March 17, 2011. Our first edition exclusively online.
This page contains all major reports and comment pieces in the current edition.

To our home page.

The Hargrave murder trial: Reports by KIERAN FINNANE.

Hargrave trial verdict: Williams not guilty, Woods gets manslaughter
First posted Friday, March 25, 1620 CST
Updated Saturday, March 26, 1440 CST

Raw grief made itself felt in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs yesterday as the victim impact statements of the family of the late Edward Hargrave (pictured) were heard.
The statements were addressed to the two accused although only one man, Graham Woods, convicted of Mr Hargrave's manslaughter, remained in court to hear them. His co-accused, Julian Williams, had been found not guilty and had left the court, a free man after spending two years in gaol. Pale and strained, with a lowered head, he walked past the Hargrave family, seated in the front row of the public gallery, soon followed by his mother, weeping tears of relief, and the rest of his family.
Prosecutor Ron Noble read six statements on behalf of Mr Hargrave's mother, father, two brothers and two sisters. Partner of the dead man and mother of his four children, Sarah Woodberry, asked to read her statement herself. Ms Woodberry had lived with Mr Hargrave for 10 years. At the time of his death their daughters were 10, eight and four years old.
Through flowing tears, she spoke of seeing Ed lifeless on the hospital gurney, covered in blood, his gaze blank, and of begging him to come home. She spoke of the heart-wrenching task of having to tell their daughters that their father would not be coming home and trying to explain why. She said their innocence had been destroyed, along with their belief in their father as invincible. She spoke of all the experiences ahead of the children that now would not be shared with their father.
Four weeks after his funeral she discovered she was pregnant. She spoke of how scared she was to find herself, at 29 years old, a widowed single mother of soon to be four children. She said she struggled to see this new pregnancy as a blessing and spoke of the pain of hearing the baby's heartbeat and feeling his first kick without being able to share that joy with his father. For it was a son that was born, "Ed's first and only namesake", but there would be no father/son bonding for them, no opportunity for Ed to teach the boy life's lessons – of working hard, being honest, respecting women.
She said both she and her brother Luke, who had held Ed in his arms as he died, have been treated for depression since the death. She spoke of Luke's promise to help her raise her children; at just 20 years old, this pressure has taken its toll of him, she said. She and Luke have both left Alice Springs, the crime of Ed's death having robbed them of their security, their freedom and lifestyle. Now their parents and sister, still in high school, will follow, to be closer to them and because they no longer feel safe in this town, she said.
Ms Woodberry said she and her family had been delivered "a life sentence"; what they will have to endure is greater than any punishment the court could possibly hand out.
In her statement the dead man's mother, Patricia Hargrave, spoke of how impossible it is for anyone to understand what it is like to go on living after a loss such as theirs; their lives as they had known them had been turned upside down and destroyed, but she and her husband remain "proud" that Ed "is our son".
As his statement was read, Mr Hargrave's father Richard broke down. He was comforted by the police officer who had been in charge of the investigation, who was also in tears. Mr Hargrave said the pain of the loss of their son will stop only when they die, and until that day he will think of those responsible as "shit".
Several of the family members evoked the dead man's willingness to help others. Family and mates were paramount for him, said his sister, Natalie Malat. They also spoke of his humility about his sporting accomplishments. His brother George Hargrave spoke of Ed's pride in the young Aboriginal apprentice welders he was training at Ingkerreke and thanked these men and their families for the support shown at Ed's funeral. He also said those responsible for Ed's death were "the fucking scum of the earth".
Since the death, Richard Hargrave has been treated for cancer;  he and his wife and daughter Natalie all linked this to the stress caused by the death and the protracted legal proceedings. Richard Hargrave spoke of the "distortion" of the truth and the "legal tactics to delay the outcome"; bother Stewart Hargrave spoke of being "sickened" by the way the defence had tried "to get around the truth and the facts".  Sister Sharon Nicholas said there would be "no closure" – nothing could make better what had happened.
Throughout all this, Graham Woods Jnr listened. He turned to Ms Woodberry as she spoke from the witness box, turned back to Mr Noble as he read the statements on behalf of the family. His own saddened family members, including his parents who had been in court every day of the three week trial, were all still there, also listening.
His counsel, Jon Tippett QC, then read a letter of apology to Ed Hargrave's family and friends. Mr Tippett said the letter had been given to him by Mr Woods at the start of proceedings and had not been written at the suggestion of lawyers.
In the letter Mr Woods' expressed his "deepest sorrow" and, "as a family man with young children", an understanding of their grief; he said it had never been his intention to do what he did and that not a day goes by when he does not wish that he could turn back the clock, but now he and his family must live with what he has done for the rest of their lives. He hoped that the family's memory of Mr Hargrave would remain strong, but the pain associated with his loss would reduce.
Mr Woods was remanded in custody. Sentencing will take place on May 31.

Mention of 'racial overtones' causes offence
Posted March 23

A member of the jury in the trial  of Graham  Woods and Julian Williams for the murder of Edward Hargrave apparently took offence at comments made yesterday by defence counsel John Dickinson QC about the "racial overtones" of the case. In summing up, Mr Dickinson said the case was "ripe for sympathy and prejudice", that it had "racial overtones" and referred to "a debate going on" in this town "that we all know about". He did not specify what that debate might be but went on to say that jurors may have sympathy for Mr Hargrave and his family.
"So you should," he said, "but it shouldn't colour your analysis of the evidence."
Justice John Reeves told the jury that he had received a note from one of them, whose sentiments appeared to be supported by others. He said he could understand, having been a member of the Alice Springs community in the past, that they may take offence.
However he reiterated that the case has to be tried on the evidence and that its central issue is what happened between the accused and the deceased in Musgrave Street, and not what happened outside the 24 Hour Store and Memo Club (earlier the same night).
He urged them to put aside any peripheral issues, political, racial or any other type of consideration, and make their deliberations "rationally" based on the evidence.
Mr Dickinson was not in court today and will not return due to other commitments. Mr Williams was represented by junior barrister Ted Sinoch.
Justice Reeves will conclude his summing up and directions to the jury tomorrow morning (having begun on Tuesday before lunch). The jury will then retire to consider their verdict.

Hargrave trial:
Crown has 'abandoned' case against co-accused Williams, defence argues
Posted 2020 CST March 22

The Crown case in the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams for the murder of Edward Hargrave (pictured) is that Mr Woods struck the fatal blow – a stab wound to the back of the right shoulder, near the neck. The jury will have to find Mr Woods guilty of that offence beyond reasonable doubt in order to consider whether Mr Williams is guilty of aiding and abetting him in that offence, and thus also guilty of murder.
In summing up the Crown case against Mr Williams, prosecutor Ron Noble said the Crown cannot prove that Mr Williams knew that Mr Woods had a knife. But, he argued, as other people had seen Mr Woods with a hockey stick, Mr Williams must have also seen and known that Mr Woods had the hockey stick. He said Mr Williams ran along with Mr Woods, knowing that he had a hockey stick as a weapon. He urged the jury to not discount the hockey stick as a weapon – it could seriously harm.
He said if the jury accepted the evidence of Coralie Neil (Mr Woods' partner) that Mr Williams had urged Mr Woods to fight, then he was not a bystander: he ran along to do as much damage as he could to Mr Hargrave.
In reply, John Dickinson QC for Mr Williams, said that the Crown  seemed to have "abandoned" the case against Mr Williams. The Crown might say that Mr Williams saw that Mr Woods had the hockey stick because other people saw it, but the Crown also accepted that two eye witnesses – Faron Peckham (a member of Mr Hargrave's party) and Bevan Wilson (a security guard at the Keith Lawrie Flats) – did not clearly identify a second person at the scene. The Crown explained this away by the speed with which events occurred, a perfectly logical explanation that could also apply to Mr Williams, said Mr Dickinson. The jury could not thus be satisfied that Mr Williams knew that Mr Woods had the hockey stick.
Mr Dickinson argued that aiding and abetting had to occur at the critical time – the moment of the attack on Mr Hargrave. He said the Crown was relying on the evidence of Ms Neil tha
t Mr Williams was saying he wanted to go and fight. Mr Dickinson said this was "utterly wrong": even if the words were said, they were not an invitation to Mr Woods.
He said Mr Williams' behaviour outside the 24 Hour Store and the Memo Cl
ub had been "very, very average": "He didn't cover himself in any glory whatsoever" and the jury might think that what happened to him across the road at the carpark was what he deserved.
But he said, it all could have finished there. Instead it continued for some 1.5 kilometers to the Keith Lawrie Flats and went tragically wrong. He said the intent of Mr Hargrave's group had been made known: they – at least Ed Hargrave, Greg Smith and Scott McConnell – were willing to fight, with strong backup from Luke Woodberry. Like Jon Tippett QC for Mr Woods, he argued, pointing to various pieces of evidence, that the experience of the chase showed that the pursuing group were "wild, aggressive, hostile and intoxicated".
Mr Dickinson continued to maintain that the fatal blow to Mr Hargrave had nothing to do with his client, supported by a lack of forensic evidence on the body of Mr Hargrave of the kind of blow – a strike by a pole or iron bar – that his client had been alleged to have delivered. However, if the jury were to accept the Crown case that Mr Williams had aided and abetted, then they had to consider whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had not done so in self-defence.

It would be a reasonable view, he said, that Mr Williams had seen his cousin Mr Woods fighting with a much larger man, surrounded by a group of angry men, and heard threats being made to kill and harm women and children, and if he'd acted at all, he had done so in self-defence.
Justice John Reeves is expected to conclude his directions to the jury tomorrow, and the jury to then retire to consider its verdict.

Hargrave trial: Woods entitled to a verdict
of 'not guilty': summing up by the defence

Posted 2020 CST March 21

The "main issue" in the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams for the murder of Edward Hargrave is "the running out from the unit" in Musgrave Street by the accused and their attack on Mr Hargrave, said prosecutor Ron Noble in his summing up to the jury today. He described the pursuit of the two men by Mr Hargrave and his four companions as "foolhardy", but no licence for assault.
Anticipating the defence argument that Mr Woods' actions were "unwilled" and in self-defence, Mr Noble told the jury that you can't have a "mixture" of an unwilled act and self-defence: "It's got to be one or the other," he said.
He said Mr Woods was the aggressor, he was the one who ran out to Mr Hargrave, who "stood his ground" and was entitled to defend himself. He challenged the idea that Mr Woods was protecting his family, suggesting that he did not act to get his pregnant wife and sister inside, he did not stop to call police. He acknowledged the aggressive attitudes of Mr Hargrave's companions but said, "you judge people by their actions" and that the five men "did nothing to show that they were attacking" Mr Woods or his family.
He dismissed the idea of Mr Woods not knowing he had a knife in his hand.
"As someone draws a knife across someone's head, wouldn't you become aware?" he asked. And with two blows (there were two knife wounds, one to the scalp and one fatal stab wound to the shoulder) the actions are even more "deliberate". He acknowledged that forensic pathologist Dr Terence Sinton had said he could not exclude the possibility that the two wounds were made by a single action, but "of course, everything is possible", he said. The prosecution would maintain that the wounds were caused by two movements of the knife, the scenario that Dr Sinton preferred.
Mr Noble had said Mr Woods had "no credibility" in his record of interview with police, which he said was full of "half answers" and claims that he didn't really remember. When Mr Woods said he didn't remember having a knife in his hand, he was "clearly not being honest, not telling the truth", said Mr Noble.
In defence of Mr Woods, Jon Tippett QC, argued that the pursuit of Mr Woods and Mr Williams by Mr Hargrave and his companions was crucial to understanding what happened. The evidence from the people in the pursuing party showed that their intention was to "run down" and "beat senseless" the accused, he said.
He said there were three "compelling" reasons why a verdict of not guilty of murder should be returned.
The first was that there was no intention on the part of Mr Woods to cause death or serious harm; his sole intention was to frighten or drive away. It was a "five on one" situation, he said, and the five were at his home, a place where he was entitled to stay and defend himself and others.
The second was that the blow tha
t caused death was not the product of Mr Woods' will. It was an "unthinking, instinctive reaction"; he wanted to push Mr Hargrave away and did not know he had a knife in his hand, his only concern being to avoid the "mother of a beating" that he feared he was about to get from Mr Hargrave.
The third was that he struck Mr Hargrave in self-defence. He said it was up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no possibility of self-defence.
Mr Tippett reminded the jury that Mr Hargrave was a "big, powerful man", supported by four other men, and his sole objective, in following Mr Woods from the Memo Club carpark across town for some 1.5 kms, was to "beat him up".  And when people get beaten up "they can and do die", said Mr Tippett.
He argued that the presence of the five men in Musgrave Street that night was "extremely frightening" to everyone. He took the jury through the evidence of several witnesses, painting a picture of "all he
ll breaking loose". He reminded them of the call Lindy Woods, Mr Woods' sister, made to police: "You could hear the fear in her voice – it was real and genuine". He later reminded them of "her diminutive person" (she is a petite woman): "How dare these men, how dare they!" He asked, "in this environment is it any wonder" that Graham Woods armed himself and went out to frighten the men away.
Mr Tippett argued that Mr Woods' record of interview with police showed "an unfolding of the truth"; Mr Woods, not an "articulate" or "assertive" man, was "groping to recover" and "describe" his experience, he said, and importantly by the end of the interview, he was telling the truth.
He stressed the "striking similarity" between Mr Woods' evidence about the encounter with Mr Hargrave and the evidence given by Faron Peckham, one of Mr Hargrave's party, evidence that Mr Woods could not possibly have known of at the time of the interview. He said that Mr Woods' description of the encounter with Mr Hargrave was consistent throughout the three hour "grilling"; several times he described Mr Hargrave coming towards him and grabbing his right arm. Mr Tippett reminded the jury of Mr Peckham's evidence that "Ed run into him [Mr Woods]".
He said the evidence in the case "shows that a tragedy took place" but it also shows that Mr Woods is "entitled to a verdict of not guilty". He said Mr Woods did not need the jury's "sympathy"; he needed their "capacity to assess the evidence".
Defence cousel for co-accused Julian Williams will sum up tomorrow morning.

Jury sent home for the day
Posted 2000 CST March 17, 2011

The jury sitting on the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams for the murder  of Edward Hargrave was sent home today as Justice John Reeves heard submissions from counsel on what should and should not go into his directions for the jury.
Justice Reeves will give them an aide memoire – like a checklist of the legal issues to be taken into account in their deliberations – and will also give spoken directions.
The families of both the accused and of the victim sat through today's long hours of legal argument which will no doubt better prepare them for what is to come tomorrow when the court will hear summing up addresses by the prosecution and the defence.
Directions for the jury are likely to be delivered on Monday next week after which the jury will withdraw to consider its verdict.

Court hears accused man's police interview
Posted 2020 CST March 16, 2011

The Crown case against Graham Woods and Julian Williams for the murder of Edward Hargrave concluded today. Both men are pleading not guilty.
Mr Hargrave died on the night of April 3, 2009 and Graham Woods was arrested the next day at Bond Springs outstation or "16 Mile" as he calls it. For his police interview he asked for his grandmother, Agnes Woods, to sit with him as his "prisoner's friend".  Today the electronic record of that interview was played in the court. He told police that he was currently unemployed but had been working until recently. He'd been to Catholic High (OLSH) until Year 9, but said he could not read or write very well. He said he speaks only English. He spoke mostly in a very low voice and towards the end of the three hour interview became quite emotional, choking back sobs and wiping away tears.
He described being chased from the Memo Club to the Keith Lawrie Flats, and being "exhausted" from running. In speaking of his altercation with Mr Hargrave he said "he actually came towards me". He showed how Mr Hargrave held him on his right arm, just above his wrist. He said he was trying to push Mr Hargrave away. Everything "just happened so quick", he said. This was the early brief outline he gave of the events. Police then took him through the day, step by step, returning to the critical events several times.
Mr Woods told them he and co-accused Julian Williams together with his brother Corey  Woods and two friends began drinking at his place in the afternoon.  By sundown they were finishing their last cans out of two cartons on Anzac Hill. He said he, Corey and Julian were all "pretty charged" and he was still "charged" when the critical events occurred later that night in Musgrave Street.
Once they'd reached the Keith Kawrie Flats, he said Julian was the one who wanted to keep fighting. He again told police "the bloke" came towards him: "He came towards me to grab me, my arms." Mr Woods said he had a stick in his hands that he'd found outside the units; he said Julian had a bottle and little pole.
It was put to him that he raised the stick: "Yeah, 'fuck off', you know, and he grabbed me by the arm, tackling me." He was asked if he had taken anything from the unit (his sister Lindy's place). He said he was "not sure". 
Police got him to describe the layout of the unit and to again retrace his steps.  He said he went into the kitchen to get a drink of water. Did he take anything out of the kitchen? "I don't think so," he said, adding that "everything happened so fast" and also, "I reckon I did bring a stick from inside, from the ground near the stairs". He described pushing against "the fella" who had grabbed him, raising his arms, saying: "I don't even know what happened."
At that point the interview had lasted some two hours and the parties took a break. In the courtroom there was also a break and when the jury re-entered, Justice John Reeves told them that what Mr Woods was saying about Mr Williams could not be used in any way, for or against Mr Williams, while they could make their own assessment of Mr Woods' evidence about his own actions.
As the interview resumed, the police again took Mr Woods over the critical events. He was asked why he was saying that his actions were in self-defence. He said the "fella" had grabbed him and punched him in the stomach, that he had grabbed the fella on his shoulder, then thought that he himself was bleeding: "That's when I let go." He said, "I don't know if I had an object in my hand or not." He said it "could have been a knife or something sharp".
As he ran, he looked back and saw Mr Hargrave walk, and then "he sat down". He said he was panicking and thought he was bleeding. He lifted his t-shirt to show the place where he had felt something sharp on his abdomen. It was put to him that it might have been a knife that was in his hand. He said it "might have been". If it was, where did he think he would have got it from? Probably inside the flat, he said, "when I was getting a drink of water".
He was asked why he went out from the unit, with a stick and maybe a knife. He said, referring to Julian whom he continued to say was the one "who wanted to keep going": "Because he's my cousin." He also said he thought "they [the men outside] were going to come inside my sister's flat". He was asked if he was in danger, to which he replied "no", adding "but I was in danger when they were chasing me".
He was shown a photograph of a knife found in the vicinity of the crime scene. In a very low voice he spoke of getting the knife from the sink in his sister's kitchen.
He described panicking and taking two showers in quick succession, one at his sister's flat, the second at his brother Corey's flat in the same complex, in an attempt to calm himself down. Asked why he was panicking, he said: "It was the first time I seen someone else's blood." He was asked how he thought the blood got on him. He referred to a knife.
The police returned to questions about why he did what he did in self-defence. He said he was frightened that the men outside might come closer to where "the kids" were (among the three was his own young son). He said they were singing out, "We're going to kill you cunts."  Did he think his life was in danger? He said: 'If they would have caught me they would have beat the shit out of me."
He was asked how he felt when it was "all going on and ended with the knife to the shoulder" of Mr Hargrave. He said he was "scared", "frightened" and "upset" because "they chased us": "They kept on coming, they chased us all the way."
He said he "forgot all about" having a knife in his hand, only realising it at the "last minute".
The court was told that Mr Williams had exercised his right to silence on legal advice and had not answered police questions.
The trial continues, with summing up beginning tomorrow.

'Theoretically' Ed Hargrave could have survived: forensic pathologist
Posted 2000 CST March 15, 2011

Edward Hargrave died as a result of a stab wound, received on the night of April 3, 2009; the wound, penetrating to a depth of 10 cm, cut arteries from which he would have bled profusely but it was not "inevitably fatal". "Theoretically" he could have survived if "appropriate treatment" had been available at the time. However, the potential blood loss from his wound meant that he could have died within minutes.
So said Dr Terence Sinton, director of the Forensic Pathology Unit at the Royal Darwin Hospital, who performed the autopsy on Mr Hargrave at the Alice Springs Hospital on April 5, 2009.
Two men, Graham Woods and Julian Williams, stand accused of the murder of Mr Hargrave. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Dr Sinton told the Supreme Court in Alice Springs today that he had found three wounds on Mr Hargrave's body: a three centimetre stab wound entry on the back of his right shoulder towards the base of the neck; an incisional wound in the scalp, about 15 cm in length; and some faint bruising on the knuckle of the left hand. The stab wound had penetrated through muscles, downwards and forwards, fracturing one rib and cutting another and injuring two relatively large arteries present in the shoulder. The scalp wound had cut the membrane over the skull but the skull was intact. The scalp wound had been caused by a sharp edge consistent with a knife.
Dr Sinton was asked whether the sharp edge of a bottle could have caused the wound; he said it was possible. He said the scalp wound was serious but in his opinion did not materially contribute to Mr Hargrave's death.
The stab wound had damaged the first and second ribs on the right side, had cut (nicked) one major artery and completely severed a smaller but important artery taking blood to the brain. Dr Sinton described the force used as "severe", out of a standard rating force as mild, moderate, severe or extreme.
He was shown a kitchen knife recovered in the vicinity of the crime scene and said it was possible that such a knife caused the stab wound and may also have caused the incisional wound to the scalp.
In cross-examination, Jon Tippett QC, appearing for Mr Woods, put to Dr Sinton that the "severe force" of the stabbing would have resulted from the "sum total" of the movement of the body towards the implement as well as the movement of the implement towards the body. Dr Sinton agreed: "Very much so, yes."
Mr Tippett also put to him that both the stab wound and incisional wound could have been caused by a single movement of a knife across the scalp and into the shoulder. Dr Sinton said he was "unhappy" about such an explanation. However, he could not exclude it.
John Dickinson QC, appearing for Mr Williams, asked Dr Sinton if he could rule out the incisional wound having been caused by an iron bar or something similar. Dr Sinton agreed that he could. Mr Dickinson put to him that there was no evidence of a bottle being broken over Mr Hargrave's head. Dr Sinton again agreed.
In re-examination, prosecutor Michael McColm revisted the question of the stab wound and wound to the scalp possibly having been caused by a single movement. Dr Sinton said "to my mind" different movements were involved. He would think "more likely" that the two wounds were caused by two separate actions.
The court also heard via video link from Coralie Neil, partner of Graham Woods or "Junior" as she and his family call him. In April 2009 the couple had a three year old son together and Ms Neil was expecting their second child. She gave birth just 12 days after the death of Mr Hargrave. She is currently living in Darwin.
She gave evidence that after police had arrived on the scene and everyone was scared, that Junior said to her that he must have done "something bad". She also gave evidence that she had seen and heard Julian Williams, Junior's cousin, at Musgrave Street on the night of Mr Hargrave's death. She said she had taken off him an iron pole (the broken metal leg of a chair) and a bottle and hidden them in her sister-in-law's unit. However, she also said she saw him running with the pole and bottle (that she had earlier taken away) towards where Junior and Kwementyaye (the name she used to refer to Mr Hargave) were fighting.  She did not see anything further of these events, she said, as she turned towards another man (of the Hargrave party) who was threatening her.
Under cross-examination from Mr Dickinson, she agreed that her first two statements to police, made on April 4 and 5 , had made no mention of Mr Williams. She said she didn't get her "story straight" as detectives were "pushing" her and she was "nervous".
Mr Dickinson suggested to her that she had "put a pole and bottle into the hands of Julian" and decided to have him "running out across Musgrave Street" in her statement of the 7th. Ms Neil said yes. He suggested that she had "made up" that Julian was armed with a pole and bottle. She said she had not.
He put to her that she had never seen Mr Williams go inside. She said: "Nuh, he never went inside."  As she concluded her evidence, Ms Neil had her head in her hands and appeared to be crying.
The trial continues.
Meanwhile, Justice John Reeves has withdrawn contempt of court charges against the publisher of the Centralian Advocate, thought to be News Limted but in fact Nationwide News Pty Ltd, for which News Ltd is a holding company, according to the company's legal representative present in the court.
Justice Reeves said he accepted that the content and prominence of the correction on March 11 to the Advocate's misreporting on March 8 had "significantly ameliorated" the adverse effects of the offending report.

The dead man's brother in law tells of the fatal fight
Posted 2000 CST March 14, 2011

The young brother-in-law of the late Edward Hargrave broke down in court today as he gave evidence of the moments leading to Mr Hargrave's death. Luke Woodberry was called as a witness in the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams for murder. Both men are pleading not guilty.
Mr Woodberry also told the court that he had not seen before the men whom he said he saw attack Mr Hargrave.
Mr Woodberry said when he and Mr Hargrave were not even half way down Musgrave Street they went to turn around as they could not see anyone. At that moment two men rushed out of a unit on the other side of the street. Mr Woodberry said Mr Hargrave was about two metres in front of him.
As he was being questioned by prosecutor Ron Noble about the whereabouts of other people in the street, Mr Woodberry became increasingly upset. There was a short break while he left the court in the company of his parents.
On his return Mr Noble asked him whether he had noticed anything particular about the two men who came out of the unit. He said they were of Aboriginal appearance and they were both carrying "bats". Had he seen either man before? He said no.
Asked about their clothing, he said one was not wearing a shirt. This man was carrying a silver-grey bat, holding it up in the air, said Mr Woodberry, and he did not see him carrying anything else. The other man was carrying a longer bat, like a hockey stick, and he did not see him carrying anything else either.
He said the two men came running straight up to Mr Hargrave and himself. He had turned around and run back towards Bloomfield Street, and so did not see the first contact between Mr Hargrave and the two. Turning back to see where Mr Hargrave was, he saw him holding onto the "bloke with no shirt", a hold "more like a hug". The man with the shirt ran around the back, "out of Ed's vision" and struck him once across the back of the head with a bat. Then the man with no shirt ran back towards the unit.
Asked whether he saw the man with no shirt holding a bat at the time of contact with Mr Hargrave, he said not at that time. The man with the shirt ran around "like a U-shape" and back to the unit.
He said Mr Hargrave turned around and started to walk towards him. He seemed to be OK, but he was trying to say something to him and "couldn't get the words out". He said he knew at that moment that something was wrong and after five to six steps Mr Hargrave fell to the ground. Mr Woodberry said he then jumped on top of him "to make sure they didn't come back for him".
He said he got hit in the left eye at this time, but he did not see by whom, he was focussed on Mr Hargrave who was losing a lot of blood from the back of his head. Mr Woodberry had his hand on the back of his brother-in-law's head, trying to stop the blood, kneeling down, "just trying to keep him alive really".
Connections of the Hargrave and Woodberry families in court were in tears as Mr Woodberry struggled with his own emotions during this part of his evidence.
The accused sat as they always do, without moving, listening, serious.
Mr Woodberry was asked if either of the men who came out had said anything, or if he or Mr Hargrave had said anything. He said no. He said a lady near the unit was yelling for them to come back, "Junior, Junior, come back". Asked to describe the two men, he said the man with no shirt was part-Aboriginal, young. The man with a shirt on was also Aboriginal, "a little darker".
In cross-examination Jon Tippett QC, appearing for Mr Woods, asked several questions suggesting that there was a planned pursuit of two men and an intention to fight on the part of Mr Woodberry and his companions. Mr Woodberry did not agree with much of this but when statements he had made during the committal were put to him, he agreed that they were the truth. He had been asked what he expected to happen when he followed the two men and had said "a fight, I suppose".  He was asked if he had "chased" the two men and had said yes.
Mr Tippett put to him he had chased one into the nurses quarters (on the corner of Telegraph Tce and Stuart Tce) and that he had wanted to "give him a beating". Mr Woodberry said no, but when Mr Tippett said that he had wanted to "fight", he said yes.
Earlier, under questioning from Mr Noble, he had given evidence of a man with a shaved head who had been involved in an altercation with his companion, Scott McConnell, in the carpark opposite the Memo Club. In cross-examination, John Dickinson QC, appearing for Mr Williams, asked if Mr Woodberry had seen the Aboriginal man with the shaved head in Musgrave Street. Mr Woodberry said: "Not that I recall."

