Kylie So: Woman alleged to have murdered farmer Robert Dickie committed to stand trial in the Sydney Supreme Court

A woman accused of murdering a farmer and then allegedly feeding his body to pigs on his property near Dubbo has been committed to stand trial in the Sydney Supreme Court.

A woman accused of murdering a farmer and then allegedly feeding his body to the pigs on his property near Dubbo has been committed to stand trial in the Sydney Supreme Court.

According to a police statement Kyle So, 49, was extradited to Australia in 2020 following investigations by detectives attached to the Orana Mid-Western Police District who determined that Robert Dickie had been murdered, despite a number of forensic searches with a body never being found.

The 71-year-old farmer and grandfather was last seen leaving his Elong Elong home on June 14, 2016 and his family reported him missing two days later.

Robert Dickie was last seen at his Dubbo property on June 14, 2016.

So was arrested over his alleged murder while living in Auckland in April 2020, and in June that year she was extradited from New Zealand and charged with murder.

On Friday, So appeared via audio visual link in Dubbo Local Court, assisted by a Vietnamese translator, with her defence lawyer Ian Nash presenting his final submissions to Magistrate Theresa Hamilton to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial.

Mr Nash refuted the Crown’s “theory”, which he described as being that So “killed Mr Dickie and then disposed entirely of his body” by later feeding him to the pigs on his property.

Mr Nash referred to a study where a number of wild pigs were fed kangaroo slurry and a dismembered porcine carcass.

He said the study found that there were “leftovers”, indicating that if Mr Dickie was fed to the pigs, there should have been remains found.

“There’s also reference in this study to remnants and bone and particularly teeth to see whether there were leftovers – and the bottom line was that there was,” he said.

Mr Nash also questioned the “generous” 36-hour time frame required of So to have carried out the alleged murder.

“Mr Dickie was last seen on the Tuesday morning … (and) on the Wednesday evening, police were looking around the house and the outer buildings and nothing was seen, smelt … that was unusual,” he said.

The defence then raised another aspect of the police investigation involving blood on the floor of Mr Dickie’s bedroom, to which Mr Nash questioned whether Ms So would have had enough time to clean the blood and then dispose of the body.

In assessing the viability of committing the case to the Supreme Court, Magistrate Hamilton said there was a “two-pronged approach towards the committal proceedings”.

For So to be committed, Magistrate Hamilton would have to find that the court would be satisfied that there was a “reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury properly constructed would find (that So) has committed the offence charged”.

Magistrate Hamilton did not accept the defence’s submissions that a doctor’s assessment of the blood evidence was unreliable, highlighting the experience of the doctor in this field of work.

She continued by discounting the defence’s submission about the blood coming from a nosebleed.

“The quantity of the blood, the blood splatter, the location of blood in other areas, on the bed … none of that, particularly of the blood splatter, is indicative of a nose bleed,” she said.

Magistrate Hamilton further assessed evidence relating to Mr Dickie’s disappearance, with banking records and phone usage having ceased following the alleged murder.

In coming to a conclusion, Magistrate Hamilton was satisfied that a reasonable jury could come to a decision based on all of the evidence provided in the local court.

“In those circumstances I consider it appropriate to commit the defendant for trial to the supreme court,” Magistrate Hamilton said.

So will appear via audio visual link on October 7 in the Sydney Supreme Court for her first arraignment date.