Neighbour accused of burglary claims she was ‘set up’
A woman accused of burgling a neighbour’s cottage had the property taken from the cottage hidden around her house, Crown prosecutor Karyn South told a jury in the Christchurch District Court.
The woman denies alternative charges of burglary and receiving stolen property. Her defence counsel suggested as the five-day trial began that the woman had been “set up” and the Crown allegations made no sense at all.
The woman has interim name suppression to the end of the trial. The order is expected to be reviewed when a verdict is given.
In her opening address Ms South said sometime around November 1, 2010, property was stolen from the rural Canterbury cottage, then nasty words were painted on the walls, some items, and doors with fluorescent paint.
The owners noticed the damage on November 4, and found bedding, lamps, a grill, and other property missing, and paint on a lot of items such as mirrors, books, a jug, toaster, and the fridge.
When the police went to talk to people the next day they noticed the accused woman wearing a polar fleece with small paint marks on it.
When it was sent to ESR the paint matched with the paint in the cottage, and they found glass fragments in the cloth. The fragments matched the glass in the window broken in the cottage, she said.
The police also found the distinctive lamps from the cottage in the bottom of a laundry cupboard, and a duvet on a bunk in the children’s bedroom.
When the washing machine was opened the duvet covers and pillow cases stolen had been washed, and a can of the same colour paint was found in a cupboard.
When the woman was interviewed she denied the burglary and was at a loss to say why so much of the property ended up in her house, and said someone else must have put it in there, Ms South said.
Defence counsel Pip Hall said the evidence suggested the woman must have set up a false trail for police by breaking a window which they had proved was not used to enter the cottage, entered the locked cottage by means unknown, and then removed useless property, taken it home, scattered it through her property, and waited for the police.
He said no-one in a rational state would react as she did, and why would she risk everything to commit this offending?
The allegations made no sense at all, and the riddle would not be solved by pointing the finger at this woman, he said.
The trial is before Judge Alistair Garland.
Category: News
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Connect
Connect with us via: