A CAIRN in memory of Lucille Butterworth has been erected at a site along the
Lyell Highway. The site between Granton and New Norfolk is where police
conducted a two-week dig
for clues into the 1969 disappearance of 20-year-old Miss Butterworth.
A shiny pyramid on top of the stone is inscribed with the following messages
from Mr Butterworth:
An Evil Shadow The darkness of this
place where you are lying will never cast a shadow on your beautiful face nor
dull your memory You were the brightest
soul, never given a chance to grow old, but rest in peace my Lucille. You will
forever shine brightly in my heart and memory. I tried my utmost to
bring he who took you from me to justice, however he has been named and shamed
but no justice for you.
He may walk free but
while there is breath in my body I will pursue the justice he so deserves. I would love the chance
to dance with you again, see you smile again. I don’t want to say goodbye.
My little sister you were a beautiful Rosebud not allowed to bloom. Your ever loving brother,
James. The Stone for the Monument Was removed from the West
Hobart Quarry now closed. At the quarry in 1922 our grandfather Tasman
Butterworth was killed by a falling rock and I saw it fitting to use a piece
from the quarry for this Monument.
Memorials pay respect to
the departed, but they are really for the living. They contribute positively to
the grieving process by providing a sense of place and leaving a tangible record
of a life lived for family, friends and future generations.
Location of memorial
Address:
Main & Box Hill Roads, Claremont, 7011
State:
TAS
Last seen: 25 August 1969 Year of birth: 1945 Eyes: Blue Hair: Blonde Height: 157cm Build: Slim Complexion: Fair
Circumstances: Lucille
Butterworth was last seen by her mother on 25
August 1969. After a day working at the local radio station, Lucille accepted a
lift from a colleague to a bus stop. Lucille was on her way to a Miss Tasmania
fundraising meeting in New Norfolk.
Record of Investigation into Death (With
Inquest)
Coroners Act 1995 Coroners Rules 2006 Rule 11
I, Simon Cooper,
Coroner, have investigated the suspected death of Lucille Gaye Butterworth and
find as follows: Hearing Dates: 31 August, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21,
22, 23, 24 September, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 November, 1, 2 December 2015 and 20
January 2016 in Hobart. Representation: Counsel Assisting the Coroner: Mr S
Nicholson Counsel for Mr L Le Sage: Mr S C Chopping – 7 September 2015, 8
September 2015; Counsel for Mr G C Hunt: Mr G A Richardson – 31 August 2015, 21
September 2015; Mr A Slicer – 25 November 2015, 30 November 2015, 1 December
2015, 2 December 2015; Counsel for Mr R Lahey: Mr J O’Shannessy – 19 November
2015. Introduction: 1. Lucille Gaye Butterworth disappeared from a bus stop on
Main Road, Claremont, near Box Hill Road, on the evening of Monday 25 August
1969. No trace of her has been found since.
Background of Miss Butterworth:
18. Lucille Gaye Butterworth was born in
Hobart, Tasmania, on 18 March 1949. Miss Butterworth was 20 years old at the
time of her disappearance. She lived at 27 Riawena Road, Montagu Bay, (on the
eastern shore of the Derwent River not far from the Tasman Bridge), with her
father Bruce, her mother Winifred, and her younger brother John. In August 1969
she was employed as a typist at 7HO Radio Station, Main Road, New Town. She was
unofficially engaged to be married to Mr John Fitzgerald of Station Street, New
Norfolk in Tasmania. These findings of fact, based upon the evidence of her
brothers, Mr Fitzgerald, and statements tendered from her late parents, are
uncontroversial and sufficient to satisfy the obligation imposed by section
28(1)(e) of the Act.
19. Miss Butterworth was raised and educated in Hobart. Her upbringing and
childhood appear to have been happy and unremarkable. The evidence at the
inquest from a variety of sources was, and I find, that she was close to her
family (especially her mother), happy at home, happy in her relationship with Mr
Fitzgerald, and a popular and gregarious young woman with a variety of friends
and interests.
20. It is clear, and I find, that there was no intention on the part of
Miss Butterworth to leave Tasmania for any period of time prior to her
disappearance. The evidence about this issue was very clear and came from a
variety of sources, both from those related 8 to her, (her brothers, and
statements tendered from both of her now deceased parents), as well as friends,
and correspondence to and from Miss Butterworth. All that material satisfies me
that there was never any intention on her part to leave the State.
21. In reaching this view I have regard to the extensive evidence given at
the inquest as to what might be called the historic investigation conducted by
Tasmania Police after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. Part of that
investigation involved an examination of her bedroom at the family home at 27
Riawena Road, Montagu Bay, and the motor vehicle used by her. Located in her
motor vehicle were some motor vehicle touring maps of Victoria. The finding of
those materials on their own is, in my view, not enough to support a conclusion
that Miss Butterworth had an intention to leave the State of Tasmania. It is
just as consistent with a young woman, informally engaged to be married,
planning, or thinking about planning, a honeymoon. All other evidence on the
point however suggests, strongly, as I have already said, that she had no
intention of leaving the State.
22. It is necessary to say a little about the evidence so far as it
touches upon the relationship between Miss Butterworth and Mr Fitzgerald. The
evidence was, and I find, that Miss Butterworth and Mr Fitzgerald had been in a
boyfriend/girlfriend relationship for little over two years prior to her
disappearance. Before starting to see Mr Fitzgerald, Miss Butterworth had been
in a relationship with a Mr Stephen Woolnough; although that relationship had
well and truly ended, and no contact was had between her and Mr Woolnough for
some time. There was evidence from Mr Fitzgerald as to the strength of his
relationship with, and commitment to, Miss Butterworth. It was plain that he
cared very deeply for her, and still does after all this time. Her diaries were
tendered into evidence. They reveal nothing other than what might be described
as a “normal” relationship between people of that age, attended with the
vicissitudes of life in the form of normal disputes. Mrs Jane Short, a friend of
both from 1969, and an impressive witness who gave evidence at the inquest,
described their relationship as a strong one. I am satisfied that it was.
23. During the couple’s relationship Mr Fitzgerald lived at 1 Station
Street, New Norfolk with his father Mr Clyde William Fitzgerald. The Fitzgerald
family owned and ran several grocery stores in New Norfolk, including one at
that address in Station Street where father and son lived in a flat above the
shop. The building is still there although it is no longer a shop. In 1969 there
was a fenced backyard area behind the store – again which is still present
24. Miss Butterworth would from time to time stay overnight at Mr
Fitzgerald’s residence at Station Street. Similarly, according to a statement
made by Miss Butterworth’s mother, Mrs Winifred Butterworth, and tendered at the
inquest, Mr Fitzgerald was a frequent guest at the Butterworth home in Montagu
Bay. When Miss Butterworth intended to stay at Station Street the evidence was
that it was her invariable practice to let her mother know that she was going to
do so. In the time leading up to her disappearance it had been her practice to
travel to New Norfolk after work on a Monday night to attend a meeting of the
“Retarded Children’s Association”.
25. Many alleged sightings of Miss Butterworth elsewhere in Tasmania,
interstate and even overseas were reported to Police after her disappearance.
There was a considerable amount of material in the surviving police
investigation files as to enquiries carried out in relation to many of those
alleged sightings.
26. There was evidence from the contemporary investigation that suggested
that someone meeting Miss Butterworth’s description had been seen in the CBD of
Melbourne, and Shepparton in Victoria. The evidence in regard to both, when
subject to anything other than a cursory analysis, leads to the conclusion that
neither reported sighting was of Miss Butterworth. The first reported sighting
of Miss Butterworth was from a Mr J Brett who reported to police that he had
seen her in Bourke Street, Melbourne at 1.35pm (or thereabouts) on 1 October
1969. It is apparent from contemporary material on investigation files that the
detail provided by Mr Brett was vague and the sighting was unable to be
substantiated or corroborated in any way. Ultimately the claim by Mr Brett that
he had seen Miss Butterworth was withdrawn by him. I am satisfied that there was
no proper basis for the claim and I am well satisfied that whoever it was that
Mr Brett thought he saw it was not Miss Butterworth.
27. An alleged sighting of Miss Butterworth at Shepparton in northern
Victoria was also investigated in some detail at the time. According to the
contemporary police files the source of the report of the sighting was said to
be “reputable” (but was not identified). The alleged sighting, in the latter
part of 1969, was apparently taken seriously at the time and local police were
provided with photographs of Miss Butterworth. Those photographs were shown to
hotels and motel owners, taxi drivers, various local businesses and circulated
throughout the community of Shepparton. It was determined as a result of that
investigation that the alleged sighting was without foundation or certainly was
not Miss Butterworth. I am satisfied that it was not her. 10
28. Other alleged sightings, and there were very many, were investigated.
Geelong CIB investigated an allegation that Miss Butterworth was resident in
that city and had given birth to a baby on 30 November 1969. It was determined
as a result of that investigation that the woman identified was not Miss
Butterworth at all.
29. It is also clear from the contemporary investigation, that the
possibility of Miss Butterworth having relocated to New Zealand was mooted,
taken seriously (although why it was is far from clear), and investigated in
some detail. One alleged sighting in particular of Miss Butterworth at a hotel
in Wellington appears to have been considered, at the time, to have had a degree
of credibility. However investigations by New Zealand Police were able to
exclude Miss Butterworth as the person thought to have been seen, and police
were in fact able to positively identify who it was that had been seen. The
police report indicates that the woman identified was noted to bear a strong
resemblance to Miss Butterworth – but it definitely was not her. However in my
view the suggestion that Miss Butterworth had relocated to New Zealand had no
credibility whatsoever. Indeed, it appears to have been little more than gossip
at the time which the investigation has shown was without basis in fact. Indeed
the genesis of the gossip seems to have been a social gathering which occurred
in New Norfolk within a matter of weeks of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance and
about which Mr Dennis Woods gave evidence at the inquest.
30. An article of female clothing, linked to a radio station in
Queensland, was found during one of the many searches conducted after Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance. That discovery led to enquiries being conducted in
Queensland. Those enquiries did not reveal any connection with, or trace of,
Miss Butterworth.
31. I am quite satisfied that Miss Butterworth did not relocate to
elsewhere in Tasmania, the mainland of Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else
further afield. I am satisfied she did not leave the Hobart area, and in
particular Claremont on 25 August 1969 voluntarily, and had no intention of
doing so. There are several reasons for reaching this conclusion. They include
the fact that after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance her mother Winifred
Butterworth checked her clothing and belongings but could not identify that
anything was missing. In my view had Miss Butterworth intended to voluntarily
leave for elsewhere in Tasmania or leave the State altogether then at the very
least she would have taken some clothing or belongings with her. That nothing
was noted to be missing (other than the clothing and items she had with her at
work and when she was dropped off by Ms Kaye George) suggests strongly she had
no intention of going anywhere at all, other than to New Norfolk, as planned.
32. Important also was the evidence of Ms Jill Harrison (Kiers). Ms
Harrison was a close friend of Miss Butterworth’s while the girls grew up. She
described Miss Butterworth and herself as “best friends”. They attended both
primary and high school together. Ms Harrison said she saw Miss Butterworth two
or three times a week during their childhood and adolescence. Ms Harrison moved
to Perth, Western Australia, in 1969. She was in more or less constant contact
with Miss Butterworth, exchanging letters regularly, the whole time she lived in
Perth. A number of those letters (located in Miss Butterworth’s bedroom after
her disappearance) were tendered at the inquest. The substance of Ms Harrison’s
evidence and the letters tendered at the inquest make it abundantly plain that
Ms Harrison and Miss Butterworth were making plans to meet up upon Ms Harrison’s
return from Perth to Tasmania. Moreover, they had firm plans surrounding the
celebration of Miss Butterworth’s 21st birthday in March 1970. Ms Harrison was
clear and firm in relation to her evidence that at no stage had Miss Butterworth
expressed any intention to go to New Zealand alone or with anyone else. I accept
Ms Harrison’s evidence. Although along with all the other witnesses they were
describing incidents that occurred nearly 50 years ago, the nature of Miss
Butterworth and Ms Harrison’s friendship and the circumstances of Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance strongly suggest to me that her memory would be very
clear as to the matters she gave evidence about. Ms Harrison gave evidence that
she was spoken to by Western Australia Police not long after Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. The reason it would seem for local police contacting her was to
satisfy themselves that Miss Butterworth had not left Tasmania and was not
staying with her. They of course found that she was not.
33. In addition, Ms Harrison gave evidence about Miss Butterworth’s
personality and demeanour generally. She described her as extremely close to her
mother. She said she was always bubbly and happy and never depressed.
Significantly, Ms Harrison gave evidence, which I accept, that Miss Butterworth
would not get into a car with someone that she did not know (several other
witnesses who knew Miss Butterworth well said the same thing). Miss
Butterworth’s personality was described in this way by a number of other
witnesses. She was described as cheerful, strong and confident.
34. Along with Miss Butterworth’s brothers, Mr Fitzgerald, her parents;
indeed everyone that knew her and was called to give evidence, Ms Harrison said
that she had not heard from Miss Butterworth since August 1969. I accept this
evidence. It is beyond doubt that no one has. Indeed there is not a shred of
evidence that Miss Butterworth is 12 alive or has been alive at any time since
shortly after 6.15pm on Monday 25 August 1969
35. Returning to the evidence of Ms Harrison, I observe that it is
particularly significant in that she was a person outside the immediate family
but close to Miss Butterworth. She had known her a very long time. They grew up
together in effect. She was well placed to comment on Miss Butterworth’s
personality and approach to life. Moreover, even if Miss Butterworth had,
contrary to all the evidence, decided to leave Tasmania for some undefined
reason and not communicate ever again with a single member of her immediate
family, or Mr Fitzgerald, it is inherently improbable that she would not have
contacted Ms Harrison. Of course the evidence is clear and unequivocal that
no-one, Ms Harrison included, has had any contact from her.
36. I have no hesitation in accepting Ms Harrison’s evidence. I formed the
view that she was an impressive and reliable witness. Her evidence fortifies me
in my conclusion that Miss Butterworth is dead and has been since Monday 25
August 1969. In fact as I have said the evidence on this point was unequivocal
and completely overwhelming. I have already dealt with the alleged sightings of
Miss Butterworth elsewhere in Tasmania, in Victoria, and the rumour (put it at
its highest) that she had travelled to New Zealand. There was and is no
substance to any of these lines of enquiry. There is no evidence that any person
living or dead had ever had verified contact with or from Miss Butterworth after
25 August 1969. These findings, coupled with the clear evidence in relation to
Miss Butterworth’s attachment and commitment to her family (especially her
mother), all lead to a conclusion, the only conclusion in my view, that she is
dead. Possible Causes of Death:
37. Having reached the view that I have it is necessary then to consider
how it is that Miss Butterworth may have reached her death. There are, or so it
seems to me, only three possible causes of her death. Those possibilities are
first, that Miss Butterworth caused her own death voluntarily (suicide). Second,
that Miss Butterworth’s death was in some way accidental, that is to say, her
death was caused as a result of misadventure. The final possibility is that she
met her death at the hands of another person, or persons.
38. In my view the first two possible hypotheses are easily excluded. One
obvious point is that if Miss Butterworth had committed suicide or had met her
death as a result of an 13 accident (perhaps stumbling into the Derwent River
and drowning or possibly being run down by a motor vehicle) then her body is
most likely, in my view, to have been found. Obviously despite extensive
historic searches and recent ongoing investigation no trace of Miss
Butterworth’s body has ever been found.
39. Another reason why suicide as a cause of Miss Butterworth’s death can
also be readily dismissed is the evidence from many witnesses about Miss
Butterworth’s personality, temperament and demeanour. Those witnesses included
members of her immediate family; her closest childhood friend whilst growing up,
Ms Jill Harrison; other friends and acquaintances such as Ms Jill Bradley (to
become Mrs Wilcox), Mr Kevin Palmer, Mrs Short; and of course Mr Fitzgerald. The
picture that emerged from the evidence of these witnesses (along with others)
was that Miss Butterworth was generally happy and content, in a job that she
liked, and in a relationship with Mr Fitzgerald that, although not without its
ordinary difficulties, she was happy in.
40. Evidence was placed before the inquest from her treating medical
practitioner at the time of her disappearance. That evidence suggests, strongly,
that Miss Butterworth was in good health and had no medical conditions of any
significance. In particular, there is the complete absence of evidence of any
reason, whether it be associated with mental health difficulties or any other
matter, that would indicate Miss Butterworth was at risk of suicide.
