George Rose 

Almost fifty years ago the love of gambling by a young Bermudian female so influenced her life that it eventually led her to serve a period of imprisonment. Over a period of some three years her addiction to gambling had become so obsessive that it caused her to commit serious felonies of dishonesty at her government workplace as she stole the means by which she could sustain her life of preoccupation with betting on the local football pools.

It’s often said that the best way to double your money is to fold it twice and put it back in your pocket. But for those people who love to gamble they also risk losing huge amounts of money. Since gambling addiction is a pathological, impulse-control disorder, compulsive gamblers cannot control their sudden desire to gamble, even when it has negative consequences for them or their loved ones. 

Following her guilty pleas in the Bermuda Supreme Court in mid-1977, an interesting excursus played out before the court which is as relevant today as it was then. As you will read, during the mitigation phase before sentencing the reasons for and consequences inherent in the addiction to gambling were examined ad nauseam.   

This sad but true case began late in the afternoon of Wednesday, October 6, 1976 when, as a Detective Sergeant in the Hamilton CID I was called to the Bermuda Immigration and Labour Department where I met with Special Branch officers Detective Inspector Tim Willis and Detective Sergeant Neil Cox who were in company with the Government Treasury Auditor and with the then Minister of Immigration Mr. Jim Woolridge.

I was informed that a cashier/clerk by the name of Mrs. Janet Turini had earlier gone home at the end of her working day and before my arrival. 

I further ascertained that my police colleagues were on the premises in connection with a totally unconnected enquiry concerning missing files within the Immigration Department. 

As a result of what I was told by the Government Auditor and the Minister, and in their presence, I took possession of all desktop papers, both desk drawers and their contents together with a filing cabinet and all the documents lodged on a shelf behind the desk then occupied by Mrs. Janet Turini. 

During the early evening a new locking mechanism was fitted to the boardroom door and the seized items were secured therein overnight. This arrangement was deemed satisfactory and was subsequently extended throughout the life of the investigation due to the magnitude of unfolding events at the department.

Shortly before 8.00 am the following morning I returned to the Immigration Department in company with DS Cox where we waited in her office for the arrival of Mrs. Turini. As she entered the door-way I introduced myself and asked her if she would accompany me to Central CID in connection with certain irregularities found at the Immigration Department.

I watched as she surveyed her now vacant work-place. Moments later she turned, looked directly at me, nodded her head and said,

“Oh, I’d be glad to Sergeant.” 

Metaphorically speaking, I instantly sensed that Turini was glad to have been given the chance to liberate herself from a heavy burden she was carrying. It was one of those rare occasions when a police officer confronts a suspect for the first time and immediately perceives he is in the presence of someone who possesses a guilty mind and, as in this case, wants to be relieved of the troublesome worry.  

Without hesitation she voluntarily walked along with us to the Hamilton CID office. Notably, she asked no questions of us as we walked; perhaps it was during those steps that she better understood that the game was up and that she had been caught in a trap of her own making.

I was acutely aware however that I had no direct evidence at that time of any misdeeds by Turini.

At the CID office in the old Hamilton Police Station, I carefully questioned Turini in an attempt to trigger her release as to the full extent of her involvement in alleged nefarious activities associated with her work. I was searching for useful information from her which might provide sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that she had committed offences.

At one point, in an effort to better understand the time boundaries of her misdeeds I put to her the simple question: 

“How long has this been going?” 

She replied, “Honest to God I don’t really know. A few years maybe.”

I elected to caution Turini and then commenced a Q/A interview with her in the presence of Det. Sergeant Ian Ganson who contemporaneously recorded all conversation. She was cooperative and eager to assist in offering answers to my questions. She was not evasive in her answers but she did appear to have genuine difficulty in recalling specific details of dates and cash amounts even for activities she had engaged in within the past few days. She admitted to being unsure of specific activities and said she didn’t want to appear to be lying to us.  She seemed somewhat overwhelmed by the need to talk but didn’t know where to start.

At 9.25 am I commenced recording a general written statement under caution from Turini in which she laid out her overall admission of guilt covering a lengthy period of time. She quite casually referred to herself as having ‘borrowed’ the money which she had placed on the football pools almost daily over the past years at licensed betting shops in Hamilton. She had no idea however in what manner she would replace the monies stolen. It was clear from this initial interview that the extent of her embezzlement was far larger than earlier thought. 

