A woman opened her front door to someone she had met
only hours earlier. She offered him a drink, listened as he explained that it
was his birthday, and eventually agreed that he could sleep on her couch.
It was an ordinary act of kindness. By the following
morning, 29-year-old mother Annette Marie Stewart was dead.
For decades, her murder remained one of Victoria’s
most troubling unsolved
homicide cases. Investigators had interviewed the man
responsible within days, but the evidence available in 1992 could not establish
his guilt. Another man would later be publicly identified as a suspect, leaving
him under suspicion for years.
Then, almost three decades after Annette’s death, a
separate murder investigation in Western Australia changed everything.
A modern DNA
analysis connected evidence preserved from Annette’s bedroom to
a man arrested for killing another woman. The discovery exposed a devastating
truth: the same killer had been living freely for years, and the first murder
had never truly been forgotten by the forensic evidence left behind.
The case would ultimately lead to a second life
sentence, a courtroom reckoning, and a long-awaited answer for Annette’s
children.
The Night a Simple Act of Kindness
Turned Deadly
Annette Stewart was 29 years old and raising two
children in Geelong West, Victoria. Her daughter, Justina, was 13, while her
son, Aaron, was 10. She worked at the Winchester ammunition factory at Point
Henry and was building a life for her family.
On Monday, March 16, 1992, Annette finished work and
returned to her home on Hope Street. Her children were spending the night with
their grandparents.
Earlier that afternoon, her partner, Keith Pengelly,
had visited with three friends to repair her television aerial. The group
worked on the roof before coming inside for coffee. They left within about an
hour, and there was reportedly nothing unusual about Annette’s mood.
One of the visitors returned later that evening.
He knocked on the door and told Annette it was his
birthday. He said he had nobody to spend it with. Although they had met for the
first time only six hours earlier, she allowed him inside.
They spent time talking and drinking in the living
room. He smoked cigarettes, and the evening continued without any apparent
confrontation. Eventually, he asked whether he could sleep on the couch rather
than return home.
Annette agreed and went to bed.
What happened next would remain hidden for 28 years.
According to the account later established through
the investigation and the offender’s admissions, the visitor entered Annette’s
bedroom while she was asleep. He attacked her with a household iron, striking
her several times before using an extension cord to strangle her.
He then left the house.
There was no forced entry, no smashed window and no
damaged lock. The person responsible had been welcomed inside.
[The following morning, the home
on Hope Street held the beginning of an investigation that would remain
unresolved for decades.]
A Discovery That Left Detectives
With More Questions Than Answers
Annette’s body was discovered on the morning of March
18, 1992, by a former housemate who had been unable to contact her.
After visiting the house over two days without
receiving an answer, he eventually entered through the unlocked front door. He
walked toward the bedroom and found Annette lying face down on the bed.
An extension cord was around her neck, pulled tight
beneath the mattress. She had suffered serious injuries to the back of her
head.
The discovery immediately raised questions about who
could have entered the house without attracting attention.
Investigators found no evidence of a conventional
break-in. There were no obvious signs that a stranger had forced their way
inside. Annette had also suffered no defensive injuries to her hands or arms
that would clearly indicate a prolonged struggle.
The circumstances suggested that she may have known
and trusted the person who entered her home.
The forensic
investigation recovered several items that would later become
crucial: bedding, cigarette butts from the living room and hair and other
biological material associated with the crime scene.
The post-mortem examination documented extensive
injuries, including wounds and bruising. Fragments of plastic from the iron were
reportedly embedded in her forehead.
Detectives faced a difficult task. They had to
identify someone who could have entered Annette’s home without raising
suspicion, while also determining what had happened during the hours after the
afternoon visitors left.
The investigation turned toward the people who had
recently been in her company.
Detectives Interviewed the
Killer—But the Technology Was Not Ready
Police interviewed Annette’s partner, Keith Pengelly,
the three men who had helped repair the television aerial, and people from her
workplace and personal life.
One of the men from the afternoon visit was Darren
John Charmer.
He was the person who had returned to Annette’s home
that evening, according to the later-established account of the murder. But when
detectives investigated the case in 1992, they did not have the forensic
evidence needed to prove his involvement.
Charmer told investigators that he had remained at
home after the afternoon visit and had not returned to Hope Street.
There were no street surveillance cameras that could
establish his movements. No independent witness placed him inside the house
that night, and the available evidence did not provide detectives with a
conclusive way to challenge his account.
The problem was not simply a lack of investigative
effort. It was also a limitation of the forensic science available at the time.
Modern DNA
profiling technology had not yet developed into the powerful
investigative tool it would become. The ability to extract useful genetic
information from small or difficult biological samples was far more limited,
and testing could require more material than investigators had recovered.
The evidence was preserved, but it could not deliver
the answer detectives needed.
The gloves reportedly discarded by the killer were
never recovered. By the time investigators could have pursued that avenue,
ordinary rubbish collection had already removed them.
The investigation gradually lost momentum. Detectives
continued reviewing statements and possible leads, but no charge followed.
By 1993, Annette’s murder had become a cold case.