Women frightened as fighting men arrive in their street
Posted 1845 CST March 11, 2011

In the murder trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams, the court heard from two women who were in the Keith Lawrie Flats on Musgrave Street on the night that Edward Hargrave died.
Joanie Wilson was living there in April 2009 with Gary Woods, brother of accused man Graham Woods or "Junior" as he is known to his family.
She told the court that when Junior arrived in the flat where she and Gary were that night, he had no shirt on and was bleeding from a "little wound" just above his belly button where "someone had poked him". The scratch went from there to his chest. She said he told them that he had had a fight and that "someone was hurt". Asked if he spoke about who the person was or how he had been hurt, she said he said, "I think someone is hurt or dead".
She said she and Gary did not want to know what had happened – " we were worried about Junior". He was "panicking" and "scared, frightened".
She said when Julian arrived not long after, he told them they had just had a fight, got chased from the Memo Club back to the flats by a "bunch of white people". He told them his cousin Jermain had got knocked over and they didn't know where he was. She went to look for Junior's partner, Coralie, but was stopped by a policeman and told that someone had been killed and that it was a crime scene.
In cross-examination by Jon Tippett QC, she nodded when he said Junior had broken down and cried when he heard from her that a man had died. Mr Tippett put to her that Junior had cried most of the night. She nodded. For most of her evidence, Ms Wilson kept her face turned away from the bar. She said: "You could talk to him but he was upset." Mr Tippett suggested he was "not making much sense", he was "crying and shaking". She said yes.
The court also heard from Lindy Woods, sister of Graham Woods, who also lived at Keith Lawrie Flats, in a different unit from Gary Woods, Joanie Wilson and Corey Woods.
On the night Mr Hargrave died she was in her unit with her sister-in-law Coralie, partner of Graham (or Junior), and her sister Samantha and their three children, aged seven and under. They were watching TV when they heard, from a distance, banging on bins and yelling. She turned the TV down to listen. The yelling was getting louder. She could hear swearing. When she heard a knock at the door she told Coralie not to open it. Then she heard: "It's me, Junior", and Coralie opened the door.
When Ms Woods saw her brother, his shirt was torn around the collar and she "knew something was wrong". She could see Julian at the fence, vomiting, and looking towards Bloomfield Street, she could see "two fellas" coming up the street towards her unit and "one fella" on the other side of the street. She could hear swearing, including the word "pricks".
Of the two on her side, she said both were big, one was white, another "dark", agreeing that he was an Aboriginal man.  A "tall, skinny fella", near the carpark area, was wearing cargo pants but no shirt. She said he had a shirt or something wrapped around his hand. He was running around, back and forth, swearing.
She said the two nearer her were swearing, saying "You black cunts" and "Get them pricks out". She said they were throwing rocks and dirt at her and her sister-in-law. She told them to "fuck off, women and only children are here".
She told the court she saw her brother go past her, towards the man "that's passed away". She described that man as "big, tall, solid built" and "white". She saw that Junior was carrying a hockey stick, wrapped in
grey duct tape, but did not see that he was carrying anything else (she later said that a hockey stick, photoraphed at the crime scene, belonged to her son; and she agreed that she had had in her kitchen a similar knife to one photographed at or near the crime scene, which she noticed a couple of days later was no longer there).
When Junior ran past her, she said she was screaming out, telling him to stop, she was frightened, she could see what was going to happen. She said he and the man took a punch at one another, then the man in cargo pants and Julian came in. She said Julian was carrying a short pole. She then ran inside to call the police.
During cross-examination the court heard, in far less than perfect auditory conditions, a recording of that 000 call.
Ms Woods identified the voice as hers. She sounded very frightened. There was some confusion about her address; the operator was in Darwin and Ms Woods had to tell her that she was in Alice Springs and had to spell out the name of Musgrave Street. 
She told the operator there were eight to 10 men outside, fighting with her family member, that she and her sister-in-law were both pregnant, that she had her "little one" (seven year-old son) with her. She also said she thought she saw a fella with "a knife, a big knife". Then she told the operator that a fella had been hurt now, she didn't know who he was. She sounded very distressed. The operator told her not to go outside.
Regarding the man she thought had a knife, she told Mr Tippett that she was not sure about what she'd seen, she was "that frightened", having seen "the body languages of everybody".

She said after the call she told Junior and Julian to leave her flat, agreeing that was for their safety. She later saw the security guard for the flats who told her that a person had passed away and she went to the flat (in the same complex) where Junior and Julian had gone and told them. She said Junior was "upset, crying, frightened".
The trial continues.

Juror discharged, brother of accused gives evidence
Posted 1400 CST March 11, 2011

A juror was discharged from the jury sitting on the murder trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams this morning.
Justice John Reeves told the jury that the juror had some convictions within the last seven years involving periods of imprisonment. He told them that the person had said they thought the convictions occurred outside of the seven year period, but in fact they were within it by some months. He said that was a possible explanation but in any case the person was not qualified to serve.
One of the two reserve jurors was chosen by lot to replace the person.
Justice Reeves reminded the jury that, even if discussion had been had with the person regarding the evidence, to put those discussions out of their minds. The discharge does not affect their deliberations, he said, which must be based only on the evidence heard in the court.
The court then heard evidence from witness Corey Woods, brother of the accused Graham Woods, and cousin of the accused Julian Williams.
He said when the four friends of the "big feller" arrived at the carpark across the road from the Memo Club that they were not angry at first, but spoke to him and Graham about what was going on. During this time he said Julian was fighting with the "big feller". All of a sudden he saw a fist and his cousin Jermain Woods was knocked out cold on the ground. He said he and Graham tried to drag Jermain away onto the grass and the "other fellers" were fighting.
"They all started double-banking Julian," he said.
When Jermain woke up and Julian and the "big feller" stopped fighting he said his group all tried to walk away. He heard the words: "Let's chase them."
He said he jumped the hedge at the RFDS and hid until everyone had gone.
He took an indirect route to return to his flat on Musgrave street. When he got there Graham and Julian were there, Graham awake and Julian asleep. He said Graham was "panicking" and "sweaty". He said Graham told him there had been a "tussle" out the front of the flats; the word "tussle" was his word. He could not remember Graham's exact words.
He said he first became aware that someone had died the next day.
During cross-examination, Russell Goldflam appearing for Graham Woods, reminded Corey Woods of statements he had made to police on April 6, 2009.
According to the statement, he told police that Graham, the morning after the night when Mr Hargrave died, had whispered to him: "I didn't mean to do it."
He was also reminded that he had told police that Graham had whispered: "I don't know, I might have hurt someone."
Corey said he could not remember what he said, but on reading the statement, agreed he had said those words to police.
Mr Goldflam asked him if what he told the police was true.
Corey Woods said: "Yeah."

Witness admits to threatening women and children
Posted 1800 CST March 10, 2011

A witness in the trial for murder of Graham Woods and Julian Williams has admitted that he may have threatened to punch and kill women at the scene of the altercation that ended in the death of Edward Hargrave .
Greg Smith, asked if he had threatened to punch and kill women, said, "I might have." Asked if he had threatened to harm children, he said "No, who knows, yeah". Mr Smith was one of four friends of Mr Hargrave who, the defence argues, chased the two accused across town from the Memo Club to Musgrave Street where Mr Hargrave died. The defence has described the chase as "a hunt". In cross-examination today Mr Smith gave some fuel to this argument.
While he said it was not the intention from the start to fight, but rather to "have a chat" and "work it out", he also admitted to "seeing red" and wanting to "have a go".
He admitted to sprinting after the pair from the RFDS lawns; he agreed that the object of the exercise was to "catch them".
When defence counsel Jon Tippett QC then put to him that the object was also to give them "another hiding" (after an initial fight in the carpark opposite the Memo), Mr Smith said it was not – that was what they had wanted to do "the first time". Mr Tippett persisted: "You ran after them to give them a hiding."
Mr Smith replied: "They were egging us on, yeah."
Mr Tippett put to him that he, Mr Hargrave and Luke Woodberry hid amongst the saltbush at the railway line with the intention to "ambush" the two men. 
"I haven't heard that before," said Mr Smith, seeming surprised.
"You hid in the bush in an effort to hunt them down," said Mr Tippett.
"We hid in the bush for our own safety," said Mr Smith.
Mr Tippett quoted Mr Smith's words – that they would be "smart about this" and "hunt them down" – from the transcript of the committal hearing held in October 2009.
That was "a while ago", said Mr Smith, and he did not recall having said that. He preferred to say now that the intention was "to catch them up".
When he and his friends left the saltbush and followed the pair down Bloomfield Street, Mr Smith was initially in the lead, but Mr Hargrave overtook him. Mr Tippett put it to Mr Smith that
Mr Hargrave was "going for it", that "come hell or high water he was going to get them".
"Yeah," said Mr Smith.
Mr Tippett then asked Mr Smith about his arrival in Musgrave Street. There was little that the witness admitted to recalling, but then Mr Tippett described in dramatic terms Mr Smith's confrontation with three Aboriginal women in the street. He said the women were "yelling and screaming", they were "banging sticks on the ground", they were "telling you to fuck off". He said Mr Smith "challenged them", "you got stuck into them, you wanted to know where the fucking pricks were".
Mr Smith again said: "Yeah".
Mr Tippett suggested that Mr Smith thought the men had gone into the place where the women had come out from.
"Exactly," said Mr Smith.
Mr Tippett went over the scenario again, concluding that the women "were standing together, they were defending their home".
"I don't think so, mate," said Mr Smith.
"You didn't leave," said Mr Tippett.
"We couldn't leave, could we?"
Mr Tippett put it to him that he was working up "for a really big fight" and he had taken his shirt off. Mr Smith said, "Yeah", adding that the pair were "baiting us all the way", had challenged them to come back and fight at their place.
"We was invited back there," he said.
Under cross-examination by John Dickinson QC, appearing for Mr Williams, Mr Smith said the original intention was to show a "bit of support" to Scott McConnell, who had been assaulted in Gap Road, between the Memo Club and the 24 Hour Store, and again in the carpark opposite the Memo.
From his position in the saltbush at the railway line, he saw the people he and his friends were following "throw rocks at the boss (Mr McConnell)" and "hunt him down like a dog".
Mr Dickinson questioned him in  detail about what he saw of the assault on Mr Hargrave immediately prior to his death. He put it to him that he was not sure that he had seen a second person involved in the assault on Mr Hargrave. Mr Smith agreed he was not sure, but said he keeps "thinking about it all the time" and he can see a second person in his mind. Mr Dickinson put it to him that he "may be wrong" and Mr Smith concurred. Mr Dickinson said he had said nothing of the second person in his statement to the police, nor during committal. He put it to Mr Smith that he was "making it up".
"What do you reckon, mate? I don't think so, I wouldn't be saying it otherwise," Mr Smith replied, appearing angry.
The trial continues.

