HOBART, Australia — A Tasmanian couple, both in their seventies, are challenging their conviction for the 2009 murder of their former son-in-law, claiming that someone else may have been responsible for his death. Noelene June Jordan and Cedric Harper Jordan, who were sentenced this year to 22 years in prison, are currently appealing the guilty verdict on several grounds.
Shane Barker, 36, was fatally shot four times with a silenced .22 calibre firearm in the driveway of his Campbell Town home. The Jordans, found guilty of his murder, had been accused of harboring negative sentiments towards Barker, alleging he was abusive towards their daughter and granddaughter. These claims were never legally resolved.
The murder weapon has never been recovered, leaving unanswered questions that have fueled the Jordans’ appeal. They suggest an overlooked theory implicates an unknown third party in the murder. Their defense points to cartridges of the same type as those used in the murder being discovered at a holiday shack owned by the Jordans, suggesting the possibility that the unregistered gun might have left traces at multiple locations under different ownership.
Fran McCracken, Noelene Jordan’s attorney, contended in the Court of Criminal Appeal that there was a possibility Barker had previously used the murder weapon at the holiday shack. The suggestion was that the gun could have subsequently changed hands, eventually being used by someone else to commit the murder. McCracken emphasized, “It is not asserted there is a particular offender or offenders pointed to by the Jordans, merely the circumstances… they were both saying ‘we don’t know who it was but it was not me’.”
However, Crown prosecutor Daryl Coates dismissed this alternative theory as “fanciful,” arguing that the Jordans had both motive and opportunity to kill Barker. He highlighted that misleading statements about their whereabouts, combined with data placing their mobile phones in the vicinity at the time of the murder, painted a compelling picture of their guilt. Additionally, testimonial evidence suggested that Cedric Jordan had access to an unregistered .22 caliber rifle and had remarked that it would be a “good rifle to kill people with,” further implicating him.
The jury’s conviction, according to Coates, was sound given the totality of the evidence, which included the damning link between the ammunition types found at the murder scene and at properties associated with the Jordans.
Adding to the complexity of their appeal, the Jordans also argued that certain trial demonstrations were prejudicial and that interactions between two jurors could have influenced the outcome.
Justice Robert Pearce, in delivering the sentence earlier, noted that the couple’s protective feelings towards their daughter and granddaughter, and their perception of Barker’s alleged bad conduct were considerable factors, though he deemed claims of Barker’s abuse “improbable.”
A decision on the Jordans’ appeal is pending, as the court has yet to set a date to deliver its ruling. This ongoing case continues to stir debates about evidence integrity and the complexities underlying familial relationships and criminal accountability in the legal system.