Young Blood

by Bob O'Brien

  Things changed when Detective Kent McFarlane went to Sydney on 5 September 1989 to speak to B again. He gave another statement, which convinced Prosecutor Brian Martin to offer him immunity against prosecution if he gave evidence against von Einem. The immunity related to offences that he committed in relation to abusing boys but did not apply if he was involved in the actual murders. This was arranged and again it was time for Trevor to act.

  On Friday, 15 September 1989, Trevor went to Yatala Prison and spoke with von Einem for a short time. This time Trevor taped the conversation, which was only three pages long when it was transcribed.

  ‘Bevan, how are you?’

  He did not reply so Trevor introduced Malcolm Howells and Lyn Dunstan, the two detectives who were with him.

  ‘What has happened is that we have got direct evidence now that implicates you in the murder of Alan Barnes.’

  ‘That is impossible.’

  ‘OK. The situation is you don’t have to answer any further questions at this time, do you understand that?’

  ‘Yes, I understand that.’

  A short time later, Trevor said: ‘. . . so the situation is you are being arrested for the murder of Alan Barnes and shortly you will be conveyed to the Adelaide Watch House where you will be formally charged, do you understand that?’

  ‘I understand that.’

  ‘Is there anything you want to tell me about it?’

  ‘I have nothing to tell you.’

  Trevor Kipling again returned to the jail on 10 November 1989 in the presence of Mark Griffin, von Einem’s new solicitor. This time, Trevor told the prisoner that he was going to be charged with another murder. He was going to be charged with the murder of Mark Langley when he next appeared in court for that of Alan Barnes.

  The committal hearing to determine whether or not there was enough evidence to send von Einem to trial for the two new counts of murder started on 5 March 1990 before David Gurry, an experienced magistrate whose grey hair and black-rimmed glasses suited his profession. The committal started nearly eleven years after the murder of Alan Barnes and eight years after the murder of Mark Langley. Trevor Kipling certainly had been persistent with his investigation. Other detectives would have given it away a long time ago.

  Von Einem was asked to stand in the dock and the charges against him were read out.

  ‘Bevan Spencer von Einem, you are charged that between the 16th June 1979 and the 25th June 1979 at Adelaide or another place you murdered Alan Barnes. How do you plead?’

  ‘Not guilty.’

  ‘Bevan Spencer von Einem, you are also charged that between the 26th February 1982 and 9th March 1982 at Adelaide or another place you murdered Mark Andrew Langley. How do you plead?’

  ‘Not guilty.’

  The wording of the charges indicated a weakness in the case. After all these years, we still could not show where the boys were actually killed. We knew that Richard Kelvin was at von Einem’s Paradise home at about the time he was killed but he could have been taken there just before or just after he was killed. From the scientific evidence, I certainly believed that Richard was killed there.

  Many places were checked over the years as being possible locations where the boys had been killed, but too much time had passed before the houses were checked for blood, fingerprints and cutting instruments, such as a saw and a knife. We had located the homes of most of the women where von Einem took boys who he had picked up. We also located the homes of most of the women where von Einem had taken boys he had picked up. However, four years had passed between the times Alan Barnes and Richard Kelvin went missing and another six years passed before these new charges were laid and members of von Einem’s clan, had moved homes at least once.

  From the beginning of the committal, Mark Griffin and Marie Shaw, von Einem’s new defence counsel, argued that there would be an abuse of justice if von Einem was committed to stand trial. There had been too much publicity about the murders and the possibility of von Einem’s involvement for him to receive a fair trial.

  This time Brian Martin was assisted by Tom Birchell, and Brian argued that the case against von Einem with respect to Alan Barnes revolved around von Einem picking up hitchhikers. There were von Einem’s denials about knowing the boys, but B said von Einem was with Alan Barnes immediately before he was killed. The Mark Langley case relied on evidence that von Einem also denied knowing Mark Langley on 25 March 1982, when he was interviewed at the Adelaide Jail. He admitted driving around on that night, including being near the River Torrens during the early hours when Mark went missing. Circumstantial evidence showed also that his death was similar to Richard Kelvin’s.

