Mad Dog Moxley Read online

  There was a similarly large crowd pressing for entrance to the court when the trial resumed. The prosecution led a succession of witnesses through testimony that established Moxley's presence in Strathfield, Moorebank and other locations on the night of 5 April. Again Moxley sat quietly – as well he might because he had already admitted to most of this in his statement.

  But the witnesses filled in gaps and provided what amounted to a portrait of Moxley. Several said they knew him as ‘Fletcher’ and three men who had worked for him claimed to have posted bonds with him that were never repaid at the end of their service. The prosecution attempted to press these witnesses to establish that Moxley had an urgent need for money. Hungerford, doing his job, objected to this, saying that this information was more hearsay than evidence. The judge supported Hungerford.

  In general, however, those who had had dealings with Moxley described him as polite. As against that, it emerged that he had stolen the spade and the shotgun* and that he had also stolen petrol. Although Moxley had admitted to stealing and stripping the Alvis, the prosecution produced the witnesses involved and probed for every detail.

  THE SHOTGUN AND

  SPADE USED BY MOXLEY

  TO KILL DOROTHY

  DENZEl AND FRANK

  WILKINSON

  Under cross-examination by Hungerford, George Fisher, who had worked with Moxley, made a seemingly damaging statement – but one which suited the defence's strategy:

  Q: You had heard him threaten to blow a man's head off.

  A: Yes, that is correct.

  Q: Had he a gun there then?

  A: No.

  Q: Had he had a row with the man?

  A: He explained that he had had a great row with the man.

  Q: When you heard him utter the threat, did you hear the row between him and the man?

  A: No.

  Q: Did he just say it casually?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Nothing preceded it at all?

  A: No.

  Q: Just came out with ‘I will blow your head off’?

  A: Yes.

  Hungerford then attempted to elicit agreement that Moxley was ‘excitable’, but in this he was unsuccessful:

  Q: Was he a very excitable looking man?

  A: In some things, yes.

  Q: What form would his excitement take – would he be jumping about, shouting out?

  A: I have never seen him like that.

  Q: You say he was a very excitable man.

  A: I did not say very excitable.

  Q: Well, excitable.

  A: Perhaps a little, he would be excitable, but nothing more than any man would be.

  All Hungerford could induce Fisher to say was that Moxley had displayed bad temper when he couldn't get his truck to start. He would not ‘agree’ that Moxley ‘got into a rage’ for no reason.

  The strategy had backfired. Moxley was depicted as a threatening individual, prone to violent statements but not emotionally out of control. For a time after this exchange Hungerford made only few interventions and his cross examinations were mild and inconsequential, although he did make a point of soliciting from witnesses that Moxley was known as a hard worker and had continued working when suffering from various injuries.

  Resuming at 2 pm after a one-hour lunch break, Hungerford applied to the judge for help. Moxley claimed that his friends were prevented from seeing him at Long Bay Gaol although there were facilities for that purpose. Hungerford asked the judge to put matters right. Rogers said he would inquire, but would do nothing now. Rogers's notebook for the trial makes no reference to this request.

  Lillian May Harding's evidence on Moxley's presence in her house might have provided the ‘fashionably dressed women’ a mild frisson. Mrs Harding said she was terrified and frightened for the safety of her children, but the prosecutor was unable to paint a very black picture of Moxley at this point. He had paid for his food and gave each of the children a penny. Hungerford questioned her closely as to Moxley's language and she admitted that he had ‘asked’ rather than ‘demanded’, that he said he needed to ‘hide’ and that his behaviour was polite rather than threatening. Hungerford subjected the woman to searching questions, including pointing out minor discrepancies between the evidence she was giving now and that given at the coronial inquest. Mrs Harding bore up well under this pressure:

  Q: When he went into the dining room, did you remain in the kitchen?

  A: Yes.

  Q: The door was open?

  A: Yes.

  Q: And there was nothing to stop you taking your children out of the kitchen door?

  A: I could not get very far if a man had a gun in his hand.

  Q: Is that what you were frightened of?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Although he was in the front room of the house?

  A: Yes, it is not really a big house. It is a small place, you may well be in the same room.

  Q: Was the front door locked?

  A: It was closed.

  Q: Did you try to get out?

  A: He would not let me out.

  Q: Did he say he would not?

  A: I was not going to try when he had a gun.

  Q: Did you say he had the gun in his hand the whole time?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Did you give that evidence at the coroner's court?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Even when he was eating his meal, did he have the gun in his hand?

  A: He had it next to him.

  Reading Mrs Harding's evidence, one gets the impression of Moxley as a desperate and harried man, rather than a violent aggressor.

  The prosecution evidence traced Moxley's movements from the aftermath of the tragic event at Moorebank to his capture in Frenchs Forest, before diverting abruptly to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the bodies. Hungerford remained passive as clinical evidence – shotgun pellets from the scene and from Dorothy Denzel's skull, and the fact that the fly of Frank Wilkinson's trousers was fastened – completed the hearing for the day.

