The person who called at the Thornes’ or the person who kidnapped the boy might have looked very like Bradley and might be of the same race, for all we know.
He reminded the jury of the alibi evidence from Paul Weinberg, and concluded by saying to them: ‘Unless you reject the evidence of Bradley, Paul Weinberg and Mrs Bradley, you cannot possibly convict.’
Bill Knight QC began his closing address to the jury early on the afternoon on the eighth and final day of the trial, Wednesday, 29 March 1961. He pointed out that circumstantial evidence can be immensely powerful, depending on the case. In this instance, he suggested, the circumstantial evidence, including all the scientific material, was overpowering. He submitted that Bradley’s confessions were an important part of the prosecution case, and suggested that the jury would assess their authenticity by noting that Bradley had sought to minimise his culpability:
[Bradley’s confession was] the least blameworthy explanation that he could give of all the circumstances. He tried to make up the most innocent statement of what he had done that he could think of at the time, and this is it.
He said that because the confessions minimised parts of the crime, it was highly improbable that they had been coerced from Bradley or dictated by the police. He pointed out that Bradley had withstood a vigorous cross-examination, with questions being fired at him for more than an hour, without crumbling or becoming disoriented, and thereby had shown himself to be the sort of man who would not easily buckle under threats from the police. Knight pointed out that although the identification parades had taken place after the publication of Bradley’s photograph in the newspaper, Freda and Bazil Thorne and the Denmeades had all originally picked Bradley from an array of photographs they had been shown by police three days before the photo of Bradley had been published. He submitted that for the defence case to be correct, approximately seventy Crown witnesses, including seven police officers, would have been required to perjure themselves, which was manifestly absurd. He suggested that Magda Bradley’s journey to Surfers Paradise on 7 July occurred because of her refusal to become involved with Bradley’s plan for a kidnapping and her desire to secure an alibi for herself, and that Magda had rung for a taxi to get to the airport because she knew that her husband was not going to be available to take them. Knight alleged that Paul Weinberg was mistaken about seeing his stepfather on the morning of the kidnapping. Knight concluded his address in just under two hours – less than a third of the time Vizzard had taken – by saying to the jury:
The whole of this case is so overwhelming that there cannot be the slightest shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he stands charged.
Mr Justice Clancy commenced his summing up after lunch, informing everyone in the courtroom that he would be sending out the jury that same afternoon, even if that meant they would retire to consider their verdict after the usual 4pm recess, when courts normally adjourned for the day. He explained to the jurors the various categories of murder and the difference between murder and manslaughter. He told them that murder is when a person kills someone intending to kill or do grievous bodily harm, or when acting with reckless indifference to human life. Manslaughter, on the other hand, occurs when a person accidentally kills someone while doing something that is unlawful and dangerous, but without the state of mind required for murder. He explained to the jury the significance of circumstantial evidence. He summarised each of the different categories of scientific evidence. He pointed out that both Mr and Mrs Thorne had seen a photograph of Stephen Bradley in the press on 11 October, which was prior to the identification parades, however he also noted that they had first identified the accused from photographs on 8 October. Mr and Mrs Denmeade had also been shown police photographs before the press image was published.
It was not until 4.27 that afternoon that Justice Clancy finished his summing up and sent the jurors out to consider their verdict. Fred Vizzard QC then complained that the judge had not reminded the jury that in addition to making an unsworn statement from the dock, Bradley had given evidence on oath and been cross-examined. The judge testily refused to bring the jury back to remind them of this. Vizzard then protested that the judge had not properly and fully put Bradley’s defence to the jury, asking the judge to remind them that the accused’s defence was that he was not at Bondi and had called evidence to prove that he was at home until he left at 8.30am to go to the hardware store. Although Mr Justice Clancy considered that the jurors would be well aware of this, he agreed that to be on the safe side he would remind them of it. The jury were brought back into the courtroom for the judge to refer to this aspect of the defence case, and then sent back to the jury room to continue their deliberations. At 5.43pm, the jurors returned to court at their own request so they could have read to them the medical evidence about the cause of Graeme’s death. They then returned to the jury room to resume their deliberations. Nobody knew how long it would take for the jury to reach a verdict. If necessary, they would be locked up overnight to resume their deliberations in the morning.
At 6.15pm, on the judge’s order, the court was cleared for dinner until 7.30pm. By then, it was well past the copy deadline for the next day’s morning newspapers, so if there was a verdict that night, it was likely that the afternoon papers the following day would get the scoop.
