Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v So (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1292 Hearing dates: 14 August – 6 October 2023 Decision date: 10 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: The accused is found not guilty. Catchwords: CRIME – Murder – Trial by judge alone – Verdict – Where circumstantial Crown case – Accused invited to property of alleged deceased in 2016 – Alleged deceased disappeared four days later – Whether evidence establishes elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt – Whether reasonable possibility accused's exculpatory account true – Whether reasonable possibility other persons involved in disappearance of alleged deceased Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 133, 161A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 53, 65, 165B Cases Cited: R v So (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1052 R v So (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1113 Texts Cited: T W Adair and A C Gallardo, "Considering the Target Surface in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: An Unusual Case of Blood Pooling" (1999) 49(5) Journal of Forensic Identification 485 Chengcheng C. Feng, "Impact of Carpet Construction on Fluid Penetration: The Case of Blood" (2016) Master of Science (Textile Manufacturing) Degree, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex Kylie So (Accused) Representation: Counsel: L Shaw (Crown) I Nash (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/279513 Publication restriction: Some witnesses have been assigned pseudonyms in this judgment and an order has been made pursuant to ss 7 and 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of information that tends to reveal their identity. JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: The accused, Kylie So, was arraigned in the Supreme Court on 2 September 2022 on a charge that she murdered Robert Dickie at Elong Elong between 14 and 15 June 2016, to which she entered a plea of not guilty. The trial commenced at Dubbo on Monday 14 August 2023, to be determined by Judge alone. Closing addresses concluded on Friday 6 October 2023. 2. The accused was born in Cambodia and initially raised in Vietnam. Her family migrated to New Zealand while she was a child. Her first language is Vietnamese. Her grasp of English is imperfect, warranting the translation of the trial proceedings to her by two interpreters who took turns in that task. The Court is indebted to them for their diligence over such an extended period. 3. At the commencement of the trial, the parties sought rulings as to the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be led by the Crown that is the subject of interlocutory judgments, as to hearsay statements and tendency evidence (R v So (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1052) and expert opinion evidence (R v So (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1113). 4. Some witnesses, and persons whose statements or police interviews were tendered or who were otherwise referred to during the trial, had vulnerabilities that warrant their identity being protected in the interests of their mental health. They have been assigned pseudonyms in this judgment and I make an order pursuant to ss 7 and 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of information that tends to reveal their identity. The background to the charge of murder 1. The Crown case is circumstantial in nature. Almost all of the evidence in the trial was not in dispute, which facilitates, for the most part, a narrative form in this review of the evidence. Not all of the evidence in the trial is summarised in the judgment. I have summarised the evidence that the parties have identified to be of some significance and, as well, any additional evidence that I consider to be significant. References to material being tendered are to be understood as tenders into evidence, that were made without objection, unless otherwise stated. 2. At the time of the alleged offence, Mr Dickie was aged 71. He resided on an 88 acre rural property that is about 4km from the hamlet of Elong Elong and 45km north-east of Dubbo, alongside the Newell Highway, that section of which is known as the Golden Highway. The address is 76 Wattle Road, Elong Elong (Mr Dickie's property). He had purchased the property in about 2005. In 2011, he placed a transportable house on the property and thereafter resided there, alone, apart from occasional guests. 3. The accused stayed with Mr Dickie at his property from 11 June 2016, which was the Saturday of the Queen's Birthday long weekend. Mr Dickie was last seen alive by someone other than the accused on the morning of Tuesday 14 June 2016, when he and the accused paid a brief visit to a neighbour, Sandra Weavers. Following the discovery of Mr Dickie's disappearance, the accused informed police that she last saw Mr Dickie on the evening of 14 June 2016, when he left the property in a vehicle that had called by after telling her he was going to a party and would return by 10pm that night. He did not return and his mobile phone was last detected by a mobile phone cell tower that was located in the Elong Elong vicinity, at 2.54pm on Wednesday 15 June 2016. His remains and his phone have not been located. 4. The Crown case is that Mr Dickie died on either 14 or 15 June 2016 at the hands of the accused, who disposed of his body by means unknown. Mr Dickie's property 1. Wattle Road is a dirt road approximately 2.6km long, initially running in an easterly direction off the Golden Highway, which at that point is a straight section of highway lying approximately south-west towards Dubbo and north-east towards Dunedoo. After about 250m, Wattle Road bends to the south and lies almost due south for slightly over a kilometre, then turns to the east and finishes in a dead end. 2. A view of Mr Dickie's property pursuant to s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) took place on 23 August 2023. According to the evidence of the officer in charge of the police investigation from about August 2016 onwards, Detective Sergeant Adrian Tighe, the property and its improvements, including the house, are in the same layout as they were at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance. 3. The property is the second along from the intersection with the Golden Highway on the Western side of Wattle Road. It is pentangular, bordered by Wattle Road to the east, the Golden Highway to the north-west, and private properties to the north, south and west. Approximately half the property is, and was at the relevant time, clear grazing land, and the other half native timber and scrub. The property was fenced and gated. The fences were about waist-height, constructed of wire and mesh and supported by metal pickets and wooden strainer posts. At the time of the alleged offence, they were in good order. There were two gates on the perimeter, one on the eastern side of the property that gave access to the house from Wattle Road (the front gate) and the other on the western side of the property, leading onto the Golden Highway. Mr Dickie was particularly security-conscious and both gates were kept locked; the one on the fence line with the Golden Highway had a padlock and the one that fronted onto Wattle Road had a substantial combination lock. 4. The improvements on Mr Dickie's property comprised the transportable three-bedroom house, four water tanks, two sheds that were 40 to 50m from the western side of the house, animal enclosures, an open hay shed some distance from the house and a dam that settled into two distinct ponds when the water level was low, as it was at the relevant time. As well, there were fenced paddocks, a rough pigpen and a shipping container for storing food for the pigs. 5. At the time of his disappearance, Mr Dickie had about 25 head of cattle, some pigs, ducks and six pit bull terriers that he used to breed puppies for sale. According to some witnesses he also had chickens, a few sheep, geese and goats. 6. One of the sheds comprised seven bays that faced the house (the machinery shed). Five were open and two had roller doors that were locked shut. At the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance, in the open bays, he had garaged a flat-topped utility (the Mahindra), a Kubota tractor, a small all-terrain farm vehicle (the ATV) and various other items of machinery. In one of the locked bays was a high-performance version of a Mustang sports car (the Shelby). Behind the machinery shed was a closed shed that essentially contained tools (the tool shed). Adjoining it was a large roofed area with no walls. The space between the tool shed and the back of the machinery shed was utilised with six dog kennels and a small yard used for ducks. 7. The property was off the grid. The only sources of electrical power were a solar powered battery bank with a backup diesel generator. Multiple witnesses said that the quality of the electric light in the house was poor. Mr Dickie had an internet connection via a satellite dish on the roof. 8. The house was positioned off a dirt driveway about 100m from the front gate, with a grassed yard within a perimeter fence of wire mesh that had pedestrian gates on three sides. The house had three bedrooms. The bedroom that was used by Mr Dickie (the main bedroom) had a walk-in wardrobe that led to an ensuite, another was for guests (the second bedroom) and the third was set up with a desk and apparently used as an office (the office). The house was rectangular in shape, lying in an approximately north-south position. 9. The main bedroom comprised the southern end of the house, with a window on the eastern wall facing towards the front gate and Wattle Road. The second bedroom was at the north-eastern end and the office alongside it, at the north-western end. The main bathroom was also at the northern end of the house. In the middle was an open kitchen-dining-living area, the lounge on the eastern side, an adjoining dining area on the western side and alongside it the kitchen. To the south of the open living area was a well-stocked bar and a glass door. The front door was at the end of a short hallway between the main bedroom and the bar. Sliding doors opened from the dining area onto a full-length flyscreen-enclosed verandah with a wooden floor. Opposite the sliding door was a lockable door leading down a few steps into the house yard and towards the machinery shed. Mr Dickie's disappearance 1. Mr Dickie retired shortly after he moved into 76 Wattle Road, having worked in the mining industry at various locations in New South Wales, finishing as a mine shift supervisor. He received regular payments from an investment portfolio and a part-pension from Centrelink. He had been married twice, having seven adult children from his first marriage. His second marriage, which ended in 2003, was followed by two further long-term relationships, the last ending in about 2011. Thereafter, his relationships were brief, ranging from overnight sexual encounters to short-term stays. 2. The accused is a transgender person who was aged 43 at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance. She was a citizen of New Zealand. She had met Mr Dickie during an earlier trip, or trips, to Australia as a customer of her occasional employment as a sex worker. At Mr Dickie's invitation, she had arrived in Dubbo from New Zealand on Friday 10 June 2016, with an expectation cultivated by Mr Dickie that he was committing to a long-term relationship with her. Mr Dickie picked her up in Dubbo the following day and drove her to his property, where she remained with him until his disappearance. 3. One of Mr Dickie's three siblings, Annette O'Reilly, who resided on the coast, spoke with him regularly by phone. Mr Dickie had a mobile phone and did not have a landline phone. Ms O'Reilly rang him at 9.45am on Wednesday 15 June 2016. There was no response and, contrary to his usual practice, he did not return her call. She continued to call his mobile throughout the day without success. That evening, she reported her concern as to Mr Dickie's welfare to police. 4. Police attended Mr Dickie's residence at about 10.15pm that night and spoke to the accused, who informed them that Mr Dickie had gone to a party the previous night with a friend, saying he would be back by 10pm, but had not returned; she did not know where he was. The following day (Thursday 16 June 2016) at around noon, one of Mr Dickie's children, a son named Damien, attended the property with his then partner, Allison Haley, looking for Mr Dickie. Four of Mr Dickie's sons gave evidence in the trial. I will refer to them by their first names and mean no disrespect in so doing. 5. The accused was absent from the property when Damien and Ms Haley first attended. The accused arrived back shortly after nightfall. On her return, she was confronted by Damien and Ms Haley. Police returned to the property later that night and conveyed the accused to Dubbo. She did not return to the property thereafter, other than in the company of police on 21 June 2016. She left Dubbo the following day and returned to New Zealand on 23 June 2016. On multiple occasions in the following days, weeks and months, police searched the property and its surrounds and followed up leads without success in determining the whereabouts of Mr Dickie or, if he is deceased, his remains. 6. Fourteen months later, during a forensic examination of the main bedroom, police located areas of dried blood, later confirmed to be that of Mr Dickie, on the underneath of the carpet in the vicinity of his bed. The corresponding areas on the top carpet surface were paler than the surrounding carpet and, on forensic examination, were determined to contain particles which, in the opinion of the analyst, were "like those found in some laundry powders, and residues of other chemicals that could have originated from bleaching products". A nail brush seized from the laundry at the same time had carpet fibres in its bristles which, upon analysis, were considered more probably than not to have come from the bedroom carpet. Droplets of blood were detected on three walls of the bedroom, the bed frame and the mattress. The lighter patches of carpet were visible on photographs of the bedroom taken on Sunday 19 June 2016, suggesting that the blood underneath the carpet was present on that date, and not visible on photographs of the bedroom that were taken by police on 24 April 2012, in the course of an investigation of an unrelated incident. Photographs of the laundry taken on 19 June 2016 in which the nailbrush can be seen appear to show the carpet fibres present in it at that time. 7. The accused was arrested in New Zealand in April 2020. She was extradited to Australia on 25 June 2020, and subsequently charged with Mr Dickie's murder. The case for the Crown 1. According to Ms Weavers, the visit by Mr Dickie and the accused on 14 June 2016 ended abruptly when the accused told her that she was "staying" with Mr Dickie. Mr Dickie lowered his gaze and then terminated the visit. 2. The case for the Crown is that when the accused informed Ms Weavers that she was "staying", she was implying that she regarded her stay as permanent. It is alleged that at some point following the visit to Ms Weavers, Mr Dickie told the accused that she could not stay with him on an ongoing basis, which so enraged her that she fatally assaulted him in his bedroom, either that day or the next, intending to at least cause him grievous bodily harm. Following his death, she disposed of Mr Dickie's body by unknown means, most likely by feeding his body to the pigs and Pitbull terriers that he bred on his property. She cleaned up the patches of blood on the upper surface of the bedroom carpet and either washed or disposed of any clothing or bed linen that was bloodied in the assault. 3. In order to establish that Mr Dickie would have told the accused that she could not stay, the Crown relies upon a body of evidence to establish tendencies on the part of Mr Dickie at that time to disavow long term, live-in domestic relationships and engage in short term sexual encounters in lieu, including having short-term sexual partners attend his home for a number of days, and endeavour to facilitate short term (days rather than weeks) sexual encounters with women by falsely promising long-term relationships with them. 4. The Crown submitted that Mr Dickie had invited the accused to travel to Australia to live with him in a long-term relationship and then, after a few days and prompted by what the accused had said to Ms Weavers, informed her that she would not be staying, in accordance with these tendencies. The case for the defence 1. The accused did not give evidence in the trial. The essence of the defence case is in accordance with what the accused told the police when they attended Mr Dickie's property on the evening of 15 June 2016 and in subsequent interviews by police; that Mr Dickie left her there on the evening of Tuesday 14 June, saying he was going to a party and would return at 10pm, and that she did not see or hear from him thereafter. The accused's account to police did not include any suggestion that Mr Dickie had told her that he wanted her to leave, or that her stay was to be short-term. The only witnesses called by the defence were two forensic experts. 2. In its opening and during the course of the trial, the defence did not concede that Mr Dickie is in fact deceased, although in its closing address the defence accepted that it was open to the Court to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dickie is deceased. 3. I have concluded from the evidence that Mr Dickie is deceased. I convey the Court's condolences to his family. The trial has been a difficult experience for his family, former partners and long-term close friends, not least because there have been revelations of Mr Dickie's lifestyle that many were doubtless unaware of and would regard as not reflecting well on his character. That evidence was heard because of its relevance to the issues in this trial and not to tarnish his reputation. In his lifetime, with the exception of one incident I will come to in due course where he was spoken to by police in 2012, Mr Dickie did not have an opportunity to put on the record his view in relation to his alleged behaviour with vulnerable women. The structure of the verdict judgment 1. I will identify certain directions of law at the outset, by which I will be bound. 2. The first part of this judgment is a recital of the evidence of Mr Dickie's long-term relationships, his transactional short-term sexual relationships and his online dating history (Mr Dickie's relationship history). The relevance of this aspect of the evidence in the prosecution case is to provide a foundation for Mr Dickie's alleged tendencies by the time of his disappearance to favour short-term relationships and to entice women to stay with him by holding himself out as being committed to a long-term relationship, then after a few days requiring them to leave. Parts of the same body of evidence are relevant to the defence case, to the extent that it suggests that others may have had a motive to do harm to Mr Dickie. 3. The second part of the judgment is a recital of the evidence concerning the association between Mr Dickie and the accused until her decision to travel to Dubbo in June 2016 (Mr Dickie's association with the accused). 4. The third part of the judgment is a recital of the evidence as to what occurred from the time of the accused's arrival in Dubbo on 10 June 2016 to the attendance of police at Mr Dickie's property on the evening of Thursday 16 June 2016, including the accused's initial account to police on the evening of Wednesday 15 June 2016 (Mr Dickie's disappearance). 5. The fourth part of the judgment concerns the accounts that the accused provided to police as to Mr Dickie's disappearance from Thursday 16 June 2016 onwards (The accused's further accounts to police). 6. The fifth part relates the investigations undertaken by police following Mr Dickie's disappearance, in particular, the discovery of dried blood in his bedroom and on his iPad (Police investigations). 7. The sixth part is concerned with police investigations of certain other persons (Investigations of persons other than the accused). 8. The seventh part concerns observations of the blood stains that were discovered in the main bedroom of Mr Dickie's house in August 2017 and the opinions of expert witnesses concerning them (Blood stains in the main bedroom). 9. The eighth part of the judgment concerns the respective cases of the parties (Counsel's closing addresses). 10. The ninth part comprises the directions of law to be followed in the course of my deliberations (Directions of law) 11. The tenth part of the judgment is my consideration of the evidence and determination of my verdict (Consideration). Initial Directions of law 1. At the outset, I direct myself as follows. The presumption of innocence 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Court is persuaded by the evidence that she is guilty of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Those words have their ordinary, everyday meaning. The burden and standard of proof 1. The Crown bears the onus of proving the charge of murder and doing so beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent and has no obligation to prove anything. Assessing the reliability of witnesses 1. In assessing the evidence of each witness, the Court must decide if their evidence was both honest and accurate. A witness may be honest, but mistaken in the evidence they give, and not realise they are mistaken. That is, they believe the evidence they give to be true, but they are wrong. If the Court concludes that in some part or parts of their evidence a witness was not doing their best to tell the truth, then the Court needs to determine to what extent, if at all, that conclusion should affect the ultimate assessment of that witness's evidence. 2. Accordingly, in relation to a witness's reliability, an honest witness may be inaccurate, either wholly or partly, and to that extent, their evidence will be wholly or partly unreliable. A witness who is honestly telling the truth might have a tendency, even unconsciously, to exaggerate, or to distort, or to simply mistake the truth. In making its assessment, the Court brings to bear its real life experience. 3. There are two particular issues in the context of this trial that may affect a witness's reliability. The events in question occurred seven years ago, so that a witness's memory may be affected by the passage of time. This is particularly so when they were not called upon to recall the relevant events for the first time until some considerable time later. Another issue is that some of the witnesses who gave evidence admitted that they were using prohibited drugs at the time of the events in question, or that their capacity to recollect events had been impaired by their long-term use of prohibited drugs. Part 1: Mr Dickie's relationship history His wives and long-term partners 1. Suzanne Dickie gave evidence that she was married to Mr Dickie for about 21 years, from 1965. They had seven children. She said that following their separation, Mr Dickie showed little interest in his children, other than Darren, who was his eldest child, and Damien, who was his fourth eldest. 2. A statement by Mr Dickie's second wife, Ellen Fay Dickie (née Heycox), was tendered. She stated that they were married in 1988. At the time, he was working shifts as a "Deputy" in a mine at Tahmoor and they lived nearby in Yanderra, which I note is on the border of the Southern Highlands. They later moved to Branxton, which is in the Hunter Valley. While living there, Damien resided with them for a while. Ellen Dickie noted that Mr Dickie "did not have a great relationship with his children", but was close to one of her children, Kerryn. 3. At a later point, Mr Dickie worked in a mine at Ulan and they lived at Laheys Creek, in the mid-west of the state. They separated in February 2003, when Ellen Dickie moved into the town of Gulgong, about 40km away, with Kerryn. She did not maintain contact with Mr Dickie after their separation and subsequent divorce, although Kerryn did. 4. Ellen Dickie stated that when Mr Dickie was living at Elong Elong, she drove near his property with her grandson, Cooper, who was Kerryn's child: "… we actually went past the house there near Wattle Road one night driving past, but I never saw the house. This was only because Cooper had asked me where Pop lived and we were near Dunedoo there, so I knew the general direction and pointed [out] that area near Wattle Road at Elong … Courtney [1] and Cooper used to go out to Robert's farm when they were little." 1. From the 1990's until his disappearance, Mr Dickie had a significant friendship with Susan Carter, who he met through Ellen Dickie shortly before they were married and who also lived in Yanderra at that time. In her evidence, Ms Carter stated that she and Mr Dickie were only ever friends, although during the 1990s they spoke to each other by phone nightly, without Ellen Dickie knowing; he would call her "every evening … while he was at work". Ms Carter was aware that Mr Dickie was interested in a relationship with her, but said that "that would never have happened", because she did not want it. 2. In August 2003, following the break-up of Ellen Dickie's marriage to Mr Dickie, Ms Carter moved to Narromine. She maintained a friendship and regular contact with Mr Dickie thereafter: "Q. Ever since that time, you've kept in regular contact with him? A. Yes. I wouldn't say it was weekly all the time. There was periods, you know, where a year would go by where we wouldn't talk, perhaps because he was in a relationship, but - with someone. I don't know, but there was long periods where we weren't in contact, but as - when he moved to Elong, because we lived maybe a bit closer, we sort of, you know, got a little more - had a little more contact. 1. In 2005, Mr Dickie purchased the property at 76 Wattle Road, but remained living at Laheys Creek. 2. Donna Lovejoy gave evidence that she met Mr Dickie online in 2006 and moved in with him at Laheys Creek in about 2008. Their relationship lasted for about two years, although she maintained contact with him after he moved to 76 Wattle Road. She last had contact with him when she visited him at his property in December 2015 to collect a puppy that he had bred. 3. Jeanie Batty gave evidence that she lived on the same road at Laheys Creek as Mr Dickie and was in a relationship with him after his relationship with Donna Lovejoy ended, until about 2010 or 2011. She maintained a friendship with him afterwards and visited him at 76 Wattle Road. She last saw him about two years before he disappeared, at his property. Relationships with other women during his long-term relationships 1. Suzanne Dickie gave evidence that prior to the end of their relationship, Mr Dickie had multiple relationships with other women. 2. Ellen Dickie stated that Mr Dickie would "flirt and carry on with women when I was actually with him". They travelled to America in 2000 and 2002, and he became infatuated with a woman by the name of Sherry, who they met there. 3. Mr Dickie's son Adam said that while his father was in the relationship with Ellen, he received a phone call in which his father asked him for assistance. Mr Dickie was worried that Ellen Dickie would discover an entry on his credit card statement for flowers. He wanted Adam to phone her and tell her that the entry related to Adam purchasing flowers for his girlfriend. Adam refused, and thereafter his father had little contact with him. 4. Mr Dickie's son Brett said that about the same time, when he was employed in the banking industry, he received a phone call from his father requesting that he "change some transactions on a credit card". Brett told his father it was not possible for him to do that, and Mr Dickie responded: "Well, I will tell Ellen that I sent flowers to your girlfriend for you". Brett replied: "I don't have a girlfriend, you're not doing that. I do not want to get involved in your rubbish". The last time Brett saw his father was at a family funeral around January 2005. Brett was asked: "Q. Did you just have a very limited conversation with your father, in relation to your father asking which son you were? A. Yes." 1. Ms Lovejoy agreed in her evidence that Mr Dickie lied to her about relationships that he had with other women "a lot". On one occasion after they had broken up, he implored her to resume living with him. She said: "I think one time he rang … and said, 'My life's going to change after Monday,' and this is another time I thought we were going to be back together, and … he said he was picking a lady up from the airport. I thought we were getting back together. He gave me the impression we were going to get back together, and then out of the blue, I got home from work, and he rang and said that, so I was a bit ahh (as said). Yeah, so I'd say, you know, I was a bit angry, but we still made up, still started talking. We were still ‑ we just ‑ and then I sort of got it. We were just going to be ever friends. We were only going to ever be friends." 1. Ms Lovejoy said that when she was living at Gulgong, Mr Dickie told her what he would do to remove women from his residence: "… when he was finished with … them, just disposes of them. … he would just say, 'I want you out. Get out. … I want you gone,' and if you sort of stood and argued about it and put up a fight about it, he would just ring the police and have the police put you out. And he used to just throw their bag over the fence, over the gate. That's what he told me about them. He told me about all that." 1. Ms Batty said that she ended her relationship with Mr Dickie when she became aware that he was seeing other women. Transactional sexual relationships 1. The Crown led uncontradicted evidence that for some years prior to his disappearance, Mr Dickie obtained sexual services from vulnerable young women by paying them cash or by facilitating their access to prohibited drugs. "Bronwyn" 1. Evidence was led to the effect that on 24 April 2012, Bronwyn, who was then aged 31 and is now deceased, reported to police that in the early hours of that day she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Dickie. About four or five months beforehand, Mr Dickie had picked her up when she was hitch-hiking with a friend. She was subsequently incarcerated in Wellington Correctional Centre, serving a sentence of imprisonment. Mr Dickie visited her and proposed that she could reside with him at his property, as a condition of her parole. 2. A Community Corrections officer at the time, Jennifer Phillips, gave evidence that she was advised of the proposal and had the responsibility for assessing its suitability. She visited Mr Dickie on 19 April 2012 at 76 Wattle Drive to assess his suitability for that arrangement. She agreed with the content of her statement to police, made on 10 July 2017, that: "During discussions, [Mr Dickie] advised he had known [Bronwyn] for a long period of time. However, when discussing her background, he had limited knowledge … It was explained to him that she had a history of drug use, in which he advised he would not tolerate any such behaviours at his home … He was happy to have her reside with him permanently and denied having any intimate relationship with her, they were only friends." 1. Ms Phillips explained that Bronwyn would be subject to a methadone program requiring daily doses being obtained in Dubbo. Mr Dickie told her that he would be happy to transport Bronwyn to Dubbo every day. Mr Dickie picked up Bronwyn from Wellington Correctional Centre the following day, or the day after. Ms Phillips continued: "On the 24 April 2012, [Bronwyn] telephoned this service in a distressed state claiming Robert Dickie sexually assaulted her. [Bronwyn] advised she packed her belongings, and he was transporting her to Dubbo. However, on the way, he decided to leave her on the side of the road in the dark. A truck driver stopped to stay with her until the police arrived and transported her to Dubbo Base Hospital." 1. Detective Senior Constable Simon Thorsteinsson, who gave evidence, and Detective Senior Constable Joshua Higgs investigated the incident and jointly produced a contemporaneous police report, which was tendered. Bronwyn reported to them that Mr Dickie picked her up from the Wellington Correctional Centre on Friday 20 April 2012 and took her to a hotel in Dubbo, where he left her until Monday 23 April. He then drove her to his property, arriving about 4pm. During the afternoon, he drove her to Dubbo three times to allow her to purchase methamphetamine (ice). After she had purchased the ice and injected it, they returned to Mr Dickie's property. The report continued: "Once at the address, DICKIE and [Bronwyn] had sexual intercourse, before [Bronwyn] requested to be returned to DUBBO. DICKIE drove [Bronwyn] part of the way to Dubbo before experiencing vehicle troubles. At this time [Bronwyn] left the vehicle and hailed a passing truck, and contacted 000, stating she had been sexually assaulted. DICKIE left [Bronwyn] at the location and returned to his home." 1. The report noted that police conveyed Bronwyn to Dubbo Base Hospital where she was referred to a sexual assault counsellor. Detectives spoke to Bronwyn, who was described as "visibly upset and drug affected". She disclosed to the police that she had intercourse with Mr Dickie, but "did not disclose that the intercourse was non consensual". Police arranged to take a statement from her at a later time. 2. Police visited Mr Dickie at his property at 5.57am the same morning. The report continued: "DICKIE stated that [Bronwyn] obtained the 'ice' to help her to have sexual intercourse with him. DICKIE stated he had intercourse with [her]. DICKIE stated that shortly after starting [consensual] intercourse with [Bronwyn], [she] removed consent and the intercourse stopped. DICKIE stated that [Bronwyn] started to act erratically and wanted to be taken to Dubbo. DICKIE then took [Bronwyn] to Dubbo. An examination of the premises was conducted by attending Police and only one bedroom was found to have been used. Both [Bronwyn] and DICKIE stated that the intercourse [occurred] on the bed, and as such this bedding was seized by Police. Photographs of the scene were taken and no signs of struggle were observed. A small stain of what appeared to be blood was observed on the seized bedding near the pillows." 1. DSC Thorsteinsson confirmed that Mr Dickie was the source of the information in the first sentence of that passage. The report noted that police contacted Bronwyn later that day, who stated that "she did not wish to proceed with her allegation at this time as she does not feel capable of fronting the courts". 2. Ms Phillips said that approximately six months later, on 25 October 2012, a Community Corrections officer who was attempting to locate Bronwyn phoned Mr Dickie, who advised that she had hitchhiked from Warren to Dubbo on 23 October 2012 and had spent the night at his home. Mr Dickie said that he had taken her to Dubbo to pick something up, which he suspected was drugs, and left her in Dubbo. "Diana" 1. At the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance in 2016, Diana was aged 24. She was a self-admitted regular user of prohibited drugs, including fentanyl, OxyContin and cannabis (marijuana). She was not called as a witness in the trial, consequent to a medical certificate by her treating doctor to the effect that she had diagnoses of schizophrenia and "a high level of anxiety" which, in the doctor's opinion, made her unsuitable as a witness. The parties agreed that she would not be called. 2. A videoed and transcribed interview of Diana by police officers on 28 June 2016 was tendered. She told police that Mr Dickie had been a client of her sexual services for the previous "two or three years", over which period she had provided him with sexual services "over a hundred … times". Typically, they would arrange a meeting by phone. He would pick her up in Dubbo and drive her to his property for a night or weekend and drive her back to Dubbo where he would withdraw cash from an ATM to pay her. 3. Diana said that she took fentanyl and OxyContin intravenously while on Mr Dickie's property, but not in his presence. I note the evidence of Detective Senior Constable Thomas Magann, that on the evening of 16 June 2016, he located and seized a syringe from the ground in the area just outside Mr Dickie's front gate which, according to the opinion of an analyst, tested positive for having traces of DNA with a very high probability of being that of Diana. I also note the evidence of Adam Dickie that when he arrived at the property on 23 June 2016, he saw "needles" in the vicinity of the front gate, which he included in his statement to police the following day. There is no evidence that those syringes were seized. 4. Diana said that she would drink alcohol and they would have sexual intercourse in the main bedroom. They would both be naked, and initially he would put on music and require her to "dance around". Police showed Diana a photograph they had found in Mr Dickie's house of a young woman dancing naked in his lounge room. She identified herself as being the woman in the image, saying she was drunk and dancing around a CD player, and had been unaware that he was photographing her. The photograph was grainy, suggesting it was a screenshot from a video. 5. Diana said that on one occasion while she was at Mr Dickie's property, about four or five months prior to her police interview, he gave her eight 40mg tablets of OxyContin, which she injected. He did not tell her where he got them from. "Tracey" 1. Tracey was aged 27 at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance. She said she met Mr Dickie at a Dubbo hotel in 2015 and gave him "head jobs" in his vehicle. During her evidence in chief, it became apparent that she had significant difficulties with her memory. Her evidence was adjourned and DS Tighe gave evidence as to Tracey's state of mental and physical health. DS Tighe had spoken to Tracey, her partner and her father over the previous few days and formed a view that she was under the influence of ice, which was confirmed by her partner. Tracey's father informed DS Tighe that she had short term memory loss from drug use and suffered from epilepsy. DS Tighe said that he was personally aware of Tracey's struggles related to her use of ice over many years. 2. On the basis of DS Tighe's evidence, the Crown made an application pursuant to s 65(2)(a) of the Evidence Act to tender a video of an interview of Tracey that was conducted on 5 July 2016. The application was not opposed and I granted the application. 