By 9 June, Detective Sergeant Adrian Paterson, Officer-in-Charge of the Criminal Identification Squad at Victoria Police and involved in offender ID since 1985, had been given the task of comparing the 1968 identification of the man Eric Barnier saw walking with Simon Brook in Jubilee Park and the 1969 arrest photograph of Derek Percy. Paterson, who helped identify one of the Bali bombers, worked with the 'Identikit' American facial composition system, now outdated, comprising 365 individual components over twelve categories, including hair, chin and eyes. His findings were chilling. Both the 1968 identikit and the photo showed slightly receding wavy hair, brushed up and off the forehead, fuller on top and shorter on the sides. A high and wide forehead. Eyes: deep-set, medium-close, eyebrows straight. Nose: straight, medium-long, narrow bridge, fuller on top. Mouth: medium-wide. Chin: longish, slightly angular, oval. His conclusion: a high probability it was the same person.
Police were pulling together the different threads on the Wanda Beach, Redston, Brook and Tuohy cases. Now they needed a behavioural analysis expert to identify the type of person who would have committed these crimes. For that, they turn to the Officer-in-Charge of the Homicide Squad's Behavioural Analysis Unit, Debra Bennett.
In the Victorian police force for twenty-four years – seventeen as a detective – Bennett, who boasts a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology, also completed the gruelling four-and-a-half-year International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship (ICIAF) understudy program, run jointly with the FBI, qualifying as full fellow in 2001. Her training for the ICIAF included profiling homicides – serial and sexual – lust murders, sexual assaults and other interpersonal crimes in solved and unsolved cases. Bennett pores over the crime scene evidence on all the cases, before drawing a word picture for detectives.
'Most varieties of serious, interpersonal crimes for which profiling is relevant involve intense, relatively short-lived and potentially traumatic interactions that are generally characterised by the diametrically opposed interests of the offender and victim,' she wrote in her report. 'Therefore, situational factors and the role of the victim are essential influencing factors in determining an offender's motivation and in linking crimes to the same offender.' Bennett extrapolated on the art of categorising homicides. The weapon of choice used, the manner in which the victim is quietened and the crime scene all lead to interpretation of motive. And analysis of motive points to characteristic traits of the offender. 'Sexual homicide,' she wrote, 'is an act of control, dominance and brutality that is representative of an underlying fantasy embedded with violence, sexuality and death. In recognising that a homicide is sexual in nature, crime scene observations include the victim's lack of attire, exposure of the sexual parts of the victim's body, sexual positioning of the victim's body and evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest or sadistic activity.'
Strangulation, she continued, is often connected to sexual homicide, an expression of the killer's belief that he has supreme control, the power of life over death. 'Tape, gag, manual or ligature strangulation prevents the victim from screaming and further tortures the victim by depriving him or her of the natural instinct to cry for help. By doing so, the killer heightens the victim's dependency and dread by mute isolation.' Chillingly, she added, the infliction of pain is not the turn-on for sexual sadists; instead, the victim's suffering and fear is the catalyst for arousal. 'Sexual sadists are indiscriminate, capable in many instances of coupling with humans of either sex of any age, as well as animals and inanimate objects as the opportunity presents itself.'
The detectives reread the last statement. Indiscriminate, capable of coupling with humans of either sex of any age. It described Percy to a T.
The lust murderer, Bennett continued, distinguishes himself by post-mortem mutilation of his victim, typically focusing on the victim's breasts, abdomen, rectum or genitals, both female and male, in an expression of anger and frustration. 'Most of these offenders are categorised as disorganised, their crimes appearing to lack planning and organisation. They are more likely to masturbate upon their victims and engage in postmortem mutilation than engage in penis penetration. This type of offender usually lives or works in close proximity to the crime scene. He acts on the spur of the moment and is obsessed with his fantasies. In his own mind, he has planned the event; however, when the opportunity presents itself to carry out the fantasy, he is ill-prepared. This offender generally uses a knife as a personal weapon and death is usually caused by strangulation, blunt force, or a pointed, sharp instrument.'