Court told of fight near Memo Club, Hargrave's last moments
Posted 1900 CST March 9, 2011

In the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Williams for the murder of Edward Hargrave, the court heard evidence today from Scott McConnell about what happened in the vicinity of the Memo Club and the 24 Hour Store on Gap Road and then later as he and others moved towards the Keith Lawrie Flats on the corner of Bloomfield Street and Musgrave Street.
Mr McConnell told the court that just past the Tea Shrine he was harassed by two people, men in their early twenties of Aboriginal appearance, and was called, (he apologised for the language) "a fat white cunt" among other things. His path was impeded, he was pushed and  further taunted about his weight. He said he tried to dissuade the men, saying they should leave it and walk away. When there was further physical contact he pushed back.
A little later he was sprayed in the eyes and face, quite concerned about the substance at first but realised later it was OK (the court heard later on a recording of his call to the police emergency number that he said he had been sprayed by acid). He was again called "a fat white cunt". He could see people in the shadows on both sides of Gap road. He said he was punched in the jaw – "a proper good punch".
The two young men were joined by a third. Mr McConnell tried to land a couple of punches, but said he could not recall making contact, though he did recall tearing the shirt of one man. He said at least one of the three crossed the road. He was starting to feel quite concerned, not knowing what would happen next.
He called Mr Hargrave who was inside the Memo Club, asking for his help. He was in the carpark opposite the club, feeling "extremely annoyed". There he was punched more than once and was attempting to retaliate but was not effective, unable to move quickly. People were moving around him, jumping out of the way.
He fell to the ground and when he got up, Mr Hargrave and Faron Peckham had arrived.
There was more scuffling, with four people in one party, five people, including himself, in the other. He said he saw Mr Hargrave hit one who as a result lay on the ground for some time. Mr McConnell was also involved in a scuffle and could remember holding the person to the ground, again saying that they should "leave this" (the conflict).
He said people from the other group ran away towards the RFDS building. He said three of his party, including Mr Hargrave, pursued them quite quickly, while he and Mr Peckham walked behind.
When he and Mr Peckham arrived in Musgrave Street he could see a group of some 10 males fighting, some dancing around a group of four to five in the middle. Among them he recognsied Mr Hargrave.
He saw people run towards Mr Hargrave, saw him get hit – "some sort of contact". He said Mr Hargrave walked "a few steps towards us" and fell over. He did not see what other people then did, his "focus was on Ed". He encouraged Luke Woodberry to stop Mr Hargave's bleeding.
Becoming upset as he gave this evidence, he said almost immediately Mr Hargrave's upper body was covered in blood and Mr Woodberry's hands were covered in blood. Mr Peckham called the ambulance which arrived in a matter of minutes. The police arrived  some time after.
When the prosecutor showed CCTV footage of the scene outside the 24 Hour Store, Mr McConnell could not remember some of his movements and actions that were recorded there – leaving the scene in the direction of the mall, and talking to someone who stopped in a vehicle.
In cross-examination he admitted to referring to his assailants as "softcocks". He rejected the expression that he "cracked the shits" to describe his emotional state although he agreed that he had used the expression in the past. He said he was "extremely annoyed".
Jon Tippett QC, appearing for Mr Woods, suggested that he was "quite wild". "Extremely wild or proper wild" would be a very good description of how he was feeling, Mr McConnell said.
Mr Tippet suggested that when he crossed the road he went to "have a fight". Mr McConnell preferred to say "I went to respond".
Mr Tippett suggested that he grabbed a man "in a headlock and drove him to the ground". Mr McConnell said that was "unlikely", that he held on to the man as they both went to the ground and then positioned himself on top of the man. He denied having "won" the fight.
Mr Tippett suggested that when his friends arrived they were "fired up" and "ready for a fight". Mr McConnell said they were "responding".
Mr Tippett put it to him that he intended "to break some fucking skulls". Mr McConnell said he was aware that he said that in a call to police. He wanted to contextualise and resisted answering Mr Tippett's further questions until Justice John Reeves explained that re-examination by the prosecution would clarify.
Mr McConnell denied ever having chased the two young men. He said after they ran away he never saw any of the other party again.  He said he could not recall why he had an idea about where his friends had gone. He said he had reason to suspect that they were chasing members of the other party. He and Mr Peckham followed at a slower pace. He made one phone call to Mr Hargrave.
He resented the term "pursuit" used by Mr Tippett. He recalled that Mr Hargarve told him that rocks were being thrown at him.
He recalled at some stage seeing women who appeared to be Aboriginal in Musgrave Street. Mr Tippet said the women were being very loud. Mr McConnell said everyone was. Told to answer the question, he said he could not recall if they were being loud.

He was asked whether the women told Mr Hargrave to "fuck off, we've got kids here" and "I'm pregnant, fuck off". Mr McConnell said he wouldn't know – "it was pandemonium". The only language he recalled was someone saying, "Look out, he's got an iron bar" or words to the effect.
He said he saw children on bicycles but he did not hear children screaming and crying. He did not see anyone strike Mr Hargrave. He did not see anyone holding a weapon.
The court heard recordings of several phone calls to police made by Mr McConnell on the night.
He told the operator he was going to follow the men who had attacked him, using the threatening language referred to above about what he was going to do to them.
In the third call he was advised by police to stay in a safe place. If he was not going to go back to the Memo Club, he should go to the police station.  Mr Tippet asked him if he did that. Mr McConnell said no.
In a fourth call he was again told to head towards the Memo Club, and his phone number was taken for police to call if they could not find him.
In a fifth phone call he told the operator he was chasing the people who had assaulted him down Bloomfield Street. The operator asked several questions, including where was he attacked. Mr McConnell struggled to remember. He agreed with Mr Tippett that he told the operator at the end of the call, "All right, we'll deal with it, thank you."
In a sixth call, he was in Musgrave Street. He sounded quite stressed, even distressed, saying he needed help as soon as possible.

The trial continues.

No juror to be discharged

Posted 1400 CST March 9, 2011

No juror will be discharged from the jury in the trial of Graham Woods and Julian Wiliams for the murder of Edward Hargrave in April 2009.
Justice John Reeves, who had indicated
yesterday that he would discharge a juror, changed his mind after reflection overnight. He told the full jury this morning of the circumstances which led to his preliminary decision and to the course of action he is now taking.
The issue arose from the misreporting in the Centralian Advocate of March 8, 2011 that a member of the jury was related to the accused, which is not the case.
Justice Reeves said discharging the juror could reinforce the inaccuracy of the report by implying that the juror could not discharge their oath to try the accused faithfully based on the evidence.  He said such action could also set an "unfortunate precedent" for targeting a juror or jury by publishing inaccurate information.
He said the juror in question, whose identity he does not know (the communication having been made via a note) had done nothing wrong; on the contrary, the person had acted with complete propriety. He said the incident did not give rise to any concern that the juror could not discharge their oath, not for him, nor counsel for the accused, nor the prosecutor.
He reassured the jury that their anonymity is protected by law.
A correction of the Advocate article appeared in today's Northern Territory News, and Justice Reeves said Advocate editor Gary Wasserman had told the court that a further correction will be published in the Advocate of March 11. (The Advocate is a bi-weekly paper, appearing Tuesdays and Fridays, and the NT News is a sister paper, both owned by News Ltd.)
The trial continues.

Hargrave murder trial: Accused argue self-defence
March 8, 2011

Motorsport identity Edward Hargrave was killed in self-defence, will argue counsel for Graham Woods who is accused of Mr Hargrave’s murder.
The fatal stabbing was an instinctive or reflex action by Mr Woods who believed he was about to have “the shit beaten out of him” and could possibly die, said his counsel.
The trial of Mr Woods, together with co-accused Julian Williams, began on Monday.
Both men are pleading “not guilty” to the charge of murder.
Counsel for Mr Williams, John Dickinson QC, joined with his colleague in describing the chase of the pair by the deceased and four friends as “a hunt”. It ended in a “wild, angry, violent and shambolic scene”, he said, alleging that there were threats made towards the women and children present.  He said self-defence will be “a live issue” in the trial and that evidence of it does not have to be proved by the accused; on the contrary, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defence.  He also said that at the end of the day his client, Mr Williams, is not liable for the actions of Mr Woods, whom the prosecution alleges inflicted the fatal wound.