3. In the interview, Tracey said had she first met Mr Dickie about nine months earlier at a Dubbo pub. He approached her and asked her for sexual intercourse. She agreed to accompany him in his car, intending to rob him. Instead, he drove her to her father's place. Tracey recalled that on that occasion: "I never got no money off him or nothing". [Q38] 4. A week after that meeting, Mr Dickie went to Tracey's father's home. Tracey said that she "went for the drive with him, played the game". She explained that "the game" was that she would agree to fellate Mr Dickie for money, but would insist on being paid first and then not perform her part of the bargain, offering various excuses. She said that over the time she knew him, she "played the game" about six or eight times and did fellate him twice. Her encounters with him were always in his vehicle. 5. Tracey said that on some occasions, Mr Dickie would give her cash and then drive her to "the dealer's house" so she could purchase drugs, and then she would pretend that she was so affected that she could not fellate him, so he would drop her off. She and Mr Dickie had exchanged phone numbers. Sometimes she had phoned him, asking for a lift. 6. Tracey said she was a friend of Diana. There had been occasions when they were together in the street and Mr Dickie would drive by and wave, and Tracey would get in his vehicle and they would drive off. 7. Tracey said that she had never been to Mr Dickie's residence. She offered to go there with him, and he declined, because she had "robbed" him. She said that the most she had managed to entice out of Mr Dickie was "about six fifties in one night … and still keep coming, playing the game". "Bella" 1. On 3 February 2016, Mr Dickie contacted police to report an incident. He said that on 1 February 2016, he received a phone call from a female friend, who he named as "Ashleigh", who asked if she could stay with him while she was "travelling through". He agreed, and they arranged to meet at the BP service station in Erskine Street Dubbo on the evening of 2 February 2016. When he arrived, the female friend walked towards him. As she did so, Bella emerged, pushed the woman aside and got into Mr Dickie's vehicle. She demanded $2,000 cash. A COPS (Computer Operated Policing System) copy of the report of the complaint made by Mr Dickie to police continued: "[Mr Dickie] stated that the [person named] asked for the amount in exchange for something, but [Mr Dickie] declined to elaborate. [Mr Dickie] informed the [person named] that he was unable to withdraw that amount from the ATM but agreed to give her $1,000. [Mr Dickie] travelled to the NAB on Macquarie Street Dubbo and withdrew $1,000 from his account. [Mr Dickie] gave the [person named] the cash and then conveyed her to her mother's address at … [Mr Dickie] attended Dubbo Police Station and spoke with police regarding the incident. [Mr Dickie] does not wish for any action to be taken against the [person named], but just wants her to leave him [alone]. [Mr Dickie] informed police that he just wished for a record to be made in relation to the incident. Police questioned [Mr Dickie] about his relationship with the [person named]. He informed police that he and the [person named] has previously been involved in a sexual relationship and that he has, in the past, assisted the [person named] financially. When questioned how [Mr Dickie] assisted the [person named] financially, [Mr Dickie] declined to elaborate. [Mr Dickie] again requested the police simply make a record of the incident for his benefit, and for no action to be taken in relation to the incident." 1. Police inquiries established that Bella was in prison between 21 January 2016 and 23 July 2016. However, Mr Dickie's bank statement does record a withdrawal of $1,000 in cash from the Dubbo National Australia Bank (NAB) ATM at 11.31pm on 2 February 2016. Statements made by Mr Dickie to others concerning transactional relationships Sandra Weavers 1. Ms Weavers said that about eight weeks before her statement to police, which was dated 19 June 2016, she received a phone call from Mr Dickie, during which he asked her for OxyContin or any other pain medications she had. At the time, she was taking 40mg of OxyContin twice a day. Mr Dickie was aware that she was prescribed that medication. She continued: "He had a young girl down at his premises, and apparently he'd been driving around Dubbo trying to find some that he could buy. Was unable to get hold of any, and then promptly rang me to see if I would grant him some, which I was a bit shocked. No, more hurt probably, so I promptly said, 'No', and told Bob to put the young girl on the phone, so he did. She was very strung out, very stressed. I asked her, you know, what was she on. She told me that she was on a methadone program, she was on, about 250 milligrams, and she was trying to go cold turkey, and at that time I told her to put Bob back on, which Bob did. I told him to take her back to Dubbo so she could get her methadone, and Bob said, 'I'm not taking it back'." 1. Ms Weavers said she refused to give Mr Dickie the OxyContin. She was asked: "Q. That reference to the young girl as 'it', in terms of other conversations you'd had with Robert Dickie, about friends who'd visited him was that out of the ordinary, the same or something else? A. No, he treated all the girls like pieces of meat, it was, yeah, he had no respect for any of them that came. They were there to do a job, and that's all." 1. Ms Weavers was asked about what Mr Dickie had told her, after she and her husband had moved into their property on Wattle Road in December 2015 and she came to know him, about his attitude to relationships: "Q. Had Robert Dickie, in the time that you knew him at Elong, told you about any particular relationships that he was having at that time? A. He didn't have any particular relationship, but he used to bring girls over for the weekend. Q. Is that something that Robert Dickie would tell you? A. Yes. Q. Would he tell you before the friends would come or after that weekend when they had come? A. He would say that he'd be away for a couple of hours while he went and got a girl, and then we'd know he'd be back because the dogs would be barking, and we knew he'd returned. Q. Did Robert Dickie ever talk to you about whether he was interested in longer term relationships with women? A. Yeah, Bob often talked about that he would never have another relationship with a woman at all. He said he'd only ever have them for sex, and then he'd just get rid of them. I was trying to say it nicely, and then he said he would never have a relationship with a woman ever again because all they were interested in was his money. … … He said he'd rather buy sex and then he could just piss them off when he was finished." Gary Weavers 1. Ms Weavers' husband, Gary Weavers, gave evidence that Mr Dickie had talked to him "about women", one or twice. He said that: "[Mr Dickie] used to go to Forbes or further, pick up girls from down there, bring them back for the weekend", and described the sexual prowess of one such woman he brought back to his property. Susan Carter 1. Ms Carter was asked: "Q. He did speak to you of women that he took out to his property? A. Yes, he did. Q. And did he tell you ever that he paid any of those women to go to his property to be with him? A. I can't say for absolute certainty, but the figure that sticks in my mind was around $200 that we discussed just briefly. We never talked much about that side of his life. … Q. Do you remember what $200 was for? A. I just assumed it was for their services, but that's an assumption." Dating online 1. Damien said that his father told him he would "meet ladies online", both overseas and locally. Mr Dickie would have short term relationships, telling Damien: "'I've had a friend over for two or three days', or 'this weekend I'm having a friend over'. It was never names". Damien recalled that according to Mr Dickie, the women: "were quite often a lot younger, but apart from that … he didn't go into detail with me about what used to happen". 2. Mr Weavers said that Mr Dickie told him he would meet women from "all over the world" through the internet. Ms Lovejoy said that in the months prior to his disappearance, Mr Dickie told her he was using Facebook and dating apps. A computer and iPad were seized from Mr Dickie's residence. 3. The Crown tendered two bundles of selected screenshots taken by a police officer of emails on the iPad. They were not downloaded. The content that was tendered was confined to the captured screenshots. It was incomplete and not in a temporal sequence. One bundle, exhibit YYYY, is 106 pages, from the period 8 March 2008 to 11 June 2015, and the other, exhibit ZZZZ, is 86 pages, for the period 12 May 2009 to 10 March 2016. 4. It appears from the content of some emails in March 2016 that Mr Dickie had recently purchased the iPad and downloaded old emails onto it. In two emails dated 9 March 2016, one to "Sherry" and another to "Michelle", that pick up on email chains from 2013, Mr Dickie stated that he had been using his iPhone for emails since stopping his "satellite computer connection some time ago". He had "just purchased an IPad, & Lo & behold, about 6000 old emails!" He had "lost all of these emails almost 3 years ago". 5. Mr Dickie's bank records from 8 December 2015 include one entry that could relate to the iPad, being a purchase or purchases from "Harvey Norman" on 24 December 2015 for $618. 6. Both bundles of email screenshots contain emails addressed to women with a romantic and/or sexual content. Some of them are as follows. 7. In September and October 2012, Mr Dickie had email exchanges with a woman in Cambodia who he invited to come to Australia and "live with me on my farm, where you will be loved & cared for forever". Subsequent emails suggest that Mr Dickie either purchased a ticket for her to travel to Sydney and on to Dubbo, or forwarded money to her for that purpose. The last email in the series is from Mr Dickie to her, stating: "I am not happy … I fell in love with you & you ripped me off for a lot of money". 8. In November and December 2012, Mr Dickie had multiple exchanges with a woman, apparently located in Russia, "Elena", urging her to come to Australia because "I want you here forever" and "I do want to marry you Elena Honey". It is not clear from the emails if she did in fact travel to Australia. 9. In 2013, there were email exchanges between Mr Dickie and a Thai woman, apparently residing in Thailand. He invited her to travel to Australia to live with him. On 9 April 2013, he wrote: "When you are here you won't have to work ever again". On 25 April 2013, he wrote "We can marry as soon as you get here". On 19 July 2013, he forwarded an email to a woman in Russia, proposing that "You must come to me my Baby & let the 2 of us have a life together". On 12 August 2013, he wrote: "I thought we would marry when you arrive here but you tell me you can only come for 3 months". 10. In May 2015, Mr Dickie exchanged multiple erotic emails with a "Ladyboy" in Thailand, offering to buy her a ticket to travel to Australia and stay with him. In June 2015, he exchanged erotic emails with "Natalya" in Russia, saying "It will be a couple of weeks before we have everything worked out to get you here with me". 11. On 31 December 2015, Mr Dickie sent an email to a "Therese", who had a Swiss email domain: "Hi Therese, I only met you briefly in Dubbo today but I really like you. Maybe one of those guys is your partner, I don't know. My farm is at Elong Elong about 46 Kms from Dubbo or a 30 mins drive. I have beef cattle & pigs & also breed American Staffy dogs. I have a nice house on my farm with a well stocked bar. I live alone. Therese, you are welcome to come & stay here as long as you like. I will look after you. I hope to talk to you soon Sweetheart, Bob xxx" 1. There were multiple email chains of a similar content involving various other women in foreign states and in Australia between 2009 and 2015. 2. On 9 March 2016, Mr Dickie wrote to "Sherry", picking up on an email from 2014, saying he hoped to hear from her. The earliest email from Mr Dickie to "Sherry" is dated 22 June 2008. On 9 March 2016, he also wrote to "Michelle", apparently a friend of Sherry, that picked up on previous emails to her from 2013, that were romantic in tone. Evidence of a past visitor 1. On Sunday 19 June 2016, during the execution of a crime scene warrant, police located a locked suitcase in the second bedroom. Although the relevant police officer could not recall where he found the suitcase, it is apparent from evidence that I will recount later in this judgment that it was inside a built-in wardrobe that is visible in images of the room that were taken at about that time. Police used bolt cutters to open the suitcase. A video of the execution of the search warrant, which included the examination of the contents of the suitcase, was tendered. Police can be seen locating a laptop computer (the Acer laptop), handcuffs and two pipes which, according to the evidence of DS (at the relevant time, DSC) Scott Heckendorf, were of a type that is used for smoking ice and cannabis. The suitcase also contained clothing, notebooks, documents, bags and sundry items, including what appeared to be a package wrapped in green cellophane that police did not unwrap. Police seized the Acer laptop but left the suitcase and the remainder of its contents in the room, in the wardrobe. 2. On 23 June 2016, Allison Haley took images with her smart phone of the suitcase and its contents. The cellophane package was unwrapped and found to contain a smooth-edged kitchen or table knife. 3. An examination of the Acer laptop disclosed activity in 2013. DS Tighe gave evidence that the content of the Acer laptop was consistent with it being the property of a person by the name of "Frank". His name appeared on documentation in the suitcase, including a bank statement. DS Tighe said he was unable to make contact with Frank. His last known whereabouts were South Australia, in the first half of 2016. His whereabouts since Mr Dickie's disappearance are unknown. 4. The images taken by Ms Haley of documents in the suitcase include a bank statement dated September 2013 in the name of Frank, with a trading name of a spa and massage business and a residential address in Sydney, and a certificate of completion of a training program in Thai massage in the name of Frank. 5. The documents photographed by Ms Haley also include an email chain between Mr Dickie and "Heng Srat", the most recent being dated 13 December 2012, apparently attaching a certificate of adoption by Mr Dickie of "Miss Heng S[name obscured]". An email in the chain includes the passage: "Here is the certificate and the marriage form as i attached them. I am so happy this is over and i am now your adopted child and we will have our life to our-self. We need to pay dowry fee love i have my ticket reserved for Friday as there is no seat tomorrow." 1. I note that emails captured in screenshots by police from Mr Dickie's iPad include emails between Mr Dickie and the same email address, dated 22 and 24 December 2022, which suggest that Mr Dickie paid a sum of money to Heng Srat and she did not come to Australia, prompting Mr Dickie to write to her that she had ripped him off. 2. Ms Haley said that the printed copy of the email was one of a series of documents that were brought to her for photographing by one of Mr Dickie's sons while they were at Mr Dickie's property on 24 June 2016. She recalled that it was brought to her from either the office room or second bedroom. In view of the absence of connection between the contents of the suitcase involving Frank and the email, I consider it more likely that it came from Mr Dickie's office. Mr Dickie's known encounters with women in the weeks before his disappearance The "Russian lady" 1. Ms O'Reilly was asked whether in the "month, or six weeks before he disappeared" Mr Dickie spoke to her about women with whom he had contact. Ms O'Reilly referred to two women. As to the first, she said: "He said he had a Russian lady staying with him; she wasn't there long, maybe five to seven days, I'm not sure … Apparently he met her on the internet, and she, she came for a few, for I don't know how many days, but she ‑ he said she wanted to stay, but he didn't want her to, and he took her to the airport I presume. I don't know where he took her, for her to leave." 1. Darren Dickie gave evidence of his father having made a similar representation to that alleged by Ms O'Reilly. "Q. In terms of friends, other than from Dubbo, do you recall him speaking of anyone? A. He did speak of a lady - a Russian lady. He didn't say whether she come out from Russia to see him, or whether she was on holidays here, and Russian, or whether she'd in fact lived here. Q. Do you recall when that was, or how long before he disappeared that he mentioned that? … A. Yeah, it wasn't long before. I know that we had a conversation on my birthday, which is 20 April, and the conversation was in between then and, yeah, when he disappeared." 1. Darren was cross-examined about this recollection and maintained it: "I can't recall whether he said that she came over from Russia to see him or whether she was already here. I wasn't sure about that part, but he did speak of a Russian lady that had been out to visit him." 1. The emails captured from Mr Dickie's iPad included exchanges between him and two women in the period between 14 April and 9 May 2016. One line of communication was with "Tatjana", who said she was 29 years old. The other was with "Ekaterina", who said she was 32 years old. Both women wrote that they lived in Russia. In separate emails, both dated 15 April 2016, Mr Dickie wrote to each woman declaring his love for the recipient. He invited Tatjana to travel to Elong Elong where he could "look after" her and invited Ekaterina to "come here whenever you … want Honey & stay for as long as you want & let me look after you". 2. Tatjana purported to accept his offer and requested €200 to facilitate her travel. On 6 May 2016, she wrote that she was at an airport and coming to Australia for ten days. However, she was still waiting on the €200 from Mr Dickie which she needed to demonstrate to the "Customs Committee" that she had sufficient funds for the ten-day trip. In his responses, Mr Dickie related difficulties in sending her the money; he did not confirm that he had done so. The tone of Mr Dickie's emails to Tatjana deteriorated, with an accusation by him in an email dated 3 May 2016 that she was a "scammer" and, in a brief email dated 6 May 2016, he made a derogatory sexual insult. There is no tendered email extract that confirms that Tatjana either did, or did not, travel to Australia. "Diana" 1. Ms O'Reilly said that, as well as "the Russian lady", Mr Dickie told her he had contact with another woman in the month or so before he disappeared: "And then he said he had another girl from Dubbo that was a drug girl; she was staying there. I don't know how long she was there either … He said she was … drug addicted." 1. As to the sequence of the two stays, she said: "I think from memory; I'm not completely 100%, but I think it was the Russian lady first. Then the drug girl, but that could be around the wrong way, I really don't remember that specifically." 1. Darren Dickie gave evidence of a similar conversation with his father. He was taken to an aspect of his statement to police made on 24 June 2016 in which he stated: "about a week before all of this happened, dad told me about some 24 year old that was on methadone had stayed with him for a couple of days". He confirmed that that part of his statement was correct. 2. During her police interview on 28 June 2016, Diana was asked when she last stayed at Mr Dickie's property. She thought in the previous month she had phone contact with him "probably twenty times" and the last time she had been to his property was "probably about a month ago" and "might have been just before the weekend". She arranged a lift with an acquaintance, Robert Kilby, because Mr Dickie told her that his car needed repairs, which Mr Dickie did overnight. She said that she probably rang Mr Dickie from Mr Kilby's phone on that day. Mr Dickie agreed in advance to provide petrol to Mr Kilby for his return trip, which he did. Diana stayed one night with Mr Dickie, for which she received $150. Mr Dickie drove her back to town the next day and withdrew her payment from "the ATM at the BP". 3. Mr Kilby died in January 2023. A statement made by him on 28 June 2016 was tendered. Mr Kilby stated that he once drove Diana to a property at Elong Elong, driving to the front gate and sounding his horn. A person he subsequently recognised from a photograph as Mr Dickie came up on a tractor and gave him a hose and a gallon drum of petrol for his car. As to when that trip occurred, Mr Kilby said that he did not know, but thought it was "the last week of pay week, so it could have been two weeks ago". Mr Kilby stated that he was in receipt of the old age pension. It is apparent from the dates of fortnightly Centrelink payments in Mr Dickie's bank statement that the June 2016 dates for Centrelink payments were Wednesdays 1, 15 and 29 June. Mr Kilby said when he arrived it was raining; Mr Dickie was wearing wet-weather gear. As to the time of day, he said it was "the evening part of the day. It was still daytime, though, and it was just getting dark by the time I got back to Dubbo". 4. Mr Kilby also stated: "I can't remember if [Diana] used my phone the day we went to Elong. I think she used my phone that day to ring the bloke, just before we left to drive out there." 1. An agreed fact was that Mr Kilby's phone number contacted Mr Dickie's service three times on 2 June 2016; at 2.17pm from Dubbo in a call that lasted three minutes and 32 seconds, at 3.08pm from Dubbo in a call that lasted 28 seconds and at 3.35pm in Elong Elong in a call that lasted eight seconds. In all three calls, Mr Dickie's phone was connecting to the tower at Elong Elong. 2. There was also a call from Mr Kilby's phone to Mr Dickie's mobile phone on 5 June 2016 at 2.32pm that lasted for one minute and 22 seconds. Mr Kilby's phone was connecting to a cell tower in Dubbo and Mr Dickie's was in Elong Elong. 3. I note that, according to a tendered document that records the times of sunrise and sunset at Elong Elong in 2016, sunset on 2 June 2016 was at 5.07pm and on 5 June at 5.06pm. Rainfall records for Elong Elong record no rain on 2 June 2016 and 5.8mls on 5 June 2016. 4. Considered in isolation, the calls made from Mr Kilby's phone number to Mr Dickie's phone number on both 2 and 5 June 2016 are consistent with Mr Kilby lending his phone to Diana and driving her to Elong Elong on each of those dates. There were transactions on Mr Dickie's account in Dubbo on 3 and 6 June, which would be consistent with him returning Diana to Dubbo the day after her arrival at his property, although a cash withdrawal is only recorded on 3 June, from an ATM at "BP Reliance" in the sum of $200, at 9.22pm. However, only the date of 5 June is consistent with Mr Kilby's recollection that it was raining when he drove Diana to Mr Dickie's property and the rainfall records for Elong Elong for those dates. 5. I note the most recent cash withdrawal from Mr Dickie's account prior to the accused's arrival in Dubbo on 10 June 2016 was in the sum of $200 on Thursday 9 June 2016 at 12.36pm, from "BP Reliance". There is also an entry for "BP Dubbo" at 12.35pm for $24.05, which suggests that two different BP service stations are identified, indicating that either Mr Dickie attended only one or his card details were used simultaneously at both locations. 6. Diana said that another acquaintance, known to her as "Mal", drove her out to Mr Dickie's property "ages and ages ago". She said that "Mal" did not know Mr Dickie and stayed for about an hour. Mr Dickie gave him petrol. A police statement by Malcom Ralph dated 2 July 2016 was tendered. Mr Ralph died in April 2023. In his statement, Mr Ralph stated that he met Diana in early May 2016 when they were both staying in a homeless persons shelter in Dubbo. On the day of the Dunedoo markets, he drove her to the markets and then dropped her off at Mr Dickie's property. He was no more specific as to when it was that he drove Diana to Mr Dickie's property. He had met Mr Dickie about five years beforehand when they were both living in the Gulgong area. Mr Dickie showed him around the property. He saw "sheep, cows and a couple of dogs". After dropping Diana off, he did not see either her or Mr Dickie again. 7. Diana said that on an occasion after her last encounter with Mr Dickie, "two or three weeks ago", while she was in the company of Tracey, Tracey received a call on her mobile from Mr Dickie. Diana said she saw Tracey's phone screen and recognised the last three digits of Mr Dickie's phone number. Tracey walked off, saying that she was going to meet up with Mr Dickie at McDonald's. 8. Diana was asked if she had spent any more than a night at Mr Dickie's property, to which she replied: "Um oh, not for a long time, no". 9. Diana's case manager with Community Corrections in June 2016, Nicola Eggleton, gave evidence that Diana was a known drug user who may have been subject to pharmacotherapy such as methadone. Diana phoned Ms Eggleton on 3 June 2016, saying that she wanted to leave Dubbo to remove herself from drug use and drug users, and that had moved to 187 Elong Road (Ms Eggleton accepted that Diana may have said "Elong Elong Road"), near Elong Elong, where she was staying with a person she referred to as "Dickey", who she said was a friend of her father's. Ms Eggleton said she expressed concern to Diana that she was potentially vulnerable living in a residency out of town with an older man who may want to take advantage of her, and Diana responded that she had no concerns for her wellbeing or safety. 10. Ms Eggleton said that on 17 June 2016, that is, the Friday of the week in which Mr Dickie disappeared, Diana rang her and said that she had moved back into Dubbo because she had trouble accessing drug treatment from Elong Elong and was now residing with a person named Jeremy Barber. I note that in his statement dated 24 June 2016, Mr Kilby said that Diana was staying with a person named "Jeremy". 11. On Sunday 19 June 2016, during the execution of the crime scene warrant on Mr Dickie's property, Detective Senior Constable Shanahan located a mobile phone and a "phone cord" in the laundry, together with two documents. One was a letter from the Federal Department of Human Services addressed to a "Megan" at a Post Office address in Dubbo that was used by a women's refuge and which had affixed to it a Health Care card, with an expiry date of 28 February 2013. The other document was a partly filled out Centrelink form concerning Megan at the same postal address. 12. The phone was turned on and found to have a screensaver image of a male person who, according to police inquiries, was in a relationship with Diana in 2012. A phone record for "Mum" was the phone number for Diana's mother. A Cellebrite download of the phone's contents disclosed text messages for the period 21 October to 17 November 2012, data files from 2009 and video files from 2012. I note that the phone number associated with this phone does not appear in the call charge records for Mr Dickie's mobile for the period 1 May 2016 to 15 June 2016. 13. The phone that Diana possessed at the time of her interview by police was seized and, about a year later, on 22 June 2017, was examined. A Cellebrite examination of the phone was partially successful, downloading some incoming and outgoing calls for the period 25 May 2016 to 22 June 2016 and missed calls from 12 May 2016 to 21 June 2016. SMS text messages were downloaded for the period 13 May 2016 to 21 June 2016, and another 24 that were undated. 14. According to call charge records for Mr Dickie's mobile, on 12 June 2016 at 1.34pm, a call that lasted 34 seconds was made from a public phone booth in Dubbo to his mobile, which was connecting to the Elong Elong cell tower. Detective Tighe noted that in the course of her interview, Diana said that she would phone Mr Dickie from public phone booths in Dubbo, although she had not nominated that particular phone booth. "Mandy" 1. Mandy was a Dubbo resident who was approached by Mr Dickie, who she recognised from a photograph later shown to her by police, as she walked back to work from her lunch break. She had been sitting on her porch when she noticed a man drive by twice, looking at her. As she walked back to work on the footpath of a residential street, he drew alongside her in his utility and pulled up. He said his name was "Robert", and asked what her name was. Mandy said he asked: "How was my day, what was I doing, and would I like to spend a bit of time with him?... he'd said he'd take me back out to his place, and have a few drinks, and yeah, just have a chat. Just mainly wanted company. … I also told him I'd given up drinking, and I don't drink, so he was like, well, we can stay in town …." 1. Mandy agreed that he then asked her if she had "a preference for anything else". She explained that she did not want to use drugs or alcohol. She said: "… when I said I don't drink and I don't – I'm not into drugs at this point in time. And yeah, he said, well, we can always work it out and then a couple of dollars here and there. And I said yeah, I can use a couple of dollars, it's just in general." 1. Mr Dickie and Mandy exchanged phone numbers by him phoning her number. Mandy invited him to call her that Saturday, and said she would "come and spend a couple of hours out there" with him. He did call her that weekend; she recognised his number. She had changed her mind and did not pick up. Initially, Mandy denied that she received any text messages from him. In cross-examination, she agreed that she did receive some text messages, but said she did not read them. She maintained that she never had a telephone conversation with him. 2. Mandy continued: "… about a week or two later, I think when I made sure that my partner was comfortable in rehab, I think I'd given him a call, but I got no answer either". 1. Mandy agreed that her partner went into a rehabilitation facility on about 17 July 2016. She agreed that she rang Mr Dickie twice on 21 July 2016 and left a message. 2. The call charge records for Mr Dickie's phone do not correspond to Mandy's evidence that she only received calls from Mr Dickie the following Saturday and that she did not answer any of his calls. In the following summary, unless otherwise indicated, the phone calls were recorded as 4 seconds or less, from which I infer that they may not have connected, Mr Dickie's phone number connected to the Elong Elong tower and Mandy's phone connected to a tower in Dubbo. 3. The first record of Mandy's phone number in those records, which cover the period 1 May 2016 to 15 June 2016, is on Thursday 26 May 2016 at 1.43pm. Mr Dickie phoned her while his phone was connecting to a cell tower at Boomley Road near Dunedoo (Dunedoo is on the Golden Highway east of Elong Elong) in a call that lasted 10 seconds. He called her again the same day at 2.39pm, 2.59pm (in a call lasting 28 seconds), 3.08pm, 3.29pm (his phone again connecting to the cell tower at Boomley Road near Dunedoo), 7.05pm (four minutes and 52 seconds) and 7.11pm. He sent her texts at 1.44pm, 1.46pm. 2.39pm, 3.00pm, 3.08pm, 7.05pm and 7.12pm. 4. Mr Dickie called Mandy the following day, Friday 27 May 2016, at 8.39am, 9.34am, 11.57am, 12.00pm, 2.14pm (9 seconds) and 7.29pm. He sent texts at 12.00pm and 2.14pm. 5. On Saturday 28 May 2016, Mr Dickie called Mandy at 11.09am, 12.52pm and 5.17pm. He sent her a text at 11.09am. On Sunday 29 May 2016, he rang her at 11.25am (24 seconds), his phone connecting to a cell tower that was identified in the phone records as "Buninyong", which is accepted by the parties as a location in the city of Dubbo, and at 1.30pm. He sent her a text at 11.26am and at 1.30pm. On Tuesday 31 May 2016, Mr Dickie rang Mandy at 7.49pm. "Eva" 1. Eva met Mr Dickie in Dubbo in 2016 through her friend, Tracey. She said that in about February 2016, Mr Dickie drove her to his property, in his Shelby. She said: "I went there because I nowhere else to go". While she was there, she and Mr Dickie "had joints". She could hear "dogs barking all the time". She had a shower. He walked in on her in the bathroom. She was scared and screamed. She said: "I got out … of the house and took off", returning to Dubbo. She said: "I walked halfway and he drove the rest". She did not return to his property. 2. In evidence in chief, Eva was asked if she went into Mr Dickie's bedroom: "Q. Did you ever see his bedroom? A. No. Q. In your interview with the police, you mentioned that there was a fake drawer under his bed? A. Yeah, but that was because that's what he was saying. Q. You say you don't know anything about that room, the bedroom? A. No, I don't know nothing about the bedroom, and I don't go into it because it's not my room to go into it." 1. During a break in her evidence, Eva read a copy of the transcript of a videoed interview of her by police in September 2016. On resumption of her evidence in chief, she said it assisted her recollection. She was again asked: "Q. Did you ever go into Mr Dickie's bedroom? A. Well, apparently I did once. I went in there and grabbed a jacket because he was going to go show me around the farm. But that's as far as I've gone. Q. Did you see anything under his bed? A. Yeah … he showed me the drawer … . Q. Could you describe this drawer? A. This drawer is really big, it's like you can slide it from under his bed and it comes out a long way. Q. Is it part of the bedframe? A. Yeah, it is. Q. Was anything in that big drawer? A. There was a lot of money, weapons. And there was other bags there, but you couldn't see what was in it. Q. How is the money kept there? A. It was all in bundles. There was a lot of money there. More than I've ever seen. Q. You've mentioned some weapons as well, what was there? A. Yeah, there was some guns and knives. The knives looked old school knives. Q. When you say old school knives, did they have a particular type of handle or something? A. Yeah, they were like you know when you go to war and they use them knives, them - I don't know what you call them. They're not machetes, they're like the pirates had. Q. A pirate's cutlass? A. Yeah. They looked like they were very expensive." 1. I note that, according to photographs of Mr Dickie's property that were taken on Sunday 19 June 2016, there were two beds in his house; one in the main bedroom and the other in the second bedroom. Both beds were photographed then and, in more detail, in August 2017. The mattress of the bed in the main bedroom was on a wooden slat frame that rested on a metal frame. There was no drawer underneath the bed. The bed base in the second bedroom was resting on another mattress. Part 2: Mr Dickie's association with the accused The accused's background 1. The accused was born in December 1972. A brother of the accused, Jason Bui, gave evidence for the Crown. There were five children in their family, all born in Cambodia. The family moved to Vietnam prior to 1975 to escape the Pol Pot regime. In the 1990's, the family migrated to New Zealand. Mr Bui moved to Sydney in 1995 and was residing in Cabramatta in 2016, when the accused was in Australia. 2. Mr Bui said that when the accused was a child, she would dress up in women's or girl's clothes and play with girl's toys. He agreed that by 2016, she had an operation "to change from a boy to a girl" and was taking medication to assist with her transition to a female. Before the operation, she used the name "Angelina". 3. A table of the accused's movements to and from Australia was tendered. Her first trip was in May 2010, for a period of about three weeks. Her second trip was in August 2010, for about four months. In January 2011, she returned to Australia for about four and a half months. On 25 July 2011, she returned to Australia and remained until 24 November 2012; that is, for a period of about 16 months (the 2011/2012 trip). She visited Australia once in 2014, for a period of nine days, and three times in 2016; in January 2016 for five days, between 18 and 27 March 2016 and finally on 10 June 2016. The accused's good character 1. In cross-examining relevant witnesses, the defence adduced evidence of the accused's good character. Mr Bui agreed that he had not known the accused to be violent before 2016 and he had not known her to "take drugs". 2. Inquiries made by NSW police of New Zealand authorities established that the accused's only prior record was for operating a vehicle carelessly in 2002 and in 2013 for driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol. She was fined for both offences. The accused's prior contact with Mr Dickie 1. It is an agreed fact that, during the 2011/2012 trip, the accused travelled to Dubbo. She caused an advertisement of her sexual services as a "transexual" to be published on 10 October 2011 in a local newspaper which provided a mobile phone number containing an error. Call charge records for Mr Dickie's phone indicate that on the date of publication, he rang the advertised number and variations of it, and ultimately connected to the accused's correct phone number, four times between 3.11pm and 3.54pm, the calls lasting for periods of time between 16 seconds and three minutes nine seconds. 2. There is evidence of SMS and voice call communications between Mr Dickie and the accused from March 2016 in call charge records of Mr Dickie's mobile phone and the phones used by the accused. I summarise relevant text messages that were recovered, but note that as well, in the period from 27 March 2016 to and including 9 June 2016, there were 58 entries for voice calls that lasted longer than ten seconds and seven text messages that could not be recovered. This review also includes some emails that were the subject of screenshots of Mr Dickie's iPad. 3. On 27 March 2016, that is, the date of the accused's departure from Australia following her first 2016 trip, the accused texted Mr Dickie at 8.05am and Mr Dickie texted her at 9.45am; the content of both texts is not known. Voice calls are recorded at around the same time of between three minutes and nine seconds. Over the following months, there were longer voice calls: 14 minutes on 28 March; and five minutes 27 seconds on 3 April. 4. On 3 April 2016, the accused forwarded four images of herself to Mr Dickie. Text messages from Mr Dickie to the accused are to the effect that he was expecting images, but he had not received them. The accused tried to send the images again on 4 and 5 April 2016, again unsuccessfully. In one of Mr Dickie's replies, on 8 April 2016, he said: "I do miss you Baby". On 21, 22 and 25 April 2016 his texts included expressions of frustration that the accused was not answering his calls or replying to his texts. The accused responded in positive terms on 25 April 2016, and Mr Dickie replied: "I am working on my farm, I miss you & love you. Come to me and let me show you :)". 