Campbell Town, Tasmania – An elderly couple who were recently sentenced for the premeditated murder of their former son-in-law are asserting that another person could be responsible for the crime. Noelene June Jordan and Cedric Harper Jordan, both in their 70s, received a 22-year prison term for the killing of 36-year-old Shane Barker in 2009, a crime they claim they did not commit.
Shane Barker was fatally shot four times with a silenced .22 caliber weapon in the driveway of his home in Campbell Town, a quiet town in Tasmania. The local court determined that Cedric, who has considerable experience with firearms, was the perpetrator, having traveled with his wife from their residence with the intent to commit the murder.
In response to their conviction, the Jordans have appealed, arguing that the jury’s decision was unsatisfactory and that alternative suspects were not sufficiently considered. The murder weapon was never recovered, and the couple’s legal team suggested that the actual murderer could be someone connected to a similar firearm found at the Jordans’ holiday home.
During the appeal hearing, Fran McCracken, representing Mrs. Jordan, proposed that the gun used in the murder might have previously been handled by Mr. Barker at the shack, and could afterwards have been used by an unidentified third party to commit the crime. She stressed that the couple was simply claiming ignorance of the murderer’s identity, rather than accusing any specific individuals.
Crown prosecutor Daryl Coates dismissed this theory as highly improbable, pointing to strong motives for the Jordans, who had circumstantial evidence against them including cell phone data placing them near the crime scene close to the time of the murder. Coates highlighted that the ammunition found at the scene was identical to that found in possessions owned by the Jordans. He also noted a chilling statement allegedly made by Mr. Jordan about the efficacy of the unregistered .22 rifle for committing murder.
Further complicating the trial, there were claims of a conflict of interest involving a juror and an alternate, and issues raised about a demonstration that took place during the proceedings, which the defense argued might have biased the jury.
The relationship between Mr. Barker and the Jordans’ daughter, Rachel, had ended two-and-a-half years prior to the murder. During sentencing, Justice Robert Pearce noted that while the Jordans felt a strong protective instinct towards their daughter and granddaughter, believing Mr. Barker had treated them poorly, the claims of abuse seemed improbable and were not a deciding factor in the trial.
With a decision on the appeal pending, the case continues to capture the attention of the community, challenging beliefs about justice and the lengths to which individuals might go to protect their loved ones.