota Haralambos Niaros
Ms Niaros gave evidence that she and her late husband were neighbours of Jack Crombie’s in Dawes Street, Coober Pedy, in 1990. At that time she and her husband had an arrangement with Jack and Eileen Crombie that they would look after the Crombie house when Mr and Mrs Crombie went away mining. This involved making sure no-one went there or broke in or was drinking. She said that if she or her husband had observed something of this kind taking place they would have notified the police. She remembers the weekend that Karen Williams disappeared. The Crombies had gone away. On that Friday night she and her husband went to the Opal Inn for dinner. They left the Opal Inn around 9 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. and went straight home. When she arrived at home she did not see or hear a party at the Crombies’ house. She said she and her husband went to bed at 12:30 a.m. or 1 p.m. Beforehand she did not hear any noise coming from the Crombies’ house. She was not woken during the night by any noise coming from the Crombies’ house. She said their bedroom was close to the fence that separated their property from the Crombies’ property. She said she did hear noises coming from a house near Medway Drive and thought there may have been a party there. She gave evidence that at about 2 a.m. she thought she heard a scream which she described as being a female voice which sounded as if it was “in agony”. Under cross-examination she accepted that the scream could have been later than 2 a.m. She gave evidence that she had seen Karen Williams at the Opal Inn that Friday night although at the time she did not realise who she was. She said she was talking and laughing when she saw her with a group of Aboriginal boys and girls. She said the fence between the two properties was 1.4 metres high. She said she was sure that there was no-one at the Crombies’ house on the Friday night or on the Saturday morning. She accepted there may have been cars coming and going that night and the next morning but she did not recall hearing any.
Simon Boland
Mr Boland has lived in Coober Pedy since 1973. In 1990 he was living in Chadwick Street. He is now 56 years of age. He knew Karen Williams and was related to her. After he became aware that she was missing he assisted in searching for her. In 1990 he did not go to the Opal Inn on Friday nights because it was too crowded. He thought he was probably at home on the night before he learned that Karen was missing. He gave evidence that in 1990 he socialised with his nephew Johnny Riessen, his brother Raymond Boland and occasionally saw Peter Woodforde and Arthur Gilbert. He saw Peter Woodforde here and there but did not mix with them and while Robbie Dodd called him uncle he did not really socialise with him. He denied attending a party in the vicinity of Dawes Street at which those individuals were present around the time of Karen’s disappearance. He denied seeing anything happen to Karen.
Under cross-examination he said that it was Simon Murray not him who was known as “Unga boy”. He said he lived in the reserve in 1980 when his father was also living there. At that time he always went to the reserve to drink with his family. He said he did not do so by the 1990s except to visit Ronnie Fatt to provide him with hunting food. He denied he drank with Ronnie Fatt in the ‘90s. He said he had been a heavy drinker in the past. He started when he was a teenager. He said that Arthur Gilbert was known as “Double Double” and Peter Woodforde was known as “Woomie”.
Jonathon Edward Riessen
Mr Riessen has lived in Coober Pedy since about 1982 or 1983. He is the brother of Jennifer Riessen. He is 54 years of age. In 1990 he knew of Karen Williams but did not know her well. He remembers becoming aware she had disappeared. At that time he worked on stations. He cannot recall whether he was working at the time he heard of her disappearance. He knew Jack Crombie but did not know where he lived. He had never been to his house. He knew Robbie Dodd and Arthur Gilbert as people he saw around the streets. He was not really friends with them. He knew Simon Murray but did not know him by any nickname. He socialised with Simon Boland and was friends with Raymond Boland. He knew Peter Woodforde from school in Oodnadatta and would see him around Coober Pedy now and then but did not socialise with him. He denied ever being at a house in Coober Pedy where Robbie Dodd, Arthur Gilbert, Peter Woodforde, Raymond Boland and Simon Murray were all together. He denied ever being in the backyard of a house in Coober Pedy and seeing Karen Williams assaulted. Under cross-examination he admitted that he had little recall about what he was doing in 1990 at which time he usually drank to get drunk. He said Woomie was Peter Woodforde and Unga Boy was Simon Murray.
Paul Crombie
Paul Crombie is a nephew of Jack Crombie. He knew Karen Williams. He last saw her the Friday before he heard she had disappeared. He saw her at the bottle shop. He thought it was in the afternoon. That night he was drinking at Julie Gilbert’s house. She is Arthur Gilbert’s sister. He said he camped there. Also present was Arthur Gilbert and Paul Brown. He woke up at around 10 a.m or 11 a.m. on Saturday. When he got up Warrie Jones was present. He then went to the house of Ronnie Brown who was Paul Brown’s uncle. He saw Arthur Gilbert there. He did not see Robbie Dodd or Tanya Jackson on the Saturday. Under cross-examination he said that he was drunk that Friday night. He said that from time to time he stayed in the shed out the back of Jack Crombie’s house. People who stayed at Jack Crombie’s house included Bevan Russell, Anthony Crombie, Tim Crombie, Bradley Crombie, Kerry Crombie and Phillip Lang. He said when he saw Karen at the bottle shop she was with other girls. He thought it might have been her birthday. He was drinking a lot at that time. He denied ever hearing Karen calling for help while he was sleeping out the back of Jack Crombie’s house. He denied ever telling Robin Walker that he was at Jack Crombie’s place in Lehman Place and hearing Karen Williams calling out for help. He said that his memory is not good because of head injuries and car accidents.
Bevan John Russell
Mr Russell is 45 years old. He was living in Coober Pedy in 1990. He knew Karen Williams. In the days following her disappearance he assisted in the search. He last saw her at the disco at the Opal Inn on the Friday night. He had seen her drinking. There was nothing unusual about her behaviour. He left the disco between 12 p.m. and 1 a.m. Karen was still at the disco at that stage. When he left the disco his cousin Raymond Boland was with Marsha Warren and Tim Crombie near his car. He went upstairs to Tracey’s restaurant to get a mixed grill. He told Raymond, Marsha and Tim to wait for him. He returned to his car and drove Marsha and Tim back to Jack Crombie’s house. He then went with Ray Boland to his aunty’s house. That was where he was staying that night. He went to sleep about 2 a.m. At that stage Raymond Boland was still in the house but Raymond then went home with his mother. He gave evidence that when he dropped Marsha Warren and Tim Crombie at Jack Crombie’s house there was no-one there. He thought he dropped them home at about 1 a.m. There was no evidence of a party at the Crombies’ house. Under cross-examination he accepted that he could not really see much of what was happening at the Crombies’ house because of the fence.