5. Mr Dickie continued to forward loving and also erotic messages to the accused. As to the loving messages, on 9 May 2016, Mr Dickie texted: "I love you my sweet Baby & I need you here with me. I love you :)". On 11 May 2016, the accused texted: "my will name Kylie; sure. Nam,so. Full family nam; Kylie so." On 13 May 2016, the accused texted that "I'm coming see u soon". Later the same day Mr Dickie texted: "When are you coming to me Baby? I love you $ I want you :)". On 16 May 2016, the accused texted: "Don't worry I com see u soon do u miss me how much u love me". On 18 May 2016, Mr Dickie texted "Hurry up & come to me Kylie Baby so that I can love you :)". The accused on 20 May 2016 texted: "about 2 more week I'm ready to go Australia u can buy me ticket to see u waiting I'm tell u wat day u can buy me ticket love u". 6. On 1 June 2016, Mr Dickie texted: "I think I have seen you twice, about 6 years ago when you were a prostitute in Dubbo. Are you still a prostitute? … I need you here as my girl, not as a prostitute." 1. The accused texted in reply: "I'm not do prostitute for long time u know me in Dubbo because there time I been holyday in dubbo no money to paid motel;$180 per night I need to past time job to paid motel there time I see u love to stay with u but my farther in newzealand get sick an very old I have come back newzealand look after my farther now to get merry with u love to stay with u darling u buy me tk soon darling". 1. Mr Dickie texted: "Are you only staying with me for a holiday Baby? How long are you going to stay? Love you". She replied: "Darling I love stay with u marry with u stay with u forever kiss u". Mr Dickie texted: "But what about your father in New Zealand?" She replied: "Darling did time my brother family look after my farther kiss u". And later: "Darling my farther still healthy love u kiss u". Later that day, the accused texted a request that Mr Dickie forward to her by Western Union the sum of $700 NZD. He texted back: "You said before $600. What is your full name? A lot of money Baby". This was followed by an erotic comment as to how much he was looking forward to her arrival. The following day (2 June 2016) at 6.22am, Mr Dickie texted: "I cannot pay you money today. $700 is too much & I don't even know what you look like. No pics!!" At 12.37pm, the accused emailed Mr Dickie an email titled "This is my picture" attaching four images of herself in coquettish poses, two revealing her breasts through gossamer clothing. 2. Mr Bui gave evidence concerning a record of voice and text phone messages between him and the accused. On 3 June 2016, they exchanged texts in the Vietnamese language. At 8.20am, she asked him: "[Hi] Son, are you well? Oh, if you have money, can you give me a thousand [dollars to use for my trip] to Australia? Thanks a lot!" He replied at 8.33am: "What are you coming here for? I don't have any money to give to you, ok?" At 1.35pm, the accused again asked him for money: "[Hi] Son, are you well? If you have the money, can you give me 500 dongs, please? I'm in a difficult situation [financially]". Mr Bui said that he understood the reference to "Dong" in context to be a reference to "dollars". At 2.58pm, the accused had a voice call with Mr Bui that lasted for a minute and two seconds. Mr Bui did not recall the substance of that call. 3. Later the same day (3 June 2016), at 4.05pm, the accused texted Mr Dickie: "Darling I buy ticket com an see u do u OK please darling go to airport. Get me please anser do u happy to see me". Mr Dickie replied at 4.09pm: "When?" She replied at 4.13pm: "I go buy ticket tomorrow I see u next week do u OK please anser". Mr Dickie replied at 4.15pm: "Yes, that will be good". 4. On 4 June 2016, Mr Dickie texted: "Are you still coming to Dubbo Kylie? If so, when?" On 4 June 2016, the accused texted: "Darling. How are u I ready buy ticket coming dubbo Friday 10.Jun. Next week can u com to airport get me 1;30pm 10; jun Friday darling love to see u in airport dubbo kiss u." 1. Mr Dickie replied: "Love to see you at airport. Love you :)". That was immediately followed by a second text: "Kylie Honey, I am really looking forward to seeing you at Dubbo Airport on Friday & taking you home with me & seeing how it works out. Miss you :)." 1. On 5 June 2016 Mr Dickie replied to the accused's email of 2 June 2016 that enclosed the four images of her. He wrote: "Mmmmmmm, very nice Kylie". On 6 June 2016 at 4.18am, he forwarded an email to her titled "Hey", attaching an image of him standing in front of the Shelby. At 6.32am, he sent another, attaching a further image of him with his Shelby, and the message: "Guess who? Love you". At 1.56pm, he sent another email with an image of his bar, and the message: "Hi Honey, a pic of my bar. My good car is a Shelby Cobra. I only drive it on special occasions, the rest of the time I drive my Pik up truck. Looking forward to seeing you on Friday. Lots of love, Bob:) xxxxx" 1. On 9 June 2016 there was an exchange of emails to the effect that the arrival time at Dubbo airport the following day had been changed to 2.30pm and Mr Dickie would be there at that time. Mr Dickie's stated attitude to the accused prior to her arrival 1. Ms Carter said that she last spoke to Mr Dickie on Thursday 9 June 2016. An examination of the call charge records for Mr Dickie's mobile confirms that his mobile called her mobile at 8.46am, which appears to have not connected, and her mobile returned the call at 9.18am in a call that lasted approximately six minutes. Ms Carter asked him if he still intended to come to an exhibition of her artwork on the long weekend. Mr Dickie said he would not, because he had other plans: "As best as I can remember, he said that he had a visitor or a guest coming from overseas. I think that's what he said. I certainly got the impression that this person was ‑ was not a local. … He said that she was Vietnamese, that she was hoping to stay with him long‑term and he said but that's not going to happen. I think he also said that she had family in New Zealand, perhaps an uncle or a father. I couldn't quite remember or I can't quite remember now. Yeah, just for ‑ you know, other bits and pieces, but that was sort of the things that stuck in my mind. … I'm pretty sure he said that he had to pick her up from the airport." 1. Ms Carter was asked in cross-examination: "Q … in relation to that conversation that you had with Mr Dickie, do you recall during it you asking him whether the lady that was coming from overseas was a prostitute? A. I did ask that. Q. And he fobbed you off in terms of an answer? He ummed and ahh-ed I think? A. Yes. That's what he did, yes. Q. He knew that you disapproved of those sorts of encounters he had? A. Yes. Q. He wasn't always honest with you about those sorts of encounters that he had? Correct? A. I don't know that he told me any lies. He just wouldn't elaborate. If I can give an instance, if I ever rang him up to see how he was he would simply say I'm good but I'm entertaining. And that would be my cue that he had somebody there." 1. Diana told police in her interview that: "While I was out at Bob's farm there, … his phone was ringing all the time and, um, I asked him what it was. He said he met some sheila on the internet. And, um. From New Zealand." Part 3: Mr Dickie's disappearance Friday 10 June 2016: The accused's arrival in Dubbo 1. The accused arrived in Dubbo on 10 June 2016 on a flight from Sydney, approximately an hour and ten minutes earlier that the time she had advised Mr Dickie, the day before. CCTV images of her arrival inside the terminal were in evidence. She appeared in the baggage collection area at about 1.21pm with a large shoulder bag. She collected her baggage, which was a black suitcase and small black bag, and at 1.30pm is seen holding a mobile phone to her ear. At 1.33pm she rang Mr Bui, in a call that lasted two minutes and five seconds. 2. At 1.42pm, the accused sent a text to Mr Bui in which she asked: "Son, can you be kind enough to give me two thousands to pay for motel [room]". She continued: "Thank you very much the address [is] Union, and my name [is] Kylie So, now I'm at Dubbo Motel. Can you call me today? Thank you very much". 3. At 1.50pm the accused is seen to take her luggage outside and leave the airport in a taxi. 4. CCTV at Dubbo airport captured Mr Dickie arriving in the Mahindra at 2.14pm. He parked and walked into the arrival hall which was deserted. He made a mobile phone call. I note that the call charge records for his phone record that on that date between 2.19pm and 6.48pm, he repeatedly attempted to call a New Zealand phone number of the accused. He conversed with airport staff and after about ten minutes inside the terminal he returned to his vehicle and drove off. At 2.52pm, he was captured on CCTV at an Aldi supermarket, where he purchased dry dog food. 5. The accused stayed overnight at a motel in Dubbo. Elizabeth Gordon, a proprietor of the motel, gave evidence that the accused booked a room for two nights and paid in cash. She said that when the accused booked in, she said that she came out every year and visited her husband, and also referred to him as her boyfriend. 6. Ms Gordon was cross-examined about this aspect of her evidence. "Q. You said in your evidence that … Ms So referred to this gentleman as both her husband and boyfriend? A. Yes, correct. … Q. You weren't asked to provide a statement about your recollection of events with Ms So until over a year after things occurred, and when you were dealing with Ms So, it was clear to you, was it, that her native tongue, her first language was not English? A. She was a foreigner. Yes, she wasn't an Aussie. Q. Would you accept the description of her ability to speak English as broken? A. Yes, I would, yes. … … Q. Would you accept that by the time you gave your statement in September 2017, the precision of what she told you and you said to her was not perfect? A. The precision, the memory of it? Q. Yes, you didn't have a memory of exactly what she had said? A. No, we check in a lot of people, you know, continually, but I just do remember her vividly because of her dress, her style and she was a foreigner. Q. Would you accept that you may be inaccurate when you say that you have a recollection of her saying something about visiting annually? A. Spot on, what I have said in my statement was spot on. She - I couldn't work it out, why she'd only come out once a year to visit her husband. And I think she said two weeks, she was only out for a two-week period. Q. The two-week period is not something that you'd mentioned in your statement. A. I know, but I'm just recalling it as you're speaking to - sorry. As I'm speaking to you, I just felt it was like a two-week - it was a visit, it was only a visit and then she went back. Q. Do you accept that you may be wrong about that? A. No, I'm - I know I'm correct." 1. There were five voice calls with Mr Bui that afternoon. Mr Bui recalled that during one call, the accused said that the money she had requested from him should be sent by 5pm, which was when Western Union closed. 2. Tendered by the Crown was a Western Union payment receipt form signed by the accused that day for the sum of $1,500. Her address as entered on the form was 76 Wattle Road, Elong. A customer receipt for the same sum, issued by Australia Post at Dubbo at 5.21pm, was also tendered on the same basis. Saturday 11 June 2016: The accused's departure for Mr Dickie's property 1. The next morning (Saturday 11 June 2016), Ms Gordon saw the accused at about 10am. The accused said she was going shopping and left in a taxi. CCTV captured Mr Dickie at 12.40pm that day filling up his Mahindra at a BP service station in Erskine Street, Dubbo, and outside Woolworths with a trolley at 1.25pm. Mr Dickie's payment at Woolworths at 1.24pm was the last action taken by Mr Dickie on his bank account. 2. Ms Gordon gave evidence that around lunchtime, a man who she subsequently recognised from a photograph as Mr Dickie, came to the motel looking for the accused. She explained to him that the accused had gone shopping and he left. Mr Dickie and the accused returned and the accused booked out and requested a refund for the second night, which Ms Gordon gave her. Ms Gordon recalled that: "… they were very distant … … because she came into the office, and she was wanting her money back, and he was outside, and he was yelling out to her quite loud to hurry up, but I thought about it. He's outside in the traffic, the noise, and she's inside in a double-brick building, and she was trying to hurry up. … … He was getting agitated. He wanted to go." Sunday 12 June 2016 1. The following day, Sunday 12 June 2016, there was a text exchange between the accused, using Mr Dickie's phone, and Mr Bui. There was no dispute between the parties that the phones the accused was known to possess at that time did not operate on the Telstra network, and only phones connected to that network would operate from the location of Mr Dickie's property. The accused sent the following text at 5.08pm: "Hi Son. Are your wife and lovely baby boy well? Oh, this phone number I'm borrowing from a friend. At present I'm living in Dubbo, a rural area, which is very dull. The Vodafone [network] is not working here, [people] only use Telstra iPhone. I pray to Heaven to bring you a lot of luck. Can you help me with three thousand [dollars] to [buy] a car to go to work and pay for my daily expenses? Now I understand that life is too hard [and] there is nobody else except you, Son[who can help me]. Try to help me, thank you. I'm Kylie." 1. Mr Bui replied at 7.38pm: "Do you think I can print money? Just gave [you] 1500, where can I get more money to give you? Don't ring asking me for more money, ok?" Monday 13 June 2016 1. On Monday 13 June 2016 at 4.18pm, the accused texted back, using Mr Dickie's phone: "Son, are you well? Can you try to help me? I don't have a car to go to work. [From] where I live it takes 40 minutes' drive to where the job is. [This is] my husband's phone number, [he is] a westerner, an Australian. Six years ago he took one hundred and twenty thousands of my money to build a house and set up a farm. Now his property is worth almost a million Australian dollars. At present, I've returned to live with my former husband. He's crazy and drinks every day. Son, don't contact this number [but should wait for me] to buy a Telstra phone to contact you (Son). Kylie" 1. Mr Bui recalled the messages and said that he did not send her any more money. Tuesday 14 June 2016 The visit to the Weavers' property 1. The last sighting of Mr Dickie, other than by the accused, was on Tuesday 14 June 2016 by Ms Weavers, when the accused and Mr Dickie visited her that morning. Ms Weavers' evidence was that they arrived in Mr Dickie's ATV. Ms Weavers was home alone. Mr Dickie drove up to the entrance of her house yard. He and the accused stayed in the vehicle. Mr Dickie introduced the accused, who spoke in "very broken English", as his "very good friend". Ms Weavers spoke to the accused about her property: "A. … she just asked me how big the property was; how long the property was; how nice my gardens were, she said; big trees, she said; but she was very softly spoken - very broken English - so I'm not quite sure if I've got the whole conversation." 1. Ms Weavers said she asked the accused: "How long are you going to stay?" She was asked: "Q. As best you can, what was the lady's answer? A. That she was staying. Q. When the lady said she was staying, what did Bob say or do? A. He put his head down. He couldn't look at me which is very wrong. Q. Who spoke next? A. I can't remember who actually spoke but I think I said something of: 'Did she get up to feed the animals?' Bob had turned around and said it was too early, and she'd gone back to bed. Q. Did the conversation continue? A. No, Bob abruptly stopped and they left." … Q. Ms Weavers, before the lady left you, did she say or do anything with you? A. Yeah, she shook my fingers. Q. When you were saying she shook your fingers, you've got your left hand around the very end of three fingers? A. That's exactly what she did." The sound of Mr Dickie's chainsaw 1. Lynette Wilson, who owned the property adjoining the northern boundary of 76 Wattle Road, made a statement to police on 8 August 2016, which was tendered. Ms Wilson, who also was a dog breeder, said: "On Tuesday after the long weekend, I was at my place, and I could hear the chainsaw going on Bob's place. The sound was coming from up near his house, not down the property. It was about midday. I was bathing the dogs. Only bathed them in the warmest part of the day, so I know it was in the middle of the day. I did not see anybody at Bob's place over the long weekend." Wednesday 15 June 2016: Contact between the accused and police 1. As noted, Ms O'Reilly contacted police on the evening of Wednesday 15 June 2016, expressing concern that Mr Dickie had not answered his phone. Inspector Russell McArthur and Senior Constable Rhys Fairman were dispatched to make a welfare check on him. Inspector McArthur gave evidence in the trial, in chief by reading his statement which was dated 12 September 2016, and a statement by SC Fairman, dated 2 November 2016, was tendered. 2. Their accounts were that they arrived at Wattle Road late that night and obtained the assistance of a neighbour, Aaron O'Leary, to locate Mr Dickie's property. The front gate was locked. Mr O'Leary explained that it was always locked. The three men jumped over it, entering the property at 9.50pm. Inspector McArthur said he walked to the rear of the house and knocked on a security screen door on the verandah. A light came on from within the house and the accused came to the door, dressed in a nightgown, and looked out to where the three men were standing outside. Inspector McArthur shone a torch onto his uniform to show he was a police officer and the accused unlocked the internal door, walked onto the verandah and opened the security door to allow them access. SC Fairman stated: "I would describe the female as being Asian in appearance. What first struck me was that she appeared to look very manly and I suspected that she may be a transgender person". 3. The accounts of Inspector McArthur and SC Fairman differed slightly as to what was said. Inspector McArthur's account was that SC Fairman said words to the effect: "We are looking for Robert Dickie, is he here?". The accused replied: "No, he is not here". SC Fairman said, "Do you know where she is?". The accused replied: "He went to a party last night with a friend". SC Fairman asked: "Who are you to Robert?". She said, "I am his girlfriend". SC Fairman asked: "Can we come in?" The accused invited them inside. 4. SC Fairman recalled that the accused also said "I have known him for a long time. I used to massage him down in Sydney a long time ago" and "He was meant to be back last night at 10pm". SC Fairman said he was having difficulty understanding the accused, and asked if he could look through her phone because it might assist in determining Mr Dickie's whereabouts. 5. Mr O'Leary gave evidence, saying that he heard a police officer ask the accused where Mr Dickie was, and the accused replied that he had gone to a party. Mr O'Leary then left the property. 6. Inspector McArthur noted that the house appeared well kept and was neat and tidy. The accused showed SC Fairman her New Zealand passport, which was in the name of Kylie So. Inspector McArthur said to the accused: "I am just going to take a look around, is that all right?" She said, "Yeah, you go look around". He walked around the inside of the house. In the second bedroom he saw a suitcase on the floor with the top open. He said that it appeared full of clothes that were neatly folded. He asked the accused: "Whose room is this?" She replied: "That's mine". 7. Inspector McArthur noticed that in the main part of the house, in the vicinity of the bar, there was a quantity of a "dark spirit" alcohol that was stacked in boxes or crates on the floor near it. 8. Inspector McArthur looked around the property buildings. He said: "The driveway outside the car garages was made from road base or crusher dust. It did not appear as though a vehicle had recent[ly] driven out of the garage as there were no tyre tracks. In the machinery shed was a four‑wheel drive Ute, as well as some other farm vehicles. I then walked to the back of the sheds and could see a number of dog cages. I heard dogs barking at me, however due to my torch battery going flat, I could not see very well into the dog cages." 1. He added: "I remember the torch going flat and I had my phone light which in pitch darkness, which it was, was not helpful at all". 2. Inspector McArthur walked back to the main house where SC Fairman was still talking with the accused. SC Fairman showed him text messages on the accused's mobile phone, which appeared to be between the accused and Mr Dickie, making arrangements for him to pick her up from Dubbo several days prior. 3. Inspector McArthur said there was nothing in the messages to suggest anything untoward had happened to Mr Dickie. The accused was advised that other police would be attending the following day if Mr Dickie did not return. 4. Inspector McArthur said: "During the entire interactions with [the accused], her demeanour appeared normal. She did not seem nervous and appeared to legitimately believe that Mr Dickie was due to return any time. She spoke freely with police and did not appear to be hiding anything." 1. SC Fairman stated: "While talking to [the accused] I was satisfied that she was comfortable in the presence of police. She did not appear to hide anything from police and appeared to be genuinely concerned at the plight of [Mr] Dickie." Thursday 16 June 2016: The accused's trip to Dubbo Carlos Wotton gave the accused a lift into Dubbo 1. The following morning, Thursday 16 June 2016, the accused hitched a ride on the Golden Highway from Elong Elong into Dubbo. Carlos Wotton, who was a resident of Dunedoo driving to work in Dubbo, pulled up and gave her a lift. In his evidence, he said that he recalled that the accused said she was from New Zealand and was going into Dubbo to do some shopping. 2. He asked her if she lived in Elong Elong. Initially, Mr Wotton's evidence was that she replied: "I live away, and I come back every couple of weeks, every week". He then corrected that to "I live away, and I come back every week". In cross-examination, he was reminded that in his statement to police, that was made the following day (17 June 2016), he had stated that she replied: "I live away, and then come back for a week". It was suggested to Mr Wotton that the accused in fact may have said: "I live away, but I've been back for a week". He disagreed. 3. I note that Mr Wotton had difficulty recalling any conversation with the accused while driving to Dubbo, until he was permitted to refresh his memory from his statement. He agreed that the accused's grasp of English made it difficult for him to understand what she was saying to him, "to a certain degree". 4. Mr Wotton recalled the accused saying that she had a partner in Elong Elong, for "about seven years, I think it was, yeah". She said her partner worked on a farm, with pigs. The accused asked Mr Wotton about public transport options between Dubbo and Elong Elong. He explained: "I said there is - as far as I knew there was a community bus that goes there, or school buses that go from Dunedoo to Dubbo". Mr Wotton said that, as he understood it in 2016, from time to time a community bus operated between Dunedoo and Dubbo that would pick up people in the townships along the way. 5. Mr Wotton said that the accused asked him what he did for a living; he said that he restored cars. She asked him "New cars?" He said: "No, old cars". She asked him if he cut keys, to which he replied that he did not. He said: "She asked how much houses were in Dunedoo and Dubbo, and yeah, and just sort of compared them saying - I said that Dubbo prices are dearer than Dunedoo. Dunedoo's cheaper where I live, so yeah." 1. Mr Wotton dropped her at a shopping centre in Dubbo. The accused told him she was going to Telstra "to fix the phone". They exchanged phone numbers and he arranged to give her a lift back to Elong Elong at 5pm. The accused had a conversation with Ms Weavers in the Telstra shop 1. CCTV in the Telstra shop captured the accused being served at 9.35am, carrying a light blue patterned bag with a zippered top, as is used for refrigerated groceries. A receipt establishes that at 9.53am, the accused purchased a phone for $159.00. Ms Weavers gave evidence that she was in the Dubbo Telstra shop that morning, when she heard her name being called from behind. She turned around and saw it was the accused. "A. I asked her to wait a minute, cause I was trying to get my phone fixed, and she stood by me [while] we dealt with it. And then once we'd dealt with it I then proceeded to, to have a talk with her. … I asked her how, you know, how she'd come in to Dubbo. I thought, you know, ask where Bob was, and she turned around and told me that a friend had taken her to the bus; she had caught a bus into Dubbo. … Q. In June 2016 was there a bus service from Elong to Dubbo? A. To my recollection, there's no buses to Dubbo." 1. In cross-examination, Ms Weavers agreed that she told police on 19 June 2016 that she found the accused difficult to understand. She said that "To be honest, I never looked for a bus service, I drive" and agreed that she did not have any specific knowledge of whether a bus service existed or not. 2. Her evidence as to the conversation in the Telstra shop continued: "A. She asked me how long I had known Bob. Q. What did you say? A. 'About 12 months.' Q. Did Ms So say anything about herself and Mr Dickie? A. She said that she had known Bob and that she'd been here before, and I said, 'Oh, how come you're back?' and she said that her parents had died, and that she had, 'Come back to look after Bob because he was big boss man and big money.'" 1. In cross-examination, Ms Weavers said that Mr Dickie would "big-note" himself: "He told me that he had been a CEO of a mining company, that he'd been retrenched and had got a payout. He told me that a mining company had bought out his property wherever it was that he lived, and, yeah, I assumed that he was quite wealthy the way he spoke [about himself]." 1. She continued: Q. Did you see what Ms So was doing in the Telstra shop? … A. She was getting a new phone. When I looked at her I said to her that she wouldn't be able to get service on the little phone that she had - was purchasing. … It was just a tiny, little thing. It wasn't a smartphone. Q. When you said to Ms So that she wouldn't get service with that phone, did Ms So speak to anyone in the shop? A. She did. She asked a Telstra lady, 'Will I get - will I get service?' I then turned around and said that, 'Bob only gets one bar at his place,' and she asked me do I get service, and I said, 'I get none.' Q. What happened next? A. I turned around and said that I had to go, … she asked me if I was going to be there, if I was going home, and I said, no, I was going to be here all day." 1. Ms Weavers explained that to get service from Mr Dickie's property, the accused would need a phone referred to by Telstra as a "blue tick" phone, which was a phone that was approved by Telstra as suitable for remote rural locations. She purchased such a phone, the receipt bearing the time of 10.53am (the accused's Telstra phone). The accused's other activities while in Dubbo on 16 June 2016 1. Call charge records for the accused's Telstra phone record calls made by it to Mr Dickie's mobile at 11.35am and 11.36am. 2. At 11.53am, the accused phoned Mr Bui on her new Telstra phone. The conversation lasted for two minutes and 56 seconds. Mr Bui said he did not recall the conversation, although in cross-examination, he was reminded of an account he gave to police in 2016 to the effect that the accused rang him, saying that her boyfriend had not come home for a couple of days and that she was "waiting for the guy to come back". 3. The accused was captured on CCTV entering the foyer of the Dubbo RSL at 12.08pm, apparently carrying the same zippered bag. She left at about 2.07pm. At 4.19pm, she was captured on CCTV at a Coles supermarket on Macquarie Street, Dubbo. She purchased fruit and two carry bags, for a total of $29.80. Carlos Wotton gave the accused a lift to Mr Dickie's property 1. Later that day, Thursday 16 June 2016, Mr Wotton received a call from the accused at about 4.30pm. When he picked her up, he noticed that she had groceries with her. She directed him to Mr Dickie's property. When they arrived, it was dark. Mr Wotton pulled up at the front gate, his lights on high beam. A utility was parked nearby. The accused appeared hesitant and asked if he knew the vehicle, to which he replied that he did not. 2. Mr Wotton could see the house and two silhouettes in the window of a room he thought was at the far left of the house as he looked towards it, which I note would be the window of the main bedroom. The accused said: "I don't know who they are". She gave Mr Wotton some fruit and $60 for fuel and climbed over the front gate with his assistance. She asked him if he would give her a lift in the future; he said that should be fine if it is a weekday. Thursday 16 June 2016: Events at Mr Dickie's property Damien Dickie and Allison Haley arrived at the property 1. Damien said that he and his then partner, Allison Haley, drove from their residence in the Hunter Valley to Mr Dickie's property on 16 June 2016, consequent to concern expressed to them by Ms O'Reilly as to Mr Dickie's welfare. Damien had visited Mr Dickie at his property previously, no more than six times in all. On all those occasions he had stayed overnight except for the last visit, which was in August 2015, when he stayed for two days. 2. Ms Haley said that Ms O'Reilly had told them that the police had said there was an "Asian lady" staying at Mr Dickie's property. 3. Damien's evidence as to some of his observations at Mr Dickie's property and the content of a conversation with the accused is contested. 4. Damien said that when he arrived at the property, which was around 1pm, the pigs were not in their pens. He said that Mr Dickie's routine was to let the pigs out in the morning and pen them up in the afternoon. He saw between three and five pigs and multiple piglets. 5. Garry Walters, who operated a rural supply shop in Elong Elong, gave evidence that he drove past in the early afternoon and noticed Damien's vehicle parked at the gate. He stopped and talked with Damien. He noticed the pigs were free and advised Damien to pen them because otherwise they might be shot. 6. Damien noticed a syringe on the ground near the front gate. Ms Haley said that she took an image of the needle on her smartphone, which was tendered. The image bore a time of 1.36pm. She said that when Damien noticed the syringe, he was on his phone to Ms O'Reilly and asked her to call the police. Ms Haley said that she also called the police, using Damien's phone which had connectivity via a Telstra service, whereas her Optus service phone did not. 7. Damien said that he scouted up the side of the property, returned to their vehicle and Ms Haley at the front gate and then jumped the fence, walked to the house and knocked on the front and back doors. The small gate on the house yard fence at the back of the house was open, which he considered unusual because livestock would be able to enter the house yard. The gate for vehicles to enter the house yard was closed. He said the dogs were typically aggressive and would bark, but he could hear nothing: "They were very timid, tails between their legs. They were really fat. I thought they were all pregnant. Yeah, they were - it wasn't their normal behaviour." 1. He said that the door to the tool shed was not locked. He and Ms Haley entered and noticed two canvas chairs that had been unfolded and were facing each other, which he thought strange, although he did not elaborate why. He said that otherwise, when they walked around the property, he did not notice anything out of the ordinary. 2. Damien entered the house by walking onto the verandah and removing the flyscreen from the office window. He "got the window open" and climbed in. He could smell "a strong sort of fragrant smell … really strong", which he likened to cologne or perfume. 3. Damien checked the rooms in the house and opened the blinds and doors to allow more light in. Ms Haley said that she entered the house through the back door, which Damien unlocked for her. They waited in the house for the police to arrive as night fell. 4. In the second bedroom, Ms Haley used her phone to take images, which were tendered, of certain documents and objects, which included the accused's flight details, her passport, her documentation for the money transfer from her brother on 10 June 2016, a cheque book for an account in Mr Dickie's name and some medication. These were tendered, the latest being taken at 6.02pm. 5. Damien and Ms Haley both said that while they were in the second bedroom they noticed through a window the headlights of a vehicle arriving at the front gate. They went to the front door. 6. Damien said that he saw a woman alight, say "Goodbye, thank you", climb over the gate and walk towards the house. She was carrying "two little cooler bag things". He walked towards her, meeting her halfway, where they had a conversation which, according to his evidence, was as follows. She asked who he was, to which he replied that he was "Bob's neighbour. Where's Bob?" She said: "Bob's not coming home". He said: "Yes, he is" She said: "No, he's not. Bob's not coming home". He said: "Yes, he is. We know to find Bob. There's people worried about him". She said: "Bob's gone to a party for a couple of days". Damien asked her how he went there, and she replied that "a couple of blokes picked him up … from beside the house". She indicated a point within the perimeter fence, not far from the house to the north. He said that "later on she changed her story and said that he wasn't picked up from beside the house but they were picked up from the gate". 7. Damien's evidence was that the accused said: "she was Bob's wife, and she'd been married to him for six years". She then went to go inside the house. He stopped her and they stood at the bottom of the steps leading to the front door. Damien said that the accused told him that she did not have a phone, but he then heard her phone ringing. She pulled it out of one of her bags and started answering the call. He said: "I just waited for a chance and grabbed it off her". He was asked: "Q. Did Ms So say anything about her wanting to call the police? A. I can't really remember. I'm not sure. I think she might have, yeah. Q. Did you let Ms So into the house? A. No. Q. What did you say to her about entering the house? A. I just said, 'You're not going inside until the police get here.' Q. What was Ms So's demeanour or her emotional state, from what you could see, during your interactions with her? A. A bit dopey, like she'd been on drugs or something like that. Wasn't really, yeah - not very with it sort of thing, a bit weird. Q. When you say, 'a bit dopey', do you mean a bit tired looking? A. Yeah, very tired looking. … Q. When you told Ms So that she couldn't go into the house until the police arrived, where did she stay? A. We were just at the front door. … there's a small seat there and I just said, 'Just sit there and, you know, just wait for the police.'" 1. Damien said that while they were waiting near the front door, the accused said: "'He'll be back, I think Thursday, at 10 o'clock', or something like that". He said that the police arrived at the property about two hours after the accused arrived. Ms Haley's account 1. Ms Haley's evidence was that she and Damien did not access the tool shed on 16 June 2016; she said they entered it for the first time a week or ten days later. She noticed two canvas chairs facing each other, at that time. 2. Ms Haley said that when she entered the property: "I do remember smelling something, but nothing that sort of made me suspicious, as you know, I didn't, I didn't know Bob, I didn't know, so it could have been his cologne, could have been perfume, I wouldn't have known, so it didn't smell odd to me." 1. Ms Haley said when she entered the house through the back door, there was a strong smell of washing powder and she noticed women's clothing drying on the verandah. 2. Ms Haley said that after the accused left the vehicle that dropped her off, she jumped over the fence and walked towards the house, and Damien walked towards her. However, the accused kept walking past him towards where she was, on the top of the stairs at the front door. Ms Haley did not know if they spoke to each other before the accused arrived to where she was. Ms Haley stopped her: "… I asked who she was, and she said she was Bob's wife, and I said that I was Bob's daughter in law and that Damien was Bob's son, and I asked where Bob - sorry, I'd asked where Bob was, and she said that, 'Bob went to a party.' And then she went to keep walking up the stairs, and that's when I said, 'No, no one's going inside.' I asked her to sit down on the chair, and that's when we waited for the police." 1. Ms Haley said that she asked the accused "Where is Bob?" and that she replied that he was at a party. Ms Haley asked "When [is] Bob coming back", to which the accused replied that he was supposed to be home on the Tuesday night. Ms Haley understood from what she had been told before she arrived at Mr Dickie's property that the accused had previously told police that Mr Dickie was due home on Thursday. Accordingly, Ms Haley said to the accused: "the police said Bob was going to be home on the Thursday". The accused replied, "No". She said that she "told the police on the Tuesday at 10 o'clock". Ms Haley said she repeatedly asked the accused the same question, and her answer remained the same. Her evidence continued: "Q. Your evidence is that Ms So had said that Bob was supposed to come at 10 o'clock on the Tuesday night; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Did you ask her anything about what she had done on that Tuesday night? A. Yeah, we asked why she didn't call the police or try and call Bob. Q. What did Ms So say? A. She said she didn't have a phone. Q. Was Damien near you when Ms So said she didn't have a phone? A. No, he was standing just behind Ms So. Q. After Ms So said she didn't have a phone, what happened next? A. She was fiddling around in her pocket, and Damien noticed, and he said, 'What have you - what have you got in your pocket?' Q. What did Ms So say? A. She said, 'I've got a phone.' … Q. Did anyone say anything? A. Yeah, Damien said, 'I thought you said you didn't have a phone?' Q. What did Ms So say then? A. She said that … she didn't have one, it was broken, but she just bought one in town. Q. After telling you that, did Ms So do anything? A. … that was when she was fiddling around with her - yeah, and she went to pull her hand out, and that's when she pulled the phone out. Q. What did Damien do? A. That's when Damien grabbed the phone out of her hand. Q. Did Ms So have any handbag or other bags with her? A. Yeah, she had a handbag and two green Woolworths type bags. Q. Where had Ms So retrieved her phone from? A. The pocket of her jacket." 