The Wrong Man Was Publicly Named
as a Suspect
Years passed without an arrest.
Annette’s children grew up without their mother.
Justina and Aaron moved into adulthood, eventually building families of their
own, but the unanswered questions remained.
In 2007, a coronial inquest examined the
circumstances surrounding Annette’s death. The purpose was to review the
evidence and consider what could be established despite the absence of a
criminal prosecution.
The coroner identified Craig Cameron Rogers, a Point
Henry co-worker who had known Annette, as a person of interest.
Rogers had reportedly given investigators an
incomplete account of the extent of his relationship with Annette before later
acknowledging more details. The inquest considered that inconsistency alongside
other circumstantial information.
However, Rogers denied involvement, and the material
presented at the inquest did not amount to a criminal conviction.
No charge followed.
The distinction mattered. A coronial finding was not
a criminal verdict, and Rogers had not been found guilty in a trial.
Nevertheless, the public identification left him
facing years of suspicion.
The eventual discovery of Charmer’s involvement would
demonstrate how badly the investigation had been misdirected. Rogers was not
the killer.
For the Stewart family, the inquest had not delivered
the certainty they wanted. For Rogers, it had created a public association with
a murder he had not committed.
A Million-Dollar Reward Failed to
Break the Case
In July 2015, the Victorian government announced a
reward of $1 million for information leading to a conviction in Annette’s
murder.
It was a significant incentive, reflecting how
seriously authorities continued to regard the case.
By then, Justina and Aaron had spent more than two
decades wondering whether anyone would ever be held accountable for their
mother’s death.
Justina spoke publicly about the impact of losing
Annette and the difficulty of explaining that absence to her own children.
The family did not necessarily expect to recover the
years they had lost. They wanted an answer, accountability and the opportunity
to see the person responsible face a court.
The reward generated renewed attention, but it did
not immediately produce an arrest.
The investigation remained open.
Meanwhile, thousands of kilometres away in Western
Australia, the man responsible for Annette’s murder was living a life that
appeared ordinary to those around him.
His name was Darren John Charmer.
Another Woman Disappeared in
Western Australia
In May 2019, 60-year-old Diane Barrett disappeared
from her home in Medina, south of Perth.
Diane lived alone. Her disappearance raised concern
because her house was left in an unusual state: her dog was inside, the
television was still on, and her car remained at the property.
Investigators established that she had spent time
with a male neighbour shortly before she disappeared.
According to the prosecution case later presented in
court, Diane had cooked him dinner before going to his home for tea. While
there, he used methamphetamine and subsequently attacked her.
He strangled her and used a metal object during the
assault. He then transported her body by car to bushland near Karrakup, more
than 50 kilometres away.
Her remains were not discovered for several months.
Western Australian detectives investigated the
neighbour and examined the circumstances surrounding Diane’s disappearance. The
case developed over a period of months, with investigators seeking evidence
that could establish what had happened.
On January 6, 2020, police arrested Charmer at a
property in Wembley, Perth.
He was 52 years old and was charged with Diane
Barrett’s murder.
The arrest was a major development in Western
Australia. But it also created an unexpected opportunity for investigators in
Victoria.
A suspect had finally been identified whose DNA could
be compared with the biological evidence preserved from Annette Stewart’s 1992
murder.
The DNA Evidence That Reopened a
28-Year-Old Investigation
When Victorian homicide investigators learned of
Charmer’s arrest, they revisited the old Hope Street file.
For almost three decades, the evidence from Annette’s
bedroom had remained in storage. It included bedding, cigarette butts and
biological material recovered during the original investigation.
In 1992, those items had not produced the answers
detectives needed.
By 2020, advances
in forensic DNA testing had transformed what laboratories could
recover from preserved crime-scene material.
Investigators arranged for Charmer’s DNA profile to
be compared with the retained evidence.
The results connected him to Annette’s home.
His DNA was identified on multiple items, including
bedding and cigarette butts. The comparison also linked him to biological
material associated with Annette.
The significance was enormous.
The man arrested over Diane Barrett’s murder was not
merely someone who had once lived in Geelong or known people in Annette’s
social circle. The forensic evidence placed him inside the Hope Street home.
The investigation that had stalled in the early 1990s
finally had a scientific breakthrough.
[The preserved crime-scene evidence
that had waited for nearly three decades finally provided investigators with
the connection they had been missing.]
An Undercover Conversation
Revealed More About the Night
Investigators then sought further evidence.
While Charmer was in custody, an undercover police
operative was placed near him. During a recorded conversation in January 2020,
Charmer discussed the events surrounding Annette’s murder.
He described the visit, the birthday explanation, the
drinks and his request to sleep on the couch.
He also spoke about the killing itself.
When asked how long the attack had taken, he gave an
estimate of approximately four minutes. When asked why he had done it, he said
he was unsure and that he had simply done it.
The conversation provided investigators with an
account that could be assessed alongside the forensic findings.
For Annette’s family, the discovery meant that the
mystery surrounding her final hours was finally beginning to be resolved.
It also exposed the consequences of the original
investigative failure.
