Ivan had a criminal record dating back to 1964, when he was convicted of break, enter and steal. The following year he was convicted of stealing a car, and two years later of being an accessory to the theft of a car. In 1971 he had been arrested with others and charged with armed robbery, and later the same year with rape. Bailed, Ivan did not hang around. He fled to New Zealand, where he lived for about two years before returning to New South Wales following trouble with the New Zealand Police (we could never identify what the ‘trouble’ was). Sometime after his return to New South Wales, Ivan was arrested over the outstanding charges. In 1974 he beat the robbery charge, but his brother Michael and others were convicted and gaoled. The same year he beat the rape charge at trial, but the detail in the court file convinced Gordon that Ivan was our man.
The court file revealed that on 10 April 1971 Ivan had picked up two eighteen-year-old female hitchhikers, Margaret and Greta, at Liverpool and offered to drive them to Canberra. Near Goulburn he took them to a secluded spot. At first, Ivan said that he wanted to ‘make love’ to both women, but when they rejected him, he threatened them with two knives, saying, ‘You know what I’m going to do, I’m going to kill the both of you. You won’t scream when I cut your throats will you? Either one of you has sex with me or I will kill you both.’ Greta pleaded with Ivan to drive away and leave them alone. Margaret then agreed to have sex with him if he didn’t carry out his threat to kill them. Ivan untied Margaret’s feet and raped her, telling Greta, ‘Don’t watch us, look out for any cars coming.’ Afterwards, Ivan drove to a service station. When he stopped, the women escaped and reported the rape to police. Not long after, Ivan was arrested after a high-speed chase and charged with rape. According to Ivan the sex had been consensual and he had dropped them off at the service station.
Our inquiries revealed it had been an ugly trial. Ivan claimed that Margaret had agreed to have sex with him. Ivan’s lawyer, John Marsden, accused both women of being lesbians who were receiving psychiatric treatment and taking prescription drugs. Margaret was very confused about her sexual orientation and admitted that she was involved in the ‘camp scene’, that she and Greta used to go to gay bars together, and that she had lesbian friends and homosexual male friends. Asked about having sex with Ivan, Margaret blamed herself for the incident. She said that Ivan had raised the subject and that she had agreed to have sex with him. She said, ‘I don’t really enjoy being camp; I can’t seem to make a decision about sexual identity . . . He made the decision [to have sex], I didn’t have to make it.’
Greta, on the other hand, was in no doubt about what had occurred and who was responsible. Ivan had brandished a knife and threatened to cut their throats if they resisted and then he had raped Margaret.
Marsden’s tactics would probably not be allowed in a court today. In his 2004 book, John Marsden: I am what I am, he wrote:
Juries in those days were extremely prejudiced against gays and lesbians, and on top of that, we had put into their minds the possibility that the sex may have indeed been consensual.
I am not proud of my conduct that day, but as a solicitor operating in a court-room environment at that time, I had no choice but to go down that path. I had to act according to the ethics of the profession. That said, I don’t believe I should receive any praise for the win. I had a job to do and I did it.
Greta’s allegations against Ivan went further, although some were not admitted into the court proceedings. Greta recalled that after Ivan had raped Margaret, Margaret asked him whether he had done this before, to which Ivan replied yes. He said that he often picked up hitchhikers and always carried knives and ropes in case an opportunity arose.
The details of the 1971 rape charge and Greta’s further allegations looked bad for Ivan, but did not represent evidence against him for the backpacker murders. By paying too much attention to them we risked closing our minds to the possibility that Ivan had not committed the murders, and that somebody else had. Our suspicions were focused firmly on Ivan but we had to keep looking for evidence that either proved or disproved his guilt. For example, had any of the attacks taken place on a day when Ivan was outside the state and could not have committed them? Had he used a credit card that showed he could not have been the killer or one of the killers? Alternatively, could we find evidence to prove that Ivan was in the vicinity of Belanglo when the victims were murdered? Had he been caught on a speed camera?
