The Night Dragon
Page 28
Then Rogerson explained how the Whiskey Au Go Go was torched. He said prior to the fire the nightclub owners had laughed at Stuart’s extortion attempts. ‘He [Stuart] had Finch by his side,’ said Rogerson. ‘The pair went to the bush in Queensland and started experimenting with accelerants, explosive devices. They would scare the clubs into giving them cash. They set fire to haystacks and farm sheds, to see which would work the best.
‘Finch was the one that did the job. The nightclub had a mezzanine. Vince went to the stairs at the back of the kitchen and threw a Molotov cocktail in. Because it was downstairs the draught took it in and set the explosion rushing up into the club. Within seconds the whole place was on fire. There were 15 people in there. They were all killed.’
According to Rogerson, it was ‘Vince’ who went to the stairs at the back of the kitchen and threw a Molotov cocktail in.
But who was Vince? There was no mention of any ‘Vince’ in any part of Phelps’s feature story.
In two letters from Long Bay Correctional Complex in Sydney in late 2017, Rogerson said not many police who worked on the Whiskey investigation all those years ago would be ‘willing and able’ to give evidence at any future inquest into the atrocity. He wrote:
I suggest you look at the stories written by Brian Boulton [sic], the Brisbane journalist who alleged he was close to John Andrew Stuart and who wrote about his knowledge of supposedly hardened criminals being behind what eventually happened. You might say very flammable material.
When asked about the identity of the mysterious ‘Vince’ he had mentioned in the earlier Phelps story, Rogerson added:
To start with, none of that is my verbage [sic], and to be quite truthful, it doesn’t make sense and does not fit in at all as to how the fire started. I have never heard of anyone called Vince having anything to do with either Stuart or Finch. I can’t help you with any new or secret evidence. There is none. I believe it was really a simple case.
How is what you are attempting to do going to help the families of the Whiskey victims? I think it gets down to this. When one psychopath cats with another psychopath you end up with mayhem. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Rogerson did not answer questions about who sent him and New South Wales detective Noel Morey to Brisbane on the morning of the fire. Nor about why New South Wales police would be in such a state of urgency that they would send their crack detectives north in a Learjet.
Given police and witnesses said that the bodies of the victims had been removed from the Whiskey by dawn on 8 March 1973 – or around 5 a.m. – how did Rogerson happen to be on the scene when ‘the bodies were still in the club’, as he told journalist Phelps?
To be a witness to that, Rogerson would have had to have been on the scene sometime after 2.30 a.m. (when the fire was deemed under control) and dawn (when the last bodies were taken out of the club).
Who was ‘Vince’?
Out of Luck
On 1 June 2017, Justice Peter Applegarth continued his sentencing of Vince O’Dempsey and Garry Dubois. There was an edge to his voice. ‘The two of you visited the McCulkin home at Highgate Hill on that evening. Barbara McCulkin lived there with her two daughters. She raised her two daughters with little financial support from her estranged husband,’ he told the court. ‘She worked hard to support her children and to give them a bright future. Barbara McCulkin cared for them in every way she could. The photographs of the home include a sewing machine which Barbara was using to make a dress for one of her daughters. A dress that was never to be finished.’
The picture showed a sewing table facing a fish tank that sat on a white metal stand, a hairbrush on the floor under the table, worn, patterned carpet, a clutch of floral material under the sewing needle, and the sewer’s wooden chair pushed back and on a slight angle, as if Barbara had, only moments before, been interrupted and stood to greet her guests.
Justice Applegarth went on: ‘The McCulkins were taken to bushland,’ he said. ‘They were tied up. At some stage Barbara McCulkin was taken by you, O’Dempsey, into bushland. Dubois stood guard over the girls. He may have thought that you were going to rape Mrs McCulkin. Instead, you brutally killed her.
