Is it a crime to attempt to murder a corpse?

Today’s case has been described as one of the most bizarre cases in recent Australian legal history, with a climax mirroring one of Agatha Christie’s most famous novels.

Guest: Dr Natalia Antolak-Saper, criminal law scholar, Monash University

Case: R v Darrington [2016] VSC 60

Further Reading: Man jailed for eight years for attempting to murder a corpse (The Age, 29 February 2026)

* * * * * *

🎙️ Thinking of making a podcast?

You need Miniature Creative, the producer of Case In Point.

Podcasts aren’t just entertaining for listeners. For your brand they build authority, trust and help you create deeper connections with your audience. 

Get in touch 👉 www.miniaturecreative.com.au ✉️ hello@miniaturecreative.com.au

Transcript

MUSIC

Natalia Antolak-Saper: This person is no longer harming or, or you can't apprehend any harm from that person. They're on the floor, and the ethical thing to do would have been to go and get help and walk away from the situation. Like, you are no longer in danger, and instead you've gone back to effectively kill that person. And that's where we say, you have an intention, you've gotten as close to the act as possible, the only thing stopping you is, he's dead.

MUSIC

James Pattison: Today's case defies easy explanation. It's been described as one of the most bizarre cases in recent Australian legal history. Now we're not going to give away too much up front, but let's just say that today's case has a hint of one of Agatha Christie's most famous novels.

James Pattison: I'm James Pattison. 

Melissa Castan: And I'm Melissa Castan. 

James Pattison: This is Case in Point.

Melissa Castan: Today we're thrilled to be joined by Dr Natalia Antolak Saper. Welcome.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Thank you, thank you so much for letting me be here. 

James Pattison: So Natalia, to start with, let's drop our listeners into a particular scene. This scene takes place in 2014. And we're in the Melbourne suburb of Melton. There are two men. And shortly there's going to be a struggle between them for a gun. Now, who are these men?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So, the first man is our accused, Daniel Darrington, and the second man is the victim, who's Rocky Spartacus Matskassy, which is a great name. 

James Pattison: That is a great name. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Our friend Daniel and Rocky are in a bit of a struggle, but it's really important to kind of turn our minds what happens leading up to that.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So, Rocky is actually a tenant in one of Daniel's friends house. And he's got a little bit of a bad reputation for some of the conduct he's been doing in that house. In particular, he has actually had photos with a gun with a miner who's the son of the landlord. And so Daniel decides to take things into his own hands and things he's gonna pop up there and have a conversation and perhaps speak to him and tell him how it's gonna be and, and relay to him that this behavior is not on.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: But instead they get into a fight. And at first, it's a physical fight, so there's no firearms, no knives, no weapons. And Daniel punches and kicks the victim. And then the victim goes off, presumably to the bathroom to go and clean himself up. But what he actually goes, is goes and gets his gun. And of course, Daniel knows about that because he's seen the photos of the minor posing with the, uh, with our victim.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And so then the struggle ensues with the gun between the two men, and the gun discharges. So, we don't know who it is, we don't know how the shot's been fired, but Rocky drops to the floor dead. 

James Pattison: We should, we should acknowledge this is a really fascinating case from a legal perspective, and that's what sort of gets our, um, our intellects firing and The challenge of separating and drawing out all the elements of this particular case is quite an enjoyable intellectual challenge for us in this room.

James Pattison: But it is, at its heart, a really, really tragic case that someone has died and he did have a very tough life himself. So it's worth acknowledging that at the outset. So, we're watching what takes place. There is, uh, Rocky Matskassy. is bloody on the floor. What happens next? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Well, he's also twitching and this is really relevant because Daniel's perspective is The person still alive and so he tells the jury later on that he goes back again and at this point he takes the gun off the victim and goes back to shoot him three more times at point blank range and his version is it's because he was putting the person out of misery because he saw Metzkowski sort of twitching and obviously being in pain and so he says I'm going to do the honorable thing in the circumstances, laughable, but he goes and says I'm going to put this person out of their misery and so he goes on to shoot him three more times.

