The Territory in the Sixties

Da Costa and Andreas Koklas first met in 1967, when they both drove to Melbourne in Koklas’ ute. In January 1968 they set out to drive back from Melbourne to Darwin. Da Costa said Koklas had asked him to share the driving, in return for a free trip. The route they followed went through Ipswich and Mt Isa. From there they reached Camooweal, and from there set out on the Barkly Highway on 13th January, on route to Darwin. Sometime late that afternoon, Da Costa was seen in Koklas’ ute near a place called Frewena, and later in the day at a place called Three Ways, both on the Barkly Highway. That evening, he sold a movie camera and projector to the licensee of a roadhouse at Three Ways, and also offered to sell him a watch. He also sold a transistor to another person. These items all belonged to Koklas.

From Three Ways Da Costa, instead of continuing on to Darwin, drove the ute south again, eventually reaching Melbourne on 22 January. He sold the ute to a car dealer there, using the name Koklas. A number of Koklas’ personal items were still in the ute when it was sold.

Da Costa then headed to Western Australia. On 30th January he went to a branch of the NSW Savings Bank in Fremantle and identified himself as Koklas. He presented a bank book issued in Darwin that bore Koklas’ name. He attempted to withdraw $150 from the account but was only paid $30. The Bank Manager told him he would have to speak to the Darwin branch before releasing any more funds. The manager kept the bank book and told Da Costa to return the next day, however he did not appear.

Da Costa was later interviewed by police in a Fremantle hotel where he was staying. In his room police found a number of articles, including a Northern Territory Drivers Licence belonging to Andreas Koklas, clothing bearing Koklas’ name. Da Costa told police about the bank book, and he was taken to the branch where he attempted to make the withdrawal.

When questioned, he said that Andreas Koklas was a Greek man he had known in Darwin, but he had returned to Greece, and that Da Costa had used Koklas’ name to open the account in Darwin. He said he had done this to avoid paying maintenance to his wife.

Two aboriginal men named Pompie Turner and Sleepy Charlie were stockmen on a cattle station, and were driving along the Barkly Highway from Avon Downs Station on 13th February 1968 when their car broke down about nine miles from Soudan Station. They walked along the road looking for water, and began to notice a smell like that of a dead animal. They investigated, to find the body of a man lying close to a small tree, partly covered with broken bushes and leaves. It was clothed in a singlet and underpants. They did not touch it, and instead walked back in the direction of Avon Downs Station where they were picked up by another car and taken to the police station, where they reported their discovery.

The next day the boys went with a police officer named Cox and pointed out the location of the body. It appeared the dead man (later identified as Andreas Koklas) had suffered very serious injuries. A large area of his skull had been crushed in, and on one side of his chest seven ribs, and on the other side ten ribs, had been crushed and fractured. These injuries would have caused immediate death.

The body was in a state of decomposition and disintegrated when moved. The attending doctor determined that the injuries could have been caused if a heavy rock was dropped on the head and body of Koklas while he was lying on the ground. A stone about 14-16 inches long and 12 inches deep and wide was found nearby. It weighed 35 pounds. Dried blood stains were found on the bottom of the rock, which matched Koklas’.

Over the following weeks further interviews took place between Da Costa and the police. On 17th February police told Da Costa that the body of a man named Andreas Koklas had been found on the side of the road on the Barkly Highway. Da Costa asked “Is Koklas dead?” and was told that he was. Da Costa was asked when he had last seen Koklas, and he said they had travelled together to Melbourne last year, and that he had last seen him there shortly before Christmas.

He was asked about being in possession of Koklas clothing, and he said Koklas had given it to him. The bank book also showed a withdrawal of $150 in Ipswich on 11th January, which Da Costa said was made by himself. He said he did not know where Koklas’ ute was, and denied driving it in the Northern Territory on the 13th and 14th January. He said he knew nothing about Koklas’ death.

Later, Da Costa decided he wanted to tell police the truth about the bank book. He told police that he had stolen it from Koklas while they were on their way from Darwin to Melbourne in Koklas’ ute.

Da Costa was told “I should tell you that I understand that Koklas was killed by a rock and it is possible that there was a fight.” Da Costa replied “I don’t know anything about how he died”.

Da Costa then made a written statement to police, which contained some inconsistencies with the earlier things he had told them. He said he had riven with Koklas from Melbourne to Ipswich where Koklas had withdrawn the money from the bank. At Ipswich Da Costa said they met a truck driver known as George, who was on his way back to Melbourne. He asked George if he would give him a lift back to Sydney, took his things out of Koklas’ ute and had been driven back to Melbourne, leaving Koklas in Ipswich. He said his reason for doing this was because he had just stolen the bank book from Koklas’ glove box.

Da Costa said the last time he was on the Barkly Highway was back in about July 1967. He said Koklas had sold his own movie equipment and transistor at Three Ways back in December 1967 when the two of them were on their way to Melbourne.

Part way through this interview, Costa stopped and said “Look, we better stop this. Look, we had an argument. I do not want to waste any more time. You know all about it… We had an argument on the Barkly. I did not know that he was dead, I just panicked and shot off. I will never forget what he said to me. I did not want to kill anybody, Andreas and I were friends, and I just panicked. I am sorry to have wasted your time, I should have known better. I should have told you before. I suppose my life is finished now. There is no need to talk about it. You know all about it.”

Da Costa said the argument was about money - Koklas had changed his mind from their initial agreement, and told him he would have to pay part of the cost of the trip to and from Melbourne, which was $300. Once they reached Camooweal Koklas had threatened him to pay up immediately. After leaving Camooweal the car had overheated along the Barkly Highway and they had pulled over. Koklas said he was worried about the wheel, so he got out the car jack and a piece of iron pipe that he used as the jack handle, and checked the wheel.

The topic of money came up again, and Da Costa refused to pay his share. He told Koklas “You Greeks are all the same - money-hungry bastards”. Koklas responded by hitting him and Da Costa “bashed him back quite a few times“, knocking Koklas to the ground. Koklas got up again holding the iron pipe and “came at me with it”. Da Costa slipped and fell, and said that Koklas hit him several times with the iron pipe while he was on the ground.

Da Costa said “not far from where I was lying was a rock. I grabbed for it and lying then as I was, I threw the rock at him. He dropped and let go of the pipe at the same time. I was not happy. I got up and I was going to hit him again, but I didn’t hit him again. He said ‘Please Joe, don’t hit me again, please put water on my head’. I was mad at him at the time, and on my right-hand side were two small little branches of the tree where he was sitting previously. I got hold of them and shoved them at him. I waited a little longer. I asked him a couple of times to get up. He wouldn’t and I opened the front, the left door of the car”.

Da Costa took out a plastic water bottle and poured some water on Koklas’ head. He then put the iron pipe and jack back in the car. “I didn’t know what to do for a while. I got in the car to go”.

He was shown a photograph of the body with the large stone lying next to it and said “yes, that is the rock. That is where I left it”. He said when he left Koklas he “was lying under a tree. He was standing up when I hit him with the rock. When he dropped he did not move and I did not touch him any more. I then put the leaves over him”. Looking at the photograph of Koklas’ body, he said “I put those leaves there”.

He was asked whether he removed any clothing and he denied doing so. He said he had covered Koklas with leaves because “Andreas had blood coming out of his head. It was very hot. I thought he might die”. He was asked why he did not take Koklas back to Camooweal, if he was so worried, and he said “I just panicked and wanted to get away”.

He confirmed that this had happened on a Saturday afternoon, and that “it was the same day I sold the camera and things at Three Ways”.

On the flight back to Darwin, he told his accompanying police officer “Yes, Yes, I just want to clear it all up. If I tell you I tell the Court. There will be no need for you to tell the Court because I will tell the Court everything. How I hit Andreas and how I left him there. I am glad it is all over. Don’t you worry, I will tell the Court everything. I suppose I will hang. Andreas was my very good friend…. Like I told you, after I hit him with the stone I panicked and ran away. I ran about a mile, no cars came along. I went back. I got in the car and drove away.”

The Crown case was that Da Costa had in fact deliberately bashed in Koklas’ skull with the rock, and was not acting in self-defence, as he claimed. The Crown also said Da Costa was responsible for other injuries found on Koklas’ body, but Da Costa said that either somebody else killed Koklas with those injuries, or that he died as a result of the rock to the head, after which somebody came along and inflicted the other injuries after death.

He said that the “rock” he threw hit Koklas “somewhere on his face, his head” and that after he had poured water on Koklas’ head “he kept looking at me but he didn’t say anything” and that his eyes were ‘”blinking”. Before he left Koklas he told him “if one of us has to walk and if it is good enough for me to walk, it is good enough for you to walk or get a lift”.

