Lobov stung with legal costs after changing claim against McGregor
Artem Lobov, 38, a retired fighter known as 'The Russian Hammer', claims he was the original creator and co-founder of the whiskey that became McGregor's Proper No. Twelve.
He said he came up with the idea while studying for his Master's degree at DCU, and his sparring partner Mr McGregor had agreed he would be entitled to a 5% share of the proceeds.
He said the offer was made at the Straight Blast Gym (SBG) in Dublin. But at the pre-trial stage, Mr Lobov changed the date on which he said the deal had been agreed with Mr McGregor, resulting in the trial being adjourned with just days to go. Artem Lobov taunts opponent Andre Fili. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images)
Yesterday, Judge Nessa Cahill said Mr Lobov's initial statement of claim had read 'in September 2017 at the SBG gym' Mr McGregor 'made a specific offer to the plaintiff of 5% of the proceeds of the whiskey deal'.
She said Mr Lobov asserted it was confirmed by a handshake witnessed by three people. Mr McGregor denied the claim, the judge said, saying there was never any agreement.
The trial was set down for May this year. Five days before it was due to start, Mr Lobov's solicitors wrote to Mr McGregor: 'On reviewing the documentation… the plaintiff's evidence now shall be that the agreement… was concluded in October 2017 in SBG Gym.'
Judge Cahill said that, in a sworn statement, Mr Lobov had apologised for his error.
She said: 'He recalled he was, in fact, in Iceland for 10 days after the defendant's fight against Floyd Mayweather on August 26, 2017.'
The court heard messages Mr Lobov had accessed confirmed to him that the meeting with Mr McGregor was in the week beginning October 9, 2017, and not in September. Artem Lobov of Russia celebrates with then teammate and UFC champion Conor McGregor after his featherweight bout against Teruto Ishihara during the UFC Fight Night at the SSE Arena. Pic: Getty Images
Judge Cahill said Mr McGregor had been prejudiced in his defence by the change of date.
She noted Mr Lobov was going through belongings when he found an old phone and was able to access messages on it.
She ruled: 'I am of the view that the just order in the circumstances of this matter is an order that the plaintiff bear liability for 75% of the costs incurred by the defendant from March 18, 2025, in preparing this matter for trial, up to and including the costs of the first day of trial. This is to cover the costs of work done by the legal team during that period.'
She said her order did not cover costs incurred before March 18, but would include 75% of the fees associated with the first day of the hearing and the costs of delivering an amended defence.
Judge Cahill granted a stay on the order until the conclusion of the full case. The trial is expected to go ahead in the autumn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
12 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Warning Dublin Airport passenger cap could unleash ‘reciprocal' Trump transatlantic aviation restrictions
Warning Dublin Airport passenger cap could unleash 'reciprocal' Trump transatlantic aviation restrictions US Transportation chief Sean Duffy said administration was 'monitoring' EU countries that introduce 'unjustified operational limits' A DAA spokesman said: 'The US is right to be concerned. This cap is outdated, unworkable, and is increasingly seen as a trade barrier.' Pictured, US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Photo: via Getty Images Fearghal O'Connor Today at 06:30 Ireland could be hit with transatlantic aviation restrictions by the Trump administration because of the cap at Dublin Airport after US transportation secretary Sean Duffy issued a stark warning to European airports.
