by Bob O'Brien
When Lee searched the doctor’s home, initial testing of the bathroom indicated blood had been on the floor but it could not be grouped because of the use of cleaners on it. Grouping of the blood would have told whether or not it was the blood of Neil Muir. Doctor Millhouse had a cleaner at the time and that she cleaned the bathroom at about the time of the murder and she said that she wiped away marks on the wall similar to blood spots.
A Bandaid was found with the remains of Neil Muir. Its sticky paste held some fibres and they were sent to forensics for examination and Anna Parabyk, analyst from the Forensic Science Centre, compared the fibres with those from a rug in Millhouse’s cottage. Although she could not say that they were from the rug, they were similar in every respect.
On 20 November 1979, Dr Millhouse was working in the country town of Whyalla. By this time, Lee was convinced that the doctor was his man and he drove to the town with two other detectives, Wayne Warnest and Dave Mullins. They arrested Dr Millhouse at the Eyre Hotel where he was staying, with a warrant that had been issued over the misuse of prescriptions. The four of them travelled overnight back to Adelaide together. By this time, Millhouse had one of Peter Waye’s standard letters saying that his client did not wish to speak to police. Lee’s hands were tied. He wanted to speak to Millhouse while they were travelling back to Adelaide.
Lee was working on the theory that someone close to Neil Muir had killed him. On Thursday, 17 January 1980, with the evidence he had, Lee Haddon went to Mount Gambier with Detective Bob Lindner and drove to the home of Dr Millhouse’s parents, where he was staying at the time. Lee Haddon recorded his conversation with the doctor.
‘Dr Millhouse — Sergeant Haddon, Detective Lindner, Major Crime Squad.’
‘Yes, I remember you.’
‘I’m still making enquiries into the death of Neil Muir. I still want to ask you questions in relation to this death. Are you now prepared to answer questions that I put to you?’
‘Look gentlemen, I must still take the advice of my solicitor and not answer any questions.’
‘Last time I spoke to you on the way to Adelaide from Whyalla, you told me that you wanted to answer my questions and that you’d go to your solicitor and request that you be allowed to answer questions. Did you not?’
‘Yes, I said that.’
‘Did you approach your solicitor about making a statement?’
‘I tried to get him a couple of times on the phone but he was out.’
‘Are you prepared at this stage to answer any questions relating to the death of Muir?’
‘I’m sorry. I must take the advice of my solicitor and decline to answer any questions. It’s my fundamental right.’
‘I’m now arresting you on a charge of murder relating to the death of Neil Frederick Muir. You don’t have to say anything in answer to this charge unless you want to but anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand the charge?’
‘This is ridiculous. I told you I didn’t know the man. I don’t know anything about it.’
Dr Millhouse became upset and called out to his mother and father. Lee let Dr Millhouse speak to Peter Waye on the phone before taking him to the Mount Gambier Police Station where he was charged, photographed, fingerprinted and put in one of the cells. He was charged with having murdered Neil Federick Muir on or about 27 August 1979 at North Adelaide or elsewhere.
The charge indicated the weakness of Lee’s case. He could not be sure exactly where Neil Muir was killed even though there were indications of blood in the bathroom. Also, he could not say exactly when he had been killed.
Lee could prove that they knew each other, and blood had been found in the bathroom of Peter Millhouse’s rented premises in North Adelaide. At the doctor’s trial, the prosecutor argued that the dissection of Muir had to have been done by someone who had some medical training and knowledge of anatomy. Dr Robert Britten-Jones gave this evidence but he couldn’t say if the person who did the dissection was a doctor.
Dr Millhouse was still saying that he didn’t know Neil Muir. Lee could prove that he did know Neil Muir.
Dr Millhouse’s arrest removed the spotlight from the investigation into Alan Barnes’ murder. Police speculated that the same offender or offenders committed both murders. Both victims were abusing drugs. Both suffered anal injuries but these similarities were not enough to link both murders to one offender or group of offenders.
Dr Millhouse endured two trials. The first trial started on 29 July 1980 but, less than a month later, the judge, Justice Williams, suffered a heart attack. The jury was dismissed and a new trial started on 2 September 1980, with a new judge and jury. The second trial commenced with Justice Mohr controlling proceedings. The trial lasted twenty-four days, and ninety-eight witnesses gave evidence.
Towards the end of the trial, Dr Millhouse took the unusual step of giving evidence under oath. Most often in murder cases defendants refuse to give evidence; in those days they could give an unsworn statement from the dock and the prosecutor was not allowed to cross-examine the defendant. But Peter Millhouse allowed himself to be cross-examined. He gave sworn evidence over three days, a long time to be giving evidence. He was cross-examined for a full day by the bespectacled prosecutor, Tony Bishop.
Tony Bishop, a car enthusiast from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, conducted the case against Millhouse. After Dr Millhouse gave sworn evidence, Tony addressed the jury. He said that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence because there wasn’t any direct evidence implicating the accused with the crime. Circumstantial evidence inferred he was involved rather than anyone saying that they saw him do it. Tony Bishop summed up by saying that the prosecution case rested on eleven points.
