Confronting Murderous Men, page 29
Analyst Harold Graysdon Wignall of the state laboratories told of the police having handed him some items. He had gone to the home of O’Meally at Bonbeach and removed certain specimens of colour from walls and articles in the house. On 6 February he was handed an envelope marked ‘sample of hair from the head of William John O’Meally.’ He found it to be human hair dyed black. The following day he was handed a number of exhibits marked ‘found at scene of Howell shooting’. They included a satchel, inside of which he found a pink stain at the bottom caused by fingernail polish. On the outer surfaces on both sides were spots of white enamel paint. On another part were some spots of pale blue kalsomine. On a pair of tinsnips he found a spot of green paint and another of cream.
Other items were examined and included three tins of enamel paint, two white and one red. A pair of trousers had been stained with white and pale blue kalsomine and a trace of red paint. Similar paint had been found on a torch and some pale blue kalsomine on a switch. Some car keys and a Champion spark plug tin were given to him and he found five of the keys to be labelled with adhesive tape, some marked in blue and some in violet. The tape was zinc oxide adhesive. On some slippers he had been handed he noted on the soles cream kalsomine and red paint. On the heel of a slipper was a purple stain of a substance used in indelible pencils. A blue wireless set had been partly coloured with red enamel paint. In a parcel labelled, ‘taken from O’Meally’s home’, was a roll of zinc-oxide adhesive tape, 72 threads to the inch.
An overnight bag had spots of cream paint on it and showed where an attempt had been made to destroy the initials on one side. A hatbox had green paint stains on the side. He again visited the O’Meally home and removed colour specimens from walls and articles in the house. Two days later he was given a soap container, some labels in a tin and a glass jar, by Detective Sergeant Houghton. The soap container bore a label of adhesive tape with the name O’Meally in black ink. The tin contained strips of adhesive tape with the name O’Meally printed in black ink on all of them.
Mr Wignall said he went with Detective Inspector Donelly to O’Meally’s home on 20 February and noted the colour scheme of red, cream, white and cream paint and pale blue kalsomine was used on articles in the house. He said the white paint on the satchel was the same shade and pigmentation as a tin of Dynamel found at O’Meally’s house. It was the same shade as paint on a light switch. There was also some light blue kalsomine on the satchel, the same colour and constitution as on the walls and ceiling of the house. Wignall told the court paints and articles as labelled being found at the scene of the shooting were the same colour as those found on other articles produced or as used in the O’Meally house. In some cases the paints were also of the same constitution. It was an exhaustive examination, but it tightened the noose considerably.
Constable Harry Walker of the Police Scientific Branch told of photographing portion of an overnight bag produced. Using a red filter, he had bought up the obliterated initials more clearly as ‘PHC’, confirming it as Philip Carney’s.
Estate agent Bernard Shelley confirmed that he had leased the property ‘Seaforth’ off Sheffield Avenue, Bonbeach, to people named John and Louisa O’Malley on 17 November 1951. He knew they had done painting since they moved in. Cream, red, light blue and green paint had been used. Walls in a room had been recently kalsomined a bluish colour.
Detective Sergeant Houghton told of going to the home of O’Meally, with other police on 5 February, where he seized property including a suitcase, which Miss Tadgell had identified in court the previous day. He had also found paper cuttings and 13 books on the mechanics and wiring circuits of cars. The cuttings about motor cars had been labelled.
Detective Inspector Hobley, officer in charge of the Scientific Branch, told of Detective Sergeant Tremewen handing him a bullet from the constable’s body. His examination showed it to be an ICI-made .22 calibre long rifle type. He made a number of tests with the rifle in the police ballistics library and found that a bullet from a Cooey rifle made similar grooves to the one he had examined.
Damage to a police issue belt worn by Howell he had been handed indicated it had been caused by muzzle blast from a weapon that was in contact with or within half an inch of the belt when fired. He told of it being common practice for .22 calibre rifles to be cut down considerably to enable them to be concealed.
Detective Sergeant Tremewen told of being present when the bullet was removed from his colleague’s body and handed to him. He handed it to Hobley. He told of going with Detective Sergeant Hill and others to ‘Seaforth’ at Bonbeach at 7 am on 5 February. The door was opened by O’Meally in his pyjamas. Tremewen announced his office and asked O’Meally his name. He gave the name William O’Meally. Tremewen said, ‘We are making inquiries about the shooting of Constable Howell and believe you have property here which does not belong to you.’ O’Meally replied, ‘No.’ They searched the house and took possession of a large quantity of property believed to have been stolen. A washhouse was searched and of all the large number of tools there, no torch or tinsnips were seen. The house was thoroughly searched and only a novelty pen torch was found. No black hat was found in the house.
O’Meally was taken to Russell Street headquarters, where property was checked against reports of breakings. A number of people were asked to attend to look at the property. Tremewen said to O’Meally, ‘Remember the property we took possession of?’ O’Meally replied, ‘Yes.’
Tremewen: ‘Mr Carney identified the electric clock, bed lamp, wallet…and overnight bag as property stolen from his house on 30 April last.’
O’Meally denied breaking into the house. He was shown the wallet where Carney’s initials in gold letters had been. O’Meally said, ‘You have done that since I came here.’ Tremewen said, ‘You know there are no grounds for that suggestion. It is ridiculous.’
He was then shown the overnight bag and asked how he accounted for that. O’Meally replied, ‘You treat me well over these housebreakings, and I will treat you well regarding the shooting of the constable.’
Tremewen said, ‘This property was found in your possession. You have to take the responsibility for it. We can’t overlook the matter.’
The black hat was shown to O’Meally and he was told it had been identified by Carney and had been found at the scene of the shooting. He responded, ‘No. I never wear a black hat. I’ve never had a black hat in my life.’
Tremewen reiterated the identification of the hat by its owner and others and O’Meally replied, ‘Give me some time to think it over.’ He remained silent for a while and said again, ‘You treat me well over these housebreakings and I’ll treat you well over the shooting of the constable.’ He continued, ‘Ray Campbell was with me when I broke into Carney’s. He took the black hat. He lives in The Strand, Chelsea. He fits the description. He said he would shoot a policeman before he was taken again.’ O’Meally dug himself further in with his denials.
Wilfred Evers told the court his sister Lois was married to O’Meally. Before his own marriage in January, he occupied a bungalow at the back of his parents’ house. Lois and O’Meally were living at the same house for about three months from June or July 1951. Evers had a Cooey Canadian .22 calibre rifle, which he kept in the bungalow. It disappeared during the time O’Meally lived at the house. He had not found it since.
The Reverend Charles Dunse, a brother-in-law of O’Meally, gave evidence that in May 1951, when visiting his future wife at her parents’ home in Normanby Street, Oakleigh, he used to see O’Meally there. He noticed he usually wore a hat and on one occasion he wore a black hat, to which his wife had drawn attention. It was similar to the one he was shown in court. He had seen a silver torch similar to the one produced in court in O’Meally’s possession. Dunse said he was married on 24 November 1951, at a chapel in Elm Road, Glen Iris, and O’Meally had been there. He had seen him standing in the road some time before 4.25 pm. He was about 15 or 20 yards on the York Road side of the chapel gate near where the floor of a garage was being cemented.
Kenneth Dowling had remembered the wedding as the day his keys were stolen and Reverend Dunse had remembered the cementing at the garage, near where O’Meally was standing not far from the chapel.
O’Meally’s defence had little to offer; it became clearer he was lying.
Raymond Campbell gave evidence denying he had gone to the Carney house with O’Meally or stolen property. He gave firm evidence that showed the impossibility of him being at the house when he was employed in Queensland. He knew O’Meally slightly and did not mix with him. He had spoken with him briefly about three months before the shooting and had seen him on another occasion, from a distance.
O’Meally did not give evidence. The coroner then addressed the court and made the observation that if he could discover the person who had in his possession the articles found at or near the scene of the shooting, he thought he could safely say he had discovered the murderer of Constable Howell:
I have had to rely chiefly upon silent witnesses to guide me in recording a finding – witnesses that do not lie, whose credibility has not been tested. This circumstantial evidence, and the verbal evidence given, in my view points directly to O’Meally as the man who fired the shot, and the man who murdered Constable Howell. I find that Constable Howell died from the effects of a gunshot wound, wilfully, feloniously, and with malice aforethought, inflicted upon him by one William John O’Meally. I further find that in the manner aforesaid the said William John O’Meally did murder the said Constable Howell.
O’Meally was committed for trial at the Melbourne Criminal Court.
The trial before Mr Justice Coppel opened on 12 May 1952, and was expected to hear from 50 prosecution witnesses. Crown prosecutor Winneke QC opened his address to the jury in which he outlined the evidence to follow, which was substantially the same as that provided to the inquest and would continue until 23 May. O’Meally made a 35-minute statement from the dock claiming his innocence and stressing that he was not at Caulfield on the night of the shooting, had never owned or used a firearm and had come into possession of the goods found in his home in good faith. It was not in his nature, he said, to use a firearm. When finished, he sat down with his head in his hands and cried.
Mr Justice Coppel took almost three hours to summarise the case for the jury. He stated the law as it pertained to murder and manslaughter. He urged the jury to put aside any feeling of indignation over the shooting, or feelings of sympathy for the accused as they had been invited to do. He told the jury there was no evidence to support a suggestion that a second man was involved in the shooting. It had not been raised by the Crown or the defence. Of particular interest was Feltham’s evidence of the man in his taxi asking for a cigarette. O’Meally had claimed he had never smoked. His wife told the court she had seen her husband smoke a pipe on three occasions. His father-in-law had seen him with a pipe in his mouth on occasion, but had never seen him light it. It was an important point for the defence, which was diminished when evidence was given that when signing for his property when taken from Russell Street on 5 February, it included a tobacco pouch. It was a matter for the jury to consider.
The jury retired for four hours, during which time they returned to ask questions twice. When they came back, they returned a verdict of guilty and he was sentenced to death.
O’Meally then put on a performance. He cried as he clung to the dock, ‘Yes, I was charged, yes I was charged, but I’m innocent. I could not do a thing like this,’ he called while looking at the judge. ‘I still have my wife and child. I am fond of my wife and child. I could not do it.’ He was taken down to the cells and would prepare for his appeal.
Not all on that front fell the way he desired. The Court of Appeal refused his application to appeal on 22 July 1952. The court comprised Chief Justice Sir Edmund Herring, Mr Justice Lowe and Mr Justice Gavan Duffy. On announcement of the decision, O’Meally, still full of bluff and bluster, walked to the front of the dock and said, ‘Your Honours. I still maintain I am innocent. I maintain that a miscarriage of justice has been done. My wife and child know it as well as the Lord above.’ The latter portentous claim had taken him some time to announce; other murderers had invoked divine understanding much sooner – though also without effect.
The court dismissed all grounds raised, particularly that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of evidence. The court held that there was, in its opinion, ample evidence to support the verdict.
Trying his luck, O’Meally sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against the decision of the Full Court of Appeal to refuse his application. The court heard the application on 6 October in Melbourne and it was refused. Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon held that the case was not one which in all the circumstances justified the granting of leave to appeal. There was still recourse to the Privy Council when Australia still felt it necessary to cling to mother’s apron strings, but it required money and the state would not fund it as it had the High Court application.
Instead, O’Meally petitioned the Governor of Victoria for a new trial, but this was rejected on the advice of the ministry. His death penalty was, however, commuted to a life sentence without remission in January 1953.
As O’Meally argued for his life, the London Gazette announced the posthumous award of the King’s Police Medal for Gallantry to Constable George Howell. It was presented to his father in the presence of the constable’s family and June Lomax, by Governor Sir Dallas Brooks at Government House, Melbourne on 11 December 1952.
Nearly all avenues of appeal having been exhausted, the weapon allegedly used in the murder of George Howell was discovered buried not far from the scene of the shooting. Information was received from a young woman who spoke to the investigating police and gave them a map hand drawn in pencil on a piece of toilet paper. While the matter was kept under wraps, it was leaked that the woman had been given the map by a prisoner she visited at Pentridge Gaol. The police, aided by the map, dug in an area several hundred metres from the scene of the shooting and unearthed a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle about 20 centimetres in length, a ring of keys, a dagger and cartridges to suit the weapon. The items were found in a shallow depression under the turf of a paddock in Kambrook Road, Caulfield, about 500 metres from where Constable Howell was shot. The prisoner who drew the map was O’Meally himself and he was trying to prove that another person was involved in the shooting and had buried the items. This information was used in his petition for a new trial. The ruse was unsuccessful.
An appeal to the Privy Council in London did not eventuate. O’Meally’s mother was interviewed by the press in Queensland and stated that her son had broken her heart years ago and she could not help him. She said he was a ‘bad lot’ and his troubles arose from his charm, good looks (only a mother!) and an unwillingness to work. He couldn’t hold down a job and had a frailty for young women. He had started housebreaking to support himself and had left New South Wales when things got too hot for him with police on his trail. He went to Queensland for a time before settling in Victoria. Efforts were allegedly made by O’Meally’s father-in-law to raise money for the appeal by returning to work after his retirement. Surely it was a consideration for his daughter.
And still O’Meally simmered. On 27 August 1955, he and four others, including John Henry Taylor, obtained arms and escaped from Pentridge Gaol. O’Meally was eager to throw his hands up and surrender when found by police 200 metres away in long grass. He was thought to be the leader of the escape bid. Two more were arrested after the car they were driving, which they had taken at gunpoint, somersaulted as it was fired at by pursuing police. Taylor and Peter Leslie Dawson were arrested about a week later after committing a string of serious offences. Those who assisted them were arrested and charged. All were given considerable sentences and O’Meally got a pointless four years.
Again, with Taylor, on 29 March 1957, O’Meally made a dash for an insecure gate opening in a well-planned bid for freedom. The two had been waiting in line to talk with a visiting justice when the gate was opened to let a warder out. They broke from the line and ran for the gate, getting through it and opening the larger gate to freedom. Taylor was armed with a pistol. Chief Penal Officer Davis tried to prevent them rushing through the gate and Taylor shot him in the thigh, fracturing his femur. They ran into Champ Street, stole a utility from outside a garage near the prison and drove off.
Another prison officer commandeered a truck and gave chase, hanging from the side firing shots at the departing utility. O’Meally returned fire, not bad for one who had allegedly never used a firearm, and Taylor fired after they exchanged the weapon. O’Meally also had a knife and scissors. Suddenly the bonnet catch on the utility gave way and flew up, obstructing their view. The vehicle had obviously been at the garage for a repair to the clutch because it too failed and, as the warders advanced, the utility crashed into a kerb. They were arrested at gunpoint. They’d been free for 13 minutes, and it would cost them dearly. Both were found guilty of several offences, but primarily the escape and wounding. Both were sentenced to periods amounting to ten years. The futility of the sentences, particularly in O’Meally’s case, caused the judge to offer a disincentive by ordering each to receive 12 strokes of the cat-o-’nine tails. The sentences were appealed, as a flogging had not been carried out in Victoria since 1943, but all appeals failed and the floggings were administered.
O’Meally, whose real name was Joseph Thompson, was born in Young, New South Wales on 25 November 1920. Despite all the hyperbole and politicking about never being released, O’Meally was released on parole on 5 July 1979, after serving 27 years of his sentence. His wife had divorced him in 1965.