41. In the immediate lead up to her disappearance Miss Butterworth had
attended a cabaret on Friday, 22 August 1969 at the Man at the Wheel Hotel in
Liverpool Street, Hobart, with a group of friends including Ms Bradley, Mr
McShane, Mr Gilbert Schultz (a work colleague of Miss Butterworth’s), Ms George,
Mrs Short and Mr Palmer. The cabaret was a fund raising event to support Ms
Bradley who was then an entrant in the Miss Tasmania competition. The following
day, along with Mr Fitzgerald, Miss Butterworth travelled to Launceston to
attend an engagement party. The couple stayed in Launceston overnight on
Saturday, 23 August 1969. Evidence from a number of people present at the
cabaret was led at the inquest. That evidence from Ms Bradley, Mr Palmer and Mrs
Short all is indicative of a young woman happy and enjoying herself. None of
those people gave evidence of noticing anything out of the ordinary with respect
to Miss Butterworth. It is not without significance that each has had a very
long time to think carefully about Miss Butterworth’s disappearance and the lead
up to it. Each was an impressive witness in their own way. The evidence of each
person strongly suggests that Miss Butterworth had no issues of any significance
in her life and certainly nothing that might provide a reason for her to take
her own life.
42. Investigations at the time revealed no financial or other difficulties
and investigations subsequently over the years confirmed this to be the case.
Miss Butterworth expressed no suicidal ideation to any one spoken to as part of
the myriad of investigations over the years. Persons spoken to included of
course family and friends, Mr Fitzgerald, and her medical practitioner. There is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would allow a conclusion that Miss
Butterworth had any intention to end her own life nor any reason so to do.
43. Finally, the investigation by Tasmania Police in the immediate
aftermath of her death which involved, as I have already touched upon, an
examination of the contents of her bedroom and her motor vehicle, and included
seizing and examining diaries, letters and the like (which were tendered at the
inquest). That investigation did not reveal any indication of any suicidal
ideation or anything in the nature of a suicide or farewell note. For all of
these reasons I am satisfied that no evidence exists, at all, that would support
in any way a conclusion that Miss Butterworth was the cause of her own death.
44. Accident or misadventure as the cause of Miss Butterworth’s death is
also able to be readily discounted. It seems clear that, whatever the
shortcomings of the historic investigation by Tasmania Police into Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance (and more will be said about that investigation in
due course), it is inherently improbable that no trace whatsoever of Miss
Butterworth’s body would have been located in all of the years since she went
missing, were her death the result of accident or misadventure. The reason for
reaching such a conclusion is that had she died in such circumstances her body
would not have been hidden.
45. In addition, historic records, evidence from Mr Jim Butterworth,
Mr John Butterworth, and Mr Fitzgerald, as well as evidence from three retired
police officers involved in the original investigation, (Mr Jeff Edwards, Mr
Barry Dillon, and Mr Frank Webb), gave an indication of the extent of the
searches that were conducted for Miss Butterworth. It is also plain from the
evidence adduced at the inquest that Miss Butterworth’s disappearance attracted
a considerable amount of media attention, both local and interstate, in the
immediate aftermath of 25 August 1969. That level of interest has continued on
and off since that time. In addition to media attention it is apparent that the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth has remained a topic with a high level of
public interest, certainly in Tasmania. Given the level of publicity it is also
inherently unlikely in my view that her body would not have been identified had
she been discovered.
46. But the most compelling reasons to conclude that
Miss Butterworth’s disappearance and death was not the result of suicide,
accident or misadventure are the circumstances in which she disappeared. I turn
to a review of the evidence in relation to those circumstances.
Miss
Butterworth’s Disappearance on Monday, 25 August 1969:
47. The circumstances
surrounding the disappearance of Miss Butterworth have been the subject of an
extensive investigation over the years. It is a matter of considerable regret
that the investigation was not approached in a professional way from the outset.
It is always difficult, and often unfair, to judge historical events by the
standards of later years and therefore it is important to make the necessary
allowance for changes in techniques, professionalism, training and approach.
Even allowing for all of those considerations it must be said that the approach
of Tasmania Police to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance in 1969, and for many
years after that, was poor.
48. I make the following findings on the basis of
the evidence led and adduced at the inquest with respect to the final movements
of Miss Butterworth on 25 August 1969.
49. On Sunday, 24 August 1969, Mr
Fitzgerald and Miss Butterworth returned from Launceston to New Norfolk. It will
be remembered that the couple had attended an engagement party and later stayed
together at the Centennial Hotel in Balfour Street, Launceston on the preceding
day. The evidence from Mr Fitzgerald in relation to the engagement party held at
the home of Mr Holton in Riverside (a suburb of Launceston) was that nothing of
any significance or out of the ordinary occurred at that party. After returning
to New Norfolk, Miss Butterworth returned to her home in Montagu Bay. Before
doing so she told Mr Fitzgerald she would see him the following evening at the
meeting of the Retarded Children’s Association in New Norfolk. The Retarded
Children’s Association was a fund raising charity linked to the Miss Tasmania
Quest. It has already been mentioned that Miss Butterworth’s friend, Ms Bradley,
was an entrant. Mr Fitzgerald, Miss Butterworth, (and a number of other persons,
some of whom gave evidence at the inquest, including Mrs Short and Mr Palmer),
were members of a committee supporting Ms Bradley’s participation in the Miss
Tasmania Quest. It was the practice of the committee to meet Monday evenings in
New Norfolk for the purpose of coordinating fundraising activities.
50. The
evidence was, and I find, that after leaving New Norfolk, Miss Butterworth
returned to her family home. There was no direct evidence as to how she spent
the evening of 16 Sunday, 24 August 1969, but equally there was nothing to
suggest that that evening was in any way remarkable or anything unusual
occurred.
51. The following day, Monday, 25 August 1969, was a work day for Miss
Butterworth. As has already been noted, she was employed as a typist at the 7HO
Radio Station. The studio of the radio station was then on Main Road, New Town,
a few hundred metres north of the road’s intersection with Augusta Road. The
building is still there today and, until recently, housed a local television
station. Miss Butterworth drove her Austin A40 motor car (which she had
nicknamed “Rupert”) to work leaving her home at 8.40am. Although there is no
direct evidence about the matter it seems almost certain that she drove to work
over the Tasman Bridge (the most obvious route) to some squash courts in New
Town run by her aunt, Mrs Merlwin Matthews. There she parked her car and made
her way, presumably on foot, to the radio station.
52. In a statement made to
police after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, and tendered at the inquest, Mrs
Matthews said that Miss Butterworth visited her “during the lunch hour”. The
women spent 10 minutes talking. Mrs Matthews said that Miss Butterworth asked
her if she could leave her car there while she travelled to New Norfolk for a
meeting connected with the “Crippled Children’s Appeal.” In the same statement
Mrs Matthews indicated that Miss Butterworth had left her car there on other
occasions on Mondays when she was going to New Norfolk for that purpose. She
described Miss Butterworth as seeming happy that day and as “bright as a
button”.
53. Miss Butterworth’s decision to leave her car – the Austin A40 was
of some age – at her aunt’s address in New Town seems to have been because her
mother, Mrs Winifred Butterworth, had previously expressed a concern about the
capacity of the vehicle to safely make the trip to New Norfolk. In any event, as
is indicated above, it was not unknown for her to have done so in the past. It
was by no means unusual.
54. Miss Butterworth finished work for the day at about
5.25pm. She and a colleague, Ms George, left work together. In the three months
leading up to 25 August 1969 Miss Butterworth was, I find, in the habit of
obtaining a lift from Ms George to Claremont. Ms George lived off Box Hill Road
in Claremont, and it was her practice to drop Miss Butterworth in Box Hill Road
around the corner from Main Road, Claremont. Miss Butterworth was in the habit
of obtaining this lift because it saved her 20 cents on her bus fare. In a
statement made to police on 27 August 1969 and tendered in evidence, Ms George
confirmed that she and Miss Butterworth left work at 5.25pm, a little earlier
than normal, because Ms George needed to call at the New Town Pharmacy. In the
17 same statement Ms George confirmed that Miss Butterworth had been travelling
with her as far as Box Hill Road, Claremont every fortnight on Monday evenings
for three months. She confirmed other details of Miss Butterworth’s
arrangements, namely that she was on the committee for Ms Bradley who was a
contestant in the Miss Tasmania competition. Ms George gave evidence at the
inquest and confirmed the substance and accuracy of her statement.
55. Ms George described in evidence the route she drove to get to
Claremont - north along New Town Road and, after a brief stop at the New Town
Pharmacy, east on Risdon Road, then north on the Brooker Highway and Main Road
to Claremont. Ms George said that she did not stop at any stage after leaving
the New Town Pharmacy until she reached Box Hill Road. Upon turning into Box
Hill Road at about 5.45pm Ms George pulled her vehicle into the kerb so Miss
Butterworth could alight from it. Ms George said that upon alighting from the
vehicle Miss Butterworth said that she (Miss Butterworth) would let her (Ms
George) know about “brunch”. This was a reference to another fundraising
activity associated with Ms Bradley’s Miss Tasmania campaign.
56. I am satisfied
that the journey from the 7HO studio in New Town to Box Hill Road occurred at
the time and in the manner described by Ms George. Other evidence, aside from
the evidence of Ms George, satisfies me that when she alighted from Ms George’s
car, Miss Butterworth was wearing her work uniform, which was orange in colour,
a black suede leather coat with lighter coloured fur trimmings, black shoes, a
wrist clipped “Zeitex” watch, and a nine carat gold friendship ring. She was
carrying a black handbag and had with her a large orange shopper bag which
contained, inter alia, her overnight attire as well as a black leather diary for
the year 1969.
57. Importantly, Ms George described Miss Butterworth as having
had her hair recently restyled and coloured into a new platinum blonde bob style
cut. Mr Palmer, who was at the relevant time Miss Butterworth’s hairdresser,
gave evidence at the inquest that he had restyled Miss Butterworth’s hair into
the style and colour described by Ms George a matter of days before her
disappearance.
58. Ms George did not see Miss Butterworth ever again after
leaving her in Box Hill Road. She then continued to her home in Belgrave Street,
which runs off Box Hill Road, a short distance from the intersection with the
Main Road at Claremont.
59. There is no doubt at all that it was Miss
Butterworth’s intention to catch a bus to New Norfolk. The evidence was that as
at 25 August 1969 the bus stop at which Miss Butterworth was accustomed to
catching the bus to New Norfolk from Claremont, was 18 south of the intersection
of Box Hill Road and Main Road, Claremont and on the western side of the Main
Road. The evidence was that the bus stop was situated more or less outside what
was then the Claremont Post Office. The area has little changed today although
the bus stop is no longer in the same location. That having been said, the
building which was the Claremont Post Office still exists essentially unchanged
since August 1969. North of the post office building are some units on the
corner of Box Hill Road and Main Road. The evidence was that in August 1969 that
site was occupied by a wood yard. Immediately adjacent to, and to the south of,
the post office in August 1969 was a butchers shop. The building that housed the
butchers shop is, like the post office building, in the same location and
essentially unchanged although it is not now used as a butchers shop.
60. The
evidence (in the form of a sketch map contained on the original police missing
person investigation file, tendered at the inquest) was that there were two
public telephone booths in the general vicinity of the bus stop. Both were on
the Main Road, north of that road’s intersection with Box Hill Road and on
either side of the Main Road. Neither is present today. The evidence also was
that one telephone booth was more or less outside the then Claremont police
station and the other opposite. The Claremont police station has long been
decommissioned, but the building in which it was situated, and the police
residence is still there, a weatherboard home which is the second structure
north of what is now a Chinese Restaurant on the corner.
61. I am satisfied that
Miss Butterworth made her way to the bus stop after she was dropped off just
around the corner in Box Hill Road by Ms George. Several witnesses including two
who gave evidence at the inquest described seeing a person on the evening of 25
August 1969 at that bus stop who can only have been Miss Butterworth. In
addition to those witnesses, Mr Anthony Field and Ms Judith Stanfield,
statements taken by police as part of the initial investigation into Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance were also tendered from Mr Robert Harris, Mr Gordon
Hale, and Mr Scott Robinson. None of the evidence in relation to the various
sightings of Miss Butterworth at the bus stop at around 6.00pm on 25 August 1969
was challenged. None of the evidence was attended by any serious doubt. All the
evidence (except that of Ms Stanfield) was contained in a statement taken by
police relatively shortly after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. Each contained
detail that suggested each was inherently reliable. The fact that there were
five separate accounts from five separate witnesses, none of whom apparently
knew each other, that were more or less consistent in their detail, lends
considerable weight to the accounts. Each in effect corroborated the other. I am satisfied, notwithstanding the effluxion of time, as to the inherent
reliability of each account. In the case of Mr Field and Ms Stanfield, even
allowing for the considerable period of time which has passed since the incident
they described, I am satisfied, having seen and heard them give their evidence,
that the accounts they gave of the early evening Monday, 25 August 1969
pertaining to Miss Butterworth, were reliable and accurate.
62. In addition to
the evidence from the witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph,
statements were tendered from two bus drivers, Mr Harold Rowan Johnson and Mr
Anthony Edward Cartledge. Neither driver was alive to be called at the inquest.
Both played a pivotal, but entirely innocent, role in the circumstances
surrounding Miss Butterworth’s disappearance.
63. In Mr Harris’s statement he
described seeing a woman that can only in context have been Miss Butterworth at
the bus stop at around 5.50pm on Monday, 25 August 1969. The statement taken
from Mr Harris was undated but other material suggests that it was taken by
police within a matter of days after Miss Butterworth disappeared. Mr Harris
said in that statement (tendered in evidence) as follows: “At about 5.45pm on
Monday 25th August 1969 I left my home at 10 Amber Street and walked down to
Main Road and along Main Road on the left hand side and crossed Box Hill Road to
Lee’s shop which is situated on the corner of Box Hill Road and Main Road. On
the way I passed the bus stop and did not see any person at the bus stop. When I
came from the shop I looked at my watch and it was 5.50pm. My watch keeps good
time. I was coming towards the bus stop again and I notice [sic] a girl waiting
on the bus stop. I first thought it was Mrs McDermott who has the shop on the
corner and I thought she must be going to New Norfolk and I intended to speak to
her and as I got closer to her I realised that I did not know her. She had
silvery/blonde hair, swept back and wearing a black leather coat and was trimmed
by off white and down just above the knees and she had a carrying bag in her
hand. The bag was in her right hand. The girl was about 19 – 20 years of age and
did not appear upset.”
64. The description in Mr Harris’s statement of the
“girl” he described seeing at the bus stop contextually can be no one other than
Miss Butterworth. I am satisfied it was her. Mr Harris, like a number of
critical witnesses, was unfortunately deceased by the time this matter was the
subject of an inquest.
65. Mr Hale also gave a statement to police. Like Mr
Harris, Mr Hale was also deceased by the time of the inquest. Like Mr Harris, a
statement from Mr Hale also was undated but other material tendered at the
inquest suggests that it too was taken by police within a relatively short
period of time after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. Mr Hale, who was then a
geologist employed by the Hydro-Electric Commission at Montpelier Retreat, in
Hobart, said in his statement as follows: “I conclude work of an evening at
5.30pm and usually travel straight to my residence at Austins Ferry. On the
evening of Monday 25 August 1969, I arrived in the vicinity of Box Hill Road and
Main Road, Claremont, at approx. 5.55pm. Owing to traffic congestion at this
point I slowed down and drove close to the kerb and proceeded up Box Hill Road.
As I approached this point I observed a girl aged approx. 20 years slight of
build, good looking with shortish hair, her hair appeared darkish with fairer
hair in the front, I did not recognise her as a local girl. To the best of my
memory she was wearing a contrast of orange and black and at the time I thought
it was strange that a girl should be standing on that bus stop at that time of
night. The following day the 26th, or it could be the Wednesday, I noticed a
photo of a girl in the “Mercury” newspaper. I immediately said to my wife “That
is a photo of [the] girl I saw standing on the Box Hill bus stop.” I forgot to
state that on the Monday night in question as I pulled in towards the bus stop
with my car the girl I have mentioned took a couple of steps towards the kerb
and leaned over and peered into my car. She gave me the impression that she was
attempting to identify the driver of the car. At the time I observed the girl
the light was fading. The vehicle I was driving at the time was an off white
Toyota Corona Sedan, 1967 model. Whilst travelling down Hilton Road and turning
into Main Road I noticed two buses travelling north. Both these buses were
between Hilton Road and Ferry Road.”
