Killing Time Read online

  The purpose of a statement is to set out formally and under oath the evidence you would be able to give if called upon at trial. This document forms the basis of your evidence and that is what’s referred to in the law as evidence in chief. When and if you are called at trial, that is the initial sworn evidence you give in response to prosecutors’ questions.

  You may then be cross-examined by the defendant’s lawyer as to any inconsistencies, omissions or lies that the defence allege arise from the statement. My statement was compiled over three sessions with Paul Scarlett and I reproduce the statement in this chapter to give you a flavour of just where my thoughts were and how a statement is made and comes to be given in evidence. The statement is scanned straight into this chapter so you can read it in its entirety.

  In paragraph 19 I refer to Kathleen Downes’s murder and in paragraph 20 I refer to my discussions with Dupas about similar fact evidence against him in the Halvagis case which arose from his murders of Maher and Patterson. The police said both of these comments should not be in the statement as their prejudicial value outweighted their probative value. That particular objection is commonly made in the legal process and it results in a statement being edited before it goes to the jury. I objected to having those phrases deleted because they were an integral part of my statement and if they were to be deleted then that could be done after a defence application.

  The trial began and as expected defence counsel made application for those paragraphs to be deleted. That application was successful and those two pieces of evidence did not go before the jury. On this occasion those two paragraphs were removed from the statement that went to the jury. In other words, the jury never knew about that evidence.

  You will note my statement is made up of three separate discussions as I have stated above. I wished the statement to properly reflect each conversation that had taken place with the police so there could be no suggestion of invention on my part. Of course, the standard allegation of fantasy was thrown at me when I gave evidence on Dupas’s trial.

  When I stepped into the witness box, my statement, complete with the passages later deleted, was tendered as my evidence in chief by the Prosecutor, Colin Hillman QC.

  Andrew FRASER

  STATES:

  1. My name is Andrew Roderick FRASER. date of birth 5 April 1951. I am currently a prisoner at Fulham Correctional Centre, Sale serving a term of imprisonment for being knowingly concerned with the importation of a commercial quantity of cocaine and trafficking cocaine.

  2. I was imprisoned on 13 November 2001 and was moved to Port Phillip Prison (“PPP”) in February (date to be confirmed) 2002. I was placed against my wishes into the protection unit, Sinus East at PPP. There I remained until being finally moved to mainstream at PPP on 12 June 2003 and thereafter on 6 January 2005, I was moved to Fulham Correctional Centre.

  3. White at Sinus East, I met Peter Norris DUPAS and became close to him. We were the two gardeners for the protection units and spent a large proportion of each day together working in ihe garden. We also undertook education together studying horticulture and used to watch gardening and associated programmes together on TV.

  4. I have been approached by Detective Senior Constable Paul SCARLETT of the Homicide Squad who enquired as to whether as a result of my association with DUPAS I knew anything of the murder of Mersina HALVAGIS and further whether I would be prepared to give evidence against DUPAS. I am able to say that DUPAS discussed HALVAGIS with me and made certain admissions, voluntarily and against his interests and subject to certain preconditions being met, I am prepared to execute a formal statement and give evidence if required.

  5. By way of background, I say that in jail the etiquette is that you never ask another prisoner what they are “in” for, or the circumstances surrounding their incarceration; to be nosey is to invite violence and I have witnessed such attacks.

  6. As a result of the foregoing, I did not ask DUPAS any questions and was early in the piece concerned not to upset him, or appear overly inquisitive as I consider him to be probably the most dangerous person I have met and I did not want to be attacked. It was only over a period of time DUPAS and I started to talk and it was only after the MAHER investigation got into top gear that he was clearly rattled and opened up to me more.