‘Dubois, you heard gurgling noises which seemed to go on forever. You aided the horrific attack by guarding the two daughters who, if they had not been tied up, surely would have tried to help their mother. You also encouraged the crime against Mrs McCulkin by your deliberate presence during that violence. You did not raise a finger in opposition or express any dissent. You must have known that Mrs McCulkin was being violently attacked. That is the basis upon which you were found guilty of manslaughter.’
Both O’Dempsey and Dubois remained impassive in the dock.
‘O’Dempsey returned, having killed Mrs McCulkin,’ Applegarth told the packed court. ‘You, Dubois, knew at that stage that he intended to kill each of the girls. According to the evidence in your trial, O’Dempsey raped one of the girls and asked you to rape the other. You aided him to rape one girl and then, like a coward, did what you were told and raped the other girl.
‘That evidence was admissible against you, Dubois, but not against O’Dempsey. As a result, and in the absence of other evidence that O’Dempsey raped the girls, it is you, Dubois, and only you who carries convictions for raping them.
‘O’Dempsey, you murdered each of the girls. Dubois aided your crime. He restrained one or both of the girls and, by his active presence, encouraged you to murder them. He knew that was your intention, and he did nothing to stop it. The last hours of the lives of each of these three defenceless women must have been terrifying.’
Inevitably, Justice Applegarth returned to the firebombing of Torino’s in February 1973 followed shortly after by the fatal torching of the Whiskey Au Go Go and its haunting legacy of 15 victims. These fires had glowed on the horizons of O’Dempsey’s and Dubois’s committal hearings and their trials into the murder of the McCulkins. Just moments before in court, O’Dempsey had made a direct denial of any involvement in the fires, particularly the Whiskey.
Applegarth continued: ‘It is impossible to say for sure whether either of you was involved, along with John Andrew Stuart and James Richard Finch, in the bombing of the Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub. There is evidence that you, O’Dempsey, were so concerned about Finch returning to Australia in the late 1990s and implicating you in that arson that you told others that Finch would have to be “knocked”: in other words killed.
‘It seems that back in 1973 Barbara McCulkin knew something about who was involved in each nightclub firebombing. Each of you had a motive to silence her.’ After summarising some of the evidence from key witnesses in O’Dempsey’s trial, Applegarth declared him ‘a cold-blooded killer’.
‘Stand up O’Dempsey,’ he said. ‘On Count 1, deprivation of liberty, I sentence you to the maximum term of imprisonment for that misdemeanour, namely three years imprisonment. On each murder count there is only one sentence. I sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Barbara May McCulkin. I further sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Vicki Maree McCulkin. I further sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Barbara Leanne McCulkin. The sentences of life imprisonment are imposed pursuant to section 305 of the Criminal Code, as it stood at 16 January 1974.
‘Sit down O’Dempsey. Stand up Dubois.’
Dubois raised himself to his feet with reluctance.
‘Dubois, callous murderers like O’Dempsey are only able to commit horrendous crimes because they can rely upon the aid of fellow criminals like you, who will tie up victims or otherwise aid homicides,’ Applegarth began. ‘The evidence in your trial proved that you were prepared to aid the rape of one girl by O’Dempsey, and then rape the other when O’Dempsey told you to do so. Rather than stand up to O’Dempsey and protect a defenceless woman and two girls, you aided him and encouraged him. You showed no conscience at all.’
‘As to the rape offences, fortunately we have been spared the details of the degree of physical violence which was perpetrated against those poor girls,’ the judge said. ‘It is hard to imagine a worse case of rape. The girls must have known that their mother had been killed. They must have known, as you did, that they were to be killed. The rapes were precursors to murder.
‘The vulnerability of your victims and the mental terror which you inflicted upon them, when added to the physical violence, places these rapes in the worst category of rape cases. You have a past conviction for rape. You deserve the maximum penalty provided by the law, namely life imprisonment.
‘On Count 1 on the indictment, you are sentenced to a maximum term of three years for deprivation of liberty. On Count 2, I sentence you to 15 years’ imprisonment. On Count 3, you are sentenced to life imprisonment. On Count 4, you are sentenced to life imprisonment. I further sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Vicki McCulkin. I further sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Barbara Leanne McCulkin.