66. The account in Mr Hale’s statement must, logically and contextually,
be a description of Miss Butterworth at the bus stop. I am satisfied it was her.
On the point of Miss Butterworth taking a couple of steps towards the kerb and
leaning over and peering into Mr Hale’s car, it is worth noting that the
evidence was that Miss Butterworth was short-sighted and used glasses; although
not as frequently perhaps as she ought. The 21 description contained in the
statement of Mr Hale of Miss Butterworth taking a step or two towards his car
and her leaning forward and peering into the vehicle in an endeavour seemingly
to identify the driver is entirely consistent with a person somewhat
short-sighted but without her glasses. I observe that not a single witness
described Miss Butterworth as wearing glasses when seen at the bus stop on
Monday, 25 August 1969.
67. Ms Stanfield was called to give evidence at the
inquest. In August 1969 she was a nine year old schoolgirl. Her family ran the
post office at Claremont. They lived in residential accommodation attached to
the postal facility. She was not interviewed by police in 1969 or any time
subsequently until shortly prior to the inquest. Although the incidents she
described had occurred many years in the past and at a time when she was a
relatively young girl, I am satisfied that the description she gave to the Court
was accurate. I accept that she was a witness of the truth. Ms Stanfield said
that she had been playing on the verandah of the family accommodation on the
southern side of the post office building on Monday, 25 August 1969. It will be
remembered that the bus stop where Miss Butterworth was waiting to catch the bus
to New Norfolk was directly in front of the post office. She recalled noticing a
young lady who again, contextually, can only have been Miss Butterworth,
standing at or about the bus stop. I am satisfied it was Miss Butterworth. She
said: “The young lady was waving as a vehicle that had been parked outside the
butchers was leaving. The vehicle was travelling north and I remember it was a
‘milky’ green colour, but I don’t remember what the vehicle looked like except
it was a sedan. I believed the lady to be waving to the vehicle as it departed.
The lady then walked to the bus stop, and as she walked past our house I said
“Hello” and she said “Hello” in return. I don’t have a distinctive memory of
what this lady looked like, except that I can recall she stood out because she
was really pretty and girls notice that sort of thing. She was aged in her early
twenties, was slim and had a coat on. Her hair was distinctive in hairstyle and
she had some type of head band or head piece in the front. I recall her hair was
more brown than blonde. I do not recall what the lady was carrying but I know
she wasn’t empty handed.”
68. Ms Stanfield said she saw Miss Butterworth speak,
or appear to speak, with a person in a cream or white car, and that that car
subsequently drove off. It is probable that that car was driven by Mr Hale. She
said she saw Miss Butterworth walk off in a northerly direction to the Box Hill
and Main Road intersection and then described a bus arriving 22 at 5.55pm and
one passenger alighting from it, but not seeing Miss Butterworth board the bus.
She said she did not see Miss Butterworth again after she walked off toward Box
Hill Road.
69. Mr Field, who gave a statement to police shortly after Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance, was able to be called as a witness at the inquest.
Counsel assisting, Mr Nicholson, submitted that Mr Field’s evidence was critical
in relation to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. I accept this categorisation of
his evidence, and I accept his evidence. Mr Field struck me as a careful,
cautious and accurate witness who notwithstanding the fact he was required to
answer questions in relation to events many years in the past, gave his evidence
with real care and accuracy. In a statement he made to police four days after
Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, which was tendered at the inquest and which Mr
Field confirmed to be accurate, he said: “At about three minutes to six on
Monday night the 25th August 1969, I left home and drove down to the corner of
Box Hill Road and Main Road at Claremont to pick up my wife. I arrived there at
6.00pm. I parked on the gravel, at an angle, facing the Claremont Post Office.
Whilst parked in this position I noticed a girl standing at the bus stop near
the post office. She would be in her early twenties, slim build, and had fair
up-swept hair; I noticed in particular that her hair was up-swept at the back. I
noticed this because I was looking from an angle. She was wearing a coat, either
dark leather or dark vinyl with light fur trimming around the bottom hem and
cuffs. I think she was carrying a bag but I can’t enlarge on that. I formed the
opinion that she possibly felt she had missed a bus as she kept looking up the
street. My wife was a few minutes late finishing work and I was parked there for
about ten minutes. The vehicular traffic was fairly heavy. Several vehicles
stopped during this period. One that particularly comes to mind was a turquoise
green sedan, possibly an early model Holden which I would describe as an old
bomb. The driver’s side near door had been damaged. I didn’t notice how many
occupants were in the vehicle. The vehicle stopped close to where the girl was
standing. I think it would be two or three minutes after this vehicle (sic)
stopped at the bus stop that my wife came to my car and I drove off. I turned
across the Main Road and turned left into Box Hill Road. The vehicle that I
mention had gone and although I am not certain I feel that the girl wasn’t at
the bus stop when I turned across Main Road. I have viewed the photo in today’s
paper and the girl’s hair is the same at the sides as the girl I saw, but I
would say the girl that was at the bus stop had rather curlier hair at the
front. The sketch that is shown to me is the same type of coat as that worn by
the girl although I am not positive that the coat worn by the girl had fur
trimming up the front. Since viewing the vehicle identification books, I am
fairly certain that the vehicle I refer to was the standard model FJ Holden
Sedan, turquoise green in colour. It was damaged along the driver’s side.”
70. Mr Field made a subsequent statement to police when the matter was being
reinvestigated. In that statement made on 1 April 2014 he had provided
additional information relating to the vehicle that he saw. More will be said
about that vehicle in due course.
71. The final evidence with respect to Miss
Butterworth being seen at the bus stop in Claremont on the evening of Monday, 25
August 1969 came from another witness, also deceased, Mr Robinson. Mr Robinson
was out walking his greyhounds on the evening in question. In his statement to
police made on 3 September 1969 and tendered at the inquest Mr Robinson said:
“On Monday night the 25th of August 1969, I took my two dogs for a training
walk. As near as I can pin-point the time I left home around 5.40pm. I walked
along Beach Road up to Cadburys Road, and through a small paddock to the Railway
Station and then up Box Hill Road. I saw Mr McDermott opposite his shop
(Robbie’s) Shop and I talked to him on the opposite side of the street for a few
minutes. I left Mr McDermott and walked up to the Main Road on the grass. I
intended to cross the Main Road and go up Box Hill Road on the western side.
Before I reached 24 the Main Road and whilst still on the grass I saw a young
girl. I first saw her on the gravel portion of the Main Road on the opposite
side to the bus stop. She was walking towards Hobart (casually). She would be
opposite the Old Post Office. I would describe her as very lightly built, age
late teens, 18 – 20 group, matured teens, and I noticed she had blonde hair, a
dark coat, with either light or white trimmings. She was carrying a basket in
her left hand and I am not sure but I think she had a second bag or parcel in
the other hand. I continued over the Main Road and up Box Hill Road and did not
see the girl again.” I am satisfied the “young girl” described in the statement
was Miss Butterworth. Once again, contextually and logically, it is inherently
unlikely to be anyone else.
72. Mention has already been made of the evidence of
the two bus drivers, Mr Johnson and Mr Cartledge, who by the time of the inquest
were both deceased. Statements from both men were tendered in evidence along
with a statement from an administrative employee of the bus company for whom the
men worked in August 1969. The substance of the evidence from the drivers and
the administrative employee (Ms Phyllis Browning) was that on Monday, 25 August
1969 there were two buses run by Tasmanian Coach Lines from its depot in
Harrington Street, Hobart to New Norfolk. The first was due to leave at 5.15pm.
It was driven by Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson had some difficulty of an unspecified
nature with the bus that was described in the statement as “engine trouble” and
was therefore running late. He therefore did not arrive at the bus stop in
Claremont until later than usual. He said that he knew Miss Butterworth as she
had travelled on the bus he regularly drove from New Norfolk to Hobart on
occasions in the past. In his statement dated 14 March 1970 and tendered at the
inquest he said the normal time that the 5.15pm bus would arrive in Claremont
was about 5.35pm. However as already been noted, on the evening in question it
was running late.
73. Mr Cartledge said in a statement taken by police on 15 April 1970 and
tendered at the inquest that he was also a bus driver employed by Tasmanian
Coach Lines. He said in the statement that on Monday, 25 August 1969 he was the
driver of the 5.30pm bus from Hobart to New Norfolk. He said he left the city
depot at about 5.30pm and “would pass through Claremont at approximately
5.50pm”. In the statement he said he could not recall the exact time he arrived
on 25 August 1969 but that he “always arrive[d] at Claremont at 5.50pm and [that
he could] not remember having any traffic trouble that 25 night”. He described
letting a passenger off at the bus stop near Box Hill Road and said he did not
see any person waiting at the bus stop that looked like the Butterworth girl,
nor did any person get on his bus there”.
74. It is worth remembering that by
the time Mr Cartledge was interviewed by police and his statement taken in April
1970 the fact of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, and the circumstances
surrounding it, had been the subject of an extensive publicity campaign. That
campaign included, as Mr Jim Butterworth and his then wife Ms Joan Webber said
in their evidence, the erection of a life sized photograph of Miss Butterworth
at the bus stop from which she disappeared. Mr Cartledge necessarily would have
seen that photograph in the course of his employment. I am quite satisfied that
he would have been well aware of the appearance of Miss Butterworth by the time
he came to give his statement to police in April 1970. I am satisfied that his
statement that he did not see anybody waiting at the bus stop that looked like
Miss Butterworth is a reliable one. In the same way given his occupation as a
bus driver (and the same comments can be made with respect to Mr Johnson), and
the fact that bus drivers drove then (and drive now) to timetables, I consider
the evidence from Mr Cartledge and Mr Johnson with respect to times is likely to
be reliable.
75. Mr Cartledge went on to describe having approximately 30
passengers that night and arriving in New Norfolk with at least half of those
passengers at about 6.10pm; none of whom were Miss Butterworth.
76. None of the
evidence set out above, whether it be in the form of statements taken shortly
after the disappearance of Miss Butterworth, or in the cases of Mr Field and Ms
Stanfield’s oral evidence at the inquest supplementing either statements taken
in 1969 or more recently (or in the case of Mr Field both), was contradicted.
There was no material whatsoever available to the inquest that would suggest any
of the witnesses were mistaken or inaccurate. Three witnesses (including Ms
George) were still alive and gave evidence which was, in my view, having seen
and heard each of them, reliable, even allowing for the passage of time since
the events they were asked to describe. I have already mentioned why I consider
the evidence of the bus drivers, particularly with respect to time, to be
reliable. I am satisfied in fact that the substance and detail of the evidence
set out above is correct.
77. From it I conclude as follows. At 5.45pm Mr Harris left his home at 10
Amber Street, Claremont; he walked past the bus stop one or two minutes later
and did not see Miss Butterworth. Miss Butterworth was dropped off by Ms George
at about the same time.
78. Close to 5.50pm the bus being
driven by Mr Cartledge stopped at the bus stop. Miss Butterworth was not at the
bus stop.
79. Near 5.50pm Miss Butterworth was seen at the bus stop by Mr
Harris. She was still there at near 5.55pm when Mr Hale stopped at or near the
bus stop and Miss Butterworth approached his vehicle.
80. Accepting as I do the
evidence of Mr Field, I find that between just before 6.00pm at the earliest and
about 6.05pm at the latest Miss Butterworth was at the bus stop. Mr Field
described her at that time as appearing anxious. A couple of minutes after
6.05pm Mr Robinson was walking his greyhounds when he saw someone who can only
have been Miss Butterworth. Mr Robinson it will be remembered saw her on the
opposite side of the road to the post office.
81. But shortly after being seen
by Mr Robinson, or somewhere around 6.08pm at the earliest or 6.10pm at the
latest, Miss Butterworth was nowhere to be seen according to Mr Field whose
evidence I accept. He said he had been sitting in his car facing towards the bus
stop waiting for his wife and looking in a general direction of the bus stop.
When he turned across Main Road and drove into Box Hill Road, Miss Butterworth
was no longer there.
82. When Mr Johnson drove his bus past the bus stop at
about 6.10pm Miss Butterworth was not there.
83. In summary, I conclude on the
evidence that Miss Butterworth disappeared shortly after 6.00pm and no later
than 6.15pm from the bus stop on Main Road, Claremont on Monday, 25 August 1969.
Necessarily, given the passage of time but also the fact that none of the
witnesses in 1969 (with the possible exception of the bus drivers, Mr Cartledge
and Mr Johnson) had any particular reason to pay careful attention to the time,
the times may not be precisely accurate to the minute. However, in my view
little turns on that.
84. Counsel assisting submitted that it was unlikely she
was forcibly abducted from the bus stop given the amount of vehicular traffic
and people in the area at that time of evening and the observations specifically
of Ms Stanfield, Mr Robinson and Mr Field. I agree. In my view had Miss
Butterworth being forcibly abducted, that is to say, forced by a person or
persons into a motor vehicle (and logically there can be no other mechanism by
which her removal from the bus stop would have been effected against her will)
then I am satisfied that someone would have noticed something. At the very 27
least Mr Field and Ms Stanfield, amongst a number of others, were in a position
to have noticed something of that nature. Neither did. A variety of other
persons were in the general vicinity including, but not limited to, the various
persons identified in this finding. It is in my view inherently improbable that
Miss Butterworth was forced into a vehicle against her will. I am satisfied that
she was not.
85. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that the most likely explanation for Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance from the last stop is that she accepted a lift from a passer-by.
That is to say, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that she
voluntarily entered a motor vehicle. There is logically no other means by which
she can have travelled away from the bus stop.
Events subsequent to Miss
Butterworth’s Disappearance:
86. The evidence was that Miss Butterworth did not
arrive in New Norfolk on the evening of 25 August 1969 as expected, or at all. Mr Fitzgerald, Mrs Short and Mr Palmer gave evidence to that effect. Mr
Fitzgerald gave evidence at the inquest about a number of matters but in
particular the aftermath of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. He also made
several statements to police about her disappearance. In his evidence before the
inquest he confirmed the substance of the various statements. I accept Mr
Fitzgerald as a witness of the truth.
87. His first statement (once again
undated but which other evidence suggests was made a matter of days after Miss
Butterworth disappeared) was lacking in any real detail. A second statement made
in October 1970 and tendered in evidence dealt with the circumstances
surrounding Miss Butterworth’s disappearance in more detail. In that statement Mr Fitzgerald said that on 25 August 1969 he was working at one of the family
stores at 27 High Street, New Norfolk. He said that normally the shop closed at
5.30pm and “by the time the staff clean-up it is about 5.45pm…”, and that he
stayed at the shop waiting for [Miss Butterworth] until between 6.45pm and
6.50pm.
88. Mr Fitzgerald in that statement said that the High Street store was
on a telephone extension line from the main office at 3 Hamilton Road (the same
building also had the address 1 Station Street) and then after 5.30pm the
telephone was switched through to the Station Street residence. Mr Fitzgerald
said that he went home and when he arrived there his father had the evening meal
ready. He said that he ate that meal then went straight to the Retarded
Childrens’ Meeting at the nurses’ home at the Royal Derwent Hospital in New
Norfolk. Mr Fitzgerald arrived at the meeting between 7.20pm 28 and 7.25pm. He
said that Mr Laurie Cullen was the chairman that evening. Mr Fitzgerald gave
evidence that he remembered speaking to Ms Bradley’s mother and being asked
where Miss Butterworth was. He said in the statement that between 7 and 10
people were at the meeting when he arrived. Mr Fitzgerald said the meeting
started at about 7.40pm and finished at about 9.35pm. He said after the meeting
he went home to bed. Upon his return home he said he did not see his father and
assumed that he too was in bed.
89. In the October 1970 statement by Mr
Fitzgerald some additional detail with respect to events on the evening of
Monday, 25 August 1969 was added. There is in my view nothing untoward about the
fact that the 1970 statement contains additional information. When first
interviewed, shortly after Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, it is quite
apparent from the historic police files, (or what remains of them), that were
produced and tendered at the inquest, that police were treating Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance as in effect a “runaway” case rather than anything
sinister and certainly not a possible homicide. That focus had changed by 1970.
That change in approach, in my view, accounts for the fact that the second
statement from Mr Fitzgerald contains significantly more detail than the first.
In his second statement Mr Fitzgerald said that when Miss Butterworth did not
arrive that night at the store in High Street he assumed she would be coming to
New Norfolk with Ms Bradley. Other evidence from Mr Fitzgerald was to the effect
that the bus which Miss Butterworth ordinarily caught stopped more or less
opposite the High Street store.
