TRANSCRIPT – FOLLERT Closing.
….
BONNICI: I want to give you a small example and I hope I don't muck it up and I'm not trying to be funny here and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anybody or anything please but understanding sometimes evidence in the situation here where you've got two different parts is not easy and I'm going to try to just say for example that the evidence of Robert Martin represents an apple. Then you've got the evidence of Amanda Deabel representing a second apple and then you've got Cheryl Batchelor who is no longer not an apple because that apple's out of the barrel. You put those two apples in one barrel and that's barrel 1. Now, there's ‑ you've got to assess the quality of that apple but in that first barrel. The quality of that apple, and of course there's a little worm trying to get into that apple to wreck it, to make it bad. The question is Robert Martin; is he a good apple or a bad apple? Well, figure it. You've heard everything I've said, you've seen what he's been given indemnity for, you've seen the variations in everything, is he a good apple or a bad apple? Can you trust him, can you believe him? Well, that's a matter for you. My submission is he's a bad apple.
Then comes Amanda Deabel who's in the same barrel, but not nearly as important, and when you test her through little twists that are there, she may not be as bad an apple but she certainly looks a bit infected. Matter for you. But look at the cross, and that's barrel 1, and barrel 1 is the one that the Crown is saying "This is my best barrel". Then we go to barrel 1. Barrel 2 has the evidence of Mr Maratos, another apple, apple 3, and Mr Joseph Metlej, apple 4. Now those two gentlemen, those two apples, it appears that they were tainted, they were bruised, but the worm maybe hasn't completely got to them, they've reformed and they tell you what they say is the truth and they say the worm that got to Martin hasn't got to us, and what they say contradicts Mr Martin you may think, it's a matter for you.
So where do you put that second barrel with those two apples. They're still being picked, they're still being put in the barrels. Then you have barrel 3, and please, I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but the evidence of Mr Metlej's apple is apple 5, barrel 3. It's perfect you might think. He's a good apple. No doubt he is a good man. Everything about him is good. The question is has the worm in any way penetrated through that barrel to make you suspect that he can't be a reliable good apple. Think of that. In my respectful submission, he's a very ‑ even on the prosecution case, he's a very good apple. Everything shows that. You can rely on him, you can believe him.
Then you've got the three barrels being taken to the fruit market. What are they taken in? A truck. A truck of the police investigation, and that truck should be beyond reproach you might think, shouldn't have criticisms about it. Unfortunately that truck, before it gets to the fruit market hits a black hole, hits a blank page and has Christian's ‑ which you might think well, what's going on? What is happening here? We have a Comfit, we have intelligence, but we've got to wait for the bad apple. I don't know, but that's the truck. We get to the markets. Then we've got two stalls; you've got the prosecution stall and you've got the defence stall. Then when you get there, there's no doubt that barrel 1 goes, bang, the prosecution stall, never to be moved to the other side. Bad apple. You might think; you may not think. Can you move him to the other side? Never. You could never ever move barrel 1 with Mr Martin and Ms Deabel to the other side on the defence.
Now, there's a fourth barrel and that's the apple which is then behind me. He's got a presumption of innocence. Yes, there are some taints about him, he's smoked pot, he got into domestic violence situations, his certain choice of girlfriends as I think Mr Martin suggested, forget that, it's not the best. Put all that aside. He's still got the presumption of innocence and he's standing there by himself. That's it. He's there. He's presumed to be good until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he's a bad apple.
Now, little experiment. Can you move Mr Maratos and Mr Metlej to the defence stall? I say yes, because Me Metlej says to Mr Martin, "You helped beat me up, you tried to extort money out of me. You've done these things to me", "We haven't", yes we have, listen to your own voice. He's in the same barrel as Maratos. Maratos says, "Hang on, you had the gun, Poniris gave it to you, you told me at the meeting, of course we had it", all those things. Completely contradictory "And you've never said you told me before, not here in your evidence". Where would you put him? Who does he support? Can't be supporting Robert Martin, that barrel's over to the defence stall and then of course comes the gentleman who has been a victim probably even till now, because this thing's still hanging around, and that's Mr Metlej and without doubt you would say, unless beyond reasonable doubt you can show that he's said that, that barrel is definitely on the defence stall you may think.
Now, that's as close as I can get to trying to explain how this unfolds and in my respectful submission no matter which way you look at it, the Crown has failed on the evidence before you to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In two trials, part 1, part 2 and when you add parts 1 and 2 together, and you go to the fruit market and that defence stall, what's left on the prosecution side? Seven, eight or nine versions or variations of what Mr Martin tells you at the railway station, lack of common sense, that the man that's going to be the shooter is living with him and doesn't tell him the police have come to tell him about it? The man who is supposed to be who you might think is a hit man who can do all this and he gives the police the very number of the man that hired him.
Well, that's before you. That's the evidence. That's the fruit stall. Think about it. I hope I haven't messed it up too much. If I have, you'll hear his Honour chastise me, but I've tried to do that just to make you see how all this unfolds and here, both trials show that not only have the Crown not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but this man behind me was the last victim of a number of people to be set up. They know how to do it. They've done it well. But when it's tested at this time, don't go any further, go and listen to 4 November and 25 October 05, their voices and there the truth comes out.
Two words. State of mind. The Crown's words. You've got the record of interview. In one ear out the other, more importantly the DNA, it will absolve him. Well, interesting words. Would you say they are the words of an innocent man or someone who's so smart that he wants to fool the police, the same man that gives them the number of the man that hired him. That's where juries common sense comes in.
Now everything I've said to you is not evidence. Forget what I believe and what I say, but please consider it very carefully. You can't really imagine in this beautiful country of Australia attempted murder and contract killing. We don't want that sort of thing, but equally, and just as equally we don't want people being framed, innocent people being found guilty of something they didn't do, because if you believe William Metlej and in my respectful submission you must, then it can't be him. That's acknowledged by the fact of the Comfit and the fact that it's never been contested.
Anyway, thank you for listening, you've been very patient, and please look through all those things I've asked you to look at. Thank you your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you Mr Bonnici. Members of the jury, it might be time to have morning tea but just before you do have morning tea, I just want to stress to you as you know, there's one trial, the accused is on trial, that's the trial in the sense there's one barrel, that's the totality of all the evidence which you can consider all of the evidence tomorrow, don't have to separate it out and put it into different compartments or barrels, you treat it altogether, look at it altogether and it's not part of the Crown's function to prove that the accused is a bad apple, what the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt is the elements of the offence. That's what the Crown has to prove, it's not about bad apples or good apples, it's the elements of the offence.
Thank you members of the jury, go and have a cup of tea.