Pod Insights The Case Of 10 The Two Intruders | Over to the jury About this episode The trial of Steve Fabriczy and Joseph Vekony reached its penultimate moment with closing arguments from each side put before a packed courtroom. It's now up to the jury to decide if these men murdered Irma Palasics.
In this episode Elizabeth Byrne and James Vyver describe the final bids, with the prosecution highlighting DNA evidence they say places the accused at the scene and the defence questioning the quality of the investigation.
If you have any questions you'd like Liz, James and Stocky to answer in future episodes, please email [email protected] mailto:[email protected] .
The Case Of is the follow-up to the hit podcast Mushroom Case Daily, and all episodes of that show will remain available in the back catalogue of The Case Of.
Transcript 0:00 Speaker 00 In an ordinary Sydney suburb, a family lives unnoticed.
0:04 Speaker 01 He came across so innocent.
0:05 Speaker 00 Father and son keep mostly to themselves.
0:08 Speaker 02 We didn't go beyond the friendly nod or hello.
0:11 Speaker 00 But behind closed doors.
0:12 Speaker 01 Something's gone wrong, big time.
0:15 Speaker 03 If you don't make phone calls, nobody can tap you.
0:17 Speaker 00 A new three-part series investigates how the road to Bondi began long before the first shots rang out. The Road to Bondi. Search Background Briefing wherever you get your podcasts. ABC Listen. Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.
0:46 Speaker 04 The prosecution says there is clear evidence to convict Joseph Vekony and Steve Fabrizio of the murder of Irma Pelazik. The defence says they're the victim of a closed-minded investigation and a compromised crime scene. These are the closing statements that have been put to the jury. I'm Stephen Stockwell. Welcome to episode 10 of The Case of the Two Intruders.
1:07 Speaker 00 Irma Pelazik's brutal murder rocked her family and has haunted them for 24 long years.
1:13 Speaker 05 This wasn't the average robbery. The brutality of the attack shocked the community.
1:17 Speaker 06 They were virtually tortured that night. Violently assaulted before the two men ransacked the premises and stole cash and jewellery.
1:26 Speaker 07 My grandparents were beaten and my grandmother was left to die on the lounge room floor.
1:33 Speaker 04 For eight weeks, the jury has listened to so much evidence. There have been 14 statements and recordings, 53 witnesses, 97 exhibits put before them. And we're now into the closing moments of this trial. There through all of it has been ABC Canberra court reporter Elizabeth Byrne. Liz, lovely to have you here and with us through this whole trial.
1:56 Speaker 05 Thanks, Stocky.
1:57 Speaker 04 And as well as Elizabeth, we're also very lucky to have investigative reporter James Vyver with us on the pod as well. James, thank you for being here.
2:04 Speaker 01 Hi, Stocky.
2:05 Speaker 04 Liz, before we dive into basically our penultimate episode of The Case of the Two Intruders, can you give us an idea of where we're up to in 60 seconds or so?
2:14 Speaker 05 Well, this week, the end is nigh. It's now over to the jury to decide if Steve Fabrizi and Joseph Vacconi are guilty of the murder of Irma Pelazik. And in Mr Vacconi's case, whether he was involved in the earlier burglary at the Pelazik's former home, where Mrs Pelazik pulled a balaclava from a man who punched her as he tried to escape. Justice David Mossop has acknowledged the jury has a complex task, not just to sift through the great volume of evidence, but also to make a decision hampered by the passage of time, with key witnesses now dead. The question is, will they be able to answer the question, who killed Irma Pelazik?
3:01 Speaker 04 Thank you, Liz. Yeah, this is a really crucial moment of the trial. I mean, how big a moment are the closings in a trial like the one that we've just been sitting through and reporting on?
3:12 Speaker 05 Well, apart from the verdict at the end, this is the most critical moment. And it's where the prosecution and the defence lawyers, two in this case, get to nail their colours to the mast and put to the jury what they think has happened in the case, for the prosecution to say, this is how this unfolded, this is who is responsible. And to summarise the evidence that they've already presented, for the defence, it's an opportunity to criticise or try to tear down what the prosecution has put to defend
3:53 Speaker 05 their client and to suggest that they're not guilty of the crime that has been alleged.