Bennett broke down the murders of Sharrock and Schmidt at Wanda Beach. Both girls, she opined, were killed by the same offender and both were sexually sadistic homicides. Though Sharrock's cause of death was haemorrhage from wounds to her chest associated with a fracture of the skull, other injuries and the tearing of the sanitary pad from its belt were indicative of torture. While her killer did not sexually penetrate the girl, sperm was present on her body. Schmidt's bathing suit, too, was either cut or torn at the crotch and a wound outside her genitals suggested sexual penetration. It appears that her neck was severed after death and a wound to her right loin was also inflicted after death. There was not enough evidence, Bennett continued, to suggest how either of the two girls would have reacted to a threat of serious assault and limited information to determine whether the injuries that were inflicted were done so as to ensure their compliance. The torture wounds may have been inflicted to control the girls or, alternatively, as sadistic sexual gratification. 'It is my opinion that the abduction of two victims by one offender, on this occasion, denotes high frustration and desperation on the part of the offender . . . [who] has most likely carried a knife with him as his 'kit' for murder . . . these murders were not well planned but had been well fantasised . . .'
The detectives recalled the statement made by Kim White and Bill Hutton about the teenage Percy's behaviour at the Gorge. The knife and slashing of the underwear. Was that the lead-up to Percy acting out his fantasies on human beings? The Wanda Beach killer clearly found the homicides sexually stimulating; Percy had dressed in a woman's negligee to heighten his arousal and finally defecated in the river after performing the ritual slashing of the underwear. And his writings proved that his interest was in multiple children aged from three to fourteen. These victims were just fifteen years old.
Bennett turned to Simon Brook's lust murder. This time, she wrote, the killer's kit was his razor blades. She analysed the brutality of the mutilation, her opinions making me shudder. 'While it appears most likely that the deceased's penis was cut off post-mortem, it is just as probable that he was alive for at least some of the offence time. The offender could have killed the victim instantly on reaching the site and then performed his fantasies. However, the wads of paper in the deceased's mouth and throat indicate that the offender wanted his victim alive but unable to call for help. He has wanted his victim to feel dependency and dread.'
Not for the first time, I wonder at the savagery in what was done to this poor little soul who, playing in his front yard on a Saturday morning just metres from his parents, was in the wrong place at the wrong time. How monstrous, how cowardly to choose a victim of such tender age, someone whose vulnerability is a clear pointer to the killer's own social inadequacy, someone lacking the maturity to recognise the inherent dangers in going with this stranger. There was no thought for the grief that would shadow his parents, that shadowed all these parents in the dark days, weeks, months and years that follow. No thought for anyone, just a grim determination to act out the fantasy playing over and over in his head.
Bennett then examined the lust murder of Yvonne Tuohy, the one murder for which Percy was known to be responsible. This time, the murder kit was a rope, a cord and a knife. Degradation of the victim, fantasies over which he had salivated in private and written in his diaries, were acted out here with calm precision. Insistence that she defecate and urinate, then smearing her own faeces on her body; the cut from the sternoclavicular joint to her vag
ina and the neck injury, both inflicted post-mortem. 'In my opinion,' Bennett continued, 'this crime is classified as a lust murder and as such, the offender for this crime is acting from the same motivation as the offender for Simon Brook's murder. Behaviour reflects personality and, given the rarity of lust murders, similarities in victimology and other police evidence, it is my opinion there is all likelihood that the offender for Simon Brook's murder and the offender for Yvonne Tuohy are one and the same.'
One and the same. Derek Percy, the strange loner, the snow-dropper, the peeping tom who hid in the shadows of Mount Beauty, the young man with filthy fantasies, who acted them out after hunting his prey, waiting for his opportunity. One and the same.