  7. At this point, I should say a little about DUPAS, he is very quiet, suspicious, introverted or introspective, socially inept and reticent to talk. Even when discussing matters of interest, he tends not to speak in flowing phrases, rather grabs of sentences, short, followed by long breaks. I did observe when agitated or anxious he would start to shake and on occasions became teary and often when that happened, he would clam up and the conversation would be over. He was very difficult to communicate with but over the period from when I went to PPP and DUPAS was moved to Barwon, approximately 1-2 months before I went to mainstream, he opened up to me as much as I think he is capable of.

  8. I also think based on years of dealing with these types of offenders, that he has blocked a lot of his offending out of his mind and when the memory returns, this is when he becomes distressed.

  9. The first indication of DUPAS' involvement with the HALVAGIS murder came before the MAHER investigation. At Port Phillip the protection unit is divided into three, Sirius East and West. West is divided into two, A & B side. This is done because of the different types of protection required. East's for the worst of the worst, that it is considered everyone wants to get. This is where I was placed.

  10. West's roughly divided into sexual offenders on one side and those too violent or unreliable to be in the general population. The garden area therefore has different access times for the three units. At the back of Sirius East is a small "chook pen" exercise yard and this looks onto the garden and the other units can see into this yard when they are in the garden. It is separated only by a mesh fence.

  11. DUPAS and I were alone walking in the chook pen when one of the other units had use of the garden. It was early in the morning and before the MAHER investigation caused DUPAS to be interviewed. He had not mentioned HALVAGIS to me at all. A younger Greek looking prisoner, I don't know his name, came right up to the fence and said are you Peter DUPAS: Yes. He then commenced to berate DUPAS saying HALVAGIS was a cousin of his. DUPAS was an animal; he knew DUPAS had killed Mersina and that if he got a chance he would kill DUPAS.

  12. This verbal attack was out of the blue and DUPAS was clearly shaken by the barrage. He turned to me shaking and said, his exact words were “How does that cunt know I did it?” I was surprised at his admission because he was saying he had done it. I remember this because it was significant.

  13. About a week later we were in the veggie garden when I noticed DUPAS looking at one of the upper windows of Sirius West, he was starting to shake, a sure sign to me he was agitated. I asked what he was looking at and he told me he now knew which cell the abusive one was in and he was going to try and “knock” him because he would not be allowed to go around saying such things. I took this utterance seriously.

  14. A short number of days later we were again in the garden when DUPAS said that he knew when that person would be going to see the doctor and he was going to jump him then and kill him. He told me in no uncertain terms not to be in his way and it would be better if I was elsewhere as he did not want me involved. He took the garden fork and put it where it could not be seen near the pathway. Luckily that person did not go to the doctor that day and was shortly thereafter moved. Nothing further came of that incident.

  15. When the police let the media know that DUPAS was again being investigated for the MAHER murder DUPAS' demeanour changed markedly, it was at this time he started to ask me questions. It was never a discussion, always short questions or series of questions that seemed to have no starting or finishing point but to me it was clear that he was asking me about MAHER and seeking my opinion.

  16. As s.464 application was served and he was obviously and deeply distressed, he asked me about the procedure
and I told him he could decline to consent and he did not have to answer questions. I referred him to a private practitioner for advice as he was dissatisfied with Legal Aid.

  17. At this stage I am unsure of the exact chronology, but with further thought and checking of dates I will be sure. You must remember this approach came out of the blue and I had not prepared a draft prior to this.

  18. When DUPAS was interviewed pursuant to s.464 he came back to jail and he immediately sought me out in my cell, he was upset and said he thought he would not only be charged with MAHER but maybe HALVAGIS. I thought it was time to try and gently coax the story from him. I asked what the new or extra evidence they had for MAHER. DUPAS said there was mention of forensic evidence, a glove. He then made a surprising admission to me that, "He left no forensic evidence at Fawkner". This clearly meant HALVAGIS.

  REMOVED BY

  ORDER OF THE

  TRIAL JUDGE

  21. I emphasised the potential problem with the glove containing DNA traces at the MAHER scene and he again stressed he left no DNA or forensics at the HALVAGIS scene.

