The Background
5 The deceased (born 12 January 1976) was aged six years at the time of her death. She was in the care of her mother, Marion Wishart, who was employed as a nurse. At the that time, they resided in a house in Westbourne Grove, Northcote.
6 Mrs Wishart had difficulty paying the rent on her own, so she contacted an Agency called "Flatmates" seeking a person to move in as a co-tenant. In January 1982, she was contacted through this source by the applicant, and he took up residence in the same month. He remained there until around September 1982 and then moved into the house next door for a period.
7 Mrs Wishart occupied the bedroom at the front of the house. The applicant occupied the next room and the third bedroom in the premises was occupied by the deceased. At the rear of the premises was a gate that provided access to a lane. Mrs Wishart stated that they never used that gate or the laneway.
8 During the period of the applicant's residence in the house, the deceased had a small dog, called "Moomie", which always slept in her bedroom. Once the applicant had become part of the household, "Moomie" was friendly towards him and did not bark or yap when he arrived home. Mrs Wishart had another small dog, "Troy", which barked incessantly at those he did not know when they came to the house. However, the evidence indicated that once "Troy" became familiar with people, he stopped barking at them altogether. The applicant was in this category.
9 While they had the dogs, Mrs Wishart had a practice of leaving the sliding door, at the back of the house, partly open. This door opened onto a side passage, at the end of which was a beaded curtain. In the passageway, there were some hanging basket plants that could be easily bumped into at night unless one was familiar with the premises and was aware of their presence.
10 On the night of 20 December 1982[1], Mrs Wishart put her daughter to bed at around 8.30 p.m. Bonnie was wearing pyjamas and slept in a single bed with a doona over her. Between 10.00 and 11.00 p.m., Mrs Wishart went to her room which, as I have mentioned, was at the front of the house.
11 The evidence indicated that it could reasonably be assumed that "Moomie" would have been in bed with the deceased while "Troy" would have been asleep on a couch in the lounge room. The door of the deceased's bedroom was left slightly ajar in accordance with her preference and, as she did not like sleeping in the dark, there was a night light on a small table beside her bed. The front door was locked, but the rear sliding door was left partly open in accordance with normal practice to allow "Troy" to come and go.
12 Before Mrs Wishart retired for the night, she looked in on the deceased. Sometime in the early hours of the morning, possibly around 1.30 a.m., Mrs Wishart went to the toilet at the rear of the premises and again checked on her daughter as she went past. When she returned, she found that the deceased was awake and wanted a drink which Mrs Wishart gave her.
13 At a time prior to 7.00 a.m., Mrs Wishart received a telephone call from the nursing agency, through which she obtained employment, asking whether she could come to work immediately. She rose and went to the bathroom. As she passed Bonnie's bedroom, she looked in and saw that the child's head was on the pillow with the doona up under her chin. She appeared to be asleep.
14 Mrs Wishart continued with her preparations in the bathroom and in the kitchen. She then returned to the deceased's bedroom to wake her and to give her breakfast. Observing that Bonnie was very pale, she pulled back the doona and saw that her daughter was naked with a stab wound to the left side of her chest. The child was lying on her back with her arms beside her and there was some bruising or marking around her neck. Mrs Wishart immediately went to the telephone and called for assistance.
15 Constables Ashley Perry and Amanda Fennessey were on patrol duty at 7.52 a.m. when they received a call to attend. They entered the premises and observed the deceased.
16 The ambulance which had also been dispatched arrived at about 7.58 a.m. Paul Vallence, a student ambulance officer, was immediately taken to the deceased's bedroom. He noted a puncture mark about three centimetres across, just below the left breast, with some external bleeding visible. There was bruising around the front of the throat and evidence of bleeding from the anal region. He detected no vital signs and it was apparent that the child had been dead for some time as rigor mortis had developed.
17 Sergeant Henry Huggins, a crime scene examiner, attended about 9.00 a.m. He found that the high double gates on the southern boundary that gave access to a laneway were closed and saw no indication that anyone had climbed them or the fence on either side.
