I attended the Supreme Court Brisbane on Monday 26August; 10am-11:30am. Accused put into the dock - dressed in blue jeans, sports jacket, open shirt/no tie. The public gallery was well attended. I did my usual; sitting with the law students - best seats in the house.
The first 15mins were admin matters with judge and legals (no jury) - additional material, clarification questions from the jury... discussion re use of the term 'unlawful killing', rather than murder... etc etc
Of Note: the rest of the week will likely be made up of police interviews, video/audio taped statements etc. The indication I got was that the Crown case will likely end Friday - 30th August 2019. Defense will follow into next week.
Jury brought in about 10:20am.
There was only one witness during this morning session. A Filipino man in his 30's (with female translator), continuing his testimony from Friday session. A Crown witness, now under cross examination by the defense barrister. I believe the Filipino man's name is Marshall.
I sat through an hour of very confusing cross examination (chopping and changing of dates and evidence etc). I kept notes thinking that my confusion was because I wasn't familiar with his previous testimony, however eventually the Crown intervened, the jury was excused and the witness and translator left while legal discussion unfolded before the judge.
The confusion was that there had been 'a deal' made between crown and defense previously; that this Filipino witness' sexual relationship with John Chardon NOT be discussed in front of the jury' taken into consideration of the case. Due to this 'gag order' the questioning by the defense was totally out of context and 'misleading in gravity'.
Mr Marshall (through Filipino translation) claimed that John Chardon had asked him if he 'would kill for him'; if he knew a 'hit man' and the defense was endeavouring to dismiss this request out-of-hand as if the two men hardly knew each other - a frivolous conversation (as argued by the Crown).
However... the history between the two men is that they met in 2011 through the Australian Embassy in Cebu City, Philippines when John Chardon proposed a philanthropic endeavour/sponsorship of education of young Filipino girls...
There was a falling out fairly quickly between JC and this Filipino male Mr Marshall (testimony by the witness is that 'JC just wanted to have sex with the girls; wanted to have sex with virgins').
Apart from the recipient of Chardon's financial support for schooling (and after-school sexual favours according to the witness)... John Chardon and Mr Marshall (Filipino) had formed an intimate connection/homosexual relationship together around this same time with money changing hands from JC to Mr Marshall for personal 'expenses'. This hit-man request was after a consensual sexual session between the two adult males at John Chardon's accommodation at the Marriott Hotel, Cebu City, Philippines. Marshall's testimony today... "I composed myself [after sex] and replied, I'll see if I can find someone".
That's about as far as we got with evidence, when the jury was set back to their rooms - the Crown had approached the bench wanting to discuss the way that the testimony was unfolding (see above)...
It was almost 11:30am, so the judge called for a break and we all left the court room - I spoke to the translator outside in the foyer, initially to thank her for her time etc. It was then, that she and Marshall's decided to chat to me, so I sat with them until they were recalled and I elected to leave the court precinct and get on with my day.
Note: I had originally discounted the 'hit-man' testimony as a potential claim for reward money (IMO, defense had already appeared to be heading that way - during cross-examination)...
What came out in our convo in the foyer without my even asking, was the detail that Marshall knew of Australian divorce settlements. He told me that Chardon's argument was that he would have to pay 50% of his assets to Novy, that it would cost him AU$1mill. etc etc...
I remain 'on the fence' as to integrity of all of Marshall's testimony - both on, and off the record. I doubt in the overall scheme of things, that it will make a difference to the outcome - just more exposure of what goes on inside the sicko head of John Chardon.
I'll make a point of getting to court during the defense, next week.