A jury started consulting in the process of three people accused of kidnapping, killing and burning the body of a 19-year-old in the north of Victoria in December 2022.
The remains of Charlie Gander’s body were found in a burnt -out car in Bunbartha on Christmas Eve, 2022.
Kylie Stott, Dimitri D’Elio and Danny Clarke have argued not guilty of kidnapping, murder and arson painted in a trial by the persecution as a desire for revenge against Charlie for “processing” their employee to the police.
The jury was shown photos of the Victoria police of the burnt car, which contained the remains of Charlie Gander’s body. ((Lever: Supreme Court of Victoria))
At the time of the alleged offensive, Mrs. Stott was 37 years old, Mr. D’Elio 24 and Mr. Clarke 38.
All three have not guilty.
The 12 jury members started consulting after 30 days of hearings, including approximately 41 witnesses consisting of pathologists, DNA experts, emergency services and police officers.
The jury also heard statements from the public prosecutor of Mr. Gander and his father Richard Gander, including definitive texts between the couple.
Police -Recovery Material cost a teenager ‘dear’, says Crown
In his last speech, Mr Gibson argued that each of the accused was guilty of the three charges “because each of them was part of an agreement, regulation or understanding with the others to kidnap Charlie Gander, to kill Charlie Gander and burn the Ford area with Charlie Gander’s body in it”.
Mr Gibson told the jury that the alleged motive was Mr. Gander’s cooperation with the police who infringed firearms by Tyson May, who was a good friend of Mrs. Stott.
Gander was also friends with Mr. May and would hang out with him, the court heard.
After a police raid in Shepparton in November 2022, Mr. Gander gave a police interview and issued a witness statement about Mr. May who owns a firearm.
The court heard that the body of Gander contained a high ice level that could not be excluded as a cause of death. ((Delivered: Gander Family))
Mr. May was under an order of a firearm ban, Mr. Gibson said.
A disk with the report of the police interview by Mr. Gander “found his way in the hands of others,” said Mr. Gibson.
“It took him a lot,” he said.
The court heard a kitchen knife wrapped in a blood -stained tea towel from under a car seat had a mixed DNA profile of four people, including Mr. Gander.
Forensic pathologist Paul Bedford, who carried out Mr. Gander’s autopsy, previously said that the court meant extensive fire damage to the body that the cause of death could not be determined.
He also said that the toxicological reports from the court had found very high levels of the drug methylamfetamine, generally known as ice, which may have contributed to the death of Mr. Gander.
Defense arguments
Justice Michael Croucher presented a summary of the arguments of the defense advisor to the court before the jury started to consider.
Daniel Sala, performing for Mrs. Stott, has rejected the prosecutor’s arguments that she was the key in orchestrating the actions against Mr. Gander and insisted on the jury not to find her guilty of murder or arson.
Paul Kounnas“ Acting on behalf of Mr D’Elio, claimed that Mrs. Stott and Mr. Clarke were the “Prime Movers” in the alleged crimes and that Mr. D’Elio “dragged along” and was used as a “patsy”.
Emergency services found the car on fire on an unpaved road in Bunbartha in northern Victoria. ((Lever: Supreme Court of Victoria))
The court heard that Mr. D’Elio, who had a relationship with Mrs. Stott, did not know Mr. Gander or Mr. Clarke and had “no skin in play”.
Christopher Terry, who acts on behalf of Mr Clarke, has argued that his client did not intend to kill Mr. Gander or enter into an agreement to do this.
He said there was no evidence of Mr Clarke’s hatred of Mr. Gander or proof of an agreement, and that his client “had been dragged into a terrible crime.”
Costs that are heard together
Justice Croucher instructed the jury that they had to reach a unanimous verdict for each of the accused, each of whom, who each features three charges.
The jury heard that they can find the accused guilty of manslaughter as an alternative if they are not satisfied without reasonable doubts about the higher accusation of murder.
Justice Croucher told the jury that manslaughter did not need intention to kill, but there must be a deliberate attack that was dangerous and caused serious injury.
He also told the jury that their task did not include moral judgments.
He noted that jury members had not received one test but 12 separate decisions, where the three accused are confronted with three charges and the potential for manslaughter.
The 12 charges are heard together for the convenience, and the jury “should not allow this fact to use justice” and must consider any indictment separately, said Justice Croucher.
#Jury #delegates #trio #trio #accused #killing #teenager