It seemed to me that Gordon had already made up his mind that Ivan was the killer, forgetting that there are two sides to every investigation—the inculpatory and the exculpatory—and that both sides must be thoroughly explored. I said to Gordon, ‘Tell me if there is any reason why Ivan could not be our killer.’
Gordon seemed to interpret my comments to mean that I thought Ivan was innocent; I didn’t, but nor did I think we had sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt that Ivan was guilty. To me, it seemed that Gordon was getting into the mindset of the Blackburn investigators, in which everything that looks bad is proof of guilt, while everything inconsistent with guilt is ignored. We couldn’t afford to make the same mistake with Ivan.
A few days later, on 26 February 1994, Ivan was placed under surveillance. There were insufficient grounds to justify an application for a phone intercept or listening device in his home.
Meanwhile, a search of traffic records revealed that on 16 January 1991 a red-light camera had caught Ivan driving a silver–white Nissan 4WD, and that he owned that vehicle until September 1992. It matched the vehicle described by both Berry and Onions.
Gordon continued to make inquiries about several of the Milat brothers, but especially Richard and Ivan. Richard no longer worked at Boral, but employee records showed that he had a watertight alibi for the day Gibson and Everist were last seen: he was at work. Ivan had worked at the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) since 1977. (In January 1989 the Department of Main Roads, Department of Motor Transport, and the Traffic Authority were amalgamated into the RTA.) Gordon was told to be discreet and to speak only with senior management about Ivan and his work record, but after convincing himself that Ivan was the murderer, Gordon became indiscreet and spoke with a broader group of people at the RTA, including a number of Ivan’s workmates. It became known that Gordon was investigating the backpacker murders and that Ivan was a suspect. Word spread and soon Ivan was aware of Gordon’s—and, therefore, the task force’s—inquiries.
Yet Ivan appeared unconcerned. From what we knew already this did not surprise us. Ivan always believed that he was in absolute control. He was the sort of criminal who believes he cannot be caught and that, if he is caught, he will not be convicted. Dr Rod Milton was convinced that the backpacker killer or killers would keep mementos of the killings—items belonging to the victims such as clothing, jewellery and hiking equipment—through which he or they could relive the sex attacks and killings, enjoying the moment again and again. But this was supposition at best and we were worried that leaks of information might prompt Ivan—if he was guilty—to get rid of any mementos or other items that connected him to the murders.
The leaks, as a result of Gordon’s indiscreet questions at the RTA, were becoming such a concern that we had to back off our inquiries, as we were nowhere near ready to interview, let alone arrest, any member of the Milat family, nor did we have enough evidence to obtain search warrants for their homes. As a precaution, our surveillance of Ivan was called off, at least for the time being. On 22 April, eighteen days after suspending our surveillance of Ivan, we reassessed the risk and made the decision to resume it.
Meanwhile, arrangements were being made for Paul Onions to travel from London to Sydney. We hoped he would be the ‘smoking gun’ we were looking for.
In late 1993, during discussions with members of the State Intelligence Group, I raised the issue of setting up an informal group of academics whose expertise could be useful to the investigation. I wanted to include Dr Rod Milton, who had been brought into the investigations shortly after the discove
ry of the bodies of Caroline Clarke and Joanne Walters, and whom we had approached again after more bodies were found in late 1993. Milton knew that the profiling of suspects was a ‘best guess’, but he was right more often than he was wrong and had been of value to police in a number of major investigations. Three others were invited to join the group: Dr Robert Young, Dr Michael Bailey and Dr Richard Basham, all of Sydney University. We met on a number of occasions between January and April 1994. (Dr Young subsequently produced a paper, ‘Some thoughts on investigative data management and analysis’ which, three years later, was crucial to the development of a new computerised information management system for major criminal investigations known as [email protected] —see Chapter 15.)