* * *
As Magda Bradley had not been allowed in the public gallery until she had completed her evidence, the prosecutor’s closing address was her first opportunity to hear a comprehensive account of the case against her husband. She was deeply shocked at the strength of the evidence, and realised that a conviction was almost inevitable. After the jury retired, she spoke to a few journalists, who made it clear that they thought that a conviction was likely. Greatly stressed, she decided that she could not bear to hear the verdict when the jury returned or to witness the deflation when her husband realised that they would not be reuniting soon. Without informing Stephen or his counsel, she left the courthouse, telling a journalist that she had ‘not given up hope’. She told journalist Tom Prior, who was working for the Daily Telegraph, that she had heard enough and didn’t want anyone shoving a microphone in her face. Prior told her that his newspaper had a flat available on the other side of Taylor Square where she could wait for the verdict if she liked, promising to come and inform her of it. After a lot of thought, Magda agreed to wait there.19
15
LAST EMBRACE
As Stephen Bradley sat in the underground cell beneath the courtroom where his trial had taken place over the previous eight days, he had several hours, punctuated by a sandwich, in which to contemplate his prospects while he waited for the verdict that would determine the rest of his life. He was realistic enough to accept that the prosecutor’s closing address had been persuasive, and that his own barrister’s entreaties to the jury, although longer than the prosecutor’s, had been less cogent. He was convinced, however, that his primary obstacle in securing a favourable outcome was not so much the evidence against him, but rather the prejudice that Anglo-Saxon jurors would harbour, even subconsciously, against a foreigner like him. His origins, his accent, his faulty English, his olive complexion, his history of multiple marriages – they would all raise the kind of bigotry that he had so often encountered in his everyday life since arriving in Australia. Why should it be any different with a representative sample of citizens on a jury? His own barrister had acknowledged this hurdle in his closing address to the jury.
The more he thought about it, the more convinced he became that prejudice would be the real reason for the jury to convict him. It would be prejudice if they ignored his alibi evidence or the fact that he and Magda had applied for passports well before the kidnapping. It would be prejudice if they overlooked the fact that there were numerous homes in Sydney that had wind-blown seeds from two types of cypress, or Onkaparinga blankets, or blue Customlines, or Pekinese dogs. These were all very interesting facts, but how could they use them to implicate him in the kid
napping, except by suspending logic and rationality and substituting them with prejudice? The newspapers had begun the process of vilification months earlier by constantly drawing attention to his foreign origins and his unorthodox family situation, and they had exacerbated the situation by relentlessly reminding readers of these irrelevant factors up to, and even during, the trial. His barrister had drawn attention to the background of prejudice in the media, and had unrealistically asked the jurors to put it aside. As if jurors could simply put their preconceived notions into a box and place it under the jury room table, leaving them free to deliberate without bias! He was convinced that he could not get a fair trial against the background of this protracted denigration, and that his foreignness would inevitably intrude into the jury’s consideration of his case.
* * *
In the jury room, right from the beginning there was not a single juror who accepted Stephen Bradley’s denial of involvement in the kidnapping and death of Graeme Thorne.1 The only question was whether his actions amounted to murder or manslaughter. Ten of the twelve jurors were convinced that it was murder, while two thought that it could be manslaughter. It was only after the medical evidence was re-read to them, indicating that ‘a good force’ would have been necessary to fracture Graeme’s skull, that the jurors in the minority swung around and joined the others in a unanimous verdict. No one in the jury room was concerned by Bradley’s origins, his appearance or the number of his marriages. The only reference to his accent was during discussion about the identity of the man looking for Mr Bognor.
After deliberating for three-and-a-half hours, the jury returned to the courtroom at 7.49pm on the eighth and final day of the trial – Wednesday, 29 March 1961. The atmosphere was electric and a pin drop could be heard as the accused and then the foreman were requested to stand. Then the foreman was asked the critical question by the judge’s associate: ‘How say you: is the accused Stephen Leslie Bradley guilty or not guilty on the charge of the murder of Graeme Frederick Hilton Thorne?’ The foreman replied with the one word that almost everyone in the courtroom was hoping for: ‘Guilty’. The associate then recited the time-honoured words signifying unanimity: ‘So says your foreman, so say you all.’
As soon as the verdict was announced, pandemonium broke out in the public gallery, with clapping, whistles, catcalls and cries of elation. One woman screamed, ‘Feed him to the sharks!’ It was quite clear from these spontaneous outbursts and from the body language of the prosecution team that the verdict met with the approval of almost everyone in the courtroom. Bazil and Freda Thorne initially restrained their emotions, but when Bazil put his arm around Freda, she was unable to contain herself any longer and began to weep. It was as though Graeme’s death had only now been officially acknowledged. Stephen Bradley stood with his hands firmly clenching the rail of the dock in front of him, his face showing no emotion. Fred Vizzard appeared devastated by the verdict.
After what seemed like several minutes, a Sheriff’s Officer called out for silence, and Mr Justice Clancy asked Bradley if he had anything to say before passing sentence. Normally, at this point prisoners either choose to remain silent, or at most say something predictable, like, ‘I am not guilty, your Honour.’ Stephen Bradley, however, took advantage of this invitation to deliver the following lengthy, rambling speech:
Yes, I have two things to say. I never had an opportunity to say anything until I came to this Court. It was the first time anybody heard me say anything.
One thing I would like to say. I do not accuse anybody, but I would like to say as a matter of fact I knew before I came to this court that I would be convicted of the crime which I did not commit, and why I was more or less convinced because of a certain human emotion – what you call prejudice. Prejudice is the same or similar as jealousy. That is a human emotion. It is a very dangerous one – extremely so. It affects your mind to that extent that you cannot – you are unable to judge things really with the full facts. You are forced by these emotions more or less to back up that emotion and it more or less controls your mind.