1. She said that the accused then went to pick up her two bags, and Ms Haley told her she could not go inside and to wait on a seat near the steps, until the police arrived. Ms Haley was asked: "Q. During this exchange with Ms So, yourself and Damien, what was [Ms So's] demeanour? A. She was calm. Q. What was Damien's demeanour? A. Oh, he was scared, worried, concerned for his father. Q. What about yourself during this exchange? A. I was scared. I didn't know what was going on, cause I'd never met Bob. I'd never been there. I had no idea … what was happening." 1. In cross-examination, Ms Haley was asked: "Q. It was clear to you, after you commenced speaking with Ms So, that there was a language barrier? A. Yes. Q. You gave some evidence just earlier about asking Ms So, 'When is Bob coming home?' Do you remember giving some evidence about asking her that question? A. Yes. Q. In your statement, you recorded the way you asked that question as, 'When Bob come home?' Do you remember recording asking the question in those terms, using those words? A. Yes. Q. That was because you were trying to use simple grammar with Ms So? A. Yes. Q. That was because it was clear to you early on, that her English grammar was not good; correct? A. Yes." Damien's reliability as a witness 1. In significant respects, Damien's account of his observations and what the accused said differs from, or is unsupported by, Ms Haley's evidence of what occurred and what she heard the accused say. 2. In cross-examination, Damien was asked whether it was apparent to him that English was not the accused's first language. He replied, "we understood every word we said to each other, pretty much" and later: "Not perfect, but we could get by. We were talking and understanding each other". He was reminded of a police interview he participated in on 27 June 2016: "Q. This was at question 762, page 68: you accepted with the police, didn't you, that you may have got things wrong in terms of understanding what Ms So had been saying to you? A. I'm not sure. Q. You told the police that you thought that Allison would have a better recollection of what Ms So had said … after she arrived? A. Yeah, yes." 1. In cross-examination Damien was asked about his description of the accused as being "dopey": "Q. You described last week your impression of Ms So when she first arrived at the property, after climbing over the fence, as 'dopey'? A. Yeah. … Q. Did you associate the syringe that you'd seen with Allison with Ms So, when you first saw her? A. Oh, I'm not really sure. She definitely seemed to be on drugs or something I thought. Maybe she wasn't, but she seemed pretty dopey. Q. Is that a function of her difficulties communicating? A. No." 1. It was suggested to Damien that the accused did not tell him that she did not have a phone, but rather it was possible that she said she had not called the police earlier because she did not have a phone that worked. He responded: "Oh, it could be possible but I doubt it. She was lying the whole time". 2. Damien's evidence also differed in some respects from the account he had previously given to police. In cross-examination, Damien said he noticed the smell when he first opened the office window. He was taken to his statement made to police three days later (Sunday 19 June 2016) in which he said: "I climbed through into the office room, and then walked to the first bedroom. This is a spare room which is normally empty. I saw two suitcases on the floor in the front of the wardrobe. I could also smell a strong smell of either aftershave or perfume." 1. He maintained that "the house smelt of it". 2. In relation to Damien's observation that the dogs looked "all pregnant", he was taken to a part of his statement to police dated 19 June 2016 concerning his observations of the dogs on 16 June: "Q. You also, if you go to paragraph 38 on page 6, and at the bottom of page 6 you've written 'Dad's dogs were very timid and quiet. Normally they would bark when people are around. There is a bitch in heavy pup and it's out of character for him to just leave her for days', do you see that? A. Yes. Q. The position is that on that day you, to your observation, thought that one of the dogs was in pup; correct? A. Yeah. I thought all of them, but yeah, definitely one of them. Q. You said today that you thought they were all overfed? A. Yeah, they were. Q. That's not something that you put in your statement, back in 2016; correct? A. Maybe one stood out more than the others, but they were all fat, and one looked like she was heavily in pup. And I've bred dogs before, and I know sort of what to look for. Q. You thought that it was important, when you gave your statement, three or four days after your father had disappeared, to include every detail that might have been relevant to the police investigation, in the statement? A. Yep. Q. You're saying today that your memory is that it stood out to you how fat all the dogs were; correct? A. Yes. Q. But you didn't mention the state of fatness of any but one of the dogs in your statement; do you agree? A. Yeah, that's because one looked like it was about to have pups very soon. Q. You've been thinking about this case, and your father's disappearance, ever since 2016? A. Not really. I've had a lot of things go on in that time, mate. I've also got a son that's missing and deceased that I was focused on at the time. Q. Can I suggest to you that in truth the only thing you noticed about the weight of the dogs, on 16 June, was that one of them seemed heavier, because she was heavily in pup? A. Yep, they were all very fat. Even the male dog was very fat, which I knew it wasn't going to have pups. Q. You didn't mention the male dog at all, in your statement? A. I'm just saying but they were all - you're just asking, and I said they were all very fat. Q. Can I suggest that this detail is a consequence of you thinking about what happened to your father, between when he disappeared and today? A. I thought this was from day one, so nothing's really changed too much. Q. But when you say you 'thought this', you thought he'd been eaten by his own dogs, did you? A. Yeah, I told the police, and they told me not to think of that, because it's a pretty, you know, out – it's something you don't normally deal with; his dogs and his pigs, I thought they ate my father, yes, 100%, because an evil person done it. Q. You thought when Ms So turned up that she'd had something to do with this? A. 100%. Q. You were angry at her, weren't you? A. No, I would have done something if I was angry at her. I wanted to find out what happened to my father the correct way, by waiting for the police to arrive. Q. By the time the police arrived, it was obvious to you, wasn't it, that she was very scared? That is, Ms So? A. She wasn't scared. Q. You swore at her? A. Not that I know of. And if I did, well I just have but I don't recall swearing at her. I might have told her to effing sit down because she'd lied and had a phone when she said she never did." 1. It was later put to him in cross-examination that when the police arrived, he told them: "Get the cunt out of my father's house". He replied: "A. Yeah, 100%. Yeah, that sounds right. Q. 'She killed him'? A. Yeah. She did Q. 'Get her the fuck out of here'? A. Yeah, I stand by my words, mate." Part 4: The accused's further accounts to police Thursday 16 June 2016: Police attending Mr Dickie's property 1. Senior Constable Jessica Hannelly gave evidence that she and Senior Constable Matthew Martin arrived together at Mr Dickie's property at about 7pm on 16 June 2016. The front gate was closed and padlocked. SC Hannelly said that Damien and Ms Haley approached them at the gate and introduced themselves. She and SC Matthew Martin climbed the gate and approached the house, where they observed the accused who was sitting on the front step. SC Hannelly, reading from her statement, said: "This female identified herself as Kylie So. Kylie stated she was sitting outside as she was scared of the man and woman inside. She said: 'Can you take me? I am scared they want to kill me'. After a brief conversation with Kylie, I was able to ascertain Damien and Alison had engaged in a heated argument with Kylie about Bob. And as such, Kylie was told she was not welcome in the house until police arrived." 1. SC Hannelly said that she and SC Matthew Martin "went through every area of the house" and inspected items and documents ("receipts and identity documents") in the second bedroom. They then canvassed the shed areas. She said: "I did not see anything unusual or anything that appeared to look out of place". She continued: "Senior Constable Martin and I returned to the front of the house and spoke further with Kylie. Kylie's English did not appear to be great. Kylie was asked generally about her movements for the day and where Robert was. Kylie stated Bob had been missing for two days and she did not have a mobile telephone that was working to try and contact him to see where he was. Kylie stated she went to Dubbo for the day to buy a mobile telephone and apply for a Medicare card and had called Bob's number numerous times, however it went to message bank. Kylie stated she hitchhiked to Dubbo and back with a man from Elong Elong. Kylie stated Bob was invited to a party two days prior and an unknown male attended and picked him up. Kylie said Bob was a bad boy, he liked drugs and he liked to party. Aside from this, Kylie did not have any further information regarding the last time she had sighted Robert. Senior Constable Martin made contact with the detectives from Orana Local Area Command regarding this matter. Senior Constable Martin continued to canvass the property and dam areas whilst I remained with Kylie. I engaged in general conversation with Kylie during this time whilst waiting for detectives to attend the location. I asked Kylie about the items in the northern room of the house. Kylie stated this was the room she had been staying in. Kylie claimed ownership for the items within the room and stated the medication was to assist her with her sex change. She had change from a male to a female. Kylie continued to talk about how she knew Bob when he was a male and had met him whilst visiting Dubbo as she was doing prostitution from various motels in the Dubbo township. Kylie stated she engaged with Bob sexually when she was a male. She said: 'Bob is a very naughty boy, he liked it up the bum. Bob is a very rough man. When we have sex, he pulls my hair very hard, he likes it rough. Kylie had full sex reassignment surgery including breast augmentation. Kylie continued to talk about her relationship with Bob, stating they had plans to get married. Kylie stated she was contacted by Bob prior to her coming to Australia and he had told her he purchased her an airline ticket, so she was able to visit him. Kylie stated this is how she came over to Australia for the visit. Whilst sitting with Kylie, she allowed me to look through her handbag, which she was clutching. I observed a mobile phone and a box for the phone. Kylie stated this was the phone she had purchased in Dubbo. I noticed it was active. I began looking at the call log in the phone and noticed numerous calls had been made throughout the day to various different saved numbers. Kylie said the numbers were her brothers who live in Sydney. I called some numbers in the call log of Kylie's phone in an attempt to verify Kylie's version, however, most did not answer and one that did, who Kylie claimed to be her brother from Sydney, spoke very poor English and one was unable to be understood. I observed a number of calls had been made to Robert's phone number throughout the day. Kylie stated this was her trying to get in contact with him as she was very worried about him." 1. Phone records indicate that at 7.19pm, a call lasting two minutes and seven seconds was made from the accused's Telstra phone while connecting through the Elong Elong cell tower to Mr Bui's phone. Mr Bui was not specifically questioned about that call. I note that the time of the call is consistent with it being the phone call that SC Hannelly said she made on the accused's phone. 2. SC Hannelly continued: "Kylie had a number of printed photographs in her handbag of her and Robert. The photos appear to be taken by Kylie. I would describe the photographs as being a typical selfie photo. Kylie said she had them developed, printed, whilst she was in Dubbo. Kylie said these photos were taken after enjoying some alcoholic drinks during one of the dates whilst she had been at Bob's. Kylie also stated Bob had smoked marijuana on this occasion and she described him as loving marijuana. I found numerous sets of keys in Kylie's bag belonging to Robert's house, the shed and one of the vehicles. Kylie said she had picked them up off the bench before going to Dubbo." 1. SC Hannelly said that at about that time, Detective Senior Constables Warwick Campbell and Thomas Magann arrived at the property. She did not give an account of any further conversation with the accused. She said: "Throughout the evening, I would describe Kylie's demeanour as very calm, and her version appeared to remain consistent throughout her interaction with the police." 1. SC Hannelly said she did not recall noticing any perfume smell while she was at the property. In the second bedroom she did see: "… a number of female products such as beauty items and female clothing items. I placed a set of gloves on, and I had a look through the items in the bags, observing further clothing items, beauty products, numerous medication items for hormone related conditions, numerous skin bleaching products and hair removal products." 1. A statement by SC Matthew Martin, dated 27 September 2017, was tendered. SC Matthew Martin said that as he and SC Hannelly inspected the house, he noted that it was well-kept and nothing appeared to be out of place. He said that they spoke to the accused: "She stated a male person arrived at the location two days ago, picking Dickie [sic] to attend a party. She could not provide any further information. [The accused] informed police that she had been into Dubbo that day and not long returned prior to police arriving." 1. SC Matthew Martin phoned DSC Thomas Magann, who agreed to attend the property. SC Matthew Martin continued: "While waiting for the detectives to arrive, I canvassed the property, the shed and stockyards. I did not see any unusual signs that there had been a disturbance. No property appeared to be missing. I walked to a dam that was not far from the house and, then, to the cattle yards before returning to the front gate. At this time, Detective Senior Constables Magann and Campbell arrived at the location. … Detective Magann cut the padlock from the front gate to allow us entry for our vehicle. … While the detectives were canvassing the house, I again walked around the sheds and immediate area. I, again, did not see anything unusual." 1. DSC Magann gave evidence, stating he arrived at the property with DSC Campbell. He cut the padlock on the front gate with bolt cutters and drove onto the property. He noted that Damien was "quite agitated and angry". While he was there, Damien remained angry but "calmed a little". He entered the house and, wearing gloves, "carried out a cursory search of the house". He noted: "There did not appear to be any sign of forced entry or evidence of a struggle, as the house was relatively neat and tidy". In the second bedroom, which he was informed was used by the accused, he noted an "enviro shopping bag sitting on the bed. Located in the bag were a number of receipts, identity documents and a knife". He took photographs of the bag and its contents, which were tendered into. The knife was a serrated-edge table steak knife. It is apparent from the photographs that the bag's appearance is consistent with it being a bag that the accused was captured by CCTV carrying in Dubbo earlier that day. Some of the documents were the same as documents that Ms Haley had photographed earlier that evening. The documents photographed by DSC Magann included the following: 1. the accused's New Zealand passport, which refers to her place of birth being Phnom Penh; 2. the accused's New Zealand driver's licence; 3. a NAB bank statement in the name of Mr Dickie, for the period 7 March to 7 April 2015, his address being "PO Box 349 Dubbo"; 4. a Telstra bill for Mr Dickie issued on 27 May 2016, the address being the same PO Box number; 5. a "transaction history" of a St George Bank account in the accused's name, dated 16 June 2016 at 10.48am, the "last statement date" being 20 May 2016 and her address being "PO Box 349 Dubbo"; 6. a Medicare Card number advice, valid until 14 July 2016, issued on 16 June 2016; and 7. a one-day authorisation for entry to the Dubbo RSL for 16 June 2016. 1. DSC Magann said he found: "… a number of documents in the name of Robert Dickie and Kylie So rolled up and bound by a hairband. These documents included an insurance policy for a Ford Shelby motor vehicle, a certificate of name change for So, bank documents for So, bank documents in the name of Dickie and other documents with 76 Wattle Road Elong Elong printed on them." 1. He could not recall if they were in the enviro bag or elsewhere in the room. He said he asked the accused: "What can you tell me about all of these documents?" She replied with words similar to: "I was using them to show address for a medical card". 2. DSC Campbell made a statement dated 12 September 2017 that was tendered. The relevant part is as follows: "On Thursday 16 June 2016 about 8pm, I had a telephone conversation with Senior Constable Matthew Martin about a missing person from Elong Elong. I spoke to Detective Senior Constable Tom Magann when we went to 76 Wattle Road, Elong Elong. We stopped at the gate of 76 Wattle Road, Elong Elong. … We stopped at the gate of the property … I saw Detective Senior Constable Tom Magann cut the lock on the gate and we drove to the front of the house. Senior Constable Martin walked to us, and we had a brief conversation. I saw Damien Dickie and Alison Haley standing out the front of the house. I went inside the house, which is a small transportable house. I observed it was tidy and I saw Kylie So sitting on a chair in the lounge dining room wearing a large pink hat and overcoat. She was talking to Senior Constable Hannelly. I said, 'I am Detective Senior Constable Campbell from Dubbo Police, what is your name?' She said, 'Kylie So'. Kylie So was very difficult to understand, her accent was very unusual. I said, 'Kylie, why are you here?' She said, 'I come here to live with Robert.' I said, 'Where is Robert?' She said, 'He went to party and he said he is coming back at 10.' I said, 'When did he go party?' She said, 'On Tuesday.' I said, 'It's now Thursday and he is not back. When did you get here?' She said, 'Bob pick me up from motel in Dubbo on Saturday and drove home to make love and I stayed home till Tuesday and Bob said I am going to party at 6 and I should stay and I will be back at 10.' Detective Magann went to have a look around the house and he returned [after] a short time with some documents which were rolled up in a band. The documents he handed me consisted of an insurance policy for a Ford Shelby motor vehicle, document for a name change for So, and bank documents in the name of Robert Dickie, and a number of other documents. I said, 'What can you tell me about all these documents?' She said, 'I am trying to get medical card and bank account and needed address.' I said, 'When you said, Bob left to go to party, who did he go with?' She said, 'He went to party on Tuesday.' I said, 'You said he went to party, who did he go to party with?' She said, 'He went to party on Tuesday.' I said, 'When did you last see him?' She said, 'On Tuesday. He go to party at 6.' I said, 'How did he get to the party?' She said, 'He walked to gate and got picked up.' I said, 'Did you see who picked him up?' She said, 'He walked to gate and got picked up.' I said, 'You said, he walked to gate and got picked up but did you see who picked him up?' She said, 'I saw light shining front window and then he left.' I said, 'Is that the last time you saw Bob?' She said, 'Yes. He go to party.' I said, 'So, when did you arrive in Dubbo?' She said, 'I flew in on Friday and Bob picked me up in Dubbo and bring me here.' I said, 'How long are you staying here?' She said, 'I come here to live with Bob. He bring me here.' I said, 'Have you stayed here all the time?' She said, 'I went to town today to buy mobile phone. My phone no work here.' I said, 'Which town did you go to?' She said, 'Into big town. Dubbo.' I said, 'How did you get into town?' She said, 'I walked to main road and get a lift.' I said, 'Who did you get a lift from?' She said, 'Carlos'. So then showed me a small notebook which had a name, Carlos, and a mobile telephone number. I said, 'How did you get back here?' She said, 'He bring me back and drop me at front gate.' I used my mobile phone and contacted Carlos on the number given to me by So, and he told me something. He confirmed that he was driving to work about 7am and he saw So on the side of the road at the intersection of Golden Highway and Wattle Road. He stopped and asked what she was doing and she said that she wanted to go to town. So, he gave her a lift and dropped her in Macquarie Street on the vicinity of the Amaroo Hotel. He told her that if she wanted a lift back to Elong that she could ring him and he would take her back after work. He got a call from So during the day, and they arranged to meet about 4pm. They met, and Carlos took So back to Wattle Road. He dropped her at the gate of 76 Wattle Road and he saw So climb over the gate and walk towards the house. He also saw that there was a white four door utility parked near the front gate of the property. It was about 5pm. I told Carlos that we would be in contact later to obtain a statement from him. I was talking to So, and Damien Dickie walked into the lounge room and said, 'Get the cunt out of my father's house. She killed him. Get her the fuck out of here.' I said, 'Damien, just settle down. We are trying to establish what happened, and where your father is.' I spoke to Detective Senior Constable Tom Magann, and we decided to take So from the house and bring her back to Dubbo. The house was locked up and we brought So to town. As we drove, I spoke with So. I said, 'Where were you born?' She said, 'Phnom Penh. I was born a man then I had my boobs done, then I had all my bits changed to a woman.' I said, 'Earlier you said that you flew in; did you fly from Phnom Penh?' She said, 'I flew from New Zealand.' I said, 'Why were you in New Zealand?' She said, 'I have family there.' I said, 'Do you have family in Australia?' She said, 'Yes, brother and sister in Sydney.' I said, 'Have you seen them since coming to Australia this time?' She said, 'No, I flew straight here. I spoke to my brother on Friday and he give me money.' I said, 'How much money did he give you?' She said, 'Fifteen hundred', or one thousand five hundred. I said, 'What is his name?' She said, 'Son So.' I said, 'Why did he give you money?' I said - sorry, she said, 'I had no money so he gave me money.' I said, 'When did Son So give you money?' She said, 'On Friday he give me money.' We arrived back in Dubbo and we drove around looking for accommodation for her, however, she had no credit on her credit card and we decided to bring her back to the Dubbo Police Station, and she was left in an interview room in the foyer of the police station. I attended to creating COPS event and other relevant paperwork and completed my shift." 1. DSC Magann said that he and DSC Campbell transported the accused to Dubbo because Damien did not want her to remain at Mr Dickie's property. They left the property at about midnight. 2. Damien and his partner left the property in the early hours of Friday 17 June 2016. Their vehicle was recorded on point-to-point cameras on the Golden Highway at Merriwa, which is about 149km east of Elong Elong, at 2.44am. Police arrived at the property at about 9.30am later that morning. It had been unattended in the interim. 3. I note that the accused later told Detective Senior Constable Katrina Sherlock that she had left behind at Mr Dickie's house some clothes that she had washed. Friday 17 June 2016: A videoed search by police of the accused's belongings 1. At about 8am on Friday 17 June 2016, the accused used a phone at the police station to call a taxi. She left with her suitcase and other possessions. Later in the morning, police decided to interview her and found her in a shopping centre in Dubbo. She agreed to return to the police station, where her suitcase, a duffel-type bag, a large shoulder bag, an enviro bag and a handbag were searched by DSC Sherlock. The enviro bag contained fruit and other groceries. The shoulder bag and duffel bag contained various items and documents, including the accused's passport, a purse with about $40 in Australian currency and a small amount of US currency; apparently less than ten dollars. A camera was seized. The duffel bag also contained clothes. 2. Before the search of her suitcase the accused was asked if there was anything inside it that was sharp. She offered that there was a knife inside the lid "that I used for my cooking". It was a cleaver-type chef's knife, which was seized. A large amount of prescription drugs was present, including multiple packets of the contraceptive pill. Following the search, DSC Sherlock arranged temporary accommodation for the accused at a women's refuge. DSC Sherlock said that the accused was cooperative throughout the search of her property. She agreed that she would have made a note of any injuries to visible parts of the accused's body, and did not make any such note. Friday 17 June 2016: The videoed police interview of the accused 1. The accused was then interviewed by DSC Thorsteinsson, DS Heckendorf and Sergeant Marie Reynolds. The services of an interpreter who was available through a telephone interpreter service were utilised. 2. In the course of the interview, the accused said the following. She first met Mr Dickie about six years before in her capacity as a sex worker. She had advertised her services in a newspaper and Mr Dickie rang her. They met and "had sex" over three consecutive days. 3. Three or four years prior to the interview, she spent one night at Mr Dickie's property. They were in phone contact when she was back in New Zealand, where she said that she lived in rental accommodation and that Mr Dickie: "asked me to come over to be his girlfriend, his wife". She agreed to do so. Mr Dickie said he would buy a ticket for her but ultimately he did not, so she borrowed money from her brother for a one-way ticket to Australia, packed up her belongings and stored them in a garage. When she arrived, Mr Dickie was not at the airport and she could not contact him, so she stayed in a motel that night. The next morning she used another phone that she had to phone him and made contact. Mr Dickie picked her up at about 2pm that day. 4. The accused said that "every day he had to chop wood to feed the heater warm up the house". Mr Dickie drove her to a neighbour's place, a woman named "Sandy", and introduced the accused as his girlfriend. The accused introduced herself to Sandy, telling her that she and Mr Dickie had known each other for six years. 5. It is unfortunate that police utilised the telephone interpreter service to interview the accused. The interpreter (the original interpreter) sometimes struggled to understand what the accused was saying over the phone line. She gave evidence in the trial and provided a further transcription of what she could hear the accused say as the recording of the interview was played and as a result of an opportunity to hear it out of court. Consequently, a corrected transcript was tendered without objection, with the exception of two passages, one of which is inconsequential. 6. According to the corrected transcript, the accused recalled that on Tuesday 14 June 2016, Mr Dickie said he was going to "his friend party … 6pm … and he would be back at 10pm". She continued: "A. … I didn't open the door. … he usually not going out … because he hasn't got time to he work on the farm, … he had animal on the farm …. Q. OK Did you see the friend? A. Yeah, I didn't, OK I didn't, I didn't see the friend because I was inside, I was watching TV at that time. Q. OK Did you see the vehicle the friend was in, the car? A. The bright light from the coming vehicle was shining into the house … at that time, it was 6 o'clock … only bright light from the vehicle was shining into the house … he came out to open the door … at that time … the light was shining into the house … he came out … he said 'I'm going'. "Q. So, so where was the vehicle when the door was opened? A. I don't know the colour of the vehicle. The light is not clear at his house always. Q. Yeah. So did the vehicle drive right up to the house? A. Yeah, a person came inside the house, because he came out and opened the door. Two of them came inside the house and talked to each other for a number of hours … then … he came out … I saw him come out … he opened the door … then he left … he got in the vehicle and left. Interpreter: Sorry, can I ask the, the client to repeat that? Q. Yeah. A. Bright light … a vehicle coming … vehicle coming … he came out to open the door … the bright light was shining into the house, he opened the door … the vehicle did not come close to the house … but he opened the door … the vehicle coming … the light from the vehicle was shining … he opened the door … he got into the vehicle and left. The light was shining …, I saw the bright light only … I don't know what the vehicle looks like." 1. The defence submitted that the last answer was incorrectly translated, and should read instead as follows: "A. The car came in, Robert opened the door, I just saw the light. They had a conversation then Robert opened the door and they drove away. I can't see because I was behind the blind of the house." 1. In her evidence in chief, the original interpreter was asked whether some of the Vietnamese words uttered by the accused had alternative meanings. She said "door" could equally mean "gate"; "house" could equally mean "a property" and "hour" can mean "spoken word". The phrase, "the vehicle did not come close to the house", could equally mean "The vehicle didn't get inside". That evidence was accepted by both parties. 2. The original interpreter was questioned in chief about her interpretation of the passage spoken by the accused immediately before she asked if the accused could be requested to repeat her answer. 3. The result of the original interpreter's explanation is that the words, "a person came inside the house, because he came out and opened the door", should be understood as meaning, "the person from the house came out and opened the door". The next words, that is, "two of them came inside the house or gate", means "the one visitor and the man who opened the gate to let the visitor in". As well, the words "He opened the door … he got into the vehicle and left" could mean that he opened the door or the gate of the property before getting into the vehicle and leaving. 4. I note that the meaning of the passage may thus be to the effect that Mr Dickie walked to the front gate, opened it, spoke to someone who came onto the property, then Mr Dickie opened the gate and left in the vehicle. I note that this meaning coincides with many of the elements of the translation relied upon by the defence. 5. Returning to parts of the interview that were not contentious as to the interpretation, the accused said that Mr Dickie did not take alcohol with him, although he had many bottles of alcohol inside the house. 6. The following exchange occurred: "Q. OK. Did he, did he take his phone and wallet? A. Yeah, yeah, saw the wallet, the wallet is always in his pocket and uh, when … he go he always have phone with him." 1. The accused said Mr Dickie drank alcohol every day; one or two "not very big glasses" mixed with pineapple. Mr Dickie used drugs, but she did not. She found drugs in the house and threw them away. 2. She also found bullets "on the day he um, missing" in a drawer in his computer room. She said: "I panicked I, I, I was scared". She said she put them under steps in the backyard. 3. She was asked what she did when Mr Dickie "went missing". She tried to phone him but she had no reception and the land line had been disconnected. The door was locked and she could not find a key to open it. When the police came, they opened the door. 4. The accused said she travelled into Dubbo on Wednesday by hitching a ride with a man. In Dubbo, she bought some things, including fruit, opened a Medicare account and played poker machines in a club. 5. She was driven back to Mr Dickie's property by the same person who drove her to Dubbo. When she arrived back, Mr Dickie's son was there. She introduced herself as Mr Dickie's girlfriend. He repeatedly screamed at her "Where is my father" and threatened to kill her. She told him to phone the police, and he said he had done so already, and that they were waiting for them to arrive. 6. The accused was asked if she had ever sent parcels to Mr Dickie and said that she had sent a parcel that had in it seeds of watermelon, pumpkin, pepper, lemon, chilli and a few knives "to cut the fruit". 7. She said she had nothing to do with Mr Dickie's disappearance and did not know where he was. She said she now had a "Telstra card" but still could not contact him. 8. On Monday 20 June 2016, the accused agreed to DSC Sherlock obtaining a buccal swab and her fingerprints. Tuesday 21 June 2016: The walkthrough 1. On the afternoon of Tuesday 21 June 2016, DS Heckendorf asked the accused if she was prepared to accompany police to Mr Dickie's property and answer questions that would be video recorded. He told her: "Kylie, you do not have to if you do not want to, but it may help us finding Bob". She replied, "Yes, I will come out and help". She was driven by police to Mr Dickie's property and interviewed. The interview, which was recorded on a hand-held recorder and made without the assistance of an interpreter, was tendered. 2. I direct myself that the evidence is the video recording and the transcript of it is an aide memoire. Accordingly, if there is a discrepancy between what I hear on the recording and what appears in the transcript, I disregard that part of the transcript. This direction applies to all transcripts of video recordings that were tendered in the trial. 3. At the property, the accused was not cautioned but instead informed that "everything [is] going to be recorded … and if needs be, that can later be used in court". 4. In the course of the walkthrough, the accused said the following. At the outset, she was questioned about her background. She was born in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. She had breasts for over ten years and changed her name from her birth name about seven or eight years before, to "Angelina", and then three years ago to "Kylie", which coincided with her having a sex-change operation involving the removal of her penis. 5. Mr Dickie was her "boyfriend and contact for long time, yeah". She first met Mr Dickie "over six years … in Liverpool" at the Palm Motel, where she had advertised her services as a transexual sex worker. They had sex three times when she met him there. 6. The last time the accused had seen Mr Dickie before her current trip was when she came to Dubbo about four years before: "I come and sleep, sleep here one night, yeah". I note it is unclear whether, by that answer, she meant that she slept one night in Dubbo or one night at Mr Dickie's property. 7. She had returned to New Zealand after her earlier trip to Dubbo because "my father very old, nearly 90 now. I come back to New Zealand and look after my father. That's why I can't stay with Bob". 8. They knew each other's phone numbers from her earlier trip to Dubbo and they were communicating by texts and voice calls since "three or four months" before she travelled to Dubbo this time. 9. Mr Dickie did not contribute any funds to her coming to Australia: "No, he not pay anything. Because I with him relationship for long time. I know him, he is good friend, but not spending money. He not spend money. But he cooking for me. He is good, OK yeah." 1. When she arrived in Dubbo, the accused tried to use her Vodafone mobile phone from the airport and discovered that it did not work, so she was unable to contact Mr Dickie. She contacted her brother, who lives in Cabramatta, as a result of which he had sent her money: "Yeah, so no money. He send me fifteen hundred to … post office. I come and get it. But yeah, money, I go poker machine. Use it all. Yep." 1. She received the money at about 5 or 5.30pm from the post office, through Western Union. She said: "And then I go straight to poker machine for play, because I have no ah, I don't know where to live. … Because I can't contact Robert, yeah. … Then I go to poker machine, I think to try to win money. I cannot win, lose. Lose it all, $1,500." 1. The accused stayed at a motel that night and tried to phone Mr Dickie again the following morning, using another of her phones. I note that the call charge records for Mr Dickie's phone show that one of the accused's phones connected with Mr Dickie's number at 8.02am on 11 June 2016 in a voice call that lasted for seven minutes and 34 seconds. 2. Mr Dickie picked the accused up from the motel where she had stayed the night and took her to his property. When they arrived there, he told her: "… you be my wife. And then my girlfriend, do come be my wife. And you stay here. You stay here with me. … Yeah Bob tell me stay here with me.. … stay forever. That's why I bought ah, chilli, ah, pumpkin and lemon. To grow here. Q. So you want to stay? A. Yeah, I wanted to stay with Bob. Because Bob tell me and ah, he's my boyfriend. Yeah, make relationship and stay together. Q. Were you going to get married? A. He say get married soon, not now. Relationship girlfriend and boyfriend first." 1. The accused borrowed Mr Dickie's phone to call her brother, because her Vodafone phone was not working: "A. I borrowed Bob phone and ring my brother. Say hello. Yeah. Q. You just say hello, did you? A. Yeah, say hello. Q. Anything else? A. No, nothing else, say hello." 1. She rang her brother once, which was on Sunday. The call was for about five minutes. She also sent him a message: "I just say hello … I want to borrow my brother money to buy car. But my brother did not answer". She wanted a car so that while she was staying with Mr Dickie she could travel to Dubbo for work. She said: "Like clean up motel. Bob, Bob, he telling me, you get a job. You can get any job". 