90. Mr Fitzgerald said that at about 10.00pm on
the night of 25 August 1969, that is, after the meeting had finished and after
he had returned home, he tried telephoning the Butterworth home and that there
was no reply. Whether he did so or not is irrelevant. In the statement he said
he only rang once. He went on to say that on a previous occasion when Miss
Butterworth had not arrived at New Norfolk as expected he found out the next
morning when he rang her at work that she had been sick.
91. The next morning,
Tuesday, 26 August 1969, Mr Fitzgerald arrived at work at about 8.30am. He said
the staff at the High Street store arrived shortly after him. He gave evidence
that at 9.05am he telephoned 7HO in an endeavour to contact Miss Butterworth. He
was told by the person who answered the phone (Ms Kay Bailey) that Miss
Butterworth was not at work and had not arrived at work. Mr Fitzgerald then
telephoned the Butterworth home and spoke to Miss Butterworth’s mother. He told
her that Miss Butterworth had not arrived at New Norfolk the night before and
passed on to her the substance of the information he had received from 7HO. Mr
Fitzgerald said that 29 he tried to telephone Mr Jim Butterworth, both at his
home and his work, but he was unsuccessful. He went on to say that he then left
New Norfolk in his car and made his way via Mr Jim Butterworth’s then home in
Tavistock Avenue, Austins Ferry, (where he found there was no one at home), to
the Butterworth family home at Montagu Bay. He was told when he arrived there
that by then Miss Butterworth’s father, Mr Bruce Butterworth, had already
reported her disappearance to the police.
92. Mr Fitzgerald made a further
statement to police on 31 March 2000. It dealt with aspects of his relationship
with Miss Butterworth and included some extra detail such as the fact that in
August 1969 he was living with his father, Mr Clyde Fitzgerald, and that his
mother was by then already deceased. The March 2000 statement also contained
additional information with respect to some of his neighbours in the Station
Street area of New Norfolk in 1969 (and in the years leading up to then).
93.
Evidence was given at the inquest by Mr Palmer and Mrs Short, both persons being
present at the meeting at the nurses’ home at the Royal Derwent Hospital in New
Norfolk on the evening of 25 August 1969. Their evidence corroborated the
substance of Mr Fitzgerald’s evidence about Miss Butterworth’s non-attendance at
that meeting.
94. Statements taken from Miss Butterworth’s parents, Mr Bruce
Butterworth and Mrs Winifred Butterworth, were tendered into evidence. Mr Bruce
Butterworth said in his statement that on the morning of 26 August 1969 he went
to work at the Repatriation Department in the city in his own car, leaving the
family home at Montagu Bay at 7.40am. He said that at about 8.45am or 9.00am
that morning he received a phone call from his wife who was very upset and had
told him that their daughter was missing. He went home. Later in the morning he
rang the Hobart police station and he was “put onto missing persons”. Mr Bruce
Butterworth was asked by police to take a photograph of Miss Butterworth to
them, which he did that morning within an hour and a half of arriving home.
After calling at the Hobart police station he went to the 7HO studio and spoke
to Ms George. Ms George told him that she had dropped Miss Butterworth off on
the corner of Box Hill Road on the Main Road at Claremont. Mr Bruce Butterworth
described in his statement going from 7HO to Claremont where he commenced the
search for his daughter. In his statement made to police on 19 February 1970 and
tendered at the inquest he said that both the post office and the butcher shop
were shut but that he then went to shops that were open and asked if anyone had
seen Miss Butterworth. No one was able to help him. His statement goes on to say
that he searched in gutters along both sides of the road for some considerable
distance but saw nothing of any unusual nature and certainly nothing 30 relating
to his daughter. He then returned home. His statement says that when he got home
the house was full of people, including Mr Fitzgerald who had arrived during his
absence, and that he and Mr Fitzgerald both went to the Hobart police station in
Mr Fitzgerald’s car where both men were questioned by police.
95. Mrs Winifred Butterworth’s statement to police was made in March 1970.
It too was tendered in evidence at the inquest. The statement confirmed that
Miss Butterworth had left home on the morning of 25 August 1969 at about 8.40am
in her car and that Miss Butterworth did not ring her mother during the day. The
statement dealt with clothing that her daughter was wearing and, importantly,
the fact that Mrs Winifred Butterworth had checked all her daughter’s clothes
and belongings after her disappearance and did not find that any were missing.
Mrs Winifred Butterworth also dealt with the distinctive soft black leather coat
with white fur trimming that Miss Butterworth had been wearing on 25 August
1969. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of either statement from either
parent. I accept the evidence in the statements.
96. Miss Butterworth’s
brothers, James (Jim) and John, also gave evidence that dealt with the immediate
aftermath of their sister’s disappearance. I accept both men as witnesses of the
truth. Their recall of detail was impressive and wholly understandable in the
context of the loss of their only sister. Mr Jim Butterworth said that in August
1969 he was living in Tavistock Avenue, Austins Ferry with his then wife, Ms
Joan Webber. Mr John Butterworth, some years younger than his sister, was a
schoolboy at the time of her disappearance in August 1969. He told the inquest
that he was still living at the family home. Each man gave evidence of the
efforts at searches for their sister carried out by them, their father, Mr
Fitzgerald, and various friends and acquaintances. Their evidence outlined where
those searches were carried out and the fact that they were fruitless. Ms Webber
also gave evidence addressing aspects of the aftermath of Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance.
The Initial Police Investigation:
97. The investigation in
relation to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance commenced on 26 August 1969, the
day she was reported missing. It continued on and off for many, many years. In
the course of that investigation, once police reached the view, belatedly I
consider, that Miss Butterworth had not taken herself away of her own volition
but rather was the victim of foul play, a number of possible suspects were
identified and investigated. Mr Fitzgerald was, by virtue of his relationship
with Miss Butterworth, considered by police as a potential suspect. Historic
investigations however have 31 made it quite clear that he was in no way
involved in the disappearance of his fiancée. His presence at the High Street
store was independently verified, as was his attendance at the meeting at the
nurses’ home later the same evening. It was determined that it would have been
impossible for him to have made the journey to Claremont and return within the
time frame available to him. I am quite satisfied that although it was a proper
matter for police to consider in 1969 and 1970, Mr Fitzgerald had no role
whatsoever in the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
98. Once the investigation
commenced a number of other potential suspects were identified. Many voluminous,
but far from complete, police investigation files made available at the inquest
make it clear that many members of the public telephoned through information
relating to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. That information included in some
cases detail; in many it did not. Many of the reports made to police amounted to
little more than completely unsupported accusations of the involvement of a man
(or in some cases men), sometimes identified, often not, in Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. Each of those reports was investigated to a greater or lesser
extent. Each was found to be wholly without any merit. It is unnecessary in my
view for the purpose of this finding to deal with each of those reports in any
detail. An example may suffice. A report was received on 30 May 2007 from a
member of the public suggesting that a man by the name of Bernard Jean Dervin
was responsible for the disappearance of Miss Butterworth. The report was duly
investigated. It was found that Mr Dervin was not even in Australia in August
1969 – he did not migrate to this country until 1973, well after Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance. Many other reports suggesting the involvement of
named persons were received over the years – some even during the course of the
inquest itself. I am satisfied none had any substance.
99. Another person whose
potential for involvement in Miss Butterworth’s disappearance that was
investigated in 1969 and 1970 was Dennis Charles Wood. There is little doubt Mr
Wood was vague, misleading and possibly less than frank with the original
investigators. However Mr Wood’s former wife provided evidence which satisfies
me that he could not have been involved in Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. In
addition he was called as a witness at the inquest. The details surrounding his
involvement with Miss Butterworth were explored. Records relating to the
investigation of him and in particular of an interview conducted with him by
members of Tasmania Police were tendered. All of that material satisfies me that
Mr Wood had no role in Miss Butterworth’s disappearance and death.
John
Gannon Lonergan
100. It is clear on the evidence adduced at the inquest that the
first firm suspect of police investigating Miss Butterworth’s disappearance was
Mr John Gannon Lonergan. Mr Lonergan’s potential involvement in relation to Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance was extensively investigated in the aftermath of 25
August 1969. Mr Lonergan remained a figure of extreme interest for investigators
for many, many years. An extensive amount of evidence was tendered at the
inquest in relation to Mr Lonergan’s history and antecedents as well as the
results of the investigations with respect to his movements on 25 August 1969.
From that material I make the following findings.
101. Mr Lonergan was born on
14 January 1936. Therefore at the time Miss Butterworth disappeared he was aged
27. He was then residing at 5 Hobart Road, New Norfolk and married to Mrs Jan
Lonergan. He and his wife had one child, a daughter, then aged eight. Mr
Lonergan joined the public service in 1953 and performed clerical duties for the
Police Department until he was appointed as the State’s first junior constable
on 25 June 1955. On 16 January 1956 he was sworn as a constable in the Tasmania
Police force. On 21 March 1958 he resigned from the police force. In June of the
same year he was charged with assault of an indecent nature upon a 19-yearold
woman from Hobart. The matter was dealt with in the Sorell Court of Petty
Sessions and dismissed. On 17 April 1959 he made an application to re-join the
police force but his application was rejected.
102. It is apparent that Mr
Lonergan firmed as a suspect in the eyes of police because of his history of sex
offending. In July 1962 he attempted to rape an 18-year-old woman. In December
1962 he raped a 39 year old woman and was charged, convicted and sentenced to
three years and nine months imprisonment. In April 1963, whilst waiting to
appear at an appeal with respect to the above rape conviction and sentence, he
indecently assaulted a 24 year old woman. He was charged, convicted and
sentenced to a further 18 months imprisonment.
103. In May 1969 a 26 year old
ballet teacher accepted a ride in a motor vehicle from New Norfolk to Hobart
driven by man who said his name was Peter Evans. The ballet teacher subsequently
identified Mr Lonergan as the man who called himself Peter Evans. He attempted
to indecently assault the ballet teacher and threatened her with a hammer.
Fortunately she was able to make an escape. He was not charged due to an
apparent reluctance on part of the ballet teacher to give evidence.
104.
After his release from prison on 31 July 1966 Mr Lonergan returned to live in
New Norfolk. On 25 August 1969 he was, as has already been indicated, living at
5 Hobart Road, New Norfolk and employed at the Boyer Mill. On the afternoon of
25 August 1969 he was due to work afternoon shift from 4.00pm to 11.00pm but did
not report for work on that evening. He was absent for three days following a
change to shift and reported for work on the following Saturday on day shift.
105. Mr Lonergan reported to work on Saturday 30 August 1969. He submitted an
application for sick leave for Monday 25 August and reportedly had burns to his
face and arm. Historic police reports indicate he told his shift foreman, a Mr
Stewart James Anderson, that he (Mr Lonergan) had been painting and threw some
rags or similar into a fireplace and the fire had flared back on him. Mr
Anderson confirmed in a statement made to police on 23 May 1970 that Mr Lonergan
had visible burns on his face and possibly one of his arms.
106. Mr Lonergan’s
wife and daughter were not staying at the family home on 25 August 1969. His
wife had taken her daughter to her mother’s home in Berridale on Saturday, 23
August 1969. The arrangement was that Mr Lonergan was to call for them on
Wednesday, 27 August. He did so. Mrs Lonergan noticed burns to her husband’s
face and arm and he reportedly told her that the fire had “blown up”. Initially
she told investigating police that so far as she was aware her husband had not
been painting during her absence. She noticed no evidence of any damage to
furniture or carpets in the house, although she did find a pair of new pyjamas
belonging to her husband missing. She told police that Mr Lonergan had told her
they had been burnt when the fire “blew up”. A statement from Mr Lonergan’s
former father-in-law, Mr Ronald Jack Correa, made on 26 May 1970 was part of the
police investigation file. It was tendered at the inquest. In it Mr Correa
described seeing his son-in-law on or about 23 August 1969 [sic] with what were
described as second degree burns to his face. Mr Correa said in the statement
that his son-in-law explained that it happened when he put a log on the fire and
it (presumably the fire rather than the log) blew up.
107. Police seemed to have
attached significance to Mrs Lonergan’s report that every time the name of
Lucille Butterworth was mentioned her husband became “very upset” in some
unspecified way.
108. There is little doubt that Mrs Lonergan was, with very
good justification it seems to me, both hostile toward her former husband and
afraid of him. He was arrested for, and charged with, stealing at New Norfolk in
December 1969. This was the catalyst for her to leave him and go to live with
her parents. She told investigators that she had been awakened at night by her
husband with his hands around her throat and detailed many other instances of
abuse at the hands of her husband. There is no doubt she formed the view that
her husband was responsible for the disappearance of Miss Butterworth. I do not
doubt the belief was both strongly and honestly held by her. However, that does
not mean it was true. After Mrs Lonergan left her husband he sold up his
property at New Norfolk and left Tasmania.
109. Investigations ascertained that Mr Lonergan was the owner of a blue and white 1960 Triumph Sedan, registered
number WJN 029, during 1969 (indeed it was this vehicle he was driving when he
picked up the ballet teacher in May 1969). The vehicle was part of the property
sold by Mr Lonergan upon his departure from Tasmania. Police were able to locate
the vehicle and examined it in 1970. Those investigations revealed nothing which
linked Miss Butterworth with the vehicle. Plainly forensic science in 1970 was
nowhere near as advanced as it is today but the fact remains that those
investigations were carried out and nothing was found. In addition, I note, no
witness who described the scene at or around the bus stop in Claremont on 25
August 1960 described a Triumph Sedan as being present.
110. There is reference
in contemporary material to a statement (or report) from Dr Russell Pargiter, a
psychiatrist then in practice in Macquarie Street in Hobart, who apparently had
examined Mr Lonergan in 1963. Reportedly Dr Pargiter expressed the view that Mr
Lonergan was a “dangerous psychopath” and that he (Dr Pargiter) considered Mr
Lonergan was capable of committing murder. Again, investigating police appear to
have attached considerable weight to this view.
111. It is very clear that the
original principal investigators, Detectives Devereux and Canning, considered Mr
Lonergan to be a strong and in reality, the only suspect. They seem to have done
so because:
of him being a resident of New Norfolk on 25 August 1969;
he had
a previous documented history of sex crimes;
at least one of those crimes
involved picking up a woman from a bus stop;
that on the afternoon of 25
August 1969 he failed to report for his afternoon shift at Boyer;
that he was on his own between 23 August and 27 August 1969;
that when he picked his
wife up on 27 August 1969 from her mother’s residence in Berridale he had burns
to his face and arms, and a new pair of pyjamas were missing and he could not
satisfactorily account for this;
he seems to have reacted (according to his
wife) adversely whenever Miss Butterworth’s name was mentioned;
Dr Pargiter
had reportedly stated that Mr Lonergan was a dangerous psychopath capable of
committing murder; and
Mrs Lonergan held suspicions that her husband was
responsible for the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
112. Not unreasonably in my view, particularly in the absence of any other
particularly credible suspect, Detectives Canning and Devereux took steps to
locate Mr Lonergan. They found him living in Sydney. On 1 June 1970 they
travelled to Sydney to interview Mr Lonergan. In that interview, which
reportedly took place over some six hours, Mr Lonergan confirmed some of the
details set out above, particularly as to where he was living on 25 August 1969,
that his wife and child were staying with her parents at the time, that he was
employed at the Australian Newsprint Mill at Boyer, and had been rostered on
afternoon shift.
113. Mr Lonergan gave an explanation to the detectives that on
the morning of 25 August 1969 he decided to do some painting in the lounge room.
He said he lit a fire in the open fireplace and started painting in his pyjamas.
He said that whilst he was painting a log of wood rolled out of the fire and on
putting that log back in the fire he received burns to his face and arm as well
as to his pyjamas. He later destroyed the pyjamas by burning them. He said he
rang his employer and advised of the burns and that he would not be attending
work that evening. Mr Lonergan said shortly after 6.00pm he went to the Star and
Garter Hotel (then, as now, a licenced establishment in New Norfolk), had a few
drinks and then returned home. Mr Lonergan told investigating police that two
males with whom he worked at Boyer were present at the Hotel. He said their
names were, according to an historic police report, Joe McKenzie, and Ned
Parker. Obviously if this information was correct it amounted to a complete
alibi. The detectives investigating the matter recognised this and relayed the
information straight away to Hobart.