James Pattison: I assume that he's arrested from here? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yep. 

James Pattison: Charged with? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Well, he's initially charged with murder. But then during the trial, there's some forensic reporting around the fact that the first time around, the shot that was fired did in fact kill the victim. And so the jury then works through and says, You know, how can we be certain that that was a deliberate shot by Darrington?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: We're not sure, there was a struggle. It could have been Rocky, could have been Darrington. We're not 100 percent clear on who deliberately shot it. And even if perhaps Daniel Darrington did shoot deliberately, then the defense makes out and says, well, he would have had self defense. There was an imminent apprehension of harm and he's defending himself in that situation.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: He's come with no firearms. He's, he's there to have a conversation, turns violent, but he's not intending to kill in that moment. And then when Metzkowski goes to get the gun, Daniel Darrington's perspective is why I need to now protect my life. And so that first. Transaction, interaction, whatever you want to call it, ends up being legally not Daniel Darrington's fault.

Melissa Castan: So, Rocky's lying dead, having been shot. That seems straightforward. That's, that's going to be a murder case, right? What, what are the elements of murder? What does the prosecution have to prove to establish that Darrington's murdered Rocky there on the ground? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So normally what the prosecution would have to prove is in, in sort of plain terms and intention or recklessness to kill.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Reckless typically means foresight of probability. And in, in basic terms, what we have to demonstrate is that Daniel Darrington had an intention to kill, to bring about. The death of Rocky and, and do so in the fashion that he did. The struggle we have here is that he has physically killed Rocky, but he didn't have the requisite fault element.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: He didn't intend to do so because we then apply self defense to say he's not liable for that circumstance. And so you can say that. His liability does not exist on that first occasion. He's not going to be responsible for his death legally Simply because we're intervening to say first there might be a self defense or it may not actually have been him discharging the shot in the struggle We're not sure.

Melissa Castan: Okay, so because we don't know how exactly that first shot flawed Rocky. Yeah that question of Whether the shooter intended to cause the death of Rocky is what's open here, right? That's right. Because we don't yet know if Rocky shot himself. Yep. Darrington shot him, or whatever, accidentally discharged and just got him, right?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And we've seen enough sort of movies or TV shows, you know, with a bit of crime element. If you see two people struggling and one person's got a gun, and they're trying to get the gun off the other person, it can get discharged and you may not be certain about exactly who it is. And so, when we ask juries to make their decision, they have to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecution has made that out.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And here, We have a little bit of doubt, right, because it could have been either an accident or it could have been self defense or it could have actually been Rocky discharging it to kill himself. 

James Pattison: So please explain this to my very simple mind here, Natalia, because I've forgotten everything from law school.

James Pattison: Are you saying that what matters here and what Darrington's defense is arguing is which bullet killed Rocky? So if it was the first bullet that went off accidentally, or that was discharged in self defense, that would basically excuse him from when he went back and shot a few bullets more into him.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: That's right. That 

James Pattison: actually, if he died from that first bullet, he's therefore excused from his actions later. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yes, in fact, we had in the trial evidence from the forensic experts that identify it's the first shot that kills him. And the problem is, there's too much doubt around who is it that's really responsible for that.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Because basically it comes down to, the first shot kills him. One option is It could have been Rocky discharging it in that struggle, which means Daniel's not liable. Or, Daniel Darrington did, but he's not liable because he can claim self defence. And so, on both versions, he's walking away from the charge of murder.

James Pattison: And therefore, if Rocky was already deceased then the prosecution is saying that the charge of murder should not apply. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: That's exactly it. So you can't effectively go back and have the charge of murder applied in respect of the subsequent conduct because the person is already dead. So it's factually impossible to commit that crime and hence why at the time the media reported on this matter in a very clever title which was man jailed for eight years for an attempted murder of a corpse.

James Pattison: That's a great line. Yeah, it's a really great catchy headline. Excellent headline. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: I remember reading it thinking, this is what's going on here. Like, it drew my attention right away thinking, like, what sits behind this? This is a sort of ridiculous title. But they're factually correct. This is what he was liable for.