2. She and Mr Dickie engaged in sexual activity every day that she had been at his property, except for the Tuesday, by which I infer she meant 14 June 2016. They had sexual intercourse in Mr Dickie's bed and would sleep together in that room, but she would keep her clothes in the second bedroom. 3. The accused was taken to the second bedroom and shown the suitcase that DS Heckendorf had located during the execution of the search warrant on 19 June 2016, and its contents. She denied it was her bag. (In evidence, DS Heckendorf agreed that there was nothing in the suitcase that linked it to the accused.) 4. In the office, she showed the police where she had found the bullets and where she had put them, under steps at the back door. Police seized them and a .22 magazine that was with them. The accused said she hid them on Thursday morning before she went to Dubbo: "Because I'm scary. I do scary, somebody come and maybe got gun and, and shoot, I don't know". She said she had never seen Mr Dickie with a gun, but he had previously told her that he had one. 5. The accused took a photograph of herself and Mr Dickie: "Me take my photo with him … when I went that day and I been with him". 6. The accused was asked if Mr Dickie had other girlfriends: "I don't know, I, he got plenty. I know him. He's sexual, he's bisexual. He's got plenty girlfriends. But I don't care, because he say he love me. I don't care about his girlfriends." 1. She said she had friends but was not "boyfriend girlfriend" with anybody else. 2. She had a St George bank account for about two years and a NAB account for about three months. She opened them both in Cabramatta and had just applied for a new card. When she opened them, she gave her brother's address. When she applied for a new card "last week", she gave "Bob's address". 3. During the walkthrough, while in the main bedroom, she was asked: "Q. Were these the sheets on the bed? A. Yeah … the bed, yeah." 1. She described the clothes that Mr Dickie was wearing when she last saw him as jeans, a long red and white tee-shirt and a hat. She did not notice his footwear and did not recall if he took a jacket. 2. When Mr Dickie left, it was "dark, dark a little bit". He had turned on the heater. She was asked: "Q. Did anyone ring [Mr Dickie] before he left? Did he get a phone call? A. Yeah, he got a phone call. Q. Who from? A. I don't know. Q. Was it the same person picked him up? A. I don't know. Because only sometimes he will call and then he go." 1. The accused said that Mr Dickie left by the back door, indicating the door that faced west towards the sheds. She said that at that time she was watching television in a chair in the lounge room that faced towards the television. Mr Dickie called to her to lock the door. The curtain was drawn on the window, which the accused indicated to be the window on the eastern lounge room wall, but she "open a little bit" and saw a car parked on the street side of the front gate that had turned its lights on, which were facing her: "two big lights". There had been no sound of a car horn. Mr Dickie walked up the driveway, "opened the door and he go with them". (I note that, in the context in which she used the word "door", it is not apparent whether she meant the front gate or a door of the vehicle.) The accused did not know in which direction the car drove off. She said: "That time, I don't know, just scary, he go, he say come back 10 o'clock. … Q. Did he say where he was going? A. He go to party, but I don't know where he going. He tell me he go to party, and come back 10 o'clock. Honey, I'm going. Q Was he going to meet another girl? A. No. He, he go, say ah, party with girl. … one man come and pick him up, yeah. Q. Did he say the man's name? A. I don't think, I don't know. He never tell me name. Q. Did he say a man or a lady? A. Man. Q. What did he take with him? A. I, I, I never see him take anything. Q. What about his phone? A. Yeah, he take phone, but I don't, I don't really because he walk around, he take, ah, he say I'm ready now, honey I'm going, honey, you lock the door." 1. The accused was asked about her trip to Dubbo on Thursday 16 June 2016. She said she got a lift with a person called Bob Carlo. She shopped at Coles, applied for a Medicare card, went to the bank to apply for a new card, went to a place with poker machines, bought a new phone and got a lift home with "Carlo". Mr Dickie had taken her to visit "Sandy" and she also saw her at the Telstra shop in Dubbo. 2. When the accused arrived back at Mr Dickie's property, she was confronted by Mr Dickie's son, who said to her: "Where's my father. I kill you". He took the accused's phone from her and his girlfriend calmed him down. 3. The accused was asked by police: "Did you kill Bob?" To which she replied "No, no … He's my boyfriend, yeah, I not, I not do that". 4. On 22 June 2016, police returned the accused's property to her that had been seized. She informed police that she intended to catch a train to Sydney that afternoon and try to locate her brother. The following day, 23 June 2016, she returned to New Zealand. Part 5: Police investigations Mr Dickie's phone 1. Evidence from Jason Betts, a Telstra employee who examined their records in respect of Mr Dickie's mobile, was to the effect that Mr Dickie's phone last commenced a connection to a cell tower, which was the Elong Elong Telstra cell tower, at 2.54pm on Wednesday 15 June 2016. That connection was the start of an internet connection that lasted for 59 minutes, meaning that the phone ceased to be in communication with the cell tower at about 3.53pm. 2. Mr Betts concluded from the data concerning Mr Dickie's phone that it was receiving data virtually continuously from at least 10.34am on Monday 13 June 2016 until it ceased connecting to the Elong Elong Telstra cell tower. Records for the phone were not sought until 13 June 2023 and were not available for more than 6 years prior, so it is unknown if the phone was continuously receiving data before that date and time. The initial search of Mr Dickie's property 1. Detective Senior Constable Robert Jackson gave evidence that he and Senior Constable Elsom were the first to arrive at the property on the morning of Friday 17 June 2016, which was at 10.25am. The front gate was closed but unlocked, and they were able to drive onto the property. I note that DSC Magann said that, having cut the padlock on the front gate on the night of Thursday 16 June 2016, he did not re-secure it before he and DSC Campbell left the property. 2. DSC Jackson walked the perimeter of the property and observed the fences to be "in reasonable condition". Photographs taken by him during this walk were tendered. Photographs of the open parts of the property taken by DSC Jackson on 17 June 2016 included areas that appeared to have been ploughed. I note that Mr Weavers, who was an experienced cattle farmer in the area, said when he visited Mr Dickie's property in the two or three days after his disappearance, he noticed, as to the condition of the pigs: "They were reasonable cause they could feed themselves, you know, they can root up roots and what have you, where the cattle can't". He said that where they were digging up the terrain "looks like someone's gone through with a tractor and ploughed". 3. DSC Jackson saw a padlocked gate that led on to a neighbour's property, apparently on the western boundary. He and SC Elsom inspected the sheds. DSC Jackson said: "In the rear tray of [the] Mahindra ute, Senior Constable Elsom located a set of keys. These did not open the Mahindra ute. Next to the Mahindra ute I observed a 44‑gallon drum with a section of carpet on top. I lifted the carpet and saw a set of keys that opened the Mahindra ute. I took a photograph of the keys. On opening the ute, I saw one capped syringe behind the seat. A Thomas Cook branded wallet was located under the sun‑visor. On opening the wallet, I saw there were receipts, bank cards and driver's licence in the name [of] Robert Dickie." 1. DSC Jackson seized the syringe. I note that swabs taken from various parts of the syringe had the same DNA profile as that of Tracey. 2. DSC Jackson said that he recalled the wallet being on the passenger-side, between the sun visor and the roof. It was not visible until the sun visor was folded down. He was asked if there was any cash in the wallet, and replied: "Not that I recall". He said he opened the wallet and saw numerous cards, including Mr Dickie's NAB Visa card and St George EFTPOS card. He said he was not aware of the keys that were located in the back of the Mahindra fitting any lock on the property. The keys under the carpet unlocked the door to the garage in which the Shelby was located. The manholes to the underneath of the house did not appear to have been tampered with. 3. Detective Sergeant (at the relevant time, DSC) Michael Martin and DSC Shanahan arrived at Mr Dickie's property within minutes of the arrival of DSC Jackson and SC Elsom. 4. DS Michael Martin said he and DSC Shanahan were instructed to search Mr Dickie's house for his mobile phone. They broke into the house and "conduct[ed] a cursory search for Dickie's mobile telephone in obvious places". In cross-examination, DS Michael Martin said that he would have gone into the laundry as part of that search. They did not locate a phone. DSC Shanahan said that, between him and DS Michael Martin, they searched the whole house for Mr Dickie's mobile phone. 5. DS Michael Martin searched the sheds, noticing there were ducks in one of the animal enclosures. There was a bicycle leaning against a shed and a motorcycle that can be seen in a photograph taken by him at the time, near the entrance to the tool shed. Another photograph depicts "the dirt roadway area at the front of the [machinery] shed", which he took because it was overcast and rain was forecast. Recent tyre marks can be seen in the gravel immediately adjacent to the shed in which the Mahindra was garaged. In cross-examination, DS Michael Martin was asked: "Q. And the reason you took that photograph was because there were prominent vehicle tracks in the gravel to the eastern side of the machine shed as depicted in the photograph? A. Yes. … Q. And to your knowledge at the time you took the photograph, there was no possibility that those tracks had been caused by the vehicle that you'd arrived in; correct? A. That's correct. Q. Or the vehicle that Detective Jackson and Elsom had arrived in before you; correct? A. I believe so, yes." 1. I note that DSC Magann said that he drove onto the property on the night of Thursday 16 June 2016, but could not recall if he drove his vehicle in that area. 2. At about 1.20pm on Friday 17 June 2016, a decision was made by police to secure Mr Dickie's property as a crime scene and to seek a crime scene warrant. 3. On Saturday 18 June 2016, DS Michael Martin, DSC Jackson and Sergeant Raymond Soole managed a line search of the entire 88-acre property by around 40 people, including volunteer members of the Volunteer Rescue Association and the Rural Fire Service. Nothing of note was discovered, other than in the south-western corner of the property where line searchers located an open crate containing unopened bottles of spirits, including bourbon of various brands, with signs of weathering. The surrounding area had signs of chainsaw usage and wood collection. SC Redden's examination of the property 1. On Sunday 19 June 2016, a crime scene officer, Senior Constable Stephen Redden, arrived at and carried out an examination of Mr Dickie's property. He arrived there at about 1.45pm. 2. SC Redden provided an account of his examination in a statement dated 3 January 2018. Photographs were taken by him during the examination, in his words, "to record the scene as it was upon police arrival … before the introduction of any further procedures, searches and the like". They were tendered. 3. He described the main bedroom thus: "The main bedroom was situated at the southern end of the dwelling and accessed via the door in the front foyer area. The main bedroom was lightly furnished and contained only a metal framed double bed and two bedside tables against the southern wall, a hat/coat stand behind the main door and a full length mirror in the north east corner of the room. The room was neat and tidy and the bed was neatly made. The floor covering in the bedroom and walk in robe was carpet and the bathroom floor was ceramic tile. In the south east corner of the bedroom was a walk in robe which also provided access to the ensuite." 1. SC Redden said he did not recall whether he noticed any boots in the main bedroom and did not make a note as to whether there were boots in the bedroom. Damien gave evidence that he thought that when he was in the house on 16 June 2016, he saw his father's boots in the main bedroom between the door and wall. 2. In cross-examination, SC Redden was shown a photograph he took at the time of the main bedroom, in which the bed appears to be made up with a doona and two pillows with pillow slips. He agreed that a different-coloured fabric at the foot of the bed that can be clearly seen across the width of it "looks to be the sheet". 3. He described the second bedroom: "This bedroom was lightly furnished and contained a double bed, two timber bedside tables and a timber dressing table with a mirror. This room was also neat and tidy and the bed was neatly made. I observed a plastic shopping bag on the dresser containing a number of personal items and effects together with numerous shopping dockets and receipts. This bedroom also appeared to be being utilised with personal effects being located on the bedside tables." 1. One of the photographs taken by SC Redden of the second bedroom depicts the built-in wardrobe, with a sliding door partly open. In the gap, part of a suitcase with a wheel is visible, which is consistent with it being the suitcase located in that room and searched consequent to the execution of the search warrant. 2. As to the floor coverings, SC Redden said: "The floor covering for the hallway section and bedrooms was carpet. All of the carpeted areas within the dwelling appeared to be the same. I made an examination of these areas …" 1. SC Redden took photographs in the laundry of the inside of the washing machine, in which an item of male underpants could be seen, and a dark cloth or cloths in the laundry tub that were immersed in water. Around the rim of the tub one can see two nail brushes (one red, one white), a scourer pad, a yellow wash cloth and a brown hand towel (SC Redden's laundry tub photograph). 2. In relation to the three vehicles in the machinery shed (the Mahindra, the tractor and the ATV), SC Redden said he applied presumptive tests for the presence of blood "[o]n the rear tray of the ATV and the utility and the footwell of all vehicles and the control pedals". He did not attempt to take DNA deposits from the steering wheels or other parts of the vehicles, because he was told that neighbours had been using them. Execution of the crime scene warrant and further searches of Mr Dickie's property 1. On the morning of Sunday 19 June 2016, the crime scene warrant was issued for Mr Dickie's property. That afternoon, after SC Redden had completed his examination of the house, DS Heckendorf executed the warrant. At about 3.45pm, he and DSC Shanahan began to search the house. Some items that were located were recorded on a hand-held video camera. The video was tendered. During their search, they located the suitcase in the second bedroom, that was referred to earlier in this judgment. 2. Police handed over custody of Mr Dickie's property to his family that afternoon, following SC Redden's examination and the subsequent search of the house. Police advised family members to remove items of value, which they did, over the following weeks and monthsDamien said that, following the relinquishing of the property by police, he visited the house on "half a dozen" occasions, sometimes staying overnight. Other family members also visited the property from time to time, as did the Weavers, to care for the animals. 3. On 4 and 5 July 2016, police divers searched the dam on Mr Dickie's property, which was in two pools at that stage. It was dragged, using ropes and hooks. 4. On 11 August 2016, the septic tank on Mr Dickie's property was drained. Nothing relevant to the investigation was found. 5. In 2020, Ms Weavers informed police that she had noticed bones in the dog kennels and advised DS Tighe where they were. On 2 November 2020, DS Tighe, a crime scene examiner and a forensic anthropologist attended Mr Dickie's property and examined an area of the ground in front of the dog kennels. A systematic examination was carried out. Bones were recovered, but none that were potentially human. An excavation of the ground inside the big dog kennel was also carried out, with the same result. Nothing of significance to the investigation was located. A parcel sent by the accused 1. On Friday 17 June 2016, DS Michael Martin and DSC Shanahan drove to Elong Elong and spoke to staff at the shop, who told them a parcel had arrived two days earlier addressed to "Bobs" at Mr Dickie's address, which had not been collected. The sender's details were those of the accused, from an Auckland address. They seized the parcel. When subsequently examined, the parcel was found to contain packets of seeds, three kitchen knives and a bottle stopper/pourer. Searches of the surrounding area to Mr Dickie's property 1. On Friday 17 June 2016, police began canvassing the occupants of the other properties in Wattle Road and contacting non-resident property owners, a process which continued over the following days and weeks. 2. That afternoon, following an appeal to the public for assistance in locating Mr Dickie, DSC Sherlock received information that a person matching Mr Dickie's description was seen earlier that day walking along the Mendooran Road, approximately 5km from the intersection with Moriguy Road, Dubbo, which is near Elong Elong. Police officers searched the area that afternoon, without locating a person matching the description of Mr Dickie. On 19 June 2016, DSC Magann and DSC Jackson carried out a canvass on trail bikes of both sides of the Mandooran Road, including a search of drains. They also spoke to several residents of Elong Elong. 3. On Sunday 19 June 2016, there was a coordinated search of neighbouring properties and waterways. 4. On Monday 20 June, DSC Magann and DSC Jackson used trail bikes to search both sides of a 10km stretch of the Golden Highway and railway lines. Other police officers searched stock routes and waterways that crossed the Golden Highway. 5. On 30 June 2016, DSC Jackson and three other detectives conducted further patrols of neighbouring properties on trail bikes. Dams on neighbouring properties were also searched, including a dam that was just beyond Mr Dickie's boundary to the south. 6. On 23 August 2017, police did a line search to a width of 30m from Mr Dickie's boundary fence into the neighbouring properties to the south of his property, also utilising cadaver dogs. The neighbours at 101 Wattle Road 1. Mr Weavers said that Mr Dickie had mentioned two friends that he had; Aaron O'Leary and the people who lived in the property alongside the Weavers, which I note was opposite Mr Dickie's property. Mr Dickie had mentioned the name "Buddy". 2. Ms Lovejoy said that Mr Dickie called his neighbours across the road from his front gate "druggos". He said that people would visit them to buy marijuana. 3. A statement by Detective Senior Constable Janice McKechnie, dated 8 August 2016, was read. DSC McKechie stated that on 21 June 2016, she and another police officer visited the property that was situated opposite Mr Dickie's front gate (101 Wattle Road). She spoke to the occupants, who were Enid Fittler and her grand-daughter Samantha Fittler. She said they told her: "They had not met Mr Dickie but would wave to him if they drove past and saw him at his gate". They knew him by the name "Dickie". They had no information to assist the inquiry. 4. Gordon Hockey gave evidence that at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance, he and his mother, Enid Fittler, lived at 101 Wattle Road. Mr Hockey said he was known as "Buddy", and that he and his mother had been living there for "many years" by the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance. Mr Hockey offered that he grew "a couple" of cannabis plants at 101 Wattle Road. He said he was aware that the person living opposite was known as "Dickie" and saw him from time to time as he (Mr Hockey) drove along Wattle Road. He said he had never spoken to Mr Dickie and had never been onto his property. Possible sightings of Mr Dickie 1. The appeal by police for information concerning Mr Dickie's disappearance led to reported sightings of him at various shops in Dubbo, which were investigated by police obtaining and viewing CCTV. In all cases, they were determined to be false sightings. The Liverpool brothel 1. In August 2016, DSC Shanahan and DSC Campbell unsuccessfully attempted to locate a motel in the Liverpool area named the "Palms Motel", utilising the Google search engine and phone book and by driving around the area. They visited the Grandstand Motel at 7 Hume Hwy Warwick Farm. It was run-down and they were informed by a worker on the premises that no records were kept. It was not apparent why they visited that particular motel. Evidence as to aspects of Mr Dickie's behaviour Mr Dickie was security conscious 1. The Crown led evidence to the effect that Mr Dickie was unusually security conscious. The Crown submitted that, for this reason, Mr Dickie was unlikely to have left the accused alone on his property. Ellen Dickie said that in about 1994, while they were living together at Laheys creek, Mr Dickie was shot by escapees from a juvenile detention facility. As a result, she and Mr Dickie became quite security conscious and used to "lock everything up". Ms Lovejoy said that when she lived with Mr Dickie, between 2008 and 2010, he was security conscious, because of the shooting incident. Damien said that the front gate to Mr Dickie's property was always locked and that ever since he was shot at Laheys Creek Gulgong, Mr Dickie kept his properties "locked and secure". 2. Similarly, the Crown submitted that it is unlikely that Mr Dickie would have left his keys behind at his property. Damien said there was "no way" Mr Dickie would go out without his keys. 3. Ms Batty said that while she was in a relationship with Mr Dickie, he was security-conscious to a point that he kept "everything locked. Even his gates when he was at home". 4. Mr Kilby, in his statement to police concerning his visit to Mr Dickie's property within a week or so of his disappearance, said that Mr Dickie brought the drum of petrol for his vehicle to the front gate, stating that Mr Dickie: "didn't like anyone coming past the gate". 5. Diana said that the front gate had a combination lock that Mr Dickie would operate to let her onto the property. 6. There was some evidence that Mr Dickie had become even more concerned about his safety in the weeks before his disappearance. Aaron O'Leary was a neighbour in Wattle Road. He said that he would often join Mr Dickie for a drink on his front porch, on some Tuesday afternoons. He would also deliver grain to Mr Dickie. He said: "I used to take the grain and stack it … at the back of the shed, in the side part, facing west … of the shed, and that stopped and then he used to meet us at the front gate, and just received the grain there." 1. He said this change occurred in about March 2016 and affected the last three or four deliveries. Mr Dickie never explained to him why he changed his practice. The grain was in stitched sacks, and thereafter he would collect it by driving his Kubota tractor to the front gate and opening it. Aaron O'Leary said the Tuesday drinks continued after the change in how the grain was delivered, but he would have to climb over the fence and walk down to Mr Dickie's house. He did not have a drink with him "at least for a month" before Mr Dickie disappeared. Whenever he did have a drink with him, there was never anyone else there. Would Mr Dickie go to parties? 1. As noted, the accused told police that when she last saw Mr Dickie, he told her he was going to a party and would return later that night. Ms Carter said that Mr Dickie "just wasn't a party type of person. I never knew him to go to parties after him and Ellen split up". 2. Ms Lovejoy said that Mr Dickie did not go to parties when she lived with him at Lahey's Creek and, so far as she knew, he did not do so when he lived at Elong Elong, either. Whether the pigs were usually kept in a shed 1. As noted earlier, Damien said he thought it unusual that the pigs were not in sheds when he attended the property on 16 June 2016. Mr Walters gave evidence that he also saw the pigs roaming free that day and advised Damien to lock them up. 2. However, Gregory O'Leary gave evidence that he had seen the pigs roaming freely while Mr Dickie was present. He said he delivered grain to Mr Dickie from time to time, and on one occasion, which was possibly on Thursday 9 June 2016, he was asked to drive it to the shipping container. He noticed that the pigs: "… were running around, they had access to a larger yard. But they weren't held in the shed as such. … they just had access to shelter, but they weren't shedded." Did Mr Dickie typically have a quantity of cash in his wallet? 1. The Crown submitted that the evidence establishes that Mr Dickie would typically have a significant amount of cash in his wallet, and the fact that it had no cash in it when it was found in the Mahindra is consistent with the accused either locating the wallet in that location or placing it there, having removed a significant quantity of cash. Aaron O'Leary said that Mr Dickie would always pay for the grain in cash. He said Mr Dickie's wallet was "never empty … [he] carried quite a substantial amount of cash on him". 2. Tracey said that Mr Dickie would pay her cash from his wallet, in $50 notes. 3. However, some other witnesses said that in their experience he preferred to pay electronically, rather than by cash. Ms Lovejoy said that Mr Dickie preferred purchasing items with a card rather than with cash. Ms Batty said that Mr Dickie always purchased items with a card instead of cash. 4. Diana said that Mr Dickie did not have money in his wallet "all the time"; he would use an ATM to obtain cash to pay her from his NAB account. Did Mr Dickie use prohibited drugs? 1. It was common ground between the parties that Mr Dickie assisted women to obtain prohibited and prescription drugs by way of payment or persuasion to provide him with sexual services. However, a disputed issue of fact was whether Mr Dickie was personally engaged in the use and/or supply of prohibited drugs. This was relevant to there being a possible association between Mr Dickie and a criminal element that may have been responsible for his disappearance. 2. Ms Lovejoy said that in the time she knew Mr Dickie, to her knowledge he did not use prohibited drugs and did not supply or grow marijuana. Ms Batty said that in her time with Mr Dickie, he did not use prohibited drugs. Diana told police in 2016 that to her knowledge Mr Dickie did not use drugs. 3. Leigh Peckham told police that he recognised a photograph of Robert Dickie that was shown to him by police on 18 October 2016. He had seen Mr Dickie at Mr Barber's apartment in Dubbo: "… smoking cones and cigarettes with Jeremy … [He had caught] a big cod at the river. He sounded really happy about it. He was talking quite excited about it and won up on the pokies or horses or something." 1. However, in a statement to police dated 27 June 2016, Mr Barber denied knowing Mr Dickie. He said that Diana had mentioned Mr Dickie to him: "As far as I can remember [Diana] went to Bob's house a few months ago. I only know this because [Diana] said something about trying to steal a few bottles of spirits from Bob, but she got caught. [Diana] told me that she tried to take a few grog bottles in her bag and Bob caught her. [She] said that she told Bob she was confused or something, and he told her to take them back inside and not to do that to him again. I don't know if she has been back since. I've never met or seen Bob. I don't know what he looks like, and I don't know anything else about him. I didn't know Bob was missing until the police told me this today." 1. I note evidence of Detective Tighe to the effect that in August 2010, while Mr Dickie was living in the Gulgong area, police received intelligence to the effect that he was involved in the supply of cannabis, but police were unable to verify the reliability or credibility of that report. 2. I note that Eva said she smoked cannabis with Mr Dickie at his property and that he approached her to sell some cannabis for him. Part 6: Investigations involving persons other than the accused The disappearance of Damien Dickie's son 1. Detective Senior Constable Lauren Park gave evidence that on 27 June 2016, Damien Dickie's son, who was then aged 23, was reported to police as missing. He was last seen leaving his family home three days before and was making threats of self-harm. On 3 July 2016, his motorbike was located in bushland in the Corrabare forest, which is near Wollombi. Subsequent searches failed to locate him. DSC Park said that inquiries by police failed to establish any link between the disappearance of Mr Dickie and Damien Dickie's son. 2. In his evidence, Damien said that for a time in the first half of 2016, his son was struggling with drug abuse and living with his mother. There was discussion at that time about his son possibly staying with Mr Dickie on his property, but it did not happen because both Mr Dickie and Damien's son "were both dead against it". Two texts to Mandy 1. I note that according to the call charge records for Mr Dickie's phone, on 21 July 2016, two text messages were sent from Mr Dickie's phone to Mandy's phone. The location of Mandy's phone at the time was a cell tower in Dubbo. I do not place any significance on this data, since it is contrary to other data that overwhelmingly suggests that the Mr Dickie's phone ceased functioning on 14 June 2023. Three calls on Tuesday 14 June 2016 with Mr Dickie's mobile 1. The call charge records for Mr Dickie's mobile for the period 1 May to 15 June 2016, which are an exhibit, record that on Tuesday 14 June 2016 at 10.35am he received a call from a phone number ending in 058, which lasted 17 seconds. The calling number was connecting to the Buninyong cell tower in Dubbo and Mr Dickie's phone was connecting to the Elong Elong tower. At 10.47am, Mr Dickie's phone called the same number in a call that lasted two minutes and 17 seconds. Each phone was connecting to the same towers as in the 10.36am call. Mr Dickie called the number again at 2.01pm, in a call that lasted eight seconds. His phone was connecting to the Elong Elong tower and the other number's tower is not indicated. There are no other connections between Mr Dickie's phone and that number in the call charge records for the period covered in the exhibit. 2. Police determined that the phone number ending in 058 was registered to "Kellie", who gave evidence. She said she did not know Mr Dickie and did not recognise a photograph of him. She said that police interviewed her on 16 August 2016 and she told them that she purchased a mobile phone on about 8 or 9 June 2016 for $70. She agreed that she told police she made a call on the phone on 8 June 2016 at 8.17am and that at that time, she was in the house in Dubbo where her then boyfriend, Ben Ryan, lived. In evidence, Kellie gave a different account, saying that Mr Ryan purchased the phone. She was not with him when he did so. At the place where he lived, he asked her to activate it for him, "because he had no ID". She activated it while she was in his house. 3. Kellie agreed that on the afternoon of 8 June 2016, she rang her father, saying it was to arrange a lift to Nambucca Heads with him. She was asked what happened to the phone and replied: "I believe it was stolen. … There were many other people in the house. Someone's taken the phone". She did not recall who else was in the house at the time, other than her and Mr Ryan: "Because there was traffic in the house. There was other people, like it was in and out. His friends. … kids coming in and out, people coming in and out". She said that she had left the phone on a table and walked out: "I just wanted to get out of there". She said she only used the phone once. 4. Ben Ryan gave evidence. He said he had never met Mr Dickie, but when he saw an image of him on the news, he recalled that he had seen him "probably a few weeks before" playing poker machines at the Macquarie Inn; "I see him … with girls, but I don't know the girls". 5. He said that around the time before Kellie went to Nambucca Heads with her parents, he "got a phone off her". He would ask either Kellie or his son to activate his phones. He was asked: "Q. And why would you do that, why would you get them to activate a phone that you were going to use? A. Because I never activated it before; I just got [them] to do it for me. … Q. You accept that people involved in criminal activity like to use phones that are not in their own name; you agree? A. Yeah. Q. Did you get [Kellie] or your son to activate a phone in their name so you could give it to someone else to use for criminal activity? A. I don't know about that. It's just that I never activated them before, so I just needed someone to help me activate it. That'd be the only reason I'd do it. Q. You say you got this phone off [Kellie] shortly after she activated it? A. Yeah. Q. The phone was used to call Mr Dickie's number about six days after it was activated? A. Yeah. Q. You say you have no idea who would have used that phone to call Mr Dickie; is that your evidence? A. Probably [Kellie] but, yeah, other than that, yeah, I'm not sure. Q. Did you have any knowledge of [Kellie] knowing Mr Dickie? A. No, I didn't know. No … I don't have any knowledge of them knowing each other, but - Q. [Kellie] said that she gave the phone to you? A. Yeah. … Q. Who bought the phone? A. Who bought it? I'm not sure. I can't recall. Q. Could it have been you who bought it? A. Yeah, I could have bought it and sold it, yeah, but it's so long ago I don't really remember, yeah. I can't remember around that time. … Q. Did you sell phones that you had bought to other people? A. Yeah. Yeah. … Q. Do you have any recollection at all of this particular phone? A. No, I don't." 1. Mr Ryan said he kept the phone "For a bit. I would have kept it, but, yeah. I would have ‑ yeah, I haven't got it now, but I ‑ yeah". He said that at that time he and Kellie would go through phones quickly: "We used to get phones for each other, and yeah, buy one, and I'd get … a new one, and … I wouldn't worry about the old one. Yeah, I was going through them pretty quickly. … a lot of things can happen with phones, like, the screen can crack and that, you know? Sometimes it's easier just to buy a new phone." 1. Mr Ryan was asked if he phoned Mr Dickie in June 2016, and replied: "No. No, I didn't know him, so no". He said that he did not know who had used the phone that the police asked him about, that he had got from Kellie, to call Mr Dickie. "Peter" 1. Investigating police received information from a man named "Troy" to the effect that a person named Peter, in the company of two others, had killed Mr Dickie. Police also received information from Eva that she heard Peter express an intention to Tracey to kill Mr Dickie. Both sources gave evidence of hearsay statements which were the bases of the allegations. Neither allegation was corroborated and both were contradicted by Peter, who gave evidence, and in the case of Troy, by his alleged source and others. 2. Information obtained by police concerning Peter and his movements in the days leading up to and after Mr Dickie's disappearance were to the following effect. 3. For a period of about ten years, Peter was in a relationship with Raylene Fittler, who was the daughter of Enid Fittler, who, at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance, had been living at 101 Wattle Road, which was opposite Mr Dickie's property. Raylene Fittler had four children with a former partner, including "Alex", who was aged about 18 or 19 in 2016. It was unclear when the relationship with Peter had ended. Raylene's brother, Gordon Hockey, who was known as "Buddy", also lived at 101 Wattle Road with their mother. 4. On 12 March 2016, Peter was stopped for a random breath test in Dubbo. Tracey was in the vehicle with him. 5. Peter was using ice in mid-2016. On 10 June 2016, Peter and two other people broke into a supermarket in Dunedoo, which I note is about 90km northwest of Dubbo on the Golden Highway. 6. Police obtained extracts from the transaction record of Peter's Commonwealth Bank savings account for the period 1 to 29 June 2016, which were tendered in the defence case. According to those records, Peter's account was in debit from 1 June until 21 June 2016. Unsuccessful attempts were made to withdraw sums four times on 11 June, each in the sum of $300, five times on 12 June in amounts between $100 and $300, seven times on 13 June all in the sum of $300 (except for one in the sum of $200) and once on 14 June in the sum of $300, at 5.03pm. 7. On 21 June 2016, Peter's account was credited with a payment of $536.40 from Centrelink. On that date at 12.31am, he withdrew the sum of $300. Peter was pulled over shortly afterwards by police in Dubbo while driving his father's white Toyota utility and given a traffic infringement ticket. He told police he was intending to go to the bank. Diana was in the car with him. 8. On 28 June 2016, Peter was interviewed by DS Baker, DSC Magann and Detective Senior Constable Sue‑Ellen Scott in relation to the Dunedoo break and enter offence. DS Baker formed a view that Peter was under the influence of ice at the time of the interview. He was charged, convicted and received a sentence of imprisonment for that offence. 9. DSC Thorsteinsson and DSC Scott interviewed Peter at Wellington Correctional Centre in August 2016 in relation to the disappearance of Mr Dickie. 10. I note that I have not summarised the evidence of two witnesses which I regard to be of no relevance. One concerned her possessing a phone that was initially thought to have some relevance to Mr Dickie's disappearance but which was checked in the course of the trial, and found to have none. The other gave evidence of discussions she had heard that did not rise above gossip involving unidentified persons. "Troy" 1. Troy gave evidence that in 2016 he resided in Dubbo. In April 2016, when Troy was about 60 years old, he was introduced by a friend to Alex, who was then aged about 18 or 19. He said that Alex admitted to him that he was using prohibited drugs, including ice and heroin, and prescription drugs. For the first 12 months that he knew Alex: "he was doing lots of drugs. He wasn't eating, nor sleeping properly". Troy admitted that he also was using ice at that time. He said that Alex: "used to tell stories that he'd make up in his head, I think, that weren't real. And he'd do it all the time". 2. Troy said that in early 2017, Alex told him a story that he initially thought was "made up, another story". Alex told him he knew Mr Dickie: "He said Mr Dickie was a good friend. He used to give himself and his sister a lift into Dubbo, when the Dubbo Show was on, and he was very good to them, he said, and he would give them $20 each to go to the Dubbo Show, and he thought a lot of Mr Dickie. … He said that he was asked to drive a small gold Suzuki four‑wheel drive across a dirt track to where Mr Dickie lived from his grandparents, I suppose we'd call them. And he did that, and [Alex] said that two people that he knew went to the door, they told him to sit in the car, in the driver's seat. And that these two people knocked on Mr Dickie's door and the door was opened. One of the two people shot him and was stepped around into the doorway and shot him dead. And then they picked up the body and put it in the back of the Suzuki and took some other things from the house and loaded them in and took them to back across the road, the dirt track to his foster grandparents or yeah. And around the back of the house and he was told to go inside. And he thinks that Mr Dickie was buried there at the back of the house, that's what he thought. And the Suzuki was then taken to Nevertire, over the railway lines to a wrecking yard." 1. Troy said that Alex said that the two men who he was with at the time of the shooting were Peter, who Alex referred to as his stepfather, and "Black Bill". 2. Troy said that Alex: "… broke down and cried and said that he'd been getting followed out at Warren by someone that was involved, and he was frightened that they were going to try and kill him." 1. Troy said that Alex said that Mr Dickie was shot in the forehead and that there was a female present. In cross-examination, Troy added that Alex also mentioned that "the woman was Mr Dickie's disabled mother. And she was bedridden, and he used to look after her". 2. Troy said that he tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Alex to go to the police. "A month or two" after Alex's disclosure, Troy decided to inform the police, because he was frightened for Alex. Troy rang police on 10 April 2017 and gave information to DSC Thorsteinsson. 3. Troy said he had met Peter through Alex and saw him on multiple occasions; Troy would give Peter car parts. 4. Troy said that he discussed Alex's disclosure with a friend who also knew him, Graham Clarke, who said that Alex had told him the same story. Troy corrected his earlier version of the story, saying that Mr Clarke, not Alex, told him about "the Suzuki". 5. In May 2017, Troy again contacted police to inform them that Mr Clarke was also aware of Alex's claim. 6. In cross-examination, the record made of what Troy told police on 10 April 2017 was put to him: "… that they drove from the place across the road from Dickie's. They knocked on the front and something went down. They shot him, but [Troy] couldn't confirm that with [Alex]. They drove the body away and buried him somewhere close by." 1. Troy was asked if it was possible that Mr Dickie's body being buried across the road was something he might have spoken to someone about since 10 April 2017. He replied: "I may have". 2. In re-examination, Troy gave a different version of what Alex had told him: "Q. When the note says, 'couldn't confirm that with [Alex],' is that something that you thought that [Alex] was not being accurate? A. No. It's just [Alex] had not witnessed the shooting. … They told - he was told to stay in the car, and then he said he heard a gun go off, and then a thump in the back of the - something being dumped into the back of the car, the Suzuki." Graham Clarke 1. Graham Clarke gave evidence. He said he had known Troy for 25 years. He knew Raylene Fittler, Peter and Alex. His friendship with Peter ended about ten years ago. He had known Alex since he was a young child living with his mother and Peter. He said that when Alex was in his late teenage years, he was "a troubled kid … He used to come to home drunk a lot". Mr Clarke thought he was "taking drugs". Mr Clarke allowed Alex to live with him for 7 or 8 months. He was asked: "Q. Has [Alex] ever spoken to you about a person called Robert Dickie? A. He doesn't - he doesn't talk much about that, no, no. Q. You said, 'He doesn't talk much about that.' Has he ever spoken at all about that? A. Well, he denies of knowing anything about it. The only thing that he has mentioned is that his grandmother lived across the road from him, and that's the only reason why he knows Robert Dickie, apparently. Q. Did [Alex] ever tell you that he had any contact with Robert Dickie? A. No. … Q. Have you ever spoken to [Troy] about anything [Alex] has told you? A. No. Q. Have you ever spoken to [Troy] about anything that [Alex] has told you about Robert Dickie's disappearance? A. No." 1. Mr Clarke gave evidence that I will summarise about a car that he saw in a wrecking yard at Nevertire, perhaps four years ago, which he described as a "goldy‑silvery colour, gold‑colour" Nissan X-Trail. He said he was aware that Peter had such a car years before and suspected that it was the same vehicle, which he thought odd, because there did not appear to be anything wrong with the vehicle he saw in the wrecking yard. 2. He said that it "[c]ould be going back four years ago now" when he saw the car in the wrecking yard. He said that about 12 months previously, he asked Alex if it was Peter's car, but: "He basically blew me off. He didn't want to answer the question". Mr Clarke said: "I told [Troy] that I saw it out there, and I had suspicions that it was [Peter's]". Gordon Hockey 1. Gordon Hockey gave evidence. He said he was known as "Buddy". He said that Alex lived at 101 Wattle Road for eight years, but he could not recall when that was. Mr Hockey thought that, in 2016, Alex was living with his mother, Raylene, elsewhere. In cross-examination, Mr Hockey was asked if it was possible that Alex was living at 101 Wattle Road in June 2016. He said: "I don't think so. … I'm pretty sure he ‑ after Bob Dickie went missing, he wasn't there then. I think he was in town, he was in here [Dubbo] somewhere." 1. Mr Hockey denied knowing William Collis. Mr Hockey said he did not like Peter and "never spoke to him". He said that Peter had only visited 101 Wattle Road once. Mr Hockey was asked: "Q. You know nothing of [Peter] being at Wattle Road with [Alex] at about the time Mr Dickie went missing? A. Nope. Q. You sure about that? A. I'm positive, I didn't see him. Q. Didn't see who? A. The both of them, the ones you just said, [Alex] and that bloody [Peter]." William Collis 1. William Collis, who said he has a nickname of "Black Bill", gave evidence. He said that he knew of Peter, who was a cousin of a former partner of Mr Collis. However, Mr Collis did not know him personally and had never spoken to him. He said he did not know Mr Dickie and only heard that name for the first time the week before he gave evidence, from a police officer. He said he did not know Gordon Hockey, Raylene Fittler or Alex. He said he had never been to Wattle Road, Elong Elong. He had never had a firearm licence or held a gun. "Alex" 1. Alex gave evidence that he lived at 101 Wattle Road with his grandmother and two uncles, Buddy and "Runner", when he was in primary school. At that time, he knew the person who lived across the road was "Dickie". Alex said that he would see his uncle Buddy with Mr Dickie at the gate at the front of Mr Dickie's property, when Runner was driving him to the bus stop on the highway to go to school. 2. Alex said that in 2016 he was aged 19 and residing with his mother in Warren. He had been using ice since he was aged 15 and was still using it in 2016. 3. Alex denied that he knew anything about the disappearance of Mr Dickie. He said he had never been on Mr Dickie's property and did not go to 101 Wattle Road in 2016. He said he would stay with Troy from time to time after he left high school. He was asked: "Q. At any time have you spoken to [Troy] where the topic of the man, Dickie, has been mentioned? A. Yes. [Troy] would say to me that I - he was supposed to get rid of a car that was involved and something and drop it off at Nevertire and I told him, 'I don't know what you're talking about'." 1. He agreed that police spoke to him on 18 May 2017 and asked him whether he had had any conversations with Troy about Mr Dickie. He agreed that he told them, according to his statement: "I never spoke to [Troy] or anyone else about Dickie as I had no reason to. I didn't even know the bloke, so why would I speak to about him?" 1. Alex denied knowing William Collis or "Black Bill". He was asked: "Q. What you told [Troy] was that you had driven [Peter] and another person to Mr Dickie's property in June of 2016; didn't you? A. No, I never drive no one nowhere. This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Q. The police didn't tell you this or mention this to you when they took your statement in May 2017? A. No. Q. You told [Troy] that [Peter] came back to the car that you had driven at some stage with Mr Dickie's body; correct? A. No. This is the first time I'm hearing about this one as well. Q. The police never told you anything about [Troy] hearing that from you? A. No. Q. That you drove a car for [Peter] and another person to get rid of Mr Dickie's body? A. No. Q. You lied in your statement to the police about never having spoken to [Troy] about Mr Dickie because you didn't want to tell them the truth of what you told him. Correct? A. No." 1. Alex denied that he was scared of Peter. "Eva" 1. Eva gave evidence of an occasion about four weeks before Mr Dickie disappeared when she was by the Macquarie River in Dubbo. Mr Dickie "turned up and he asked me if I could help him get rid of some [marijuana] and I said no". 2. Later that same day, she was still next to the river, behind Woolworths. She said: "… my son was running around playing near the water, [Diana and Tracey and Peter] had turned up and they were talking to Bob Dickie." 1. Mr Dickie had parked outside Woolworths and Peter's vehicle was parked in the carpark under Woolworths. At that time, Peter was in a relationship with Raylene Fittler, who she regarded as a friend. They were living in Dubbo, around the corner from her residence. 2. While they were all there, Mr Dickie sold a fentanyl patch to Tracey for $50. Diana had given the money to Tracey to buy it for her. Diana "wasn't … near any of us. She just stood up the top". After Tracey bought the patch, she "ran the patch up to [Diana]". 3. Eva said that same night, she went fishing with Peter and Tracey by the Macquarie River in Dubbo. At one point, the three of them were in a car that was parked by the river's town beach. She was in the back seat and Tracey and Peter were in the front seat. She said that she recalled a conversation in the car between Tracey and Peter but did not recall when in 2016 it was. She said: "[Tracey and Peter] were talking about Bob Dickie, but I thought they were only joking, mucking around, not nothing serious. … they were virtually, yeah, talking about they wanted to get rid of him. Because they think he ‑ because he was ‑ to us ladies, he was a dirty old man. … And that's when I started to be a bit panicky because I can't understand how someone could take a life. But I didn't really get involved in that, you know? I just told them to stop talking silly." 1. Eva said that Peter "reckons he was going to go get all the money from there and drugs and whatever else". She was asked: "Q. Did [Peter] talk about having anyone help him? A. He said something about he had a good mate that helps him do things, but I've never even met that person. … Q. When [Peter and Tracey] were talking in the car, were they talking about something that had already happened or something that was being planned? A. I think it was all being planned, to be honest." 1. In cross-examination, Eva said that Tracey referred to Mr Dickie "having money on his property". She said: "… what I heard is [Peter] in his anger said, 'Well, I'll fix Mr Bob Dickie' but that could be taken in any ‑ I don't know ‑ any ‑ I can't say that word. But that could mean anything, you know, that's all I heard." 1. Eva said: "I told them they're both dickheads if they do anything". She was concerned about what she heard and told her family. She said that the next day she spoke to police. It was accepted that police interviewed her on 17 September 2016. In cross-examination, she was asked: "Q. How long before that interview was this day of three conversations? A. It would have been about a week, cause I spoke with my family and they told me to go to the police. … Q. Just to understand that, after the conversation in the car with [Peter and Tracey], you told us that you spoke to your family? A. Yep. Q. Was that the same night, or the next day, or was that A. No, that was a few days later. I actually thought about it and that - and I couldn't come to sense, so I rang my family and spoke to them. Q. How long after you spoke to your family did you speak to the police? A. The next day. Q. Was that the day that you made your statement? A. Yep." 1. Eva said she was using prohibited drugs in 2016. "Peter" 1. Peter gave evidence that he and Raylene Fittler were in a relationship for eight or nine years. He did not recall in what year the relationship ended. He would visit Raylene's mother at Elong Elong, but: "Not very often, because me and Raylene's mother didn't get along. So, I didn't go there very often at all". Later, he said: "And I didn't get along with Buddy at all … I'd be there maybe ten to 15 minutes at the max". 2. Peter said he knew Troy and Mr Clarke. He said he knew Diana and Tracey; he used them both for sexual services. 3. It was put to him that on 24 June 2016 at 4am, he was stopped in Dubbo in the white utility; he did not recall that. It was suggested that he was with a person who told police his name was Jeremy Barber. 4. Peter said that when he was interviewed on 28 June 2016 about the Dunedoo break and enter offence, he was also questioned about Mr Dickie's disappearance and was shown a photograph of him. He said he did not know Mr Dickie. 5. Peter said that in 2016, he was receiving Centrelink benefits which he would access through Automatic Teller Machines. He said he would withdraw money to buy drugs, which he was using at the time. He said that for $300 he could buy "half a gram". He said: "I cannot remember back then, I'm a drug user, I was, you know, I was heavy, heavy drug user and I don't have much memory of what's happened back then because I was on the drugs." 1. Peter was asked: "Q. There was an occasion in 2016 before Mr Dickie went missing that you spoke about him in a car down at the river with [Eva and Tracey]. A. No, I did not ever because I don't know the man. I've never met him. Q. You well knew in 2016 that [Tracey and Diana] used to go to Mr Dickie for money in return for sexual services, like you did. A. I don't know what them girls did. Really don't care. Like, I said, I picked them up, and whatever, and dropped them off. Q. You spoke in the car by the river with [Tracey and Eva] before Mr Dickie went missing about getting rid of him, didn't you? A. That is absolute nonsense, lies. Q. You knew that he had money and drugs and valuable things at his property. A. I've never met the man. I've never been to his place. I've never seen him. I do not know him. Q. You thought, based on what you'd been told, that he treated those women badly. A. I don't know. I've never met him. I don't know him. Q. You spoke in that conversation about getting help to go and get rid of Mr Dickie, didn't you? A. No. There was no conversation in no car at any time about this, what you're saying." 1. Peter said he knew Ben Ryan in 2016. He said he could not recall if he obtained a phone from Mr Ryan in June 2016. Subsequent police investigations 1. Detective Tighe said that when Peter was questioned on 28 June 2016 about the Dunedoo break-in, the Toyota utility he was driving in June 2016 was searched by a crime scene officer and was subjected to a forensic examination, which included the use of forensic lights. Detective Tighe agreed that the vehicle was in an "extremely dirty" condition, suggesting that it had not recently been cleaned. No blood was detected and tape lift samples were taken from various parts of the vehicle. DNA testing did not return results for persons other than Peter. Blood discovered on Mr Dickie's iPad 1. Mr Dickie's iPad was seized by DSC Magann on the afternoon of Friday 17 June 2016 from the dining room table. In photographs taken by DSC Magann of the iPad in situ, it is alongside a bowl with a spoon in it, which appears to have been used and unwashed. 2. On 11 August 2016, DS Tighe noticed the possible presence of blood on the iPad and had it forensically examined. Sergeant Neal Pearse, a crime scene investigator, gave evidence that records indicate that the iPad was examined on 18 August 2016 by Senior Constable Daniel Cheeseman, who at the time of the trial was on long-term sick leave. There was no objection to Mr Pearse giving evidence of SC Cheeseman's notes made during his examination of the iPad, which were to the effect that by the administration of certain tests to four droplets on the front of the iPad he determined that they were human blood stains. He took a swab for further testing. 3. SC Cheeseman's notes, diagrams and photographs that he took of the iPad were tendered. The photographs of the droplets of blood on the screen are of poor quality. Aided by a diagram of the droplets, I conclude that there are two larger droplets, each of an elongated irregular shape that at their longest points are both approximately 2mm in length. A third droplet is indicated in the diagram, which is miniscule. The three droplets are roughly in a curved line, within a space of 2cm. Forensic examination by Snr Sgt Scott Gane 1. Senior Sergeant Scott Gane was attached to the forensic evidence and technical services command crime scene services branch of the NSW Police Force. He examined Mr Dickie's property on 4 August 2017. It was not necessarily in the condition it was at the time of SC Redden's examination on 19 June 2016, since family members and others had visited it and some family had stayed there. 2. Snr Sgt Gane was an experienced forensic examiner, having been attached to the crime services branch since 2002. He gave evidence that his duties and training in that section included the examination, recording and interpretation of crime scenes and the collection, preservation and examination of physical evidence from such scenes. 3. As he examined the property, he took photographs of aspects he considered to be relevant. In all, 211 of these photographs were tendered. He gave his evidence in chief by reading a statement he had signed on 13 September 2018. Snr Sgt Gane's observations on the verandah 1. Snr Sgt Gane said that on the rim of the base of a metal bucket that he saw on the verandah near the back door, he observed "light coloured fibres", which he seized. Snr Sgt Gane's observations in the laundry 1. In the laundry, Snr Sgt Gane observed: "On top of the sink, near to the southern wall, were two nailbrushes. One nailbrush had a red plastic handle. I could see light coloured fibres caught in the bristles of this nailbrush. The other nailbrush had a clear plastic handle. I could see light coloured fibres caught in the bristles of this brush. Hanging on a tap fixed to the southern wall, above the washing machine, was a yellow coloured cloth, which was dry. In the cupboard beneath the sink were numerous cleaning products, including glass cleaner, Easy off Oven Cleaner, Earth Choice floor and surface cleaner, Tub & Tile cleaner, Ajax baking soda floor cleaner, Ajax Spray and Wipe, NF contact cleaner, Domestos bleach. I noted that the Domestos bottle felt empty, Sard Wonder Soap, VDU 99 screen cleaner, furniture polish, dishwashing liquid, Drano, methylated spirits and an unidentified ump pack." 1. He seized the two nail brushes and the Domestos bottle. He was shown SC Redden's laundry tub photograph and said the two nail brushes, if they were the two brushes that he saw, were in different positions. He did not see the "khaki-coloured fabric", which I presume to be the brown hand towel that is visible in SC Redden's laundry tub photograph. Snr Sgt Gane's examination of some of the contents of the sheds 1. Snr Sgt Gane returned to the property on 8 August 2017 and conducted a visual and forensic light source examination of the machinery and tool sheds, with nothing of significance noted. He examined two wheelbarrows and took tape lifts of the handles for DNA analysis. Nothing of significance was noted on either of these wheelbarrows. Mr Dickie's ATV was brought to the property from another location and examined, with no blood being detected. 2. On 9 August 2017, Snr Sgt Gane and others excavated an area of ground to the south of the sheds, in the vicinity of the shipping container, near a large eucalyptus tree, to a depth of 40cm. The area excavated was 1.9m by 4.9m. Nothing of significance was found. 3. On 6 September 2017, Snr Sgt Gane examined the Mahindra, which had been in the possession of the Dickie family and used by them. He took swabs and tape lifts from the steering wheel, gear lever and the driver's seat. The rear tray was tested for the possible presence of blood with luminol reagent, with a negative result. Forensic test results of items of interest 1. Various items and tape lifts from surfaces were sent to the Forensic and Analytical Science Service (FASS) for a forensic examination. 2. On 11 August 2016, a chainsaw and cushion on the back verandah were seized. A tape lift of the handle and trigger area of the chainsaw and a presumptive test for blood on the cushion was negative. Parts of the chainsaw were dismantled and subjected to a forensic light examination for blood, which was negative. A test of tape lifts taken of the chainsaw handle and trigger for DNA was unsuccessful. Tape lifts of the handles of the wheelbarrows and the steering wheel of the ATV were tested for DNA, which was unsuccessful. The DNA recovered by a swab from the steering wheel of the Mahindra was from an unknown male, from the gear lever was a mixture from at least three individuals and from the driver's seat was from at least four individuals. Mr Dickie's wallet 1. A tape lift from the underside of a retention clip for the wallet and from the top of the note section inside the wallet disclosed DNA that originated from at least two individuals. Mr Dickie could not be excluded. Tests of tape lifts from other parts of the wallet were unsuccessful. The bullets 1. Snr Sgt Gane examined the six bullets and magazine that were seized during the walkthrough on 21 June 2016. The bullets were of two types, three having lead projectiles and the others having copper-jacketed projectiles. No fingerprints were developed on the magazine. A mixed DNA profile was recovered from the bullets, which was not suitable for comparison. Mr Dickie did not hold a firearms licence in 2016. Items seized from the accused 1. Snr Sgt Gane examined a ring and watch that were seized from the accused on 17 June 2016 and tested them for the presence of blood. A negative result was obtained. Swabs for trace DNA of the inside of the ring and inner surface of the watchband were analysed. DNA recovered from the inside of the ring had the same profile as Mr Dickie. I note that the Crown accepts that there is no evidence that Mr Dickie owned the ring and that his DNA on it was likely consequent to it being transferred there by the accused having Mr Dickie's DNA on her hand and then touching the ring. A mixed DNA was recovered from the watch band that was not suitable for comparison. Part 7: Blood stains in the main bedroom Snr Sgt Gane's general observations in the main bedroom 1. During his examination on 4 August 2017, Snr Sgt Gane described the main bedroom thus: "The bedroom, which I have identified as bedroom 1, was in the south eastern corner of the residence. The room was furnished with a metal, tubular framed double bed, the mattress of which was covered with a blue quilt, with a single pillow at the head of the bed. There were no sheets or blankets on the mattress. At either side of the bed was a timber bedside table with drawers. In both the south eastern and south western corners of the room, was a large vase containing floral arrangements. In the north eastern corner was a full length mirror and a pedestal fan. In the north western corner was a hatstand on which there was hung items of men's clothing, including a blue V8 Supercars T-shirt, a blue jacket, black nylon rain jacket, brown corduroy jacket and a blue denim shirt. On the floor at the base of the hatstand were two pairs of boots, one with a pair of socks in them. Hanging on the back of the door into the room, was a pair of denim jeans and five belts. The window in the eastern wall had vertical blinds hung on the inside. The floor was covered with light brown coloured carpet. In the south‑western corner of the room was a walk‑in wardrobe containing men's clothing. The walk‑in wardrobe led to an ensuite, consisting of a shower, vanity and toilet. I found nothing in the wardrobe or ensuite of significance to this investigation." 1. Snr Sgt Gane photographed the boots. I note that they are of the cowboy style that, according to the evidence, was favoured by Mr Dickie. Three leather belts are seen on the floor alongside the boots. Observations by Snr Sgt Gane of blood in the main bedroom 1. On the same date Snr Sgt Gane examined the main bedroom with a forensic light source, which he described as follows: "… a forensic light source and in particular the light source that we used is a number of different torches. Each of them operates with a different wavelength. So, there's ultraviolet, blue, green, violet and white light. They're used as screening tools with the understanding that different substances or different items reflect or absorb different wavelengths. So, it's a tool that we use to identify both biological evidence and trace physical evidence." 1. He noted that there were areas of a light-coloured staining to the carpet which, he said, had the appearance of bleaching of the carpet fibres. He continued: "The staining formed two large areas at the eastern side of the bed, which partially extended to underneath at the foot of the bed. Between the foot of the bed and the eastern wall was a separate area of similar light staining which was circular in shape and approximately 30 centimetres in diameter. Along the northern side of the room and near the hatstand were smaller areas of similar light-coloured staining." 1. A presumptive test for blood on the stained carpet in front of the bedside table at the eastern side of the bed was positive to the possible presence of blood, but a confirmatory test for the presence of human blood was negative. He continued: "Upon moving the bedside table at the eastern side of the bed, I saw that there was an area of carpet beneath the table that had been protected from the action that caused the light-coloured staining. During my examination, the carpet was cut down the centre of the room from north to south and the underside of the carpet examined. There was foam underlay beneath the carpet. I saw two distinct dark red areas of staining on the underside of the carpet. These red stains correspond with the areas of light-coloured staining that had the appearance of bleaching on the other side of the carpet. The area near the head of the bed formed a red stain of approximately 60 centimetres in length. The area towards the foot of the bed formed a red stain of approximately 10 centimetres in diameter. Both red stains had greyish staining around the perimeter. … The stain near the head of the bed had soaked through the foam underlay to form a stain on the timber beneath. … ". 1. Snr Sgt Gane performed tests on both areas of staining of the underneath of the carpet. They were positive for the presence of human blood. He said that the stain that he observed on the floor under the underlay was roughly circular in shape and approximately 3cm in diameter. He considered that perhaps the stain was the result of a perforation in the coating of the underlay, if it was non-porous. 2. In evidence, Snr Sgt Gane noted that there is a third dark stain on the underneath of the carpet, significantly smaller than the two areas previously mentioned, that also correspond to an apparently bleached area on the topside of the carpet. This stain is approximately circular in shape and about 2cm in diameter. 3. Snr Sgt Gane took samples of the lighter-coloured and stained carpet, and samples of unstained carpet as well, for later analysis. He continued: "… on the eastern edge of the mattress, I saw red coloured staining. This stain was 55 centimetres from the head of the bed. … on the eastern edge of the metal bed frame towards the head of the bed was an area of dark-coloured staining. This staining was on the upper surface of the frame on which timber slats were resting. … supporting the mattress on the bed were timber slats laid horizontally from one side of the bed to the other. The slats were connected by canvas straps. On the first slat at the head of the bed on the eastern side was dark coloured staining on the side of the slat. … I saw bloodstains on the tubular steel that made up the decorative foot of the bed along with bloodstains on the underside of the eastern rail and bedpost. Adhering to the underside of this rail in the same location as bloodstains was a hair. … on the floor underneath the bedside table at the eastern side of the bed was a black-coloured elastic hairband." 1. Snr Sgt Gane performed tests on the staining on the mattress, the bed frame and the slat, which were positive for the presence of human blood. He said that the staining on the mattress was confined to the beading on the surface that was immediately above the slats and, having regard to a photograph he took of the staining with a ruler in the image, it was within a space of 3cm. From the photographs, it appeared to be a drop of blood and a slight smudge of blood. The position of the stain that he observed on the bed frame near the bed head was in the vicinity of where the slat which had a stain was resting. 2. The stains on the bed frame towards the foot of the bed were exclusively on the underside. Snr Sgt Gane did not see stains on the side of the bed frame or the slats that were in that vicinity. He said that, in his opinion, the bloodstains on the underside of the bed were transferred from a bloodstained object being in contact with those surfaces. On a later examination of the mattress, he located an area of dark staining, less than 5mm in diameter, on the foot of the mattress, which returned a positive result for the possible presence of blood. The stain corresponded with the location of the bloodstains located on the underside of the bed frame at the foot of the bed. 3. He continued: "On the eastern wall of the bedroom, I located three areas of bloodstaining which I identified with labels 1, 2 and 7. The stains at labels 1 and 7 were somewhat concealed behind the pedestal fan and mirror in the northeastern corner of the room. There were not less that five visible stains at label 1 that were elliptical shaped spatter stains. Label 1 was located 3.76 metres from the southern wall and 0.62 metres up from the floor. There were not less than three visible stains at label 7 that were elliptical shaped spatter stains. Label 7 was located 3.39 metres from the southern wall and 0.30 metres up from the floor. The stains at label 2 were circular in shape and less than 2 millimetres in diameter. Label 2 was located 0.85 metres from the southern wall and 0.85 metres up from the floor. On the southern wall behind the bedhead, I located two areas of bloodstaining which I identified as labels 3 and 4. … There were not less than six elliptical shaped spatter stains in the vicinity of labels 3 and 4. These stains ranged in sized between 2 and 4 millimetres. Label 3 was located 2.05 metres from the western wall and 0.51 metres up from the floor. Label 4 was located 2.21 metres from the western wall and 0.62 metres up from the floor. During the forensic light source examination, it was noted that there was what appeared to be white marks on the wall in the vicinity of labels 3 and 4. On the northern wall, I located two areas of bloodstaining which I identified with labels 5 and 6. … There was one elliptical shaped spatter stain approximate 2 millimetres in length at label 5. Label 5 was located 0.76 metres from the eastern wall and 0.44 metres up from the floor. There was one circular shaped stain no more than 11 millimetre in diameter at label 6." 1. Snr Sgt Gane performed tests on the staining in all labelled areas on the three walls; all returned positive results for the presence of human blood. As to the "white marks" on the southern wall in the vicinity of labels 3 and 4, he said: "… there was an alteration to the appearance of that portion of the wall, which may be indicative of the application of something else such as a chemical, such as a bleaching agent or a cleaning agent. But I ‑ you can't form a conclusion about what that was. … There are a number of scenarios that may have occurred in relation to a wipe and a deposit of blood. If the wipe was not using some cleaning product that was effective and was applied some time after the deposition of the blood, so the blood has already had time to dry, there is the chance that the blood remained on the wall after that wiping action. But there is also the possibility that the wiping of the wall occurred some other time, I don't know when the wiping of the wall occurred. There was clearly a wipe mark. It may have occurred at some previous time and then the blood was deposited over the top of it." 1. Snr Sgt Gane performed a presumptive test for blood on the flooring in the foyer, lounge room and dining room, using Luminol reagent, which produced a negative result. 2. The section of carpet with the areas that are consistent in appearance with having been bleached and the underside blood stains was tendered, as were Snr Sgt Gane's comprehensive photographs of the staining on the underside of the carpet, the three walls, the bed frame, the slat and the mattress. By comparison with a DNA profile developed from samples taken from toothbrushes that were seized from the ensuite of the main bedroom, that were accepted to be Mr Dickie's, the blood that was deposited in the main bedroom was confirmed to be that of Mr Dickie. Forensic tests of items, swabs and tape lifts concerning the blood stains and cleaning products The carpet 1. A report by Dr Joanna Bunford, who is a senior forensic chemist of FASS, was tendered. Dr Bunford stated that she examined and compared the samples of carpet from the main bedroom and, in relation to the sample of lighter-coloured carpet, concluded: "The questioned piece of carpet was found to contain particles, having a similar appearance and composition to particles found in some laundry powders. In addition, chloride and ammonium methylamine ions, which can be found in bleaching products, were indicated in the results of analysis. Further, the pH of areas of the questioned piece of carpet, showed a similar pH to areas of test pieces of carpet onto which a paste of laundry powder samples and liquid bleach, was applied. Given the above, it is my opinion that the questioned carpet sample, contains particles like those found in some laundry powders, and residues of other chemicals that could have originated from bleaching products." Hairs from the bed in the main bedroom 1. A light hair adhering to the eastern bed rail at the foot of the bed did not appear to be of human origin. A dark hair in the same location was not suitable for DNA testing. Hairs adhering to blood on the bedframe at the foot of the bed were unsuitable for DNA testing. Other household cleaning items 1. A presumptive test for the presence of blood was negative for the yellow cloth that was located in the laundry and two sets of Ansell gloves that were seized from the kitchen. No fingerprints could be developed on the Domestos bottle. Testing of a tape lift from the lid of the Domestos bottle for DNA analysis was unsuccessful. Tape lifts from the gloves had the same profile as Mr Dickie. Fingerprints taken from the wall and doorframe of the main bedroom 1. The accused was excluded from fingerprints that were developed by Snr Sgt Gane from locations on the northern wall and doorframe of the main bedroom. The nailbrushes 1. Snr Sgt Gane seized the nailbrushes from the laundry on 19 June 2016. He applied a preliminary test for the presence of blood, which was negative. He forwarded them to FASS for a forensic examination after taking photographs of them in which "knotted light-coloured fibres" can be seen caught amongst the bristles of both nailbrushes. 2. A statement by Tony Peter, a supervising chemist in FASS, was tendered. Mr Peter considered whether, amongst other propositions, the fibres that were recovered from the underside of the metal mop bucket located on the verandah of Mr Dickie's property came from the bedroom carpet and whether the nailbrushes found in the laundry had had "significant contact" with the bedroom carpet. He concluded that the fibres from the mop bucket did not come from the carpet and that the fibres recovered from the red nailbrush were similar to fibres from carpet samples taken from the main bedroom. He concluded: "The findings provide very strong support for the proposition that the red nailbrush has had significant contact with the bedroom carpet". The evidence as to when the blood was deposited under the carpet 1. In the photographs taken by Snr Sgt Gane of the bedroom floor before the furniture was moved and the carpet uplifted, patches of lighter colour can be seen, that corresponded to the areas of blood staining underneath. A comparison of those photographs with those taken of the main bedroom by SC Redden on 19 June 2016 reveals that the same lighter colour areas were captured in those photographs. 2. As noted, DSC Thorsteinsson gave evidence that when he and Detective Senior Constable Joshua Higgs attended Mr Dickie's property on 24 April 2012 in the course of investigating the complaint made by Bronwyn, they took photographs of the interior of his house, including the main bedroom. Three of the photographs of Mr Dickie's bedroom include the floor area which was later found to have lighter-coloured areas. In those three photographs, there is no discolouration of the carpet, which suggests that the event that caused the discolouration occurred after that date. Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the blood-shedding event that caused the blood stains under the carpet occurred between 24 April 2012 and 19 June 2016. Expert evidence as to the blood stains in the main bedroom 1. As to the interpretation of the blood stains, the Crown relied upon expert evidence from Snr Sgt Gane and Dr Allan Cala, who has practiced as a forensic pathologist since 1994. 