  When Detective John Anderson spoke to von Einem about the murder of Mark Langley, von Einem said that he was out and about that night. He said that he was drinking at home and left for a drive at about 11 p.m. He took the back streets to miss random breath stations. He drove through back streets to the Hackney Hotel, which is next to the Hackney Bridge, which crosses the River Torrens. He drove to North Adelaide and drove down Melbourne Street and up the hill to O’Connell Street, North Adelaide and bought some fish and chips — just as he said he intended to do when he grabbed Richard Kelvin. This man was a creature of compulsion and habit. He said he drove to Pipeline Supplies of Australia and checked the security lights before travelling along Port Road and Hindley Street. He went to the Mars Bar at 1.30 a.m. before leaving at 3.00 a.m. to travel home by the back streets of Stepney — exactly the way Mark Langley would have been trying to go home.

  As I read this statement and the statements of the females who picked up boys for von Einem, all the theories and practices recorded about the stalking phase of serial killers rang true. These actions reminded me of someone moving out at night going for a hunt — looking for prey.

  Different women gave evidence about von Einem picking up boys. One of the ‘females’ who von Einem used as bait gave evidence. She met von Einem at Number One beat in 1972, when she was a man. She changed her sex ten years later, in 1982. She was also a druggie who had a problem with Mandrax when it was commonly available. After Mandrax, she was addicted to heroin. She told the court about Mandrax and the picking up of boys, which she did about ten times with von Einem.

  ‘They were called “randy mandies” and they would often go around a pub — [the] best way to start an orgy was for that sort of thing to happen.

  ‘. . . it was never a planning thing. It would just happen. Like, I could be getting a lift — and it would usually be weekends. Weekends were mainly the times he went out. And, I mean, it wasn’t like he’d ring me up or I’d ring him up and we’d say “Let’s go out and pick up hitchhikers” or anything like that. It would be if I was getting a lift with him, he might just divert and start doing that.’

  Yes, I thought. Just like Miller with Christopher Worrell picking up girls who later ended up the Truro victims. Miller said that the picking up wasn’t planned. They didn’t have to plan it because it was a natural thing both of them did. This was no different.

  ‘What time of the night did that occur, if there was a particular time?’ Brian Martin asked.

  ‘Usually late at night and sometimes it could have been from . . .’ she paused ‘. . . I could have been over at a friend’s place and wanting a lift home if I wasn’t going to sleep there.’

  ‘Did the defendant ever say anything to you about the type of hitchhikers that he liked?’

  ‘He didn’t say the type that he liked; he just . . . the type that he liked were young, sort of rough-looking people.’

  ‘Was there any word in the gay scene for that type of person or any expression that covered them?’

  ‘Probably “rough trade”.’

  ‘Is that just based on their appearance, that expression rough trade?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Are you talking about persons who gave the appearance of being homosexuals or persons whose appearance was heterosexual or either?’

  ‘Persons who
gave the appearance of being heterosexual.’

  ‘What age group were the hitchhikers that you either attempted to pick up or on the couple of occasions you’ve told us you were successful?’

  ‘From any age up until about twenty-five, I suppose.’

  The oldest of the murdered boys was twenty-five, I thought back to myself. Neil Muir was that age. The picking up of heterosexual hitchhikers provided a form of conquest.

  ‘What sort of age at the bottom end?’

  ‘At the bottom end, the only person that — as I said yesterday, one time when we stopped and spoke, and they obviously knew each other — he looked about fifteen, but I don’t know what age he was. He looked very young. I don’t know if that was because he was very small or what. He just seemed to look very young.’

  I recalled the deviate, B, in his statement to me about von Einem saying that one of the boys did not even have pubic hair. Von Einem is quite a man.