Dr Bromwich, who conducted the post mortem, gave evidence that such a rock, dropped from a distance between one foot and ten feet, would cause the massive injuries seen on Koklas. The doctor also testified that the rock produced could not have been thrown with one hand, and even if it had been thrown in a shot-put manner, it is unlikely it would have brought about the damage seen to Koklas’ skull.

Da Costa was questioned about the rock at his trial”

“Q: You have seen the big rock in court?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that the rock you threw at him?

A: Impossible sir, no, I couldn’t.

Q: What sort of rock was it you threw at him?

A: It was just a rock a bloke could lift with one hand. I was lying down when I threw it.”

Da Costa was not asked whether he did or did not drop the ‘big rock’ on Koklas.

Da Costa was convicted. He appealed, but was rejected. He was sentenced to life.

Murder in the Twenties...

On the 14th of December 1932, a young girl named Bessie O’Connor was driven in a stolen motor car, a Blue Essex Sedan, from Redfern to the Royal National Park, by the thief of the car, where she was then killed by repeated blows to the head, and was stripped naked. The car was returned to near where it had been stolen from in Centennial Park.

The main issue at the trial was the identity of the person arrested by the police and charged with Bessie’s murder - Eric Roland Craig. Witnesses had identified him at two places where the car had stopped on its way to the National Park, as well as witnesses that had seen him at a place where he stopped on the return journey, after the murder.

None of the witnesses had known Craig previously, and each only saw him for a brief period of time. Of the six witnesses called, only four were able to positively identify Mr Craig at his trial. Of that four, one was not able to pick him out of a row of men at all. Another was also unable to pick him out, but said the person ‘might be like him’. Only one man selected Mr Craig from the lineup.

One witness, Mr Harvey, was the proprietor of a garage at Brighton-le-Sands, and was working on the evening of December 14th. He said that the Essex sedan stopped at his garage that evening, and the driver wanted to put water in his radiator, driving off immediately after Harvey had done this. At the trial, Harvey identified the driver of the car as Eric Craig.

More interestingly though, he described Craig’s passenger. He said “there was a girl sitting in the front seat of the car, on the left side. She was a girl with a full face. She had rather bright eyes. She struck me as being a happy sort of girl, rather wide mouth. She had a long mouth, I would say. She gave me the impression that she was rather happy. She had that look. I should say she was about 18 years of age. I have the impression that she was wearing some beads around her neck. I could not say what they were.”

Another witness, Mr Lawrence, spoke of seeing a sedan stopped in the street near Bessie’s house in Redfern, around the time that she would have been taken. A girl resembling Bessie got out and went in the direction of Bessie’s house, and after a short time returned. The witness had a conversation with the driver of the car, and said he was not Mr Craig. This witness knew Bessie O’Connor and he swore that when he heard of the murder he concluded that the girl he saw was Bessie.

He was taken to see a lineup including Eric Craig, and did not identify him as the driver. He was harshly cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor at trial, which was quite unjustified. Nevertheless he held true to his evidence.

The only other evidence implicating Mr Craig was a statement which one witness, Mr Brown, claimed he had made. When he stopped at Tom Ugly’s Point on his return journey from the National Park, the driver of the Blue Essex Sedan said to the witness that he was on his way to Liverpool. He said his name was Stone, and that he lived on Station Street.

There was further evidence that Mr Craig knew a family named Stone, and that he believed they lived in Station Street.

Police gave evidence that when Craig was arrested on 7th January 1933 and escorted to the scene of the crime, he became very agitated and said “Don’t take me there”. This was also used in an attempt to prove Mr Craig’s guilt,

Two separate juries were unable to agree, but a third eventually convicted Craig. He appealed, arguing that there should be a new trial on the basis that new evidence had come to light that potentially showed that some other person was the murderer.

It appeared that a man named Crothers, who was in custody on 12 January 1933 on another criminal charge, made a statement to the police that at about 7:30pm on the night of the murder he was driving a car in Granville when he picked up a man whom he drove to Darlinghurst. He left the man there and promised to pick him up at the same place at midnight and drive him back to Granville. Crothers said that he waited for that man at the arranged place from midnight until 2am when he arrived carrying a parcel. Crothers drove him back to Granville and dropped him off, after which he discovered the man had left his parcel in the car. When he unrolled it, he found it contained a pair of trousers saturated in blood, and a motor tyre lever. He hid these items at the motor garage where he worked.

Once he was in custody, other prisoners advised him to report it to police. Crothers described the man he had picked up, and although he did not know his name, he had met him before in Parramatta Gaol in 1931. Crothers was taken to the motor garage by police, but he failed to find the tyre lever. He did find a pair of trousers, however they were not blood stained.

After Craig was formally committed for trial on February 1933, Crothers again contacted police. He had now been released from jail, and told police that Craig had not committed the murder, and he could now tell them more than he had at first. He made a more elaborate statement that described his movements in detail. In particular, Crothers said that on the return journey from Darlinghurst his passenger told him he had been out to Sutherland with a girl, and had left her there. Crothers said that when he got to the garage he examined the things that were left in the car and found a pair of trousers, a blood-stained lady’s handkerchief wrapped around a tyre lever, which was also blood-stained.

He said the handkerchief had the letters ‘B O’ embroidered in one corner. He said he took the tyre lever and handkerchief, and hid them under the house of a friend in Merrylands. He then said that two days before making his statement, he met the man at Merrylands. He said he did not know his name, but gave a description of him, and previous occasions on which they had met.

On February 15th 1933 Crothers called in at the office of the Inspector of Police, who agreed to go with him to the address at Merrylands to get the articles from under the house. Crothers then said ‘No, they are not there; I have shifted them’, but he refused to say where he had moved them to. He promised to bring them to the Detective office the next day, but did not do so.

Craig was found guilty of murder on 8th June 1933. On June 15th Craig requested an interview with his solicitor from prison. A fellow inmate of Craig’s claimed he was closely associated with Crothers. This prisoner said that he sent Craig the name and address of Crothers, as a person who could give him valuable information. Craig told this to his solicitor, and as a result Crothers was sought out once more.

On 19th June Crothers and the solicitor’s clerk made a search at the house where Crothers said he had placed the handkerchief and tyre lever, but neither of these items was discovered. Crothers swore that after the solicitor’s clerk had left, he spoke to the owner of the house and told him the reason for their visit. The house owner then telephoned his daughter, who made a statement to police, that some three or four months earlier she had been clearing out rubbish from the back of the house when she found what she thought was a lady’s handkerchief. It was very stained and dirty, and she did not pay much attention to it, and thought it probably went out with the rest of the rubbish.

As a result, Crothers and the solicitor’s clerk made a further search, and the handkerchief was discovered on the rubbish heap. The initials ‘B O’ were sewn in the corner, and the stains reacted positively for blood when tested.

The Appeal Court considered Craig’s application for a new trial, and was of the view that except for the handkerchief, the absurdity of Crothers’ story meant it did not deserve serious consideration. The only explanation for the convoluted nature of his tale was that he was attempting to tell just enough of the facts within his knowledge to find Craig innocent of the killing, whilst at the same time attempting to clumsily protect some other person.

Crothers’ criminal history did not do him any favours either, showing that he was accustomed to sensational fabrications, and tended to seek notoriety.

Eric Craig appealed this decision to the High Court. It agreed with the Appeal Court’s assessment of Crothers’ evidence, however it also chose to examine the other identification evidence, which it found to be highly suspect.

Mr Harvey’s (the garage proprietor) evidence was criticised, as it seemed he was unconsciously relying upon the photo of Bessie that was published in the newspapers from around December 17th, as well as other descriptions of her, rather than his real recollection of the girl that was in the car. He did not volunteer his information until January after Craig was arrested, although police officers had visited his garage several times. There was also a substantial reward for information by this time.

Harvey was only taken to the jail to see if he could identify Craig until March 1933, three months since he had seen the car, and only five days before Craig’s trial. Craig’s photograph had appeared frequently in the press by this stage. Harvey was presented with a lineup that included Craig. He pointed to Craig and said “This is the type of man so far as I can recollect … the man was more tanned then, and he wanted a shave”. Harvey then asked Craig to speak, then confirmed it was him.

The other witnesses had also had ample opportunity to see pictures of both Bessie and Eric Craig in the newspapers before they made their identifications. One initially described the person she saw driving the car as having “fairly broad Irish features”, which Mr Craig clearly did not.