114. The evidence at inquest was that the
alibi offered by Mr Lonergan was investigated by Detective Sergeant Bailey of
New Norfolk CIB. Detective Sergeant Bailey interviewed a Mr Stanley Bruce
McKenzie who said he knew Mr Lonergan and recalled an 36 occasion one evening
when he (Mr McKenzie) was at the Star and Garter Hotel with a Keith Saltmarsh
and Mr Lonergan came in and had a drink with them. He remembered that Mr
Lonergan had a piece of sticking plaster on his face. He was unable to recall
the date or month but said it was in the latter part of 1969. A report from the
time indicates a man by of the name of Mr Parker was interviewed but told the
investigating officer that he did not know Mr Lonergan and specifically had no
recollection whatsoever of the incident described by him. Similarly, a man by
the name of Mr Keith Saltmarsh was also interviewed but had no recollection of
the incident either. I note that the name ‘Stanley McKenzie’ is not ‘Joe
McKenzie’. There was no evidence which would allow that apparent discrepancy to
be reconciled. However given Detective Sergeant Baily was tasked to investigate
a specific event, an identified place with two named co-workers of Mr Lonergan’s
it is, in my view, reasonable to conclude that the man ‘McKenzie’ although being
referred to by two different Christian names, must be the same person.
115. It
is clear from the material tendered at the inquest that Mr Lonergan was
questioned closely for approximately six hours. He denied strongly that he even
knew Miss Butterworth and specifically that he had anything to do whatsoever
with her disappearance. This is in contrast to history of complete confessions
to police investigators in relation to several of the matters in his history set
out above. For example, in relation to the attack on the ballet teacher in May
1969 he freely admitted to committing an indecent assault and made a statement
in his own hand which dealt with the matter.
116. There was evidence before the
inquest in relation to a search of the grounds and residence at 5 Hobart Road,
New Norfolk. That search appears to have been conducted on or about 22 May 1970.
A number of items were recorded as having been recovered from an outside fire,
namely a baby’s plain chain bracelet, a pair of scissors, some copper wire, one
Penny coin, the back of powder compact, a lipstick tube, hair slide, some pieces
of burnt material and broken mirror. Several of the items found such as the
baby’s bracelet, copper wire and the coin have nothing in particular to do with,
on the face of it at least, the disappearance of Miss Butterworth. Some of the
other articles conceivably could be potentially related. Unfortunately there is
nothing to suggest that any of those items (particularly the hair slide and the
powder compact) were shown to anybody in relation to Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. Worse, there is no record as to what became of those items.
Despite the best efforts of investigators in the modern era to endeavour to
locate those items it is plain they have been lost. It 37 is just another
example of the haphazard and unprofessional approach that attended the
investigation of this matter in the past.
117. Mr Lonergan’s former home at 5
Hobart Road, New Norfolk was found by investigators to have been physically
moved to a block in nearby Dromedary. Significant forensic investigation
occurred in 2001 and 2002. Numerous physical exhibits (hair fibres and the like)
were located in the house and removed for analysis. The results of that
investigation were the subject of DNA profiling analysis at the laboratory of
Forensic Science Service Tasmania. During the course of the inquest the same
samples were reanalysed at that laboratory utilising improved analytical
techniques. A report dated 31 August 2015 stated that using a DNA sample from
Mrs Winifred Butterworth, Miss Butterworth was able to be excluded as having
provided any of the samples taken from Mr Lonergan’s former home.
118. When
investigators in the modern era resumed the investigation in relation to Miss
Butterworth’s death Mr Lonergan was identified as being alive and residing in
Bundaberg, Queensland. Detective Inspector David Plumpton made contact with Mr
Lonergan and ascertained that he was indeed the same person who had been a
suspect in 1970. Details relating to Mr Lonergan as a suspect in Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance were forwarded in August 2011 to Bundaberg police in
Queensland to enable further investigation to be carried out. It was ascertained
that Mr Lonergan had been residing in Queensland since at least 1996. Further
investigations, including interviews of his former wife and daughter, were both
undertaken. Unfortunately, before Mr Lonergan could be re-interviewed he died on
20 May 2012. However, extensive interviews in relation to the matter of Miss
Butterworth’s death were undertaken with his former wife and daughter.
119. A
number of matters arose from the interviews of the former Mrs Lonergan and Mr
Lonergan’s daughter. For example, it was confirmed that it was far from unusual
for Mr Lonergan to take sick days from work and that he probably took more than
one sick day a month. Thus his absence from work (afternoon shift – 4.00pm until
midnight) on 25 August 1969, which on the face of it might look suspicious,
appears less suspicious when viewed in the context of a history of absenteeism.
120. Mr Lonergan’s daughter told investigators that she confronted her father
about his possible involvement in the disappearance of Miss Butterworth during a
telephone conversation sometime in the five years or so before he died.
According to Mr Lonergan’s daughter he neither admitted nor denied involvement,
saying something 38 like “she should put it out of her mind and let it be”. The
absence of a denial is at best equivocal. It does not advance in any way the
case against Mr Lonergan being involved in the disappearance of Miss
Butterworth. Neither does it detract from that case.
121. In her statement his daughter said that Mr Lonergan was involved in
an affair with Miss Butterworth in the lead up to her disappearance. There is
not a scintilla of evidence that suggests that this allegation has any basis
whatsoever in truth. There is no evidence at all which suggests that Miss
Butterworth even knew Mr Lonergan (or vice versa). Of additional significance on
this point is that Mr Lonergan’s daughter told investigators that she came by
the information of the alleged affair as a result of overhearing a telephone
conversation in November 2012 between her mother and her mother’s cousin in
which that issue was discussed. Her mother was specifically questioned about
this issue by counsel assisting when she gave evidence at the inquest and denied
stating that she had ever said her husband was having an affair with Miss
Butterworth. She said that she thought her daughter must have misunderstood her.
122. The former Mrs Lonergan told investigators that she had a “funny feeling”
or “a gut feeling” that Mr Lonergan knew Miss Butterworth but was unable to
point to any direct evidence as to why she held this belief. I have already said
that I am satisfied there is no basis to conclude that Mr Lonergan was having an
affair with Miss Butterworth in the lead up to her death. I am also satisfied
that Mr Lonergan did not know Miss Butterworth.
123. The former Mrs Lonergan
gave evidence by video link from Western Australia at the inquest. She was
questioned about the matter as referred to above. Nothing she said in her
evidence was of any real assistance in relation to Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. It was very plain that she harbours, no doubt with very good
reason, strong feelings of antipathy toward her former husband. Indeed her
statements reveal treatment at the hands of her former husband that make for
harrowing reading. However, her all too understandable antipathy has, in my
respectful view, coloured her evidence with respect to her husband’s involvement
in relation to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. I note also that there was a
significant discrepancy as between the former Mrs Lonergan’s statement to police
on 18 May 1970 and a second statement made by her on 26 May 1970 in relation to
whether any painting had occurred in her absence. In the first statement she
made no mention of painting; in the second (made eight days later) she did. When
asked about that difference during the modern 39 investigation, Mrs Lonergan was
unable to explain the discrepancy between the two statements. She told
investigators in her statement of 16 January 2013 that she could only assume
“that after police first spoke to [her she] considered the matter further and
began to remember events that [she] didn’t previously recall”.
124. In addition
to the two statements made by the former Mrs Lonergan in May 1970 she made a
further one on a date not recorded but sometime subsequent to May 1970. The
details surrounding the making of this third statement were not entirely clear.
She was unable to cast any light upon them nor was the date upon which it was
made. In any event, she said in the subsequent statement that she had noticed
what she described as “black sticky stuff” hanging all over the ceiling and
hanging off everything in the lounge room when she returned home from her
parents’ home in Berriedale on 27 August 1969. She also said that she noticed a
“terrible smell coming from the floor of the front bedroom” and that when she
got home on Wednesday she noticed that “John had renewed [sic] the front steps,
he had cemented the whole steps and made them larger… The steps were near the
front bedroom and where the smell was coming from”.
125. As part of the modern
investigation into Miss Butterworth’s death a fourth and final statement (taken
on 16 January 2013 – as mentioned above) was made by the former Mrs Lonergan. In
that statement she also recounted arriving home from her parents’ residence in
Berridale on 27 August 1969 and finding “black sticky stuff all over the ceiling
and hanging off everything in the lounge room”. It is noted that she did not
tell investigating police in either of the May 1970 statements anything about
seeing ‘black sticky stuff’ hanging in the lounge room (or anywhere else for
that matter) on the property at 5 Hobart Road, New Norfolk in August 1969. That
statement was in the form of a declaration made under the Oaths Act 2001 on 16
January 2013. In it she said: “I started to be suspicious about John’s
involvement in [Miss Butterworth’s] disappearance early on. The more I thought
about it, they described in the papers about the girl wearing a black vinyl
jacket and then I come [sic] home and there’s all this black stuff all over the
ceiling. I told myself it couldn’t be. I asked John about the black stuff and he
said, “something blew up in the fireplace” to explain the burns and black
stuff.”
126. However there was no evidence whatsoever in the mass of media
material dating from the aftermath of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance to
suggest there was a single report of Miss Butterworth wearing a “black vinyl
jacket” at the time of her disappearance. Furthermore all the evidence was that
she was wearing a black leather or suede coat when she disappeared. Her mother Mrs Winifred Butterworth made a statement a day or two after her daughter’s
disappearance and identified that fact for police. There was even evidence that
the provenance of the jacket (Mrs Bev Wills’ shop in Moonah) was identified. It
must be that the former Mrs Lonergan was at best simply mistaken. She has, I
find, assumed from photographs at the time that the coat Miss Butterworth was
wearing at the time of her disappearance was vinyl whereas it was leather. The
point of course is that whilst vinyl may well melt and account for ‘black sticky
stuff all over the lounge room”, and hence provide a link to Miss Butterworth;
leather would not. I do not consider the former Mrs Lonergan’s evidence on this
issue is reliable. Even if there was ‘black sticky stuff everywhere in the
lounge room’ it had nothing to do with Miss Butterworth. More likely in my view
is that the former Mrs Lonergan is at best mistaken in her desire to link her
former husband with Miss Butterworth’s disappearance.
127. In the same statement
she was unable to explain why it was she had not mentioned the ‘black sticky
stuff’ nor the dead smell and the freshly cemented steps to investigators when
she made her statements in May 1970. Neither was she able to explain why that
was so when she gave evidence at the inquest. I do not consider that evidence in
relation to these points as reliable at all. I reach the view that it was either
indicative of a defective memory on the part of the former Mrs Lonergan (at
best) or alternatively, done out of a desire to inculcate her former husband and
either consciously or unconsciously mislead investigators (and the inquest). I
am well satisfied there is no truth about the presence of ‘black sticky stuff’,
newly concreted steps or a dead smell.
128. I am satisfied to the requisite
standard that there is no evidence, at all, that connects Mr Lonergan with the
disappearance and death of Miss Butterworth. At its highest there is clear
evidence that Mr Lonergan was a repeat sex offender who lived in New Norfolk at
the time of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. He may, or may not, have had an
alibi for the evening of 25 August 1969 (on balance it is at least arguable that
he did). The only material capable of being regarded as evidence of his
involvement in Miss Butterworth’s disappearance was the belief of his former
wife that he was responsible. There is in my view no objective basis for that
belief.
129. It is also quite apparent that the level of attention afforded to Mr Lonergan by the original investigators, and particularly Mr Canning, served
to obscure the focus of the proper investigation of Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. I say this because it is quite 41 clear that Mr Canning in
particular focused on Mr Lonergan to the exclusion of all other possible
suspects. The suspicion which attached to Mr Lonergan in 1970 was, in my view,
fully justified and understandable. However, once the matter was investigated
(and it was to the standards of the time) and no evidence whatsoever was found
which linked Mr Lonergan to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance it was regrettable
to say the least that other suspects were not even considered. The level of Mr
Canning’s fixation upon Mr Lonergan as the only suspect in Miss Butterworth’s
death is made quite clear by evidence given by Detective Inspector Plumpton as
to a visit made to Mr Canning and his wife at their home on 22 September 2011.
By then Mr Canning was very unwell (suffering from dementia) and thus unable to
assist Inspector Plumpton at all (after the visit, but before the inquest, Mr
Canning died). By the time of Inspector Plumpton’s visit Mr Canning had been
retired from Tasmania Police for many years. Mrs Canning however provided four
manila folders of original documents relating to the investigation of the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth. It is highly inappropriate that a large
number of exhibits relating to what was on, any reasonable view a homicide
investigation, had been removed from an official police file, taken to a private
residence and retained by a long retired and very senior police officer. Such a
departure from the standards expected of any police officer, let alone someone
who retired in the rank of Assistant Commissioner, reflects poorly on that
officer and on the standard of investigation. I am conscious in making these
observations that Mr Canning is in no position to defend himself or his
reputation. That having been said, I can discern no basis upon which the
retention of the material by Mr Canning after his resignation from the police
force can be justified.
Lance Russell Sage (or Le Sage) and Robert Karl Lahey
130. Evidence at the inquest established that on 28 November 1986 Lance Russell
Sage (a.k.a. Mr Le Sage, apparently his preferred name, at least now) walked
into police headquarters in Perth, Western Australia, and made a full confession
to having been involved with the disposal of the body of a female some years
before in Tasmania. Following Mr Le Sage’s ‘confession’ he was arrested and
extradited to Tasmania on a charge of being an accessory to the crime of murder.
After a period of time in custody the charge against him was adjourned sine die
(that is to say, indefinitely), on 24 December 1986. Mr Le Sage was admitted to
bail and thereafter left Tasmania, only to return some time later.
131. Mr Le
Sage’s story was that he and a man by the name of Robert ‘Bobby’ Lahey, a
well-known Australian Rules footballer with the Sandy Bay football club, had
some 42 time between 1963 and 1968 (the dates are particularly significant)
picked up a young woman in Mr Lahey’s car. Mr Le Sage told police that they
drove to an area on the lower Domain in Hobart and that he left the car leaving
Mr Lahey and the young woman in the car. He told investigators that after about
10 minutes he returned and the young woman was under a blanket on the back seat.
Mr Le Sage said that Mr Lahey told him “just remember you are an accessory if
anything happens over this, I want you to get rid of her and deep”. Mr Le Sage
was then aware, or so he said, that the young woman had been killed (presumably
by Mr Lahey).
132. Mr Le Sage told initial investigators that he disposed of the body by
burying it in timbered area a short distance off Maranoa Road in Kingston. As a
result of his ‘confession’, enquiries were commenced in Tasmania. Those
enquiries revealed that Miss Butterworth could have been the young woman
described by Mr Le Sage, although his first interview in 1986 was noteworthy for
its distinct lack of detail. Mr Le Sage’s claims were investigated. The area
where he said he had disposed of the body was carefully excavated but nothing
was found. Evidence was received at the inquest which indicated that in 1989 Mr
Le Sage spoke with a journalist in Tasmania about his so-called ‘confession’. At
that time he told the journalist that the woman’s body was not buried at
Kingston all but rather he had taken it by boat with two brothers to Port Davey
in the far south west of Tasmania. He marked on a map the spot where he said he
buried the body at Port Davey. The map was tendered at the inquest.
133. Mr Le
Sage was called to give evidence at the inquest. Mr Le Sage agreed on oath at
the inquest that he had changed his story markedly. He acknowledged he had
marked on a map of Port Davey where he told a journalist he had disposed of the
body. On oath at the inquest he maintained that whilst an incident had occurred
with Mr Lahey and a girl they had picked up, he said that it had happened at the
time of the Tasman Bridge was being constructed. There was evidence that this
was well before August 1969 (the Bridge opening in 1963). He resiled on oath, at
the inquest, from his story that he and Mr Lahey had picked up a girl from a bus
stop and said on reflection that he thought she might have been collected from
or near the Claremont Hotel. He conceded that none of the allegations he had
made to police over the years had anything to do whatsoever with Miss
Butterworth.
134. There was evidence that a Mr Paul Tapp, a former journalist,
conducted an interview with Mr Le Sage near Buckland in Tasmania. He recorded
that interview and placed it on YouTube. It was tendered and played to the
Court. It is unnecessary to canvass the detail of the interview other than to
say, if Mr Le Sage was telling the truth, then the 43 young woman who Mr Le Sage
said he was involved in abducting and killing, along with Mr Lahey, was Miss
Butterworth. However when questioned about the interview by Mr Nicholson,
counsel assisting, Mr Le Sage said, in effect, that nothing he said in the
interview about Miss Butterworth was true and more over he had been told what to
say by Mr Tapp.