Witnesses called at the request of the accused
Robert Wayne Dodd
Mr Dodd is the son of Rita and Martin Dodd. He is 45 years old. In 1990 he lived in Coober Pedy with his father and brother Kevin at Umoona Reserve. He knew Karen Williams. His mother and her mother are cousins. His mother Rita lived in a house in Jones Street belonging to his sister Rosemary. Eva Williams was staying at that house at the time of Karen’s disappearance. He knew Tim Crombie who was his nephew but is now deceased. He said Tim lived with his grandfather Jack Crombie but he did not know where Jack Crombie’s house was located. Under cross-examination he gave evidence that around the time of Karen’s disappearance he was drinking a lot. He would drink on a daily basis from the age of 16 until he was 40. He said his parents and his sister Rosemary, Billy and Ronnie Fatt, Peter Woodforde, Johnny Riessen and Raymond Boland and, surprisingly, Simon Boland are all now dead. In relation to Simon Boland, he may have confused him with Simon Murray as he referred to Simon Boland as Unga Boy which was Simon Murray’s nickname. He denied ever saying on the Saturday following Karen’s disappearance that he had spent the previous night at Rita Dodd’s house. He said he stayed at his father’s house. After being taken to his police statement of 29 October 2013 he said he was not sure what he could recall because of his drinking. He said that he was covered in dirt when he went to Tania Jackson’s house that Saturday because they had sat around on the ground drinking the previous night. He denied saying to Ronnie Fatt that he had killed someone but did not mean to on the weekend that Karen Williams went missing. He denied drinking at one of the houses across the road from Umoona Reserve with Simon Boland, Raymond Boland, Johnny Riessen and Arthur Gilbert on the Friday night when Karen came passed. He denied hearing Unga Boy say to Karen, “What are you jumping out of a car with white man for? You think yourself white?” and “We make you black”. He denied seeing Unga Boy punch Karen. He denied seeing Peter Woodforde, Simon Boland, Raymond Boland and Johnny Riessen raping Karen. He denied he heard Karen say to Arthur Gilbert as he was raping her “You’re supposed to be my uncle”. He denied anything like this occurred at a cave near the old church. He denied going with anybody in a motor vehicle and burying Karen’s body near a tree on the Oodnadatta Track. He said he left Coober Pedy shortly after Karen’s disappearance to visit his brother near Alice Springs. He said he had last seen Karen on the Friday morning before she went missing at his father’s house where she was with his sister Raelene Dodd. He said they had stayed at his father’s place the night before. Karen left that morning. He denied that he had a scratch on his face on that Saturday when he saw Lulu Boland. He denied wearing ripple-soled shoes at that time. Under re-examination he said the conversation with Tania Jackson when he went around to the house she shared with Billy Fatt was that Sunday, not the Saturday. Consequently, he said the night that he had slept at his mother’s house was the Saturday night.
Lulu Renee Boland
Ms Boland was living in Coober Pedy in 1990. Karen Williams was her niece. She was involved in searching for her in the days following her disappearance. She undertook the search with her father Monty O’Toole and her sister Jean Walker. Her father is now deceased. As part of the search they went to what they described as an old cave near the Catacomb Church. She explained that the cave was, in fact, an old dug-out. She described it as being full of dirt and rubbish. She gave evidence of observing marks in the dirt that evidenced a struggle having taken place. She also noticed a stick like a fence post, a red serviette and chalk marks on the wall of the dug-out about half a metre from the floor. She observed prints made by ripple-soled shoes and marks in the soil near a prickle bush by the entrance to the dug-out made by two heels dragging through the dirt. These heel marks went in the direction of tyre tracks on a dirt track near the dug-out entrance. Under cross-examination she said that the marks made by the ripple-soled shoes appeared to be new. She said the old dug-out was about a street away from the Crombies’ house. She thought that the stick she had seen in the dug-out had a small amount of blood on it. The stick was located near the struggle marks in the dirt. She agreed that what she called the chalk marks had been described by her in a previous statement as scrape marks. There were somewhere between one to three of these on the wall. She said she saw a fresh scratch on Robbie Dodd’s face under his eyes near his cheek some time after Karen Williams went missing.
Corinna Valeeta Stuart
Ms Stuart was an Aboriginal health worker with the Pika Wiya Aboriginal Health Service in Port Augusta where she met Peter Woodforde. She also knew Karen Williams. She had known her since she was a baby. She grew up with her on the Umeewarra Mission in Port Augusta. Ms Stuart is about four years older than Karen. She remembers Karen leaving Port Augusta to live in Coober Pedy. In 1990 she heard that Karen had disappeared. Ms Stuart cared for Peter Woodforde for about two years before his death in 2010. She was an advocate on his behalf particularly in relation to obtaining suitable housing. In the last months of his life he lived in a flat at Derwent Close in Port Augusta. He had a hole in his throat which she understood was to assist him to breath. He needed to go to hospital every night in order to suck the mucus out of his throat and lungs. He had a great deal of difficulty speaking and would often communicate by writing things on paper, although he was capable of speaking in a whisper. He was a chronic alcoholic and drank a lot of alcohol on a daily basis in the months prior to his death. She would visit him at his flat in the last months of his life. About a week or a few days before he died he spoke to Ms Stuart when they were at his flat. Mr Woodforde told Ms Stewart that he had killed Karen Williams. He said he had seen Karen get out of a car being driven by “a white fella” while he was smoking a cigarette out the front of a house. He said she walked around the back of the house and he followed her. He said the house was in Coober Pedy in an area where there were lots of Woomera houses. He said that there was a fire around the back of the house. He said when he came around the back he observed Unga Boy beating Karen by punching her in the face with both fists. Ms Stuart said that Unga Boy was Simon Murray. Ms Stuart is related to Simon Murray. She denied that Unga Boy was Simon Boland. Mr Woodforde told Ms Stuart that Karen was standing during the beating but was knocked out. Peter Woodforde said that when she was knocked out he raped her. He said that while he was raping her she regained consciousness and tried to hit him in the face but he strangled her. Ms Stuart said that Mr Woodforde did not say anything about whether Unga Boy had sexually assaulted Karen, nor did he say whether there were other people in the back yard. Subsequently she said that he had referred to Arthur Gilbert and Robbie Dodd being in the back yard. Ms Stuart testified that according to Peter Woodforde neither Arthur nor Robbie did anything to Karen. She said Mr Woodforde did not mention Raymond Boland, Johnnie Riessen, Jennifer Williams, Jennifer Riessen or Joe Miller. She said that Mr Woodforde told her that he took Karen Williams in his car to a tree on the Oodnadatta Track and buried her there. He had said something about burning her body. She said he claimed to have done this by himself. He said about a week later he rolled his car and chopped all his fingers off. She gave evidence that during this conversation Mr Woodforde did not appear to be affected by alcohol. She said that Mr Williams did not refer to Jack Crombie or his house.