RTÉ News
17 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Legal proceedings in McGregor case not yet at an end
This week, the former MMA fighter Conor McGregor lost his appeal against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand. The jury at the civil trial found that he raped Ms Hand in a hotel room in December 2018 and awarded her just under €250,000 in damages. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr McGregor's appeal against the finding in its entirety. It also rejected an appeal by his friend, James Lawrence, against the High Court's decision to refuse him his costs. However, the legal proceedings are not at an end. Here, our Legal Affairs Correspondent Órla O'Donnell reflects on the case and looks at what could come next. On Thursday, Nikita Hand entered court number one at the Court of Appeal a few minutes before the hearing was due to start. With her, as always, was the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's accompaniment manager, along with solicitors, Susan Hannon and David Coleman as well as some good friends. Conor McGregor was not there. But for both sides in this case, the stakes were unimaginably high. Mr McGregor has raged against the jury's verdict to his millions of social media followers since the case ended in November 2024. His US-based public relations executives began sending emails to media organisations within minutes of the verdict, claiming he had only been found "liable for assault" by the High Court jury. The PR executives claimed RTÉ News and others, were wrong to say the jury's verdict meant the jurors found he had raped Nikita Hand. They continued to send such emails sporadically in the following months. Their claim has now been firmly refuted by the Court of Appeal. Mr McGregor repeatedly accused Ms Hand of lying and laid emphasis on the fact that he had not faced any criminal charge in relation to the incident in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018. A win in his appeal would allow him to bolster his narrative that he was an innocent man facing trumped up allegations and restore his reputation. Ms Hand on the other hand, had been "put through the wringer" - a statement by her lawyers, endorsed by the Court of Appeal. She had prevailed in "one of the most hard fought trials of recent years". But her reputation had continued to be attacked by Mr McGregor, not only in his social media posts but in his tactics in this appeal. If Mr McGregor won, it would mean Nikita Hand would have to go through a high-profile civil trial all over again. And there was a further risk for her: If Mr McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, won his separate appeal over the refusal to award him his legal costs, then her award of just under €250,000 in damages could be wiped out and she could end up financially ruined. Remarkably, given what was at stake, Ms Hand remained composed as the proceedings began. Sitting bolt upright between her solicitors and her support worker from the Rape Crisis Centre, she gave a quick acknowledgement to the journalists on the opposite side of the court room. Media representatives outnumbered the lawyers in the appeal court with interest in the case from news outlets all over Ireland and further afield. The three judges emerged, presided over by experienced former criminal barrister, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy. The court's decision was given by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore. He said he would not read it all out, but it still took more than an hour to go through the issues. For Ms Hand, it was a rollercoaster. At times, the outcome looked bleak. It was only when the court made its ruling on the final issue of James Lawrence's costs, that the full extent of her vindication became clear. 'Rather tawdry episode' Mr Justice O'Moore said this was a case where the jury had to decide between Mr McGregor's description of a "rather tawdry episode" and Ms Hand's claim that a criminal offence had been committed against her. However, the first part of the court's judgment dealt not with what happened after "four people made their way to a penthouse suite in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford" in December 2018, but with the "dramatic events" in the Court of Appeal 30 days previously. Mr Justice O'Moore dealt extensively with Mr McGregor's application to introduce "new evidence" which had "come to light" since the trial concluded. This new evidence referred to the sworn statements of Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins who at one stage had lived opposite Nikita Hand in Drimnagh. They swore affidavits about what they had seen and heard after Ms Hand returned from the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018. Ms O'Reilly claimed she could see into Nikita's bedroom from her bedroom and could see Nikita's boyfriend at the time, moving in a way that suggested he was assaulting her. Mr Cummins said he heard a commotion but told Ms O'Reilly it was none of their business and didn't look himself. Mr McGregor claimed this was a plausible explanation for severe bruising on Ms Hand's body. Ms Hand described their statements as lies and said she didn't wish to speculate about why they were lying. Just as the appeal was about to get underway, Mr McGregor's lawyers told the court they would be withdrawing their application to introduce this evidence. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal made it clear that they were not happy with the explanations they had been given for this decision. Mr Justice O'Moore said the affidavits were "very comprehensive and clear" and had been sworn in January this year. Neither Ms O'Reilly nor Mr Cummins said they had any difficulty remembering the incident or expressed any doubt about their evidence. And he said they would have been stress tested by Mr McGregor's lawyers, long before the eve of the appeal hearing. The judge said one explanation received by the court for the withdrawal of this evidence, related to the fact that Mr McGregor's lawyers had sought an additional expert opinion from a forensic pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, dealing with when Ms Hand's bruising could have been inflicted. Seeking to introduce new expert evidence to back up an application to introduce other new evidence was admitted by Mr McGregor's lawyers to be a "legal novelty". The first position taken by Mr McGregor's lawyers was that they had further reflected on the legal situation following written submissions on the issue from Ms Hand's lawyers, and had decided to withdraw the application. The Court of Appeal said this was "somewhat puzzling" as there was nothing new in the submissions. Mr McGregor's lawyers also suggested they were taking this step due to a lack of corroboration of Ms O'Reilly's evidence. But the court said it had never previously been suggested that the neighbours' evidence was dependent on Prof Crane's evidence being admitted. Mr Justice O'Moore said Ms O'Reilly's evidence was "crisp, clear and coherent" and the only question was whether it was true. He described this explanation as an "unsustainable position". 'Privileged matters' Mr McGregor's lawyers then claimed there were other reasons for the withdrawal of the evidence - "privileged matters" they did not intend to go into. Mr Justice O'Moore remarked that "some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant grounds of appeal". The court was deeply unimpressed with what happened. The judge said the existence of the new witnesses had "attracted no little attention" since it was first revealed earlier this year. He said the entire import of Ms O'Reilly's evidence was that Nikita Hand's testimony was incomplete and misleading. And he said Instagram messages sent by Ms O'Reilly to Mr McGregor's sister clearly accused Ms Hand of lies. The court ruled that Ms Hand had been completely vindicated in the position she took. Judge O'Moore said she robustly took the stance that Ms O'Reilly's evidence was wrong and the abandonment of the applications with "no plausible reason" could only be seen as an acknowledgement that she was correct. He said by deploying the "new evidence", the McGregor side had subjected the jury's belief that Nikita Hand had been raped to "a root and branch attack". He also said that Mr McGregor's conduct in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and Ms Hand's testimony, only to abandon it when it was about to be tested, deserved to be marked "by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval". He awarded Ms Hand the costs of the proceedings relating to this issue on a "legal practitioner and own client basis" against Mr McGregor. Awarding costs in this way, is significant and is not done regularly. Usually if someone is awarded their costs in legal proceedings they get them on a "party and party" basis. Surprisingly, it doesn't mean they get back all the costs they have actually accrued during the case. During the costs hearing in the High Court, Ms Hand's Senior Counsel, John Gordon suggested that someone who is successful in a court case and gets their costs on the ordinary basis gets back only about 80% of what they actually spent. Other legal sources say the true figure is actually around 60-70% of what a person spends. However awarding costs at the highest level, means someone will get back almost everything they have spent, including all the costs they have accrued with their own solicitor. The court went on to comprehensively dismiss the first of Mr McGregor's remaining grounds of appeal – the question the jury had to answer. They were asked: "Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Ní Láimhín (Hand), yes or no?" Mr McGregor's lawyers had argued that some members of the jury may have been confused about what exactly they were being asked and may have decided he was liable for an ordinary assault instead of rape. They also submitted that the relatively low award of damages was not consistent with a finding of rape. Mr Justice O'Moore ruled the trial judge could not have been clearer in explaining that what was meant by the question was rape. He said it was "simply unreal" to suggest the jury were confused, faced with the issue framed in such a "brutally clear way", even though the damages awarded were "not generous". A more substantive ground of appeal was Mr McGregor's answers to gardaí when he was interviewed by them in connection with their investigation into Ms Hand's allegations. The trial judge allowed Mr McGregor to be cross examined about the fact that he gave a series of "no comment" answers to gardaí. The Court of Appeal found this ruling was incorrect. And it rejected a further submission that this questioning was justifiable to allow the jury to understand the background to issues in the case. But it ruled that the warnings given to the jury about this matter were sufficient to rule out the risk of an unfair trial. The court also ruled against Mr McGregor on all the remaining issues, dismissing the appeal "in its entirety". However, the issue of James Lawrence's costs remained. He argued he should have been awarded his costs as the jury had found he did not rape Ms Hand as she alleged. Ms Hand's lawyers had suggested to the court that if he were to get his costs, her award of damages would be more than wiped out. But the Court of Appeal had signalled during the hearing that this was not something they could consider. In the court's ruling, Mr Justice O'Moore said he was unimpressed by this argument. He pointed out that alleging sexual assault against Mr Lawrence was a terribly serious thing to do. Judge O'Moore also said he did not agree with the rationale of the trial judge for refusing Mr Lawrence his costs. Mr Justice Owens ruled that the jury's verdict meant they didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about his own interactions with Ms Hand. The Court of Appeal said this analysis was flawed. But it found the verdict could only have meant the jury didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about what happened between Ms Hand and his friend, Conor McGregor. Mr Justice O'Moore analysed Mr Lawrence's conduct, and what he said were the unusual circumstances of this case. The judge said it was "unusual" that Mr Lawrence had pleaded that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, given that she had said she had no recollection of being sexually assaulted by him. If he had not made this plea, it would have been a possibility that the case against Mr Lawrence would have been dismissed at the end of the evidence. Plea made 'tactical' sense - judge The judge said the plea made "tactical" sense by presenting an "ostensibly coherent joint narrative" between Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor. He also analysed the evidence given by James Lawrence on the one issue about which he said, the jury's view was not in doubt. The judge said the jury's verdict meant they believed Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand, whereas Mr Lawrence gave evidence that the sex between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor was consensual. Judge O'Moore said Ms Hand's account must have been believed by the jury and Mr Lawrence's account must have been rejected. Therefore he said Mr Lawrence's evidence on this issue could only be regarded as untruthful. The court ruled that the giving of such evidence was a very serious matter, and was enough on its own to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs. But it found another significant factor was the evidence of Mr McGregor that he had paid those costs for Mr Lawrence. Mr McGregor appeared to deny on social media that he ever admitted paying his friend's costs but the transcript shows that when he was asked in the witness box if he paid the fees he swore Mr Lawrence was his friend and "wouldn't have the fees for it so I believe I may have, yeah…." Mr Justice O'Moore said part of the reason for awarding costs is to make right the damage to someone who has been wrongly sued. But he said this was pointless if someone else had paid their costs for them. Arrangements between McGregor and Lawrence were 'shrouded in mystery' - judge He said the arrangements between the two men were "shrouded in mystery". But he said if Mr Lawrence didn't repay Mr McGregor he would have received a bounty of several hundred thousand euro and it would not be appropriate to enrich him by providing him with money for costs that he had never had to pay. If Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor then it would mean Ms Hand would have to make a payment to a man who gave inaccurate evidence about her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. This he said should weigh heavily with the court. The judge also pointed out that having two sets of lawyers to cross examine Ms Hand, brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor. He dismissed Mr Lawrence's appeal, saying the appeal court had come to the same decision as the High Court judge, albeit for different reasons. It was at this point that Nikita Hand finally relaxed. She hugged her friends and lawyers and wiped away tears as the reality of the court's decision hit home. Outside court, holding a piece of paper in trembling hands she gave a very brief statement to the media explaining how the appeal had retraumatised her, before expressing the hope she could now finally heal. The legal proceedings are not at an end, however. Within minutes of the court's verdict, Ms Hand's lawyers lodged papers beginning an action against Ms O'Reilly, Mr Cummins and Mr McGregor for "malicious abuse of the process of the court". That case will take many months to come to court. On social media, in a flurry of posts, Mr McGregor welcomed the fact that "this is still ongoing", saying he believed the witnesses and criticising his own lawyers for not calling their evidence. He reposted a post from the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's X, suggesting he was "innocent" from its "analysis of the evidence", notably "excluding court rulings". He appeared to be posting from a yacht, while on holidays with his partner Dee Devlin and their children. As well as criticising Ms Hand, his lawyers and the court's decision, he published further posts suggesting he should be the next president of Ireland, describing Ms Devlin as Ireland's "first lady". Mr McGregor can attempt to challenge the appeal court's decision but he will have to get permission from the Supreme Court. That court allows appeals in the interests of justice or where there is a point of law of general public importance. The consequences of his withdrawal of the "new evidence" have also still to play out. The appeal court has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions who may ask gardaí to investigate allegations of perjury.
The Irish Sun
a day ago
- The Irish Sun
How world's most depraved killers tortured victims & injected bleach in testicles before dumping bodies in acid barrels
PRIZING open the first of six barrels stored at a disused bank vault, in Snowtown, South Australia, detective Gordon Drage expected to find fertiliser used to grow illegal cannabis. But, after releasing a stomach-churning stench he discovered the vats contained something far more horrific - the dismembered remains of multiple murder victims. 19 John Justin Bunting was convicted for his role in the grisly killing spree and sentenced to life imprisonment Credit: Getty Images 19 Robert Joe Wagner was also arrested after police found eight hacked up bodies stuffed in barrels Credit: AP 19 The remains of up to six people were discovered in a disused bank vault in Snowtown, a small village near Adelaide Credit: Reuters And the chilling find, in 1999, led police to uncover Australia's Over a period of seven years, twelve people had been tortured, murdered, decapitated and dismembered, their bodies left to rot in barrels or Meanwhile their killers, led by psychopath John Bunting, profited from their victims by selling their possessions and withdrawing their benefit payments. Bunting, described as a "charismatic" leader who made his victims call him "God", "Master" or "Sir Lord" during vile torture sessions, recruited a gang of followers to assist in his heinous crimes - including a stepson who helped to murder his own siblings. What makes these crimes all the more shocking is that many occurred while Bunting and his followers were under active police surveillance. Now the killing spree is revisited in a new Crime+Investigation documentary, Bodies in the Barrels, with interviews from the detectives and scientists who were first to uncover the horrific scene in Snowtown. Forensic psychiatrist Richard Furst explains that Bunting, who had a pathological hatred towards gay people, drug users and paedophiles, would use the trauma of abuse victims to manipulate them into doing whatever he wanted them to do. Forensic psychiatrist Richard Furst says: 'This crime sequence is quite unusual in that a lot of the victims were known to Bunting and his followers. Most read in The Sun "The recruitment and victim selection very much fitted what he was projecting, which was the hatred towards paedophiles, hatred towards gay people. 'I think there is a charisma that you might see in a lot of cults. People within a cult, do things because there's a greater motive, and they have a sense of belonging and allegiance.' Chilling position missing girl's body was found in as new details on heartbreaking final days with 'killer' dad revealed Killer squad 19 Robert Joe Wagner, John Justin Bunting and Mark Ray Haydon were all suspects in the killing spree which found between six and 12 bodies in acid vats Credit: Getty 19 The exterior of the bank in Snowtown where police discovered the bodies in vats stored in the vault Credit: News Pictures 19 Gordon Drage, a Former Forensic Officer, originally thought the smelly barrels contained fertilised water for cannabis plants Credit: Crime+Investigation John Bunting had had a trouble childhood, wasn't academic and had a fixation with killing animals and dropping insects into acid. One of his first jobs was as an In the 90s he lived in the marginalised, working-class suburbs of Adelaide, Australia, where he recruited a faithful flock of acolytes. They fancied themselves as righteous In fact, most of their victims were not paedophiles, but loners and outcasts. Bunting would invent excuses to justify his bloodlust, and with the assistance of his friends, conspire to steal the government benefits of those they monstrously tortured and murdered. His first accomplice was the easily manipulated Robert Wagner who had a troubled childhood and had been the The next key player Bunting met was Elizabeth Harvey who he soon moved in with. She perceived John Bunting as some sort of white knight, a saviour, if you like Jeremy Pudney She too was vulnerable. Her husband had died, but her children had also suffered abuse at his hands. He essentially became step-father to her children, one of whom was James Vlassakis, who Bunting took under his wing. James hero-worshipped him. Local journalist Jeremy Pudney says: 'She perceived John Bunting as some sort of white knight, a saviour, if you like." Journalist Peter Overton adds: 'But Bunting wasn't a saviour for this vulnerable family he was their downfall. "He would soon groom them and manipulate them into committing the Twisted torture chamber In 1994 , two farmers discovered a It would take several years for police to discover that the body belonged to John Bunting's first victim - Clinton Tresize - who had been bashed to death with a shovel after being invited into his home, two years earlier. His second victim was a man called Ray Davies who came to Bunting's attention after he exposed himself to children in the neighbourhood. In late 1995, he was ambushed, handcuffed, dragged into a car and driven to the house Bunting shared with Elizabeth Harvey. Bunting, Harvey and Wagner tortured Ray Davies with jump leads and beat him to death. Over the next four years, more and more people disappeared from Adelaide's north and investigators began to link these missing persons cases, suspecting foul play may have been afoot. Several of the bodies had ropes around their necks, others had gags in their mouths Forensic pathologist, Roger Byard In August 1999, the trail led to Snowtown, South Australia, a desolate and dusty hamlet which is little more than a battered collection of rundown buildings on the side of a highway. Officers investigating five of the missing had been watching three suspects and were following a suspicious four wheel drive vehicle that had been under surveillance. When they got to the address where the car was, they were told by a resident that it had been driven there by John Bunting and it had smelly barrels in it. When asked what was in them, John Bunting claimed they were the carcasses of dead 19 Clinton Tresize, John Bunting's first victim Credit: News Ltd 19 Barry Wayne Lane's body was found in the abandoned State Bank building in Snowtown Credit: News Pictures 19 Elizabeth Audrey Haydon was also found in the abandoned State Bank Credit: News Pictures Police discovered that the barrels were now in a disused bank across town. Former detective Gordon Drage says: 'At that stage, we had no suspicion of there being bodies at the bank we thought it was going to be a drug crop, we suspected that the smelly liquids was probably going to be fertilised water for his cannabis crop growing inside the vault.' But when they got inside the bank their investigations took a sinister turn - on top of the six barrels were saws, handcuffs and used rubber gloves. A cheap couch, containers of hydrochloric acid and a machine which delivered electric shocks were also found. I think there is a charisma that you might see in a lot of cults people within a cult, do things because there's a greater motive, and they have a sense of belonging and allegiance Forensic psychiatrist, Richard Furst The police officers gingerly opened a barrel. Gordon Drage says: 'Only then did the smell come out. This was not hydroponics. That smelled very much like dead bodies.' In the first barrel, a human foot was found at the top, so they drove all six to the forensics lab in Adelaide. Forensic pathologist Roger Byard says some of the bodies were whole, others had been dismembered and all of them gave clues as to how they had reached their grisly end. 'There were handcuffs and thumb cuffs. There were plastic bags, rubber gloves they'd been using when they were dismembering the bodies. Several of the bodies had ropes around their necks, others had gags in their mouths.' Hand-picked victims 19 The murders took place in a poor neighbourhood and people were largely unemployed or on pensions Credit: Getty 19 The victims had their benefit payments withdrawn and properties sold Credit: Getty 19 Richard Furst, a Forensic Psychiatrist, doesn't believe the defrauding of the victims was a reason for killing them Credit: Crime+Investigation As police looked into the bodies from the bank vault, a full picture of Bunting's depravity began to emerge. On the wall of his home, the cold-blooded killer had a spider chart of potential victims. Some of the information had been provided by paedophile Barry Lane who had abused his accomplice Robert Wagner. Soon Lane was deemed surplus to requirements and was also tortured, beaten and murdered by Bunting, Wagner and a new accomplice Thomas Trevilyan, with his body taped up and left lying on the floor. When Trevilyan found it difficult to cope with what he had done and started speaking out, he too was murdered - with his death staged to look like suicide. But as well as sick brutality, there was also greed behind the killings. The killers would sell the Richard Furst adds: 'It was a poor neighbourhood and people were largely unemployed or on pensions, but I don't think the defrauding of the victims was a reason for "But I think it was certainly a factor in selection. I think it was the issue of a double reward. So you kill someone, but you also get money, regular income from that, and they kept on going to withdraw money from the account.' So you kill someone, but you also get money, regular income from that, and they kept on going to withdraw money from the account Forensic psychiatrist, Richard Furst Jeremy Pudney adds: 'One of the reasons this was able to go undetected for so long is some of these victims were really isolated from their families for whatever reason, didn't have many friends. And sadly, people didn't really notice when they went missing, so this is a story of how Another victim was a woman called Suzanne Allen who had had relationships with both Ray Davies and Bunting himself. When that affair ended she became a target. Despite Bunting and Wagner never being convicted of Suzanne Allen's murder, her body was found 19 Suzanne Allen and Ray Davies were buried in a shallow grave in Bunting's garden Credit: 19 Frederick Brookes was just 18 Credit: Supplied 19 Roger Byard, a Forensic Pathologist, said some of the bodies were whole while others had been dismembered Credit: Crime+Investigation The barrels in Snowtown bank Killing was easy for Wagner and Bunting, but disposing of the bodies was another matter. And this is when they recruited Mark Haydon. He had become friends with Bunting and between them they cooked up the plan to store the By 1997, police had begun investigating the disappearance of Bunting's first victim Clinton Tresize. And the group of fairly inept murderers brought together by Bunting were soon on the police radar. 19 Karen Davies, the sister of Ray Davies who was killed by Bunting, Harvey and Wagner Credit: Crime+Investigation 19 The film crew interviewed John McCready, a shop owner in the Snowtown area Credit: Crime+Investigation Cops soon discovered that missing Barry Lane's benefits were still being withdrawn. So they set up a security camera at the cashpoint and spotted Robert Wagner making the withdrawals. At first police thought they were dealing with a few missing people who had possibly had their benefits plundered. But they still had no idea there was a Incredibly, in the 16 months after the case became a missing persons and potentially a murder investigation, eight more people were killed by the gang. And the murders became more frequent and more sadistic. At least one of them had a firework sparkler put into his penis, in the urethra Forensic pathologist Roger Byard Forensic pathologist Roger Byard says: 'At least one of them had a firework sparkler put into his penis, in the urethra. There was there were stories of having the scrotum injected with bleach, of being electrocuted, of having their toes squashed with pliers.' Soon Bunting brought his stepson James Vlassakis into the murder team - encouraging him to help in the killing of his own half brother Troy. He was beaten, dragged from his bed and handcuffed before having his toes crushed with pliers. He was then strangled. Frederick Brookes, who was just 18 and the son of accomplice Jodie Elliott, was handcuffed and tortured for hours, and his genitals electrocuted, before choking on a gag. The next victim was disabled local Gary O'Dwyer, tortured for hours and recorded, pleading for his life. Bunting and Wagner then murdered Elizabeth Haydon, the wife of their accomplice Mark Haydon, attacking her in her own home before gagging and strangling her. It was her disappearance that made police realise this was a much more 19 Court sheriffs lead accused murderer, Robert Wagner, from the old bank Credit: Getty But incredibly the watch wasn't 24/7, and it was during one of the blank spots that the pair murdered another of Vlassakis' step-siblings, David Johnson. Lured to the bank in Snowtown by his stepbrother, Johnson was murdered in May 1999, before Bunting and Wagner cooked and ate a piece of his flesh. This was to be the last murder the killers committed. Days later, the investigators finally stumbled on the horrific scene in Snowtown and arrested Bunting, Wagner and Haydon in dawn raids. James Vlassakis later handed himself into police, consumed with guilt about what he had done. His interviews brought police to further victims, and revealed a whole new depravity to Bunting and Wagner's crimes. Wagner was convicted of ten murders. Bunting, the ringleader was convicted of 11. They were both given a mandatory life sentence meaning they will never be released. Read more on the Irish Sun James Vlassakis confessed to four murders and was jailed for life. Mark Haydon was convicted for his role in disposing of the bodies, but was released from prison last year under a supervision order after serving almost 25 years behind bars. Bodies in the Barrels premiers on Crime+Investigation and Crime+Investigation Play from Sunday 3 August at 9pm. 19 Detectives, scientists and reporters who were first on the scene are tell their stories as part of a new Crime+Investigation documentary, Bodies in the Barrels Credit: Crime+Investigation