2. The defence called Dr Mark Reynolds, who is a consultant crime scene examiner. As noted in the interlocutory judgment concerning expert evidence as to blood volume, his qualifications are as follows: "… he served in the Western Australian Police Force (WAP) for 30 years until 2017, holding the position of Forensic Science Consultant and Manager, Quality Assurance, between 2009 and 2017. His forensic fieldwork experience includes the forensic investigation of more than 450 cases of homicide, fatal shootings involving police officers and other deaths under suspicious circumstances. Dr Reynolds' academic qualifications include a Bachelor of Applied Science (Biology) from Curtin University of Technology in 1987, a Diploma of Policing from the West Coast College of TAFE in 1998, a Diploma of Forensic Investigation: Crime Scene Investigation from Canberra Institute of Technology in 2004 and a Master of Science (Forensic Science) (MSFS) and a Doctor of Philosophy, both awarded in 2008 by the University of Western Australia (UWA). The research topic for his PhD concerned an aspect of blood pattern analysis. Between 2011 and 2017, he was an adjunct Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor at the UWA and Murdoch University respectively, teaching post graduate science programs and supervising post graduate students undertaking forensic research at Honours, MSFS and PhD levels. During this time, he also performed MSFS and PhD thesis assessments and grading for several Australian and New Zealand universities." 1. The defence also called a forensic pathologist, Professor Johan Duflou, who commenced practice in the speciality of forensic pathology in 1983 and has been registered as a fulltime specialist forensic pathologist since 1988. 2. The two expert witnesses called by the defence gave their evidence during the Crown case, consequent to difficulties in them being present or available by audio video link (AVL) at a later date. Each expert gave expert evidence of their opinions in the trial proper. Dr Cala, Dr Reynolds and Professor Duflou were provided with Snr Sgt Gane's photographs of the main bedroom and his report. Dr Reynolds also observed the carpet in person. 3. There was a degree of agreement between the four experts on some matters, which I summarise. 4. Blood can make its way onto a surface in various ways. Dr Reynolds conveniently identified four methods in his report: "Impact spatter: As its name suggests, impact spatter will often result when an external force (an impact) is applied to a source of liquid blood. In a general sense, for an impact spatter pattern to be generated two (2) applications of blunt force are required. Firstly, an application of force to create a bleeding injury. Secondly, another application of force to the liquid blood from said bleeding injury which then distributes the blood through the air in droplet form. Cast-off Spatter can be generated when the movement dynamics of a bloodstained object results in the generation and release of blood droplets from that object during its movement. … Expirated spatter results when blood is distributed through the air in droplet form with air as the propelling force. For example, a person may have a bleeding nose and they then sneeze. The propellant force of air will cause droplets of blood to be ejected from the nose. Arterial (Projected) spatter results when there is a breach to the arterial system with blood ejected from the artery(s) in droplet form due to the internal blood pressure associated with the arterial system. Arterial patterns often incorporate bloodstains caused by larger volume drops with associated flows that, as per cast-off, may present in a linear or curvy linear fashion." 1. All four experts were of the view that the blood observed on the three main bedroom walls could have been deposited by way of blood droplets being "cast-off" a moving surface. Professor Duflou elaborated: "This type of blood spatter is often seen following blunt force injuries to a body where a weapon is used multiple times to inflict injuries such as lacerations." 1. In his evidence, Dr Cala also referred to how cast-off spatter can be a consequence of the use of a weapon: "Cast-off is a forensic term used to describe droplets of blood which strike objects such as items of furniture or walls if they are in a dwelling … which has been flung off another object such as a weapon …" 1. Dr Reynolds and Professor Duflou thought the wall spatter could also have been deposited by an impact event. Snr Sgt Gane and Dr Cala were not asked for an opinion as to that possible explanation. All four experts excluded an expirated event and Snr Sgt Gane expressly excluded arterial spatter. 2. In relation to their interpretation of the staining of the underside of the carpet, all four witnesses referred to a phenomenon known as "serum separation", which was explained by Dr Cala thus: "When blood is shed onto a surface and stays on that surface for a period of time, there can be serum, which is a yellow fluid within … circulating blood, that can be seen around the edge of blood, where the darker area of staining from red blood cells is more towards the central part of the stain, and so it looks like that there is a central core or central area of dark bloodstaining, because of red blood cells, but with surrounding lighter staining because of serum, and that is because the red cells retract away from the serum and separate out from that." 1. He added, in cross-examination: "… it leaves what is like a tide mark of the outer part of the stain is where the serum is left and the red cells have retracted towards the centre. They become slightly congealed and coagulate and pull away from the serum, so it leaves a difference in the staining over time." 1. Snr Sgt Gane was of the opinion that the blood located in various locations in the main bedroom was deposited in the one event. The other three expert witnesses presumed that was so, for the purposes of their analyses. All four witnesses were of the opinion that the dark areas of staining on the underside of the carpet were dried blood. There were varying opinions as to the nature of the lighter staining. 2. In relation to other opinions of the four expert witnesses, I note the following. Snr Sgt Gane 1. The stains on the underside of the carpet (the carpet stains) included areas that were dark. The two larger carpet stains included areas that surrounded the dark patches that were different shades of noticeably lighter staining. Snr Sgt Gane was asked if he has an opinion as to why there were variations in the shades of noticeably lighter staining in the area of the two larger carpet stains, and replied: "It could be due to a number of factors. By the time we pulled this carpet up, we'd already established that there was likely some sort of cleaning liquid applied to the carpet, so this may just have been a produce of whatever other liquid was applied or is a result of components of blood other than the red blood cells." 1. Snr Sgt Gane said that it was not possible to determine the direction from where the spots on the wall came from, because the drops had an elliptical shape, suggesting a downwards trajectory: "It appeared to me that the stains had a downward trajectory, which removes the ability of a bloodstain pattern expert to calculate trajectory of those stains, to try and accurately work out an origin." 1. In relation to the blood stains generally that he examined in the main bedroom and related exhibits, Snr Sgt Gane said: "I formed the opinion that a significant bloodshed event occurred in bedroom 1 of that residence. Specifically, I formed the opinion that this blood shed event occurred at the eastern side of the double bed." 1. Snr Sgt Gane said his opinion was supported by three factors. The first was that blood stains to the carpet at the eastern side of the bed had sufficient volume that in at least three places it had soaked through to the underside of the carpet. In one of these locations, closer towards the head of the bed, the blood had soaked through both the carpet and underlay to leave a stain on the floor beneath. Secondly, bloodstaining to the bed was on the eastern and southern side of both the frame and mattress and, thirdly, bloodstaining to the walls was located only on the southern, northern and eastern walls. 2. He was of the view that an attempt had been made to clean the carpet and that the nail brushes had been used in that endeavour, since they had fibres in the bristles that had the appearance of carpet fibres. 3. In cross-examination, Snr Sgt Gane agreed with the proposition that, depending on whether a carpet has had anti-stain treatment and on its wicking properties and fibre composition, blood applied to the carpet may flow straight through and cause a stain to the underside that is larger than would otherwise be expected. Dr Allan Cala 1. As to the cause of the lighter areas of staining, Dr Cala said they were possibly caused by serum separation. Another possible explanation is that they were caused by fluids added to the carpet as part of the cleaning process, which may "change the nature of any staining" by dilution of the blood. 2. In cross-examination, he agreed that variations in the colour of the lighter areas could be explained by more than one type of liquid, other than blood, being applied to the area, such as "water applied once and then water and detergent or water and bleach applied a second time". 3. As to the possibility of the blood located in the main bedroom being from a nosebleed or a bleeding gastric ulcer, Dr Cala said: "They may be explanations for quantities of blood on the carpet. But blood was found elsewhere, and in particular on the walls in a variety of locations. And my view is that a nosebleed, even a large nosebleed, does not explain particularly the blood droplets on walls. And further, a bleeding gastric ulcer might explain blood on the carpet if somebody vomits blood. But again, it doesn't explain the blood on those walls or in fact elsewhere about the room." 1. In cross-examination he elaborated that if a person with a nosebleed got blood on their fingers, then hypothetically it could have been flicked onto the walls, but in that circumstance he would expect "a different pattern of blood‑staining of the wall". Dr Cala considered that the blood spatter on the walls could not be explained by sneezing. Dr Mark Reynolds 1. In his report, Dr Reynolds queried Snr Sgt Gane's opinion that the blood-shedding event was "significant". He said: "The materials supplied to this author do not explain/describe what [Snr Sgt Gane] specifically means when he uses the term 'significant'. Is it the volume of blood seen, the distribution of the blood seen, the believed final result: ergo the postulated death of [Mr Dickie] from blood loss, or combinations of some or all. It appears that [Snr Sgt Gane] has used, in part, the size of the bloodstaining and its depth of penetration as criteria to support his use of the term 'significant'. The materials supplied to this author contain no information on whether and/or how [Snr Sgt Gane] considered/incorporated the altered nature of the bloodstains in his determination of 'significant'. Intuitively, the 'brushing' of the stain would likely have a horizontal and vertical physical force component potentially enlarging the visible surface area of the bloodstaining (horizontal force application) and forcing the blood deeper into the carpet fibres (vertical force application). The addition of a second fluid would have a dilution effect on the blood‑staining, also potentially enlarging the visible surface area of the blood‑staining (when viewed from the carpet underside) and changing the wicking behaviour of the now combined/unknown fluid mixture." 1. Dr Reynolds said there was "sparse" research on the penetration and wicking properties of blood in carpet, but he located two studies as to how variations in carpet may affect the penetration and wicking properties of blood. One such study is titled Impact of Carpet Construction on Fluid Penetration: The Case of Blood by Chengcheng C. Feng, 2016, Master of Science (Textile Manufacturing) Degree, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC (Feng (2016)). That study demonstrated that: "… carpet fibre composition, yarn twist, carpet weight, pile height, fluid contact angles with carpet fibres, blood volume and even the cross-sectional shape of carpet fibres can influence the flow and wicking properties of blood such that standardised volumes of blood deposited on six (6) different carpets produced six (6) sets of differing results." 1. Dr Reynolds noted that Feng's study followed on from an earlier report titled Considering the Target Surface in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: An Unusual Case of Blood Pooling by T W Adair and A C Gallardo, (1999) J. Forens. Ident 49(5): "In following the work of Adair and Gallardo, which found that carpets possess physical characteristics that influence the flow patterns, Feng (2016) found 'Blood may immediately flow into carpet, staining the underside of carpet and the stain would be larger than expected, even with a small-size blood pool unless the carpet has a fluorochemical anti-stain treatment'." 1. In evidence, Dr Reynolds elaborated on the findings of both studies: "Essentially, what both of those studies found was the staining that you see underneath carpet quite often is not representative of the size of the staining you see on the upper surface of the carpet. They show that as blood travels through the fibres and it then comes into contact with the backing of the carpet, that it tends to travel laterally and, as such, the stain you might see underneath the carpet when you raise it, appears much larger than the stain you see on the upper surface. What the Adair and Gallardo paper showed was there's numbers of reasons for this, variables involved, such as the age of the carpet, the wear, its composition, meaning is it a natural carpet or a synthetic carpet, and also how it's constructed. And so what those papers say is that, again, if you're looking at size of staining in carpet, you have to be careful in trying to then attribute that to what the stain may have looked like on the upper‑surface of the carpet." 1. In cross-examination, Dr Reynolds did not accept that the lighter stains were necessarily made, even in part, by blood serum separation as part of the coagulation process. He said: "… the research I'm familiar with is confined to blood deposited on smooth, non-porous, flat surfaces, such as a tiled floor in the kitchen or a linoleum floor in a dining room. My literature searches have not found any studies that speak to serum separation within fabrics." 1. In relation to Dr Cala's evidence that he would expect a different pattern to the blood spatter on the walls if it had been transferred from fingers, Dr Reynolds said that the blood spatter did not allow him to determine the type of object from which the blood had come. As I understood his evidence, in his view one could not eliminate the proposition that the blood spatter could have been the result of blood flicked from fingers. 2. In his report, Dr Reynolds calculated that a person weighing 75kg who has a normal level of fitness and cardio-vascular health could lose between 675ml and 900ml of blood with their vital signs such as the heart rate and blood pressure remaining within normal limits and, unless a co-existing medical condition existed, medical intervention such as fluid volume resuscitation would not be required. Professor Johan Duflou 1. Professor Johan Duflou's report, dated 1 June 2023, was tendered. It had redactions that were made pursuant to the interlocutory judgment concerning the admissibility of expert evidence as to the volume of blood that caused the blood staining viewed in the main bedroom. 2. Professor Duflou noted in his report that Dr Cala had stated, in the course of evidence he gave at the committal hearing of the accused: "Donation of around 500 mL of blood results in no physical consequences except for the person feeling lightheaded and from which they recover after being given some food and drink." 1. Professor Duflou agreed with Dr Cala that for exsanguination to occur, a rapid loss of blood exceeding 40 per cent of total blood volume is generally required. Assuming that Mr Dickie weighed about 75kg, then based on an estimated 75 millilitres of blood per kilogram of weight, Mr Dickie would have had to rapidly lose in excess of 2L of blood volume for exsanguination to occur. Whether Mr Dickie had reported to others an injury or illness consistent with blood loss 1. The discovery of the blood stains in the main bedroom gave rise to a question of whether what was known of Mr Dickie's health could provide an explanation for him having lost sufficient blood to cause the stains, particularly those found under the carpet. 2. There was no suggestion in the evidence that Mr Dickie had a serious health issue at the time of his disappearance. In the CCTV images of him at Dubbo airport and in Dubbo shopping centre on 10 June 2016, he is seen to be walking without any apparent discomfort or difficulty. 3. Ellen Dickie gave evidence that in about 1994, Mr Dickie was shot by escapees from a juvenile detention facility. Ms Carter gave evidence that Mr Dickie was "very pedantic about his health in terms of being injured or anything because of when he was shot, so he was very careful about what he did and where he went". Ellen Dickie stated that he used to smoke tobacco and gave up while they were together. 4. According to Ms O'Reilly, in about 2007-2008, Mr Dickie was diagnosed with Q fever or Q virus, which was a condition contracted from livestock. He was hospitalised for that condition. Damien said his father was in "pretty good health for an old fella" and that he had never reported having a cut or bleeding in his bedroom. Darren said his father did not mention any health issues "in the months before his disappearance". 5. Ms Lovejoy said that when she last saw Mr Dickie, in December 2015, he appeared to be "very fit". 6. Diana said that Mr Dickie did not tell her of any health problem that he had. 7. Aaron O'Leary said that Mr Dickie appeared to be very healthy and had never mentioned cutting himself or having a bleeding injury. Mr Dickie's alcohol consumption 1. An issue that arose in the context of Mr Dickie's health was the extent to which he consumed alcohol. 2. Many witnesses gave evidence of Mr Dickie's regular consumption of spirits. Aaron O'Leary said: "Nearly every afternoon on my way home from work, he'd sit on the back little step facing out towards Wattle Road, with his drinks." 1. Ellen Dickie stated that Mr Dickie used to drink bourbon "each week". She stated: "I never really saw him completely intoxicated and he would drink each week, but I could not say that he was drunk at all". 2. Ms Lovejoy, Damien and Darren all said that Mr Dickie would have a drink of bourbon each day at 4pm or 5pm. Mr Dickie's medical records 1. Dr Cala and Professor Duflou were provided with medical records from the Western Plains Medical Centre at Dubbo, the Dubbo Base Hospital and Mudgee Hospital pertaining to Mr Dickie, which were tendered. The records referred to various medical consultations and hospital visits. 2. Dr Cala did not find any condition or illness within the records that was consistent with any form of blood‑letting injury or illness relating to a blood‑shedding event. Dr Cala noted records of raised liver function tests from a likely excessive consumption of alcohol, and a projectile (bullet) removed from Mr Dickie's left shoulder in the 1990's. 3. A period of hospitalisation in Dubbo Base Hospital between 8 May 2007 and 13 May 2007 was the focus of interest for the two pathologists. In the relevant "Discharge Summary", under the heading "Final diagnosis", is written: "Investigated for fever – Q fever self discharge against medical advice". Dr Cala explained that the reference in the notes to Mr Dickie being diagnosed with "Q fever" is to a bacterial infectious illness that particularly affects the lungs and the liver. 4. Professor Duflou stated, in his report: "The medical information provided indicates that Mr Dickie had a degree of liver disease likely brought on by excessive alcohol usage over an extended period of time. This has resulted in development of enlargement of the liver and spleen, fat infiltration of the liver, abnormal liver function tests and a degree of bleeding tendency presumably the consequence of clotting protein production failure in the diseased liver. I note also that there was a limited degree of lowered platelets in 2007, the cause of which did not appear to have been investigated or determined at the time. Review of medical records do not provide further information suggesting investigation of the lowered platelet levels, the liver disease and the abnormal clotting profile has taken place. And from the provided material, it is not able to be stated if Mr Dickie's liver and blood clotting abnormalities had progressed, remained stable or improved over time." 1. Although Dr Cala initially disagreed that the medical records noted an enlargement of the liver and spleen and the fat in the liver and abnormal liver function tests, in cross-examination he was taken to the relevant entries and accepted that Professor Duflou had correctly reflected the entries concerning Mr Dickie's liver and spleen. 2. Professor Duflou also stated, in his report: "I note also that there was a limited degree of lowered platelets in 2007, the cause of which did not appear to have been investigated or determined at the time. Review of medical records do not provide further information suggesting investigation of the lowered platelet levels, the liver disease and the abnormal clotting profile has taken place. And from the provided material, it is not able to be stated if Mr Dickie's liver and blood clotting abnormalities had progressed, remained stable or improved over time." 1. Dr Cala said he accepted that Professor Duflou noticed in the medical records that in 2007 there was a lower level of platelets (a condition known as thrombocytopenia), although he had not done so, and that it would not be explained by Q fever. Dr Cala said he was unaware how low the count was and, in any event, there were no further investigations at the time, from which he inferred that it had not been regarded by Mr Dickie's doctor as serious. Dr Cala acknowledged that the consumption of alcohol may cause lower platelet levels and that very low platelet levels, around a count of five multiplied by ten to the ninth per litre of blood, may cause spontaneous and/or excessive bleeding. 2. Dr Cala disagreed that it was open to presume that there was a bleeding tendency consequent to a diseased liver. The thrombocytopenia was mild, the platelets returned to a normal level within a few days and there was no follow up on Mr Dickie's liver condition. 3. Professor Duflou noted that liver disease, particularly when advanced, can result in internal bleeding, including from the oesophagus: "… can be either limited in amount or considerable and at time exsanguinating … I am unable to exclude the possibility that the blood on the carpet and on other surfaces in this case was the result of vomiting and exportation of blood from lesions in the upper-gastrointestinal tract associated with liver disease." 1. Dr Cala was asked, in relation to this passage of Professor Duflou's report: "Q. If you had also been given a history of significant long term alcohol consumption by Mr Dickie, would you accept that bleeding of the type described by Doctor Duflou … could not be excluded? A. I think it's unlikely. The amount of alcohol that Mr Dickie appeared to at best imbibe was around – I saw a notation of five to six bourbons a day. That would be classed as moderate drinking, but I don't think that at that level that as a consequence of daily drinking five to six bourbons a day that cirrhosis of the liver with its attendant complications, particularly bleeding oesophageal varices, would be expected. Q. What about in addition to regular consumption of that amount, that is five bourbons a day, there was episodic but regular instances of binge drinking? A. Well, if that's the case … that he did embark on that, then binge drinking is known to be risky and increases the risk of developing long-term liver disease." 1. Dr Cala accepted that chronic liver disease may cause bleeding from the lower oesophagus, which can cause "torrential haemorrhage". If Mr Dickie had such a condition, he said: "I cannot exclude that as a medical condition that vomiting of blood could have led to blood being on the carpet. And possibly, if Mr Dickie had vomited blood when he was in bed, it might have been a cause for the blood staining on the edge of the mattress and the edge of the bed. But I don't believe that it explains the blood droplets on a variety of locations on a number of walls around the bedroom." 1. Professor Duflou concluded: "Mr Dickie had liver disease and clotting disorders diagnosed at times during life, mostly in association with liver disease. Such liver disease, had it progressed, could have resulted in significant bleeding from the oesophagus and potentially from other sites in the body." 1. Professor Duflou noted that according to the medical records, on 13 May 2007 Mr Dickie had provided a history that for a period of "20-30 years" he had been drinking the equivalent of five to seven standard drinks a day. Professor Duflou stated that such a level of drinking alcohol creates: "… a high risk of developing various complications associated with alcohol, specifically when it comes to liver disease, abnormalities which may develop are enlargement of the liver and spleen, the fatty infiltration of the liver, then more serious derangements of the liver including what is termed alcoholic hepatitis, the presence of psoriasis or scarring of the liver, and from there, liver failure and various bleeding manifestations associated with it. And a specific form of bleeding, but that would be of relevance, it would procure varices – soft dual varices are where blood vessels enlarge the oesophagus as part of the scarring of the liver and these are very prone to bleeding and when they do bleed, the bleeding can be quite catastrophic, both in terms of internal bleeding and vomiting and coughing up blood in general." 1. Professor Duflou identified the parts of the medical records created during Mr Dickie's stay in hospital in May 2007 that were relevant to the possibility of liver disease. These included a CT and ultrasound scan of his abdomen that demonstrated enlargement of the liver and spleen which, in the absence of obesity or diabetes, would likely be explained by excessive alcohol consumption. Professor Duflou referred to liver function test results. A low level of Bilirubin indicated liver failure and is uncommonly seen in Q fever, although it returned to normal levels over the following days. There were five enzymes present that are produced by the liver when it is damaged, one in particular being typically associated with alcoholic liver disease. Professor Duflou commented: "So there's certainly again an indication here, in my view, that alcohol may very well have been a significant contributor to his pathology involving his liver." 1. Other consistencies with liver damage were the indicators of blood clotting and platelet levels. 2. Professor Duflou concluded: "I think the problem is that the medical records after this don't give any indication that, in fact, liver function tests were performed. So, looking at the medical record from the general practitioner, even though there are multiple requests for pathology tests to be performed, I haven't been able to identify any liver pathology testing being done. And of course, the other problem is that the patient self‑discharged from the hospital against medical advice prior to being fully investigated." 1. Professor Duflou said that if there was an event of vomiting and expiration of blood from lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract associated with liver disease, the bleeding could stop spontaneously, although: "In the setting of a bleeding tendency and oesophageal varices with what would now be very significant liver disease, you would probably expect that this would continue to the extent that the person dies. It is however the case that some people who are admitted to hospital and are observed do not die but can recover, at least in the short term, from that bleeding." Part 8: Counsel's closing addresses The closing address of the Crown 1. The Crown submitted that the Court would be satisfied by the first element of murder, namely, that the alleged victim is deceased, by a multiplicity of matters, including the absence of contact with family and neighbours, no financial activity on his accounts and the extensive searches carried out by police and volunteers. 2. As to his death having occurred on 14 or 15 June 2016 and at his property, the Crown relied upon his wallet being there, in light of evidence that he always had it with him, and his phone remaining within range of the Elong Elong Telstra cell tower. The Crown also referred to the absence of arrangements for his livestock and other animals to be cared for. 3. The Crown submitted that the accused's explanation that Mr Dickie went to a party is contrary to his past behaviour to not go to parties. Similarly, the Crown submitted that the accused's claim that Mr Dickie "liked drugs and liked to party" is contrary to the evidence. 4. The Crown relied upon the evidence of a significant blood-shedding event involving Mr Dickie having occurred in the main bedroom and the blood droplets on the iPad screen, with no alternative explanation for such an event being apparent from Mr Dickie's medical records or what he had told his loved ones and neighbours over the years before his disappearance. 5. The Crown submitted that the evidence that establishes the blood shedding event was recent is the evidence of Mr Dickie's good health up to the visit to Sandra Weavers, the fact that the carpet fibres were in the nail brush located in the laundry, and contends that: "The blood located on the screen of the iPad located on the dining room table in an area that would have been used regularly strongly suggests that [Mr Dickie] lost blood very recently". 1. As to the accused being the perpetrator of Mr Dickie's death, the Crown submits that she was the only other person at the property at the relevant time, she was strong enough to kill Mr Dickie and she had access to knives. 2. As to motive, the Crown relies upon evidence that the accused anticipated her move to Mr Dickie's property was to be permanent. The conversation with Ms Weavers would likely have led to Mr Dickie telling the accused that she had to leave the property either immediately or within a few days, consistently with the tendencies relied upon by the Crown. 3. As to the accused's version of events to police and others, the Crown submitted there were discrepancies as to when they first met, when Mr Dickie had said he would return from the party, and how and where he was picked up. The accused's claim that there was a phone call that preceded Mr Dickie being picked up was not supported by the evidence of his phone usage. 4. As to how the accused disposed of Mr Dickie's remains, the Crown in its written submissions stated: "The accused had opportunity to dispose of the body in terms of time and the livestock being at the property, with the pigs being observed to be roaming the property when Damien Dickie attended the property in the late afternoon of 16 June 2016." 1. The Crown also relies upon the evidence of the statement of Lynette Wilson to the effect that she heard a chainsaw around noon on Tuesday 14 June 2016, as evidence of how the accused disposed of Mr Dickie's body. 2. The Crown submitted that some of the accused's actions before and after Mr Dickie's death evidenced her intending "to cement her proprietary interests". These are her claim to Ms Gordon that she visited her husband in Dubbo annually, telling Mr Wotton that they had been in a relationship for 7 years, telling Damien that she was "Bob's wife" and, after his death, applying for a Medicare card and obtaining a mobile phone. 3. The Crown also submitted: "The accused falsely stated to Police on 21 June 2016 (Ex BB) that she had not used [Mr Dickie's] address on any application or document (page 5 interview transcript) and also falsely stated that [Mr Dickie] attended the bank with her when she applied for a new card from her bank (page 5 and again at page 6) whereas the only time she went to Dubbo was on 16 June 2016 when she hitchhiked alone and obtained a lift from Carlos Wotton." 1. In anticipation of defence submissions, the Crown submitted that "it is arguable" that the accused's cooperation with police inquiries and her "calm demeanour" was an endeavour by her to not attract suspicion. The closing address for the defence 1. As noted, the defence accepted that it was open to the Court to find that Mr Dickie was deceased, but submitted that, firstly, the evidence relied upon by the Crown to establish the accused's responsibility for Mr Dickie's disappearance and death is incapable of proving such responsibility beyond reasonable doubt; secondly, the Court would find that there is a reasonable possibility that the accused's account of Mr Dickie's departure from the house is true; and, thirdly, there is a body of evidence that establishes a reasonable possibility that other people, who were unconnected to the accused, were involved in Mr Dickie's death. 2. The defence referred to the absence of direct evidence of Mr Dickie telling the accused on Tuesday 14 or Wednesday 15 June 2016 that her stay was to be short-term and the absence of any evidence suggesting a propensity to violence on the part of the accused. As well, the accused's whole-hearted cooperation with the police investigation and the fact that on the morning of 16 June 2016, she hitchhiked into town, purchased a phone and then tried to phone Mr Dickie. 3. The defence submitted that the evidence as to Mr Dickie's character suggests a person who would lie to those close to him and others about many aspects of his life if it suited him. He expressed an abhorrence of drugs but would facilitate vulnerable women getting drugs, or procure drugs for them, in exchange for sexual favours. The history of the phone that was used to call him on 13 June 2016 suggests a real possibility that it was at that time in the possession of people involved in criminal activity. Similarly, while he expressed disgust at homosexuals, he paid for sexual services with the accused before her sex change operation and the content of the suitcase in the second bedroom suggested that he had a homosexual relationship with Frank. 4. The defence submitted that if the accused had killed Mr Dickie, there was a limited time frame for her to have disposed of his body; it would have to have been accomplished by the time that police arrived on the night of Wednesday 15 June 2016 and, since she was unable to unlock the front gate, it must have been within the perimeter of the property. The defence noted that on the evening of Wednesday 15 June 2016, Inspector McArthur observed that there did not appear to be tyre tracks in the gravel in front of the machinery shed. 5. In relation to the blood staining in the main bedroom, the defence submitted that a nose bleed could not be excluded as an explanation and, in any event, the evidence of Dr Reynolds was that a person weighing 75kg could lose as much as 900ml of blood without requiring medical attention. The defence submitted that it is reasonably possible that the blood shedding event occurred sometime between April 2012 when the photos of the bedroom were taken in relation to the complaint by Bronwyn and the arrival of the accused at the property on 10 June 2016. The defence also submitted that there was not a necessary link between the blood staining on the iPad and in the main bedroom. 6. The defence submitted that the accused's explanations as to Mr Dickie's departure on the night of Tuesday 14 June 2016 were consistent and credible. Her reference to there being a phone call beforehand does not exclude a call on an internet app that allowed calls, which is consistent with the phone downloading data virtually constantly on Tuesday 14 June 2016. Her questioning of Mr Wotton as to cutting keys is consistent with her believing that Mr Dickie was alive; if she knew he was dead, she would not need a second set. During the questioning of her by police on multiple occasions at close quarters, no injuries to her hands or face were noticed. There is no forensic link between the accused and the disappearance of Mr Dickie. 7. The defence submitted that the unrecorded representations by the accused, particularly those made without the benefit of an interpreter, should be regarded with caution, since English is not her first language and her command of it was "basic at best". Part 9: Directions of law 1. Pursuant to s 133(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), I make the following directions by which the Court is bound. I repeat certain directions I made at the outset of this judgment, because of their fundamental importance. The presumption of innocence 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Court is persuaded by the evidence that she is guilty of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Those words have their ordinary, everyday meaning. The burden and standard of proof 1. The Crown bears the onus of proving the charge of murder and doing so beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent and has no obligation to prove anything. 2. The Court cannot use the decision of the accused to not give sworn evidence against her in any way. The Court cannot consider that decision to constitute an admission of guilt and it must not draw any inference or reach any conclusion based upon the fact that the accused decided not to give evidence. The Court cannot use that fact to fill any gaps that it might think exists in the evidence tendered by the Crown. It cannot be used in any way as strengthening the Crown case or in assisting the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It must not speculate about what might have been said in evidence if the accused had given evidence. The accused's version of events 1. The accused relies on the account of events that she provided to police, the essence of which is that she last saw Mr Dickie when he left her at his house at about 6pm on Tuesday 14 June 2016, saying he was going to a party and would return by 10pm, and that she saw him picked up and leave in a vehicle. 2. An acquittal of the accused will result from her guilt not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt. She is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt the Court may have at the end of its deliberations. 