So while we might be willing to act upon speculation in your daily lives it is not safe to reason in that way in a criminal trial. Because of the very serious nature of a criminal trial you must be very careful about the way that you reason and only rely upon reasonable inferences.
In this case the prosecution has asked you to infer the accused, Matthew Lowe's guilt from a large array of circumstances. I do not propose to list them all. They have been comprehensively reviewed by both counsel in final addresses but let me mention some that seem to me to be of most prominence in the Crown's case, without meaning to suggest any comment at all on the value of these facts as supporting an inference of guilt or otherwise, and some of the facts are themselves in dispute.
So one was that Mr Faugere was believed by Mr Seckold to have stolen valuable drugs and precursor chemicals from the Canterbury lab in July 2011. Another was that Seckold, Tiberi, Matthew Lowe and others were jointly engaged in a business to make and distribute methylamphetamine. Another was that Mr Seckold was the boss and Mr Lowe was said to be close to him and lived with him from early September onwards and was characterised by [SB] as Seckold's right hand man. Another was that Mr Faugere was not actively involved in the Seckold drug group after the Canterbury raid but was involved in an attempted marijuana transaction in or about mid September in which Mr Faugere claimed that a sum of $20,000 had been stolen from him at gun point. Next, that Mr Faugere was not seen or heard from by anyone after the night of Wednesday, 19 October 2011. Next, that the partial remains of Mr Faugere's body were discovered in early February 2012 in the back of a Nissan at the drug lab at St Leonards conducted by Mr Seckold, Mr Tiberi, Mr Lowe, [SB] and [AB]. Next, that that Nissan was purchased by Mr Lowe under a false name three days before Mr Faugere was last seen. Next, that a Toyota HiAce van hired by Mr Tiberi with Mr Lowe two days before Mr Faugere was last seen was detected outside where Mr Faugere was staying in the days before he was last seen, including in the early hours of the morning after he was last seen. Next, that that van and the Nissan may have been seen parked together in the Mansfield area over several hours later in the morning after he was last seen. Next, that that van was returned to Melbourne and later washed at a car wash inside and out. Next, the clothes were purchased at Target, enough for a number of males. Next, that the van and Mr Lowe's BMW were detected as travelling closely together the afternoon after the car wash and the purchase of the clothes_. Next, that a boat was purchased late at night, the night following the van's return to Melbourne. Next, that Mr Lowe's handwriting may have been responsible for a note found in the Nissan recording the address of the boat seller._ Next, that Mr Seckold may have asked [SB] how to dispose of a body and how to dispose of a car and a boat. And finally, that some of the clothes that were purchased at Target appear to have been located in the Nissan at St Leonards, some items of which having DNA arguably matching Mr Lowe, as well as some items with DNA arguably matching Mr Seckold and Mr Faugere.
As I have said, this is a list by me of some of the facts, some of the circumstances which the Crown has lead in this case, some of which are controversial, some of which may not be, but to find the accused guilty you must be satisfied that his guilt is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the circumstances established by the evidence. If there is any reasonable explanation of those circumstances which is not consistent with the - sorry, if there is any reasonable explanation of those circumstances which is consistent with Matthew Lowe's innocence, then the prosecution will not have proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and you must acquit him.
In determining whether an inference is a reasonable inference, you must consider the evidence as a whole. Do not disregard an item of evidence because when considered alone it does not support a reasonable inference. Look instead at all of the evidence together. One piece of evidence may resolve any doubts you have about another piece of evidence. When all the pieces of evidence are taken into account, you may become certain of a particular conclusion that would not be reasonable to reach if you considered those items separately.[139]