Of the 525 fibres recovered from Richard’s clothing, 196 were from von Einem’s home or his clothing. Thirty-eight came from his bedspread, twenty-seven came from his bedroom carpet, twenty-one from his hall and lounge carpet, and 110 fibres found on Richard were from von Einem’s brown cardigan. Only two fibres from Richard’s own home environment were left on his clothing. No fibres from the maroon velour seats of von Einem’s Toyota Corona hatchback were on Richard’s clothes. There could be no doubt that von Einem was with Richard and, with the number of fibres from von Einem’s cardigan, it showed close contact.
Many hairs were found on Richard’s clothing and while most of them were Richard’s, there were a number of hairs from a different source. Five of von Einem’s head hairs were found inside Richard’s jeans. The interesting thing about von Einem’s hair was that it had no medulla or central core, which gives hair its colour. The lack of pigmentation could be seen at the base of the hair while the top section was dyed.
The dye was a combination of N2 Schwarzkopf and Ingora Royal applied by the second person von Einem nominated as one of his best friends. He was a male hairdresser who had the nickname ‘Pussy’. He dyed von Einem’s hair once a month because von Einem had been greying since he was sixteen. On Monday, 6 June 1983, the day after Richard Kelvin went missing, von Einem had his hair dyed just before his hairdresser friend went to Melbourne on holidays. The hair samples from von Einem were found to be indistinguishable from the dyed hair found on Richard’s clothing. In other words, the hair was the same and the dye on the hair was the same.
Scientific evidence, of course, can be problematic. While the search for the serial killers who murdered the boys was going on, a Royal Commission was considering the scientific evidence in another murder case — the murder of Rosa Simper. This case caused Des and Ivan and the forensic scientists to be very careful with their tests and conclusions from the evidence they had collected.
Rosa Simper was a seventy-seven year-old lady living alone at Woodville in the western suburbs of Adelaide. She had been sexually assaulted and viciously strangled with her brassiere during the early hours of 3 December 1977. An iron bar was inserted into her anus and vagina before her house was ransacked. Two hundred dollars worth of property was stolen.
Crime scene examiners vacuumed the sheets of the bed where she was murdered and found microscopic evidence. Microscopic particles of wood, foam, fibres, paint and metal were found and taken for examination. Paint and metal were also found on the window ledge where the murderer entered the house at about two in the morning. This trace evidence provided the evidence that was used to convict Edward Splatt.
John McCall from the Major Crime Squad led the Simper murder investigation. John was a short and nuggetty detective who drank and smoked — not big drinks like some detectives but he could sip away for hours, reflecting on cases. He had been in the Squad for years and was in the Homicide Squad prior to that. John was very experienced and very competent at investigating murders.
As paint and metal were found at the home and, in particular, on the sheet where Mrs Simper was sleeping, similar to paint and metal used in the Wilson’s factory across the road about sixty metres from the house, John concentrated his investigations there. However, all of the factory workers had traces of metal and paint on their clothes so crime scene examiners searched for differentiating trace evidence.
Edward Charles Splatt, who was a spray painter at the factory, was arrested because police and forensic scientist believed trace evidence found at the Simper home came from Splatt and that there was circumstantial evidence to prove that Splatt murdered Rosa Simper. However, over time these beliefs were show to be incorrectly based.
An Advertiser newspaper story questioned the guilt of Edward Splatt and sufficient pressure was brought on the government to have a Royal Commission into the evidence presented at the trial. The Commission sat for 196 days and finished in March 1984, three months before Richard disappeared. The Royal Commissioner handed down his finding and said that the additional scientific evidence that was produced during the Commission ‘cast doubt on the validity of the jury’s verdict’. Edward Splatt was released from jail and given $300,000 from the government.
The Royal Commission questioned the validity of the scientific evidence because assumptions were made by one of the crime scene examiners and by a forensic scientist. The findings from the Royal Commission made police crime scene examiners and forensic scientists very careful and wary when presenting their evidence in court; all of this was happening while we were investigating the murder of five boys. We couldn’t afford for such evidence to be criticised again as it would affect our case and the credibility of the whole justice system would be open to attack.
When trace materials are used in evidence, the prosecution must show three things, which are that: the trace evidence was found where it was said to be found; the trace materials, which link the victim to the murderer, must come from the same source; and the accused was so closely in contact with the victim that he must have committed the murder.
These comments of the Royal Commissioner confirmed past court judgments and these three points had to be covered in any trial using the finding of trace evidence. Crime scene examiners and forensic scientists had been severely criticised in the Royal Commission. This provided opportunities for the defence to criticise our case.
Barry Jennings was now assisting Helena