  Wednesday's proceedings began with evidence from Detective Inspector Walsh. His antipathy to Moxley shines through his testimony. It would appear that, on conducting Moxley to the various Moorebank locations, Walsh tried to provoke him into admissions or, at least, to elicit a reaction. When Moxley expressed a wish not to get out of the car at the site of Wilkinson's grave, Walsh's statement was curious. ‘You have only been brought here for protection from the public and photographers whilst some measurements are being taken.’ It is hard to see why Moxley needed to be present while measurements were made or why he wouldn't have been better ‘protected’ in custody.

  Hungerford's questioning of the policeman at this point was equally curious. He pressed him on such matters as the capacity of the tank Moxley was alleged to have stolen petrol from, the miles per gallon likely to have been returned by the Alvis and the size of its wheel base. Both questions and answers appear inconsequential. Then, in an oddly worded way, McKean asked, ‘Is it true that the accused's son has been charged with shooting anybody?’ Hungerford objected but Walsh said he did not know. The transcript recorded that McKean ‘did not press the question’.*

  Ghoulish spectators would have been gratified by the evidence of several doctors. Dr A A Palmer, a government medical officer, confirmed that the wrists of both victims were tied behind them and demonstrated the position. He went on to describe in detail the wounds to the bodies and heads of both, stressing that the heads were ‘shattered’. He was, however, at pains to be accurate and although Dorothy Denzel's bloomers were tied around her neck and there was bruising in the area, the garment was loose and he could not say for certain whether it had ever been tighter. Equally, pressed by Hungerford, he testified that although there was bruising around Dorothy's vagina and internal bruising he could not assert that she was ‘forcibly ravished’ or even that intercourse had taken place without evidence of the presence of sperm. A Dr Morgan, principal microbiologist in the Department of Health, duly
provided confirmation that sperm was present.

  The prosecutor then conducted several police officers through their evidence regarding Moxley's behaviour since his arrest. Two important matters emerged. One was Moxley's initial claim to have had an accomplice and the steps the police took to check this, followed by a record of Moxley withdrawing this statement. If this sign of his unreliability caused him embarrassment, he gave no indication of it.

  It had been a long morning but the day had longer to run and there were signs of irritability on all sides. Hungerford and McKean bickered over differences between the evidence Detective Inspector Walsh had given to the inquest and now as to Moxley's appearance at the time of his arrest. The judge intervened several times to question the relevance of the point and it was eventually settled with neither side seeming to have gained any advantage.

  McKean recalled Walsh to the stand to give, for no apparent reason, a description of the area where the bodies were discovered. Walsh described it as ‘scrubby’ but added that the undergrowth, when he visited the spot recently, was ‘all beaten down by continuous traffic’. Evidently the place had attracted sight-seers.

  The tone of the hearing changed as Hungerford recalled MacKay as a preliminary move before presenting his defence.

  * * *

  * Dr Chisholm Ross was the most prominent psychiatrist in New South Wales in the first decades of the 20th century, holding various senior government appointments in the Department of Health. He pioneered surgical treatment for mental illness and at one time had sole responsibility for certifying people admitted into mental institutions in the state. He was centrally involved in the certification and confinement of the famous eccentric William Chidley. He was one of the first to establish a private psychiatric practice. In 1930 his judgment in a case involving the competency of a person to make a will was challenged and his reputation suffered. He was still, however, called in to examine people whose sanity was in question.

  * The spade and the shotgun are in the Justice & Police Museum, Sydney. The spade is a solid implement with a strong wattle handle. The shotgun, according to an expert, appears to be of cheap Belgian manufacture and to have been about 50 years old at the time of the murders. It seems to have been poorly maintained and partially malfunctioned, as noted, while in Moxley's possession.

  * This is a very puzzling reference. Moxley's son, 14-year-old Douglas, boarded with him in Burwood and was often in the care of Mrs Fletcher. Correspondence regarding Douglas visiting his father in Long Bay Gaol makes no references to any charges pending against the boy.

  JUG EARS

  Appears stone deaf, right ear

  DR GARNET HALLORAN, 17 MAY 1932

  Moxley sits in the van taking him from the court back to Long Bay Gaol. The hisses and cat-calls of the crowd outside the court are still burning in his ears. He covers them with his hands and feels them; how often has he heard comments about his ears? His ‘jug ears’, his ‘wing nuts’. A man can't help how his ears look, he thinks. That's not fair.,

  It seems to him that none of what's happening is fair. So many people against him and no one really on his side. Mr Hungerford and Mr Niland are on his side, he supposes. But it doesn't feel like it. Not really. And that fat judge. He's the one who matters and he looks at him like…He remembers judges and magistrates from days gone by. They're all the same. Safe. What do they know about being out there on your own? Grafting for a living? Having the cops come down on you for the least litde thing.

  There is a small window of thick scratched glass in the van. He swivels around to look out and the guard with him shakes his head.

  ‘Sit straight, cunt.’

  ‘Can't hang a man for looking.’