3:59 Speaker 04 Yeah. James, what was the mood in the courtroom like as they started earlier this week? Yeah, look, it was pretty At the very beginning, Justice Mossop told the jury that the evidence they will hear are a bit like a set of ingredients. And so if that's the case, this is now sort of the finished dish. The public gallery of the courtroom was pretty much full to the brim. There was really only a few seats spare. There were many of the police officers that have given evidence during the trial. Certainly Craig Marriott was there with some of his colleagues. A lot of Irma and Gregor's family were there. A lot of journeys like us. Liz, can you remind us what Joseph Verconi and Steve Fabrizi have been have been
4:43 Speaker 04 charged with here? What the jury is deciding whether or not they're guilty of?
4:48 Speaker 05 Well, both have been charged with murder. They've also been charged with a series of other things. For instance, the burglary, the assaults on on the two people in the house. They have a lot of alternative charges as well. So for instance, the burglary charges, aggravated burglary, because they were said to have had a weapon. There's an alternative to that if the jury decides they didn't have a weapon, which was supposed to be the big stick that you may remember Gregor Pelazik's mentioned. So there's that. The important thing about these charges is that with the murder charge, they're accused of murder by joint commission. So they'd agreed to come to Canberra to commit a burglary. And
5:33 Speaker 05 in a circumstance like that, if you've made an agreement to do that crime and then someone is killed in the process of it, if it wasn't necessarily you that did that, then you are still responsible, as we discussed in an earlier episode. So that's the main thing they're confronting. It's also important to note that Mr. Verconi is also facing some additional charges where it's alleged he was involved in an earlier burglary at the Pelazik's former house. And you'll remember, that's when Irma Pelazik's pulled the balaclava from his head. Steve Fabrizi has pleaded guilty to one charge, that's a charge of burglary.
6:12 Speaker 04 Yep. Thank you, Liz. Yeah, admitting that he was at the Pelazik's home in 1999, but saying He is not guilty of any of the other associated offences with him at that house at that time. We have the prosecution taking us through their closing first as these things unfold in the courtroom, spelling out the case, got to tie in together the threads of two months' worth of evidence. And it really starts to paint a picture and you really start to learn kind of the reason you heard from certain people and certain facts were presented and certain questions were asked throughout. What did Trent Hickey, the prosecution barrister, ask the jury to think about, Liz?
6:47 Speaker 05 He sort of set the scene. The Pelazics there at home, the lights on, the television on, two relatively older people in their 70s. And then these two intruders came into the house, as per Gregor Pelazic's evidence. They were beaten, they were tied up, they were gagged. And Trent Hickey tried to sort of convey what all of that meant, how that would have felt, so that the jury would be able to see the circumstances as they unfolded.
7:23 Speaker 04 James, what stuck with you about the way that Trent Hickey presented a bunch of this information?
7:29 Speaker 06 For me, it absolutely was the violence involved. It was the injuries caused as a result of the violence. Trent Hickey described to the jury how the Crown case says that the two men, the accused, were prepared for violence to happen and therefore this is how it fits the charge of murder, this recklessness around human life. You know, they had the cable ties, they had the tapes, they had the Jimmy Barr or the big stick, as Gregor described it, as Liz mentions. And he stepped through a long list of the quite savage, really, injuries that were alleged to have been caused to this 73-year-old couple.
8:12 Speaker 06 This is, they both had a broken nose, they were beaten around the head and body and that brutality. Whoever did it, whatever the jury decides, was very much hung in the court during those descriptions.
8:24 Speaker 05 And it's important to note also that Trent Hickey pointed out several times that it appears they had contemplated using force because they had the cable ties and they had the tape with them. So this points to some key differences between the cases. So the prosecution says that, you know, he must have seen Mrs Palazic's when he came into the house on, on his account. Whereas Mr Fabrizi's lawyer says there was a, a open door that might have obscured his view, so he wouldn't have seen her because he maintains he didn't see her.