This evidence was considered unsatisfactory, and highly dangerous to be used as a basis of identification.

Further, although Crothers’ evidence was dismissed as a likely fabrication, the High Court noted that it had in fact been available to the police well before Craig’s trial, however they chose not to pursue it, as it did not tend to show that Craig was the offender. However they were under an obligation to disclose all material to the defence, no matter what their opinion of it, and failure alone constituted grounds for a new trial, even if it turned out that evidence was quite useless.

Finally, the High Court felt that Craig’s exclamation of “don’t take me there” to police when told “we are going to where the girl Bessie O’Connor was murdered” and his agitated state were not necessarily signs of guilt. The police had just described to him the amount of blood found and the position of the body, both of which were rather gruesome facts. The High Court felt Craig’s comment was normal, and reflected the natural revulsion of an innocent person against being compelled to visit the scene of a grisly murder. The evidence was too prejudicial and should not have been given to the jury.

This prejudicial evidence, coupled with the failure by police to tell the defence about Mr Crothers‘ evidence, and the unreliable identification evidence, led to the High Court ordering a new trial for Craig. He was not convicted.

"I just schitzed right out on him"

42-year-old Steven Jarvis’ body was found on the morning of Sunday March 9th 1997 by a couple walking their dog, in a lonely public area reserve near the banks of the Richmond River.

It was obvious he had been stabbed several times in the neck, and a post-mortem examination revealed six such wounds. The majority were only a couple of centimetres deep but the major one was a zig-zag shaped wounds over 4cm long and over 5cm deep. It indicated at least two thrusting movements of the knife, severing the muscles of the neck and going through the back of the tongue to the front of the spine in two places.

There were also cuts on the left side of his neck and bruises to the right that were signs of choking or strangulation, as well as bruises to the chin, above the left ear lobe, and inside the mouth that were signs of punches to the head. There was also obvious bruising to his chest and left arm, plus cuts and scratches on his right arm that showed his arms were held down by somebody’s knees.

Steven also had considerable internal injuries that showed strangulation. His chest wall was also bruised, and he had fractures to several of his ribs. These were accompanied by tears in the lining of the rib cage which would have allowed the lungs to collapse. The lungs themselves showed some tears and bleeding into the lower parts, and there were tears around the kidneys. All these showed he had been jumped upon by his attacker.

The medical examiner concluded that the cause of Steven’s death was the combined effect of the stab wounds to the neck, strangulation, and the blunt force injuries to his chest and trunk.

18-year-old Adam Bowhay and his 14-year-old girlfriend Rachel left their homes on the Central Coast in mid-February and travelled to Macksville, where they committed three break-and-enters on the night of the 19th. This included a break-in at the Macksville Trading Post, where Adam stole a number of Swiss Army and other knives. After that they stayed at Nambucca Heads for a few days, before heading up to Byron Bay.

The couple left Byron on March 3rd, deciding to steal a car and drive to Beaudesert, across the Queensland border. They stole petrol from an Ampol service station there on the 6th, then headed to Kyogle to stay with a friend of Rachel’s named Terri Leahy.

The next day they hitched a ride to Casino, arriving at about 9pm on the night of Saturday 8th March. They soon met Steven Jarvis at the Oxford Hotel, where he had had bought them both a drink. Once Steven became too drunk to be served at the Hotel, he gave Adam money to buy them all drinks.

They kept drinking together until around midnight and although Steven hadn’t met Adam and Rachel before this night, he invited them back to stay with him in his room at the Commercial Hotel. The three remained there for about an hour before heading off to the park area, where Steven’s body was eventually found.

Needless to say, Steven was known to be an alcoholic, a fact which was confirmed at his post-mortem. He has also previously been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and had been living alone in his room at the Commercial Hotel for about two weeks.

----

Adam and Rachel went back to Steven’s room at the Commercial Hotel and ransacked its contents, taking a small amount of money and other items, including an ATM card.

They hitched a ride from the southern outskirts of Casino to Whiporie, a small village, where they stayed until Monday, when they hitched to Grafton. After that they made their way to Wauchope where they stole a car and drove to the Central Coast. Rachel phoned her mother, and Adam spoke to his step-grandmother, who told him to give himself up to police. He ignored this advice, and the two headed to the South Coast, to Jindabyne, then over the Victorian border to Tallangatta, where they were eventually arrested when their stolen car broke down.

When Adam was first asked by Detective Hunt in Tallangatta whether he knew anything about the murder of Steven Jarvis in Casino, he denied having anything to do with the killing, but said he was with “the bloke” who did it, and said “He wasn’t pissed but only half-pissed”.

He then took part in a lengthy recorded interview at Wangaratta (NSW) with Detective Campbell. This time he immediately confessed that he had been the one who killed Steven, staying he had stabbed him, strangled him, and jumped all over him. He said his reason for doing it was because Steven “pissed him off and kept on touching Rachel”.

“Q: And what happened then?

A: I looked, told him, I said ‘What would you do if I punched you in the mouth‘? He said ‘Id probably ask ‘Why‘? So I smacked him a good one in the head. I told him I was going to keep going, and he pulled out a knife. So I pulled out a knife as well. I know how to use a knife, he didn’t.

Q: What happened then?

A: Well, I stabbed him, strangled him to make sure he was dead, jumped all over him, dragged him down. I took his wallet first and his hotel keys, dragged him down to the side of the river, just left him there. Went back to his hotel, took what I wanted out of his room and left Casino.

Q: Were you alone at the time you say you killed Mr Jarvis?

A: Yeah. Me girlfriend was there but she wasn’t close enough to know really what was going on.”

Adam told how he and Rachel had met Steven Jarvis at the pub that night, and he had bought them between six and twelve beers over the course of the night. Adam said once they went back to Steven’s room at the Commercial Hotel, he began paying too much attention to Rachel. Adam said that Steven was touching her, putting his arms around her, trying to put her hands on her breasts and telling her that she was his. So Adam said he asked Steven to come for a walk with him to go to a party, but of course there wasn’t actually any party. Adam intended to take Steven out and “flog him”.

Adam said that when they got down to the reserve, he punched Steven in the face with force, at which point Steven pulled out a knife. Adam pulled out one of the Swiss Army knives he had stolen from Macksville, and put his arms around Steven’s neck to throw him to the ground. He then straddled him by pinning him down with one knee on each arm, and strangled him. After that he punched him to the head and finally stabbed him in the throat, on one occasion “hacking into his throat with it”. Still unsure whether he had “killed him good enough”, Adam jumped on his chest and head, and kicked him in the ribs. He said “I just schitzed right out on him … I never thought he could get enough, so I just kept on jumping on him”.

“Q: Why did you stab him then?

A: Because if I had of left him there he could have jumped up. He could have had a crack at me. I didn’t know if he was dead or what. I made sure he was dead. I stabbed him. He deserved it anyway. I’m not sorry I done it.

Q: Why did he deserve it?

A: Because mate, look at the way he talked to my girlfriend, touched her. He was probably a child molester …

Q: After you left Casino, lets say, when you were on your way to Whiporie, how did you feel about what happened with Steve when you stabbed him?

A: Didn’t worry me.

Q: Do you still feel that way?

A: Yep. I regret stabbing him, yeah. He probably still should be alive, but if he hadn’t pulled out a knife on me, if he had of treated my girlfriend with a bit more respect then he wouldn’t have got it, would he. Anyone who doesn’t treat her with respect will get the same thing.

Q: Is that the reason you stabbed him?

A: Yeah. I was only going to bash him to start with, but he wanted to pull out a knife, thinking he was a hero. He ain’t no hero now.”

Adam also gave evidence at his trial, in which he conceded that Steven Jarvis had never actually pulled a knife on him, so his actions were never in self-defence. Instead he said he had been provoked into taking Steven down to the park area and giving him a ‘flogging’, the way Steven was talking to and touching Rachel, which Adam felt was unwelcome and inappropriate.

He said that during when he and Rachel got to the Oxford Hotel Steven had introduced himself to them, and early on Steven told Adam that he used to be an ASIO agent, and had been banned from a number of hotels in Casino. Adam said Steven told him he was going to take Rachel away from him. He said Steven had put his arm around Rachel within ten minutes of them walking into the hotel, and she had pushed it off. Adam told him he shouldn’t be doing that.

More beer was drunk, and after that Steven invited them both to go back to the hotel where he was staying. Adam said that on the way back to the hotel, Steven moved from walking alongside him, to around the other side to Rachel and put his arms around her, with his hands on her breasts, rubbing them. Rachel moved away, to Adam’s other side. Adam said this happened about four or five times, and he got really angry, as he had warned Steven several times not to do it. Adam said the thought that Steven was “off the planet, drunk and crazy”.

