Hobart, Tasmania – A couple in their 70s, Noelene June Jordan and Cedric Harper Jordan, have been sentenced to 22 years in prison for the premeditated murder of their former son-in-law, 36-year-old Shane Barker. The tragic incident occurred back in 2009 when Mr. Barker was shot four times with sub-sonic bullets from a .22 calibre firearm fitted with a silencer, outside his home in Campbell Town.
The Jordans were driven by deep-seated animosity towards Mr. Barker, whom they accused of mistreating their daughter and granddaughter. The prosecution argued that Mr. Jordan, with a wealth of experience with firearms, was the one who fired the deadly shots that led to Mr. Barker’s demise. Despite the guilty verdict, the Jordans have appealed their conviction on several grounds, including the assertion that the jury’s decision was unsatisfactory.
During the trial, Mrs. Jordan’s lawyer, Fran McCracken, proposed an alternative theory suggesting a plausible scenario where a third party might have been responsible for Mr. Barker’s murder. The defense argued that the murder weapon was never found and highlighted that the same type of cartridge found at the crime scene was also discovered at the Jordan’s holiday shack.
Crown prosecutor, Daryl Coates, dismissed the defense’s claims as “fanciful,” emphasizing that the evidence presented at the trial strongly pointed to the Jordans as the perpetrators. Phone data placed the couple in the vicinity of the crime scene around the time of the murder, and there were indications that they had access to the murder weapon. Additionally, Mr. Jordan had made concerning remarks about the firearm in question.
Justice Robert Pearce, presiding over the sentencing, noted the Jordans’ unwavering protection of their daughter and granddaughter as a possible motive for the heinous crime. While the abuse allegations made against Mr. Barker were deemed improbable, Justice Pearce emphasized that it was not the trial’s role to adjudicate on this matter. The fate of the Jordans’ appeal is yet to be decided, with concerns raised about potential biases during the trial proceedings.