18 There was an extended area of wetness produced by water, underneath and to the right hand side of the child's body. Sergeant Huggins concluded that water had been used to clean up around her.
19 When the bed was pulled away from the wall, the police found a pair of blood stained pyjamas stuffed underneath.
20 A cutlery drawer in the kitchen was found slightly open. In a pile of clothing in a laundry basket in the laundry, Sergeant Huggins found a white coat with what appeared to be a blood stain.
21 Dr Matthew Lynch, a forensic pathologist, and Dr Morris Odell, a forensic physician[2], gave opinion evidence based on their reading of the original autopsy and medical examination reports which recorded: the presence of petechial haemorrhages to the right upper eyelid and to the nose, along with neck abrasions and purple marks or bruising to the neck; that the hymen was not intact; that there was tearing to the vagina with blood around the vulva; a one-and-a-half inch wide irregular stab wound to the left chest; and bleeding or bruising in the wall of the rectum.
22 The injuries to the genital area were consistent with some form of penetrating blunt trauma by a finger or other object and had associated haemorrhaging, which indicated that they were inflicted prior to death.
23 A significant amount of blood was found inside the chest cavity but there was little external bleeding from the stab wound. However, the child's pyjamas were heavily blood stained and it appeared that her body may have been rolled over at some stage. The chest wound penetrated the pulmonary vein and the left lung and would have been rapidly fatal. The evidence of neck compression suggested that asphyxia also may have played a role in the child's death. Dr Bush, a police surgeon, concluded that, although it was not possible to state precisely the time of death, the temperatures of the room and the body were consistent with it having occurred eight to twelve hours earlier than when she was examined (at 10.00 a.m.).
24 Biological analysis of various samples and exhibits was conducted by a scientist, Pauline Henthorn[3]. Her reports and notes were reviewed by another scientist, Nigel Hall and further analyses and tests were conducted by Catherine McBride, also a scientist.
25 The blood and blood staining found on all associated clothing were consistent with the deceased's blood type. McBride conducted analyses of the samples which, at the time of the trial, were still available and could be analysed. She detected DNA consistent with a female, but no sign of male DNA or spermatozoa. McBride also examined the deceased's underpants. There were two cuts in the front panel, respectively left and right of the centre, extending the complete length between the waistband and the respective leg bands. As they appeared to be consistent with a sharp smooth-bladed implement, such as a knife or scissors, McBride carried out simulation experiments on similar garments. She formed the view that the cuts were consistent with a repeated cutting action using either a knife or scissors.[4]
26 There were a number of witnesses called who were either involved in the investigation at around that time and had no contact at all with the applicant, or who did speak to him, but only about matters unrelated to the death of the deceased.
27 Former police officer, Rory Daniel O'Connor, was a member of the Homicide Squad team which investigated the death of the deceased under the direction of Detective Senior Sergeant Lillee (now deceased). He stated that on 13 September 1983, he and Lillee spoke to the applicant about the death of the deceased. The applicant was told that she had been strangled, stabbed and sexually assaulted. No other details were disclosed to him and it was the only time they had cause to speak to him concerning this matter.
28 O'Connor was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant in respect of the likely press coverage of the matter, the possibility of details being released to the press and a series of newspaper articles in 1982, 1983 and 1984.[5]
Scenario Evidence
29 It was not until almost 20 years later, in March 2002, that the Victoria Police Undercover Unit commenced "Operation Marauder" under which they staged a series of "scenarios" in which operatives, posing as members of an organised criminal gang, interacted with the applicant.
30 There is no need to set out all the detail of the various staged activities in which the police operatives engaged in their endeavours to attract the interest of the applicant and to induce him to trust them. They involved what appeared to be quite serious criminal conduct including blackmail, assault, burglary and engagement with corrupt public officials.
31 However, on 17 May 2002, one of the operatives, "T", and the applicant went to a hotel and a scenario was staged at that location. It commenced with the applicant and "T" sitting at a table in the hotel lounge while a number of operatives were seated at another table. The applicant was told that one of those men was "the boss", that another was his "right hand man", "A", and that a third person, who was pointed out, was a corrupt police officer. "T" told the applicant that "the boss" was "checking him out" for a "big job" that was being planned.