James Pattison: Is that what piqued your interest in the case? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yeah, I think, like, it was the media reporting of it. I also teach, um, sort of this falls under the element of a really, uh, long element, which is contemporaneity. And when we teach it to our students at Monash Law, we tend to think about the decision of Darrington and try and pinpoint exactly where the two elements meet.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So where's the physical element combining with the mental element. to effectively equate a guilty offence. 

James Pattison: That's contemporaneity, the concept. Okay. So as in the physical, what actually, what the accused does is the physical and then the mental being what they intended to do. Is that right? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yeah, that's exactly spot on.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So intention can be, uh, sorry. Yeah. The fault element can be intention or recklessness. And so what you're hoping is for the physical element and the mental element to be matching together at the same time. And we have a few cases from the past. There's sort of a famous Fagan and Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which most people know about, sorry, most law students know about because it's taught early on in their degree.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So there's a few, 

James Pattison: It's covered in the musical Oliver: Fagan versus the Metropolitan Police. They finally got him. It was for pickpocketing. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: That's great. 

Melissa Castan: But to the law. Just back to the law part. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So we have a few cases where courts get a bit creative in how they define those two elements matching together. But for the purpose of Darrington, yes.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: The reason why he was not going to be liable for murder is we're a bit uncertain about his intention. We're not sure if self defense applies. We go, alright, the person dies. But then when he goes back to go and subsequently shoot the person, the victim, at this point, you go, okay, well, you do have the intention to kill.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: But the person's dead, so the external element is not made out. So you can't have, the physical aspect of it is not satisfied on that reading. 

MUSIC

James Pattison: This is Case in Point. Today we're discussing a legally fascinating case that asks the question, Can you be found guilty for attempting to murder a dead body?

We're discussing it with Dr Natalia Antolak Saper from Monash University and we'll come back to this discussion in just a moment. But for now, I just want to ask you a quick favour. 

If you're enjoying Case in Point, please consider leaving us a glowing review on the podcast app that you're listening to us on, and make sure that you're subscribed or following the show. It really helps support the show. 

Okay, back now to today's Case in Point. 

MUSIC

Melissa Castan: So, okay, I need to ask you another question. I understand. How Darrington and his defence can kind of argue, well, at the point where the bullet, where the first bullet hit Rocky, I didn't have any intent to kill him. He might've, well, he did die.

Melissa Castan: I wasn't involved in that act either, but even if it was found I did, there's no intention to kill. It's self defence or it's an accident or something. But what does the prosecution argue against Darrington? Like, why do they bring this case given all the mixed 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: up facts? So they still bring an attempted argument.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So they're saying, that's all well and good. We will accept, or the jury will find that you're not guilty for the murder or manslaughter, but what we are going to find you liable for is an attempt. And attempts are basically a framework we have in Victoria and most other jurisdictions about. What happens when you're trying to commit the offence but you fall short of it?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Um, and we have a number of different tests that judge that. Um, there are some who suggest that the best one is the last act test. And here, Darrington's going to run into a bit of a challenge to say that he didn't intend on killing. Because talk about, you've gotten up to the very last point. The only reason it hasn't worked is because of a factual impossibility.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: You've proceeded to then shoot this person two or three times at point blank range. Now, At that point, prosecution would also say this person is no longer harming or, or you can't apprehend any harm from that person. They're on the floor and the ethical thing to do would have been to go and get help and walk away from the situation.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Like you, you are no longer in danger and instead you've gone back to effectively kill that person. And that's where we say you have an intention. You've gotten as close to the act as possible. The only thing stopping you is. 

Melissa Castan: He's dead. They, they, I guess what the prosecution's trying to say is, yeah, you had the intent to kill.

