Le juge demande au jury de vérifier si la survivante a dit la vérité.

A judge in a high-profile triple murder and attempted murder trial in north Queensland instructed a jury to assess whether the testimony of a key survivor is credible. The jury in the case against Darryl Valroy Young, a 63-year-old Queensland grazier and coal miner, retired on Wednesday to deliberate their verdict following three weeks of evidence and two days of closing arguments from both prosecution and defense teams. Young faces three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in connection with the deaths of Mervyn Schwarz, Maree Schwarz, and their son Graham Tighe, who were found dead at the gate of Young’s Shannonvale Station in Bogie on August 4, 2022. The trial centered on the testimony of Ross Tighe, Graham’s brother, who claimed he witnessed Young open fire on his family. Ross also stated he was shot during the incident, though the projectile was never removed from his body. His account formed the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, which asserts that Young orchestrated the killings. However, Young’s defense lawyer, Anthony Kimmins, cast doubt on Ross’s credibility during his closing argument on Tuesday. He suggested that Ross might have been the actual perpetrator and could have shot himself, a claim dismissed by prosecutor David Nardone as a “fantasy.” Justice Christopher Johnstone, overseeing the trial, emphasized to the jury that they must independently determine whether Ross Tighe was truthful in his statements. In his summation, he noted that the defense had not directly challenged Ross’s veracity during cross-examination. The judge highlighted that a treating physician testified that Ross would likely have died from his injuries without medical intervention, adding weight to the need for scrutiny of his account. Young’s legal team argued that the prosecution failed to establish his presence at the crime scene at the critical moment. They pointed to the lack of direct evidence placing Young at the gate when the shootings allegedly occurred. Kimmins contended that elements of the attack could have been carried out by Ross himself, questioning why a murderer would allow a surviving victim to escape unscathed. He further noted that the discovery of .30-30 calibre rifle casings at the scene and within Young’s residence did not conclusively link the defendant to the crime. The defense also raised concerns regarding Ross’s potential motives, citing his non-ownership stake in the family cattle operations and his history of volatile behavior. Kimmins suggested that Ross’s desire to inherit the family business could have influenced his actions, though these claims were not substantiated with specific evidence. Meanwhile, the prosecution underscored the significance of witness accounts and forensic findings, including testimonies from wind farm workers who identified Young near the location shortly before the alleged shooting. As the jury deliberates, the outcome hinges on their evaluation of conflicting narratives and physical evidence. If they find Young’s alibi credible, he will be acquitted. Conversely, if they reject his claim of absence, the burden falls on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case underscores the complexities of determining culpability in scenarios involving multiple layers of testimony and circumstantial evidence.