32 On 23 May 2002, they carried out a purported jewellery burglary. The applicant was told that his involvement in the gang's activities was about to increase substantially, subject to the checks earlier mentioned, proving satisfactory.
33 The applicant and "T" were involved in a number of staged activities including one on 29 May 2002, at the rear of the St Kilda Road Police Complex. There they met with operative "G" who was posing as a corrupt policeman. Later they met with "A" at a park where they were told that the sums of $12,000 and $8,000 were to be given to "T" and the applicant respectively, as their shares of the proceeds of the jewellery burglary. They attended at a bank where the amount allocated for the applicant was placed in a safety deposit box. The applicant said that if, as a result of the check on him, "the boss" said "no", he was content that this money would not be received.
34 CD recordings of a series of conversations between "T" and the applicant on 3, 4 and 6 June 2002, were tendered as exhibits. One contained an 18 minute conversation which involved "T" and the applicant discussing fingerprint and DNA evidence. A copy of the "Sunday Age" dated 2 June 2002 was produced and the applicant read from an article about the Bonnie Clarke case[6]. It reported that DNA testing was being used to solve old murders and that the police had recommenced their investigation in this case. The article stated that the police believed that the killer may have boarded with the child's family before she was killed and that they planned to interview at least 14 persons who had rented rooms in the house during the three years prior to the murder. "T" explained to the applicant that, even after 20 years, DNA evidence could be used to place a person at a scene and that a person so implicated would have to account for his presence. He said that if "he's got a fair enough reason, fair enough, but if you haven't - well you're in the, in the pooh." Later in the conversation, "T" remarked, "Well it's nice to be connected to people who can make things disappear". The applicant enquired as to the cost of making "things disappear" and "T" replied, "That's what the boss is for ... 'cause then he comes back on him, he looks after me. I tell him honest if I've got anything and then he fixes it up. No cost to me, cause of looking after him ... he just wants to know so he can look after himself".
35 At 6.35 p.m. on Monday 3 June 2002, Detective Senior Sergeant Iddles of the Homicide Squad attended at the applicant's home in Box Hill, and spoke to his partner, Lyn Wade. He left his business card indicating that he wanted the applicant to contact him. It was this that triggered the series of conversation described in the previous paragraph. Transcripts of other conversations from around this time were tendered in evidence. They include the following.
36 At about 9.10 p.m., "T" received a call from the applicant who told him that he had received this visit and that it related to the article in the newspaper. At the applicant's request, "T" drove out to his home where they conversed[7]. The applicant told "T" that he had lived with a mother and her child in Northcote or Westgarth and that it might have been that child who was killed. He said that he had been contacted by Detective Sergeant Iddles and he understood that they were interviewing all the boarders who had lived in the house. The applicant suggested that this could be causing a delay in the police check being made by "the boss". He said that his partner had been told that the investigators wanted him to undertake a DNA swab test and a polygraph test. He said that the Detective Sergeant had informed his partner that, so far, they had located about six out of twelve or fourteen possible boarders. The applicant said that he did not know who killed the child, but he had resided at the house for about nine months as a boarder and knew the mother and daughter. He was working as a projectionist with Greater Union Theatres at that time. He said that he subsequently moved into the house next door. He recalled that police officers spoke to him at his workplace and that they had thanked him for making a statement. He said that that was all that had happened.
37 "T" indicated that "the boss" could "fix" anything, but that he had to be provided with the absolute truth. He explained that they could arrange to teach the applicant how to nullify the polygraph test, but "the boss" had to know exactly what had transpired. "T" said that the "DNA side of it can also disappear". The applicant repeated that he was not responsible for the death of the child. "T" advised him not to telephone Iddles until he had heard from him ("T"). He reasserted the need for the applicant to be absolutely honest and indicated that the problem could disappear in 24 hours as long as everything was out in the open. He suggested that, if there was DNA evidence, it would have been found in hair or semen that was left on the child. The applicant replied, "But I know for a fact that hair floats around in and around all the time." He expressed doubt about his capacity to pass the polygraph test. He told "T" that he had stayed in the house next door for a few weeks only, before moving back to his parents' home because he could not afford the rent.
