UK farmstay guest found guilty of manslaughter over death of host

A UK man has been found guilty of manslaughter over the death of his farmstay host in central Victoria after she rejected his romantic interest.

Timothy Loosemore, 62, faced a 14-day trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria over the death of Maree Vermont, 60, whose remains were found after a house fire in Goldie, near Kilmore, in August 2023.

The jury delivered its verdict today, finding Loosemore not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Ms Vermont's cause of death was unable to be determined by a pathologist due to the severity of damage from the fire, the court heard.

Loosemore had been an on-and-off farmstay guest at Ms Vermont's home, 90 minutes north of Melbourne.

He initially stayed as an Airbnb guest in March 2023 after arriving in Australia in September.

Loosemore will return to court for a plea hearing in September.

Accused 'snapped' after rejection

Crown prosecutor Mark Gibson, KC, said in his closing address last week that Loosemore "snapped" when his desire for an ongoing intimate relationship was repeatedly rejected by Ms Vermont after they had a "brief sexual dalliance" early on.

Mr Gibson said Loosemore fatally attacked Ms Vermont on the evening of August 5, sustaining scratches to his face and neck as she fought back, and ended up with her blood on his clothes before setting the house on fire to conceal the crime.

Mr Gibson asked the jury to consider why Ms Vermont did not leave the house to escape the fire through one of five unlocked doors.

"Why couldn't she? Because she was dead," Mr Gibson said.

"He committed the crime of murder and needed to conceal the cause of death."

Mr Gibson also pointed to a "lack of sooting" in Ms Vermont's airways, suggesting she was not breathing when the fire started.

The trial heard Ms Vermont sent her son a text message in the days before her death asking him to keep an eye on Loosemore while he was staying with them.

"I made it clear that I don't want an intimate relationship with him. He is taking it badly," Ms Vermont said in the message.

Mr Gibson told the court three plastic fuel containers were missing from the property, according to Ms Vermont's son, and while no accelerant was detected, it could have evaporated in the fire, according to the evidence of an arson chemist.

Mr Gibson said there were three kitchen knives found on the floor of the living room, but no forensic material could be recovered due to the fire.

Defence rejects 'simple narrative'

Defence barrister Christopher Farrington told the court Loosemore denied assaulting or killing Ms Vermont, or setting the house on fire.

In his closing address, he said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Loosemore was guilty of murder.

"In this trial there are repeated fundamental uncertainties that the prosecution cannot overcome,"

he said.

Mr Farrington said the evidence from Ms Vermont's friends and family suggested an "uncertain" relationship that may have meant more to one than the other.

"That's a long way from this simple narrative of rejection, upon which the prosecution relies," he said.

He said the pair had travelled to hot springs together for Loosemore's birthday about a week before the fire.

Mr Farrington said the evidence of the arson chemist was also "far from definitive".

"The origin of the fire narrowed only to the lounge, no precise point of ignition, no ignition source, no confirmed accelerant, negative testing for flammable liquid," Mr Farrington told the court.

He told the court the missing fuel containers could have been moved around by responding firefighters as part of standard practice.

Mr Farrington also said Loosemore could have been scratched on his face by barbed wire or a rosebush on his way to raise the alarm at a neighbour's house, and a doctor's evidence was that some of the injuries may have been burns.

"You've got a drunk man with a blood alcohol reading of 0.18, stumbling through the darkness with what I suggest is mud on his knees," he told the court.

He told the court Loosemore's explanation to witnesses and emergency responders that he had left the house to get more firewood and returned to find it ablaze was "largely consistent".

And his actions after the fire were those of a person "who genuinely does not know what has taken place".

"Mr Loosemore goes to [a neighbour's house] and raises the alarm. Not after cleaning himself. Not after changing clothes. Not after concealing the very evidence that the Crown says points to his guilt," Mr Farrington said.

Email address