Under cross-examination Ms Stuart denied that she was scared or worried about coming to give evidence. She said the statement she gave to the police dated 16 June 2010 is accurate. This is Exhibit D8. She denied that she was scared about implicating people other than Peter Woodforde in the attack on Karen Williams. She agreed that she saw Karen’s mother and brother outside Court but denied they said anything to her. She denied asking her sister to telephone Mrs Shaw’s office. She said her sister did this of her own initiative. She denied telling her sister that Peter Woodforde had told her that Robbie Dodd and Arthur Gilbert had assisted him in disposing of Karen’s body. She denied telling her sister that Peter Woodforde had told her that Raymond Boland, Arthur Gilbert, Simon Murray, who are dead, and Robbie Dodd and Johnny Riessen, who are alive, were involved with Peter Woodforde in Karen’s death. She agreed that she spoke to Mr Pearce and told him the order in which six men raped Karen but she did this because she was listening to “too much gossip” and what she said was not true. She said that she spoke with the accused’s counsel Mr Williams over the telephone and said that there were six people involved in raping Karen and three involved in burying her. She asserted this was the truth but then contradicted herself and said this was a mistake and asserted that Peter Woodforde told her he alone killed Karen Williams.
The evidence relating to observations of the accused and Karen Williams by Claudette Noble
Claudette Jayne Noble
Ms Noble was living in Coober Pedy in 1990. At the time she was around 24 or 25 years of age. She had part-time employment at the cafeteria which formed part of the Caltex petrol station opposite the Opal Inn. She had known the accused for some years. He was a friend of her brother. They did not speak often but she would see him when her brother came home from school in Adelaide or at the pub. As at August 1990 she had known Karen Williams for some years although they were not friends.
In August 1990 she worked the night shift at the service station preparing hot meals and drinks. At that time there was a verandah that extended out from the front of the service station. There were petrol bowsers located under the verandah. The café was next to the service station. There were two tables with chairs in front of the café.
Ms Noble last saw Karen Williams in the early hours of the morning of the day she heard she had disappeared. She was working alone in the café at the service station. Her employers were two brothers. One of them was working in the service station. She gave evidence that at about 5:30 a.m. or 6 a.m. a car driven by the accused with Karen Williams sitting in the front passenger seat pulled into the service station as she walked outside from the café. The car came from Hutchison Street. It came from the north. It pulled up under the verandah by the petrol bowsers. The accused alighted from the car and walked around to the passenger side. Karen Williams remained seated inside the car listening to music, moving her head in time with the music. Ms Noble said she went back inside the café and collected a packet of cigarettes. She came outside again and passed the accused as he was walking into the service station. She said she walked past the car towards the concrete wall that separated the service station from Hutchison Street. She sat down on the wall to have a cigarette. She heard the car start up and move off. She saw it leave the service station and head in a southerly direction along Hutchison Street. Dawn was approaching. She observed the tail lights of the car heading down Hutchison Street and then turning left onto the Stuart Highway. From where she was sitting she could see the lights of the car as it turned left. She finished her cigarette and went back inside the café. She worked for about an hour and a half before coming outside again for another cigarette. She said it was about 7 a.m. It was daylight at this time. She then sat on the wall in the front of the service station. This time she observed the accused driving the same car in a northerly direction along Hutchison Street. The accused was the only person she observed in the car.
Under cross-examination Ms Noble said she thought the service station at the time was a Caltex brand. She said at other times it had been branded as a Mobil and Ampol station. She first gave a statement to the police about this matter on 2 May 2014. She was cross-examined as to whether in that statement she had described the service station as being possibly Ampol. She said she was motivated to contact the police in 2014 after seeing a television program about the search for the body of Karen Williams. At that time she had remarked to a friend that the police were “looking in the wrong spot”.[3] She had to try a few times before she spoke to the police. She initially attempted to do so in 2013. She said she had seen Karen Williams at the Opal Inn earlier that night before she started work. Karen was with a group of people, mostly girls.
[3] Transcript 413.
She said that the service station operated 24 hours. She had been working there for six months at this time. It had been operating on a 24-hour basis from the time she started.
She was asked what she was doing when she first saw the accused and Karen pull up in the car. She said she had walked out the door, she cleaned the table, walked back in, came out going to the petrol bowsers to clean them, went back inside and came out to have a cigarette. She observed the accused alight from the car and come around to the passenger side, and then she walked back inside. She thought he was filling the car with petrol. When she came out next she saw the accused walking from the petrol bowsers into the service station. She then said that when she came out it was to clean the bins by the petrol bowsers. She said she took the plastic bags out of the bins and took them back inside when she went to grab her cigarettes. She was asked about her statement to the police on 2 May 2014 which recorded her as saying she was outside clearing the outside tables when the car entered the service station. She said she was outside wiping one down and then walked back into the café. When she walked back in, the car was at the petrol bowsers. She then came out and cleared the rubbish bins. She was asked about the police statement which records her as saying when she turned around from cleaning the tables she saw the accused at the rear passenger side of the car putting petrol into it. She said she did not actually see him put petrol in the car but presumed this is what he was doing when she saw him on the passenger side of the vehicle. She was cross-examined about statements to the police that she and the accused had exchanged nods while he was putting petrol in the car. She said this occurred when he was walking into the service station. She was asked about the statement to the police that she had gone to the petrol bowsers to check the water, not to empty the bins. She said that the bins were right next to the water. She said she would have done both at the same time. After it being put to her that her statement to the police recorded her seeing the accused put petrol into his car after she had turned around from working the tables, she said she went over to the petrol pumps and approached the left-hand side of the car where the accused appeared to be finishing pumping petrol and putting the cap back on. She agreed that this was what in fact had occurred. It was at this point she noticed Karen Williams in the front passenger seat. She agreed that in her police statement she had said the front left window was partly down while her evidence-in-chief was that it was up. She thought it was probably just down. She said Karen did not appear to be drunk. She thought she looked happy. She described the car as a “musty, dusty colour, orangey mustard”. She was asked about a description she had given in her police statement that she could not remember the colour of the car except to say that she thought it was fairly neutral, not dark or very light coloured. She said the names of the brothers who owned the service station were Nicholas and Kosta. She denied they were John and Tony. She denied that the service station offered a full driveway service at that time. She insisted it was self-serve. She denied that she had made up her evidence.
Ms Noble said that on the night the accused and Karen stopped in the car at the service station there were only a couple of people who came over to the café from the Opal Inn. She had not seen Karen earlier in the night at the café or service station.
Ms Noble said that she contacted the police in Naracoorte after seeing a report in the paper in November 2013 that the accused had been arrested. She was aware of the reward. She said she spoke to the police officer Andrew Jaloshin in 2014 telling him that she had information about the disappearance of Karen Williams. She joked with him that she did not want her details passed on to Detective Holmes because he would claim the reward. She said she had spoken to the police in Coober Pedy earlier than that when she was drunk. She was told the police would get back to her but they did not. She had tried to ring Crime Stoppers a couple of times but could not get through. The last occasion she rang Crime Stoppers they put her through to Detective Ward.
