Murderer to claim verdict was ‘unsafe’
CONVICTED Geelong Showgrounds murderer Nicholas Cross has alleged a Supreme Court Justice’s verdict in his trial was “unsafe and unsatisfactory”, according to his proposed grounds of appeal.
Cross, 35, has filed a notice to appeal his conviction for murdering Maddison PanteParrott inside a glamping tent in December 2018, a month after he was sentenced to 27 years behind bars.
In an email shared with the Geelong Advertiser, Victoria’s Office of Public Prosecutions has told Ms Pante-Parrott’s family that Cross is relying on eight proposed grounds to overturn his conviction.
In two of the grounds, Cross has claimed Justice Rita Incerti “erred in her approach” to the timing and his position in the tent when the gun went off.
Ms Pante-Parrott’s mother, Marlene Parrott, slammed the courts for “even allowing this” and said it was a “waste of taxpayers’ money”.
Mrs Parrott said the Geelong community should still think of Cross as an “evil narcissistic, psychotic, evil person who wants to be let off a guilty convicted murder charge and be set completely free”.
On top of what happened inside the tent, Cross alleged Justice Incerti failed in her approach to evidence about another man who was friends with Ms Pante-Parrott in the months before her death.
On the night before her murder, another man was
staying in the tent and had remained at the showgrounds overnight so he was ready for an early morning call while Ms Pante-Parrott went out.
Sometime after 8am, Cross walked into the tent with a loaded gun and was shortly followed by Ms Pante-Parrott.
As Cross and Ms PanteParrott were arguing, the other man said he was on the phone to Centrelink so he could start receiving benefits and remained on the fiveminute call even after she was murdered.
Cross said Justice Incerti erred in her approach to this call and to the evidence the operator gave during his three-week trial.
Cross also referred to a witness’ evidence that a person matching the other man’s description was seen back around the tent hours after the murder and alleged Justice Incerti erred in her approach to this evidence and to the man’s supposed return to the camping grounds.
“The learned trial judge erred by failing to properly warn herself as the unreliability of the evidence of (the other man),” Cross’ seventh proposed ground of appeal alleged.
The eighth and final proposed ground of appeal reads Justice Incerti’s “verdict … was unsafe and unsatisfactory”.
“To commit such horrendous violence and to think you can blame someone else for your actions and to say you’re not guilty and make an appeal is inhumane and appalling,” Mrs Parrott said.