Bennett returned to the Wanda Beach victims. 'The most striking similarity between [the Tuohy] offence and the murders of Sharrock and Schmidt is that on both of these occasions there is one offender attempting to abduct two victims. Certainly in the case of Yvonne Tuohy the offender's behaviour denotes high frustration and desperation and it is possible that he engaged in such high risk behaviour because he had successfully abducted two people prior to that offence.' Sharrock and Schmidt's killer, she noted, shared the same stressors: frustration and desperation.
There was insufficient evidence, Bennett wrote, to categorise the murder of six-year-old Allen Redston, who died as a result of ligature strangulation. The elaborate tying up of his body – a method disproportionate to his age and need to control him – was done, she says, in order to satisfy the killer's fantasies. 'There is no evidence of sexual activity by the offender, no penetrating stab wounds and relatively minor injuries. The offender may well have been disturbed before any other acts were performed. The bondage and death by asphyxiation are indicators of a sexual homicide; nevertheless . . . I am unable to comment on the offender's likely motivation.'
Bennett summed up her opinions. 'All of these homicides were sadistic. It is possible that the sexual homicides of Sharrock and Schmidt are linked to the lust murders of Brook and Tuohy. It is also possible that due to inexperience and/or immaturity in the Sharrock and Schmidt murders, or because of interruption or some other unknown variable that these murders were in fact lust murders. However, there is insufficient behavioural evidence to link the Sharrock and Schmidt murders to any of the other offences. For reasons already detailed, neither am I able to link the murder of Redston to any of the other homicides.'
In July 2005 Adam Barwick was finally advised that his application for a fresh inquest into the Brook matter fulfilled the requirements of fresh evidence or discovered facts desirable in the interests of justice. The inquest, set down for December, would be heard before Coroner John Abernethy. In November, police announced that Percy would be subpoenaed to give evidence at the inquest, based on the view that the state coroner believed the prisoner had sufficient interest in the subject matter to appear. Barwick nominated Donald Brook as a most crucial witness and he agreed to testify at the inquest.
In the first week of December, Percy was flown to Sydney under tight security and a false name. As the case was being heard in New South Wales, he was not entitled to representation by Legal Aid, Victoria, and instead New South Wales barrister Nathan Steel was appointed to act on his behalf. The inquest opened and Steel immediately applied for an adjournment, based on the fact that Percy had not been given enough time to engage with his legal team. They talked to him in the cells, finding him diffident, quiet, a man whose mannerisms reflect decades spent in gaol and whose self-portrait, if he drew it, would look a little like Leonardo da Vinci. The evidence, they told him, relying as it did on similar-facts, was a bit of a stretch. He nodded.
Percy exercised his right to remain silent, a tactic that one of his lawyers later told me is preferable to some big-mouths who won't shut up. 'I had a bloke not so long ago who was being interviewed by police about forcing fellatio on a nine-year-old boy. Instead of keeping quiet, he boasted, "I ain't gonna say I did, and I ain't gonna say I didn't." All you can do is groan.'
On 13 December, gruelling accounts of the horrific murders of both Yvonne Tuohy and Simon Brook were handed to the coroner. Counsel assisting the coroner, the esteemed Peter Zahra SC, said that the cases had 'striking similarities'. Both children were young. Both were abducted away from their homes. Their bodies were found near or in parkland close to water. They were asphyxiated with wads of newspaper or cloth and a ligature and sharp instruments were used. Wounds to their necks were similar and bloodless, indicating they were inflicted after death. Both had genital mutilation. Both were abducted close to where Percy lived and worked. His compulsions were set down in writing and admissions were made to Ron Anderson.
Abernethy agreed there were 'striking similarities'. The murders, he said, were 'substantially and relevantly similar' and 'the circumstances in which they occurred are, again, substantially similar.' The full case in relation to Simon's death had been aired at the inquest, and the Brooks were grateful there were no ugly surprises. Barwick assured them that although it would be unpleasant, there was nothing coming up that would be a surprise, unless it came from Percy himself. Donald was shown all of the available forensic photographic material. Phyllis also attended; well prepared to protect herself from the hideous details of her son's murder. When the evidence was about to get too rough, Barwick would signal for her to put on her Walkman headphones, so she could block it all out.
Barwick knew only too well what was at stake. Court resources are precious; he needed to present his evidence to implicate Percy as succinctly as possible and to ensure that only the Brook matter was put before the coroner. Any other cases – Wanda Beach, the Beaumonts, Redston or Stillwell – could easily wreck this matter. Abernethy, too, labelled as 'ridiculous' the speculation in the press about other murders. 'We're looking at one particular homicide, no more and no less,' he said, staring gravely at the journalists sitting in the press gallery.
Barwick told the court that while 300 suspects were eliminated from the original inquiry – including a man who falsely confessed because he thought he would get a higher pension if he was deemed insane – he could not find anything in the case file to indicate that Percy had been ruled out as a suspect. Living and working in Sydney at the time of the murder, he had means, opportunity and motive. Barwick expressed his doubts about Percy's willingness to cooperate with inquiries. 'Percy stated that he one day hoped to be released from gaol and I believe that he will never make admissions to any offence while he still holds out hope of being released.' In his opinion, he concluded, Derek Ernest Percy was responsible for the murder of Simon Brook.
But other links could not be made. There had been speculation before the inquest began that forensic evidence might provide a lead. In particular, there were rumours that DNA tests might have been applied to objects found with the body. Police refused to confirm or deny that they had DNA evidence and Barwick told the coroner's court that all of the clothing had been incinerated in 1988. There was also no fingerprint evidence available. No prints had been taken.
Ron Anderson's statement was aired, the former policeman writing that Percy had admitted to driving past the site where Simon Brook's body had been found on the day the little boy was murdered. The body had not been discovered until the next day.
Nathan Steel professed himself underwhelmed with the evidence against his client. There was, he said, no more evidence against Percy now than there had been in 1969. What evidence the court had, he continued, was circumstantial: there was no physical evidence to link Percy to the crime. Abernethy did not agree. Having taken all arguments into consideration, he said, he believed there was a 'reasonable prospect that a jury would convict a known person in relation to the offence'. Terminating the inquest after just one day, he referred the case to the Department of Public Prosecutions.
There was nothing more to add. The sad facts aired, the Brook family could do nothing but wait for the decision of the DPP. Abernethy signalled it was all over. 'Take the prisoner back into custody, th
anks, officers,' he said. Percy shuffled out of the dock, bland as the neutral colours on the courtroom walls.
Outside the court, Professor Brook bravely fronted the press after Abernethy's finding. No longer the robust intellectual whose ideas had challenged the status quo during the 1960s, he was still, at seventy-nine, handsome and dignified, with the eloquent, rich tones of a well-educated English gentleman. 'It is in the public interest that the facts should be established,' he said. 'This is partly because it encourages trust in the police and in the judicial process. It is also partly because, assuming that the facts can be reliably established, it may become possible to make sure that no other child will ever suffer the same fate, at the same hands . . . We heard and saw the evidence and accept the findings of the New South Wales Coroner, and we are fully persuaded that a "known person" [namely Percy] was responsible for Simon's death.'
33
Now eighty-two years old, Donald Brook graciously agrees to talk to me on the proviso that he deals in facts, not emotions. He will not, he politely warns, indulge in unnecessary detail and he asks me to email him my questions. In return, he promises to email me the answers, a promise he reliably keeps. 'That day, Simon was about and about, playing as usual,' he writes. 'At that time people did not have the apprehensions they have today. It would have been unusual to make "Don't talk to strangers" a regular admonishment.' Although he was in shock, Donald remembers the small incidentals over the first twenty-four hours, including the Commissioner of Police paying him and Phyllis a courtesy visit the day after Simon's body is found.
Lambs to the Slaughter Page 22