9:05 Speaker 04 Yeah, got it. Um, looking forward to unpacking the, the defence closings as we work through this episode as well because there's, there's so much in, in the closings from Travis Jackson and Sky Jerome, the defence barristers as well. In our last episode, we talked a lot about this potential third intruder. This is an idea that's been presented by the defence through this trial, you know, has the police investigated this properly? Had they looked into whether or not there was a third person involved in this or even other people? I found it interesting how Trent Hickey kind of hit at these theories, you know, Liz basically saying, well, look, the, the money doesn't really add up.
9:39 Speaker 05 Yes, well, we know that $30,000 was taken from the hidden compartment and Steve Fabrizi has admitted he got $12,000 out of that. Now, if there was a third person, according to Trent Hickey, uh, that would have meant that the, the people who did the work of, you know, um, stealing the money would have got a much smaller portion because, uh, Joseph Akoni would have had to share the remaining $18,000, uh, with whoever the third person was. So he said that didn't stack up.
10:14 Speaker 04 Yeah, yeah. Um, also, you know, we've heard so much from this undercover recording with a guy called UCO Danny, undercover officer Danny. How was that brought into the, the closings from, from Trent Hickey, James?
10:28 Speaker 06 Yes, that was recapped and Trent Hickey had obviously gone through the transcript with the fine tooth comb and run some of the numbers helpfully for the jury in asking them to consider this quite crucial piece of evidence. It was a very long recording. It was with this supposed crime boss that was a part of an operation that had ensnared Steve Fabriczy to work for this fake crime syndicate. And this was the crescendo, the coda, if you like, of this operation. During which time Steve Fabriczy denied ever having been to Canberra. And Trent Hickey said 17 times was how many times he denied and in fact lied about this
11:09 Speaker 06 because we now know it to be true because if nothing else, he's pleaded guilty to burglary as part of this incident in 1999. Trent Hickey said that Fabritzi's account changed three times and that it contradicted himself and accused him of only being willing to say as much as he thought he needed to say in that time to get him out of the quote bind he was in. The way that Trent Hickey asked the jury to consider or the way he characterised this theory of Fabritzi only being the lookout and that he hadn't gone in the house was that it was ambitious and respectfully should be rejected. And he described it also as unreal and having been a construct of the defence case to give the accused cleaner hands.
11:52 Speaker 04 Yeah, interesting. I mean, we know and we've spoken so much about the DNA evidence in this trial. You know, the evidence that the prosecution says places Joseph Akoni and Steve Fabriczy at the Plasix home in 1999 is, you know, high likelihood DNA results that match their DNA from a water jug and a milk bottle from the Plasix fridge. DNA is such complicated evidence. We have heard days and days through this trial of, you know, the various likelihoods, the various tests. How did Trent Hickey try and tie all this up so the jury can understand it, Liz?
12:28 Speaker 05 Well, basically, he relied upon the maths. So he went to the figures for the likelihood that the um DNA on the milk bottle belonged to Seif Fabrizi. Three hundred and twelve quintillion times more likely to be him than anyone else. And with Mr. Vacconi's DNA on the water bottle, you know, sixty one sextillion times more likely to be him. We already know from earlier in the trial, the DNA experts stop at one hundred billion when they're talking about these probabilities, because otherwise, you know, it gets lost in the maths.
13:10 Speaker 05 But uh Mr. Hickey went to these extremely large figures to show that the probability was so high that there was no other plausible explanation for their DNA being on the two vessels in the fridge.
13:28 Speaker 04 Yeah, absolutely. Um. Was there a dramatic kind of flourish for for Trent Hickey? Has he has he wrapped up his closing?
13:35 Speaker 05 Yes, there was, Stocky. Uh Trent Hickey went into um sort of quite a long uh uh. I think it was a very long sentence, actually, to the jury. But he said, you know, the two people who'd been in the house weren't to know that Mr. Pelazics would survive and call the police. They weren't to know that he saw one of them drink from something in the fridge, which is how the police got on to the DNA evidence. Uh that the crime scene investigators would swab things in the fridge even, that the police would see that the two burglaries might be linked. Um and uh he went on and on with all of these things
14:18 Speaker 05 because the and the critical bit being, they weren't to know that technology would advance so far that their DNA would eventually be isolated and linked to them. So uh he set set himself up uh to uh summarize.