John Zarpas
Mr John Zarpas and his brother, Tony Zarpas, took over the Caltex petrol station on 1 July 1990. He ran the fuel side and his brother ran the restaurant side. He had been there a month or so before Karen Williams went missing.[4] On the night Karen Williams went missing he worked the night shift. His brother was working in the restaurant.[5] The food side was full from the pub patrons.[6] Apart from his brother he does not know who else was working there that night. They had young women working there from time to time.[7] It was driveway service but people who knew them would serve themselves.[8] It was not 24 hour when they took it over. It commenced as 24 hour about a month after they took it over.[9] He cannot remember if his brother had any other girls working at that time.[10] The table under the veranda on the petrol side was only for family.[11] There were tables and chairs inside the roadhouse.[12] Someone called Nick worked for him at some stage.[13] There were lots of “Costas” in Coober Pedy and one owned the Mobil.[14]
Tony Zarpas
[4] J Zarpas 987.
[5] J Zarpas 987.
[6] J Zarpas 988.
[7] J Zarpas 988.
[8] J Zarpas 989, 992.
[9] J Zarpas 991.
[10] J Zarpas 994.
[11] J Zarpas 995.
[12] J Zarpas 997.
[13] J Zarpas 998.
[14] T Zarpas 1002.
Mr Tony Zarpas gave evidence that after the first month the service station operated 24 hours a day.[15] Once they started getting bus companies coming through they took on staff. That was around late August, early September of 1990. He didn’t have staff for the first one and a half to two months, but then took on a couple of girls.[16] It was full driveway service.[17] He does not know the name Claudette Noble.[18] He used to sleep out the back of the petrol station and work around the clock.[19] He kept a couple of girls on until November and then he caught them stealing.[20] The only outside table was for the use of the proprietors.[21] The food side was closed when they took over.[22]
Andrew Paul Jaloshin
[15] T Zarpas 1290.
[16] T Zarpas 1290-1, 1295.
[17] T Zarpas 1296.
[18] T Zarpas 1292.
[19] T Zarpas 1293.
[20] T Zarpas 1295.
[21] T Zarpas 1296.
[22] T Zarpas 1297.
Mr Jaloshin is a police officer. He is not a witness to the events of 3-4 August 1990 in Coober Pedy. However, his evidence is relevant to the evidence given by Claudette Noble of those events. In November 2013 he was based in Naracoorte. He knew a person called Jayne Noble. Around this time he had a conversation with her in which she revealed to him that she had some information about the disappearance of Karen Williams. At the time he was not on duty. He told her he could pass on her details to Naracoorte CIB or she could ring the Crime Stoppers phone number. He said she indicated she would ring Crime Stoppers and she did not want her details to be given to Detective Holmes of the CIB. He could not recall Ms Noble saying anything about the reward during the conversation but he remembered that news of the reward had been broadcast on local television at this time.
Witnesses to events in and around Mount Gambier in 2013
Maureen Patricia Austin
Ms Austin was living in Mount Gambier in 2013. She knew Debra Chislett. She met Ms Chislett through Bob Reardon who was a prisoner in the Mount Gambier gaol at the time. As a consequence she came to meet the accused. In 2013 the accused used to live with Ms Chislett in a house in Jarrah Street, Mount Gambier. Later the accused and Ms Chislett moved to a small town, Kongorong, about 30 kilometres out of Mount Gambier. Ms Austin visited them at the Kongorong property. She referred to a conversation with the accused about his time in Coober Pedy. The accused told Ms Austin that at that time he drove a Datsun 180B which belonged to his grandmother. He said that he had picked up three girls and an argument broke out in the car. He said he dropped two girls off and went around the corner and dropped another girl off and went back to the bakery where he worked. Under cross-examination she gave evidence that the accused had always maintained that he did not have anything to do with the death of Karen Williams. She referred to Sue Steele who was known to her. Ms Austin claimed Ms Steele had harassed her. She said Ms Steele had made plain that she hated the accused and would do anything to bring him down. She said she referred to the accused as a paedophile. She gathered that Ms Steele wanted the reward that was offered for information concerning the death of Karen Williams.
Susan Marie Steele
Ms Steele was living in Mount Gambier in 2013. She had been living there for about 15 years at that time. She knew Debra Chislett. She met the accused through Debra Chislett. She said that at some stage Debra Chislett and the accused lived together in a house in Mount Gambier. She visited them there on several occasions. She gave evidence that she spoke with the accused following a discussion with a person who lived across the road from Debra Chislett in Mount Gambier concerning the accused. This discussion occurred more than once. On one occasion the accused raised the topic of murder. She and the accused and Debra Chislett were sitting around the table at their house. The accused told her about a car being crushed and a girl who was supposed to be murdered whose body would never be found. She gave evidence that the accused told her that he would “keep his mouth shut” and that while he knew where the body was, he did not elaborate.
A few weeks after this discussion the accused and Debra Chislett moved to the town of Kongorong. She said she visited them there.
Under cross-examination she said that after the move to Kongorong the accused made her feel unwelcome. She said she stopped talking to him. She said he rang her but she did not ring him and their conversations were unfriendly. She said she continued to ring Debra Chislett and they had friendly conversations. She denied abusing either Debra Chislett or the accused over the telephone. She said she was always trying to be polite when she spoke on the telephone. She confirmed that the conversation concerning the car and the murdered girl’s body had occurred when Debra Chislett and the accused were living in Jarrah Street in Mount Gambier before the move to Kongorong. She agreed that the topic that had been discussed with the person who lived on the opposite side of the street was an allegation that the accused was a paedophile. She agreed that the accused denied this when she put it to him. By way of explanation she said he told her that paedophiles were only released from prison in Adelaide and not in Mount Gambier. She said that the next day she contacted Correctional Services to ascertain whether what the accused had said about the release of paedophiles was correct. She agreed with the contents of a statement she gave to the police on 2 May 2014 that it was three or four days later that the topic of a car being crushed and a girl being murdered was discussed. She said that her memory had deteriorated within the past 12 months. She denied that she had first learned about the disappearance of Karen Williams from Maureen Austin before the conversation with the accused about a car being crushed and a girl being murdered. She said the conversation with Maureen Austin was after this conversation. She agreed that she had told Maureen Austin that she hated the accused but denied saying that she would do anything to bring him down. She denied discussing with Maureen Austin the reward for information relating to the disappearance of Karen Williams. She claimed she learned of the reward after the accused had been arrested. She accepted that she had seen the Wanted television program concerning Karen Williams’ disappearance but could not recall hearing any mention of a reward. She denied that the conversation she had with the accused concerning where paedophiles were released which prompted the conversation concerning a car being crushed and a girl being murdered occurred when the accused and Debra Chislett were living in Kongorong in August of 2013 rather than in June 2013. She denied giving the accused the telephone number for Correctional Services and inviting him to speak to them about the question of where paedophiles are released. She agreed that she rang the accused and Debra Chislett multiple times in a day when they were living in Kongorong and said she did this because she was concerned about Debra Chislett. She denied she became angry with the accused during a telephone call in July and called him a “cunt” or saying words like “I’ll bloody get you”. She also denied calling Debra Chislett at “cunt”, a “slut”, a “cocksucker” and a “gutless bitch” during a telephone call that occurred when the accused and Debra Chislett were living in Kongorong. She denied saying to Debra Chislett that “Debra fucks anything for money”. She denied ever ringing Debra Chislett from Kathy Driscoll’s house. She also denied ever speaking to the accused about the reward or suggesting to him that Maureen Austin wanted it to “get her fucking car and her fucking caravan”. Recordings of various telephone conversations to this effect were then played. She explained that she was probably intoxicated at the time of these telephone calls. She said that relations between her and Debra Chislett and the accused by August 2013 were pretty rough and that the accused had tried to run her off the road.