  Other witnesses gave evidence about von Einem picking up hitchhikers and drugging them but B was the main witness for the prosecution. He also spoke about von Einem picking up hitchhikers, but he also gave more damning evidence. B said that he met von Einem at Number One beat and von Einem had Alan Barnes with him. He was present when von Einem rang the businessman.

  ‘Do you want to come and do some surgery on this guy?’ von Einem said on the phone.

  ‘They were going to make a video out of what happened and they were going to kill Barnes,’ B said to the court.

  Also, a witness had come forward after all of these years — one that we didn’t even know about, and he said that he was with Alan Barnes during the last week of his life. He was with Alan twice when he met von Einem in the Gateway Hotel on North Terrace, Adelaide. Von Einem was talking about the boys going to a party where there would be girls and drugs — it was all so familiar. Now, we had evidence of von Einem actually being with Alan Barnes.

  Later, he gave more evidence, which was even more sensational. B was responding to the questions of Brian Martin.

  ‘Had he ever said anything to you about being involved in the deaths of other persons, be they adults or children?’ Martin asked.

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘When had he said something to you about that?’

  ‘A few weeks before the Barnes incident. He told me that he’d picked up three children and that he connected them all together and that one of them died. And he told me that he dumped the bodies at Moana or Myponga. I can’t remember which he said. It was either Moana or Myponga. He also told me that he’d picked up two children at the football and killed them.’

  ‘Two children at the football and killed them?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘Did he mention names?’

  ‘No. He did mention the Beaumont children regarding the first incident, but he didn’t mention anything of the second incident.’

  This was sensational! Now we had B saying that von Einem admitted killing the Beaumont children, and the Ratcliffe and Gordon girls. The trouble was that B was a self-confessed druggie and liar. He had previous convictions for possessing marijuana, theft and loitering. He had by now been spoken to or interviewed by the police five times and each time his story changed. He added extra detail each time.

  His sister gave evidence at the committal and she told the sensational tale that her brother had seen her at her home at Gawler one weekend and he was hyped up and said that he had just seen a murder. He said that he had seen someone murdered and thrown over a bridge. He would have been talking about the murder of Alan Barnes. Did that mean he was involved with that murder? If he was there, he had to be, but he always denied being involved. He always said that he bowed out when the really nasty things were about to happen. B’s sister said that she didn’t believe him when he told this story. She said that he was always telling lies. When I spoke to him in 1983 for six hours, he said that he didn’t know anything about the Barnes matter except for what he had already told police, and that he wasn’t involved in the murder of Alan Barnes.

  Von Einem was committed to stand trial in June 1990 but the defence team weren’t happy about the evidence that had been admitted by Magistrate David Gurry at the committal. They were arguing that B’s evidence about the Beaumonts, and the Ratcliffe and Gordon children was an abuse of process and the publicity it received prevented von Einem from receiving a fair trial. They filed a notice of motion and a supporting affidavit for the trial not to proceed. They argued that there would be a miscarriage of justice.

  Justice Kevin Duggan was appointed to review their application. He commenced on 19 June and gave his findings on Monday, 17 December 1990, deciding that the matter should proceed to trial. However, he had a list of concerns about the evidence, which included: the alleged confession of von Einem about the murder of the Beaumont children, and the Ratcliffe and Gordon girls; the pencil incident; the evidence of the hitchhikers and associated evidence; the chain of evidence of the drugs in relation to the Barnes’ case; the similar fact evidence involving Richard Kelvin’s murder; the similar fact evidence involving the Mark Langley murder; and the evidence of B.

  Justice Duggan was signalling problems with the prosecution case and Brian Martin was worried. He was relying on the hitchhikers and the story of Richard Kelvin’s death to show that von Einem picked up and killed Alan Barnes. If the jury accepted that von Einem killed Alan, then Brian would argue that the jury could then conclude he also killed Mark Langley.