Despite all this both Adam and Rachel went back to Steven‘s hotel room and drank more. Adam said he took two Seranace tablets that he found in Steven’s room. He said Steven again put his arm around Rachels neck and touched her breasts, and after that became “quite angry”. He said that he decided that he would take Steven out and “flog him“. “It crossed my mind he may have been a child molester or a rapist or something of that nature.” Adam said he told Steven “This is the last time I’m going to warn you. You shouldn’t be touching her like that.”

Adam said he then made up a story about a party, and got the three of them to leave the room. He said once they got to the reserve he punched Steven about three or four times, then threw him to the ground where he started screaming and yelling, so Adam sat on his chest. Steven was still screaming and trying to scratch his face, so he told him to shut up, and pinned his arms down with his knees. Steven still didn’t stop screaming, so Adam put his hands around his throat to make him stop, but every time he released his grip Steven would scream again. Adam said at this stage, Steven “didn’t look too healthy in the face”. Adam asked Rachel for a knife so he could threaten him and scare him into keeping quiet. Rachel, who was nearby, opened the blade of the Swiss Army knife and handed it to Adam.

Adam then told the court he had no recollection of what happened next, but he realised he must have stabbed Steven because he saw lots of blood, and the knife was in his hand. He said he then lost control, and jumped on Steve’s chest a number of times. “I didn’t know if he was dead or not proper - didn’t know if I had killed him good enough, so I jumped on his chest, jumped on his head, kicked him in the ribs. I just schitzed right out”. He insisted that he had no memory of the actual stabbing.

He was asked why he and Rachel didn’t just leave Steven’s company, if they were so offended by his behaviour as Adam claimed. He replied “I don’t know” and said that he now regretted the killing, saying that when he planned to fight him, he did not want him to die and that he wished he was still alive.

Adam said he was very drunk on the night of Steven’s death, and had also been smoking pot, doing speed, and also heroin, which he’d been doing constantly since leaving the Central Coast over three weeks beforehand.

He also insisted that he had been threatened by police in the cells before he took part in the recorded interview, and that he had not been fed properly between his arrest and interview. He claimed that he lied in the interview because he was just saying the first thing that came into his mind, and because he thought it was what the police wanted him to say.

The trial Judge however thought Adam was a “most unsatisfactory witness”, and after reviewing all the evidence surrounding Adam’s arrest, detention and interview, was “most strongly convinced” that he had not been threatened in any way before the interview, and had been properly fed whilst there.

The Judge did not accept Adam’s claims of the amount of drugs he was using at the time. Despite Adam’s claim that at the night before, at Terri Leahy’s place in Kyogle, he had injected himself with a large dose of heroin, smoked about seven or eight cones of pot, and did a good deal of drinking, Terri‘s statement to police said that before they left for Casino, only Rachel had smoked some pot, and Adam had not done anything. He did not seem at all drug affected by the couple who gave them the lift from Casino to Whiporie, and despite his claim that he was ‘out of it’ when he was interviewed, he seemed lucid and intelligent in all his responses.

In addition, during the ‘spree’ leading up to the killing, neither Rachel nor Adam had any money, apart from the proceeds of their break-ins in Macksville, which did not seem to be much. They had no money to pay for petrol at Beaudesert. Yet Adam claimed he was constantly buying and using hard drugs, describing two incidents - one at Ballina where he said he sold some people crushed panadol to rip them off, and one at Byron Bay where he said he ripped off a dealer and got away with it. The Judge rejected this evidence.

At trial, Adam’s claims of provocation, and a defence of diminished responsibility (the ‘loss of control’ when stabbing Steven) were clearly rejected by the jury when they returned their verdict of murder.

Steven was just a lonely drunk who wanted some company. He may well have made some inappropriate comments about Rachel, but he was so drunk he would have been incapable of doing any real harm. The Judge found that even if Steven had in fact touched Rachel’s breasts, his Honour did not believe that this was the real cause for the bashing and murder that followed. Adam and Rachel could have got up and left at any time.

The Judge was of the view that Adam saw Steven as a helpless drunk who was an easy target for his own aggression, and that Adam thought he could have some fun at Steven’s expense. However his Honour doubted that Adam had decided to kill Steven when the left the Commercial Hotel, and may well have only intended to belt him up. Nonetheless, Adam clearly found himself enjoying bashing Steven up, and during this decided to kill him, which he did by stabbing, strangling and stomping on his victim until he was sure he was dead. The way he answered his questions in his interview left little doubt that Adam knew what he was doing, he did it because he wanted to, and that he was proud of it, boasting about it in the interview. Adam never showed any genuine remorse for his actions - any regrets he expressed seemed to be more about his own predicament, than for Steven Jarvis’ lost life.

Alcohol and possibly pot may have made him less inhibited, but this did not reduce is responsibility for his actions. “This was a deliberate and callous attack on one of the less fortunate members of the community, who was quite incapable of defending himself”.

In sentencing Adam, the Judge took into account his background. His parents were separate before he was born, and his mother had married his stepfather. When he was four she deserted the family, taking one of his sisters. His upbringing was left to his step-grandmother, who was not a blood relative, but took him and his remaining sister in with her.

He got into trouble at school, often being suspended. He began drinking and smoking pot at 13, and after New Years Eve in 1995-96 he started using heavier drugs such as speed, pills, cocaine and heroin.

His criminal record showed two arrests in January 1996 for violent disorder, and four charges of malicious damage and stealing. He was also arrested in January for cruelty to a dog, and having stolen goods. He was sentenced in the children’s court to a ‘control order’ which is time in a juvenile justice institution. After his release he was arrested again in Coffs Harbour in August 1996 for stealing a car, driving dangerously and failing to stop after an accident, among other traffic offences. He was imprisoned for four months, during which he was charged with four other break, enter and steal offences.

As the Judge noted, “he does not appear to have learned anything beneficial from his time in custody… He appears to have embarked upon a life of crime and to have decided that Society’s rules do not apply to him.”

Adam Bowhay was sentenced to 23 years in prison for the murder of Steven Jarvis, with a non-parole period of 16 years, making him eligible for release on 19 March 2013.

Adam appealed his conviction and sentence. In handing down the Appeal Court’s decision, one Justice stated “Reflection on [Steven’s] injuries alone is chilling. So also is a consideration of [Adam Bowhay’s] actions. So also is viewing the video record of his interview with police where, at least unemotionally, he talks of what he did. Even were I to set aside the findings of the [trial Judge] that [Adam] set out to have fun and enjoyed some of his actions, and in the ERISP was boasting, I would nevertheless regard the sentence imposed as a proper one. But for [Adam’s] youth, the sentence could well have been considerably longer. One can but hope that before [Adam] is released, he will have taken the opportunity to learn and accept the standards of behaviour required in any civilised society.”

Back in the Fifties...

On 13th December 1953 Dr Basto was charged with poisoning with intent to murder. The victim was his infant daughter, aged a little over two years. He was also charged with attempting to commit suicide.

Dr Basto was a qualified medical practitioner, with a practice in Sydney specialising in eye, ear, nose and throat. He was married in 1952, and they had one daughter (the victim of this offence). He and his wife separated in December 1952, and she had custody of the girl, although Dr Basto was entitled to access once a week or once a fortnight on Sundays, between the morning and 5pm.

Dr Basto lived in a flat in Elizabeth Bay. On Sunday 13th December, he arrived at his wife’s place in the morning to pick up his daughter. He said that he planned to take her to Newport for the day. However it seems his normal arrangements to have an assistant help him care for his daughter fell through, so he decided not to go to Newport and instead played with his daughter in a park near his flat.

At 5pm that afternoon Dr Basto had not returned his daughter to her other. She began phoning his flat at regular intervals from then until 9pm, when she decided to go to the local police station. She arrived at Dr Basto’s flat at around 10pm. The flat was in darkness - she knocked, but received no response. She waited outside the flat for about half an hour in case the Dr had gone somewhere, and then saw a light come on inside. She returned to the flat.

In the meantime, Dr Basto’s secretary, who had also been contacted in the search for the doctor, had managed to get into contact. She lived at the clinic, and had been telephoning his flat constantly from about 7:30pm. There was no answer, but she could hear it ringing. He eventually answered at about 10:30pm. His voice sounded slurred as he asked who was speaking, and when he learned who it was, he asked her to come to the flat.