By this time we believed that the killer (or killers) had good local knowledge, was comfortable in the forest and had probably been raised in the area. At school he was likely to have stood out as ‘different’, a ‘loner’ with a propensity for violence, a ‘future worry’, or to have come from a family that stood out. We decided to visit all government and non-government schools in the Southern Highlands and interview teachers and former teachers with a view to identifying pupils of interest who had attended school between the mid-1950s and 1985. While this strategy would not provide us with evidence against the killer (or killers), we hoped it would point us in the right direction and lead to other inquiries that would provide evidence. Another benefit of such a strategy was that it would quickly come to the notice of the media and would reinforce the message that the task force was leaving ‘no stone unturned’ in its hunt for the murderer.
Paul Onions arrived in Sydney on 2 May 1994. Two days later he accompanied Detectives Stuart Wilkins and Graeme Pickering to Liverpool where, in January 1990, he had got off the train and walked along the Hume Highway as far as Casula, trying unsuccessfully to hitch a ride. At Casula, Onions had gone into the newsagency to buy a drink before accepting a lift from a man with a Merv Hughes moustache. Onions pointed out the spot where the man’s vehicle had been parked, then took Wilkins and Pickering to a place about 900 metres north of the turn-off to Belanglo State Forest, where the attempted abduction had occurred.
In his statement to police, Onions said that he had left England in early December 1989, gone to India and stayed in New Delhi for about a week before flying to Singapore. After staying in Singapore for a few days, he flew to Australia for a six-month holiday, arriving in Sydney a couple of days before Christmas. On the morning of Thursday, 25 January 1990, he caught a train from Central Station to Liverpool, intending to hitchhike down the Hume Highway. After buying a drink at the Casula newsagency, Onions was approached by a man he described ‘as five foot ten to six foot tall, about 40 years old, fit-looking in appearance, dark short-to-medium length hair, a black moustache similar to the one worn by Merv Hughes but not as thick, wearing black sunglasses, possibly a green T-shirt and dark coloured shorts’. Asked if he needed a lift, Onions said yes.
He said, ‘Where are you headed?’
I said, ‘To Melbourne.’
He said, ‘Will Canberra do you?’
I said, ‘Yeah, great.’
He said, ‘That’s my vehicle over there. I’m going to get a drink’, indicating a silver-coloured 4WD which was in the car park for the shops.
Onions said he waited near the vehicle, which he identified as a Nissan or Toyota 4WD with chrome-plated side steps, large tyres with a spare tyre on the back, and a bull bar on the front. It had bucket front seats with lamb’s-wool seat covers, and he thought it had two doors. When the man returned, they both got into the vehicle and Onions threw his backpack onto the back seat. As they drove south, the driver introduced himself as ‘Bill’. During their conversation, Onions said that he came from Birmingham.
Bill asked, ‘How long are you here for?’
I said, ‘I’m just on a working holiday.’
Bill asked, ‘What do you do for a job?’
I said, ‘I’m an air-conditioning engineer and have just finished service in the navy.’
Bill asked, ‘Did you ever serve in the Special Forces or Northern Ireland?’
I said, ‘No.’
Bill asked, ‘Do you have any family in Australia?’
I said, ‘No.’
After some general conversation, Onions asked Bill where he worked and Bill replied, ‘I work for the Roads [sic] at Liverpool but I travel around a bit.’
After about 45 minutes Onions said, ‘I’m surprised at how many Japanese there are in Sydney.’ He was caught off guard by Bill’s response: ‘We shouldn’t have all them in the country . . . It’s the same with you Brits, you shouldn’t be in Northern Ireland either.’ They had a brief conversation about immigration, during which Bill became increasingly aggressive. After Bill fell silent. Onions said that about fifteen minutes later, ‘I started to see him continually look in his rear vision mirrors and he started to slow down.’
Onions became suspicious of Bill, who explained that the radio faded at this distance from Sydney and that he wanted to pull over and get some tapes from under the seat. This made Onions more apprehensive, as he could see several tapes lying between the front seats. Bill pulled over and got out, then started ‘messing about’ under the driver’s seat. Onions decided to get out of the vehicle. Bill suddenly got agitated and shouted, ‘Why are you getting out of the vehicle?’ Onions replied that he was just stretching his legs and returned to the vehicle in an attempt to placate Bill, who then got back in the driver’s seat and said, ‘I’ll just have a look under the driver’s seat one more time.’ After getting out of the car, Bill reached under the driver’s seat and pulled out a black revolver, which he pointed straight at Onions.