Melissa Castan: And regardless of the actual state of, of the deceased Rocky, this constitutes an attempted murder. That's right. And for that, we're going to get you. Exactly. Yeah. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And also I think the sort of sentencing judge said it, it was a very egregious example. As in, if you think about it and put aside what's happened beforehand, if you think you come across someone who's severely injured and you go and you go up to them and you shoot them, then that is A very callous act, right? You have someone who's helpless, vulnerable, and you've preyed on that to murder them. The courts are saying that's highly problematic. That's really not great behavior at all. And so they're going to pursue this charge, um, to, to make sure that the person is found liable. 

James Pattison: So they're pursuing only the fault element? They're pursuing only what Darrington was thinking or, or intending. It's such a fascinating and like, really like mind bending thing to try to get your head around. 

Melissa Castan: I think the only way you can sort it out is if you see the whole series of events, like in slow mo, and if you break it down in slow mo, you can see how, you know, this act happened, but no intention here. Then these three bullets were shot. And this is the intention here. It's, but in the moment, as you say, on the fly, on the wall, it's just this kind of catastrophic series of things happen all in a rush. But yeah, I mean, the first time you, the first time you see someone lying on the floor twitching with a gunshot wound, would your first thought be, oh, I'll put him out of his misery. Like, that's not necessarily the first thought that would come to most people's mind. 

James Pattison: It is. Um, that, that picture that you painted, Melissa. Where, you know, we think of attempted murder as being attempting to kill someone who then survives. And it's so interesting hearing about this case where it is attempting to kill somebody who is already dead. And that brings up this, this reference to Agatha Christie that we had in the intro. Which is, I think, of Murder on the Orient Express. Yeah. 

Melissa Castan: Spoiler alert. Spoiler alert. Yeah. Good point. It's just in case you haven't read this 50 year old story or seen any one of the 17 different TV rendition movies of it. James is about to tell you the end of the story. 

James Pattison: But yes, at the, at the very end, it is, uh, you know, when it's Poirot is exposing who the murderer. is of this particular person and it turns out it wasn't one person, it was basically everyone on the train or everyone on the carriage and you, you, you see, you know, in the movie you see flashbacks of multiple people coming up and stabbing this person one after the other after the other and they are in Poirot's mind all guilty. I guess the question in that is a whole, a whole, that's a whole other podcast. We'll explore. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: One person's guilty of the murder and the others are the attempts, right? Like, and, and it was interesting, you sort of said the focus is on the intention. That's exactly what attempt is concerned with. So when you look at the original offense, you're usually concerned with trying to prove Whether or not someone has committed the physical action and had the requisite sort of thinking behind it with attempts. The only thing we're looking at is what did you intend to do? So if I'm intending to import cocaine into the country, which for all intents and purposes, I'm not. But let's say I am. And it. It turns out that the person who's shipping it to me has shipped me dishwashing powder. Even if I say to the police, yeah, but it turns out it's not cocaine. It's just another powder. It's sugar. It's dishwashing powder, whatever it may be. Prosecution will say, yeah, but your intention was to commit a crime. Right? Like, that is what you wanted to do and so that's what we're going to hold you liable for. So, it's kind of an interesting thing where you're effectively being, what, criminalized for your thoughts.

Melissa Castan: Okay, so there's things about dishwashing powder that I never knew, but Natalia, can I ask you now? What was the verdict here? And how did the, was it a jury? Was it a single judge? How did they get to the verdict? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So the jury brought back the verdict of guilty on the attempt. They could not find the verdict around the murder. It was too much reasonable doubt in their minds as to whether or not the, the, what the correct story might be. So they weren't sure if he did so deliberately. And if you did, was self defense going to apply? So they said, look, that on that, you've got an acquittal, but on the attempt, we do find you liable for that. We do think you're guilty. So we get juries to deliver a verdict. And once they're finished, we say, thank you so much. And then they, off they go back into the community, a little bit traumatized, but hopefully they can sit back in. Um, and then the sentencing judge gave eight years. Uh, of the whole sentence, five years of a non parole period. So Darrington was sentenced to what we would say is kind of a, a significant sentence in the scheme of things. I mean, uh, attempted murder would usually have a level lower than murder. So you're looking at about maximum of 20 years and eight years is quite a significant sentence. Five of those, he has to remain in prison. After five, he can apply for parole is what the sort of phrase means then. 