135. Mr Tapp was therefore summonsed to attend as a witness to
answer this very serious allegation against him. He told the inquest that it was
his intention to write a book about Miss Butterworth’s disappearance although he
said he had no intention of selling the book for commercial gain. His evidence
about this issue, and generally, was to say at the least very difficult to
understand. When counsel assisting confronted him with Mr Le Sage’s evidence at
the inquest that nothing he had reported to police had anything to do whatsoever
with Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, Mr Tapp’s response was that he made Mr Le
Sage’s character “more interesting”. It is difficult to understand what Mr Tapp
meant by this response. It is equally difficult to determine what interest,
other than a commercial one, Mr Tapp had in investigating Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance. However his evidence that it was his intention to write a book
about Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, but that he had no intention of selling
it, is little short of risible. In short, his involvement in the matter
generally, as well as his demeanour and conduct in the witness box at the
inquest, does him no credit at all.
136. Mr Donald Hazell, a former mayor of
Kingston and the operator for many years of a significant civil contracting
business, made a statutory declaration to police in 1987 in which he said that
he had unearthed human remains - a rib cage - in the mid-1970s but had not
reported it to police. He said in that statutory declaration that the bones
which he said consisted of a full rib cage were reburied by him. This he did
apparently believing them to be human, but took no steps whatsoever to draw the
matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
137. Mr Hazell’s story
might well have been completely ignored were it not for the fact that it seemed
to tie in with the ‘confession’ of Mr Le Sage. As a consequence it was afforded
a level of importance which it simply did not deserve. Mr Hazell was taken by
police to the Anatomy Department of the University of Tasmania. There he was
shown a number of skeletons and indicated the skeleton of a young woman as being
similar to the rib cage he had unearthed at Kingston.
138. Next Mr Hazell was
taken to Kingston in the area of Redwood Road. There he indicated a particular
area where Housing Department units now stand as being the 44 place where he had
unearthed and reburied the bones. Extensive excavations were undertaken in the
place indicated by Mr Hazell. Nothing of any relevance was found.
139. In May
1999 and again in September 2007 Mr Hazell raised with police the issue of him
finding human remains. In 1999 an excavation of the site was undertaken but with
negative results.
140. Mr Hazell did not leave the matter there. He also engaged
in an “interview” with the former journalist Mr Tapp which was also recorded by
Mr Tapp on a video and placed on YouTube. The substance of that interview (which
was also played to the Court) was that Mr Hazell had found a skeleton of a young
woman and that young woman was Miss Butterworth.
141. Eventually it emerged that
a backhoe driver, Mr Coad, was present when the bones were unearthed by Mr
Hazell at the work site in Kingston near Maranoa Road in the early to mid-1970s.
Mr Coad was located by modern investigators and a statement was taken from him.
He gave evidence at the inquest. Mr Coad’s evidence was far more impressive than
that of his then employer, Mr Hazell. Mr Coad said that he recalled the incident
and was quite certain that the bones were not human but rather were those of a
sheep. Unlike Mr Hazell (or for that matter Mr Tapp or Mr Le Sage) Mr Coad’s
evidence was delivered without emotion, exaggeration or embellishment. He was an
impressive witness. He confined himself to recounting his observations at the
time. I am satisfied he was a witness of the truth. I accept his evidence.
142. Mr Hazell also gave evidence at the inquest. He accepted at the inquest the
bones that he uncovered, and about which he went to the police three times
claiming were human, were not in fact human. Mr Hazell was unable to explain why
he, having unearthed bones that he believed to be human, had covered them up
immediately without referring the matter to the appropriate authorities. He
could not explain why he told no one about what happened for many years. I
observe he acknowledged, under questioning, a number of errors in relation to
his statutory declaration, none of which he could explain, and said that in
future when signing a “legal” document he would be “more careful”. It must be
said that like Mr Le Sage and Mr Tapp, Mr Hazell’s involvement in this matter
does him no credit either.
143. It should be said for the sake of completeness
that Mr Lahey was called to give evidence and denied completely Mr Le Sage’s
story, (which by then anyway he had recanted). It is unnecessary in the
circumstances to make any further findings in relation to the involvement of Mr
Lahey and Mr Le Sage other than to say that I am 45 satisfied to the requisite
standard that neither was involved in the disappearance of Miss Butterworth nor
the disposal of her body. The “confession” of Mr Le Sage was not linked to Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance. The story told by Mr Hazell to police, repeatedly,
was not linked to Miss Butterworth and had nothing, whatsoever, to do with her
disappearance either. The involvement of Mr Le Sage, Mr Tapp and Mr Hazell
caused a significant waste of resources and effort in relation to unnecessary
investigation, and no doubt caused considerable distress to the family of Miss
Butterworth. Nothing they said had anything, whatsoever, to do with Miss
Butterworth’s disappearance.
Geoffrey Charles Hunt
144. On 5 July 1976 Mr
Geoffrey Charles Hunt, who then lived at 7 Station Street, New Norfolk, (as he
did in August 1969), raped and murdered a young car saleswoman, Ms Susan
Winifred Knight, by the side of the Dromedary Road not far from New Norfolk. Ms
Knight was employed at Cooperative Motors in Hobart. Mr Hunt telephoned her
having seen her photograph in an advertisement in the Saturday Evening Mercury.
He told Ms Knight that he was interested in purchasing a particular motor
vehicle, a Volkswagen. Mr Hunt told her his name was Peter Bennett from
Triabunna. They arranged to meet at Bridgewater. Ms Knight drove the Volkswagen
to Bridgewater where they met as arranged outside the Derwent Hotel. Mr Hunt
took the Volkswagen for a “test” drive. He drove away from Bridgewater on the
Dromedary Road. Ms Knight was in the passenger seat. Mr Hunt subsequently told
investigating police that he told Ms Knight he heard a whining noise in the
gearbox and therefore suggested that they test drive the vehicle on a hilly
road. He then drove up Upper Dromedary Road to Church Road. Mr Hunt claimed that
Ms Knight made a comment about a flat tyre saying she said she had noticed a
thumping noise at the rear of the car. He said as a consequence of her telling
him this he stopped the vehicle. He later told investigators that “something
just came over him” and he attacked Ms Knight, chased her in to the bush, raped
her, and struck her repeatedly with a large rock to the back of the head killing
her. He covered her body with stones, dead branches and a log, returned the
Volkswagen to the Bridgewater area, and then drove home to Station Street in his
own car.
145. Two days later, as he was travelling to work at the mill at Boyer
for a night shift, Mr Hunt was intercepted by police. He was taken to the
Glenorchy police station. At the station he was interviewed. During that
interview, which extended over a period of about six hours, he made a full
confession with respect to the murder of Ms Knight. 46 Some of the detectives
involved in the investigation of the rape and murder of Ms Knight had worked on
the case surrounding the disappearance of Miss Butterworth. One in particular,
Detective First Class Constable Barry Dillon, was one of the two detectives who
conducted the interview in which Mr Hunt confessed to the rape and murder of Ms
Knight.
146. As a consequence of that confession the detectives interviewing him
(Detective Dillon and Detective Sergeant Kenneth O’Garey) commenced to question
Mr Hunt about the disappearance of Miss Butterworth. They did this because they
reached the view that Mr Hunt was a strong suspect in relation to her
disappearance. It would seem that until his apprehension with respect to the
rape and murder of Ms Knight, Mr Hunt was never considered by any of the
investigators as a suspect in relation to the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
147. Both former detectives gave evidence, on oath, at the inquest. The
substance of that evidence was that before being questioned about her
disappearance, Mr Hunt was cautioned. Both Mr Dillon and Mr O’Garey said that
during this interview Mr Hunt made a confession to them of his involvement in
the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
148. Mr Hunt was charged with the murder
of Ms Knight. After a committal hearing in the Magistrates Court, Hobart he
appeared in the Criminal Court where he pleaded guilty to Ms Knight’s murder. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment (the only sentence available at the time for
murder), but was resentenced on 1 June 1999 by Underwood J (as he then was) to
life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole term of 25 years. Mr Hunt
successfully challenged that sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. On 28
October 1999 the Court of Criminal Appeal made an order confirming the head
sentence of life imprisonment but fixing a non-parole period of 23 years from 7
July 1976. On 6 June 2000 Mr Hunt was released on parole.
149. Before I deal
with the circumstances of Mr Hunt’s alleged confession to involvement in the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth, it is necessary to set out something of his
background, history and antecedents.
150. It will be recalled that Mr Fitzgerald
lived with his father Mr Clyde Fitzgerald on the corner of Boyer Road and
Station Street in New Norfolk. Station Street then provided the access to the
New Norfolk railway station. It has not changed materially since 1969 other than
for the fact that the railway station is no longer operative. Several houses
(less than 10) were, and are, in Station Street. The Hunt family lived at 7
Station 47 Street. The house is still there. It is a very short distance
(approximately of 50 to 75 metres) from the Fitzgerald property at 1 Station
Street.
151. During the 1960s the Hunt family, which consisted of Mr Bill and
Mrs Mavis Hunt and their children Terry, Ken, Jennifer, Ray and Geoffrey, lived
in that home. Mr Geoffrey Hunt was born on 13 January 1950 and thus was 19 years
old when Miss Butterworth disappeared. Another son, Philip, the oldest, lived
during this time with his grandparents on a farm at nearby Plenty. All the Hunt
children were educated locally in New Norfolk. Several witnesses described at
least two of the boys – Ray and Mr Hunt – as being albino. The appearance of
both was distinctive and apparently very wellknown in New Norfolk whilst they
were growing up. The evidence was that Mr Hunt had very pale skin, white hair
and pink eyes whilst growing up and as a young adult male.
152. At all relevant
times Mr Bill Hunt was employed at the New Norfolk railway station. It is a very
short distance (approximately 150 m) from the Fitzgerald property at 1 Station
Street.
153. There was a significant amount of evidence that leads to a
conclusion that the Hunt family regularly shopped at the Fitzgerald store on the
corner of Station Street. There was also a significant degree of evidence as to
generosity of Mr Clyde Fitzgerald towards the Hunt family, by amongst other
things, gifts of Christmas hampers and the extension of lines of credit from
time to time. Only Mr Hunt suggested that Mr Clyde Fitzgerald was anything other
than very generous to his family whilst he was growing up.
154. There was
evidence from three witnesses – Mr Michael Clarke, Ms Audrey Britain and Mr
Anthony Smith – that Mr Hunt worked casually from time to time for Mr Clyde
Fitzgerald in the store, doing deliveries for him and assisting with packing and
unpacking groceries. None of those witnesses had, in my view, any reason to be
untruthful. It is, I suppose possible, that each could have been mistaken about
the detail but in my view that is inherently unlikely. Mr Hunt said that not
only did he never work at the store but he never even entered it. I reject his
evidence; I am quite satisfied that Mr Hunt did work from time to time in the
Fitzgerald store. I am also satisfied that he knew Mr Fitzgerald (Miss
Butterworth’s boyfriend) and exchanged, at the very least, pleasantries with him
in the street.
155. There was evidence from Mrs Short, an impressive witness
that Miss Butterworth also worked from time to time at the Fitzgerald store
during the time she was in a 48 relationship with Mr Fitzgerald. Significantly,
Mrs Short said that Miss Butterworth told her that “Whitey” would do jobs for
“Clyde”. Contextually the reference to “Clyde” can only be a reference to Mr
Clyde Fitzgerald. There was evidence, which I accept, that “Whitey” was the name
Miss Butterworth used for Mr Hunt. I am satisfied that not only did Mr Hunt work
from time to time in the Fitzgerald store at Station Street but that he did so
on occasions when Miss Butterworth also worked there.
156. Mr John Short gave
evidence at the inquest. He said, inter alia, that during the time he worked
with Mr Hunt at Motors, Mr Hunt told him that he knew a “girl” who worked at
Channel 6 (in 1969 one of just two television stations broadcasting in southern
Tasmania). The evidence was, and I find, that as at August 1969 the studios of
the Channel 6 television station were in the same building as the 7HO radio
station where it will be remembered Miss Butterworth worked. Mr Hunt was
questioned by Mr Nicholson about Mr Short’s evidence on this issue. He did not
deny that he had said that he knew a girl at Channel 6 but offered as an
explanation a story of his having met a Channel 6 TV personality on an occasion
some years before. I found his explanation in this regard to be completely
unconvincing. It appeared to me to have been made up by Mr Hunt on the spot. I
do not accept Mr Hunt’s evidence in this regard. I accept Mr Short’s evidence
about the substance of the conversation he recounted with Mr Hunt. I am
satisfied that Mr Hunt’s explanation offered to the Court was deliberately
untrue. I am quite satisfied Mr Hunt’s story to Mr Short was a reference to Miss
Butterworth.
157. Mr Fitzgerald gave evidence (in a statement he made in March
2000 and which was tendered at the inquest) that: “occasionally [he] would see
Geoffrey Hunt and [he] would acknowledge him either by waving or saying hello,
Geoffrey would wave back and reply, however if [he] was with Lucille Butterworth
Geoff would not look directly at [them]or acknowledge [them]”.
158. Mr
Fitzgerald also said that he recalled an occasion where Miss Butterworth was at
his place and they were out the front washing his car (a distinctive vehicle).
Miss Butterworth said “Whitey is watching us”. Mr Fitzgerald described also
hearing Miss Butterworth refer to Mr Hunt as “Whitey” on several occasions when
Mr Hunt was within earshot.
159. Mr Hunt told investigators that he did not even
know who Miss Butterworth was. He repeated this on several occasions to
investigators and said so in the evidence that he gave at the inquest. I am
satisfied on the evidence of Mr Fitzgerald, Ms Webber, Mrs 49 Short and Mr
Short, along with that from Mr Clarke, Ms Britain and Mr Smith, that Mr Hunt did
know Miss Butterworth. I am satisfied that his assertion that he did not know
who she was is untrue. I am satisfied that it was a deliberate untruth.
160. It is quite clear, and I find, that on the evidence at least of Ms
Joan Webber, (the former wife of Mr James Butterworth and therefore at the
relevant time Miss Butterworth’s sister-in-law), that Miss Butterworth also knew
who Mr Hunt was. I have mentioned already the fact that she had a name for Mr
Hunt – “Whitey”. Ms Webber gave evidence of an incident in which Miss
Butterworth was sunbathing in the backyard of the Fitzgerald property and
noticed Mr Hunt looking at her; something she apparently found unnerving. It was
certainly sufficiently noteworthy for her to have made mention of it to her
sister-in-law. I am satisfied that it occurred as described by Ms Webber. Mr
Hunt was questioned about this incident. Again he did not deny that the incident
of him having watched Miss Butterworth sunbathing actually occurred as such.
Rather, he offered an explanation from which it is supposed one is expected to
conclude that it could not have occurred. The accounts he gave, which I reject,
involved the height of the fence being such that looking over it was impossible.
There was ample evidence to suggest that the fence of the Fitzgerald property
facing on to Station Street in 1969 was not of such a height that would have
precluded an ordinary sized person (such as Mr Hunt) easily seeing over it. I am
satisfied Mr Hunt’s denial (such as it was) and his evidence with respect to the
fence was untrue, and deliberately so.
161. The evidence was that by August 1969 Mr Hunt was working at Motors in Hobart. He was then employed as a storeman. In
1969 Motors was in Murray Street, on the eastern side, in the block between
Melville Street and Bathurst Street. The business was concerned with the sale
and service of motor vehicles. In addition, it had a department known as Motors
Frigidaire concerned with the sale, service and repair of what might be
described as ‘white goods’. Mr Hunt was employed in this area of Motors. His
hours of work were 9.00am to 5.30pm. Two co-workers from his time at Motors, Mr
Short and Mr Malcolm Bond, gave evidence at the inquest. Both confirmed the
hours of work in 1969.
162. A matter that assumed a high degree of significance
at the inquest was Mr Hunt’s access to, and use of, a motor vehicle as at August
1969. Evidence was given that on Tuesday, 13 November 2011 Mr Hunt was spoken to
at length by detectives investigating Miss Butterworth’s disappearance. He told
those officers that he travelled to and from work at Motors in 1969 on a bus.
The return journey after work each day 50 involved catching the bus from outside
what was then Flynn’s pet shop in Bathurst Street, Hobart.
163. He told the
investigators during this discussion that in August 1969 he did not drive as he
did not have a driver’s licence. He asserted in very strong terms that he did
not obtain his driver’s licence until December 1969. The evidence was, and I
find, that he was adamant in relation to these details. Mr Hunt also denied
having access to a motor vehicle in August 1969. The significance of this of
course (as no doubt Mr Hunt appreciated) is that without access to a motor
vehicle it would have been effectively impossible for him to have picked up Miss
Butterworth from the bus stop in Claremont from which she disappeared. During
the same conversation he denied any knowledge of Miss Butterworth; a denial I
have already addressed earlier in this finding.
