Young Blood

by Bob O'Brien

Chapter 12

  The Trial

  Over a year after Richard disappeared, the trial against Bevan Spencer von Einem began on Monday, 15 October 1984. Six months had passed since the committal and von Einem’s incredible revelations of how he picked up Richard Kelvin. For the police it was largely a matter of tidying up the paperwork and following up detail for the prosecutors. As the start of the trial came closer and closer, Brian Martin and Paul Rofe were putting in the hours making sure they had the information they needed. They were now in charge of the case and Trevor and I were subservient to them.

  There was an enormous amount of interest in the case. Murders naturally generate attention and when the trial was about the abduction, abuse and murder of a young boy the interest escalated, especially after four other young men had been abused and killed over the previous four years. On top of this, the young boy was the son of a popular television newsreader. The events had a huge following.

  During the whole period of the trial, spectators filed into the Supreme Court building of South Australia. The Sir Samuel Way Building is unusual as this formal and ornate structure was not originally built to be a court. The building was formerly a department store, modelled on the Galleries Lafayette store in Paris. It opened as the department store, ‘Charles Moore’, in 1912 but the store closed in 1980 and was redesigned as a court building. The architects retained the building’s façade and kept its grand marble staircase, which was rebuilt under a central atrium.

  The trial was conducted in the largest courtroom, on the western side of the building. To get to it visitors walked up the massive central staircase and headed to the rear right of the building. Court Number Eight was one of the two largest courtrooms in the building. Trevor and I walked up and down that staircase many times over the following weeks.

  The floor of the large square room was covered with rich gold carpet, spreading to the wood panelling that reached about one and a half metres up the walls. Mellow yellow paint flowed upwards to the high ceilings and downlights, which directed light onto wooden desks and carpet while recessed lights were hidden high up in the walls. The richness of the room provided the proceedings with an extra sense of importance.

  Justice White, of the Supreme Court, presided over the case, and he sat on the one chair behind the largest desk in the room. The bench stretched almost across the full width of the room. In front of the judge’s desk was another one about half the size and the judge’s associate, clerk of court and stenographer sat behind it. The courtroom’s design reinforced society’s hierarchy — the judge being the most important person in the room. We hoped his views would consider the prosecution case in a positive way, but you could never be sure.

  Two rectangular stalls were built against the walls on both sides of the room and each enclosure contained seating for twelve people. The box on the right contained seats for the jury, which would soon contain twelve people from the community while the box on the left allowed up to twelve accused to sit in it. But only one person would fill that box. Trevor and I would have liked more in there but it wasn’t to be.

  In the middle of the room another large rectangular desk covered the plush carpet. The defence counsel sat on the left of the table and the two prosecutors sat on the right. Behind them two curved rows of seating spread across the room for additional solicitors and support staff. The remaining area of the court at the rear provided seating for 100 people in five rows of seats. They filled on the first day and continued to be busy with people over the next fifteen days.

  The trial started with the selection of the jury. Fifty people picked from the electoral roll were selected for one month’s jury service. They entered the room and sat in the public gallery. The judge, prosecution and defence counsel all had lists of the names of these potential jurors. Brian Martin, Queen’s Counsel, who would lead the prosecution case for the D.P.P.’s office, read out the list of witnesses who would be called during the trial and the potential jurors were asked to leave the room if they knew any of the witnesses. Two stood up and moved towards the Sheriff’s Officer to have the opportunity to be selected for another trial.

  The clerk of the court read out names of the potential jurors and one by one they stood up and moved from the body of the court to the juror’s box. The defence and prosecution counsel each have an opportunity to refuse three people without giving any reasons. The process finished quickly and the twelve seats in the jurors’ box filled. Over the coming days, the seven women and five men found their preferred positions in the jury box, where they were as comfortable as they could be as jurors in the murder trial of one person accused of killing another.

  Brian Martin addressed the jury to open the trial. Paul Rofe supported him. Brian started putting the jigsaw together, which, when complete, would provide a picture of the prosecution case. He addressed them at the start of the trial by giving a description of the evidence that he would be piecing together.

  Helena Jasinski briefed Barry Jennings and together they defended von Einem. Barry was a smaller man than the two prosecutors and completely different in appearance. His black curly hair spread out over his head and surrounded his glasses. He was a prosecutor before he went into private practice and knew the tactics that Brian and Paul would employ.

  Brian Martin emphasised that von Einem committed Richard Kelvin’s murder with other people. By saying he did not act alone, the easiest scenario for the jury to accept was presented. It would have been difficult for one person to keep Richard captive for five weeks, especially when von Einem was at work from the second week of the disappearance. He wasn’t with Richard for all of the time he was kept captive. Also, there was the evidence from witnesses that more than one person was heard when Richard was grabbed at the corner of Margaret and Ward Streets, North Adelaide.

  Another point that Brian Martin made during the trial was that the actual cause of death could not be known for certain. Ross James, the pathologist, could say that Richard Kelvin didn’t die from natural causes. All of Richard’s vital organs were healthy. He could say that the beatings did not cause Richard to die. The subdural haematoma, where blood gathered between the skull and brain, was life threatening but he survived that injury. Also, although the anal injury to Richard caused massive bleeding and shock, it could never be proved that it actually caused his death. We always believed that was possible, but Ross could not discount other possible causes of death: for example, he could not discount the possibility that Richard was suffocated.