1. The type of relationship between the two men indicated Millhouse could have committed the crime;
2. Alleged false denials by Millhouse;
3. The association between the victim and the accused was on-going at the time of the murder;
4. The person who mutilated Neil Muir had anatomical and medical knowledge;
5. Evidence indicating that Neil Muir had been at Dr Millhouse’s home;
6. Yellow cord binding the body was similar to the line that had been on Dr Millhouse’s clothesline;
7. Plastic bags similar to those that Neil Muir was stuffed into were in the cottage;
8. Use of Doctor Millhouse’s car and denials about its use;
9. General behaviour and conduct of Millhouse;
10. Opportunity to commit the murder; and
11. Motive to commit the murder.
Tony Bishop provided two possible motives for the mutilation of Neil Muir. Firstly, he adopted one of the views of the police psychologist and said that the mutilation could have been done out of contempt. Secondly, it was done to help dispose of the body. However, a problem occurred with the blood found in the bathroom. Scientific tests showed it was blood but even though it could not be matched completely, its grouping showed it was more likely to have came from a druggie shooting up in the doctor’s house — this was a major weakness in Lee’s case.
Paul Rice, a short man, his hair greying on top of his youthful face, was the Queen’s Counsel who acted for Dr Millhouse. He countered the arguments of Tony Bishop and argued that speculation was not sufficient in this case. He forcefully argued that the prosecution had not proved its case and commented how Dr Millhouse gave evidence on oath and he survived the cross-examination without any problems. He argued that it was dangerous for the jury to accept circumstantial evidence and mentioned several cases in which a convicted person was later found to be innocent. His arguments would have caused some of the jury to be concerned about the evidence. But the real crunch for Lee Haddon came when Justice Mohr summed up on 9 October 1980.
Justice Mohr slated the prosecution’s case during a talk to the jury lasting just under two hours. He strongly pointed out to the jury that suspicions and innuendoes were not enough. Any blood in the bathroom
could not be shown to have belonged to Neil Muir. Items such as the clothesline and garbage bags were common items that could have been used by anyone. Although there were fibres on the Bandaid, the judge speculated that the Bandaid couldhave got into Neil Muir’s garbage bag from the Port River and the fibres may have come from another rug. Other evidence did link Neil Muir with the doctor; they had an association but the doctor’s denials occurred because he was concerned about his supply of drugs to addicts.
He asked the jury to be concerned only with facts. He also made the point that lies told by the doctor do not indicate a guilty conscience in relation to murder. He said that the lies may have been told for other reasons and noted that Millhouse had told the jury in his evidence that he was worried about losing his practice. Justice Mohr said that statements by the prosecution about sex between Dr Millhouse and Neil Muir were just speculation and had not been proven. In fact, he said the prosecution had proved no motive. The judge summed up and the jury of seven women and five men left the courtroom. They returned seventy-five minutes later.
‘Not Guilty,’ the foreman said.
It would have been a very brave jury that convicted Dr Millhouse after the summing up from Justice Mohr. Dr Millhouse’s mother and father were naturally very relieved at the verdict. They left the courtroom and returned to Mount Gambier with their son.
Chapter 5
Serial Killers
The evidence did not show that Dr Millhouse killed Neil Muir. The police psychologist, Milton Kelly, gave one view: the killer was someone who knew Neil Muir and could have mutilated him to punish him for real or imagined insults. This theory fitted with the views of Lee Haddon. Doctor Millhouse and Neil Muir may have had a falling out but there was no evidence to suggest this happened. In fact, many of the statements obtained by the police indicated that he was more likely not to have killed Neil. Witnesses said that Dr Millhouse was not violent. In fact, he was a weak man who would not start a fight.
I accepted Lee’s opinion about Dr Millhouse. He was an experienced detective and he knew the intimate details of the case. I only knew what I had read in the papers and the story from Lee. But something happened that caused me to reconsider my views on the case.
I was present in the Major Crime offices on the fourth floor of the Angas Street police building after Richard Kelvin was found. The squad office followed the open space layout of many modern office buildings, with the bosses in their own rooms at the end of the open spaces. The room was filled with older-style wooden desks with three drawers on the right-hand side, running down to the floor. Wire stacker baskets contained smaller amounts of paperwork which did not belong in the lever-arch files containing the statements from witnesses who could tell things to the police about murder investigations. These folders were kept on the desk if they were active files or in a storeroom if they were older files.
I was sitting at my desk working on some of my files relating to another killing, which happened at Coober Pedy. Glen Lawrie and I had been travelling to the outback town to investigate the killing, which had been witnessed by the local detective.
Trevor Kipling and Lee Haddon were talking about the Muir murder shortly after Richard Kelvin had been found.
‘I don’t think Millhouse did Muir. I think the same people have killed the lot,’ Trevor said.
‘No, that’s not right. Millhouse did Muir,’ Lee said as a tenseness started to set around his lips.
‘I bet you that the same people did the lot and Millhouse is not the one,’ Trevor said softly, but his words were heard by some of us in the office.
Lee’s face flushed and reddened. ‘Look, I should know. I arrested him. He did it, I’m telling you,’ Lee said in a voice that was pitching slightly higher as his frustration and anger rose from the suggestion that his assessment about Millhouse may have been wrong.
Lee was a sergeant and an experienced detective while Trevor was a senior constable, so Trevor was criticising a senior officer. Both had strong life experiences to back their judgement as police officers. Trevor liked to get out bush or go fishing and had been a country policeman in his earlier days. Lee, on the other hand, preferred the city life but had experience serving as a United Nations peacekeeper in Cyprus when State police were sent to that island as part of a much larger peacekeeping force to stop the fighting between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
I’m staying out of this one, I thought.
Trevor was questioning Lee’s decision to arrest Peter Millhouse. At that time I didn’t know enough about the earlier murders of the young men to have a view as to who was right; but if Trevor was right, then we were looking at Milton Kelly’s alternative hypothesis that Neil Muir did not know his murderer and was sought out by his killer to relieve sexual and sadistic needs. This fitted with Trevor Kipling’s idea that the killer was a stranger to Neil Muir. Doctor Millhouse wasn’t involved. We were looking for at least one serial killer and, if more than one person were involved, then we were looking for serial killers who were preying on young men. We could be looking for serial killers who had abducted, abused and murdered five boys.
We had thought for some time that more than one person was involved in the murders. We had found more people that had heard Richard Kelvin’s abduction. A woman in Ward Street heard two voices — an argument at about the time Richard was snatched. One of the voices sounded higher pitched. There were car doors slamming and a car taking off. She thought the noises came from behind her house, where a laneway runs between Margaret and Murray Streets. Another woman living in apartments on Ward Street had her windows open and heard a yell and screeching of tyres like someone trying to run someone over. She thought that there were three or four involved and perhaps heard a female voice. A young couple in Margaret Street heard a shout and people talking. They thought they heard two male voices and a noisy car. Finally, the guy who was ill in bed was a security guard and he was interested in cars. Because of his interest in cars and occupation, he liked to pick the type of car when he heard exhaust noises. There are differences in sound, which allow a person to guess whether the car is a Holden or Falcon with a four cylinder, six cylinder or even a V–8 motor in it.
The security guard heard the cries for help, a whole lot of voices, car doors banging and a car that sounded like a Holden with a bad muffler driving off. Four different lots of people heard the abduction. The first witness thought it was about 5.30 that Sunday evening but all the rest said it was about 6.20 and that they knew the time because they were carrying out a set routine with a baby or they were watching the news.
We thought more than one person was involved with the abductions. This confirmed in our minds that more than one person grabbed Richard Kelvin. More likely than not more than one person was involved in the others. All of the boys were tall and reasonably well built. The only exception was Neil Muir. He was smaller. However, to cut up and dispose of Neil Muir in the way it was done probably meant more than one person although we couldn’t be sure.
We were looking for males, as men commit most murders. If there are more than two people involved, experts suggest that there would be a dominant person who has influence over more passive members of the group. When a group is involved, there is a bond because of a shared understanding and a common agreement about purpose.
The high-pitched voice was interesting. We knew that Richard Kelvin’s voice had broken and it was a deep male voice even when he raised his voice when he was happy and excited.
Could a woman be involved? we wondered.
The possibility of a woman being involved was a little different. Women have killed and will kill again but generally they kill their partners. Women have been involved in sexual and sadistic crimes of abuse but if any women were involved, then it would be unlikely that one would be the leader of the pack.
If the murders were connected, we were looking for serial killers. Some people refer to serial killings and use the words ‘mass killings’. Mass killing is used in the same context as
serial killing but the two are different. Serial killings are murders committed at different times. Serial killers have an emotional cycle in which they kill, cool off and then kill again, whereas mass killings are the killing of more than one person as part of one incident. The killings at Jonestown of the religious followers of the Jones cult were mass killings. When a man kills his large family that is a mass killing. There is a commonality with the victims and it is one event. During World War II, it was Jews or members of other minority groups that were slaughtered. These are both examples of mass killings because there was no emotional cycle involved. They were mass killings for a political purpose.
Serial killers are skilful and accomplished in what they do. They cloak themselves in a normal way of life to hide their activities. They don’t flee the scene of the crime as many killers do. Many killers will flee and go interstate or may even leave the country but not serial killers. They continue with their daily lives. Their behaviour, on the surface, is perfectly normal. That is not to say serial killers won’t move around but their travelling is to find other victims. They are not fleeing from possible capture. If serial killings stop, then there has been a significant event, which brings a halt to the murder spree: the killer has committed suicide, he has moved to another location and is killing there or he has been imprisoned. The Truro murders stopped because the leader of the duo, Christopher Worrell, was killed in a car crash.
Serial killers are generally white, heterosexual men in their twenties or thirties. They tend to target women and children who are the same race as them. Prostitutes, homeless people and hitchhikers are often their victims. If the serial killer is homosexual, then pleasure comes from pursuing young boys and gay men. If the serial killer is a woman, then she will kill her husband, lover or family members. Medical professionals, such as ‘Dr Death’ in England, will kill their patients, who include babies, elderly men and women. Nurses who are serial killers will prey on the same type of people.