I was not assisted by the evidence of Susanne Steele. I found her evidence to be unreliable and not credible. I am not prepared to make any finding of fact based on her testimony.
Evidence of admissions
Deborah Sharon Lightfoot
Ms Lightfoot is the mother of the accused’s five children. She is now 38 years old. She met the accused in about 1992. They commenced living together in 1993 at Mansfield Park. They were together until 2007 when they finally separated, although the period between 1993 and 2007 was punctuated by periods of separation. She gave evidence that her first child Jordan was born in 1996. She was living in Whyalla at the time. The accused was in prison. The relationship between her and the accused was turbulent. The accused was occasionally violent towards her. She gave evidence that while she was pregnant with her first child the accused had to go to Coober Pedy for an inquest. He would not discuss the subject matter of the inquest with her. The accused had told her that he had previously lived in Coober Pedy with his stepmother, father and sisters but told her little else about this time. At the time the accused said he was going to Coober Pedy for the inquest they were living at Salisbury North. She recounted an incident that she said occurred at Easter of 1997. At this time she asserted that Jordan was four years of age. She described the incident where he cut himself on a piece of tin in the back yard of the house she was then sharing with Jordan and the accused in Whyalla. She described being in the backyard after this had occurred when the accused came behind her and smacked her hard on the back of the head. She described him as being very angry. She next remembers being inside the house with Jordan. She was frightened and crying because the accused was yelling at her. She said that when she was outside she said to the accused “that’s how Karen felt”. She said that when she was in the bedroom the accused said to her that he strangled and raped Karen and put her down a mineshaft. She had gone to the bedroom to listen to some music to calm down. The accused entered the bedroom, pulled her pants down, put his hands around her neck and raped her, saying “Do you like this, Karen?”. She said the accused left the bedroom and went into the lounge room. She followed him into the lounge room where he said to her “If you tell anybody what I’ve just told you I will kill you.” She said that while he was raping her he said something like “Take this, Karen.” She gave evidence that on this day the accused had been using speed and marijuana. She said that he had used speed previously which had made him very violent towards her. She gave evidence that she subsequently had four more children with the accused: Nicholas who was born in 1998, Benjamin who was born in 1999, Michael who was born in 2000 and Thomas who was born in 2003.
Under cross-examination she said that she first made a statement to the police about this matter in August 2012. She did so after seeing stories in the media. This included a story in the Sunday Mail that there was a $200,000 reward for information leading to a person’s arrest for the murder of Karen Williams. She gave evidence that she was not interested in the reward. She admitted that she had had contact with Family and Community Services because she was neglecting her children due to drug abuse. Family and Community Services took her children from her. She told the police this was because of the accused. She said that the children were placed under the care of the Minister in 2003. She denied that she was taking drugs in 1997. She admitted that she was playing pokies at that time. She denied she spent all her money on the pokies and drugs. She said she stopped using speed in 2007. She admitted going to the police in 2007 and alleging that the accused had raped her. When she made this allegation she did not refer to the incident where she alleged the accused raped her in Easter 1997. At that time she did not refer to him saying anything about Karen Williams. She said this was because she wanted to get it out of her head. She accepted that she had had lots of opportunities to speak to the police after 1997 about the incident where she alleged the accused raped and strangled her while referring to Karen but she did not do so until 2012 when she learned of the reward. She accepted that even though she was scared of the accused she was willing to give a statement against him in 2007. She accepted that in the statements she gave to the police in 2012 and 2014 about this matter she did not refer to the accused saying he had dumped Karen’s body down a mineshaft. The first mention she made of this topic was on the morning of giving evidence. She said she had only just remembered it. She acknowledged she had seen media reports about Karen Williams’ body being put down a mineshaft. Ms Lightfoot further admitted that in 2013 she made a false report to the police about a friend of her husband breaking into her house and stealing her husband’s wallet after assaulting her. She could not explain why she made this false report.
First, the prosecution case relies heavily on the evidence of the accomplice, Mr Radosavljevic. I found Mr Radosavljevic to be an unimpressive and unreliable witness. He regularly contradicted himself. His evidence was contradicted by other witnesses, including disinterested witnesses such as his sister, Karolina Radosavljevic, in relation to important rather than peripheral matters.
In relation to the former he kept changing his story. He initially told police that he had asked the accused whether he knew anything about the murder of Karen Williams and the accused had failed to answer. He said while he suspected the accused was involved in her murder, he denied knowing the whereabouts of her body. Subsequently, he said he and the accused had stolen a generator, and that they had been seen by Karen Williams who had demanded the proceeds of the theft from the accused or she would report him to police, as a result of which the accused killed her. When confronted by police scepticism concerning this story he then told police of the armed robbery of Zoran. Further, he denied any interest in the reward of $200,000 for, as he understood it, information leading to the arrest of a person for the murder of Ms Williams. Yet solicitors retained by him had written twice to the Crown Solicitor claiming the reward on his behalf. He accepted they did so on his instructions. I am satisfied that Mr Radosavljevic’s conduct in this matter has been motivated by the prospect of claiming the reward of $200,000. While I accept Mr Radosavljevic knew of the existence of the reward before he was initially contacted by Detective Ward without him taking any action to claim the reward, that does not detract from the conclusion I have reached. It is unclear how long he was aware of the existence of the reward before being contacted by Detective Ward[74] and I am satisfied that his interest in claiming the reward was piqued once contacted by Detective Ward.