14:38 Speaker 05 The bulk of his case in one go, but he said, uh, he also asked the jury to consider the way in which Gregor Pelazik's found his wife. He's, and he kept saying a number of times through the closings that the tape had been wrapped very tightly around her head and there seemed to be more than one layer. And he said that the only reasonable conclusion was that these two men were guilty.
15:09 Speaker 04 Yep, yep. Uh, as well as the prosecution closing, you also have the defence closings as well. So I often find myself in call rooms in this moment, kind of leaning one way because I haven't heard the defence closing yet. And then I hear the defence closing and I, I start thinking of all these things that actually hadn't entered my mind at this point. Um, we have Travis Jackson, he's Joseph Akoni's barrister. And he started reminding the jury in his closing of the burden of proof for the charges that Joseph Akoni is facing, yeah, beyond reasonable doubt is the bar that the jury needs to reach. And he's pointed out that there's, you know, basically what there was no evidence of, you know, this is there was no evidence of criminal agreement, there was no specific evidence of the act, there was no evidence the car was in Canberra. And then he gets to the DNA, uh, which as we mentioned, crucial part. How did he challenge this?
15:54 Speaker 05 Well, he suggested that the police had been seduced by the allure of DNA evidence. And that's because, he said, the police didn't look elsewhere, they didn't test anyone else. They only looked at the DNA of Mr. Fakoni and Mr. Fabrizi. And that the important thing being that even with the maths, the, the best a DNA expert can say is that a, a person can't be excluded as being the source of a particular sample, rather than to say this is definitely that person. Uh, that's because not everyone in the world has been tested.
16:37 Speaker 05 So we can't say for absolutely sure that, um, a, a sample belongs to a particular person. It's a question of probability, but that's one of the things he relied on.
16:48 Speaker 06 And he said it was DNA or bust for the police in terms of their approach. And he said that the descriptions of Irma in nineteen ninety eight and Gregor in nineteen ninety nine of the intruders that had come into their two separate houses in those incidents could not be harmonised with the DNA evidence.
17:10 Speaker 04 Hmm. I I was also interested in how he kind of just pointed to what he described as cracks in the veneer of thoroughness, which I thought was a kind of fantastic turn of phrase, pointing to the cross examination of forensic scientist Clifton Frost, who we heard a lot from, spent a long time in the witness box. James, what were some of the moments that that he came back to with Clifton Frost?
17:30 Speaker 06 Yeah, so this is the crime scene examiner from the nineteen ninety nine scene. We were reminded by Travis Jackson that DNA evidence was very much in its early stages and that the, some of the cross contamination issues that had stemmed from what was a huge amount of forensic evidence and of extremely messy, in fact, ransacked crime scene, as we've discussed over the various episodes. Some of the cross contamination issues were only revealed as a result of cross examination on these measures to actually reduce cross contamination. So really, essentially what he was saying is, is if we hadn't asked about it, then you wouldn't have known
18:15 Speaker 06 from the brief of evidence, sort of alluding to or asking the jury to perhaps consider how thorough the examinations were at the time and those measures were taken. So we're talking about the gloves, the suits, the booties, those kinds of things. He also talked to some of the problems with cross contamination of exhibits at the AFP's examination room in Weston, here in Canberra. This was David Royds, who had not put down paper in between looking at two different exhibits, which is how the tape from the white van, the tradie's white van, ended up having traces of Irma's blood on it.
18:58 Speaker 06 Or at least that's what the Crown says is the evidence and that's the evidence that David Royds gave in terms of that cross contamination. So really, the general point that he was trying to make is, you know, we've had these other issues over here, how can you trust the evidence over here? Really trying to cast that doubt on some of the forensics.