38 At about 1.05 p.m., on 4 June 2002, Detective Senior Sergeant Iddles received a telephone call from the applicant who asked why Iddles had attended his home on the previous evening. Iddles explained that he needed to speak to him about the murder of the deceased. He told the applicant that he was seeking a DNA swab and, that if he agreed, they wanted him to submit to a polygraph test. The applicant responded that his mother-in-law had died and that he needed to attend her funeral, but that he would call to arrange a suitable time to attend the Homicide Squad offices and said that he did not kill the deceased.
39 Later that day the applicant met with "T"[8]. The applicant told him that he was to ring on the following Thursday to arrange a time to meet with the police. The applicant said that, at the time of the death of the child, he was living with his parents in Brunswick. He recounted how he came to move into the deceased's home. He said that, after he moved next door, he still spoke to Mrs Wishart over the fence and that, once or twice, the deceased had knocked on his front door because her mother was not home and she was scared. He said that she would come in, sit on a bean bag and watch television. When he saw, through the kitchen window, that Mrs Wishart had returned, he would tell the child that she could go home. He remained in that house for about a month before he moved to his parents' home in Brunswick. He learned about the killing from a television news broadcast on the day on which it occurred. He believed that, when he saw that broadcast, he was at home. "T" stated that if "the boss" discovered that the applicant had not been completely honest about the matter "he'll just wipe yuh and we'll all have to walk away. And I don't want to leave you on your own, I like you. I want to help you. I want us to continue doing this sort of stuff." "T" stated that, if necessary, they could provide the applicant and his partner with passports and money to enable them to go overseas. The applicant said "I know I didn't do it. I swear on a stack of bloody Penthouse magazines". "T" told him that to "beat" a polygraph test, it was necessary for a trainer to be in possession of all relevant information so that the person undertaking it could be taught to respond or react appropriately to any question that might be asked. He explained that "the boss" knew of the existence of a problem and wanted it resolved. For this reason, "T" insisted, he did not want anything left unsaid. He reminded the applicant that there was also money waiting for him. The applicant responded that, if the money had to go back to "the boss", he would have no complaint. "T" then assured him that this would not occur once the situation was clarified. The applicant referred to the knowledge that he had acquired from "the old bluestone college" and his appreciation of the importance of the relationships between criminals who worked together. He said that he had learnt that "despite what you're saying, you, you, got to be truthful, be up front".
The Meeting at the Crown Towers Hotel
40 On Thursday 6 June 2002, at about 3.00 p.m., "T" picked up the applicant and took him to a room in the Crown Towers Hotel at the Crown Casino[9] to meet "M", "the boss".
41 In the course of that journey, "T" told him that the upcoming meeting with "M" was his "job interview", and he repeated that the applicant would be brought undone if he told a single lie.
42 In the room, "M"[10] said that "T" and "D", another undercover operative, had spoken well of the applicant, but that he needed to protect himself. "M" pointed out that, as the applicant did not know "M's" proper name, or indeed that of any of the gang members, as soon as he left the Hotel there was no way that anyone could find him. He said that the room had been booked under a false name and that all of their telephone numbers would be changed. "M" explained, "You could walk out of here today and go on the rest of your life doing whatever it is you were doing before "T" came along." He said that while the gang members were enthusiastic to have the applicant as one of them, and although it would be difficult to find someone with the applicant's particular skills, he could find someone else if he considered the applicant to be unsatisfactory. "M" said that he had to be able to trust him "a hundred per cent".
43 The applicant outlined his wedding plans and said that he had not yet decided upon the arrangements for their honeymoon. When asked whether he had any money, the applicant said that he was working as a personal care attendant, as this was the only job that he had been able to obtain. He said that he hoped to become a full time employee of the Puffing Billy Railway Society. "M" told the applicant that if he became a member of the gang, he could give up the nursing work and, eventually, would have enough money to buy his own train.
44 The applicant outlined the skills that he believed he could offer, some of which he had acquired from his time in prison. He described how he came to reside in the deceased's home and the subsequent events, repeating that he did not kill her.
45 "M" said, "You, at the moment, are red, red, fucking red hot, right?" explaining that the applicant could not have more police "heat" on him if he tried. He said that they had witnesses concerning his relationship with the little girl and that they had some sort of DNA sample, which was why they were asking for the swab. They had conclusively eliminated the mother as a suspect and were now focussing on the applicant. "M" told the applicant that if he refused to give his DNA, a court order would be obtained.
46 The DNA problem could, however, be fixed by him for the sum of $5,000. He was prepared to pay this amount on the basis that he would secure a much greater return from having the applicant as a gang member. The applicant discussed the possibility of fixing the proposed polygraph test, but he believed the necessary coaching was very expensive. "M" canvassed various ways in which these problems could be fixed. He reiterated that he could not help the applicant unless he knew what had happened. At this stage the applicant, while expressing concern, had not made any statement implicating himself. "M" then produced a three page "Confidential Police Report", dated 15 May 2002[11]. This was a fabricated document prepared for the occasion.
47 The applicant responded, "I so much want to marry her, ... and have a decent bloody life. Fucking hell. Fucking hell, it was an accident she died." The applicant told "M" that he was drunk and that he went to the child's room to "play" with her. He said that she wanted to scream or something and that he covered her head. He said that he probably had a knife with him. He recalled that he entered the house through the back door and went down the passageway to the child's room. Her light was on and he remembered seeing a small dog. He said that he "fingered her", that she tried to scream and that he covered her head with a pillow. He said, "I think I may have had the knife and I may have, I think I may have just shoved it into, into the side of her chest wall". The applicant described how he gained entry to the house by climbing over the rear gate or fence from the laneway at the back of the premises. He sketched out a plan of the premises with a pen provided by "M"[12]. When asked how he travelled to Westbourne Grove, the applicant suggested that he had probably walked, but that he may have taken the tram which ran down St Georges Road. He said that the killing probably occurred at around midnight. He was in the house for about 10 to 15 minutes and left the same way that he entered. He thought that he walked home. He believed that he washed his clothes on the following day and that the shoes that he was wearing would have been thrown out eventually. He described the knife he had with him as "like a small bread carving knife." He had taken it with him when he went to an hotel earlier that evening because he had been having trouble with a couple of youngsters or thugs. He said that the knife would have come from his own home and he could not remember what happened to it. The applicant speculated as to whether DNA had been found on the knife or its scabbard and suggested that there might have been saliva found because he had possibly licked his fingers before "fingering" the child. He said that, as he had not previously touched her sexually, there was nothing that she could have told anyone before she died. He did not see any blood spurting from the knife wound and believed that she was already dead. He believed that it was possible that he may have left the scabbard behind. He did not remove any clothing from the deceased and simply put the sheets over her without covering her face. He said that he may have pulled up her pyjama pants before covering her with the sheets. The applicant thought that he also cleaned up and wiped down the door handles. He said that he suffocated her with a pillow and did not strangle her.
48 "M" said he would have to make some telephone calls and that he would have "T" and the boys take him for a coffee. Before leaving the room, the applicant handed "M" the business card which Detective Senior Sergeant Iddles had given him.
49 "T" and the applicant subsequently left the Casino. While driving, "T" received a telephone call from "M". "T" explained to the applicant that they had to meet the corrupt police officer to pick up something[13]. They drove to the rear of the St Kilda Road Police complex where the applicant was arrested by Detective Senior Sergeant Iddles and Detective Senior Constable Day.
50 A formal tape recorded interview was commenced at 7.45 p.m. The applicant said on this occasion that when he assaulted the deceased he was drunk, and when he came to his senses, he realised that the deceased was dead. He had either walked or taken a tram to Westbourne Grove from a hotel in Brunswick where he had been drinking. He described the knife he had with him as probably three or four inches long with a black handle, although he could not recall its dimensions precisely. It had a cover incorporating a sharpener. He climbed over the fence at the rear of the property into the backyard and entered through a door that was partly open. He said that there was always a light on in the deceased's bedroom.
51 During the interview, it was put to the applicant that he had, earlier that evening, had a conversation with a person at the Crown Towers Hotel. The applicant said that he did not know what they were talking about. The applicant was then told, "A fellow by the name of "M". You recall that? ... Do you recall that conversation with him?" The applicant said, "Yeah". He then said, "I know where I am now, so ... don't need to go any further. Just get it over and done with, alright?" He was told that they were affording him the opportunity to explain what occurred in the bedroom on that night.
52 The applicant said that he "fingered" the deceased and tried to silence her by putting a pillow over her face. When he saw that she was not breathing, he panicked and stabbed her. There was no blood spurting from her. He then left the house in the same way that he had entered. He denied attempting to strangle the deceased with his hands and said that when he left, he pulled up her pyjama pants and drew the sheets or blanket over her. He said that he probably cleaned up and left. He said that he "played" with the deceased's private parts. When asked whether he was aware of the presence of anyone else in the house, the applicant said that there was noise coming from the front and he presumed that Mrs Wishart was entertaining a male friend in her room. He said that there was no struggle, save that the child put her hand up while he was trying to smother her and that it then dropped down limp. The applicant said that he would have noticed the presence of any blood on his clothes, if there were any.
53 The applicant was asked what he thought would be the result if he held a pillow over a young child's face. He said that he thought that it would have suffocated her or would have induced shock. The applicant was asked whether he realised that such an action was dangerous to life. The applicant said that he was not thinking about that and was more concerned about keeping her quiet. He thought that the deceased was dead before he stabbed her.
The Applicant's Evidence
54 The applicant did not give evidence at the trial, but was called on the voir dire hearing as to the admissibility of his inculpatory statements and associated evidence. In the circumstances, some reference should be made to what he said in evidence-in-chief and under cross-examination on the voir dire.
Evidence-in-Chief
55 The applicant stated that he became acquainted with covert operative "T" and formed a friendship with him over a period of months. They performed a number of illegal activities together, although it took him some time to realise the illegality of them. It was indicated to him that "T" was a member of a criminal organisation with connections with corrupt policemen in Victoria and New South Wales. In the course of one of the activities, he claimed that he met a person whom he understood was one of the corrupt police. This person handed the applicant a brown envelope upon the applicant stating that he was there on behalf of "M".
56 Prior to his discussion with operative "M", he was not aware that the police had taken an interest in him concerning the death of the deceased, although there was the occasion around the time that he was taken to see "M" when Detective Senior Sergeant Iddles had left his business card. The applicant stated that, although he spoke to "T" about the interest that the police had shown in him, he continually denied any involvement in the death of the deceased.
57 The applicant stated that as far as he was concerned the purpose of his meeting with "M" was to secure future employment and he thought that "D" and "T" had recommended him on the basis that they regarded him as a "pretty reliable bloke".
58 He recounted the events that took place in the room at the Crown Towers in which he was introduced and scanned with what he believed to be an "anti-bugging" device. He recalled that "M" had indicated to him that he was the "red hot" subject of a police investigation and that he could not be a member of the group if that were the case. He was told that he was free to leave, but indicated that "M's" tone of voice was such that he thought that he might have received a beating had he decided to do so. He felt that there was an element of threat associated with the meeting, but believed that, if he joined the criminal organisation, he stood to gain financially.
59 The applicant stated he was shown a police document by "M" who indicated that he could not have the applicant "hanging" around the gang if he was likely to present a problem. In consequence, within a short period of time, he began to make statements to the effect that he was involved in the death of the child. He recalled mentioning certain details about the knife that he told "M" he had used and provided a version of how he managed to get over the back fence and into the house. He recalled drawing a map and the details he supplied concerning what had occurred that night. However, he stated that he was fabricating his version as he went along. The reason that he provided this false description to "M" was that, when they confronted him with a document marked "confidential", he remembered thinking "what the hell's going on here, what's happening?". His state of mind at the time was such that when he found himself being interviewed about an incident that occurred 22 years previously, his mind "started to go fuzzy and crazy" at the thought that someone appeared to be trying to "fix him up" for a murder that he did not commit. Further, he was aware that he not only stood to lose approximately $8,000 but also the possibility of substantial, prospective future earnings with the gang. Figures of $25,000 to $80,000 had been mentioned. He worked in the aged care industry looking after elderly residents, but his hours were restricted because of the physical and mental elements attached to this type of work. His job did not pay much and he was just getting by. He was under financial pressure as he was planning to marry his de facto partner in a big wedding at the Puffing Billy Station and he badly wanted money at the time.