[74] Karolina Radosavljevic gave evidence that she told her brother of the reward a year or more before she spoke to police in August 2014. Mr Radosavljevic said that his sister told him of the reward within a year prior to him being called by Detective Ward. Mr Ward called Mr Radosavljevic on 29 May 2013.
Further, he gave contradictory evidence about where he was living at the time of Karen Williams’ disappearance. At various times he claimed he was living in town or living 30 kilometres out of Coober Pedy at 17-Mile Field. That is important because on Mr Radosavljevic’s account he was living in Coober Pedy at Farkas’ house when the accused came there and told him he had shot Karen Williams and sought his assistance in disposing of her body. This is clear from his description of them taking a short drive from his house to the location of the burnt out car. Yet Mr Standing, who was a Detective Sergeant in charge of the initial investigation, in about 1992 spoke to Mr Radosavljevic and Old Aleks who said that at about the time of Karen Williams’ disappearance they were living in a hut on the “14th Mile Field”. Mr Radosavljevic’s account of these critical events could not be accurate if he was living at the 17-Mile Field at this time.
In relation to the latter he gave evidence of the terms of his first discussion with Detective Ward, by telephone on 29 May 2013, which was inconsistent with Detective Ward’s evidence. He said he told Detective Ward that he knew the accused had killed Karen Williams. Detective Ward said Mr Radosavljevic told him that in 1990 the accused had informed Mr Radosavljevic that he and Karen Williams were doing robberies together. As I have set out above, Mr Radosavljevic told Detective Ward that he asked the accused if he had murdered Karen Williams and the accused did not answer. Mr Radosavljevic in his evidence denied that he had said this to Detective Ward during their first telephone conversation. He also denied telling his sister in a conversation shortly after he returned to Sydney from Coober Pedy in 1990 that he had been involved in a car accident in Coober Pedy which resulted in the death of a young Aboriginal woman whose body he dumped down a mineshaft. Yet Mr Radosavljevic’s sister, Karolina Radosavljevic, gave evidence to this effect. I prefer the evidence of Karolina Radosavljevic. This conversation is significant for reasons to which I will return.
In addition, he gave evidence before me of twice seeing a rifle in the accused’s car, and of seeing bullets and using them for target practice with the accused at 17-Mile Field. Further, he said he told Detective Ward of this. Detective Ward denied he was told any of this by Mr Radosavljevic. I accept Mr Ward’s evidence.
There are other matters which give me reason to doubt the reliability of Mr Radosavljevic’s evidence. First, he proffered no plausible explanation for why he would assist in the disposal of Karen Williams’ body given his reaction to being told by the accused that he had killed her. Second, he said in evidence that the accused approached him two days after the armed robbery of Zoran to enlist his help in disposing of the body. He said it was around midnight. The earliest this could have occurred was the night of 4-5 August 1990, the night after Karen Williams was last seen. This was not two days after the robbery of Zoran Vuin but six days later. Finally, notwithstanding his claim to know where Karen Williams’ body had been thrown down a mineshaft, police were unable to find her body based on his directions.
I accept that standing alone none of these matters are fatal to the assessment of his credit and reliability given the passage of time. It is possible that he has forgotten how many days passed between the robbery and being approached by the accused and told of the murder. It is possible that mineshafts could have been filled in or covered over during the past 25 years. However, when considered with the matters to which I have referred, I am not prepared to rely upon the evidence of Mr Radosavljevic for the purpose of making findings of fact unless his evidence is corroborated by other credible and reliable evidence.
Second, while the evidence of the various discussions between the accused and Mr Radosavljevic over the telephone, and in person outside Hungry Jack’s in Mount Gambier in 2013, recorded by police, which the prosecution submits evidence a guilty mind, are highly suspicious, the question is suspicious of what? Mr Pearce submits that the discussions evidence a shared secret. He submits it is a secret they and they alone share. He submits that comments made by the accused reveal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Karen Williams and an attempt to prevent disclosure of that information for fear it would implicate him in her murder. However, the statements made by the accused are, to some extent, equivocal. They are at least consistent with some knowledge or belief in the circumstances of Karen Williams’ death and the disposal of her body as involvement in her murder. However, that evidence does not necessarily prove that the accused killed Ms Williams with the requisite intention. The prosecution’s submissions proceed from an underlying assumption that what is being discussed is the murder of Karen Williams by the accused. I do not accept that is the only possibility for reasons I will explain shortly. When analysing his statements to Mr Radosavljevic in July 2013 it must be borne in mind that by that time the accused knew he was a suspect in the murder of Karen Williams. This informed his responses to Mr Radosavljevic. Further, one curious feature of the discussion between them is Mr Radosavljevic’s question at Hungry Jack’s “What’s going to happen if they find it?”. The reference to “it” rather than “her” makes me careful about the extent to which I am prepared to treat the accused’s subsequent statements as implied admissions. But, in any event, the cryptic statements made by the accused to Mr Radosavljevic in 2013 are evidence at least consistent with the account of events I am satisfied was given by Mr Radosavljevic to his sister, Ms Karolina Radosavljevic, in 1990. On one view, the statements by the accused made to Mr Radosavljevic in 2013 indicate an involvement in the death of Ms Williams and the disposal of her body. I am prepared to infer that is the case. However that is not proof that the accused killed her, that he did so deliberately, or that he did so with the intention of killing her or at least inflicting grievous bodily harm. I cannot exclude as a reasonable possibility that there was a car accident as a result of which she died and that for one reason or another Mr Radosavljevic and the accused disposed of her body down a mineshaft. Against that possibility it could be said that it makes no sense for the accused and Mr Radosavljevic to attempt to conceal the death of Ms Williams by disposing of her body down a mineshaft if her death had resulted from a car accident. However, common experience demonstrates that persons involved in fatal car accidents frequently attempt to conceal their involvement. When the immaturity of youth is added to the equation that possibility only becomes stronger.
Moreover, during the conversation at Hungry Jack’s, the accused, in urging Mr Radosavljevic not to say anything to the police warned him: “You want to do a life in prison?”.[75] To the extent that statement might suggest Karen Williams had been murdered, it points to Mr Radosavljevic, rather than the accused, as the culprit.
[75] Exhibit P15, MFI P14 line 71.
Third, there is much about the prosecution case, based on the evidence of Mr Radosavljevic and Claudette Noble, which does not make sense. The prosecution case is that Karen Williams was with the accused in a car driven by him in the early hours of the morning of 4 August 1990. That afforded him the opportunity to commit the crime with which he is charged. So much is not in doubt. The evidence of Jennifer Williams proves that the accused dropped them at the house occupied by Patricia Fatt in Medway Drive that morning and drove off in the direction of Jones Street with Ms Williams. The prosecution case is that shortly thereafter the accused drove down Hutchinson Street and pulled into the forecourt of the roadhouse where Claudette Noble was working. She said she observed Karen Williams in the front passenger seat of the car driven by the accused. Her evidence of her observations of Karen Williams does not indicate that Karen Williams was in the car at this time against her will. If true, it suggests that she must have changed her mind about going to see her mother at Rita Dodd’s house sometime after she and the accused drove from Patricia Fatt’s house. After putting fuel in the car the accused drove off heading in a southerly direction along Hutchinson Street. According to Ms Noble, Ms Williams was still in the car. Ms Noble said she was able to observe the car as it drove down Hutchinson Street and turned left on to the Stuart Highway travelling in the direction of Port Augusta. She gave evidence she next saw the car approximately one hour later driving in a northerly direction on Hutchinson Street. She observed the accused driving. There was no sign of Ms Williams in the car. The prosecution case is that by this time she was dead. The inference that the prosecution seeks the court to draw is that somewhere down the Stuart Highway the accused killed Ms Williams. Claudette Noble’s evidence raises some problems. Her evidence is that the accused and Karen Williams drove out of Coober Pedy and turned left onto the Stuart Highway and headed towards Port Augusta. Her remark when she saw on television where police were digging in 2013, that “they are looking in the wrong spot”,[76] implies a belief on her part that the accused had killed Karen Williams and had done so somewhere out in the desert in the direction of Port Augusta, not on the edge of the town where police were digging.
[76] Transcript 413.
Ms Noble’s evidence is not inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Radosavljevic but that evidence begs a number of questions. Why would the accused not dump the body where he allegedly committed the murder further out of town? Why would the accused bring the body back to the edge of town, probably on or after daybreak, to place the body in a burnt out car boot a matter of a few metres from the mineshaft, down which he ultimately dumped the body? Why would he tell Mr Radosavljevic, a person he did not know all that well, who he knew was prepared to commit armed robbery, that he had killed Karen Williams and unnecessarily enlist his help to dispose of the body? It is evident he did not need the assistance of Mr Radosavljevic to dispose of the body. It makes little sense. He would have had to get her body out of his car and place it in the burnt out car. Why would he do that when he was only going to take the body from the burnt out car and dump it down a mineshaft that was only metres away? Why would he tell Mr Radosavljevic that he had killed Karen Williams when he did not need his assistance to dispose of the body? Why would he tell Mr Radosavljevic that he needed his assistance to dispose of the body when he did not? It merely meant that there was now somebody who could implicate him in a crime of which no-one else knew. All of these questions arouse doubt in my mind about the prosecution case.
Mr Pearce submits that offenders do not always act logically. While I accept the validity of that proposition in a general sense, that is insufficient to alleviate the doubt I harbour about the prosecution case.
I do not accept the submission of Mrs Shaw that I should reject Ms Noble’s evidence. As Mr Pearce acknowledges, there are some difficulties with her evidence. I am prepared to accept that discrepancies between her evidence and the evidence of the Zarpas brothers concerning the appearance and operation of the service station in 1990 probably indicates that she is mistaken about these matters. That does not necessarily undermine the substance of her account of her observations of the accused and Karen Williams and the accused’s car. There is some corroboration of her evidence to be found in the evidence of Tony Zarpas that he dismissed a couple of girls in November 1990. This matches the timeframe when Ms Noble said she stopped working at the petrol station. The discrepancies concern matters that are largely peripheral. Moreover they are matters that you would expect could be forgotten or confused after so many years. I accept the submission of Mr Pearce that Ms Noble appeared to be someone doing her best to tell the truth. However, I treat her evidence with caution. I am left in some doubt as to how reliable it is. She must have understood, shortly after it became common knowledge in Coober Pedy that Karen Williams had disappeared, that she had vital information relevant to her disappearance yet there is no explanation as to why she did nothing about this for 23 or 24 years. The fact is she did not come forward until after she learned of the existence of the reward.
Fourth, it is difficult to reconcile the evidence of Mr Campagna and Ms Noble. It is hard to conceive how Karen Williams could have been in the car driven by the accused between 5:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. on 4 August 1990 if she was not in the car when he returned to Sergio’s at about 5 a.m.-5:15 a.m. after supposedly dropping her home. It may be that Mr Campagna was wrong in believing that she was not in the car at that time. He gave evidence that the car was parked outside. He was inside Sergio’s. There is no explanation as to how he could know whether anyone was in the car when it was parked outside. But if Ms Williams was in the car and the accused intended to kill her, why would he offer Mr Campagna and Andrew Procopis a lift home? This dilemma may be answered on the basis that, as Mr Pearce submits, Mr Campagna is mistaken about the time when the accused returned to Sergio’s. The accused has never said he went back to Sergio’s after dropping Karen Williams home. In every statement or interview he has given, he has referred to going straight to Dean Bulovic’s house after dropping off Karen Williams. If he was actually seen by someone at Sergio’s after dropping off Karen Williams, and in particular having a conversation with two men at Sergio’s, it is inconceivable that the accused would not have mentioned that important fact to police during the course of any of the multitude of occasions he was asked about his movements on that morning, and in particular in 1990, when it would be expected these events were fresh in his memory. In fact, the accused gave evidence at the 1995 inquest of returning to Sergio’s and being refused entry by Mr Campagna because he was closing up. He said that he then went and parked his car outside the continental bakery. He said it was while he was sitting in his car outside the bakery that Jennifer Williams, Joe Miller and Karen Williams walked up to his car. It was then, he said, that Jennifer Williams asked for a lift. He agreed. He said he dropped them home, after which he said he drove to Dean Bulovic’s house, parked his car out the front, and went to sleep in the car. He gave a similar account in his statement to police in October 1990.[77]
[77] Exhibit P29 at pp 4-5.
In any event, if the accused had formed the intention to kill Karen Williams by that stage it is difficult to understand why he would have returned to Sergio’s even if Karen Williams was in the car. It only afforded her an opportunity to escape before he could execute any plan he had formed to kill her. Maybe the explanation is that at that stage he had not yet formed an intention to do so. It may be that she had not yet attempted to blackmail him by that stage. That would be consistent with Claudette Noble’s evidence of Karen Williams being in his car at the service station apparently relaxed and happy. In the alternative, it may be that Mr Campagna is wrong about the time these events occurred as discussed above.
Fifth, the prosecution case is that the accused had a motive to kill Ms Williams to prevent her from blackmailing him. While the evidence establishes that Zoran was robbed on 30 July 1990 at Coober Pedy, the only evidence that the accused was involved in this robbery, and that Karen Williams witnessed his involvement and attempted to blackmail him over it, comes from Mr Radosavljevic. As I have said, I entertain serious reservations as to his credibility and reliability.