19:22 Speaker 04 Yeah, and as well as Travis Jackson kind of making his closing statements to the jury on behalf of Joseph Akoni, we also have Skye Jerome, the other defence barrister in this room. She's Steve Fabriczy's barrister. Liz, in her closing statements, she kind of shot out of the blocks quite strongly, didn't she?
19:39 Speaker 05 Yes, in fact, it was a very strong summing up at the end. She's dwelt on things like what she says was a compromised crime scene. There are a couple of instances of contamination she seized on. One was, of course, the tape from the mysterious white van, which turned out, according to the scientists, to have only dried blood on it, although she said that she didn't think you could rule that out completely. She also seized on another thing. You remember we talked earlier about the grey squares that they used to give truer colours to the pictures? And how that page with the grey square was used in various
20:24 Speaker 05 places around the house? And she suggested that that may have interfered with where various bits of DNA were. But the key bits were things like, she said that there had been a closed minded investigation, which had dwelt on the DNA evidence, and that the current police investigation had not gone into things. For instance, like last time we talked about the third person theory, and the person who had confessed to being there but left before there was any violence. She said that wasn't looked into properly, and that many of that person's associates were never tested for their DNA.
21:08 Speaker 05 Was never compared to the DNA found in the fridge, for instance, or around the house. So she was quite critical of the prosecution case. And she said that there was no evidence that her client entered the house. Another thing she raised, which is very critical to the main charge these two men are facing, is that the autopsy was, the autopsy report was unable to determine a actual cause of death. And she said that that should be fatal to the prosecution case because, she said, you can't be found guilty of murder if there's no cause of death determined.
21:51 Speaker 06 It was interesting the way in which Sky Drone talked about the DNA evidence from the point of view of the fridge sample. So this is the milk container that started this whole reinvestigation that identified Steve Fabriczy's DNA. Having been there, she made the point that it could have been transferred there from outside in many different ways. And that even if you do believe that he drunk from that milk container, all that proves is that he was at the fridge. Doesn't prove that he did any of the things that the prosecution says that he did, i.e. the violent assaults and the ransacking of the house. Still, the defence is that he was only inside briefly to help Joseph Akoni out of the window when he had hurt himself.
22:35 Speaker 06 So it was interesting the way she walked the jury through the ways in which they could consider reasonable doubts.
22:44 Speaker 04 Yeah, and I mean, we talked a bit about the, the way that Trent Hickey used the undercover recording of Steve Fabriczy to kind of point to him, you know, as someone who's lied, you know, highlighting in that interview, he lies 17 times. Sky Jerome uses that same piece of evidence and then says that tells a different story. James, what did she highlight and how did she present that information?
23:09 Speaker 06 Well, sort of in the exact opposite, in short, she said that this shows that his story has been the same all the way through, that, you know, he didn't have to talk to police, but he did. Notwithstanding, he didn't know that UCA Danny was police at the time. I think she was referring to sort of the subsequent police interview.
23:28 Speaker 04 Hmm.
23:28 Speaker 06 And the fact that those stories broadly speaking align. Now, that's not what the Crown says, as we've discussed, but still, she essentially, yes, used it the sort of polar opposite way to say that, you know, he can be trusted. He, you know, he's shown remorse. He said in a police interview that, you know, he feels guilt about this. And at one point, she said, you know, someone who would go and put a pillow under someone's head is not the act of a merciless killer. That's the act of compassion. So, again, polar opposites from both sides.
24:00 Speaker 04 Yeah, it's always interesting to hear how the exhibits, you know, the same exhibit or the same piece of evidence is used slightly differently by the barrister, depending on what side they have come from. And we've already spoken about the DNA and how Sky Jerome has challenged that, the questions she's asking, the contamination that we've spoken a lot about. I mean, that was, you know, pretty apparent from the evidence we've heard throughout the trial, the way she's been challenging that. James, how did she kind of wrap all that up and conclude that idea?