  22. I cannot recall at what stage of proceedings he was moved to Barwon but he was subsequently convicted and sentenced in the MAHER matter.

  23. About mid to late 2004, I became a prison listener at PPP. This is a peer support job and prisoners discuss their problems with you. I was in mainstream by this time but was one of the designated listeners for protection. I was called to see a prisoner at Sirius East and I was surprised to see it was DUPAS, he was back at PPP for some court reason which I do not recall.

  24. There had been more publicity and media speculation regarding HALVAGIS and again he was upset. The crux of this conversation was again that he could not be charged because lack of evidence, i.e. no forensics left at the scene by him and no-one could have witnessed the attack because no-one was around. This is the first time he actually stated as a positive that he knew there were no witnesses, it was clear to me that there was only one way he would have known that fact and that is, he is the killer.

  25. He did not seem the least bit perturbed by this conviction regarding MAHER, he said effectively “Oh weir”.

  26. I did not have any further discussion with DUPAS after that. PPP would have a record on the running sheets of when I went to see DUPAS for the last time.

  27. I am prepared to give this evidence and make a formal statement as required.

  28. Some of these incidents may be out of order. I would need to access dates etc. to be more specific.

  FURTHER COMMENTS TO DRAFT STATEMENT

  OF ANDREW RODERICK FRASER

  To Paul SCARLETT

  Dear Mr SCARLETT,

  29) When you first arrived and spoke to me unannounced, I was caught somewhat by surprise regarding the matters raised and accordingly the previous “can say” statement I provided was missing some important details. You must appreciate that it is only since your representations that I have given this matter detailed thought.

  30) Hereunder are now further aspects of this case that have come to mind since my previous statement. If further detail comes to me 1 will advise.

  31) I have now spoken to Michael BRERETON and David GRACE who agree with the suggested course as does my wife Denise even though I will no doubt receive further publicity which, while it should be positive for me, I can do without it.

  The additional matters are:-

  32) In the discussion I had with DUPAS in his cell about HALVAGIS and him not leaving any forensics at the scene, I add that his body language is easy to read, he sits upright when anxious or stressed, stares ahead, starts to shake (and can even be a bit teary) and he folds his hands and clamps them between his knees. He rocks back and forth a little bit but it is noticeable.

  33) This is how DUPAS was sitting when talking about HALVAGIS but then he jumped up and did a little pantomime of a person leaning over which I took to be HALVAGIS followed by his demonstrating a stabbing motion on the other person. He lifted his hand up about shoulder high and executed a swift, sharp downward motion. He did not speak while he did this but the meaning was obvious and not at all ambiguous, he was demonstrating his killing of HALVAGIS.

  34) He then sat back on his bed, hands between his knees and the conversation was over.

  35) I should say here that all his admissions are short and not detailed. DUPAS is very introverted and I would say almost sociopathic, he does not relate well to others and has great difficulty talking to others. His conversations with me were always short and sometimes finished abruptly as above described.

  36) The first occasions DUPAS made any mention of any killing was well before he was charged with the MAHER matter. Ray EDMUNDS, Paul GORMAN, DUPAS and I were in the workshop doing “nuts and bolts”, i.e., putting sleeves and nuts on locks in bolts. No-one else was there and we went there occasionally to have a quiet chat. It was on this day (I don't know the date) that I was talking to EDMUNDS re his sentence. At that stage, he had served about twenty years and I asked how he handled it. His response was he had done what he had done, a bad offence, regretted it and had paid and was continuing to pay a heavy price. GORMAN then admitted his offences (rape) and said he was near the end of his sentence and upon release he would probably re-offend as he could not help himself. DUPAS was next to EDMUNDS and EDMUNDS said, “What about you Pete?” DUPAS hesitated and all was quiet, he then haltingly admitted the killing of Nicole PATTERSON.

