Doubts in Crown case against Tully, says defence
Points in the Crown case against Russell John Tully “raise doubts and create uncertainties” about his alleged identity as the Ashburton WINZ office gunman, says the defence.
Tully, 49, has had no lawyer of his own during the two-week trial in the High Court at Christchurch, but a closing address was delivered to the jury by an amicus curiae, James Rapley, appointed to assist the court.
He said the Crown case left unanswered questions about whether the lone, balaclava clad gunman was Tully.
He urged the jury to approach the issues calmly and coolly, and to analyse and scrutinise the Crown’s case, and to debate the points robustly. It was not enough for them to believe that Tully was “probably guilty” – that was not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.
He is also charged with setting a man trap – a steel wire stretched between two trees – and unlawful possession of two shotguns.
Mr Rapley said there were points which “cast doubt and raised uncertainties in the context of a criminal trial where a man is charged with the most serious of crimes”.
“These matters will trouble you,” he said to the jury.
Identity was a key component in the trial.
He pointed to inaccuracies in the timings of recordings by surveillance cameras presented in evidence by the Crown. He said it was not good enough for the Crown to say that the jacket in the images was “just like” the one worn by Tully. The Crown had to prove that it was the exact jacket.
The Crown had said DNA found on the cycle helmet left at the scene of the shooting belonged to Tully and proved that he was there. He had questioned scientific witnesses about people leaving DNA on articles when they had only touched them at some stage.
“The DNA on the helmet doesn’t mean he was at the WINZ office and was therefore the gunman,” he said. The scientific evidence did not prove that it was his helmet and that he was at the WINZ office.
He told the jury they should “be careful with aspects of the Crown case”, because the Crown had failed to produce some important exhibits. The jury was left “guessing and speculating”.
Justice Cameron Mander is expected to sum up this afternoon before the jury retires to consider its verdicts.
Category: Focus
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Connect
Connect with us via: