Mad Dog Moxley (10 page)

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.