The wrong man had spent years under suspicion, while
the person responsible had remained free long enough to kill another woman.
The First Conviction Came in Diane
Barrett’s Case
On January 28, 2021, Charmer was convicted of Diane
Barrett’s murder in Western Australia.
The court heard evidence about the attack, the
concealment of her body and the way he had misled investigators after her
disappearance.
Justice Stephen Hall sentenced him to life imprisonment,
with a non-parole period of 20 years.
The sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime
and the suffering caused to Diane’s family.
But the Western Australian conviction did not resolve
the separate Victorian case.
Investigators still needed to bring Charmer before a
Victorian court over Annette’s death.
In March 2023, he was extradited from Western
Australia to Victoria and appeared before Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
By September, he had pleaded guilty to Annette’s
murder.
The case was finally moving toward sentencing.
Annette’s Daughter Finally Faced
the Man Responsible
On November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of Victoria
heard the plea proceedings.
Justina Martin, Annette’s daughter, delivered a
victim impact statement describing the woman her family had lost.
She remembered her mother as fun-loving, outspoken,
caring and generous. Annette, she said, was someone who would give whatever she
had to help another person.
The words carried particular weight because kindness
had been central to the circumstances of her death. Annette had welcomed a man
into her home because he said he had nobody with whom to spend his birthday.
Justina had been 13 when her mother was killed.
By the time she stood in court, she was 44.
She explained that the long-awaited proceedings could
not restore the years her family had lost. They could not bring Annette back or
give her children the childhood they should have had.
But the courtroom finally offered something the
family had waited decades to receive: a formal admission of responsibility and
a sentencing process.
The prosecution described the murder as an
exceptionally violent and sustained attack carried out against a defenseless
woman in her own home.
The defense asked the court to consider a sentence
that included a non-parole period, referring to the circumstances of the
offence and Charmer’s stated remorse.
Charmer had also written to the court, asking to
remain imprisoned for as long as possible. He said he deserved a sentence
extending beyond 25 or 30 years and asked for 40 years or more.
The judge had to decide whether the expression of
remorse was genuine and what sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the
crime.
The Judge Delivered a Second Life
Sentence
On December 18, 2023, Justice Andrew Tinney sentenced
Charmer to life imprisonment for Annette Stewart’s murder.
The sentence was imposed in addition to the life term
he was already serving for Diane Barrett’s killing.
The court considered the fact that Charmer had
murdered two vulnerable women who had shown him kindness. It also considered
the years he had spent living freely after Annette’s death and the devastating
consequences for both families.
The judge was not persuaded that Charmer’s written
expression of remorse demonstrated genuine accountability.
The second murder had occurred 27 years after the
first. Had Charmer been identified and prosecuted in 1992, Diane Barrett might
never have encountered him as a neighbour.
The combined sentences meant Charmer would have to
serve a minimum of 36 years before becoming eligible for parole consideration.
He would be at least 92 by then, if he lived that long.
The practical consequence was clear: he was expected
to spend the rest of his life in prison.
For the Stewart family, the sentence marked the end
of a legal journey that had lasted more than three decades.
The Evidence That Outlasted the
Killer’s Lies
The story of Annette Stewart’s murder is also a
reminder of how dramatically forensic
science has changed criminal investigations.
In 1992, detectives had biological material but could
not use it to establish the identity of the person responsible. The evidence
was stored, the case went cold, and the investigation eventually focused on the
wrong man.
In 2020, the same material helped connect Charmer to
the crime.
The case demonstrates why preserving physical
evidence can be so important in cold-case
investigations. Scientific methods evolve. Samples that once
appeared to offer little investigative value may become crucial as testing
techniques improve.
But the technology alone does not explain the full
story. The breakthrough depended on investigators returning to an old file,
comparing evidence across state borders and carefully connecting two separate
homicide investigations.
It also highlights the human cost of an unsolved
murder. Annette’s children grew from a 13-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy
into adults with families of their own before they heard the final legal
outcome.
And the case exposed the damage that can follow when
suspicion is directed toward the wrong person without a criminal conviction.
Two Women, Two Families, and a
Justice Delayed for Decades
Annette Stewart was 29 when she was murdered. Diane
Barrett was 60 when she was killed.
They lived in different states and were separated by
27 years. Yet both encountered the same man in circumstances where ordinary
neighbourly or personal kindness became part of the tragedy.
For Annette’s family, the answer came after 31 years.
For Diane’s loved ones, the conviction and life sentence brought their own
painful reckoning.
Neither family could recover the person they had
lost.
The final details of Annette’s case remain haunting:
an unlocked front door, a bedroom, an extension cord, cigarette butts and bedding
preserved in evidence storage.
Those objects could not speak in 1992. But they were
not useless. They remained part of the investigation until forensic science
advanced enough to reveal the connection.
For 28 years, the evidence waited.
And when the technology finally caught up, it helped
uncover a killer who had escaped justice for far too long.
This article is based on the reported criminal proceedings and investigation. The accused was convicted of both murders; references to the earlier coronial suspicion of Craig Cameron Rogers should not be interpreted as evidence of his guilt.
Post a Comment