I asked, ‘What are you doing, Bill?’
Bill said, ‘This is a robbery.’
I said, ‘Calm down, calm down.’
Bill said, ‘Do you know what this is?’
I started taking off my seatbelt and Bill said, ‘Put that fucking seatbelt back on.’
At this point, Onions said, Bill appeared to panic and pulled a length of rope from under the seat, so ‘I bolted out of the car’. Bill shouted, ‘Stop or I’ll shoot, stop or I’ll shoot!’ and Onions heard a single gunshot.
I never looked back. I just legged it north up the highway running in a zig zag motion. I started running across the roadway and three and four cars swerved to miss me but nobody would stop. I looked up and didn’t see any cars coming and I turned around for the first time and there was Bill chasing me. He was yelling at me, ‘Get back in the car, get back in the car.’ He clutched at me as we reached the centre grass area of the roadway and he grabbed my right sleeve and tore my shirt. He couldn’t get a grip on me and at that point I made one last effort to get away from him and I ran directly onto the eastern side of the highway. I was going to stop the next car whatever happened and I saw a van approaching over the rise and I stood right in front of it. I held my hands out and the woman had to brake or run me over. The van stopped in front of me and I ran to the passenger side which had a sliding door and opened it. I got in the vehicle and locked the door. I said to the woman driver, ‘He’s got a gun, he’s got a gun.’
Onions said that he saw Bill stop chasing him, and as the woman did a U-turn Bill went back towards his 4WD, got in and drove off along the highway towards Canberra.
After reporting the incident to Bowral Police, Onions caught a train back to Sydney. Five months later he later returned to England. In 1992 he read newspaper stories about the British backpackers who had gone missing. When he learnt that bodies had been discovered in the forest near Bowral, he called the New South Wales Police hotline.
On 5 May 1994 Onions was taken to the Sydney Police Centre and shown thirteen photos on a video. He identified picture 4 as Bill. It was a picture of Ivan.
With the other corroborative evidence, including Joanne Berry’s statement and RTA details of the vehicle Ivan owned at that time, we now had enough to charge Ivan with the attempted abduction of Onions an
d to have him held in custody, bail refused, while other charges could be considered.
Based on Onions’ identification of Ivan, a phone intercept was placed on the phone at his home in Eagle Vale, which he owned and shared with his sister Shirley Soire. We also considered installing listening devices, but to do this we would have had to get inside the house, and surveillance had disclosed a complex electronic security system, which Ivan turned on whenever he left the house. Having concluded that the system could not be bypassed, we had to abandon the idea of installing listening devices.
9
ALADDIN’S CAVE
Paul Onions’ identification of Ivan Milat as his attacker had been a major breakthrough, but it also created some dilemmas for the task force. By itself Onions’ evidence was not enough to charge Ivan with the backpacker murders. If Ivan was charged with the attempted abduction, what impact would that have on the murder investigations? Would other investigative avenues close down? Ivan already knew we had been making inquiries about him. Would he destroy any evidence that connected him to the backpacker murders? Was he likely to run?
Once Ivan had been charged, the media would seize on his identification by Onions and the link with Belanglo to ask whether Ivan was the backpacker murderer. Any indiscreet or unguarded word from the task force could prove disastrous for a successful prosecution, as Milat would be certain to argue that he had been denied a fair trial.
We had been able to observe Ivan’s response when he discovered in April that we were asking questions about him. He had continued to behave like a man who believed he was in control. This seemed to confirm Rod Milton’s assessment that the crimes exhibited significant elements of control by the offender or offenders, and that belief in control was likely to be even stronger if there was only one killer. Milton never wavered in his belief that the killer would have kept mementos of his victims and his acts, hidden in plain sight so that he could enjoy looking at them in the presence of other people, reliving the thrill of his victims’ helplessness while they were under his control.
Milat Page 6