  Coincidentally, Kevin Duggan was appointed the trial judge. This was appropriate because he now intimately knew the case and the evidence which would be presented. When the trial started on Wednesday, 19 December 1990, the judge intimated at the very beginning he would let B give evidence but would hear defence objections to his story as he went along. However, he excluded the evidence of the murder of Richard Kelvin and the evidence of the hitchhikers and von Einem’s associates. The similar fact evidence of the associates and the hitchhikers showed that von Einem picked up and drugged boys but it didn’t prove he killed them — the evidence was just not similar enough for the law. Brian Martin’s prosecution case just fell apart.

  On Friday, 21 December 1990, Brian Martin received instructions from the Attorney-General not to proceed with the Mark Langley murder charge against von Einem. Brian was going to try to fight on with the remaining murder charge. He still had von Einem lying about knowing Alan Barnes and witnesses would say Alan was with von Einem the day before he was murdered but, without the evidence of the hitchhikers, he knew he was still in trouble with his case. And on 1 February 1991, over eleven years after the murder of Alan Barnes — the first of the murders, the final murder charge against von Einem was pulled. The Attorney-General advised prosecutor Brian Martin to enter a nolle prosequi — the charge was not to proceed, although this does not mean he can’t be charged again if more evidence is found.

  Unfortunately, the drama didn’t stop there. Von Einem and his defence team have used legal ploys without success to have his case reopened. In September 1996, about fifty boxes of police files were seized after an application by defence solicitor, Mark Griffin, for the investigation to be reviewed. They were alleging that von Einem was under police surveillance at the time Richard Kelvin was being held captive and therefore he couldn’t have been involved. This was soon discounted because surveillance didn’t start until after we first interviewed von Einem on 28 July 1983, after Richard’s body was found. This aspect was reviewed by an independent legal expert from Victoria and he found no basis for the claim. The Liberal Attorney-General Trevor Griffin (no relation to the defence solicitor of the same name) accepted the review’s findings and the application to reopen the case failed.

  By 22 December 1997, a new defence solicitor was in on the case. Michael Abbott, Queen’s Counsel, the high-profile defence lawyer, petitioned the Governor, Sir Eric Neale, for mercy for von Einem. He argued that there was new evidence to support von Einem’s alibi. A witness said that he saw Richard Kelvin in R
undle Mall after Sunday, 5 June 1983 when Richard was abducted. His statement, if true, meant that von Einem’s alibi was right after all and the Governor should accept a plea for mercy. The difficulty was that the man was an admitted bisexual and he knew von Einem. Also, his description of Richard was inaccurate when he said that he was wearing earrings in both ears and one in his nose. Richard didn’t wear earrings in his nose and the post-mortem showed no holes to indicate that he ever had worn them there. The Governor refused the petition on advice from the then Attorney-General Griffin.

  Through all these legal machinations, von Einem continued to protest his innocence, repeating his alibi about taking Richard Kelvin home to show him his harp, and denying that he killed the boy.

  His claims of innocence were ironic in a way. Everything he said simply knocked over any remaining doubts of his guilt the people of the city of Adelaide may still have had.

  Even though the world had been involved in a revolution of social customs, religious beliefs, and sexual politics — and Adelaide was not immune to any of it — there was still a sense in the minds of much of the community that this was ‘little old Adelaide’. Life was safe here, not like in the bigger cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Adelaide was not the kind of place where this sort of thing went on.

  Von Einem put paid to that very smartly. He was the latest in a long line of killers who had stalked the city’s streets and public places and snatched away its youngsters. He was obviously not responsible for all of the serial killings that had occurred over the decades — but he certainly was one of our weirdest murderers.

  Chapter 14

  The Rumours

  Tolerance and freedom were the buzzwords of the 1960s and 1970s as established cultural and social patterns were changing everywhere. People were experimenting with drugs and sex; normal conservative couples were wife swapping and homosexuals were coming out, seeking to be considered as normal members of the community. Sexual preferences were a private matter, just like politics or social attitudes.