Brian Martin questioned Janet Amoy closely. Yes, she was sure that it was Sunday 10th July. Her mother’s birthday was the next day but she wanted to have the celebration on the weekend. Also, her brother works on the Saturday in a hotel and she wanted him there. Yes, it was that weekend, there was no doubt in her mind. No, nobody suggested that she should come forward. She had been reading about the trial in the paper and remembered that the party was on that day.
How is Brian going to handle this? I thought. He hasn’t knocked out her story.
Could we have made a mistake?
Barry Jennings called his next witness. It was Thora von Einem, Bevan’s mother. She was seventy-four, grey and small, but she moved confidently and without support to the witness box. She opened her evidence by telling the court that she was a widow with two sons and a daughter. She had lived with her son Bevan von Einem at Paradise since April 1983. Before that, she lived with her son in a unit at Campbelltown for five years. Three days a week she was a volunteer at the North Eastern Community Hospital near her home.
Her evidence supported her son’s story. She said that her son was home the weekend Richard went missing and was in bed with the ’flu most of the following week. He couldn’t have been with Richard. However, under cross-examination, Brian Martin broke her story. Brian did a fantastic job but he had to be careful not to put the jury offside by attacking an elderly woman who appeared genuine and honest.
Brian reminded Mrs von Einem of a conversation she had with me when I spoke to her in August while her son was overseas in Europe between 11 August and 22 September 1983.
‘Did you say to Mr O’Brien, “So Sunday he didn’t go out. Saturday night you know he didn’t feel well enough.” Did you say that to Mr O’Brien?’
‘I don’t know about that, whether I did or not. I could have. I don’t know. I’m sorry.’
‘In fact, he did go out Saturday night, didn’t he?’
‘Yes.’
‘He came up to Houghton.’
‘Yes, that’s right.’
‘You don’t know, do you, whether he went out on the Saturday or not?’
‘No.’
Mrs von Einem also said in her statement to me that her son did not go out on the following weekend, but when Trevor interviewed him at the Adelaide Jail he said that he picked up two hitchhikers the following Sunday night. He was out and about picking up boys. Brian showed her to be a mother who would say things to support her son whether they were true or not yet he didn’t show her to be an out and out liar. He just showed that she didn’t really know what her son was up to.
Barry Jennings didn’t re-examine Mrs von Einem. He appeared to accept that only more damage would be done. Mrs von Einem was Barry Jenning’s last witness. He then presented the defence case. Barry was very clever in his summing up. He was cool and clinical. He stressed to the jury that his client did not have to prove his innocence. It was up to the prosecution to prove that von Einem murdered Richard Kelvin. Barry conceded that someone had killed Richard although the actual cause of death could not be proven. Barry Jennings may have made a mistake by conceding this. He did not have to do so. He could have stressed that it was up to the prosecution to prove murder — the intentional killing of a person. If the prosecution couldn’t prove a cause of death, then the case is just that much weaker. Barry could have raised doubts in the minds of the jury about this point.
He stressed to the jury that although von Einem admitted he was a homosexual, this was no longer a crime in South Australia and being a homosexual did not make a person a murderer. He was appealing to the jury members’ rationality, suggesting they should not be emotional with their decision. Barry Jennings also did not talk about the evidence of the fibres and hair in his summing up. He knew that it would remind the jury of this strong evidence against von Einem.
While Barry Jennings was cool and clinical, Brian Martin was far more emotive. He did not rant and rave, but the words were passionate and penetrating. During his address Brian did not refer directly to the damning evidence presented from the finding and examination of the hair and fibres but made the assumption that the jury accepted Richard was with von Einem. He talked about Richard’s death.
‘If the death resulted from an accident or if the death resulted in some way that was not murder why hasn’t the accused told you? Why hasn’t he stood up and said, “Look, it wasn’t murder. I have done something wrong but it wasn’t murder.” Instead he’s continued with his second false story. His first one goes way back to July. The only reason he changed that, you might think, was because the Crown could prove that [Richard Kelvin] had been in his house. He’s continued with that.
‘He cannot even get close to the truth for you because it’s obvious that to do so would mean disclosing the names of his accomplices. Why wouldn’t he be prepared to do that? Why wouldn’t he tell you who they are? It is a fairly simple answer. He knows that