‘You may sit down.’
With that, Dubois issued some mumbled protestations from the dock about an ‘unsigned’ record of interview he’d supposedly given to police when he was arrested in South Australia in 1980 and brought back to Queensland for the McCulkin coronial inquest.
‘I said nothing to [Peter] Hall either,’ Dubois said.
‘You had your chance at the trial …’ Justice Applegarth replied.
Dubois then alluded to evidence in the trial that Billy McCulkin, Barbara’s husband, had used a key to enter 6 Dorchester Street when he went looking for his missing wife and children.
‘Where did Bill get the key from?’ Dubois countered, implying that Billy had murdered his own family. ‘There was only one key.’
Applegarth ordered Dubois to be removed. The prisoner was scowling as correctional officers led him through the wood-panelled side door. The judge continued his sentencing remarks in Shorty’s absence. ‘The life sentences which I have imposed upon each of you, your ages and your current prospects of being paroled, mean that it is likely that each of you will die in gaol,’ he said. ‘No decent citizen could have any sympathy that this is your likely fate. You spent four decades after 1974 at liberty in this community.
‘Mrs McCulkin and her two daughters were denied the chance to live during those decades. Each was callously murdered. Mrs McCulkin lost the chance to live a happy and productive life, supporting herself and her daughters, enjoying the company of her friends and family, and finding new sources of happiness. Vicki and Leanne McCulkin lost the opportunity to pursue their education, possibly to pursue free tertiary education in the late 1970s, to pursue careers, and to share in the material wealth of our nation. They lost the chance to lead happy and fulfilling lives.
‘When each of you dies, your family and friends will know where your body is buried or where your ashes are located. By contrast, the friends and family of your victims cannot visit their graves.’
He called Dubois ‘O’Dempsey’s fool’.
‘Finally, Dubois and O’Dempsey, each of you escaped justice for decades,’ said Applegarth. ‘Luck was on your side. So was the fear you instilled in others. At least three things have ensured justice at last. First, the dedication of police. Second, the testimony of dozens of witnesses. Third, the conscience and courage of some key witnesses at each of your trials.’
One of the country’s most haunting and brutal murder cases had finally concluded. The public gallery remained a little stunned. A set of emotional trials stretching over more than six months, littered with snapshots of horrific violence and depravity, of a criminal milieu capable of acts against other human beings, so ragged and debased, had concluded up to the final minutes with flashes of the same disregard for any societal order, or common decency, that had constituted these men’s lives.
It hadn’t been difficult, particularly on this day, to work out what went through the mind of ‘Shorty’ Dubois. He claimed the evidence against him was overwhelmingly circumstantial, or Billy McCulkin did it, or the cops had framed him. He shouldn’t have been charged, shouldn’t have been dragged through the courts since his arrest in 2014, shouldn’t be in custody. The McCulkin case was old. Memories couldn’t be relied on. Witnesses had made things up. Besides, crims were supposed to ‘stay staunch’.
His rubbery, clown-like face remained downcast, except when he saw his wife and daughter in court. Now he was going away for good.
As for O’Dempsey, he was harder to read. Through his trial he had smiled at some witnesses as if to say – good to see you after all this time. He had spent most of his life avoiding this exact predicament – a lengthy stretch in prison for murder.
According to witness and former partner to O’Dempsey – Kerri-Ann Scully – he had once indicated to her that he had killed 33 people in total, which would place him as the country’s most prolific killer. But in court he remained deadpan, only a trace of a shadow, in a certain light, imprinted on his face.
Now, at the end of proceedings, O’Dempsey turned and smiled sweetly at his family through a sheet of thick glass.
It was over.
Justice Peter Applegarth pushed his chair back, then motioned to rise. ‘Adjourn the court,’ he said.
