The Crown is closing its case in the infamous fatal Red Fox Tavern robbery trial, alleging it does not make sense that one of the accused disposed of a shotgun unless it was the murder weapon.
A man with name suppression and Mark Joseph Hoggart are on trial for the 1987 aggravated robbery of the pub and murder of its owner, Christopher Bush, in Waikato.
The Crown says two heavily disguised intruders, clad in balaclavas and gloves, burst in through a back door of the Maramarua tavern on Labour Weekend.
It is alleged the unnamed accused fired a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun, killing Bush before his three staff members were tied up and just over $36,000 was stolen.
Crown prosecutor Natalie Walker said the largely circumstantial case had several strands, which when proven together, were enough to convict both accused men.
The unnamed defendant had "cased out" the place before the group sprung using two sawn-off shotguns to rob a safe while in full disguises, Walker said.
When released from prison, the unnamed accused's movements were "fairly mysterious" and he seemed to surface again in the week leading up to the Red Fox robbery.
The Crown argues that the jury can be sure that on the early afternoon of October 23 the two accused men were in Cambridge under the guise of first visiting one's ex-girlfriend.
She had been shocked to see them, the court heard.
Walker then recalled the statement given by Robyn Anna-May Pyle, who died in 2014.
On October 23, 1987, Pyle had been working at the Maramarua dairy when a car pulled up outside about 8.45pm, parking at an angle that would have blocked some cars.
"I couldn't figure out why they stopped there," Pyle said
"So I just stood watching what they were doing."
In her statement Pyle described two people in the car but they never even glanced her way as the driver strained to look at the pub.
"It was as if we weren't even there," she said.
The driver was European in his early 20s with sandy-colour wavy hair who she also described as "average looking".
After counting the takings, Bush was having a drink with staff members Stephanie Prisk, Sherryn Soppet and William Wilson when the armed hold-up occurred.
Walker said there were "provable lies" in the first account given by the unnamed defendant.
When he is spoken to by police about test firing a sawn-off shotgun at the vineyard he knew his brother-in-law and Ross had "spilled the beans" about the gun, she said.
And the unnamed accused speaks of the gun as a "real rough job" with the barrels cut on an angle.
But what happened to this gun, the prosecutor asked.
"It doesn't make sense that [unnamed accused] would dispose of a shotgun that wasn't the murder weapon.
"And that for all he knew could have proved his innocence if he was not one of the Red Fox Tavern offenders."
Remember, when he disposed of the gun, he could not have known - "unless he was the true offender" - that the murder weapon also happened to be a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun, Walker said.
"Just like the one he had."
Defence lawyers, who are expected to give their closing arguments later this week, have repeated throughout the trial that the wrong men have been accused.
The jury trial, presided over by Justice Mark Woolford, continues tomorrow.