When she entered the flat, she found it in serious disarray. The infant girl was lying on the floor of the bedroom, unconscious. She was fully clothed, except for shoes and socks. Dr Basto himself was lying on the bed, but he was semi-conscious and unable to get us. He was party clothed, but the left sleeve of his shirt was rolled up, and on his arm were the needle marks of hypodermic injections. Hanging nearby was a solution in a bottle with a rubber tube extending to the bedside, and at the end of the tube was a hypodermic needle. A second tube had been attached to a jet of the gas stove in the kitchen. This tube extended to the bedroom and had been attached to the bed, but the gas was not turned on, and the window was open. There were no hypodermic marks on the child’s arms.

Dr Basto’s secretary carefully inspected the child, then took her into another room and placed her on the bed. She then immediately telephoned the doctor who normally treated Dr Basto. Dr Basto asked her not the call the police, however she did so, as she had already telephoned them to report her concerns before the had left the clinic to come to Dr Basto’s flat. However when the child’s mother arrived at the door, having seen the light on, the secretary thought it best to tell her that the child was not in the flat.

Once the doctor arrived he immediately washed out the child’s stomach, then arranged for both her and her father to be taken to hospital. At the hospital the child was in a stupor, with pale skin and very shallow breathing. She was not responding to sound, and only slightly to the pinching of skin. Her pulse was slightly raised, but her temperature was normal. She remained in a coma for another eighteen hours, until her consciousness began to return. She was drowsy for another few days, and ended up contracting pneumonia.

Although it was clear that she had been drugged, doctors were not sure what type of drug was used. It was assumed to be a barbiturate, possibly morphine. Morphine, chloral hydrate and other drugs were found at Dr Basto’s flat, and each had evidence of recent use. Chloral hydrate is a sedative and hypnotic often used safely with children. Two days earlier, Dr Basto had called in at a chemist near his clinic and discussed with the chemist, who knew him well, the use of chloral hydrate, in particular how it was used for a child of three, as it was known to have an unpleasant taste. The doctor enquired about rectal use, and them bought a box of six ampoules of sodium pentathol.

Eventually the girl recovered in full from both the drug and the pneumonia.

When Dr Basto was admitted to hospital he was described as being delirious, as well as being in an irritable state. He was extremely difficult to examine, and was very noisy and unco-operative. He was diagnosed as recovering from a barbiturate, most likely sodium pentathol, an injectable barbiturate found at his flat. It was also found in the remaining liquid in the suspended bottle, the tube that led from it, and the hypodermic needle. There were also phials of morphine sulphate, including another hypodermic syringe that had been recently used, and contained a residue of morphine sulphate.

Dr Basto gave a long unsworn statement at his trial, stating that he was so overwrought with his domestic troubles and the loneliness that he felt, that on the Sunday afternoon became determined to take his life. He decided to do this by asphyxiating himself with gas from the stove, but decided against this because he did not want to kill his child. What he wanted to do was die with his child in his arms, so he decided to use sodium pentathol. While he was making his preparations he saw the bottle of chloral hydrate on the table and took a dose. It began to take effect on him and he was hazy. However the child would not stay quiet in his arms, so he mixed some chloral hydrate with icecream and gave it to her, with the idea of making her drowsy so that she would stay in his arms for his last moments. He said he had no intention of harming her.

The main issue at Dr Basto’s trial was whether he gave the child the poison with intent to murder her, as he was charged. The Crown case pointed to the evidence of his secretary, who said he was barely conscious when she found him. She said he was largely unintelligible, although she said he asked for a tourniquet and a syringe. He would not answer the questions of the doctor who came to the flat, except to say that he would not tell what happened. At the hospital he also refused to answer questions except after some repeated badgering about what drug he had given the child, he eventually said ‘morphia’. When his wife came to visit him just after midnight at the hospital and asked him what he had done with their child, he answered “oh she will be better off”. His wife described him as anything but normal - he was raving a lot and saying stupid and incomprehensible things.

The following morning the doctor was described as excitable but rational, but could not remember what had happened. The police came to see him at around 7am:

“The accused was lying in bed. I said to him ‘Are you Dr Basto?’, he said ‘Yes, who are you?’, I said ‘I am Detective Sergeant Holmes of Darlinghurst and I have come down to see how you are and try and find out what happened last night’. He said ‘You are my friend, I will tell you. I took poison to kill myself and kill my little girl and take her with me’. I said ‘What kind of poison did you take?’ He said ‘I will tell you later if I live. I do not want to talk about it now. Please go away and let me die’. I said “if you tell me what poison you gave the little girl the doctor might be able to save her life’. He said ‘I won’t talk anymore’. I then left him.”

Detective Sergeant Holmes then visited the doctor’s flat, then returned to the doctor’s bedside at about 10:45 that morning:

“I said to him ‘I have been down to your flat and I am going to tell you certain things and ask you certain questions which you need not answer unless you desire’. He said ‘I do not want to hear anything, let me die’. I showed him the morphine phial produced and said ‘Is this what you gave your little girl?’ He said ‘I want to die, let me die’. I repeated my question to him and he kept repeating the words over and over again ‘I want to die, let me die’. I was of the opinion it was useless trying to carry on a conversation.”

He was released from the hospital that afternoon, and having been ‘deemed insane’, was lodged in the police reception for a week. He was visited by his solicitor who advised him to make no statement to police. When he was discharged, he was interviewed once more by police, but gave the same answer to every questions - that he had been advised by his solicitor not to make a statement. Det. Sgt. Holmes finally asked “Don’t you want to give any explanation of why your room was set up in the manner I have described, and why you attempted to take your own life and the life of your child?’ He said ‘I do not want to make any statement’.” Det. Sgt. Holmes gave evidence of this in court:

“Q: Then did you show him the morphia phial which has been made an exhibit?

A: Yes, I showed him that and I said ‘Is this what you gave your child?’

Q: Then you said ‘I found this on your kitchen sink drain board. Is that what you gave to your child?’

A: Yes.

Q: After the accused said “I do not want to make a statement’?

A: Yes.

Q: What followed that?

A: I then said to him ‘Do you remember speaking to us at St Vincents Hospital on the morning of the 14th of this month?’, he said ‘Yes. That is when I wanted to die’. I said ‘Do you remember saying to us that you had taken poison to kill yourself and kill your little girl, to take her with you?’ and he said ‘Yes’. I said ‘Remember me asking you what kind of poison you gave the little girl and you said you would tell us later, if you lived? Dr De Meyrick has informed me that you told Dr Maguire that you gave the child morphia. Is that right?’ He said ‘Yes, I have been through time with my relatives and I would not care if it was all ended. I have nothing to live for now’. I said to him ‘You are going to be charged with the attempted murder of your daughter and attempted suicide’. He said ‘I understand that’.”

The defence argued that Dr Basto had only given the child chloral hydrate, which was commonly used as a safe child sedative, and therefore he never had the intention to kill his child.

Dr Basto was convicted of the attempted murder of his daughter, and his own attempted suicide. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and all his appeals failed.

The rule of law that it is a crime to commit suicide, or attempt to do so, was formally done away with in 1983.

One fight too many...

Dale and Sharon Barry were married in 1992, following a short relationship, in which he’d been found guilty of assaulting her two months before the wedding. Dale against assaulted his new bride on her wedding night. He was convicted again, and given a community service order (despite being on a good behaviour bond for the previous assault). Dale and Sharon separated, but began living together again within a few months.

Sharon already had two other children by two other men: Tara, born in 1985, and Benjamin, born in 1991. She also had two daughters with Dale - Jaimyn and Ashlee, born 1993 and 1995 respectively.

The marriage continued, with disagreements, and at least one further episode of violence. In 1996 Dale struck Sharon on her jaw, resulting in a restraining order (AVO) being taken out against him, and the couple separated once more.

During this time Dale still had access to his children and step-children. In 1997, he accompanies them all on a holiday to Bateman’s Bay. Sharon and Dale began living together once more after that, despite the AVO still being in place. This lasted until October 1997, when there was a further episode of violence, this time involving Sharon’s son Benjamin. Another AVO was imposed and Dale moved out, seeking access to his kids.

During this time Dale admitted himself to Nolan House at Albury Base Hospital for treatment for his alcoholism. After that, he stayed with workmates Arthur Milgate and Angela Harris. Two weeks after his discharge from hospital, he told Angela he intended to kill his wife. However Angela talked him out of it, or so she believed.

In December 1997, Sharon told Dale he was no longer allowed access to the children. Two days later, Dale was seen drinking at the Boomerang Hotel at Lavington. At 12:30am he was seen by the supervisor of the Hotel standing by his car, which was parked around the back. He then made his way to the family home at Springvale, arriving at around 2am.