  37) I was surprised because he pleaded not guilty. He was not remorseful, rather off-hand in fact, “What's done is done and I have to wear it”. I then admitted my offence as I did not want to be the odd man out.

  38) Finally as evidence of propensity to violence and in addition to the comments about the planned attack on another prisoner in the garden I previously mentioned, there was another incident between DUPAS and another prisoner. DUPAS is quite spooky, very quiet and you have no idea what he is thinking. We were sitting at a table having dinner and he indicated another prisoner who he perceived had slighted him in some way. DUPAS was mumbling about getting him. I thought nothing more of it until before lockdown when he kept saying he was going to get him in the morning. To “get” in jail means to attack with a view to inflicting serious harm or death. DUPAS mentioned this a few more times that evening. He was shaking and I took this threat so seriously I mentioned it to the officers. On lock up DUPAS told me he was going to get him first thing next morning because the staff are usually outside having a coffee and a smoke and the unit is quiet.

  39) On let out DUPAS came flying up the stairs, this was unusual because he has a bad knee and avoids the stairs, even to come to my cell. I saw he had an implement which looked sharp in his hand, he said “where is he” and I told him the person in question had been moved last night. He appeared deflated and went back downstairs. My opinion is he had stewed on this all night and had worked himself into a state by the next morning. He was ready for and capable of anything in my opinion.

  Yours faithfully,

  AR FRASER

  40) My full name is Andrew Roderick FRASER and my date of birth is the 5th of the 4th, 1951. I have attended at the Sale Police Station today at the request of Detective Senior Constable SCARLETT. I have been shown the above document and I agree that this is a copy of two draft statements that I had previously prepared for SCARLETT. As I read through this document on the computer I made a couple of changes mainry grammatical ones.

  41) In relation to paragraph 11, SCARLETT has asked for further information as to who this person was that abused DUPAS and when in time this event took place. All I can suggest is that it was probably 6 months after I started gardening with DUPAS. I had probably been at Port Phillip Prison for about 8 months at this stage. I can't recall any details as to who this person was as I met so many people in jail and I never took any notice as to who they all were. I can say he looked to be young, by that I mean early 20's and approximately 5 foot 7 inches tall, light build, olive complexion, brown eyes, straight black ha
ir with a longish fringe that he kept flicking back. It was clear to me that he was Greek.

  42) In relation to paragraph 13, I would like to add that at the time I noticed DUPAS shaking, it was obvious to me because at the time he was trying to roll a cigarette and was having trouble doing so. DUPAS is a heavy smoker and usually had no difficulty rolling his cigarettes. I have also used the word “knock”, that is jail term for killing.

  43) In relation to paragraph 17, I would like to add that this approach came out of the blue and was made to me by the Homicide Squad. I did not approach the prosecution. For this reason there is more than one draft statement as particulars came back to me over a period of time. I had not prepared a draft statement prior to this.

  44) In relation to paragraph 20 I want to mention that paragraph 33 also relates to this same conversation with DUPAS. I want to add that at the time of having this conversation with DUPAS and him stating there were no witnesses, he was sitting on his bed in his cell near the head of the bed. I was sitting on the bed at the foot. On the wall at the head of the bed is a loud speaker / panic button which is screwed into the wall, it is generally accepted by prisoners that this piece of equipment is used as a listening device by staff and often prisoners refuse to talk in their cells for this reason.

  45) I had read the brief and indicated to him the matters raised in paragraph 20. I wish to add that in addition to the verbal admission made that he left no forensics at the scene of the HALVAGIS murder, he was adamant there were no eye witnesses. He pointed at the speaker on the wall as if to say "no more talk" and with that jumped to his feet, turned and faced the bed and used a downward opening motion of his arms and indicated a person bending forward. He stood back and with an arm movement then indicated himself and further he indicated a raised right arm and then a downward stabbing motion. This indicated to me how he had killed HALVAGIS and why she would not have seen him.