Later that morning I cautioned her again and allowed the Government Auditor to put a short series of very specific questions to Turini in an effort to refine the parameters of her dishonest activities at the Immigration Department. A record of the proceedings was contemporaneously kept by DS Ganson at the conclusion of which the record was signed by Turini as correct. 

Turini voluntarily remained at the CID throughout the rest of the day whilst DS Ganson and I continued our enquires in the boardroom at the Immigration Department where a documentary search was being undertaken by senior Immigration personnel and the Auditor in an attempt to better understand the full scope of the matter at hand.

Turini had admitted that it was customary for her to leave her workplace in the mid-morning and at lunchtime and in the mid-afternoon when she would walk to one of two nearby betting premises in Hamilton at which time she would wager on the outcome of sporting games or horse races. She would promptly return to her workplace thereafter.

Clearly, there would no visits to betting shops by Turini today.

In the mid-afternoon DS Ganson and DS Cox carried out a voluntary search of Turini’s residence in her presence at which time she handed over certain documents to the officers.   

Trash bags found at the residence and at the Immigration department were seized and their contents searched.

At 4.35 pm at Central CID after reminding Turini that she was still under caution I again conducted a Q/A interview with her during which I asked –

“Mrs. Turini I must know where I can find your 1976 diary since it is my belief that you didn’t spend all of the money you took on the Pools.” 

She replied, “No that’s right. I was thinking about that earlier.”

Q. “And the diary?”

A. “I never had one Sergeant Rose – I didn’t.”

Q. “Would you care to make a statement to help clarify these matters.”

A. “Perhaps I should.”

At 5.45 pm I recorded a further statement under caution from Turini at the conclusion of which I arrested and cautioned her.

She replied – “Just tell everyone I’m very sorry and I hope it will soon be over.” 

Turini was released on police bail until the following day Friday, October 8, 1976 when the Bermuda Sunreported that a civil servant was being questioned in a fraud probe.

“A woman employee of the Immigration and Labour Department was helping police with their enquiries yesterday after a police investigation into alleged embezzlement. It is understood that charges involving a large sum of money may be brought as a result of the probe.

“It is not believed that Mr. David Bell is involved in the investigation in any way. Yesterday it was announced that he has relinquished his post as Chief Immigration Officer after only 15 months.

“Reliable sources who informed the Sun that the police were investigating were confident that Mr. Bell was not to be implicated. “His reasons for leaving are entirely unrelated,” said our informant.

“And at his home last night, Mr. Bell confirmed:

“I have not been questioned by the police about any alleged dishonesty and I am not involved with this at all.”

“Immigration and Labour Minister Mr. Jim Woolridge said: –

“It is true that police are investigating certain aspects of my department. I would prefer not to say any more at this stage for fear of sub judice. I am sure the matter will come to light next week.”

“Deputy Police Commissioner Alfred Morris would neither confirm nor deny reports of the investigation. Police were apparently called to the offices this week after the auditors discovered discrepancies in the books.”

Throughout this Friday morning consultations and meetings continued at the Immigration Department concerning policy and procedural matters raised during the investigation thus far. A further interview with Turini took place over the lunch period during which time I showed her selected pages in three separate Collins Diaries and questioned her on matters shown therein. DS Ganson recorded the interview which she later signed as correct.

Meanwhile, Immigration Inspector Marshall joined the team and worked alongside the Government Auditor. It became clear that many documents had been compromised – and many used receipt books could not be located.  These receipt books were sequentially numbered and the task at hand included the need to discover their whereabouts in order to determine just when the fraudulent scheme had begun and what supporting documentation they might reveal. Government archives at Prospect were searched without gain. 

Resulting from what Turini told me, I searched at specific locations alongside the inner boundary fencing of the then Marsh Folly Dump and was able to quite literally unearth two used receipt books which were sodden with water and dirt. They were delivered to the forensic laboratory at Prospect for drying out purposes. As the enquiry progressed additional documents of evidential value were found and seized from within Immigration records. 

There soon followed an Opinion letter to the Editor of the (RG) dated October 14, 1976 which is reproduced below:

Dear Sir,

“It amazes me how people and time[s] change. Just a few months ago there were statements in the paper on how well Mr. David Bell was doing at his new job and how he was the right man for the job. A few days ago, most shocking to everyone’s surprise, a statement saying that “Top man (namely Mr. Bell) is relieved of his post.”

Following that, the Bermuda Sun prints – 

“CIVIL SERVANT QUESTIONED IN FRAUD PROBE” . . . 