Sixth, the question of how Karen Williams was killed is problematic. Mr Radosavljevic says the accused told him he shot her. The evidence of Debra Lightfoot suggests the possibility she was strangled. I can place no reliance on that evidence. That leaves the Crown case based on her having been shot. There is no evidence of the accused having a gun or rifle in his possession on the night of 3-4 August 1990. There is no evidence of him having a gun or rifle when Mr Radosavljevic alleges the two of them disposed of Karen Williams’ body. While Mr Radosavljevic alleges that the accused had a .22 calibre rifle when the armed robbery of Zoran was committed, the statement of Mr Vuin suggests that was a slug-gun. At trial Mr Radosavljevic gave evidence that he had seen a rifle in the boot of the accused’s car on two occasions. This was not a matter he had mentioned previously to the police when giving statements. In cross-examination Mr Radosavljevic said the accused brought the gun to the place Mr Radosavljevic was living at the 17-Mile Field because he did not want the gun to be kept around his house in town.[78] I have some difficulty with this evidence given the confusion in his evidence about when he went to live at the 17-Mile Field. Mr Radosavljevic’s evidence is that once the rifle had been brought out to his place at the 17-Mile Field, he and the accused would use it for target practice. That suggests the rifle was there for some time. If the rifle was kept at Mr Radosavljevic’s place at the 17-Mile Field at the time Karen Williams disappeared, the evidence does not explain how the accused obtained the rifle in order to shoot her. On the other hand, if the rifle was not kept at Mr Radosavljevic’s place at the 17-Mile Field when Karen Williams disappeared, his evidence fails to explain when the accused took it there given Mr Radosavljevic, in his evidence, does not mention the accused coming to the 17-Mile Field after he and the accused disposed of the body. In the end, the only evidence of the accused being in possession of a firearm comes from the testimony of Mr Radosavljevic. I need not repeat the reasons for not relying on his evidence.
[78] Transcript 771-772.
That leaves the question, if the accused did shoot Karen Williams, whether the killing was premeditated or spontaneous. If it was spontaneous, how did he have a firearm? If it was premeditated, how could he know that Karen Williams would be in the car with him alone that night? If it was premeditated, why would he go back to Sergio’s and leave the car, assuming Karen Williams was alive and in the car at that time, affording her an opportunity to escape?
Seventh, the prosecution case depends on the accused having transported Karen Williams’ body in his orange Datsun from the place he shot her to the burnt out car on the edge of town. Yet the forensic examination of the accused’s car conducted by Mr Pearman in November 1990 failed to find any blood-like stains in the interior or the boot of the accused’s car. Moreover, there was no evidence that the car’s interior or boot had been recently cleaned.
For all these reasons, I have a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused killed Karen Williams as alleged on the prosecution case or at all.
I accept that the evidence of Corinna Stuart of the deathbed confession of Peter Woodforde to raping and killing Ms Williams could provide a further possible explanation for the death of Ms Williams consistent with the innocence of the accused. The question is whether the prosecution has excluded her evidence as a reasonable possibility. I did not find her evidence to be inherently implausible. Of course her evidence was rank hearsay. Unsurprisingly, there was no objection to her evidence by Mrs Shaw. On the contrary the prosecution made plain that it was calling the evidence of Ms Stuart at the insistence of the accused. While there are reasons to exercise some caution before accepting Ms Stuart’s testimony, namely, a number of significant inconsistencies, including changes from earlier accounts she gave of the version of events recounted to her by Mr Woodforde surrounding the rape and murder of Karen Williams and the involvement of various people in those events, I cannot dismiss her testimony on that basis alone. She was agitated while giving evidence and seemed to be under some strain. I accept that, in giving her evidence, she appeared to be afraid of something or someone. That may well have affected her testimony. It remains at least a possibility it is substantially truthful. That does not exclude the possibility that what she said she was told by Mr Woodforde was untrue. No explanation has been proffered which might explain why he would concoct such a story, although it must be acknowledged that he was very sick, an alcoholic, possibly drunk at the time of the conversation and probably understood that his death was imminent. Mr Pearce submits that the Woodforde confession can be excluded as a reasonable possibility. First, on the basis that the evidence excludes as a reasonable possibility any party on the night of 3-4 August 1990 at Jack Crombie’s house given the evidence of Marsha Warren, Anthony Crombie, Mr Russell and Ms Niaros. Second, on the basis that it is contrary to the evidence of Mr Riessen, Mr Dodd, Simon Boland and Mr Paul Crombie, all of whom were implicated by Peter Woodforde in the death of Karen Williams according to statements made by Ms Stuart. They gave evidence denying this allegation. Third, on the basis that if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed Karen Williams in accordance with the prosecution case, then Mr Woodforde could not have killed Karen Williams.
The exclusion of the Crombie house as the possible site for the murder of Karen Williams does not exclude the possibility that the events described by Ms Stuart did not occur at another house somewhere in the general vicinity of the Crombie house. There is evidence from Ms Williams and Ms Niaros of them hearing a woman scream during the night. Next, as I indicated earlier in these reasons, I harbour some doubt about the evidence of each of Mr Riessen, Mr Dodd, Mr Boland and Mr Paul Crombie. Their memories are impaired by alcohol consumption or a desire to distance themselves from what might have happened on the night of 4 August 1990 or both. I am not prepared to exclude as a realistic possibility the account given by Peter Woodforde, as related by Ms Stuart in her evidence, in reliance upon their evidence. Further, the submission that if I find the prosecution case proved, I can exclude Mr Woodforde as the culprit, merely begs the question to whether I can be so satisfied given the evidence of Ms Stuart. In any event, for the reasons set out above, I entertain a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. Nonetheless, I consider I can exclude Ms Stuart’s evidence as a possible hypothesis reasonably open on the evidence. Even though I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence as a whole, and in particular the evidence of the admissions made by the accused in the undercover operation in 2013 involving Mr Radosavljevic, proves the accused murdered Karen Williams, I am satisfied that that evidence establishes that the accused and Mr Radosavljevic had some involvement in the death of Karen Williams and the disposal of her body. That means Mr Woodforde’s account could not be true. I can exclude it as a reasonable possibility, but that does not result in me being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the murder of Karen Williams.
Having considered all of the evidence in this matter, I am unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed Karen Williams let alone that he did so with the specific intent of killing her or inflicting grievous bodily harm. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the elements of the charge of murder have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I am therefore obliged to return a verdict of not guilty of the charge of murder.
Has the prosecution proved the accused guilty of manslaughter?
In the end, the state of the evidence is such that it is impossible to make a finding beyond reasonable doubt as to how Karen Williams died. As a result, the accused also cannot be guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter.
Verdict
For these reasons I find the accused not guilty of the charge of murder. I also find the accused not guilty of manslaughter.
0
10
1