3. If the Court either accepts the accused's version of events or concludes that there is a reasonable possibility it is true, then the Court must acquit her. 4. If the Court does not accept the accused's version, then it must put it to one side. Nevertheless, the question will remain: has the Crown, upon the basis of evidence that the Court does accept, proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Circumstantial evidence 1. Where the Crown's case depends on circumstantial evidence, the Court reasons in a staged approach. The Crown first seeks to establish certain basic facts by the evidence, which do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Taken by themselves, they cannot prove the guilt of the accused, however, the Court is asked to infer, from a combination of those established facts, that a further fact or facts exists. In this way, based upon the basic facts, the Crown asks the Court to find beyond reasonable doubt that each of the elements of the offence has been established, so that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder. 2. A case based on circumstantial evidence may be as convincing and reliable as one based upon direct evidence. It will depend upon the number and nature of the basic facts relied upon by the Crown when considered as a whole, not individually or in isolation, and upon whether the evidence leads to an unavoidable conclusion that the Crown has established the guilt of the accused. 3. It is important that the Court approaches a circumstantial case by considering and weighing, as a whole, all the facts it finds established by the evidence. It is wrong to consider any particular fact in isolation and ask whether that fact proves the guilt of the accused, or whether there is any explanation for that particular fact or circumstance which is inconsistent with the accused's guilt. 4. The correct approach is first to determine what facts the Court finds established by the evidence. Any particular fact to be taken into account by the Court does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court then considers all of those facts together as a whole, and asks whether it can conclude, from those facts, that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder. If such a conclusion does not reasonably arise, then the Crown's circumstantial case fails because the Court is not satisfied of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in which case the Court would find the accused not guilty. 5. If the Court finds that such a conclusion is a reasonable one to draw based upon a combination of those established facts, then it must determine whether there is any other reasonable conclusion arising from those facts that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. If there is, the circumstantial case fails, because the Court cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. 6. Drawing a conclusion from one set of established facts to find that another fact is proved involves a logical and rational process of reasoning. The Court must not base its conclusion upon mere speculation, conjecture or supposition. In order to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt of the offence, the Crown must first persuade the Court that the inference or conclusion it relies upon is a reasonable one to draw from the facts that it finds established by the evidence. It then must prove that the only reasonable inference or conclusion that can be drawn from a consideration of all the established facts, viewed as a whole, is that the accused is guilty of the offence. If there is any other reasonable conclusion open on those facts that is inconsistent with the conclusion sought by the Crown, then the Crown's circumstantial case has failed. 7. The Crown submits that there is an intermediate fact which constitutes an indispensable link in a chain of reasoning towards an inference of guilt. The intermediate fact is that there was a single blood-shedding event in the main bedroom at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance. The Crown accepts that this indispensable fact, unlike the basic facts upon which the Crown relies to circumstantially prove the accused's guilt, must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If it is not established to that standard, the Crown cannot prove its case. A direction in relation to hearsay evidence 1. There are three categories of hearsay statements in the evidence of the trial. 2. Category 1: The Crown case includes evidence of representations made by Mr Dickie to others, including representations that the Crown relied upon to establish that Mr Dickie had tendencies to disavow long term relationships and, instead, engage in short-term sexual liaisons and falsely promise long-term relationships in seeking to do so. It also includes evidence of his intention as to the duration of the accused's stay at his property. 3. Category 2: The Crown case includes evidence of representations made by witnesses in the form of police statements and interviews who were unavailable to give evidence at trial, including Diana, Tracey, Bronwyn, Leigh Peckham, Robert Kilby and Jeremy Barber. Some of those persons, including Diana, Tracey and Bronwyn, were regular users of prohibited drugs at the time of the events about which they were questioned and, in some instances, at the time they were being interviewed. 4. Category 3: Some witnesses gave hearsay evidence of what others had told them concerning Mr Dickie's disappearance and death. There was no contemporaneous recording made of it and the extent to which it was accurately recollected is uncertain. 5. When evidence is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be treated with great caution because of its inherent potential to be unreliable. The evidence of the statements attributed to Mr Dickie cannot be tested and, in relation to the evidence of witnesses within the second category, their evidence was not given on oath and its reliability may be affected by their drug use and its lasting impact on their capacity to accurately recall events. As well, in relation to the third category, the hearsay evidence alleged unlawful conduct by others. Tendency evidence 1. The Court must consider the evidence relating to Mr Dickie's conduct and decide whether he did in fact have the tendencies at the time of his disappearance to disavow long term, live-in domestic relationships and engage in short term sexual encounters in lieu, including having short-term sexual partners attend his home for a number of days, and endeavour to facilitate short term (days rather than weeks) sexual encounters with women by falsely promising long-term relationships with them. 2. In doing so, the Court must consider all the evidence and determine what conduct it is satisfied occurred. Pursuant to s 161A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Court is not directed that the evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, because in view of the evidence of Susan Carter to the effect that Mr Dickie told her he intended to ensure that the accused did not stay indefinitely, the tendency evidence is not essential to the reasoning that could lead to a finding of guilt. 3. If the Court determines that all, or at least some, of the alleged conduct occurred, it then considers whether it enables the inference to be drawn that Mr Dickie had the tendencies asserted by the Crown. In drawing inferences, the Court must be satisfied that they are justifiable and drawn from the facts that the Court finds to be established by the evidence. It must consider the possibility that other inferences might also be reasonable. 4. If the Court determines that Mr Dickie did have the tendencies asserted by the Crown, it can use that in considering whether it is more likely that he pretended to commit to a long-term relationship with the accused but then, in a matter of days after her arrival at his property, told her she could no longer stay with him as expected. The accused's good character 1. As noted, uncontested evidence was adduced by the defence of the accused's good character. The Court bears in mind the accused's good character in considering whether it is prepared to draw from the evidence the conclusion of the accused's guilt. It is a factor affecting the likelihood of the accused committing the crime charged, and is relevant to the Court's assessment of the credibility of the accused's account of the events between her departure from the Weavers' property on Tuesday 14 June 2016 and when she finally left Mr Dickie's property on the evening of Thursday 16 June 2016. 2. The Court is reminded, however, that people do commit crimes for the first time and that evidence of previous good character cannot prevail against evidence of guilt which it finds to be convincing, notwithstanding the accused's previous good character. The impact of delay 1. Pursuant to s 165B(1) of the Evidence Act, taking into account s 133(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, I am satisfied that s 165B applies to a trial by judge alone. 2. Pursuant to s 165B(2) of the Evidence Act, I am satisfied that the accused has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay, between the time of the disappearance of Mr Dickie and her arrest and between the time of her extradition to Australia and her trial. That delay has resulted in the loss of potential evidence of persons who have either died (Enid Fittler, Bronwyn, Robert Kilby) or otherwise become unavailable as witnesses (in particular, Diana), the impact on the recollection of those witnesses who have given evidence of the relevant events (Alex, Tracey, Kellie, Gordon Hockey, Ben Ryan, Troy, Peter, Graham Clarke) and the loss of opportunity to gather additional forensic evidence (for example the inability to retrieve and obtain evidence from the phones used by Tracey, Alex and Troy). The Court takes into account the significant forensic disadvantage by being mindful of the absence of evidence that might otherwise have been available and relevant. Witnesses not called by the prosecution 1. References were made in the trial to persons who may have been able to provide relevant evidence but who were not called, such as Samantha Fittler, who was living at 101 Wattle Road at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance, Raylene Fittler (Peter's former partner), and Frank, who was associated with the suitcase in the second bedroom in Mr Dickie's house. The Court takes into account the fact that there was no evidence from those witnesses in determining whether the Crown has proved the guilt of the accused, but not by speculating on what their evidence might have been, had they been called. Part 10: Consideration Whether Mr Dickie is deceased 1. Multiple witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Mr Dickie was reluctant to leave his property for extended periods, because he needed to care for his livestock and other animals and he was particularly concerned for the security of his premises. On the rare occasion he was absent from his property overnight, he would arrange for neighbours to feed his animals. He made no such arrangements in relation to his disappearance. 2. Two of Mr Dickie's children, Damien and Darren, gave evidence that at the time of his disappearance, he had a relationship with them that involved regular contact. Annette O'Reilly, one of Mr Dickie's sisters, gave evidence that she and Mr Dickie would phone each other once a week. She had not heard from him since his disappearance and was unaware of any contact from him since that time with any other family member. She and Susan Carter gave evidence that Mr Dickie always had his mobile phone with him. Ms Carter said that if he did not answer a call, he would return the call shortly afterwards. The last phone call made by a person using Mr Dickie's phone and SIM was on Monday 13 June 2016. It remained connected to data until it apparently ran out of battery charge on the afternoon of Wednesday 15 June 2016, so there remained the possibility that until that time it could have been used to receive and/or make calls by a data phone call App, such as Facetime or WhatsApp, but not thereafter. His phone has not been used with a different SIM card. 3. Mr Dickie's financial affairs were managed by his sister, Ms O'Reilly, after his disappearance. She gave evidence that there were no transactions on any of his accounts following his disappearance, other than "part Centrelink" deposits. According to Mr Dickie's NAB account statements, his last transactions were in Dubbo on Monday 13 June 2016 between 12.46pm and 1.24pm for purchases at a service station, bottle shop and supermarket. His account continued to receive fortnightly deposits from Centrelink of $496.53 and monthly deposits of $2,000 from a share portfolio company, at least until May 2017, with no withdrawals. His wallet, with all his cards, was discovered at his property. He hadn't collected his post-office mail in Dubbo. 4. DSC Adam Ridley made inquiries of hospitals and medical centres in the area of Dubbo and Elong Elong to see if Mr Dickie had presented for treatment in the week before his disappearance; he had not. 5. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dickie is deceased. As noted, by the stage of the trial that the evidence was completed, the defence did not resist that conclusion. Whether Mr Dickie died between 14 and 15 June 2016 1. As to when Mr Dickie died, the Crown relied upon the evidence that Mr Dickie always had his phone with him and would answer it when it rang either immediately or he would call back in a few minutes. Diana said that Mr Dickie always carried his phone with him, in a front pocket on his chest. Accordingly, the Crown submitted that Mr Dickie would have been unable to answer his phone from the time that Ms O'Reilly could not contact him on the morning of 15 June 2016. 2. The fact that Mr Dickie would always have his phone with him and that it ceased communication on the afternoon of Wednesday 15 June 2016 is evidence that he was at least incapacitated before that time. The fact that it connected with the Elong Elong tower until then is persuasive evidence that the phone, and by inference, his remains, were somewhere within that catchment area and that the phone was not buried or otherwise placed out of range of the tower in that period. 3. The phone ceased to connect at a time that would be consistent with his death occurring on 14 or 15 June 2016. Whether the tendencies alleged by the Crown are established 1. In order to establish a motive, that is, that Mr Dickie told the accused that she could not stay, the Crown relies upon a body of evidence to establish a tendencies on the part of Mr Dickie at that time to disavow long term, live-in domestic relationships and engage in short term sexual encounters in lieu, including having short-term sexual partners attend his home for a number of days, and endeavour to facilitate short term (days rather than weeks) sexual encounters with women by falsely promising long-term relationships with them. 2. I am satisfied that these alleged tendencies are established by the evidence that was adduced by the Crown for that purpose. The evidence of Mr Dickie's behaviour was underscored by the evidence of his assertions to the same effect to Ms Lovejoy, Susan Carter, Gary Weavers and Sandra Weavers. 3. The question then arises, whether I am satisfied that between Mr Dickie and the accused's return from the visit to Sandra Weavers on the morning of Tuesday 14 June 2016 and the arrival of police at Mr Dickie's property the following evening, he told the accused that her stay would only be for a few days. The Crown evidence in that regard rests on a triggering event, which was Sandra Weavers' account of her observations of Mr Dickie when the accused told her that she was staying; that is, that Mr Dickie "put his head down" and after an exchange between Ms Weavers and Mr Dickie concerning whether the accused assisted with feeding his animals, Mr Dickie "abruptly" stopped the conversation and they left, the accused shaking Ms Weavers' fingers as she departed. 4. It is likely that, at some point, Mr Dickie would have told the accused that she would not be staying long with him and that she would have to leave. This is consistent with what he told Ms Carter on 9 June 2016, that the accused "was hoping to stay with him long term … but that's not going to happen". However, it was unprecedented for Mr Dickie to introduce one of his female guests to a neighbour or anyone in his permanent social circle, which on Ms Weavers' evidence seems to be the sole reason he drove her to the Weavers' property, and which suggests that by that point Mr Dickie might have regarded the accused differently to how he regarded past short term sexual partners. 5. Assuming that Mr Dickie did in fact tell the accused on the Tuesday or Wednesday that she was not to stay with him, one takes account of the evidence, if any, as to how the accused might have reacted to it. The evidence establishes that the accused believed that she was entering a long-term relationship with Mr Dickie and that, to that end, she had relinquished her flat in New Zealand, placed her belongings in storage and posted some seeds, cooking ingredients and implements to Mr Dickie to establish a kitchen garden. However, there is no evidence that suggests that the accused's personality or past behaviour was such that she would react with extreme violence to being told that she was to leave, either immediately or within a few days. The accused is a person of good character. Her only prior convictions are for driving offences for which she was fined. The reliability of the accused's accounts to others 1. There is a high degree of consistency in the accused's accounts to others. However, there are also some differences. In assessing the reliability of the accused's accounts to various people after her arrival in Dubbo on 10 June 2016, I take into account that all of her exchanges in evidence, with the exception of the police interview on 17 June 2016, were conducted without the assistance of an interpreter. What the accused told Ms Gordon 1. Ms Gordon said that the accused told her that she visited her "husband" every year and that she was in Dubbo for a fortnight. She described the accused's ability to speak English as "broken", agreed that she was not questioned about the conversation until over a year later, and that in her statement she had not mentioned the stay being for a fortnight, but nevertheless remained confident that her recollection was correct. However, with due respect to Ms Gordon, I do not regard her recollection of those aspects of her conversation with the accused as being reliable. Damien's account of what the accused said to him 1. As noted, at [242]-[249] above, Damien's account of what the accused told him concerning Mr Dickie's disappearance is at odds with the account the accused gave to police the night before, later that same night and in the ensuing days, and, in particular, with the evidence of Ms Haley as to what the accused said. Understandably, Damien was distressed at his father's disappearance and the presence of a stranger there, who he was convinced had killed his father. 2. I prefer the evidence of Ms Haley as to the accused's explanation to them prior to the arrival of the police later that night. The conversation with Ms Weavers on 16 June 2016 in the Telstra shop 1. To the extent that the conversation with the accused that was related by Ms Weavers contained elements that were otherwise contradicted, I take into account that Ms Weavers told police two days later that she found the accused difficult to understand and that the differences appear to be of little consequence. 2. The Crown submitted that in the walkthrough interview on 21 June 2016, the accused falsely claimed that she had not used Mr Dickie's address on "any application or document". Upon reading the relevant passage, however, it is clear to me that she understood she was being asked what address she put on her bank account when she originally opened it, to which she replied, her brother's address. She stated that she used "Bob's address" when she applied for a new card "last week". I reject that submission. Whether Mr Dickie used drugs 1. The accused claimed Mr Dickie liked drugs. She said she found some and threw them away. It appears that she was not asked where she threw them, so that aspect of her account, that was potentially verifiable, was not checked. Some other witnesses said they had seen Mr Dickie smoke marijuana or had smoked marijuana with him. In my view, the fact that Mr Dickie was reported to abhor drug users does not negate the possibility that the accused was accurately reporting her observations. Mr Dickie contradicted his stance on drugs by facilitating others accessing them. The accused's claim that she first met Mr Dickie at Liverpool, six years earlier 1. The Crown submitted that Mr Dickie could not have first met the accused as a sex worker in Liverpool six years earlier, because in a text that he sent to the accused on 1 June 2016, he stated that "I think I have seen you twice, about 6 years ago when you were a prostitute in Dubbo". 2. I note that the accused was in Australia in mid-2010 for a period of two and a half months. I also note that the evidence suggests that Mr Dickie's memory was imperfect. His son Brett recalled that when he last saw his father, at a family funeral in 2015, Mr Dickie asked him which of his sons Brett was. The defence scenario 1. The defence case is that Mr Dickie told the accused that on the evening of Tuesday 14 June 2016 he was going to a party and would be back by 10pm. She saw him being driven off in a vehicle by another, or others. She did not know in what direction. There was a phone call beforehand. 2. The evidence that lends some support to this scenario is as follows. 3. Although, according to the accused, Mr Dickie said he was going to a party, for him to have done so would have been unusual behaviour. However, there is no reason, on the accused's version of events, for Mr Dickie to have been truthful with the accused, particularly if he was embarking on a meeting with criminal or otherwise unsavoury elements. 4. On 3 February 2016, Mr Dickie reported to police an incident that occurred the night before. He alleged that Bella had demanded $2,000 from him for something he would not disclose, and he was sufficiently troubled by the situation to go with her to an ATM and withdraw cash to pay her $1,000. The fact that Mr Dickie attended Dubbo Police Station to make the report suggests a significant level of concern that he was in danger, although inquiries establish that while he did in fact withdraw $1,000 the night before from the ATM that he identified to police, it could not have been for Bella, because she was in prison at that time. 5. Aaron O'Leary said that in March 2016, Mr Dickie stopped allowing him access to his property to deliver stock food, which was bags of grain, and would instead unload it at his front gate. Given that Mr Dickie would often have Mr O'Leary over for a drink on a Tuesday afternoon, and thus was presumably one of the few people not related to him who he trusted, it would seem that his vigilance, which was normally high in any event, was even more elevated than normal. 6. It is not known who rang Mr Dickie on Monday 13 June 2016 at 10.35am, and who he then phoned back at 10.47am and 2.01pm, although the history of the phone that was used to call him suggests that it may well have been used by a person with criminal associations. 7. If Mr Dickie was planning on meeting up with a person or persons who had criminal associations, it may well be that he would not disclose that to the accused, but instead give another explanation for his absence. For the same reason, he may have decided to not take his wallet with his cards in it with him, but rather leave it secreted in his locked vehicle in the machinery shed. He may not have anticipated any need for his wallet, in any event. 8. It is also unsurprising in those circumstances that Mr Dickie would not want the accused to not accompany him, but rather require her to remain behind in his house, in which case, he could hardly lock up and therefore there was no need to take his keys with him. Indeed, the detail in the accused's account of Mr Dickie telling the accused as he left the house to lock the door behind him is consistent with the evidence that Mr Dickie was security-conscious. 9. The fact that the accused tried to phone Mr Dickie on the Thursday morning at 11.35 and 11.36am with her new Telstra phone is consistent with her innocence. 10. The accused's activities in Dubbo on Thursday 16 June 2016 are consistent with her believing that she would be residing at Mr Dickie's property indefinitely; she bought a phone that she believed would operate from his property, obtained a Medicare card using Mr Dickie's address and switched over her bank account to Mr Dickie's address. In her Medicare application, she described her reason for travelling to Australia as "Migrant", her address as 76 Wattle Road and her phone number as the one she had just obtained from the Telstra shop. The application form included a statutory declaration in which she stated; "Declare that I intend on remaining in Australia indefinitely". 11. There is no police report of injuries observed on the accused, including by DSC Sherlock when she took her fingerprints on 17 June 2016. Did the accused steal cash from Mr Dickie's wallet? 1. As noted, the Crown submits that the Court would draw two inferences from the location and state of Mr Dickie's wallet in light of evidence as to Mr Dickie's habits with his wallet. Firstly, that the accused stole cash from it, since it normally had cash and there was none when it was located on 17 June 2016, and secondly, he must have died at his property since he was known to not go anywhere without it. There are difficulties with drawing these inferences. 2. In order to access the wallet where DSC Jackson found it, which was hidden above the passenger-side sun visor in in Mr Dickie's locked Mahindra, the accused would have needed to have a key to get into the car. It would be unsurprising if Mr Dickie routinely left the key where DSC Jackson found it, which was under a piece of carpet on a drum near the vehicle. There is no evidence that the accused knew it was there, or had access to another key to the Mahindra. 3. The accused's DNA was not identified on tape lifts from various parts of the wallet, including the top of the note section. 4. There is no evidence that when the accused travelled to Dubbo on Thursday 16 June 2016, she spent more money that she would have received by way of the motel refund on Saturday 11 June 2016. Equally, however, there is no evidence that she did not, since her activities that day included a visit to the Dubbo RSL which had poker machines. 5. If the accused had stolen the cash from Mr Dickie's wallet and placed it, or left it, in his Mahindra, it is odd that she told police on 17 June 2016 that Mr Dickie always carried his wallet with him and that she thought he took it with him when he left to go to the party. While Mr Dickie always having his wallet with him is consistent with the evidence of some of those who knew him, If she had killed Mr Dickie, one would think that she would have been aware that it would eventually be found hidden in the Mahindra. 6. As to the second proposed inference, if Mr Dickie had absented the house at 6pm, intending to be back at 10pm, he may not have needed his wallet. Further, if it was a meeting with a criminal element, he may have decided to leave his wallet behind. This possibility is particularly apposite in view of his report to police on 3 February 2016 that he came under pressure to withdraw $2,000 from his ATM account, and in fact withdrew $1,000. I note that his wallet had a large number of cards and other items. The accused's email on 13 June 2016 to her brother 1. The email that the accused sent her brother on 13 June 2016 at 4.18pm, excerpted at [185] above, is bizarre. The tone of the earlier messages between her and her brother suggest that they were not close. They appear to have led quite separate lives in their respective countries. It would be unsurprising if her brother was unaware of her past relationships. 2. Clearly the proposition that she and Mr Dickie had received that sum of money from her to "build" his transportable home and set up the property is contrary to the evidence of Mr Dickie's family and past romantic partners. I conclude that it was a lie, intended to induce her brother to lend her a sum of money on the basis that the security for the loan would be equity that she had in Mr Dickie's property so that she could buy a car. The comparative strengths of the accused and Mr Dickie 1. The Crown's submission that the accused was strong, depended upon two pieces of evidence. One was a statement by SC Fairman that when he first saw the accused, she looked "very manly", prompting him to suspect that she was transgender. I do not interpret that observation as reflecting upon the accused's apparent strength or fitness. The second was a reference to the video of the accused's luggage being searched in Dubbo Police Station on 17 June 2016, when the accused assisted DSC Sherlock to lift her suitcase onto a table. In my opinion, the video does not demonstrate that the accused was particularly strong. The officer had already lifted the suitcase, with a hand on each extremity, to almost waist level before the accused then placed her hands on it for a matter of seconds while DSC Sherlock placed it on the table. 2. Mr Dickie was healthy and fit, according to the evidence of witnesses who knew him. In the CCTV images of him taken on 10 June 2016, Mr Dickie appears to be of slight stature, as does the accused, in her appearances in Court. 3. In my view, the evidence of the accused's strength is of limited relevance to the question of whether she caused a fatal injury to him in his main bedroom, since the injury could have been inflicted by a knife while Mr Dickie slept, after which he fell to the floor. It is relevant to whether she would have been able to move his body, but is not determinative of that issue. The blood stains in the main bedroom 1. I am satisfied that the blood stains under the carpet, on the bed frame, mattress and the three walls were caused in the same incident involving Mr Dickie and that attempts were made to clean the top of the carpet with cleaning products, producing a bleaching effect. In relation to the wipe mark on the southern wall observed by Snr Sgt Gane, I am satisfied that it pre-dated the droplets of blood on top of it. I am not satisfied that the spots of blood on the iPad were deposited there as part of the same incident. In view of the fact that Mr Dickie was an active person operating a farm with livestock and multiple items of farm machinery, it is quite possible that those spots of blood were deposited on the screen from an unrelated minor incident, such as a cut finger. 2. There is no evidence as to the age of the stains. Inquiries made by police with the manufacturer of Mr Dickie's transportable home established that it was placed on his property on 24 March 2011. Photos of the main bedroom which do not contain images of the bleached areas were taken on 24 April 2012. The stains could have been deposited at any time from then until the date of the photographs taken by SC Redden on 19 June 2016. 3. There is also no evidence as to the quantity of Mr Dickie's blood that would have caused the staining; it may have been relatively little. Having viewed the carpet, I note that the area of dark staining, as opposed to the light staining, which may have been caused by the application of cleaning fluids and water, is relatively small. The drops on the walls are small; the quantity of blood required to cause them was clearly a small amount. I note the evidence as to how much blood may be lost, without requiring medical intervention. 4. I do not accept that the loss of blood can be attributed to expiration, since, as Professor Duflou accepts, medical attention would have been required shortly afterwards and there is no record of that occurring. 5. To the extent that one might expect that Mr Dickie would have sought medical treatment, if he lost the blood in an earlier accident, l note the evidence of his multiple sexual liaisons over many years, the evidence of Diana that they would have sexual activities in the main bedroom and her evidence that they would effectively "party", fuelled by dancing, music, alcohol and (in her case) drugs. In this sense, the accused's observation that the accused "liked to party" resonates. I cannot eliminate a reasonable possibility that the blood stains were due to an earlier incident that was unrelated to Mr Dickie's disappearance. 6. I note the evidence that Mr Dickie kept his house tidy, neat and clean. If the incident had happened prior to the accused's visit, it is unsurprising that he would have cleaned it up, including by using the nail brushes. This is particularly so in view of the evidence that he regularly entertained his female guests in that room. Whether the evidence establishes that Mr Dickie's body could have been disposed of on his property 1. As the Crown submitted in its opening and closing addresses, what happened to Mr Dickie's body or the location of his remains is unknown. As noted, there is evidence from DSC Jackson that when he inspected the perimeter fence on 17 June 2016, he found it to be in "reasonable condition". There is no evidence to the effect that the accused was able to access either of the gates on the property. There did not appear to be tyre tracks in the gravel in front of the machinery shed on the evening of Wednesday 15 June 2016. The movement of vehicles captured on the point to point cameras on the Golden Highway was checked for the relevant period. If Mr Dickie's body was disposed of by the use of one of his vehicles travelling on those sections, it would have been captured on them. 2. The Crown accepted that Mr Dickie's body must have been disposed of within the perimeter of his property, possibly by it being digested by some of the animals kept on it. There was no expert evidence as to how that could have occurred. There were varying accounts of how many dogs and adult pigs there were on the property at the time of his disappearance; it was in the order of six pit bull terriers and four or five adult pigs. Mr Weavers said, as to the condition of the dogs two or three days after Mr Dickie's disappearance: "They were pretty hungry too. Their condition was fair". If his body was devoured by animals, there was no sign of teeth or bones, in spite of forensic excavations and examinations of the dog kennels and other parts of the property. 3. In relation to whether the fact that the pigs were observed by Damien and Mr Good on 16 June 2016 was unusual, I note that Ms Weavers' evidence was that since she first met Mr Dickie, which was in 2015, she had been onto his property at least a couple of times and she observed that the pigs ran wild and would sleep "all over the property". He did not have pigpens, but rather crates for the sows when they had piglets. In my view, according to the evidence, the fact that the pigs were seen to be roaming freely after Mr Dickie's disappearance is not suspicious. 4. If Mr Dickie's body was dismembered, there were no observations of anything unusual when police attended on the night of 15 June 2016 or in the course of more detailed examinations in the following days, including by an experienced crimes scene officer. The examination of the chainsaw for signs of material that might link it to the disposal of Mr Dickie's body was thorough. The sound of the chainsaw around noon on Tuesday 14 June 2016 is consistent with Mr Dickie cutting firewood. Alternative theories that persons unrelated to the accused killed Mr Dickie 1. I am not satisfied that the evidence to the effect that Peter was responsible for the death of Mr Dickie warrants any weight in my deliberations. It was denied by him and those who were alleged to have been his co-offenders. One of the theories involved Mr Dickie being shot on his property at his front door while his mother was present on the property, a scenario which is inherently unlikely. The other involved Peter plotting to harm Mr Dickie, at a time that could not be fixed with any certainty and which was denied by him and not admitted by the person with whom he was said to be conspiring. "Diana" 1. In my view, the evidence in relation to Diana establishes a real possibility that, contrary to what she told police, she was residing with Mr Dickie in the days prior to the arrival of the accused and that she had an association with Mr Dickie that extended in a significant way beyond what she disclosed. She informed Ms Eggleton that she was permanently residing with Mr Dickie a week before the accused's arrival in Dubbo, although at a slightly different address, and that it was not until a few days after his disappearance that she advised Ms Eggleton that she had left his home. 2. Her phone, together with a recharger, was in the laundry, although it had not been used since 2012, well before she had met Mr Dickie; in other words, it was unlikely to have been in the laundry since 2012. It would have been brought to the house by Diana after she met him. Determination 1. I conclude that the intermediate fact that the single blood-shedding event in the main bedroom occurred at the time of Mr Dickie's disappearance is not established beyond reasonable doubt and that there is a reasonable possibility that the accused's version of events is accurate. If Mr Dickie told her that he was going to a party, he was lying. Mr Dickie had associations with multiple local people who had long-term issues with prohibited drugs, who in turn had strong connections with criminals. I cannot exclude a reasonable possibility that he had agreed to meet a person or persons unknown and that they killed him, disposing of his phone either with or without his body in the catchment area of the Telstra cell tower at Elong Elong. 2. In addition, I consider it unlikely that the accused could have disposed of Mr Dickie's body in the time frame in which it must have occurred if the accused had killed Mr Dickie, according to the evidence of opportunity and within the perimeter of Mr Dickie's property, without leaving traces of having done so that would have been detected by police or others who thoroughly searched the property in the days following Mr Dickie's disappearance. Verdict 1. I conclude that I have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 2. Kylie So, on the charge that between the 14th day of June 2016 and the 15th day of June 2016, at Elong Elong in the State of New South Wales you did murder Robert Dickie, I find you not guilty. ********** Endnote 1. Ellen Dickie did not explain who Courtney was. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 November 2023