  The Crown case involved proving different points. Firstly, murder would be proved by showing Richard was forcibly abducted, he had been injured and heavily drugged during his captivity and he had no defensive injuries.

  Proving von Einem was implicated in the murder would be shown by the facts that: von Einem had the opportunity; he had access to the necessary drugs; he had been away from work during the first week of Richard’s disappearance, which provided him an opportunity to help keep Richard captive; he sold his car six days after Richard Kelvin was dumped, and he repainted most of his boot before it was sold, indicating that he had something to hide; scientific evidence would show that von Einem was with Richard Kelvin in his home; and he had denied being with Richard.

  Brian called his first witness. It was Marty White, a tall, greying policeman who did scale drawings of various locations. Brian used Marty to present diagrams of different locations so the jury could refer to them during the trial. He presented and explained the scale drawings he made of the Kelvin home, the route to the bus stop, plans of the inside of the homes of witnesses, plans of von Einem’s home and of all the locations that were going to be talked about during the trial. The opening address and tendering of documents and plans completed the first day.

  The next day the court did not sit inside the Sir Samuel Way Building but moved to the various locations that were to be talked about during the trial. The jury was looked after by Sheriff’s Officers who worked at the court, while the judge and his staff travelled in
their own vehicles, as did Brian Martin and Paul Rofe. Trevor and I drove a police car. Traffic policemen stopped traffic to help keep the group together when it was moving to view different locations at O’Connell Street and Ward Street, North Adelaide.

  The jury took copies of the maps and plans with them to compare the documents with the actual locations. Brian Martin continued to point out various features at the different locations. We stood outside the Kelvin home and walked where Richard and his mate Boris walked on the evening Richard disappeared. We travelled to von Einem’s Paradise home, stopped and went inside. We drove past the Alcorn’s property at Lower Hermitage where Thora von Einem stayed with her cousin on weekends before moving onto the airstrip where Richard was found. It is one thing to present photographs and drawings to a jury but if they can see the actual locations mentioned during the trial then the jury’s understanding is much greater. The viewing of various locations doesn’t happen in every trial, however, as the Sheriff’s officers have to arrange security and transport and often police have to be present to stop traffic. Obviously, it’s time consuming and costly.

  At von Einem’s home I showed the judge, prosecution and defence the ledge behind the mirror in von Einem’s bedroom. Interestingly, the bedroom cupboards had been moved around in the bedroom and were against opposite walls. Perhaps von Einem or his defence team were trying to trip us up so that we would give confusing evidence in front of the jury. If the defence could show that we were uncertain about the location of cupboards in the bedroom, then they could cast doubt on the rest of our evidence. The jury followed afterwards because there was insufficient room for everyone in the room at one time. A sheriff’s officer pointed out the ledge to the jury.

  After the drive to various sites and addresses, Brian Martin introduced the first of the next thirty-five witnesses to the court. When he needed a break, Paul Rofe introduced new witnesses.

  The second and third witnesses in the trial were Rob and Betteanne Kelvin. They provided two corner pieces to the jigsaw of evidence that was about to unfold. Both of them talked about their son. Rob Kelvin was first. He took the stand and gave positive evidence about his son, just as you would expect, but he didn’t paint the picture that he was perfect. Brian Martin didn’t ask the direct question about whether or not their son was ‘normal’. Brian just asked his questions and the answers from Rob and Betteanne showed Richard was a normal fifteen-year-old.

  ‘Yes, he was having trouble at school.’

  ‘He had trouble with spelling and numbers and some students at Adelaide High School had picked on him. He was asked to repeat a year, which didn’t help his self-esteem.’

  ‘The learning difficulties encouraged them to place him at an alternative school — Marbury in the Adelaide Hills. He was much happier.’

  ‘He smoked.’ Rob Kelvin didn’t like it but Betteanne smoked and she was less demanding.

  ‘Yes, he had tried alcohol but he wasn’t a drinker.’

  Rob stressed that Richard never hitchhiked or accepted rides from strangers and he didn’t like to be out and about at night. Betteanne Kelvin told the jury how she would meet him at the bus stop in Melbourne Street after school cadets at Hampstead Army Barracks in the northern suburbs on Friday nights. Richard wanted her to meet him because he didn’t want to walk home in the dark.

  His mate, Karl ‘Boris’ Brooks, who was Richard’s last friend to see him, told a story to the court which reinforced what Rob and Betteanne were saying. Boris said that on the Sunday night Richard disappeared, he started to walk toward the bus stop near the Womens and Childrens Hospital on King William Road. However, Richard didn’t want to go that way because it was dark and they had to cross some parklands. Richard wanted to go to the bus stop in O’Connell Street, North Adelaide instead. That is the reason why they went to the O’Connell Street bus stop.

  The evidence of these witnesses powerfully indicated that Richard was not going to get into a car with a stranger.