And I think that one of the main factors – it was given very bad publicity in the newspapers. Everybody read about it. Although Your Honour instructed the jury for them to forget about it – but it is impossible. It is impossible.
Anyway, I am not saying – accusing the jury, who are very good citizens. They tried to do their best. They have been influenced by this very powerful emotion.
Anyway, I could tell you a lot of other things, but I don’t think they would alter the fact, and cannot alter the fact – the fact that the jury has decided on a certain verdict, and naturally it is your duty to pass sentence according to the law. That is all I wish to say.
His Honour Mr Justice Clancy said nothing in response to Bradley’s rationalisation of the verdict, thereby demonstrating his contempt for Bradley’s claim of prejudice, and he proceeded to carry out his statutory duty by imposing the only sentence available for this crime, using the minimum number of words required:
The prisoner, Stephen Leslie Bradley, is sentenced to penal servitude for life.
Again there was an enormous uproar in the court. The Herald reported that ‘screaming women surged forward and were controlled only by the outstretched arms of Sheriff’s Officers and police’.2 Justice Clancy and his associate hurriedly left the Bench by the judge’s door, while Bradley was slowly led down the bleak, steep, stone stairs beneath the dock amid further abuse hurled at him from the back of the courtroom. Friends and relatives crowded around Bazil and Freda, and members of the public came to shake their hands. Eventually, the Sheriff’s Officers cleared the courtroom and large groups of people assembled outside in the courtyard and on Oxford Street to discuss the outcome of the trial. The Herald reported that:
The scene outside resembled a carnival with about 400 people, many of them carrying and wheeling small children and babies, had gathered. Television floodlights and photographers’ flash bulbs revealed people with sandwiches and vacuum flasks, youths with transistor radios, young couples, and a small boy who had climbed a pillar. People rushed forward as Mr Knight tried to leave. They mobbed his car amid calls of ‘good on yer, Bill’.3
As Bazil and Freda Thorne left the court, they were besieged by reporters and well-wishers in the courtyard and outside on Oxford Street, however they studiously kept silent and refused to comment on the verdict, other than to thank the police for all the work they had done. Stephen Bradley was whisked out a back entrance to a laneway behind the court where a prison van took him to the State Penitentiary at Long Bay. As the van exited to the street, crowds jeered and hurled abuse at him. Fred Vizzard felt utterly deflated and emotionally stung by the outcome of the trial, thinking that he must have done an inadequate job to warrant the result that was unexpected only to him. He knew he faced a hostile reaction from the crowd outside, so he lingered inside the court, not quite knowing what to do or where to go. Vin Wallace, junior counsel for the Crown, sympathetically offered him a lift home in his car, which was parked within the grounds of the courthouse, so that his former opponent would not have to undergo the ordeal of a media ruckus outside the gates, and Vizzard gratefully accepted. Immediately after the trial, Fred Vizzard left Sydney on a month’s leave to recover from the ordeal and refrained from leaving his contact details with anyone.
* * *
Shortly after the sentence was pronounced, journalist Tom Prior went to the apartment on the other side of Taylor Square where Magda Bradley was waiting. She took the news stoically and enquired how Stephen had accepted it. Prior informed her that Stephen seemed to take it pretty well, but that he had made a bit of a speech saying that he hadn’t been able to tell the full story. After inquiring about where her husband would be taken, Magda wanted to discuss with him how much she should charge for interviews, and which of the television stations would be likely to pay more. Prior offered to talk to his newspaper, as the proprietor, Sir Frank Packer, also owned a television station.4 Prior and Magda then
went briefly to a restaurant in Surry Hills, before Magda returned to the People’s Palace, where, in a state of unbridled agitation and confusion, she took a sleeping pill, went to bed and promptly fell asleep.
When Magda awoke from a deep, drug-induced slumber the next morning, she heard the verdict on the radio. Her immediate concern was for the children and how they would cope with the news that their father and stepfather was not coming home for a very long time – if ever. She wept for their loss, and was overcome by waves of fear at the gaping hole that appeared all around her, barring every step in any direction. It was clear that she would have to return to England, where she could at least walk the streets without having vile comments hurled at her by strangers.
By the afternoon, Magda had recovered her composure sufficiently to make the journey to Long Bay, where she had again been given special permission by the Minister to visit. As a convicted prisoner, Stephen had been moved to a different part of the gaol, where the atmosphere was more menacing. This was the first visit where a warder was not only present, but within earshot the whole time. If there had been an emotional gap between husband and wife on the previous occasion, there was a chasm now. They hardly knew what to say to each other, and there were long periods of silence. She was determined to be of as much support to him as she could, but he seemed remote and distracted. She mentioned her plan to return to London with the children, and he begged her to stay until his appeal had been heard, which Vizzard had assured him would be in a month or so. Of course, she agreed to delay her departure. Stephen said that he was confident of success on the appeal, as the evidence against him at the trial had been flimsy, and he reiterated his view that the verdict had been based on mere prejudice. At the end of the visit, he asked her to tell all three children how much he loved them.
Kidnapped Page 22
