Chapter SEVENTY- ONE
October, 2006

Monday, October 30, 2006. Thirteen months had passed since the failed attempt on Drummond’s life at the Alfred Hospital. Much had happened.

The State election of September 17, 2005 had brought a tortured victory to Labor’s Clive Crystal. Exit polls disclosed a level of hostility towards the Meadows government not shown since the dumping of Premier Kennett in 1999. Animosity towards Meadows was fuelled by perceptions of corruption, sexual misconduct, maladministration and self-interest. Although a distorted belief, it was widely held. Thus, while Crystal had a slender majority, he was compelled to negotiate with a large number of prickly Independents holding the balance of power. A good result for democracy, a blow to the Party system.

For months after the election, sullenness had lain like a dark stain across the community. Countless letters, editorial pieces, radio talk back, current affairs programs and various political analysts teased out four elements of governance shouting for reform: responsible leadership, ethical behaviour among politicians, transparency and accountability, and demonstrable representative democracy. The populace was fed-up with the sleazy, behind-scenes machinations occurring between big business and government, practices starkly exposed after the election.

When Premier Crystal examined the Aldrittson waste scheme and understood its breathtaking scope and application, he conceded its brilliance. As a novice Premier under pressure however, he also knew that to endorse it would be political suicide. For the life of the present government at least, it would be shelved. Jakob Kindler’s solar energy program on the other hand, was overwhelmingly supported.

Aldrittson avoided the humiliating public stocks of court by pleading guilty to all charges and foreclosing on a trial. His barrister, James Sylke, QC, dismissed himself and left Aldrittson to his fate. That fate was eighteen years gaol with a minimum of fifteen. Life in custody compelled a name change and for reasons of protection, interstate imprisonment. He remained unconnected to Santini’s death and, for his own reasons, Pescaro too remained silent.

Spencer Johnson remained overseas allowing Fox to run the Sunset Fitness Club. At the same time Fox gently nurtured a mutually satisfying relationship with Johnson’s receptionist, Tanya Taylor. Every so often, when time allowed, Danniellson dropped in to chat with Fox. His suspicion of Fox’s connection to Aldrittson’s dirty games never disappeared, but Fox’s laconic manner, dry wit and good nature were beginning to wear Danniellson down – they were in danger of becoming friends.

And on this day, Monday October 30, 2006, committal proceedings against Giuseppe Antonio Pescaro commenced. The charges were legion and other protagonists such as ASIC, the Federal Police, Australian Customs Service and the Australian Taxation Office were all circling for chunks of Pescaro’s wiry old frame.

Wyvern and Sprite had done a masterful job building a bulwark of legal entanglements around the mighty Pescaro Empire. Yet despite their formidable efforts, that Empire had become too big and too convoluted even for them to effectively manage. Through dogged application and remorseless persistence, small chinks in the labyrinthine defence were exposed by Tavistock’s multi-disciplinary team of lawyers, forensic accountants, business analysts, computer gurus, health and environmental experts and police investigators. The chinks had become cracks, and the cracks valleys. As a result, Wyvern and Sprite found themselves on the back foot defending their own existence before the Bar Council on multiple allegations of unethical and unlawful practice. On this day however, they were still tenuously operational and still shielding their valued, and of course, well paying client.

At the top of the list were four charges of murder against Pescaro for the deaths of his twenty-two year old wife, Angelina, Alfredo Marchese, Vito Franse and Roberto Gibaldi. Next were three charges of conspiracy to kill Andy Drummond followed by a host of accessory charges among which were money laundering, conspiracy, receiving, deception, prostitution, drug dealing, gunrunning, bribery, and unlawful waste disposal. The Vors’ deaths and their disposal via the Bayswater destructor had, so far, remained off the police radar.

Wyvern and Sprite, optimistically aiming for victory, opposed everything the Prosecution suggested which might have shortened proceedings. The Crown case had upwards of 500 witnesses – Wyvern and Sprite intended to mercilessly test each and every one. Their approach was pedantic, comprehensive and powerfully argued. Concession and loss were foreign to their philosophy.

Tavistock gritted his teeth, addressed his troops and told them to be patient, to stay focussed, to de-personalise matters, and above all, to stick to the truth. This case would be an ultra-marathon. It would also, he said, be a trial that besmirched the Force’s reputation and diminished police standing in public eyes because of the depth of corruption unearthed among its members. They had to be mentally and emotionally prepared to withstand that.

The safety of witnesses caused Tavistock serious concern. If eliminated, their case would be substantially, if not irrevocably weakened. Prominent among these witnesses were Marchese, Drummond, Judd, Aldrittson, Mitchellson and several others.

During the thirteen months it had taken to assemble Pescaro’s prosecution, Andy and Teresa were together in witness protection and, like Aldrittson, were interstate. They saw Aleisha Campbell regularly and had developed great affection for her. She and the Witsec team were fully aware of Pescaro’s treacherous tentacles inside and outside the Force. For them it was a matter of professional pride that no one would ever suspect, let alone know, Drummond’s and Teresa’s location.

With the committal about to start, the pair returned to Melbourne. Their evidence would be presented by video link from protected sites that could change daily. Knowledge and selection of these sites was vested solely in court officials. If a personal appearance was required at the hearing court, it was easily arranged. The threat to witness security was extreme and everybody fully understood the gravity of the simple dictum: no witness, no case.

Pescaro’s committal attracted national media interest. It was a case that had vacuumed up politicians, members of the judiciary, highly respected Melbourne families, government and local government officials, police, lawyers, accountants and many ordinary people too. The clean-up had filled a dirt bag with malfeasance, depravity, corruption, greed, politics and power. The promise of explosive headlines, stories of inside deals, intrigue and falls from grace was straining at the leash of fulfilment.

Yet, for a day so auspicious in Victoria’s criminal history, it began with the mundane process of determining legal proprieties. Counsel representing the army of maligned and interested introduced themselves, named their clients, listed their interests then paid attention to the charges levelled against Pescaro. The remainder of the day was consumed by legal argument over whether he would remain on bail or suffer its revocation. Bail had not been a problem to date: Pescaro was a model defendant and reported graciously every two days to Prahran police station.

On the weekend prior to committal hearings however, federal police presented Tavistock with evidence of three confirmed accounts in overseas banks which, painstakingly, had been traced back to Pescaro. They totalled $130 million. The Prosecution argued that as this information was previously unknown, and certainly not disclosed, the probability of Pescaro’s flight had significantly increased. An embarrassing precedent for this lay in the form of drug lord, Tony Mokbel. Unresolved by day’s end, Pescaro found himself whisked off to the Remand Centre for a night in custody. Strike one against his legal team, thought Tavistock who had come to sit quietly at the back of the court for the session that afternoon. He watched Pescaro, stony-faced and flint-eyed, marched off between two prison guards.

The following morning Chief Magistrate, Julia Deschamps, ruled in favour of continuing Pescaro’s bail.

And so the case proceeded with lengthy opening addresses from both prosecution and defence, an infrequent practice for a committal. Over the next days, weeks and months, the case against Pescaro was meticulously constructed. Yet for every ‘i’ dotted and ‘t’ crossed, either Magnus Wyvern or Lorton Sprite shone in their efforts to eviscerate the proof and offer counter explanations. Gifted destroyers in cross examination, they appeared to win many of the technical arguments. Their strategy was simple and effective – clever tactics to trip witnesses and tarnish credibility combined with reasoned argument to exclude damaging evidence on the grounds of it being highly prejudicial.

As Donovan and Danniellson watched the sham day after day, concern grew and they wondered if the defence and prosecution were talking of the same defendant so different was the picture presented by each side. While Tavistock grimly reported progress to the Chief Commissioner and Force Command, he still believed that justice would prevail. Nothing could shake his faith that their prosecution would do anything other than succeed.

Eventually, four months after proceedings had commenced, Teresa took the witness stand. Lorton Sprite was ferocious in his demand that she be brought to court to face the man who had nurtured, guided, employed and loved her; the man she now falsely accused of murder. Magistrate Deschamps dismissed his application and informed the court that witness Marchese’s evidence would, like several others, be delivered by video from a remote and secure court site.

Sprite staged a livid and blustering attack upon her decision and threatened to obtain a ruling from a higher court. He subsided, however, when Deschamps made plain she had given deep consideration to Lord Hutton’s opinion that video evidence was required to be of such relevance and importance to the Crown that to proceed without it would be unfair, especially if the process itself did not prejudice the defendant’s interests. In reaching her decision Deschamps said she would be balancing protection of the witness against any unfairness to the defendant from video evidence. She remarked that if Counsel had bothered to read the case of R – v – Lynne from the Victorian Supreme Court of 2003 it was there noted that mere use of technology need not (and must not) be to the detriment of the highest standards of justice. Icily, Deschamps said since she was satisfied that those elements had been properly met, Marchese would not be brought into court. She would, as arranged, provide evidence from a remote site.

Over the next three days, through a television screen, Teresa’s evidence-in-chief was delivered to a curious court in a calm, clear and impartial manner. Her presentation was detailed, logical and damning. And then came the surgical probing from an implacable, silver-tongued warrior at law, Lorton Sprite. Sprite, a short puffy little man with a shaved head and cherubic face dressed with such perfection that he gleamed like a freshly minted coin. His voice, like his appearance, was silky and mellow and disguised the sharpness of his interrogation.

He began by asking questions about the work she undertook for Pescaro, by drawing her into the maw of Mafia life, by painting her as a willing, complicit member of the criminal underworld. He queried her about the money she managed for Pescaro, the investments and the profits from those investments. Sprite confirmed with Teresa that Pescaro trusted her financial and business skills to the extent that she had carte blanche to invest where she saw fit. She agreed that she knew and used secret banking accounts and systems in other countries, that monies in those accounts were the proceeds of crime and that, in truth, she was in charge of money laundering. She admitted under cross examination that twice she had broken into Aldrittson’s flat. Slowly and systematically, Sprite built a moat of admissions around Teresa for acts that were either outright offences or would make her an accessory, before or after the fact.

‘And tell me Ms Marchese, what charges have the police laid against you?’

‘None sir.’

‘None, yet you readily admit to these crimes in this court. Is that correct?’

‘Yes sir.’

‘Why is that Ms Marchese? Why have the police not charged you with all these offences?’

‘I have been indemnified against prosecution.’

‘So, you’ve made a cheap deal to avoid prosecution. What have the police paid you to give this evidence?’

‘Objection.’ Prosecutor Dougal McIntosh leapt to his feet and interjected vehemently. ‘Your Worship, my learned colleague is accusing the witness of accepting bribes from the police. This is patently untrue. We explained to this court in our opening address that she is under protection; in that context she is receiving police care and support. That is not a bribe.’

‘Your Worship,’ said Sprite patiently, ‘my point is that this witness is nothing more than a common informer receiving a gratuity from police to give evidence. It is my contention that evidence presented by police in this manner is tainted and therefore, fully open to question. In my view, questions of the kind I am putting go to the very heart of this witness’s credit.’

‘I understand your argument Mr Sprite,’ said Deschamps coolly, ‘but unfortunately for you, Parliament has seen fit to legislate a Witness Protection Scheme into being, and this witness is part of that scheme. As such, she must receive protection and that will take the form, at minimum, of shelter and sustenance. Are you suggesting more than that Mr Sprite?’

‘Your Worship, what I am suggesting is that anything of value given to a witness in return for testimony is a bribe. It matters not whether that “valuable” is provided by some private person or the state, it is purchase of testimony. I say that is tainted and I say the state, through its Witness Protection Scheme is party to perverting the course of justice.’

‘Answer me this Mr Sprite: what is your alternative? Do you consider witness protection unnecessary? You already know from the Prosecutor’s opening address that one witness in this case has been attacked three times and sustained horrific injuries. In your view, does state provided protection counter the validity of evidence from such witnesses?’

‘Your Worship I must agree, in light of what you say, there are times when protection is necessary. However, I am arguing that the very principle of providing protection is an inducement. Because it is an inducement I am entitled to fully explore this witness’s credit. That is all.’

‘Mr Sprite, you may test the witness’s credit but you will not do it through the medium of the Witness Protection Program. That is a legislated Program and I take judicial notice of its intent and functionality. You will desist in this line of questioning.’

‘Very well your Worship.’ Sprite was not in the least rebuffed. ‘Ms Marchese, would you outline for us please the agreements you have made with the police for compensation to appear here?’

‘Objection. That matter is confidential between the Chief Commissioner of Police and the witness; it is a matter protected by law. My colleague knows that your Worship. I submit that in spite of your instruction, he is clutching at straws in trying to discredit a very credible witness.’

‘Sustained Mr McIntosh, but save me your speeches. Get on with it Mr Sprite. Stick to the instruction I just gave you. If you continue in this manner I shall be forced to take action against you.’

‘As your Worship pleases. I put it to you witness that you are a woman of the Mafia, you are motivated by revenge and you were fully aware of the criminality of the acts in which you participated. Is that not correct Ms Marchese?’

‘No. I am not strictly of the Mafia and I am neither lying nor motivated by revenge. I was given information about the death of my father which I believed was a crime. I told the police about that crime. That is the responsibility of every person.’

‘Tell me witness, why should any credence be placed on your evidence when you have knowingly committed criminal acts?’

‘It’s quite simple Mr Sprite, I am telling the truth. And we in this Court all know that you too have done things for Pescaro that are not lawful.’

‘Enough Ms Marchese!’ Deschamps’ tone lashed Teresa. ‘Stick to the facts, answer the questions and keep your private opinions to yourself.’

And so it continued. Sprite with his probing, McIntosh with his objections and Teresa unruffled, predominantly respectful and always believable.