  He wishes he hadn't said that. Would it hurt? They reckon it's too quick to hurt but how would anyone know? There was a drop, wasn't there? That takes time. How long? How long would it feel? Could feel like a year. Mustn't think like that.

  He has trouble remembering what went on in the trial. He can't tell how things are going but he has a feeling the prosecutor – what's his name again? McKean, that's it – is winning. All that stuff about getting petrol. Can't they see that giving that kid a few bob for doing bloody nothing shows how muddled he was? Confused in his head. And Mrs Harding. She could've been a bit nicer. Did she say I gave the kids a penny each and she let them have it? He can't remember. The fact is, that with his one deaf ear, he misses a lot of what's said, especially when the witness talks softly.

  He stares out at the buildings and the trees. The sun is shining and he thinks it should be raining. He remembers sleeping rough when he was on the run and being hungry. Not hungry now. Three meals a day and not bad grub either. Tea a bit stewed mostly but that's all right. Plenty of Gold Flake. Cushy, we'd have called it in the army, cushy. But nothing's cushy now. Have I got a chance? Not with that bloody stuffed-shirt lot. That bloke on the end, the one who looks like a lawyer. He's opened the trapdoor himself.

  Shit, back to it again. Hard to think of anything else. When they get to the medical evidence, things'll look up. They'll know I'm crook in the head. I belong in a hospital.

  The van stinks of urine and phenyl but through it he can smell the sea. Must be getting close. How long have I got? Another couple of days of the trial and then what? He can't believe he'll get off. An appeal maybe. More time. But how much?

  The van waits outside the prison until it's cleared for entry. Inside the reception compound two guards stand by as the van door is opened. Handcuffed and stiff-legged from sitting for hours, Moxley stumbles as he gets out and one of the guards laughs. He is escorted through a locked gate, retained for a minute by another locked gate, and proceeds through several stages like this to his cell. Along the way he sees the hostile faces and hears the insults of the other prisoners. This is hard. In other prisons he's had mates. Not here. He is under guard in the exercise area and the workshop. No one speaks to him.

  He eats alone.

  In the morning he writes notes to Lin and to Douglas. He hopes Lin will say the right things. She's a respectable woman and the jury should listen to her. She can speak up, too. He grins when he thinks of how smardy she can answer back when she has her dander up. That McKean better be careful not to step on her toes. But he hopes she'll keep her temper. Everyone in the court is so bloody polite. A man's afraid to blow his nose or scratch his arse.

  He tries to read the Bible but the lines of small print blur and he can't take in the meaning of the words. He has trouble with a lot of the words anyway. Some of it's clear. Sin for one thing. He's been hearing that word for as long as he can remember. And hellfire likewise. Is Hell really a place? Hard to believe. Hard not to believe when they go on about it so much.

  It's raining when the van pulls out and he's glad. He looks out the window and the sea in the distance is grey. He feels sick; he had to vomit before going up to the court yesterday and thinks he'll probably need to again today. His stomach churns as the van crosses a rough patch of road. Bloody useless driver, can't drive for nuts. He has a surge of despair as he thinks he'll probably never drive again. Never do a lot of things again. That's mostly all right, but he enjoyed driving.

  A tooth at the back of his mouth aches. The aspirin they gave him at six this morning is wearing off and it'll be hours until he can get some more at lunchtime. But the headache is there pretty well all the time. He just lives with it.

  A crowd – is it the same people? – is shouting just like yesterday. But he's ready for them. He stuffs some cotton wool in his good ear and now he can't hear a bloody thing.

  THE TRIAL

  (2)

  …a Wassermann test for Syphilis

  and the result was positive and also

  khan's flocculation test for syphilis

  and it was also positive.*

  TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

  The trial transcript reads:

  Mr Hungerford to Supt. MacKay: You remember, I suppose, an occasion two years ago when Moxley was shot in the
head. Do you remember that occasion?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Did you notice any difference in Moxley

  after the shooting or not?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Was he a changed man mentally as far as you could see?

  A: Mentally you say?

  Q: Was there any difference in his behaviour?

  A: No, what I saw was that before his shooting he was a bright, alert and cheerful man.

  Q: And after the shooting, what do you say about that?

  A: And after the shooting he was of a morose and suspicious disposition.

  Q: He used to go to you and tell you his troubles and that sort of thing did he not.

  A: Yes.

  It was a remarkably positive testimony from a policeman who knew Moxley's record well and must have been aware of Hungerford's intention to construct a defence of insanity. Hungerford's request that Moxley be allowed to read a prepared statement was denied. Moxley said, ‘I can remember it, I think,’ and proceeded to make a statement without reference to the written document, which occupies six pages in the transcript.

  The statement is rambling and repetitive. Moxley began by claiming that he had been suffering from syphilis before he went to the war and had received very little treatment for it then or since. He maintained that he had received ‘a clean discharge’ from his military service. He went on to give an account of being shot that accorded fairly closely with what he had said in court, an account the jury had rejected. He said his memory was uncertain as to the details of his hospitalisation but the upshot was that he had not undergone the requisite operation. He described headaches and ongoing paralysis of the side of his face.