There were no signs of forced entry, so it was not clear if he let himself in with keys, or if Sharon let him in. They immediately began to argue about access to the kids. The remaining evidence came from Tara, as Dale subsequently claimed complete amnesia.

Tara saw them both in the main bedroom, Dale on top of Sharon. Tara returned to her bedroom and stood in the doorway, where she saw Dale walk down the hall towards the kitchen. As he passed Tara, he turned to face her, and stabbed her in the upper abdomen. The wound was 2-3cm wide and 6-7cm long, penetrating her liver. Such a wound required significant thrust.

Dale then forced Tara and Sharon into the kitchen and forced them to the floor. He then stabbed Sharon four times - three on her right breast and one in her upper right arm. The main wound was in the middle of her right breast, 2cm wide and 16cm long. It penetrated a major blood vessel in her lungs, leading to blood loss and death.

Dale left the kitchen, leaving Sharon and Tara bleeding on the floor. He went to attend to the younger children, who had been disturbed by the noise. When he returned, he picked up a padded stool from the kitchen and began to beat Sharon around the face and head with it. She sustained about five blunt force wounds, plus lacerations to her face, nose and cheek, and defensive wounds.

While Dale remained in the house, Tara managed to make it back to her bedroom, where she lay on her bed until she heard him leave. She then made it to Benjamin’s room and told him to get help. Benjamin ran next door to Mrs Grelli’s house, who came in, saw the blood and called the police.

Dale pleaded not guilty to the murder of Sharon at his trial. He formally admitted to attacking her, with intent to at least do her grievous bodily harm, but claimed he had a defence of ‘diminished responsibility’ - i.e his mental state, his depression and possible mood disorders, caused him to lose control. The issue of provocation was also raised - with the aim of reducing the conviction to manslaughter.

The jury clearly rejected both defences.

Dale was convicted of murdering his wife Sharon, and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to his step-daughter Tara. The Judge felt ‘grievous bodily harm’ did not do justice to Tara’s injuries, which were likely to result in significant morbidity in the future.

In sentencing Dale, his mental state was relevant in mitigation, however the Judge found there was no real ‘loss of control’. Dale came from an unfortunate background - his father was killed in a road accident when he was young, and he had a violent step-father. His biggest problem was alcohol, although he occasionally smoked pot and used heroin. He claimed to be remorseful for what he had done, and said he loved his own children very much, but this was diminished by his past episodes of violence against his step-children.

For the murder of Sharon, Dale Barry was sentenced to 24 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 18 years. For the wounding of Tara, he received a fixed term of 12 years, to be served at the same time.

He will be eligible for release in December 2015.

Calabrian conflict

Domenico Barca, his sister Grazzia and her husband Raffaele Petula were all born in the Italian province of Calabria. Domenico and his family had emigrated to Australia some twenty-two years prior, and has been a naturalized Australian citizen for fourteen years. He lived with his wife in Cambridge Park, NSW, and the Petulas lived in St Marys.

For most of 1973, Grazzia and her husband had been having arguments, not only about money, but also his personal behaviour, towards other women, and his children.

On the morning of 27th September 1973 Domenico was helping Raffaele build a shed on his land at St Marys. They all ate lunch together at around 11:30am. After, Domenico and Raffaele left in Domenico’s car. Domenico said he then dropped Raffaele at the train station at around 12:45, to catch the train to work. Domenico then said he went to two hardware shops to buy nails, and returned to Raffaele’s at around 1pm. He remained there working on the shed until returning home to Cambrige Park at around 5:45pm.

Raffaele was seen at a bar in St Mary’s at around 12:30 to 1pm that day, and had ordered a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade. He was not seen again.

On Friday evening, 28 September 1973, Raffaele’s body was found in a rubbish dump in a lonely area of bush at Llandilo, NSW. It was partially concealed by some branches, a mudguard and a sheet of felt. It appeared he had been shot twice in the head with a .22 rifle. His skull was fractured, and in the opinion of the doctor performing the post-mortem, this was most likely caused by heavy clubbing over and around the head with a blunt object or instrument. There were some marks on his limbs that suggested he might have been dragged by two persons, but there was also evidence that Raffaele had been shot at or near the place where he was found.

The doctor was of the opinion that death occurred approximately twenty-four to twenty-eight hours before the post-mortem examination took place, as rigor mortis had set in. This placed time of death between 7:30pm and 11:30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973. However, the Crown case was that the murder occurred between 1:00pm and 3:00pm on Thursday 27th, and that the doctor was in error in her estimation of the time of death. The contents of Raffaele’s stomach were an important factor in arriving at this determination. On the day, he had eaten a meal at 11:30am, of potato chips, olives, cheese, salami and capsicum or chilli. The state of digestion of the food indicated that he would have died at most an hour after eating.

Domenico initially claimed that he had an alibi at the time, namely that he was purchasing roofing nails at a local store. However there was some question that these invoices may have been altered. He was interviewed about this by police:

“Q: You will remember that on thr 4th October this year, you came to this police station.

A: Yes, I remember.

Q: At the same time you produced these two receipts to me: (Domenico is shown Receipt No. 36 from Gabriels Builders Hardware, dated 27.9.73; and Receipt No. 42461 from Homemakers Store dated 26.9.73) Are those the two receipts you showed to me?

A: Yes

Q: Do you agree that at the time you produced those receipts to me you told me that you were given them at the time you obtained the nails?

A: Yes

Q: And do you agree that at the time you handed me those receipts they were in a very crumpled condition?

A: Yes

Q: Do you remember that when you handed me those receipts I asked why they were crumpled?

A: Yes, I told you I had them in my pocket since I got the nail.

Q: Since 4th October, we have made enquiries at Gabriels Hardware Store, St Marys, and have been informed that Receipt No. 36 was not issued to you at the time you got the nails at all, but was issued to you on 2nd October, and at your request back-dated to 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I went there on Tuesday and asked them to give me a receipt for the nail and the lady was there. I wanted to see the one that served me, but he wasn’t there, and I say I bought four pound of nail and they didn’t give me the receipt. I said ‘Do you remember the time I left here was about five to one?’. She say ‘I can’t remember’.

Q: Why did you go back to Gabriels on Tuesday and ask them for a receipt dated 27 September?

A: It was very important to me to have the receipt.

Q: Why was it very important to you?

A: So if anyone ask me I could say that’s my receipt where I bought the nail.

Q: Why was it important to show anyone where you bought the nails?

A: If someone ask me it handy to have.

Q: And do you say that is the only reason why you went back to Gabriels and had the receipt back-dated?

A: The only reason.

Q: We have also made enquiries at Homemakers Store at St Marys, and have been informed that on Tuesday 4th October, you also visited that store and asked for this Receipt No. 42461 for two pound of nails to be back-dated to 26th September 1973. Why did you do that?

A: If anyone ask me for the receipt it handy to have it.

Q: And do you ask for receipts for everything you buy?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you normally get the receipts at the time you buy the articles?

A: It never worry me if I get or not.

Q: If it does not worry you if you get the receipts or not, why did you go back and especially get these receipts back-dated?

A: When I been here first I did not have the receipt with me, and then I better go back and ask to give me the receipt, to show to you where I been that days.

Q: Why didn’t you tell Detective Sergeant Sawyer that you did not have a receipt for the nails, but if he went to the store the people would remember you?

A: No one ask me, I not worry about it.

Q: But you did worry enough about it to go back to the store and ask them to back-date the receipt for you?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that you asked the woman at Gabriels Hardware to write on the docket that you purchased the nails about one o’clock?

A: I ask her to put a time on the receipt and told her I was there about five t one and she told me they don’t put time on the receipt.

Q: When you asked her to put a time on the receipt, was that to try and show that you were at Gabriels Building Store purchasing nails about one o’clock on the Thursday 27th September 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that when the man at the Homemakers Store first wrote this receipt (Domenico shown Receipt No. 42461) that he put the date of the docket 2nd September 1973?

A: Yes, I agree.

Q: And do you agree that you asked him to alter the date to 26th September?

A: Yes

Q: And we have been informed that he overwrote the 26th over the date, and then you said to him ‘That is no good, I don’t want it written over, I will have to have another docket’?

A: Yes, I tell him that.

Q: Would you care to tell me why you didn’t want it written over?

A: To make him careful, he do it properly next time.

Q: I suggest to you that the reason you did not want the date altered was that you wanted anyone inspecting that docket (points to Receipt No. 42461), that docket, to believe that it was written out on 26.9.73?

A: Yes. Could I have a glass of water?”