On day two of the trial, counsel for Mr Woods, Jon Tippett QC, spoke to the jury of "two events" that occurred on the night of April 3, 2009 when Mr Hargave died.
The first was “pretty unpleasant, juvenile, insulting and downright stupid”, taking place in the vicinity of the Memo Club on Gap Road, quickly rolling into an assault on Scot
t McConnell by three young men and then a scuffle between the various parties. Then “the tables turned”, said Mr Tippett, and the “three on one scuffle” became a “hunt” of two of the three by five “very angry” men, over a distance of 1.4 kms, ending at the Keith Lawrie Flats in Musgrave Street.  The various members of “the hunting party” behaved differently, some in front, some behind. There was “mobile phone organisation”; there were people “lying in wait” at particular points. The five men were fit and Mr Hargave was “a very big man”, 188 cms tall, weighing 110 kgs.
Various witnesses will give evidence that there were women and children present at the scene in Musgrave Street, he said.  Mr Woods was “exhausted” and thought that he was going to be “severely injured”. He was “outnumbered” by the group of “angry, determined men advancing on the unit” into which he had run and armed himself.
He ran out to frighten them away, said Mr Tippett.
The other men were departing but Mr Hargrave turned to face him.
When Mr Hargrave “dropped and went into him” Mr Woods tried to push Mr Hargrave away and the knife was in his hand. Mr Tippett did not describe how the knife allegedly penetrated the victim’s body. 
At this point he spoke to the jury about self-defence: a person is entitled to defend him- or herself and to defend others.
The onus on the prosecution will be to prove to the “highest standard of proof” that Mr Woods' action was not in self-defence.
He said persons act in self-defence in circumstances of great pressure; they are “not able to weigh” the nature of their actions.
He asked the jury to keep in mind that Mr Woods’ action was sudden and in fear, that the environment was unfolding, lots of things were happening, that he was acting out of an instinct for self-preservation and the preservation of others.
He asked the jury to look carefully at the account Mr Woods gives of his actions in his electronic record of interview with police, bearing in mind the stress of the situation for his client in the alien environment of the interview room, the use of language, the use of gestures to describe actions.
The prosecution will have to prove that Mr Woods intended to kill Mr Hargrave and that there was no possibility of “reflex action” by his client, said Mr Tippett.
In the interview, which will be played in court next week, Mr Woods tells police that he forgot he had the knife in his hand.
Such forgetting while focussed on something else is part of human experience and part of this tragedy, said Mr Tippett.
The jury had been empanelled before lunch, with 29 potential jurors excused from duty, and a further 24 potential jurors challenged by the defence.
Another potential juror was told to “stand aside” by the Crown.
No reasons need to be provided for challenges (a maximum of 12 for each of the accused) nor for orders to stand aside.
The jury that eventuated after this process is made up equally of six men, six women, of varying ages and backgrounds, with two female reserve jurors.
Justice Reeves spent considerable time explaining their role and court procedures and giving them advice – which they could take or leave – on how to listen to the evidence: they must comply with his directions in matters of law, but they are “the sole arbiters of the facts”, he said.
Their responsibility is a heavy one, but, he assured them, “Your combined experience of the world and knowledge of everyday affairs is great indeed”.
It was late afternoon when the prosecutor. Ron Noble, finally began his opening address.
He said that there were effectively two trials underway, as the case against each of the accused is “significantly different”.
He took them back to the fateful night, when Mr Hargrave had been drinking with friends at the Memo Club on Gap Road. One of those friends was Scott McConnell, who left the Memo to go to an ATM. Between the Memo and the 24 Hour Store to get some cash he was approached by three young men, including Mr Woods and Mr Williams.
They decided to “taunt” Mr McConnell, “dance around a bit”, and squirted water at him.
He used his mobile phone to call Mr Hargrave, who came outside together with Luke Woodberry.
An altercation began across the road from the Memo Club.
The group of three young men were joined by a fourth.
There was a tussle between Mr McConnell and Mr Williams which can be inferred from a DNA match to Mr Williams from material on Mr McConnell’s shirt as well as from Mr McConnell’s description.
The fourth man was knocked to the ground, probably by Mr Hargrave and may have been briefly unconscious. Two more friends joined Mr Hargrave, taking that group to five.
The four men scattered, with Mr Woods and Mr Williams taking a route past the Flying Doctor, across the railway line and up Bloomfield Street to Musgrave Street, to the Keith Lawrie Flats where relatives of Mr Woods lived and where he stayed from time to time. Mr Hargrave and his four friends followed.
This was not a “running race”, said the prosecutor, they were following but not closely and Mr McConnell was on his phone trying to get the police to come and getting “cross” when they didn’t arrive. The two young men were aware that they were being followed: they stopped at the railway to throw stones but that did not deter the five.
When they got to Musgrave Street, Mr Woods went into his family’s unit while Mr Williams remained outside.  The five men did not go up to the unit or to the courtyard, they were in the street outside. A security guard at the flats in the meantime was also attempting to contact the police.
The jury will hear evidence from witnesses Lindy Woods and Coralie Neil, Mr Woods’ partner, heavily pregnant at the time with their second child, about them trying to get the five to leave. In this “highly charged situation”, the Crown alleges, Mr Woods followed by Mr Williams ran out of the unit and inflicted the fatal blow, which he admitted in an electronic record of interview with police.
There are some allegations that there were “racial taunts” from both sides. But the Crown says this case is not about violence based on race, said the prosecutor.  Mr Woods and Mr Williams may be part-Indigenous and Mr Hargrave not, but some of Mr Hargrave’s friends, present on the night, are part-Indigenous, and Mr McConnell will give evidence that he was trying to explain to the accused that he works for an Aboriginal corporation.
The “bottom line” of the case is simply violence: Mr Woods is alleged to have run out of the unit with a hockey stick wrapped in silvery tape in one hand and a knife in the other. He was not reacting to a threat but to the volatile situation that he and Mr Williams had started outside the Memo Club and brought back to Musgrave Street. The five weren’t going away, they were “fired up”, then “what happened, happened”.
Mr Williams allegedly shouted, “Let’s go bash them” – that’s what initiated the whole situation, said the prosecutor. Mr Hargrave was stabbed in his upper back, though this was not in “the usual way” of a stabbing to the back. He had turned to face Mr Woods when he ran out of the unit. It was in the course of the scuffle that Mr Woods’ hand with the knife had allegedly gone over the victim’s shoulder, inflicting not a large wound, but “enough to penetrate” and consistent with a kitchen knife found in Musgrave Street. Mr Hargrave walked some steps and then fell: “Death would have followed quickly," said the prosecutor.
He told the jury they would have to consider whether the actions of the accused were voluntary or accidental. Mr Woods has said that he did not realise he had a knife in his hand.
All that the Crown has to prove, whatever the conflicting thoughts that may have been in Mr Woods’ mind at the time, was that his intention in the “split second” of striking out was to cause serious harm – the offence of murder includes the intention to cause serious harm, not only the intention to kill, he said.
Mr Williams, who had shouted “Let’s go bash them” and picked up a pole, may not have seen that Mr Woods had a knife, but saw the hockey stick, said the prosecutor. He ran together with Mr Woods and delivered his blow with the pole. Mr Woods immediately ran away, before Mr Hargrave staggered and fell – it’s obvious that Mr Woods knew what had happened, he said, and Mr Williams delivered his blow before Mr Woods ran away.
The trial continues.


After cold shoulder from Territory government, Gap Youth Centre gets $1.35m from Canberra. By ERWIN CHLANDA.

A big shot in the arm from Canberra will allow the Gap Youth Centre to become a community centre, catering for adults during school hours and expanding its after-hours activities for young people.
CEO Jennifer Standish-White says the new funding is for three years, allowing the centre to plan ahead rather than operate from year to year, and have a chance to "build up evidence for further funding".
The centre's pleas for funding of its vital after-school program for young people had been ignored by four Territory Government ministers since December.
The centre has now received $1.35m from Minister for Families Jenny Macklin, $450,000 a year, under the Federally funded Alice Springs Transformation Plan, administered by the NT Government. Ms Standish-White says the centre will be the town's first community centre outside the town camps.
In daytime there are likely to be courses for young mums with their babies, nutrition programs and art. A caseworker may be employed who can assist people to get in touch with other government services. The after-hours activities, the kind of initiative seen as highly necessary by locals fed up with the current crime wave, will be enhanced, says Ms Standish-White.
While details of the initiatives are are yet to be finalized, they may include employing a sports mentor to help young people get involved in mainstream sports, as well as paying joining fees and buying sports clothes and gear for kids who would otherwise not have these opportunities.
Ms Standish-White says sport is "a great diversionary activity for young people.
"They are less likely to get bored and they develop teamwork skills."
Ms Standish-White, who is due to leave her position with the centre soon, says she is delighted about the new money. She started in the job in 2009 after the organisation was in administration.
"Our concerns were listened to," she says. "It's a good legacy to leave."
The $4.1m Alice Springs Transformation Plan package will also include $340,000 for the town council for additional lighting, which will be installed in a number of problem areas in the town, including the laneways behind the Melanka’s site and Bojangles nightclub and behind the toilets at Flynn Park.
Extra temporary lighting, suggested by Central Land Council chairman Lindsay Bookie at the recent Action for Alice meeting, has been installed in other identified hotspots, such as the lawns opposite the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
Other initiatives announced include:-
• $1.28 million for a Housing Support program to help people in the town camps to make the transition into public housing.
• $1.2 million for an additional 100 CDEP places in Alice Springs to be offered to two distinct groups – disengaged young people, and those who have been unsuccessful in obtaining employment.
These jobs will offer training, as well as the opportunity to take part in community works, including landscaping, painting over graffiti and preparing the town camps for postal services by installing letterboxes.

Conlan, Cameco email leaked. By ERWIN CHLANDA.

An email exchange between him and the uranium miner Cameco is being misinterpreted, says Country Liberal Member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan.
In the email he suggested to the firm that a "sustained radio campaign" of 15 second 'Cameco Fast Facts' commercials would get the "positive uranium message" (underlined) "out to the mums and dads of Alice and those that simply don't understand the issue but are prepared to be convinced".

He said he would introduce Stephan Stander, the company's Alice manager at the time, to the "sales guys" at 8HA and SUN FM – his former employers – who are "more than capable of handling and developing any campaign you might decide to do". (Mr Conlan says in the email he is not on the station's payroll.) He says it would be great to "outmuscle ... the Greens and ALEC [who] can marshal any number of comrades for letterbox drops and protests".
Rejecting any suggestion of bias towards Cameco and against local environmentalists, Mr Conlan, speaking to the Alice Springs News, says he was motivated by his perception that the company "had not been doing enough to inform the community of the safety, environmental and economic concerns and the impact on tourism of a mine". He was acting in his role as the local member, fielding these concerns: The public "needed to be informed", he says.
In his email exchange with Mr Stander in December 2009, Mr Conlan says he was trying hard to facilitate a flow of information between the company and the public. He said after the emails were leaked this week to NT media, including the Alice Springs News, that Cameco was on the back foot in the debate. As a believer in the nuclear power cycle, he says he was keen to enhance public understanding of the Angela Pamela mine planned for 20 kms south of Alice Springs.
In the email he refers to a "great" article in a national newspaper: "I have photocopied 50 of them and am about to head off and letterbox drop them into those with "NO U-MINE" signs."
Subsequently, during the by-election campaign for Araluen in October 2010, Mr Conlan turned against Angela Pamela, as did his party and the NT Government. Had he changed his mind? No way!
"I came to a decision. I had not taken a position with regard to the mine."
Is there not a big difference between "facilitating dialogue" and orchestrating a campaign for Cameco?
No. The company had not convinced the people of Alice Springs about the mine; the community was being "left behind, they didn't bring the community with them".
Did he tell his constituents about his efforts on behalf of Cameco?
"Did I actually inform the electorate? The answer is no, I did not show them, the electorate, this email."
Mr Conlan says: "I am happy to help where I can. This of course could be seen as me colluding with Cameco so it could be fraught with danger."
What did that suggest?
"I wanted to make sure they were aware that I am not in any way in their camp. I will not take part in a collusion. I'm dong my job as a local member, not taking sides. I made it abundantly clear that I am impartial and simply facilitating dialoge."
Did he organize a  public meeting, for example?
"At the time I had not facilitated any meeting. I had spoken to numerous groups, and a number of meetings had already taken place."
Meanwhile, the campaign by the green movement, "the left wing of the Labor Party, their campaign was relentless and sustained ... a well organised campaign: "The wheels were in motion and were for ever and a day."
Says Mr Conlan: "I know some people might like to see it and twist this email. There is no cloak and dagger."
He says he has nothing to apologize for.
The response by Mr Stander in the email leaked is brief and non-committal: "We will be putting together a new strategy for 2010 and will certainly give consideration to your idea," he says.

The 'secret sauce' for sharing our story. By KIERAN FINNANE.

In the "flat world" of the globalised future our children will have to compete not only with their peers in Alice and the rest of Australia, but with young people in India and China.
Following a "tsunami" of new technology improvements that occurred in 2010, that future has arrived – it's just not evenly distributed yet and in the NT we are behind the eight ball.
So says David Nixon, formerly a freelance media producer, recently contracted by the NT public service and now Desert Knowledge Australia to provide advice on trends in the "digital space".

He says the "advancing digital divide is threatening social equality in the NT" and now is the time to play catch up, urgently.
Luckily, the NT Government has already identified one way that can be done.
In their Territory 2030 Strategic Plan, under the heading "Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation", Objective 5 sets a target to raise engagement in the creative industries to the highest per capita level in the nation and to "by 2012, establish five digital playrooms in libraries or cultural hubs across the Territory".
Alice Springs must make sure it gets one, urges Mr Nixon.
He was speaking at a recent Central Australian Creative Industries workshop and asked participants to use "the right side of their brains" to come up with ideas around how such a "playroom" could operate – a "design brief".
The term "playroom" was rejected in favour of "production room"; it would need to have a physical space making hardware and know-how available to users; this could include a mobile facility, along the lines of the MALUs (Mobile Adult Learning Units, as used for a long time by TAFE in the NT).
The digital production room could offer residents a place to deposit their "digital stories"  – stories of their lives, their places, their culture, the rich fabric of the Territory – while mobile units could move from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, community to community, engaging people in the creation of stories.
There should be the possibility of sharing these stories on a big screen in a public place, but they would also provide the content of a virtual network connecting up the region.
Mr Nixon says the format – "audio, photos, video, music, all mashed together" – is more and more prevalent around the world and can contribute to changing cultures.
"To change the culture, change the stories," he said, commenting that the stories out of Alice that get the greatest exposure at present "stink".
Nonetheless they have "ignited a lot of conversation" and that's a valuable process.
Digital stories could contribute to that process by presenting multiple viewpoints and experiences.
"Every person has the capacity to tell stories," says Mr Nixon, "it is the secret sauce to delivering on Territory 2030 objectives."

Discussion: Sell meat of camels or shoot them and let them rot in the desert?

The question:
I’m no longer a resident of the Alice but still on the case for developing a camel industry rather than a drop and rot programme which is all the Government is concentrating its efforts on.
After all, out of $19m and the matching sum of money by the states involved, $20,000 of that total sum being offered to the camel industry is nothing but a pure insult.
It is rumoured that this latest cull in the Simpson Desert was such a disaster that the overall effect was each camel shot cost close to if not more than $1000 per head.
These very bright scientists knew it was raining in the desert but went ahead with the camel cull anyway.
If they truly knew anything about camels they would have known that the rains would have spread the camels out and to even contemplate a cull would have been a sheer waste of taxpayers dollars and resources. But no.
On On March the Slaughter Army towards what can now only be described as Central Australia’s Killing Fields.
Just recently, I have tried to discover any type of financial report from Ninti One on the spending so far of the $19m and future plans for the cash left over and the matching amounts from the States and Territory Government on the Feral Camel Management Project. I’ve had no success and yet I am sure the taxpayer would be keen to see where and how their money is spent and what sustainable benefit has this grant and programme had to the Aboriginal population, employment and industry opportunities, environmental sustainable impact of the project and just how it has assisted the overall GNP.
I get the feeling that the entire project is already recognised amongst those within the ranks of the Feral Camel Management Project as an absolute failure and that the figures just don’t add up towards any possibility of being able to reach their objectives.
Whichever way you look at the figures (not that there are any for transparency purposes. In fact, where is the transparency?) and the camel numbers being culled, the cost of the wages of the scientists and office workers, the chopper costs, shooters costs, fuel costs, etc., there is no way this project is on target.  
Russell Osborne

The answer:
Just to clarify some facts about the Australian Feral Camel Management Project.
Action is being taken through a national, coordinated and responsible approach to reduce the impact of feral camels. If we don’t reduce feral camel numbers now they are likely to double in the next 10 years.
As previously advised removal techniques vary however removal operations are being conducted at an average cost of around $50 per head. As the project is involved in a variety of removal techniques we can say that in the current season conditions commercial use activities under the project have been more impacted than aerial shooting operations.
Camels are found across an area of more than three million square kilometers over parts of WA, SA, the NT and parts of western Qld.
The challenge for commercial use activities is not just the geographic spread of camels but also the remoteness of most camel populations in terms of access to roads and processors. Establishing a viable commercial industry will not provide a quick-fix solution to the feral camel problem.
Given the serious nature of feral camel damage we need to respect landholder preferences and many landholders just want camel numbers reduced now. Where commercial use can't achieve this objective in a timely manner, landholder preference is usually to engage with coordinated aerial shooting operations.
While it is not a key objective of the Australian Feral Camel Management Project, we support short-term industry development based on feral camels where commercial use approaches are viable, reduce feral camel impacts and provide much-needed employment and economic activity in arid Australia.
In addition to allocating almost $1m in support for commercial use activities to date, we are working with the Australian Camel Industry Association and have provided $20,000 to assist them in the development of an industry development plan. This funding came from our corporate budget, not from Australian Feral Camel Management Project funding.
Over the four-year life of this project we will continue to focus on the most cost-effective and humane ways to reduce the feral camel densities in areas where they are causing damage to our environment, industry and desert communities.
Operations to reduce feral camels are being planned in several states and territories and will consider the most effective areas and timing.
We are well aware of the implications of seasonal conditions for camel removal and will continue to take these into account in planning ongoing commercial use and culling operations.
Jan Ferguson
Ninti One Limited

How one person can give a town a bad name

[Report in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 18:
Best-selling gay author Armistead Maupin says he could not believe what he heard when he and his husband Chris Turner walked into Bojangles Saloon in Alice Springs for lunch last Friday.
Turner asked a staff member if he could use the rest room.
"The guy said, 'Sorry, we don't have one in here but you can go across the street and use the public facility,'" Maupin said.
Maupin, who had used the toilet in Bojangles the day before, said he had pointed in the direction of the toilet and asked, "What's that over there?"
"The barman gave me a very pointed look and said, 'That's reserved for real men,'" said Maupin, the San Francisco-based author of nine novels, including the Tales of the City series.]
LETTER to the Alice Springs News from David Perrin, New York City, NY, USA:
I lived in San Francisco (1975-1984) when Army Maupin wrote Tales of the City in the San Francisco Chronicle. 
Even when the Mayor and Harvey Milk were assassinated in 1978 by Dan White we marched peacefully in the “Candlelight March” believing that the judicial system would work.
But when the jury came back with only a “voluntary manslaughter” (the lightest possible sentence) we had enough and rioted. 
The point is, 30+ years later, you’re still making fun and demeaning us.
Even feeling empowered enough to do it directly to our faces as this bartender did. 
I know from personal experience while traveling in your beautiful country, the Australian people, in toto, are not bigoted but we must call out those that are.
Here’s the message I left on the Bojangles website (music request):-
You submitted ... P R I D E SILLA (QUEEN OF)
Location ... THE DESERT
Artist ... ABBA
Message ... Oddly, tomorrow night I'm going to the Broadway opening night of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. I'll be sure to loudly boo when the bus enters your bigoted little town. Enjoy all the bad publicity your staff has created and feel free to fire someone. That's what a REAL man would do.
[Bojnagles did not respond to an offer of right of reply.]

REPLY to these letters.

A message to Action for Alice

Sir – It’s Saturday night, 1.30am.
We step out of the last pub on the main strip of town and are immediately fronted by a girl who runs up and tells us that a woman is being bashed by her boyfriend down an alleyway.
We run over to see if she’s okay, see if we can help.
A cop car passes us and we wave him down. He heads over to check it out. We start walking back up the street towards the mall.
Ten meters on a man runs out of nowhere and punches another guy in the face.
Blood splatters down onto the pavement.
A couple of girls, drunk on the seats next to him, start giggling.
I recoil in horror from a man sitting behind a line of projectile vomit, and in the same second hear the sound of car tyres screeching to a halt, followed by a sickening thump.
We look around and see a man sent flying.
Wandered drunk onto the road.
Hit by a taxi.
People crowd around him and we call an ambulance. All this has happened within 20 meters of leaving the pub.
As we continue our journey towards the mall, the street is filled with more carnage, the kind of which I have never encountered before.
Perhaps I’m just never out this late?
It seems like everyone is on the verge of a drunken fight.
I can see some people almost itching for an excuse.
Angry, unhappy people fuelled by alcohol wander the streets.
We walk behind a fella with blood stains on his t-shirt, get hassled for money by a man with a possessed look in his eyes and carefully watch our step for fear of broken glass, vomit, piss and blood.
I cling tightly to my lover's arm and put my hand protectively across my belly.
Please let us get to the end of the street without dying.
Or seeing someone die. It feels like the end of the world.
Maybe it is.
All this happened 1500 kilometres away from Alice Springs on the main street in Adelaide and according to statistics, similar scenes are being played out across all of Australia.
This is not an Alice Springs problem.
This is not an Aboriginal problem.
This is a society problem.

Steph Harrison
Alice Springs

Seen it all before
Sir – The Government’s announcement of eight new truancy officers bears a striking similarity to a 2004 Budget commitment of $680,000 for eight school attendance officers "to deal with truancy and re-enrolling students back into school".
Whatever happened to that money? Was it ever used to employ the eight truancy officers that were promised and what was the outcome of that commitment in getting children into school?
Why has it taken this Government until mid March to announce the appointment of eight new truancy officers?
How long will take until these officers are operational?
Despite the significant investment of taxpayers’ money in 2004, seven years later school attendance remains one of the most significant problems in the Northern Territory.
There’s no point pumping money into truancy officers if their effort isn’t supported by the law and the will to follow-up.
School is compulsory. Parents should be prosecuted if their children don’t have a good reason to not attend.
The Government has to bite the bullet and begin fining parents if their children are not at school.
Figures released recently by the Opposition show that approximately 11,600 school age children in the Territory – approximately one-third – will miss two or more years of schooling between the ages of 5 and 15.
Of those, 2700 school age children aren’t even enrolled at school.
The 2004 budget promise was hollow and lacked substance. I hope today’s announcement doesn’t suffer a similar fate.
Peter Chandler MLA
Shadow Education Minister

REPLY to these letters.

Magnifique! Having a fat time in France.

I have had enough of writing about all the dramas on our doorstep and I’m pretty sure you are sick of hearing about it too. So today I’m going to share a few thoughts on a wonderful place that I visited not long ago.
Part of our recent (sadly now finished) holiday included some time in France. I had never been before and I must say that I think, after some retrospection, that it was my favourite part of the holiday.  And that is saying something as there were so many highlights in so many places. But for sheer consistency and delivery on expectations, Paris, Nice and Avignon were amazing for all the right reasons.
In Montmarte (Paris) I had the best meal I had eaten in a long time, at a bar chosen by the flip of a coin, a steak so magnificent that even now I wish I could have shaken the hoof of the noble beast that grew it. The chef must have been taking a break from the three Michelin star place he (or she of course) usually graces. It was a pleasure, for the sheer joy of eating no less and washed down with a local no name wine loved for itself and not a label. When was the last time you could truly say that?
This wonder dish was supplemented by daily shops for fresh bread, coffee and other goodies at little establishments that would not exist if MacShite Ubermarts had taken over every grocery purchase option.
I have come to indulge in the cooking of food in the last few years. Sadly absent wife enthuses for the tricky and the fiddly dishes, while I have adopted the role of rustic chef. In other words dishes that can be cooked in one pot and not end up with a lot of pans to be washed up after the cooking buzz is gone. It’s tasty and gets a thumbs up but it is not cuisine in our post MasterChef era.
The French are known for their desire to protect their cultural identity and I, being the benefactor of such passion, wholeheartedly agree. Have I mentioned the Louvre? Not just a back ground for a Dan Brown novel, it is a massive sprawl of several palaces stitched together to make a space for human aspiration I could not have believed existed. The Eiffel Tower is a giant Meccano toy built on a mind blowing scale. 
I cycled through Nice (which did have a few pretentious “look at me” gits, but not many) and ate horse in Avignon. The horse was not as expected, it came in as sausage and was greasy and chewy. And green. We did have fun trying to explain what we wanted, the lady who ran the shop was going “mooo” and we were snorting and making whinnying noises.
And the best bit, the absolute icing on the cake? The people, the everyday folks that we encountered in all sorts of capacities all over the country. Who ever said the French were arrogant? A stuck up Pom or an irritable Yank perhaps. Maybe at the end of a long summer when everyone has had enough of the Hooray Henrys or the Chucky Boys stomping around the place, people can get the strop, but hello, who wouldn’t?
People were accommodating, friendly and helpful. I remember the amazing things I saw but mostly I remembered the people who were kind, tolerant and lovely. That is what stuck after the experience and that is what we can do here. I have said it before and I stand by it, the best thing we can do as a tourist destination is be friendly and helpful to the visitors that come and stay with us, even if only for a short while. They make the effort to come thousands of miles just to be here, the least we can do is add a human component that will blow their minds.
Marketing is good, but there is an element of trust involved in travel that marketing can’t guarantee. That part is up to us.

MOZZIE BITES with RONJA MOSS: Alice zine scene.

“It’s about freedom of speech. It’s important cause we need to communicate through stories. We all learn through stories and have a unique, but corresponding tale to tell.” 
So said Matty Day, founder of Eat Dust Zines, when I asked him, “Why zines? Why now? And why do we care?!”
At this point you might be saying to yourself, yeah, ok, great, but what are zines anyway?
The term refers to self-published magazine, usually created for a small circulation and with a photocopier.  In other words, homemade!
The zine scene in Alice has been steadily growing for the past few years with producers like Eat Dust in the frontline.
The idea is that local artists and writers who may not have the opportunity to get their work published and ‘out there’ are provided with a voice. Or, more accurately, can give themselves a tool of expression! Zines can be about music, poetry, photography, fashion, art, sports and… well, the list could go on infinitely. 
One community-made zine I stumbled upon at Cam’s Coffee shop – Cam's an advocate of the scene – simply contained printed line drawings of gastronomic goods brought to life by having female faces immersed in them. A lack of text was made up for by quirky looks and sumptuous designs. Very effective!
As the zines of Alice have so far been created intermittently and with a limited number, it can be hard to access them regularly. However, there are organizations around town that support the craft. The Alice Springs Town Library, Watch This Space and Red Hot Arts have all helped support the creators and contributed towards distribution, as will the new The Youth Hub .
In fact, this Friday Watch This Space will be holding The Scissors, Paper, Rock Zine Fair. Starting at 5pm, the night is all about exhibiting locally made works. It will be open for creators to share, sell, or swap their products. So if you have a zine you’ve been working on in secret, or you’d like to have a bit of a sticky beak, go down … I’ve also been told there will be cake!
Eat Dust Zines will be presenting four assorted special printed editions for sale at the event on Friday. They include Rad Iku Loose, a quirky self discovery story of how to become rad and, of course, loose.
It seems Alice Springs is the perfect place for an art form like this at the moment. Full of stories and happenings, we need as many mediums as possible to express and communicate with each other.

Back to our home page.