164. However it was subsequently
ascertained as a result of investigations that not only did Mr Hunt have a
licence in August 1969 but he had access to, and regularly used, a particular
vehicle. Mr Hunt accepted that he did in fact have a licence but in the evidence
that he gave at the inquest, as well as in accounts he gave to investigators
during interview, he was at pains to emphasise that he did not have the use of
any vehicle. However I am satisfied that Mr Hunt had access to, and the use of,
a FB Holden sedan as at 25 August 1969. That vehicle had been purchased by his
father, Mr Bill Hunt, in April 1969 so that the family could travel to and
attend a wedding of a family member in Launceston. Mr Bill Hunt did not have a
licence in 1969. The evidence was that he did not obtain one for some years, but
Mr Geoffrey Hunt did and indeed it was he who drove the family in the FB Holden
to the wedding in Launceston. Mr Hunt agreed, eventually, that this was so.
165. Mr Hunt in his evidence at the inquest said initially that he never drove the FB
Holden to work when he worked at Motors but rather he travelled to and from work
by bus. In contrast, the evidence of Mr Short and Mr Bond was that Mr Hunt drove
the FB Holden to work every day. They described where he parked the vehicle. I
accept their evidence.
166. A photograph of a FB Holden was shown to the witness
Mr Field when he gave his evidence at the inquest. He said that it was identical
to a vehicle he had seen at or about the bus stop from which Miss Butterworth
disappeared on 25 August 1969. Two of Mr Hunt’s brothers gave evidence at the
inquest. Both were shown the same photograph. Both confirmed that it was
identical to the vehicle owned by Mr Bill Hunt, 51 but driven by Mr Hunt, in
1969. I am satisfied that Mr Hunt’s denials as to access to, and use of, a car
were untrue, and deliberately so.
167. Mr Short, who it will be remembered was a
co-worker of Mr Hunt’s, then lived in Kenbrae Avenue, Glenorchy. He gave
evidence that on Monday, 25 August 1969 Mr Hunt gave him a lift home from work
to Kenbrae Avenue. Mr Short was shown the same photograph of the FB Holden as
was shown to Mr Field and Mr Hunt’s brothers. He also said it was identical to
the car driven by Mr Hunt and in which Mr Hunt gave him a lift home on 25 August
1969.
168. Mr Field described in his evidence the car he saw and described it as
something of a “bomb” - and which I am satisfied was an FB Holden – and as
having damage to the driver’s near side door. Mr Hunt was questioned about the
FB Holden and any damage to it. The explanation that he offered to the Court is
one I reject. He proffered an elaborate and very detailed account of how it was
that the vehicle had sustained damage, although the damage was to the opposite
side of the vehicle described by Mr Field. I find the explanation offered by Mr
Hunt, having watched him give evidence and listened carefully to him at the
inquest, to be completely untrue. It lacked any sense of veracity. I am quite
satisfied that the FB Holden driven by Mr Hunt had damage and it had damage on
the driver’s near side door as described by Mr Field. I am satisfied that Mr
Hunt’s explanation as to the damage was untrue and that his evidence about it
was deliberately designed to mislead the Court.
169. Mention has already been
made of Mr Hunt’s rape and murder of Ms Knight on 7 July 1976. As has already
been touched upon two days after commission of the crimes against Ms Knight, Mr
Hunt was apprehended by detectives working from the Glenorchy police station. He
was on his way to work at Boyer. Former detectives Barry Dillon, Ken O’Garey,
and Richard McCreadie all gave evidence about the circumstances in which Mr Hunt
was apprehended. After being intercepted in Boyer Road he was taken by the
detectives to the Glenorchy police station where he was interviewed in relation
to Ms Knight’s rape and murder. During that interview he made complete
admissions with respect to the killing of Ms Knight. The interview was conducted
by detectives Mr Dillon and Mr O’Garey. Both men gave evidence at the inquest
that they then spoke with Mr Hunt about the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
Following a caution administered by them in the ordinary way he (Mr Hunt)
volunteered information with respect to the disappearance of Miss Butterworth.
52
170. Mr O’Garey said that he considered Mr Hunt a suspect with respect to the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth because he had been living in very close
vicinity to Mr Fitzgerald at the time Miss Butterworth disappeared. Mr O’Garey
said that having completed the interview with respect to the rape and murder of
Ms Knight (but before the interrogation register was performed – about which
more will be said shortly) he said to Mr Hunt “you know there is another matter
[we] would like to talk to you about” or words to that effect. Mr Hunt became
very quiet and said “yes, I know about that”. Mr O’Garey said this answer caught
him by surprise and so he asked “Can you tell us about that? What do you know
about it?” Mr Hunt said he knew Miss Butterworth and that he saw her at a bus
stop while he was driving home in a vehicle from his workplace. Mr O’Garey said
he thought that the workplace was Nettlefolds (other evidence confirms that
Motors was also known as Nettlefolds). He said that Mr Hunt said he was
travelling through the main road at Claremont near Box Hill Road and he saw Miss
Butterworth waiting at the bus stop.
171. Mr O’Garey told the inquest that Mr
Hunt said that “I said to myself perhaps I can give her a lift, she’s obviously
going to New Norfolk”. Mr Hunt said he knew that Miss Butterworth was the
fiancée of Mr Fitzgerald.
172. Mr Hunt then described to the detectives his
driving towards New Norfolk just ‘having general conversation’. He said that on
the other side of the Lime Kilns (an area roughly halfway between Granton and
New Norfolk) Miss Butterworth complained of a cramp in her foot. Mr Hunt said he
stopped the car and something “come over him” and he grabbed her. He described
to the detectives Miss Butterworth struggling with him as he attempted to kiss
her and that she continued to struggle. Mr Hunt told the detectives that the
next thing he knew was that his hands were around her throat and he was
strangling her. Mr O’Garey said “in actual fact [Hunt] said, “I did strangle her
and she died” or words to that effect.”
173. Mr Hunt told the detectives that he
got out of his car and went around to the passenger side, opened the door and
removed Miss Butterworth. He described carrying her in a fireman’s lift and
carrying her across towards the Derwent River through a soggy grassy area and
dumping her body there.
174. Mr O’Garey told the Detectives that that he did not
prompt Mr Hunt at all and that it was just a continuous conversation. Mr Hunt
said that when he came back to the car he saw Miss Butterworth’s handbag and her
shoes still in the car and got rid of those by the picking them up and throwing
them away.
175. Mr Dillon gave evidence that was essentially in the same
terms as the evidence of Mr O’Garey about this issue. Both men explained that
the confession by Mr Hunt was not formally recorded because they still had quite
a lot to do in relation to the charge that was going to be laid with respect to
the murder of Ms Knight.
176. Two other former policeman, Mr Richard McCreadie
(the former Police Commissioner) and Mr Graham Hickey, gave evidence as to
events on the night of the alleged confession by Mr Hunt. Both gave evidence,
which I accept, that corroborates in a material sense the opportunity for Mr
Hunt to have said what Mr O’Garey and Mr Dillon say he said. Significantly Mr
McCreadie’s evidence was, and I accept, that he recalled Mr Dillon saying words
to the effect of “it looks like we might be good for the Butterworth girl as
well”. This was said by Mr Dillon when he came out of the interview room during
the interview of Mr Hunt at the Glenorchy police station into a general muster
room area where other detectives were present.
177. As already noted both Mr
Dillon and Mr O’Garey gave evidence that was substantially the same with respect
to what happened subsequent to the conversation recounted above. Both men said
in effect that they had gone to Detective Inspector Aub Canning and told him of
the confession. Both men said, and I accept, that Detective Inspector Canning
told them they were wrong and that Mr Hunt was not responsible. Both men
returned to the office where Mr Hunt was located subsequent to their discussion
with Inspector Canning. Both men said, and I accept, they questioned him again
and that Mr Hunt again admitted to the murder of Miss Butterworth and said he
would indicate the area where he disposed of the body.
178. Both Mr Dillon and
Mr O’Garey gave evidence, again substantially the same, that after the second
confession by Mr Hunt they again approached Detective Inspector Canning and
again told him that Mr Hunt had again confessed to the murder of Miss
Butterworth. Detective Inspector Canning then, according to Mr Dillon and Mr
O’Garey entered the office where Mr Hunt was being held and remained with him
for some time. He then left the office and told the detectives that Hunt was not
responsible for Miss Butterworth’s death and that they were on the “wrong
track”.
179. Unfortunately as has already been mentioned, Mr Canning died not
long before the inquest commenced and thus no questions could be asked of him.
The evidence was that he was ill with dementia in the lead up to his death and
therefore despite the best efforts of investigators no opportunity was available
to corroborate the evidence of Mr O’Garey and Mr Dillon about this critical
issue.
180. When he gave evidence at the inquest Mr Hunt was asked questions
at length and in careful detail by Mr Nicholson, counsel assisting, about the
events at Glenorchy police station on 7 and 8 July 1976. His evidence in
relation to the events at the police station was generally unsatisfactory. He
said he could not recall the substance of the conversations that he had with
police about Miss Butterworth, although he agreed that he was asked at least one
question about her. He did not deny that the conversations, the subject of Mr
O’Garey and Mr Dillon’s evidence, took place; merely that he could not recall
them.
181. Other evidence about what transpired at the Glenorchy police station
on 7 and 8 July 1976 was available in the form of a proof of evidence prepared
by Mr O’Garey in anticipation of a murder trial, a deposition taken from Mr
O’Garey at a committal hearing held in the Hobart Court of Petty Sessions with
respect to the murder charge against Mr Hunt relating to Ms Knight, and a
document known as an ‘interrogation register’. Each of those documents includes
a reference to questions being asked of Mr Hunt with respect to the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth. All that material was tendered at the
inquest.
182. Each of those documents taken individually amounts to little; for
example, the interrogation register makes specific reference to the fact that in
addition to being questioned about confessing to the murder of Ms Knight, Mr
Hunt was also asked questions about the disappearance of Miss Butterworth but
notes he (Mr Hunt) was “unable to assist” with that. Mr O’Garey explained the
interrogation register procedure as being a process whereby a person who had
been interviewed in relation to a crime had to be taken before a senior officer
to ascertain whether that person had any complaints as to the manner in which he
or she had been treated. In this instance the interrogation register was
conducted by Detective Inspector Canning. It is quite clear on the evidence, and
I find that, Detective Inspector Canning was completely convinced, wrongly, that
the person responsible for the disappearance of Miss Butterworth was Mr Lonergan.
This belief was extremely strongly held by him. It is apparent that it clouded
Mr Canning’s judgement with respect to the investigation. It clearly influenced
his approach to the confession made by Mr Hunt in July 1976. The extent of the
strength of Mr Canning’s belief that it was Mr Lonergan, and not Mr Hunt, who
was responsible is evidenced by the fact, as already mentioned earlier in this
finding, that investigators in the modern era, when calling upon Mr Canning,
were furnished with large amounts of original police files and exhibits from the
Butterworth file that had been retained by Mr Canning after his retirement. The
strength of Mr 55 Canning’s belief led him, in my view, to disregard the
confession by Mr Hunt. It also led him, regrettably, to have the interrogation
register completed incorrectly. All that aside, and however inaccurate the
interrogation register may be, it is evidence of the fact, that Mr Hunt was
questioned about Miss Butterworth’s disappearance, just as Mr O’Grady and Mr
Dillon said.
183. The evidence about events at the Glenorchy police station on 7
and 8 July 1976 when viewed as a whole satisfies me that Mr Hunt confessed,
after caution, to Detectives O’Garey and Dillon of his involvement in the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth. As I have already said, Mr Hunt was
questioned carefully by Mr Nicholson about the events at that police station. I
have already noted that whilst he was vague about what occurred he did agree
that he was asked at least one question about Miss Butterworth. Critically, he
did not deny that the conversations recounted by Mr Dillon and Mr O’Garey took
place, rather he said he could not recall them. I observe that his vagueness
about what occurred at the police station was in stark contrast to the level of
detail he furnished investigators during his video recorded record of interview
(which was tendered and played to the Court) and during his evidence at the
inquest about many unrelated matters. Mr Hunt had a remarkably detailed recall
of life in Tasmania in general, and New Norfolk in particular, during the 1960s
and 1970s. He provided enormous detail with respect to things as diverse as a
Mardi Gras apparently conducted in New Norfolk in the 1960s, the names of the
families of fellow employees of his father on the railway and the design and
history of a bridge over the River Derwent to name but three of many examples.
But in contrast he claimed he could recall virtually nothing of critical events
in his life which led him to being sentenced to life imprisonment.
184. In
summary, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the confessions described
by Mr Dillon and Mr O’Garey of Mr Hunt as to his involvement in the
disappearance of Miss Butterworth took place as described by them and that those
confessions were true.
185. Three inmates from three different parts of the
State, who served periods of imprisonment with Mr Hunt at three different times
and were all unknown to each other, gave evidence about conversations each had
with Mr Hunt in prison. Plainly a degree of caution needs to be exercised in
relation to accepting the evidence from persons in such circumstances. Each gave
evidence that they came forward during the course of the inquest as a result of
hearing something, or reading something in the media relating to the inquest
with respect to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance.
186. The first, Mr Philip
Harris, from the north of Tasmania, gave evidence of a time he was serving a
period of imprisonment and was housed in the prison hospital. He described
encountering Mr Hunt in 1980. He said that when he was in the hospital there
were four other inmates, one of whom was an albino by the name of ‘Hunt’. Mr
Harris said that he did not know Hunt’s first name and never did. He described
Mr Hunt as saying to him in answer to the question “What are you in for?”, Mr
Hunt describing it was for the murder of a woman and that he had killed another
woman and ‘they’ hadn’t found the body yet. Other evidence was led which
satisfies me that Mr Harris was serving a sentence of imprisonment when he said
he was and housed in the prison hospital at the time he described. I am also
satisfied Mr Hunt spent a substantial period of time, including a period in
1980, in the prison hospital. There is no doubt that the person whom Mr Harris
described as ‘Hunt’ was in fact Mr Hunt. The evidence that Mr Harris gave to the
inquest had the ring of truth. He had nothing to gain that I could discern from
the account that he gave. There was no apparent reason for him to tell an
untruth or dissemble in any fashion. I accept his evidence.
187. Mr Philip Thow
gave evidence. Mr Thow was from the north west of the State. He said that he was
in prison in 1977 and that he was in the same yard as Mr Hunt. Other evidence
adduced at the inquest confirms that Mr Hunt was in prison in 1977 at the same
time as Mr Thow. Mr Thow described Mr Hunt as saying one day to him that he got
away with a killing. Mr Thow thought that Mr Hunt said that the person he killed
was “Jill Butterworth” but was certain that the name was Butterworth. He
described Mr Hunt admitting to him that he killed a woman named Butterworth and
that he disposed of her body and that her remains would never be found. He said
Mr Hunt described to him the disposal of the body in or near the water. Mr Thow
gave evidence that he paid little or no attention to Mr Hunt’s story in 1977 and
that he thought he (Mr Hunt) was in effect ‘big noting himself’.
188. Like Mr Harris I could discern no reason for Mr Thow to be anything
other than frank. I could discern no reason for him to be untruthful, and was
unable to identify any gain for Mr Thow in giving the account that he did. I
watched him give his evidence with care. I reached the view that the account
that he gave both to investigators, which was played to the Court, and in his
evidence at the inquest was the truth.
189. Mr Leigh Wise, from the Hobart area, was the third of the former
inmates who gave evidence. He said he was in prison in 1977 and 1978 and that it
was his job to deliver stores – clothes, supplies, rations and the like, to the
prisoners in the yards. He described an encounter with another inmate who he
described as an albino. They 57 discussed what each was serving a sentence of
imprisonment for. Mr Wise described the albino prisoner (who I am satisfied was
Mr Hunt) as saying that he was serving a sentence of imprisonment for “a big
one” and that ‘they’ had got him for one but “they hadn’t got [him] on another
one”. He described the albino prisoner as saying he loved Old Jamaica chocolate.
190. Mr Wise described Mr Hunt explaining the best way to “pick up a sheila” was
at the bus stop. He said Mr Hunt told him that he looked for “them” at a bus
stop looking at their watch, if they are agitated or anything like that, and “he
said just pull over and offer a lift somewhere”.