24:26 Speaker 06 Well, obviously, the DNA is central to this whole case. If there were lots of numbers in Trent Hickey's closing, there were close to none when it comes to the DNA evidence in Sky Jerome's closing. And for that matter, to a greater or lesser extent, Travis Jackson's too. Obviously, this is really the fulcrum of the entire case. It was more lent on as a, you know, it's a thing that is not certain, notwithstanding the quintillions and so on, and that some of the other comparisons and samples hadn't been made. So it was interesting to note the presence and absence of numbers and those large numbers that we've talked a lot about in both sides.
25:11 Speaker 04 Yeah, thank you, James. We are getting very close to the jury basically retiring to consider their verdict. The judge is wrapping up his charge, likely as you're listening to this, if he has not already, as you are enjoying the case of the two intruders. Liz, you know, we've talked a lot about murder, we talked a lot about alternative charges at the top of this episode. Murder is kind of the big consideration for the jury. Is manslaughter something they are able to consider in this, if they can't get all the way to murder?
25:39 Speaker 05 Yes, it is. It's not on the indictment, but the jury has been told by the judge that manslaughter is an option open to them, and it will be the same thing by Joint Commission. And they are allowed to consider it if they decide that the elements of the murder charge can't be met.
26:02 Speaker 04 Yep, thank you, Liz. We have had so many questions coming through to the case of at abc.net.au. We'll be diving into all of them in our upcoming episodes. We'll have the verdict for this as soon as the jury returns with their verdict. So make sure you grab yourself ABC Listen. It is the best place to enjoy episodes of the case of. Liz, what happens now? Are we just sitting and waiting?
26:25 Speaker 05 Sort of. When the judge sends the jury out today, we've had 14 jurors, and unfortunately for two of them, they will be, what they say as, what they describe as, balloted off. They have a little wooden barrel and they choose the numbers, and then those two people leave after hearing all of this over so many weeks. And then 12 people will be left to decide what the fate of these two men will be.
26:55 Speaker 04 Thank you. I often wonder what it would be like sitting through all of this evidence and then being told you don't need to do this. And I was talking to Christian Silva, who's been a court reporter in Melbourne for a very long time, and saying, oh, look, are they a bit disappointed? And he said, often they look incredibly relieved that they don't need to make that decision. So Godspeed to the 12 jurors who will be making this decision in the trial of Joseph Akoni and Steve Fabriczy, unless we have a verdict before. For next Thursday, that will be your next episode of The Case of the Two Intruders. We'll answer some of your questions if we're still waiting for a verdict at that point. So please get in touch, [email protected] . We'll have an episode of The Case of the Weedy Bin Murder for you on Tuesday next week. As you may have heard from our episode yesterday, there's been a mistrial in that trial.
27:40 Speaker 04 So we'll be answering your questions and exploring yesterday's developments in more detail with Eva Blandis on that one. And we've also had a lot of emails about whether we'll be covering the trial of Ben Robert Smith, who's been charged with war crimes. I can say that is certainly something that we have our eyes on and we'll be looking at doing. That might just be a little while away. We've also had a lot of questions asking if we'll cover the trial of Patrick Stevenson, who's accused of murdering Samantha Murphy in Ballarat. And we are planning to. That trial has been delayed a bit, though. There's some pre-trial hearings underway at the moment that we can't report on, but we'll keep you updated and bring that to you when it gets before a jury. If you're interested in any and all of that, make sure you grab ABC Listen. All our episodes pop up there slightly before they pop up anywhere else. But if you are listening somewhere else, leave us a rating and a review because it
28:25 Speaker 04 helps other people find us. Liz, James, thank you so much for joining us for this episode and helping us unpack the closings.
28:32 Speaker 05 Well, thank you.
28:33 Speaker 06 Thanks, Toki.
28:40 Speaker 04 The Case of the Two Intruders is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. It's reported by Elizabeth Byrne and James Vyver and is presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller and our executive producer is Claire Rollinson. Thank you to senior lawyer Jasmine Sims, our legal queen for her legal advice, and to the ACT newsroom, and also to Audio Studios manager, Eric George. This episode was produced on the land of the Nunnawall, Nanbury, and we're jury people.
Previous 07 Wheelie Bin Murder I A surprise twist Next 08 Wheelie Bin Murder | The questions we couldn't answer Page updated October 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated