In the first few weeks of a murder trial 26 years in the making, an ambulance was called.
It was not the only time. One of the men accused of murder was in the middle of treatment for liver cancer. This fact was kept from the jury.
Joseph Vekony and Steve Fabriczy, both 70, were accused of murdering Irma Palasics in a violent robbery at her home in 1999.
They were ultimately found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, and held responsible for the tragic death of the 72-year-old grandmother.
The men were also found guilty of brutally assaulting Gregor Palasics, her husband, during the robbery.
With verdicts delivered, the behind-the-scenes details of the trial can now be reported. The ACT Supreme Court also lifted multiple non-publication orders on Thursday, May 21.
During the trial, which lasted about eight weeks in early 2026, the court did not sit on two Wednesdays to enable Vekony to complete radiology treatments.
If the jury had known about the cancer diagnosis, it may have garnered sympathy, or distracted from the main issues in the trial.
When verdicts were delivered on April 16, his absence was conspicuous. He watched proceedings from a hospital bed.
Fabriczy, flanked by corrections officers in the dock, was the only one of the accused men present in person to hear the verdicts as they were announced.
In 1999 Vekony and Fabriczy drove from Melbourne to Canberra, broke in and bound the couple before stealing $30,000. Mrs Palasics died during the ordeal.
The DNA of both accused men was linked to a milk jug and water bottle that was discovered in the Palasicses' fridge.
The jury did not know that police obtained a sample of Fabriczy's DNA from a 2001 burglary he had been convicted of in the years since the killing.
Vekony's cancer diagnosis contributed to delays in what seemed, at times, to be a never-ending trial.
The jury repeatedly asked, via notes to Justice David Mossop, how long the trial would run.
One juror was expected to begin a new job in the coming days, others had medical appointments, all jurors had their everyday lives to return to.
Jurors were sent home early on some days, though they were not given reasons why.
One morning Vekony complained of a tightness in his chest, feeling light-headed and seeing black dots in his vision while sitting in the dock.
With the jury sent home early, two emergency doctors gave evidence to the court. Vekony had been taken to hospital and underwent multiple tests.
Nothing was amiss.
ACT Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions deputy director Trent Hickey asked the doctors if there was any indication the killer was having a panic attack, or was malingering.
There was not, but the next court day the situation repeated itself.
An ambulance was called again, and after what one doctor called a "wash and repeat" of the previous hospital visit, Vekony returned to court.
For days afterwards he would face court via audio-visual link from jail rather than in person. This was to allow a swift medical evaluation by health professionals in the jail, rather than having another ambulance called to the court.
Jurors were also not present for numerous applications by the defence to discharge the jury, for a mistrial, and for a temporary pause of proceedings.
During one application, barrister Skye Jerome, representing Fabriczy, pointed to revelations in the trial that police and forensic scientists in 1999 had contaminated or mishandled evidence.
Lawyers for the attorney-general also made multiple applications and paid special attention to how an undercover operation would be presented to the jury.
When an undercover officer known as Danny gave evidence, reporters and other people in the public gallery were required to sit behind partitions, blocked out with black paper, so the man's face was not visible.
Fabriczy's guilty plea to burglary on the first day was not the only unexpected moment of the eight-week trial.
Ms Jerome repeatedly put forward a theory that a third offender had been integral in the fatal home invasion.
Vekony's barrister, Travis Jackson, claimed police were "blindsided by the seductive allure of DNA evidence" and did not pursue other leads with "vigour or concern."
Multiple witnesses were questioned about a third offender, and asked about a 16-year-old boy who had told his girlfriend that he was at a burglary in 1999 where an "old lady had died".
However, when it was time, Ms Jerome did not call on the now-adult man to give evidence.
He was waiting in a remote room ready to go and was sent home without having said a word.
Both the prosecution and the judge appeared surprised.
"We were obviously expecting a different answer there," Mr Hickey said.
"[The] cross-examination of [the boy's] evidence with nobody being called ... I'm troubled by that.
"I don't know how I'm standing on my feet right now to be frank."
Justice Mossop called it "the unanticipated close of everybody's case".
"There was a substantial prospect of a substantial defence case being called," the judge said.
Vekony and Fabriczy remain in custody and are set to face a sentencing hearing at a later date.