  Brian Martin also knew that he had to show that Richard was against homosexuality. Von Einem, in his alibi, was saying that Richard had gone with him voluntarily. He was suggesting Richard had homosexual tendencies and Brian wanted to show this was not the case. He asked Rob Kelvin about his son’s views on homosexuality. Rob told the court that his son didn’t like homosexuals and if he wanted to stir someone he would call them a ‘poofter’. He used the word in a derogatory way.

  Rob and Betteanne both told the court that Richard always had a girlfriend and Betteanne said he was so serious about his current one that Richard talked to his mother about getting engaged when they were nineteen. Richard’s girlfriend, the girl he was supposed to have rung as soon as he got home from the bus stop, gave similar evidence about his views on homosexuality.

  In my mind, however, Richard wearing the dog collar presented a problem for Brian Martin. If Richard was ‘normal’, why was he wearing a dog collar around his neck? Brian Martin asked his father about it.

  ‘Did Richard have a dog collar with him when he left?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Where was it at the time he left?’

  ‘He put it around his neck.’

  ‘You have a dog?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Had he [Richard] ever worn the dog collar before?’

  ‘No.’

  ‘Were the boys messing around with it before they left?’

  ‘Richard was the sort of boy who . . . he was a boy who liked to play around. After cadets, for instance, he would march for us in the lounge room; he would march up and down and send everything up, like a comic. He was a comic and I just took him, putting the collar around his neck, as just one of his tricks, just being silly.’

  Brian Martin took this point further with Boris.

  ‘Had one of you been fiddling with the dog collar at Richard’s home?’ Brian said.

  ‘Yes, he was fiddling with it when he was on the phone.’

  ‘What did he do with it?’

  ‘Put it around his neck.’

  ‘Did he speak to you about it?’

  ‘He thought he was Joe Cool.’

  ‘Did he ask you what you thought of it?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘What did you say?’

  ‘“You look ridiculous”.’

  ‘Did he wear it down the street?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Did it seem to fit or was it tight?’

  ‘It just fit him perfectly.’

  ‘Did you see him take it off?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘When was that?’

  ‘At the bus stop.’

  ‘What did he do with it?’

  ‘He was trying to put it around his knuckles.’

  All of this evidence — from his parents, his best mate and another guy who saw him at the bus stop, reiterated that Richard was happy on that evening. He was not worried about things. His girlfriend said that he was okay on the telephone immediately before he left for the bus stop. He was a normal boy of fifteen. He was due home for dinner and was going to watch a movie with his parents that evening.

  As the days went by, witnesses presented evidence about finding drugs in Richard’s body and the visit to von Einem’s home on 28 July 1983 when the drugs, including Mandrax, were found. Harry Harding from the Forensic Science Centre told the court that the hairs found inside Richard’s underpants were identical to von Einem’s. Sandra Young gave evidence about the fibres that Des Phillips found on Richard’s clothing matching von Einem’s passageway carpet, bedroom carpet and bedspread. Geoffrey Robinson, senior scientific officer in the Home Office in England, came to Australia to support Sandra’s evidence and he gave additional damning evidence.

  Brian Martin put von Einem’s alibi to the scientist and asked about fibre transfer and ‘the persistence of fibres’ — the ability of fibres to stick to another material.

  ‘The bedspread was of medium shedability on the top or upper side, the bedroom carpet was of low shedability, the
hall-lounge carpet was of high shedability and I think I have already told you the Toyota car seat was of medium shedability. You have said that the factual situation I put to you was not a likely situation for the fibres found. Can it be considered a possible explanation for the fibres found?’

  ‘Possible did you say?’

  ‘Possible.’

  ‘I would say impossible.’

  This was a sensational statement. An eminent overseas scientist was saying that von Einem’s explanation about Richard being in his house was impossible. He was saying von Einem was a liar.

  Brian Martin continued.

  ‘Just on that. In the United Kingdom do you have a practice or a cut-off period at which no fibre identification is attempted?’

  ‘Yes, as a general rule of thumb one wouldn’t examine clothing for contact fibres if the known contact was probably three days prior to the clothing being recovered.’

  ‘What is the basis for doing that?’

  ‘This is the figure of retention times recorded in the publications and one’s personal experiences of recovering fibres.’

  ‘That is, that it would be most unlikely to find fibres from a contact more than three days after the contact?’

  ‘Yes, assuming the clothing had been worn normally during a period of three days it would get extremely unlikely to find any remaining fibres.’

  Von Einem said that he picked up Richard on 5 June 1983, took him home and then dropped him in the city on the same day and didn’t see him again. This meant that the fibres from his home and cardigan transferred to Richard on the Sunday night he went missing.

  Geoffrey Robinson was saying that when Richard was found, eight weeks later, he should have had no or very few of the fibres from von Einem’s environment on his clothing. This is what we found with fibres from Richard’s home environment. There were only two fibres from his home left on his clothes. The same principle should have applied to the fibres from von Einem and his home. After eight weeks, there shouldn’t have been that many fibres on Richard’s clothing. What the international expert was saying was that contact with Richard was within three days of him being dumped — von Einem was with him at about the time he was murdered! The case against von Einem was getting stronger and stronger.