60 With respect to the applicant's knowledge concerning the nature of the sexual assault on Bonnie Clarke, he stated that he obtained this information from a "couple" of detectives whilst he was in Pentridge Prison. They told him that she had been sexually abused or tampered with, but he could not recall whether the topic of ejaculation was raised at that time. One of the detectives, Mr Lynch (now deceased), told him she had been stabbed in the chest on the left-hand side. During that discussion, he would have become aware that the bedclothes were pulled up to the child's neck, although he had no specific recollection of any reference to this matter. Similarly, in relation to his knowledge that the window in the child's room was closed and the blind was down, he claimed that these details were either mentioned by Lynch or the other detective. He told them that during the time in which he resided in the house, the window in that bedroom was never opened and the blind was always down. He could not recall whether the topic of the absence of blood on the deceased was raised by the detectives in that interview, nor could he remember whether there had been a conversation regarding the sequence of events in the attack on her.
61 The applicant stated that he had been questioned once at Pentridge and on a number of occasions at Russell Street, in relation to the deceased, although he could not remember the names of the police officers who interviewed him at Russell Street. He was also interviewed by the Homicide Squad and a couple of detectives from the Prahran and Brunswick precincts, but they spoke to him in relation to other matters, although reference to Bonnie Clarke was made during those conversations. Apart from those encounters, the applicant could not recall whether any details in relation to the death of the deceased had been disclosed in any form of the media.
62 When he had finished talking to "M", he was told that "M" was going to make a few calls and would "fix" things. The applicant understood that he ("M") was going to talk to one of the corrupt police officers with whom he was associated about the investigation. He also understood that "M" would put him on his payroll. After the meeting, "T" received a phone call and asked him to accompany him to the back of the St Kilda Road Police station, in order to pick up an envelope that had to be taken to "M" at Crown Casino. However, he was "whisked away by a couple of detectives" and arrested. Until that moment, he had been given no indication that the criminal gang was constituted by "a bunch of police dressed up as crooks".
63 When he was arrested, he thought that this was all part of "M's" interview and accordingly he "kept going with what was happening", although he was "in two minds during [that] stage of the interview". He was not sure whether Detectives Iddles and Day were "fair dinkum" detectives or whether they were on "M's" pay roll, as he could not tell whether they were honest or corrupt. He continued making admissions, because he felt that what was happening may have had something to do with what he had already said to "M" in the Casino hotel room. "M" had indicated that he was going to help the applicant "clean this business up" by having the applicant's DNA tampered with and also by teaching him how to "beat" the polygraph test.
64 Had he appreciated the true situation when he arrived at the offices of the Homicide Squad, he would have sought to speak to a lawyer and maintained his silence until a solicitor arrived to represent him. He also stated that had he known that "M" was a police officer pretending to be a criminal and offering false benefits, he would not have given him a fabricated version of events.
Cross-examination
65 The applicant stated that he confessed to the murder of the deceased by reason, in part, of feelings of "mateship" for the group, but he also wanted the $8,000 in the safe deposit box as well as any future earnings that he could make out of his association with them. The prosecutor put to him that, although he claimed that sums ranging from $25,000 to $80,000 were mentioned, there was nothing to that effect in the taped conversations. The applicant responded that he had noticed that that was the case, but that both "T" and "M" had mentioned that there were large quantities of money varying from $30,000 to $80,000 and he did not believe that all of his conversation with "M" was recorded.
66 The prosecutor questioned the applicant with regard to evidence given by his father concerning a conversation he had had with the applicant. He read the following passage: