Sharon Graham woodchipper homicide: Closing arguments start in trial of girl charged with ex-partner’s homicide

October 25, 2023by Naomi Cramer

A girl has denied being the “architect” of a plot to homicide an ex-partner utilizing a woodchipper, together with her lawyer urging a jury to not settle for the proof of one other former lover.

Sharon Graham is on trial at Brisbane Supreme Court charged with the homicide of Bruce Saunders on a central Queensland property six years in the past.

The Crown alleges Ms Graham was the “architect” of a plot to have her ex-partner by the hands of two different males whereas the trio have been engaged on the property.

Closing submissions have been made on Wednesday, with crown prosecutor Todd Fuller submitting Ms Graham made “a selection” on the day of Mr Saunders’ demise.

“It was a selection between the cash and the person – and she or he selected each,” crown prosecutor Todd Fuller KC mentioned.

Ms Graham has pleaded not responsible to the homicide of Mr Saunders, 54.

Mr Saunders died after allegedly being dragged into the woodchipper whereas he was clearing bushes at a property in Goomboorian, close to Gympie, on November 12, 2017.

The Crown alleges Ms Graham was the architect of the plot to kill Mr Saunders by having two males – Gregory Roser and Peter Koenig – put him within the machine.

It’s additional alleged she stood to realize a $750,000 life insurance coverage payout together with the contents of his will upon his demise.

Peter Richards, Ms Graham’s defence barrister, instructed the jury the onus was on the prosecution to show her client was responsible of homicide past an affordable doubt.

He mentioned Ms Graham should be acquitted except they might settle for the proof of Mr Koenig.

Describing Mr Saunders’ demise as “beggars perception”, he mentioned what was in dispute was whether or not Ms Graham had procured her ex-partner’s demise.

“All roads lead again to Peter Koenig’s proof,” Mr Richards mentioned throughout his closing argument on Wednesday.

“You may assume he had potential to weave a narrative round important components of what he knew, to attain what he wished.”

Mr Richards mentioned this was not a trial about who Ms Graham was in a relationship with.

“For goodness sakes, she’s in her 50s, she will do what she likes,” he mentioned.

The jury was instructed they’d an opportunity to judge Mr Koenig’s credibility and reliability as a witness when he gave proof earlier within the trial.

Mr Richards mentioned there was nothing suspicious about Mr Saunders altering his will to call Ms Graham as the only beneficiary.

“Right here was a possibility, after Mr Saunders’ demise, for her to safe her monetary future,” Mr Richards mentioned.

“There’s no subject that Sharon Graham was the only beneficiary of his will, that’s not in dispute.”

Mr Richards mentioned what was in dispute was whether or not his client procured Mr Saunders’ demise – reiterating she believed he had died on account of an accident.

Mr Richards’ submissions will proceed on Thursday.

Earlier within the day, Mr Fuller submitted Mr Saunders had the home and monetary stability Ms Graham craved, however not the “persona” she craved.

“And so there was just one option to resolve it,” he mentioned.

“Sharon Graham made a selection – it was an extremely merciless and heartless one … that price one man his life.

“The results for her is that she has prison duty for her actions … in encouraging and procuring Greg Roser to kill Bruce Saunders.”

Mr Fuller instructed the jury Ms Graham had a option to make between two males and two life on the time of Mr Saunders’ demise.

“It was between an honest man (Mr Saunders), who owned his own residence, had a job and as we’ve heard would do something for her,” Mr Fuller mentioned.

“In comparison with a person (Mr Roser) who struggled to make ends meet, who lived in a caravan park, who wanted her to pay for his personal engagement ring.

Mr Fuller instructed the jury Ms Graham selected “the unhealthy boy” – Mr Roser – as a substitute of Mr Saunders.

“That meant her monetary scenario was not secured,” he mentioned.

“She wanted somebody, or by some means, to pay the payments.

Mr Fuller defined the jury may assume Ms Graham was “determined” and the extent of her desperation had been on show through the trial.

“A desperation that led to a person being killed and his physique fed by means of a woodchipper,” he mentioned.

Mr Fuller pointed to the testimony of Peter Koenig, who earlier instructed the jury he was requested a number of occasions by Ms Graham to kill Mr Saunders on earlier dates.

Mr Koenig gave proof he noticed Mr Roser hit Mr Saunders with a steel bar earlier than the pair put him within the machine.

“(He) is a person who’s saying ‘I’m actively concerned after Greg Roser killed Bruce Saunders’,” Mr Fuller mentioned.

He additionally referred to notes present in Mr Roser’s caravan which detailed Mr Saunders’ handle, automobile registration, parking actions and his working occasions.

Mr Fuller instructed the jury it indicated a plan to inflict some violence on him in his own residence, or on his option to work.

“The place does that data come from? As a result of regardless of what Mr Roser instructed us, Bruce Saunders and he aren’t mates,” Mr Fuller mentioned

“This isn’t data that got here from Bruce Saunders.

“It may solely have come from an individual who lived in the home with Bruce Saunders, who was plotting to kill him.”

The court was instructed Mr Saunders’ blood was discovered on the bottom close to the woodchipper and behind the machine.

Mr Fuller mentioned this indicated Mr Saunders was injured earlier than he went within the machine, contradicting claims he by accident fell in.

The court was instructed Ms Graham appeared fearful about textual content messages when she was recorded on covert listening units police put in in her house.

The trial continues.

Source link

by Naomi Cramer

Auckland Lawyer for FIRST TIME Offenders Seeking to Avoid a Conviction. Family Law Expert in Child Care Custody Disputes. If you are facing Court Naomi will make you feel comfortable every step of the way.  As a consummate professional your goals become hers, with customer service as our top priority. It has always been Naomi’s philosophy to approach whatever you do in life with bold enthusiasm and pure dedication. Complement this with her genuine passion for equal justice and rights for all and you have the formula for success. Naomi is a highly skilled Court lawyer having practised for more than 20 years. She serves the greater Auckland region and can travel to represent clients throughout NZ With extensive experience, an analytical eye for detail, and continuing legal education Naomi’s skill set will maximise your legal rights whilst offering a holistic approach that best fits your individual needs. This is further enhanced with her high level of support and understanding. Naomi will redefine what you expect from your legal professional, facilitating a seamless experience from start to finish.   Her approachable and adaptive demeanor serves her well when working with the diverse cultures that make up the Auckland region. Blend her open and honest approach to her transparent process and you can see why she routinely delivers the satisfying results her clients deserve. If you want to maximise your legal rights, we recommend you book an appointment with Naomi today so she can detail the steps for you to achieve your goals. 

error: Content is protected !!