Brian reminded the jury of the evidence of Richard’s mother. This was a smart move. Recalling the evidence of Betteanne Kelvin balanced the more recent evidence of Thora von Einem, who said her son was home most of the first week Richard was missing.
‘ “Mum, I’m in love with Brigitta and I think we’ll get married and have lots of kids.”
‘That, ladies and gentlemen, is the young man that this accused says just wandered up to the car, arms on the roof: “Can I have a beer?” Hopped in, “Let’s go for a drive, let’s go to your house. Forget about ringing [his girlfriend]. Forget about seeing the movie with Mum and Dad; don’t worry about the fact that Mum and Dad are going to go around the bend because I’m not home.” I could use a lot stronger word than nonsense to describe the story. If I did I would probably get into trouble.’
Brian asked rhetorical questions for the jury to ponder:
Why did von Einem drive in the opposite direction to North Adelaide when he was due to go and pick up his mother at Houghton?
Why didn’t von Einem pick up his mother on the Sunday night?
Why was he travelling south along O’Connell Street when he saw Richard Kelvin? If he had just come in to town from home he would have been travelling north along O’Connell Street.
Why carry an esky in his boot when he drinks in moderation?
Why did he pick up Richard Kelvin?
Why did he take him home?
If he went to North Adelaide to buy fish and chips, why didn’t he do that even after he picked up Richard Kelvin?
Why couldn’t he call for a taxi from Paradise and let Richard Kelvin take a taxi from von Einem’s home?
Why leave Richard in North Terrace and not take him to within fifty metres of home and let him walk home?
Why didn’t he come forward earlier?
He argued that von Einem’s story was lies, and answered the evidence of Janet Amoy, which placed von Einem at the family birthday party between 5.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on the Sunday Richard’s body was placed at the airstrip. He suggested that von Einem could have dumped Richard in the early hours of Monday morning after getting up very early to go to work.
Brian stressed that von Einem was involved in the beginning of the abduction — he admitted picking up Richard. He was involved at the end of the abduction and murder because the fibres and hair proved it. Finally, the drugs showed von Einem was involved between those times. It was a great address to the jury that eased many of our concerns.
Justice White had the final say and his views about the case were critical. The judge explained to the jury that matters of law are his domain and that the jury were obliged to follow his directions in this area. He also stressed that facts and inferences from the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses were up to the jury to accept or reject. He reminded the jury that von Einem could not be criticised for giving an unsworn statement. He had the right to do that and he reminded the jury that von Einem had had the choice to speak up or remain silent.
Justice White said that the case depended on circumstantial evidence and that it was up to the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He stressed that regardless of what was speculated on in the media there was no evidence to link the Richard Kelvin matter with any other murder. He wanted to make sure that the jury’s verdict was not clouded by media reports about the other boys.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 12.25 p.m. on 2 November 1984. They returned at 3.51 p.m. to ask the judge about what constitutes murder. This was a worry. They had the opportunity to bring in the alternative verdict of manslaughter but Brian Martin addressed only for murder. He said to the jury that it was murder not manslaughter but he knew that the judge would address this point with the jury. Justice White did this.
I wonder if they are going to find him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, I pondered. Or could they possibly give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty?
At 7.51 p.m., shortly after the jury were fed in jury room seven, they returned to the courtroom.
‘Have you reached a verdict?’ The clerk of court asked the foreman.
‘We have.’
‘Do you find the accused guilty or not guilty of murder?’
‘Guilty.’
Cheering and clapping broke out amongst the 100 people that had filled the public gallery. I have never heard or seen anything like it. In the 1980s, people sitting in the court just did not make any noise. They did not yell out obscenities or make comments to the defendant when the verdict was announced as happens quite regularly now. This was the first time I ever heard that sort of group emotion in a court. The courtroom presented an amazing scene. Initially, it was one of happiness and then relief that it was all over.
Bevan Spencer von Einem showed no emotion.
Trevor and I left the courtroom after Justice White said von Einem was to remain in custody for sentencing and he was returned to the cells in the basement of the building.
We walked out of the courtroom and wrapped our arms around one another and slapped each other on the back. We then turned to the other members of the team who were present to hear the verdict and shook