James Pattison: This is, I've heard the term used about. This type of crime that it's an impossible crime, so called impossible crime. Is that a, is that a thing? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Is that like a factually impossible or a legally impossible? Let me refer to my notes.

James Pattison: They refer to acts where the intended crime can't be completed due to factual impossibility. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Factual impossibility. Yeah. And that's like the, the point about if, for example, Um, so, so a common example is the, I'm trying to commit something that's just factually not possible. So if I go into a room and I have an intention to steal your umbrella and I go in there, but your umbrella is not in there, then I can't commit the crime, right?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Like it's just not possible factually. Um, But I still have attempted to. It's just something beyond my control has stopped me from doing that. It's usually compared and contrasted with legal impossibility. So, um, someone might think they're committing an offence in Australia, but it turns out we don't criminalise that conduct.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: then they're committing something that's legally impossible. Um, an example of adultery is the most common one there, right? Like, adultery is not a criminal offence in Australia, but someone from another jurisdiction where it is criminalised may think they're committing an offence, and we would say, no, no, the state gives the thumbs up, no.

James Pattison: So, so a legally impossible crime, you know, you're not going to face any consequences. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: That's right. 

James Pattison: Even if the facts make you think that you are, and, uh, uh, factually impossible crime. means that you are going to face legal consequences even if the facts don't play out. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: That's right. Exactly. So like the, the drug trafficking example, just because what I've brought into the country turns out to be dishwashing powder or sugar, the prosecution would say, yeah, but you still went into an agreement to import cocaine.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Your, your intention was to traffic in drugs. So that's what we're going to hold you liable for. Not, not just because you've imported. 

Melissa Castan: So, are there any broader implications from this case for the administration of criminal justice and bringing criminal activity to justice? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Uh, I don't know if there are any implications.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: I think when we think of it, it's a really interesting case of trying to divide. We tend to think of human conduct as sort of holistic, and so it's a really good training tool to get us to think about. things separately in isolation and working through them step by step. Um, and I also like it because I think there's a little bit of legal technicalities that apply, which is kind of looking at the law, doing its thing in terms of loopholes and how do you get around this?

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Cause I think it's kind of clever to go, well, we've got self defense, but we really want to pursue this. person and, you know, criminalize him for his conduct. So how do we, Oh, well, we'll do an attempt that that's going to work. Right. So I think it's kind of clever thinking. Um, it sort of fits a broader theme about connecting sort of the physical and mental elements.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And usually in most offenses, that's not as debatable. You have someone who intends to kill or intends to punch, and that's much clearer. Here, you have to become a little bit clever about trying to provide some connection. 

Melissa Castan: And is, does the case establish a precedent? that we have to follow? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yep, so it does, it sort of makes it very clear about this principle of contemporaneity saying you always need the two overlapping.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So what the court is saying is the first scenario where there's the struggle, the gun gets discharged, there is no overlap between the two. We just can't make it out. And you need that in order for an offence to be satisfied. So the court is sort of reaffirming Some of the historical cases we have, um, there is another great case called Thabo Meli v the Crown.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Um, and in that one the court also got creative with their sort of version of what it means for the two to overlap. So there's a plan to kill the victim by a number of people. Um, the plan is to say to him, come over to our hut, we'll ply you with some brewskis, we'll hit you over the head. Tell the victim, obviously, of this plan, because the victim just wouldn't appear.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: But the plan is to go, right, you're going to come over. We'll give you some beers and we'll hit you over the head and kill you. Um, and so they go ahead and do this and the victim comes over and they give him the beer and they put him in the chair and they hit him over the head. And they're like, great, we've, we've, we've won.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: We've done our plan. This is it. This is wonderful. He's dead. Uh, And they roll him up in a rug, and then they go to the edge of a cliff, and they throw him over that cliff. And later, the forensic experts say, actually you didn't kill him in the hut, right? He was still alive. He actually died from both the injury sustained at the bottom of the cliff, and exposure, which is sort of the weather inclements.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And so the court then goes, well that's a bit of a struggle for us, right? Because at first instance, they had the intention That's where they wanted to kill him, but he doesn't die. So we don't have that overlap. Then later on when he does die, they don't have the intention to kill him anymore because presumably they're like, we're just trying to get rid of the body.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: I'm not trying to do anything. We thought we've succeeded and then the court goes, okay Well, sometimes when the elements don't overlap what we're going to do is suggest that this is one continuing act It's a plan and so we're gonna say your physical element isn't satisfied until the plan comes to fruition completely And so they get a bit creative and you know when there isn't overlap They'll say something can be a continuing act Or something can be superimposed if it's a fault element.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So we can go backwards. Cause they 