Ammunition that matched the kind used to kill Raffaele was found under Domenico’s house, hidden in a sock. Domenico initially denied having a rifle, but the police told him were going to search his house for a rifle the next day. Immediately upon leaving the police station he returned home, and at 2am emerged carrying a large parcel. He put it inside his car and drove off towards the Nepean River. The police intercepted his car and found the rifle under the back seat, wrapped in material with a sock over the end of the barrel. This matched the sock in which the ammunition was found. Domenico later told police that he had found the rifle buried under his house:

“Q: How did you come to find this gun?

A: After I leave you last time, I was worried about the bullets that were found under my house. I couldn’t go to sleep, I got my lead light out and got under the house and found the gun.

Q: I find it difficult to believe that any person would make a search underneath their house at two o’clock in the morning on the off-chance that a gun might be hidden there. Further, from what you have told us, it is apparent that at the time you were spoken to by the Police, you were headed away from the Penrith Police Station, and in fact were driving towards the river or the gravel pits. Have you anything to say about that?

A: All right, I will tell you. When you told me last night that the Police would come back in the morning to look again for the gun, I knew they would find it, so I dig it up and put it in my car. I never tell my wife. She had a headache, so I told her I would go to the chemist to get something for her. I knew I had to get rid of the gun tonight.

Q: Is this the gun used to kill Raffaele Petula?

A: Yes.”

Later in the police interview:

“Q: We have been informed that during the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had a very big argument at the house, in your presence. What do you have to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that question.

Q: We have been informed that during the course of this argument your sister Grazzia accused Raffaele of misbehaving towards his daughters. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: As at the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, did you know that Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had had many fights about money, land, and Raffaele’s conduct towards his daughters?

A: That is their business. I won’t answer that.

Q: Di you know that Raffaele is well known in the public bar of the St Mary’s Hotel?

A: I wouldn’t know this.

Q: We have made inquiries at the St Marys Hotel, and we have been informed that Raffaele did not go to the public bar of that hotel on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September. We have also made enquiries at the St Marys Railway Station and have been informed that Raffaele did not catch the 1.03pm train or the 1.18pm train from that Railway Station on that day. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I dropped him there and he go to work.

Q: We have made inquiries at the shops in Queen Street, and from the taxi drivers operating from the taxi rank at the St Marys Railway Station, and not one person saw Raffaele in Queen Street, or near the St Marys Railway Station on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September 1973. Although he was seen in the area by a number of people on the preceding Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I still say I left him at the taxi rank at twelve forty five.

Q: We have caused the photograph of Raffaele to be published in the local newspapers, and requested that any person who saw him in between the time you say you left him at the St Marys Railway Station and when he was found in the bush at Llandilo, to contact the police, but not one person has reported seeing Raffaele after you say you left him. Have you anything to say about that?

A: No, I have nothing to say about that. I left him at the station, that’s it.

Q: If you had left him at the station as you say, would you expect some person to have seen him somewhere after you had driven away?

A: Oh yeah.

Q: We have been informed that between 12 noon and 2.30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973, two persons saw Raffaele in the public bar of the Waggon Wheel Hotel, which is situated in the Great Western Highway, St Marys. Have you anything to say about that?

A: Well, look, I have nothing to say about that.

Q: We have been informed that Raffaele was served with a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade which he carried from the hotel into the street. Do you know anything about that?

A: I know nothing about that.

Q: Do you deny that you were the person to whom Raffaele took the schooner of lemonade on that day?

A: I have nothing to say about that.

Q: Do you agree that when I interviewed you on 4th October 1973, that you told me that you did not like beer very much?

A: Yes, I agree with that.

Q: And do you also agree that during the course of the same interview you told me that you often preferred to drink a schooner of lemonade?

A: Sometime.

Q: Have you been to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys with Raffaele?

A: Yes, on Wednesday night I go there with him from my sister’s place. I was to go home and he say to me ‘You drop me at the pub’. I drop him at the pub, and he say ‘You come in’. I go in with him and I had a lemonade and he had a beer. Then he said ‘You have another one’. I say ‘No, I go home now’. He say ‘All right’, and I drive him back home to his place, and I reach my place at ten o’clock. That was a late night I had.

Q: On that occasion which bar did you have the drink?

A: We had the drink in the bar on the corner of the street.

Q: Did you drink the lemonade on the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: And how many beers did Raffaele have on that occasion?

A: He had only one.

Q: Did you and Raffaele drink your drink whilst you were standing at the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: When you drove Raffaele to him home on Thursday 27th September 1973, did he have his coat with him?

A: I don’t remember.

Q: We have been informed that when Raffaele went to the Waggon Wheel Hotel and bought the glass of beer and the glass of lemonade he was wearing his coat, that is on Thursday 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: When I drop him at the station at twelve forty-five, he no have a coat. He have the shirt with the sleeve rolled up.

Q: Are you absolutely sure of that?

A: Oh yeah, sure.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: Do you remember being interviewed by Detective Sergeant Sawyer at the Penrith Police Station on 30th September, this year?

A: Oh yeah

Q: Do you remember Sergeant Sawyer saying to you ‘Can you tell me what clothing Raffaele was wearing when you last saw him?’, can you remember him asking you that?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you remember telling the Sergeant ‘I know he was wearing a shirt with squares, I didn’t much notice’.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, do you agree that there is no mention there that Raffaele is not wearing a coat?

A: Well, he probably not ask me.

Q: Do you know that Raffaele’s coat was found back at his house after he was found dead?

A: No.

Q: Were you at the Petula home all day Friday 28th September 197u3?

A: Yes.

Q: And were you there on Saturday 29th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Sunday 30th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Monday 1st October 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you still say that you have no knowledge that Raffaele’s coat was found in the kitchen of his home after he was found dead?

A: I don’t know.

Q: If Raffaele was wearing that coat when he was served with the lemonade and beer at the Waggon Wheel Hotel on Thursday 27th September, can you tell me any way it could get back into his house if he did not return to the house or leave the coat in your car?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: When you were last spoken to by the Police, you did not say anything about seeing Francesca going to the school at the time you arrived back at your sister’s place. Can you tell us why you did not say this before?

A: Probably I forgot.

Q: We interviewed your sister Grazzia here today and for the first time since this inquiry began, she informed us that you arrived at her home on Thursday 27th September just when Francesca was stepping into the school yard. Do you think it unusual that both you and your sister though of this incident which set the time of your return to your sister’s place?

A: No, not unusual.

Q: Would you agree that this may suggest that you and your sister Grazzia have talked about this and decided to tell the Police that the time you got back to your sister’s place on that day was just when Francesca was walking back into the school?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that since the death of Raffaele you had a conversation with Grazzia at her house, and she ask you why you did not return to the house until two o’clock on Thursday 27th September, and you said you were buying the nails, and not to mention it to the Police. Did that conversation take place?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that between 28 September and 4th October 1973 you were at your sister Grazzia’s home, and you were overheard to say ‘For money or anything else Calabrians will let you go, but for honour they will kill you for sure’. Did you say that?

A: Yes, I did say that.

Q: And what did you mean by that?

A: What I said.

Q: Were you suggesting that Raffaele was not killed for money or anything else, but for honour and nothing else?

A: Yes.

Q: And did Mrs Petula say ‘That’s for sure. Whoever kill him, kill him for honour and nothing else. They put a cross on him by shooting him one in the nose and one in the ear’. Did she say that?

A: I didn’t hear her say that.

Q: Did you hear anyone say that they had put a cross on Raffaele?

A: No.”

Domenico was interviewed again in November of that year:

“Q: I am now going to ask you some questions in relation to the murder of Raffaele Petula on Thursday 27th September 1973.

A: You have got the gun and you have got me. What more do you want?

Q: From our inquiries, we believe that you did not drive Petula to the St Marys Railway Station as you have previously stated, but went with him to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys. Is that right?

A: You know where I went, I am the only one Raffaele would buy lemonade for.

Q: We believe that within one hour of leaving the Petula home, you drove him to an area of bushland at Llandilo where, after hitting him over the head, you killed him by shooting him twice in the head with that gun (points to rifle on table).

A: That’s the gun all right, but I don’t want to tell you what happened until after I see my father.

Q: Were any other persons involved in the shooting of Petula?

A: I won’t answer that.

Q: Would you care to tell us why Raffaele Petula was murdered?

A: Because he is a mongrel, that’s why.

Q: What time do you say you arrived back at your sister Grazzia’s place that afternoon?

A: What did she tell you?

Q: I am not prepared to tell you what your sister told me at this time.

A: After I have seen her I will tell you.