“It is not believed that Mr. Bell is involved in any way etc.” – making it appear as if Mr. Bell has some connection with the fraud. I can honestly say that Mr. Bell is not that type of person. He will give you his heart before he takes anything from you and anyone knowing him as I do will testify the same.

I think Government better examine all the trusted and reliable staff for their trustworthiness as someone seems to be playing games – or was Mr. Bell being used until THAT person was available.

About two years ago there was a story in the newspaper about fraud in government that to my knowledge was not solved.

Knowing Mr. Bell as an Immigration officer for nine years and as a Custom officer for eight years, making 17 in all, I think he would be well qualified in that field of dealing with people. 

I am sorry to see him relinquish his post, as I know he is most progressive and works to the best of his ability. I hope justice will be applied to the fullest extent regardless to whom or what.”

On Monday, October 18, 1976 Turini answered her bail at which time I took the opportunity to speak with her under caution and showed her a number of recently discovered forged work-permits from files within the Immigration Department. She elected to make a cautioned statement concerning each of the documents shown to her in turn. 

I released Turini from her police bail pending the outcome of the ongoing enquiries. 

A senior clerk/typist was interviewed as to her knowledge of the forged letters and work-permits she had typed and a lengthy witness statement was recorded from her pertaining to each document under review. 

Immigration Inspector John Marshall together with the Government Auditor provided corroborative witness statements of evidence they had located from documents lodged within Immigration files.

Resulting from the discoveries made I interviewed over two dozen work-permit holders and their employers from whom I seized forged work-permits and related letters. 

Enquiries at city betting shops frequented by Turini revealed only information about Turini’s daily visits to their establishments – but nothing of evidential value was gained.

Shortly before Christmas 1976 I interviewed former Chief Immigration Officer David Bell and recorded a statement from him. Similarly, I recorded a witness statement over a number of days from Detective Inspector Tim Willis as to his part in the investigation.

On January 1, 1977 I took up the position as officer in charge of Eastern Division CID. I carried the Turini investigation with me and continued to work in close liaison with the Government Auditor from whom I recorded a witness statement on January 24, 1977.

During the afternoon of March 8, 1977, I conferred with both the Solicitor General Mr. James Astwood (later Sir James Astwood, Chief Justice of Bermuda) and, during the following days, with the Government Auditor concerning the indictable charges to be laid against Turini.

 

As reported by the (RG) on Wednesday, June 8, 1977 the Immigration clerk/cashier was sent to prison for three years for systematically embezzling more than $20,000 in Government funds most of which was said have been placed on the football pools

“During the hearing, Turini’s lawyer, Mr. John Ellison, criticized the lack of supervision and control of staff in the department, saying it was so lax as to be grossly negligent.

“Turini pleaded guilty to three counts of stealing Government money which came into her possession by virtue of her employment, four counts of forgery of Government documents in connection with her work as a government servant and one count of falsification of documents – all committed last year.

“The Chief Justice, the Hon. Sir John Summerfield, sentenced her to three years for the offences of theft, two years for the forgeries and one year for the falsification – the sentences to run concurrently. He said psychiatric treatment should be made available to Turini while she was in prison.

“Mr. James R. Astwood, Solicitor General, prosecuting, said that Turini had asked for 11 counts of theft and 28 counts of forgery to be taken into consideration. 

“He said that the defendant had joined the Ministry staff as a clerk/cashier in August 1969, and was responsible for all cash and cheques received in the department by way of passports, extensions, applications of all sorts, grant of status certificates, land licence fees, multiple re-entry permits, deposits and so on.

“A great deal of the money she received was in cash and it was this that she appropriated. Several officers in the department received monies and in turn handed it over to Turini who was to lodge it each day with the Accountant General’s Department.

She was the custodian of all blank receipt books received by her from the Accountant General’s Department and responsible for issuing them.

“Turini stole the money by either not entering the amounts in her cash book or making a false entry. Mr. Astwood said that to forge Mr. Bell’s signature, Turini obtained a genuine signature of the Chief Immigration Officer at the time of the forgeries and traced his signature on to the certificates using carbon paper.

“The Solicitor General said that investigation by the Government Auditor and the Police disclosed that a considerable sum of money in excess of that for which she was charged and that involved the cases taken into consideration was appropriated by the accused between May 1973, and March 1976.

“Receipts which had been located showed that between May 14, 1976, and September 1, 1976, Turini appropriated to her own use the sum of $21,050.00, the amount involved in the first three counts and the 11 thefts taken into consideration.

“Det. Sgt. George Rose said that the defendant was born in Bermuda on June 6, 1935, and that she was married. [sentence redacted].  Turini was presently suspended from her job with the Government department, but had previously been earning about $735 per month.

“A woman with no previous convictions, she was arrested on October 7 last year when the offences came to light after an investigation into a totally unrelated matter was made at the department. 

“In answer to questions put by Turini’s counsel, Mr. John Ellison, Det. Sgt. Rose said the woman was of impeccable character before the matters came to light. Afterwards, she had made a frank confession, seemed sorry for what she had done and appeared relieved that it was all out in the open.

“Asked if it was true that Turini had spent most of the money she had stolen on the football pools, the officer replied that that was so. Det. Sgt. Rose said that the Police had had to make extensive inquiries into the workings of the Department.

“Asked if the inquires indicated an efficient department, he said: “Not altogether, no, sir.”

“Still answering Mr. Ellison’s question, the officer said that there had been no-one to supervise Turini in her work and that the defendant had told him that one person who had been in charge had neither any knowledge of nor interest in her work and [had] left her to get on with it. 

“Asked if he expected that normal audit procedures would have shown up the shortages, he said it would have done.

“Mr. Ellison then called Dr. Neville Marks, a consultant psychiatrist, who said that Turini had visited him on several occasions since her arrest and he had caused her to also be assessed by a psychologist.

“Asked if Turini, from his inquiries, had been happy in the marriage, Dr. Marks said there were stresses caused in the marriage by Mr. Turini’s behaviour and by the defendant’s inabilities to cope with these stresses. From time to time, Mr. Turini’s behaviour had been violent.

“Dr. Marks said Turini seemed deprived emotionally and materially as a child and, consequently, had a need for material comforts within the marriage, especially as the emotional support she needed was not always forthcoming.

“Dr. Marks said that the deprivation and stress did, in his opinion, have a connection with the offences she committed. She was attempting to escape from the pressures of her marriage and also attempting to get back at her husband, although not consciously aware of it. She had fantasized that money would help her escape from her stress. If she had a sizable sum of money she would be able to leave her husband, he said, and she believed gambling on the football pools could give her that substantial amount of money.

“Dr. Marks, in answer to a question from Mr. Ellison said he thought the gambling had become pathological. She gambled excessively to her own detriment and to her family’s. She had become obsessed with the thought of gambling. Thoughts of gambling were with her most of the day, even when she was at Church. Although she tried to resist the obsession, she failed to do so.

“Dr. Marks said Turini had shown remorse for what she had done. Prison would not be beneficial for her. She was a woman who had been suicidal on occasions and could become severely depressed in custody. If counselled, though, the prognosis was good.

“Mr. Ellison said it must be observed that the situation in terms of control and supervision of staff in the department was so lax as to be grossly negligent. If there had been any proper kind of office procedure in the department or any proper audit procedure, the sums of money involved in the case would have been miniscule, he submitted.

“Mr. Ellison said Turini was in many ways inadequate and unable to cope with the problems and stresses of her life. While it was true that most people could resist turning their fantasies into reality, there were some who could not cope – that could not resist it. They were objects for sympathy, not rejection.

“Urging the Chief Justice to be lenient, Mr. Ellison said there could be no excuse for the offences committed. But he asked that Turini be treated not so much as a criminal but as a suffering human being who needed assistance.

“He said he had given very careful consideration to the evidence of Dr. Marks but had concluded that he could not be influenced by it in imposing what he considered to be the appropriate sentence in that case. It contained many mitigating factors, of which he had taken due account, and otherwise the penalty would have been much more severe.

“The Chief Justice said that it had been pointed out that there was a lack of supervision and inadequate auditing which contributed to Turini’s “slide down the slippery slope”. It was difficult, he said, to see how auditing could have detected these misappropriations having regard to the way they were effected, leaving no documentary evidence.

“The absence of effective supervision was no doubt a factor which enabled her to give way to temptation more readily he said.

“An isolated lapse of this nature by a young offender may well be treated leniently,” said the Chief Justice. “A systematic course of defrauding over an extended period rarely merits such treatment. Painful though it may be, the courts have a duty to deter others, and the offender, from engaging in this form of misappropriation.”