That Indescribable Night
The day after O’Dempsey’s and Dubois’s sentencing, the Courier-Mail newspaper hit the streets demanding that the State Government finally reinvestigate the full story behind the historic atrocity of the Whiskey Au Go Go fire which claimed the lives of 15 innocent people. Given O’Dempsey’s astonishing address to the court, and Justice Applegarth’s rebuttal of the convicted murderer’s claims of innocence, the newspaper planned to call on the government to act, and if not, it would initiate a rolling campaign of stories demanding action.
In the editorial on Friday 2 June 2017 it was reported that the revelation in the Supreme Court suggested there was evidence that O’Dempsey had been involved in the Whiskey mass murder. The newspaper said:
For one, it draws into the murky Whiskey picture another potential suspect – a cold-blooded mass killer and ballistics expert, who, according to his trial evidence, probably organised and sanctioned the Torino’s nightclub fire just 10 days before the Whiskey. Since the conviction of John Andrew Stuart and James Richard Finch for the Whiskey killings in late 1973, a lid was effectively put on the case.
The coronial inquest into the fire lasted less than two days and has never been reopened. Crucial documents in the case went missing, including substantial portions of the transcript of the trial of Stuart and Finch, pages that primarily dealt with evidence given by police who arrested and questioned both suspects.
On top of this, the Whiskey murder files have a 100-year non-publication order placed over them. They will not be able to be legally viewed until 2073.
The newspaper said the revelation that O’Dempsey may be a new suspect in the case could not go untested. ‘While the truth behind the Whiskey has always remained blurred, this twist has the potential to rewrite our history and correct the past,’ it added.
At around 11 a.m. on the same day the editorial was published, the Queensland Attorney General Yvette D’Ath announced a new inquest into the Whiskey. She hoped witnesses would now be willing to come forward and speak of the tragedy. ‘There is no doubt there is significant public interest in getting answers in relation to the Whiskey Au Go Go firebombing in 1973 in which 15 people died,’ she said. ‘Given recent events, witnesses who have previously not been willing to come forward, might now be willing to provide new information that will give us those answers.’
Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk welcomed the inquest and said Ms D’Ath had been considering the Whiskey Au Go Go matter during the recent O’Dempsey court case. ‘The Whisk
ey Au Go Go tragedy is etched in the memory of many Queenslanders,’ the Premier said. ‘We should take this opportunity to find any answers we can. I think a lot of people want closure and these are the right steps that the Attorney – General has made.’
The Whiskey inquest remained on hold throughout 2018 pending O’Dempsey’s and Dubois’s appeals against their convictions. However, on Friday 21 December the Court of Appeal finally released its decisions. The appeals were based on numerous grounds, including that the trial judge ‘erred in admitting evidence of Dubois’s motive’, that the trial judge ‘failed to provide adequate directions to the jury as to motive’, and that the trial judge ‘erroneously admitted the evidence of Billy McCulkin’, among other arguments.
According to court documents, O’Dempsey submitted in his appeal that certain evidence should not have been led during his trial, including Barbara McCulkin’s statement to her neighbour, Nisbet; her husband Billy McCulkin’s knowledge with regard to the participants in the Whiskey arson; and Peter Hall’s evidence that he, Meredith, Dubois and Hamilton were afraid of being implicated in the Whiskey massacre following their arson attack on Torino’s.
The matter was over within seconds. The appeals of both Vincent O’Dempsey and Garry ‘Shorty’ Dubois were dismissed.
Many key players in the Whiskey drama have died, yet there are some crucial witnesses still alive who have been holding their secrets tightly since the fatal fire. With O’Dempsey’s and Dubois’s sentences upheld in late 2018, there is a sense among police investigators, survivors and the families of the victims that the essential truth behind the morning of 8 March 1973 could still be salvaged and bring clarity to the tragedy.
Many hopes rest with the next coronial inquest. It just may put to rest one of the most perplexing and haunting criminal cases in Queensland’s history.
~
O, Almighty Father, in your great wisdom you led James and Johanna O’Dempsey from Ireland to these shores in 1855.