Q: We are satisfied that you were responsible for the death of Raffaele Petula, and you will be charged with his murder. Is there anything further that you want to tell us, or any statement you wish to make before we complete this interview?

A: (long pause… Barca starts to cry). I have lost everything. My wife, my beautiful children. It would be better if the mongrel was still alive. I don’t want to talk about it anymore. I am finished with it. All I want to do is go home to my family.”

A fellow Calabrian, Salvatore Manna, was called as a witness by the Crown, and gave evidence of what he said was a Calabrain custom - if a woman was dishonoured by her husband, he was liable to be killed according to a special custom, called ‘putting a cross on him’. The husband would be shot twice through the head. One bullet was to be fired through the nose, and the other through the ear, so that the path of the two bullets intersected in the skull to form a cross.

Salvatore further stated that the first responsibility to vindicate the honour of a woman rests upon her father. He was cross-examined about this:

“Q: Do you know very much about this Calabrian custom that you have mentioned?

A: Only what I have heard and been brought up with, you know.

Q: Is this something you came to know about in the first twelve years of your life in Calabria, or have you heard it among people in Australia?

A: No, well, I have been brought up in the Calabrian custom way, and what I have heard amongst Calabrians.”

Grazzia and Domenico Barca’s father Carmello lived at Llandilo, not far from where Raffaele‘s body was found, however there was no evidence at all that Mr Barca Snr was implicated in the murder.

Although the Crown case was circumstantial, the evidence, when taken together, was compelling. The ammunition under the house, the attempt to dispose of the gun, the attempt to create an alibi with the hardware receipts, the sighting of the pair at the Waggon Wheel on the afternoon of the killing, and Raffaele’s coat somehow returning to his house without him.

The defence on the other hand contended that the time of Raffaele’s death was in the evening of the 27th, according to the post mortem report, and that Domenico was at home with his family by this time and could not have committed the offence. The defence asked the jury to reject the Crown’s argument that the killing occurred in the early afternoon, and pointed to evidence of other food in Raffaele’s stomach that were not part of the luncheon meal at Domenico’s. The defence also pointed out that the man who discovered the body had been in the area at the time the Crown say the killing occurred, and had not heard any shots.

The defence also argued that the evidence could just as easily point to Domenico’s father Carmello Barca having killed Raffaele, particularly in light of the Calabrian custom. Domenico was merely hiding the gun and ammo for his father.

It emerged during the course of the trial that Carmello Barca had in fact shot and killed a Mr Perri, the first husband of his daughter Grazzia Petula. Apparently he had also been incensed at Raffaele’s behaviour, and had threatened him on more than one occasion with dire physical consequences.

The defence suggested that after lunch, and a drink together on Thursday, Domenico had in fact driven his brother-in-law Raffaele to his father Carmello’s house and left him there, returning to Grazzia’s house.

Grazzia Petula initiall maintained that Domenico had returned to her house at 1pm that day. However, at the trial, she admitted that he had not in fact returned until around 3pm. She said that she had earlier given a false statement because Carmello Barca, her father, had threatened to stab her if she did not.

Nonetheless the trial judge directed the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that the father had been involved, despite the submissions of defence counsel, and that even if he had encouraged his son to follow out the Calabrian honour killing, this did not absolve Domenico’s guilt, as the mere executioner.

Domenico did not give evidence at his trial, but made a short statement from the dock:

“There are some things with reference to this case that I do not want to say. What I do want to say is that I did not see Raffaele Petula alive after Thursday. I did not kill him or take any part in his killing. I personally do not follow this custom, this Calabrian custom, to kill for honour. I cannot say anything else in reference to this, but please believe me, I am not guilty. That is all.”

The jury convicted and Domenico was sentenced to life. He immediately appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which dismissed it. He took his appeal further, to the High Court.

The High Court felt the trial judge was wrong to tell the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that Carmello Barca had been involved. Whilst it was correct that Carmello himself was not on trial, there was in fact some circumstantial evidence that pointed to his involvement, at the very least. Whilst the High Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge Carmello with Raffaele’s murder, there was enough to put a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether Domenico had in fact shot his brother-in-law. It would certainly go a long way to explaining Raffaele’s rather cryptic statements about what he could tell, and what he could not.

The High Court quashed Domenico’s conviction.

A brutal beating

In 1995 Blanch, Taylor and Matthews were all in prison together in Broken Hill, for various offences. In the months leading up to October they concocted a plan to escape together. Blanch covertly made three copies of the keys which would open the lock on the door of his cell, which he shared with Taylor. On October 26 he managed to break the latch system on the storeroom door, which went unnoticed by guards. By about 6pm, Taylor and Blanch were locked away in their cell, No. 13.

Matthews was not to be locked up until 9pm, as he had a 'C' classification that gave him much more freedom within the jail. Blanch and Taylor were still classified 'B'. All three men were aware that after the 'C' prisoners were locked away at 9pm, the guards did not come around again to check any of the cells by opening the doors, or checking the observation panel.

At about 8pm Matthews opened up the door of cell No. 13 using one of Blanch's keys. Blanch left the cell and hid in the storeroom. Matthews was then locked inside cell 13 with Taylor, and they made up the beds to look like they were both occupied. Not long afterwards Blanch left his hiding spot in the storeroom and used another key to let Matthews and Taylor out. They all went and hid in the storeroom together until about 9:20pm. Matthews grabbed some wire cutters and other tools while he was there. Blanch changed out of his prison greens into civilian clothes.

They made their way out to the back compound area and Blanch used the wire cutters to cut the razor wire, and pinned it back with a hook. They managed to get a rope that they had made out of a series of sheets tied together earlier by Blanch and Taylor up over the wall, and once it was in position they made it to the top of the wall and down the other side, to the outside of the jail.

They all headed straight to the Lodge Motel in Broken Hill. Blanch managed to check in, as he was not dressed in prison greens, after which Matthews and Taylor went out to get some civilian clothes, as well as some liquor. They came back to room No. 16 at the Motel and had drinks to celebrate their successful escape. Once that ran out, they tried to get the night officer of the motel to open up so they could gain access to another hotel room, which was occupied by two older people, including Mr Curran.

Mr Curran was a state public servant, who was also spending the night at the Lodge Motel for work. As it turned out, although he'd shut the door to his room, he had not locked it properly, and the three men managed to get in easily. They desperately needed money to continue with their plans. Mr Curran had very little cash on him, so they became determined to wring his PIN number out of him.

Although it was not easy to establish who exactly did what to poor Mr Curran, there was no doubt he was subjected to a brutal and terrifying experience. He was tied up, tortured in various way including having his eyes gouged, kicked and punched all over, and eventually stabbed several times. These assaults went on for a lengthy period of time, and left Mr Curran with permanent debilitating injuries. After being admitted to hospital, he had to undergo several surgeries in an attempt to fix some of the physical damage done to him. As for the psychological damage, needless to say that is ongoing.

Before the three escapees could finish their job they were discovered and again made their escape, seizing Mr Curran's car keys and making off in his car. However they were quickly caught by the police and returned to custody.

Simon Taylor was found to be the man who inflicted the stab wounds. He pleaded guilty to malicious wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, robbery in company, escaping lawful custody and stealing a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to a fixed term of five years for the malicious wounding, two years for the robbery, and one year for stealing the car - all to be served at the same time. For escaping lawful custody he received a sentence of four years and nine months with a non-parole period of one year and nine months, to be served after the completion of the five-year malicious wounding sentence. So his total time in custody was nine years and nine months, with a non-parole period of six years and nine months.

Lance Matthews pleaded guilty to malicious wounding with intent to inflict GBH, robbery in company, escaping lawful custody and stealing a motor vehicle. For the malicious wounding he was sentenced to a fixed term of three years, for the robbery he received two years, and one year for stealing the car - again, all to be served at the same time. For the escape he received three years imprisonment, with a non-parole period. This sentence was also to start at the end of the three-year malicious wounding sentence. So the effective total was six years with a non-parole period of four years.

Peter Blanch pleaded guilty to malicious wounding with intent to inflict GBH, escaping lawful custody and stealing a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to a fixed term of four years imprisonment for the malicious wounding, and one year for stealing the car. For the escape he was sentenced to five years with a non-parole period of two years, to start at the end of the four-year malicious wounding sentence. The total was nine years with a non-parole period of six years.

The reason the wounding, robbery and car-theft offences are served at the same time is because they were committed at the same time, arising out of one set of factual circumstances. However, it is the law that sentences for escape are always added onto the end of any existing sentence.

Simon Taylor was due for release in July 2005, Peter Blanch in October 2004, and Lance Matthews in October 2002.