The Minister’s comments were reported [in part] by the (RG) on June 10, 1977 

“Changes implemented in the Department of Labour and Immigration since it was discovered that a member of staff had been embezzling public money have made it unlikely, if not impossible for such an incident to occur again. This was the assurance given yesterday by the Acting Minister for Labour and Immigration, the Hon. Ernest Vesey.

“He was commenting on allegations made about the organization of the department during the Supreme Court hearing on Monday of a former Government employee who was sent to prison for three years after admitting stealing Government money and forging signatures.

“Passing sentence on Janet Turini, a former clerk/cashier at the Ministry, the Chief Justice, the Hon. Sir John Summerfield, described the crimes committed by Turini as being a systematic course of defrauding.

“During the case, Turini’s defence counsel, Mr. John Ellison, said the crimes had only come to light because of a totally unrelated inquiry being made into the department. He said it must be observed that the situation and terms of control and supervision of staff in the department was so lax as to be grossly negligent.

“The [Acting] Minister denies the allegation made by the accused’s counsel to the effect that the tragic case only came to light because of a totally unrelated inquiry. Mr. Vesey said an investigation was initiated by the Department after suspicions were aroused about missing files.

“The Minister noted that the Chief Justice in passing sentence is reported in the Royal Gazette to have noted that it is difficult to see how auditing could have detected these misappropriations.

“The Minister added that he wishes to assure the public that since this incident came to light, a number of changes had been implemented in the Department with the agreement of the Government Departments and officials concerned and these changes make it unlikely, if not impossible, for this type of incident to occur again.”

“Mr. John Ellison, appearing for the appellant, submitted that other similar offences which she asked to be taken into consideration should have been ignored by the Chief Justice. He had said in his judgement that an isolated lapse by a young offender might well be treated leniently, but a systematic course of defrauding over an extended period rarely merited such treatment.”

[It should be remembered here that Turini, aged 42, had been sentenced only one month earlier to three years imprisonment on three counts of stealing; to two years on four counts of forgery of Government documents, and to one year on one count of falsification of documents, all committed in 1976. The sentences were made concurrent.]

“Mr. Ellison said the appellant appeared to be of less than average intellectual ability and was suffering from as impulsive neurosis of gambling. It was quite clear that in view of the Department’s almost total lack of elementary auditing, the aberration or compulsion became a habit. Nearly all the money she took was spent on football pools. It was not an ordinary case of somebody stealing for gain, but of a woman suffering very considerably from an abnormal compulsion to gamble.

“She had had an unhappy home life, and psychiatrists found that on one hand she wanted to amass sufficient funds to make a break away from home, and on the other it was a form of aggression to get back at the situation which made her unhappy. She was of perfectly good character and had an otherwise clean record. She was helpful to police when her offences came to light through their inquiries into another matter at the Department.

“She was psychologically disturbed and had had difficulties in her married life, but the accused, her husband and the doctor said they had been resolved, because there was a crystallization of feeling, perhaps because of the event. They were back together and back to their church, and were happily looking forward to a tranquil and peaceful period of married life. Evidence from psychiatrists gave a most hopeful prognosis on the compulsive gambling.

“On these facts, said Mr. Ellison, the Chief Justice could either have done as he did or taken a chance on assisting the accused to reform. Society had no need of protection from this particular appellant, counsel submitted.

“The President of the Court, Sir Michael Hogan, said: “I gather you are arguing that incarceration should not have been passed, or that it should be altered by us. Can we ignore the effect on others?”

“Mr. Ellison said there was always a problem of whether to emphasize deterrence or reform of the individual: “I would hope that in an enlightened age, reform of the individual would tip the balance on sentencing rather than the deterrent aspect. Imprisonment for three years, in my submission, is against local precedent and out of step, and therefore wrong in principle, with what has happened on the Bermuda scene. 

“In May last year this court reduced a sentence of corrective training to probation in the case of a young girl convicted of larceny and nine counts of forgery. She was given a chance of finding her way to a better life. 

“A case in October last year involved a real estate agent found guilty of taking money on trust, small people’s savings, amounting to well over $200,000, and he received but one year more than this lady.”

The case referred to above by Mr. Ellison is the R v Walter Frick matter in which I was the lead investigator. This interesting case lends itself to a future EXPO article and will be pursued accordingly.  

“[Mr. Ellison] also mentioned three men in one case and a fourth in another being fined for arson, which had always seemed to him more serious because of the pecuniary loss in buildings, the emotional shock to their owners and the ever-present hazard of repetition.

“In a 1972 case of two men charged with robbery, one was imprisoned for three years and the other for one. The judge had said he had no sympathy since they both had very bad records over nine and seven years respectively. Counsel said the sentences were quite understandable in that case. 

“In the present case the judge should have had regard not only for mitigating factors but for local precedent.

“The President asked if counsel wished to make a point about lack of adequate supervision within the Labour & Immigration Department.

“Mr. Ellison replied: “The person in charge either knew naught or cared naught for office procedure. I would have taken issue with the observation in the judgment that it was hard to see how auditing could have stopped the misappropriations. On the facts of the case this does not stand up. There were numbers in sequence [of receipt books] issued to staff, and presumably they would be accounted for when issued, and the sums for which they were issued would be checked on the books. If a number of books were missing, even the most casual audit would reveal it.

“In my submission, had there been any adequate audit procedure, the losses would not have been at the rate of $3,000 a month over six months, which is approximately what happened. The money was taken not through motives of avarice or greed, but simply because this lady had no control over her compulsion.”

“Professor Telford Georges asked if she was satisfying her compulsion before she took this job.

[These depositions would have revealed the existence of the additional appropriations by Turini during earlier years and which formed a substantive part of the offences she had asked to be taken into consideration at her sentencing.]

“Professor Georges asked if the trial judge usually read depositions, which would be a background even though they did not figure in the oral part of the proceedings. Mr. Ellison said they did not usually read them, though they might if there was a half-way sporting chance that someone would plead guilty.

“But in this case, it was anticipated from the very start that she would plead guilty. It was only by virtue of her being considerate and co-operative that we had a short form at the preliminary inquiry. I could have been obstructive and difficult and allowed only evidence relating to matters that would go before the Magistrate and therefore the Supreme Court, but in all cases it is my understanding that the judicial mind is capable of and should exclude extraneous matter.”

“The President said counsel were usually asked to agree among themselves what material should be put in. “In this case we have a summary.”

“Mr. Astwood said the summary was quite satisfactory as far as the Court of Appeal was concerned. “But before the Chief Justice there was evidence that considerable sums were involved, because, I take it, he had read his brief, presented by me as Solicitor General.”

“The President: “Nothing else is available to us at this stage unless we have agreement that additional material should be in. I don’t know whether we can go looking at depositions.”

“Mr. Astwood said Turini was a cashier-clerk, a person who her employers had decided needed no supervision, and one in whom great trust was placed. He submitted that the Chief Justice took this fact into consideration. It was irrelevant whether there were good auditing principles or proper supervision of her as far as he was concerned. No doubt, if an audit had been carried out or she had been properly supervised, her conduct would have been discovered earlier. He did not agree with a suggestion that it was her employer’s duty to shield her from temptation. She had no licence to take liberties with Government funds because her superiors were not looking over her shoulder.

“Replying to Professor Georges’ question about so-called precedents, Mr. Astwood said it was very difficult to try and read any consistent principle from previous cases.

“I submit that judges are being subjected to pressure from the community in any particular case. It is wrong for any court to try to use precedents. I have never been able to follow that principle because there are so many facts you have to take into consideration. All you could say is that cases are more or less similar.”

“The President asked how one could get a pattern if there was no point in looking at other cases. 

“I always found it very difficult,” said Mr. Astwood. “If you try you are tying your own hands, because you are supposed to look at this particular record. I don’t know the facts in another case. In the Frick case I do because I prosecuted myself. It was a real estate fraud with a number of people who had bought or sold lands through him, and he appropriated the purchase price.”

“The President said there was a suggestion that that case involved more money and people had lost their savings.

“So they did,” said Mr. Astwood “but this young lady was a servant of the Government, so the total loss is rather more evenly spread over the population.”

“Mr. Ellison submitted that in the general climate of sentencing in this country, it would not have been wrong or out of step had the Chief Justice taken the opportunity of affording to the appellant the best possible chance of reforming.”

As it transpired Turini’s sentence was not altered by the Court of Appeal and she served her term of three years imprisonment less the allotted time for good conduct.

I had a chance meeting with Turini in early 1981 at the Crawl Hill gas station after her release from prison. We met at the entrance door to the station and had a brief conversation during which she said words to the effect that she had learned “not to love something that doesn’t love me back”. She appeared calm and resolved in her plan not to repeat her mistakes of the past. I last saw her happily walking east up Crawl Hill. 

Janet Carol Turini died in early August 2011 having been pre-deceased by her husband.