Melissa Castan: planned to kill him. That's right. And in the end he was dead. Yeah. So it's sort of one continuing series of events that led to the demise of the victim. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So in that case, like they say, don't think of it as each independent transaction. Don't think of it as each independent interaction, but then in.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Darrington was sort of told to do that, right? We're going, well, yeah, think of the first bullet as one thing and think of the second as a separate. So it's kind of funny when we pick and choose about how we approach our analysis. Sometimes, you know, it benefits to say it's all one holistic approach. At other times the courts are saying, no, no, psych, we're going to make sure that it's all independent.

Melissa Castan: Yeah. But the big difference between those two cases is that. Darrington did not appear to go with a plan to kill Rocky and it's, you know, the, the forensic evidence wasn't clear as to how the bullet ended up in Rocky. And that would be, I guess, a point of distinction between, between Thabo Meli and, and, and Rocky's demise.

James Pattison: It's so amazing when, for people who are coming into studying law, um, That, this is, this case is just such a great example and the one that you just mentioned, was it Thabo Meli? 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Yeah, Thabo Meli. 

James Pattison: Um, these are both such great examples of how you can start out with facts that you believe, uh, you look at from maybe a moral standpoint and go this person should be found guilty of this because it resulted in the death of someone and that you basically have to leave.

James Pattison: Those emotional responses at the door when you walk into a courtroom or you walk into a lecture theater Yeah at law school because you have to apply logic and and facts Yeah, and timelines and intent and it's it's such a an unpicking I still remember walking into the lecture theatre straight out of high school and having to leave that at the door and unpick your emotional response to things to try to find a just outcome but using purely free.

James Pattison: Logic. Mm-hmm . It's, um, so for, for our legal studies students who are listening, this is just such a fantastic example of that. Mm-hmm. Um, and I can understand why you love this case so much. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: There's also a, as a, as a, now that our, now that we're talking about contemporaneity, 'cause it's such a great principle, um, there's actually a really another fun case that I do sort of in property offenses, which is the crown against Greenberg.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And in that decision. The accused goes to fill up his car with petrol and at that point he has every intention to pay for the petrol. And I love this case because I think it always And so he does so, he's like, great, I'm going to be a customer. I'm going to go and pay for this by the, he goes to the cashier, the line is too long.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And he goes halfway through, I'm not doing this. I'm taking off. And that's when he forms the intention to steal. But at that point, the court says, well, The petrol is now part of his belongings. So actually you don't have that overlap again, right? The, the fault element doesn't match up with the, with the sort of physical element.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: And then all my students every year go, great, that means we can steal petrol. And then I say, no, because the second you know about this decision undermines your fault element. And so you're always going to be at the sort of pump going, I'm filling up the car with the green brick. Oh, I see. I see the pickle I'm in.

Natalia Antolak-Saper: So I think that's always another good one as well. So yeah.

Melissa Castan: You've prevented so much crime from taking place in Australia. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Honorary VicPol person right here. 

Melissa Castan: Natalia, thanks for taking us inside a fascinating, confusing, but ultimately very insightful case. Thanks for joining Casing Point. 

Natalia Antolak-Saper: Thank you so much.