Add Category
Posted
"Too many unknowns, too many gaps." That is the message from the lawyer for David Eastman to the ACT Supreme Court as he summed up his case in the long-running murder trial.
Key points:
- Mr Eastman's defence took aim at the prosecution's case for being too circumstantial
- Lawyer questioned if Mr Eastman had any motive to kill Colin Winchester
- Defence's summation took up two weeks of the four-and-a-half-month trial
Mr Eastman is charged with killing the former assistant Australian Federal Police commissioner, Colin Winchester, as he got out of his car in his neighbour's driveway on January 10, 1989.
Mr Eastman's lawyer, George Georgiou, has spent nearly two weeks issuing detailed challenges to each issue raised in the prosecution's case.
The trial heard from 127 witnesses, with statements from 41 others read to the jury.
One of the problems has been that with the passage of time, many witnesses, including Winchester's wife Gwen, have died or are no longer available.
Compelling coincidences or too much circumstantial evidence?
Prosecutor Murugan Thangaraj told the jury there were too many coincidences for anyone else to have committed the crime.
But Mr Georgiou took aim at the circumstantial case, based on the notion of the strands of a cable.
"Under careful examination, those strands have begun to stretch, have begun to wither, have begun to break away," he said.
Assault allegations
He questioned the claim Mr Eastman had a motive, because he was furious Winchester had refused to help him overcome assault charges after an incident with his neighbour.
The prosecution said Mr Eastman feared the charges could prevent him rejoining the public service.
Mr Georgiou told the jury none of this made sense given Mr Eastman had already been told he was fit to return.
Who bought the gun?
The gun used in the shooting was never found, but was identified as a Ruger 22 rifle sold by Queanbeyan gun dealer Louis Klarenbeek in January 1989.
Mr Klarenbeek had supplied cartridges fired from the gun to police, which were matched to those at the murder scene.
One key witness claimed to have seen Mr Eastman at Mr Klarenbeek's home as they passed each other before the gun was sold.
Mr Georgiou questioned the man's evidence, saying by the time he told police about it, Mr Eastman's image had been in the media.
"There's a great degree of doubt in relation to his … purported identification," he said.
Why wasn't Eastman identified?
And Mr Georgiou attacked the prosecution's claims Mr Klarenbeek had been too afraid, or concerned to protect his customers, when he failed to identify Mr Eastman on a photo board.
He told the jury the argument did not work.
Mr Georgiou queried why Mr Klarenbeek would have collected the cartridges for police if that were the case.
"It gives sufficient cause to doubt the suggestion he lied when he saw what was on the board," he said.
"He did not identify Mr Eastman."
Mafia motive?
Some of Mr Georgiou's submissions to the jury were made in secret, with elements of the case related to the possible involvement of the mafia, kept from public view.
But in open court, Mr Georgiou said Winchester's involvement in mafia drug operations at Bungendore near Canberra gave the organisation a powerful motive.
He told the jury Mr Eastman's life had been under a microscope, but the Crown had not proved the case.
"There are too many unknowns, too many gaps, too many pieces of evidence that cannot be explained for the case to be made out beyond reasonable doubt," Mr Georgiou said.
"The charge of murder against Mr Eastman has not been made out beyond reasonable doubt."
Topics: murder-and-manslaughter, courts-and-trials, canberra-2600, act, australia