191. Again, as with the other
two witnesses mentioned above, I had the advantage of seeing and hearing Mr Wise
give his evidence. Other evidence satisfies me that he was serving a term of
imprisonment when he said he was – at the same time as Mr Hunt. The description
he gave of the albino prisoner was, I am satisfied, Mr Hunt. I accept Mr Wise’s
evidence. As is the case with the other two inmate witnesses I could discern no
reason whatsoever for Mr Wise to be anything other than truthful. He stood to
gain no advantage whatsoever from telling an untruth. Critically, also in my
assessment of the veracity or otherwise of his evidence, was the detail with
respect to the Old Jamaica chocolate and the detail with respect to the pickup
of women from a bus stop. The detail with respect to looking for an agitated
woman at a bus stop is particularly telling for it is entirely consistent with
the described demeanour of Miss Butterworth at the bus stop in Claremont on 25
August 1969. I am satisfied that Mr Wise’s evidence as to the substance of Mr
Hunt’s conversation with him was true.
192. The point about Old Jamaica
chocolate might be thought obscure or minor but it is not. Mr Hunt’s brother,
Ray, gave evidence that Old Gold or Old Jamaica chocolate (essentially the same
product) was something that Mr Hunt was particularly fond of, and that their
father used to bring home blocks of it from the RSL on a Saturday night. Mr Hunt
was asked about Old Gold chocolate when he gave evidence at the inquest. He was
visibly agitated when questioned about it but denied any particular fondness for
that particular type of chocolate. It was difficult to understand why he was as
agitated as he plainly was about this detail – unless of course he recognised
the significance of it.
193. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that each
of the former inmate witnesses, Mr Harris, Mr Wise and Mr Thow, all told the
truth about the conversations they recounted with Mr Hunt whilst in prison.
Moreover, I am satisfied that Mr Hunt told each of them 58 the truth. It is
completely consistent in each case with the disappearance of Miss Butterworth
and Mr Hunt’s involvement in it.
Conclusion:
194. As has already been set out in this finding it is not the
role of a coroner to find guilt or otherwise in relation to a death. There is a
specific statutory provision (section 28(4) of the Act) which requires a coroner
to refrain from making any comment that a person may be guilty of a particular
offence with respect to a death the subject of an investigation. Nevertheless, a
coroner is also under an obligation to find facts in relation to the
circumstances surrounding a death.......
.......The Police Investigation – Some Comments:
197. Section 28(3) of the
Act empowers a coroner to “comment on any matter connected with the death
including public health or safety or the administration of justice”. A matter
that was of significant importance at the inquest was the police investigation
in relation to Miss Butterworth’s disappearance both in the immediate aftermath
of her disappearance and subsequently. It is appropriate in my view to comment
upon the investigation. As should be clear there is little doubt that senior
police at least initially treated Miss Butterworth’s disappearance as that of a
“runaway” rather than what might be described as a “proper” missing person’s
case. Although the efforts of some individual police in the immediate aftermath
of Miss Butterworth’s disappearance in 1969 were commendable, it is a matter of
regret that the Butterworth family were largely responsible for the organisation
and conduct of searches and the pushing of the matter to ensure that it
continued to be investigated. Indeed, few officers involved in the
investigation, other than Detective Inspector Plumpton, Senior Constable Rushton,
and Detective Constable Millhouse emerge from this case with any real credit.
Statements made by Mr Hunt to detectives in July 1976 were, I find, not followed
up because of an instruction issued by Inspector Canning. Much material was
missing from the files. Until Inspector Graham Hickey was assigned the matter in
1992 it does not appear to have been reviewed or even indexed.
198. Some efforts
were made to continue the investigation in 2000 but even then an interview with Mr Hunt conducted in that year was lost. The circumstances of its loss were
unexplained.
199. There is no doubt in my mind that had the matter been
investigated properly perhaps in 1969 and 1970, but certainly from July 1976,
then the grief and anxiety experienced by Miss Butterworth’s family may well
have been lessened.
200. It is a matter of real regret that it was not until
2011 when Inspector Plumpton, Senior Constable Rushton and Constable Millhouse
became involved in the investigation that it was dealt with appropriately and
professionally.
201. However, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence from
Inspector Plumpton that notwithstanding the myriad of deficiencies associated
with the investigation in the past, procedures adopted now by Tasmania Police
mean that a similar level of incompetence, and for so long, could not occur in
the future.
Formal Findings:
202. In accordance with sections 28(1) and (4)
of the Act I summarise my findings surrounding the suspected death of Lucille
Gaye Butterworth on 25 August 1969:
a) The identity of the deceased is Lucille
Gaye Butterworth.
b) Lucille Gaye Butterworth died in the following
circumstances:
i. Miss Butterworth alighted from Ms George’s vehicle in Box Hill
Road, just west of that road’s intersection with Main Road at Claremont;
ii. She
walked around the corner into Main Road to the bus stop to catch her bus to New
Norfolk; iii. A bus arrived and deposited a passenger before she got to the bus
stop; iv. Miss Butterworth is likely to have attempted to contact family or
friends by telephone, using one of two telephone booths nearby;
v. Miss
Butterworth was not at the bus stop at the time another late bus went past;
vi.
Whilst standing at the bus stop Miss Butterworth interacted with the driver of a
car, but did not enter the car;
vii. Shortly after an “old bomb” Holden pulled
up adjacent Miss Butterworth at the bus stop;
viii. Having missed her bus Miss
Butterworth accepted a lift in that vehicle; ix. The vehicle she accepted a lift
in was an FB Holden sedan, with damage to the driver’s side;
x. The FB Holden
was that was owned by Mr Bill Hunt but driven by Mr Geoffrey Charles Hunt;
xi.
The FB Holden was driven on the day and at that time by Mr Geoffrey Hunt;
xii. On the journey to New Norfolk Mr Hunt stopped the FB Holden, strangled Miss
Butterworth in the vehicle and thereafter disposed of her body on the southern
bank of the Derwent River, past the Lime Kilns area roughly half way between
Granton and New Norfolk.
c) In the absence of any medical evidence I am unable
to find the precise cause of Miss Butterworth’s death. I am unable to make any
finding as to whether Miss Butterworth was alive or dead when Mr Hunt disposed
of her body.
d) Miss Butterworth died near the Lyell Highway roughly half way
between Granton and New Norfolk in Tasmania shortly after 6.15pm on Monday 25
August 1969.
e) Lucille Gaye Butterworth was born in Hobart, Tasmania on 18
March 1949 and was 20 years of age at the time of her death; she was a typist
and a single woman.
Conclusion:
203.In conclusion I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr Simon Nicholson for
the extremely professional assistance he afforded as counsel in this inquest.
204. I acknowledge and thank Inspector David Plumpton, Senior Constable
Christine Rushton and Constable Cary Millhouse for the outstanding investigative
work carried out by them in relation to this enquiry. They deserve the highest
possible commendation.
205. I extend my sincere condolences to the family of
Lucille Gaye Butterworth and all those who knew her, loved her and felt her
loss.
Dated: 2 May 2016
at Hobart in the State of Tasmania.
Simon Cooper
Coroner
New unit to look into Cafasso murder
Posted
Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:41pm AEDT - ABC
Tasmania's Police Commissioner, Richard McCreadie, says
DNA technology will be central to the success of a new cold case unit.
Recruiting has started for the six officers who will be based in Hobart.
The Police Commissioner, Richard McCreadie, says the unit will focus on
cases such as the murder of Victoria Caffasso on Tasmania's east coast 13
years ago, and the disappearance of Nancy Grunwaldt, also on the east coast,
15 years ago.
He says similar units in other states have been successful.
"We're confident that it will produce some results," Mr McCreadie said.
"There's absolutely no doubt that DNA technologies have moved on."
Mr McCreadie says the disappearance of Hobart woman
Lucille Butterworth
nearly 40 years ago may have happened too long ago to be re-investigated.
Missing girl
Broadcast: 05/12/2003
Reporter: Judy Tierney - Stateline
Tasmania
JUDY TIERNEY: One of the most baffling cases of a
missing person in Tasmania continues to interest police 34 years after it
happened.
Lucille Butterworth disappeared from a bus stop in 1969.
She was close to her family, about to become engaged and had everything to
live for.
The cop who took over the case eight years ago is confident someone will be
brought to justice and bring to an end the agony suffered by Lucille's
Butterworth's ageing mother.
WIN BUTTERWORTH: She said goodbye normal and she used to set my hair and she
just said “Wash your hair tomorrow “and when I come home I'll set it.”
Practically, that would be the last.
JUDY TIERNEY: That was the last time Win Butterworth would see her
daughter Lucille.
It was 25 August 1969.
WIN BUTTERWORTH: Bubbly, she was full of life, loved.
WIN BUTTERWORTH, 1969: And I said, “Well have a nice time tonight, pet, ring
me in the morning and let me know.”
And she said, “Yes I will do that Mum, don't worry about me.”
JUDY TIERNEY: After a day working at the local radio station, this vivacious
and popular young woman accepted a lift from a colleague to a bus stop.
Lucille Butterworth was on her way to a Miss Tasmania fundraising meeting in
New Norfolk.
REPORTER, 1969: This is where the trail of Lucille known movements ends.
What happened from here on no-one knows.
JUDY TIERNEY: For Win Butterworth, that dreadful day is as vivid now as it was
all those years ago.
WIN BUTTERWORTH, 1969: Nearly out of my mind.
No-one knows, I feels as though I have had a limb torn away from me.
It is a terrible feeling.
Dreadful.
We were so close.
She was just our world.
WIN BUTTERWORT: She had an orangey-coloured uniform that was the office
uniform and the coat, that black coat with the white.
She used to model, she loved modelling.
And she modelled that coat and she walked around and then she came over to
where I was sitting and she said, “I love this Mum -- can I have it?”
And I said, “Yes, you can have it.”
JUDY TIERNEY: It's a case that has never closed and eight years ago was passed
on to policeman John Ward.
He's taken a particular interest because he wants it solved for Win
Butterworth.
SERGEANT JOHN WARD, TASMANIA POLICE: Obviously Mrs Butterworth isn't getting
any younger and I'd like to have a result for her.
The thing that she said that really left an impression in my mind when I first
met her, she said she goes to bed every night thinking about her daughter
Lucille and she wakes up thinking about it.
And she has done that for the past 34 years.
JUDY TIERNEY: The last 34 years have been hard on the whole Butterworth
family.
Support for Win Butterworth now comes from her two sons Jim and John.
Her husband died in 1984.
JOHN BUTTERWORTH, BROTHER: We hope before my mother passes away that we do get
an answer for her peace of mind.
Sure Jimmy and I will probably at some stage or another find out.
It's had an adverse affect on my father, it killed him in the end and we just
hope that Mum can persevere and stick with it until we find an answer -- and
we will, definitely.
JIM BUTTERWORTH, BROTHER: I suppose really she's lost a daughter and knows
she's lost a daughter but she would like to know where she's lost her and who
took her.
And after that I would imagine she'd have some feeling of relief that the
person, if they're caught, is going to suffer like she's had to suffer all
those years.
How she's stood up to it, I don't know.
There were a couple of times she lost it a little bit but she's been
absolutely a rock.
JOHN FITZGERALD, FORMER BOYFRIEND: We had the world at our feet and that was
just taken away from us.
JUDY TIERNEY: Lucille Butterworth's disappearance has also tormented her
former boyfriend John Fitzgerald.
He lived in New Norfolk and on the evening of Lucille's disappearance he was
waiting for her to arrive on the bus.
JOHN FITZGERALD: Sometimes if Lucille didn't turn up it didn't worry me and I
used to just go and get ready and go to the meeting and then phone the next
day and see what had happened -- whether she'd been sick or whatever.
So it's just one of those things.
To this day that really concerns me that I just went off to the meeting and if
I had only phoned I would have known what had happened.
JUDY TIERNEY: The Butterworth family didn't realise Lucille was missing until
the next morning until John Fitzgerald phoned to speak to his girlfriend.
The couple had planned their engagement, had identical rings crafted and were
about to make the announcement.
JOHN FITZGERALD: As far as I know, that night she would have been wearing that
ring -- as far as I know.
We were trying to keep it a bit of a secret about the engagement and it was
very hard trying to keep a secret and yet be so excited about the whole thing.
JUDY TIERNEY: Still struggling to understand why his girlfriend could be seen
one minute at a bus stop and gone the next has taken a toll on John
Fitzgerald's health.
JOHN FITZGERALD: There was nothing, it was just as if she'd just disappeared,
just zapped off the earth.
It's just like someone saying to you, “I know a secret and I'm not going to
tell you what that secret is" and I think if we could find an answer to what
happened to Lucille we would be able to settle a lot better.
JUDY TIERNEY: Finding the answer rests with Sergeant John Ward, who's running
out of time.
But he has established suspects.
So you have got more than one?
JOHN WARD: Yes Three, possibly four?
JOHN WARD: Yes.
So you can't tell us how many suspects you might have?
JOHN WARD: No, I can't.
JUDY TIERNEY: The answer, John Ward believes, will come from a member of the
public.
JOHN WARD: What you need to consider is that the people who may have been
involved could be in their 60s and 70s now.
There's an enormous amount of evidence available within the file as you can
see.
There's a lot of paperwork there and, again, I believe there is a member of
the public out there who knows the answer.
And someone with some information if they can come to me and I can investigate
it and I can certainly protect them people.
JUDY TIERNEY: What John Ward is banking on is information from the
now-separated wives or partners of suspects.
It may be a long shot, but the Butterworth family too believes it could be
their last hope.
WIN BUTTERWORTH: I'd plead to them as a mother to think about another mother
that's suffered all those years and lost their child for all those years.
Just maybe they'd be good enough to give us some sort of hope, some sort of
lead.
JOHN BUTTERWORTH: They may think of something and they may think it's about
time they suggested their thoughts to the police which may help us.
JOHN FITZGERALD: Please, if anyone has the slightest bit of information that
can put this to rest, I beg of them please do something about it now,
particularly for mum Butterworth.
She's an old lady now and I feel it's a very cruel thing for her not to have
an answer.
JUDY TIERNEY: Opposite the bus stop where Lucille Butterworth went missing
there's now a rose garden.
A plaque on a seat is a sad reminder of that day in 1969.
JOHN BUTTERWORTH: When my dad died one of his wishes was to have his ashes
spread out here in the rose garden.
JUDY TIERNEY: Win Butterworth's wish is the same, her ashes will be spread
here, but not before, she pleads, she settles the years of anguish.
WIN BUTTERWORTH: Someone may talk and we'll have something to put it to rest
that little piece of peace of mind, instead of the wondering, wondering.
Mystery surrounds skeleton find
Article from:
MARIA RAE
May 29, 2007 12:00am
THE discovery of a
skeleton has raised hopes one of Tasmania's oldest crime mysteries may be
solved.
Police say the decomposed bones, found 15 metres up the bank of the
Derwent River at Claremont yesterday morning, appear to have been there "quite
some time".
A work-for-the-dole crew found the skull, ribs and femur at Beedhams Bay
-- several blocks from where Lucille Gay Butterworth was last seen before she
went missing 38 years ago.
Her elderly mother Wyn Butterworth said the discovery was "pretty hard
to take".
"It's more or less like it happened yesterday," she said.
"I've had a long time to wait for an answer.
"But we do really want an answer so it's put away."
Both the Butterworth family and police believe Lucille was abducted --
or willingly accepted a lift from someone she knew -- and was then murdered.
Detective Inspector Tony Cerritelli said yesterday police were working
to determine the age, identity and gender of the skeleton.
"Due to the decomposition of the bones we're currently in the process of
establishing the identity and subsequently the cause of death," he said.
"We'll have a look at all the missing person files."
He said DNA and dental comparisons would be made with those on the
files.
Det-Insp Cerritelli said forensic officers were also figuring out how
long the remains had been there and the rate of decomposition.
Police were also trying to resolve whether the body had been washed up
on shore or was found where the person lay.
Work supervisor Peter Bourne said the remains couldn't have washed up
that high given how dense the weeds were.
"They've crawled in there or someone put them there," he said.
At first Mr Bourne thought his crew member was joking when he called out
about the discovery.
The crew of eight had been working in the Beedhams Bay area in Hobart's
northern suburbs for the past two weeks pulling a plant pest from the banks.
"It's called boneseed, which is an irony," Mr Bourne said.
"It's going to have different connotations when I come here now."
But he is hopeful that the discovery will end the agony for someone
mourning a missing person.
"The best thing we've thought is that someone will get closure from all
this," he said.
Workman Nick Rava said the skeleton appeared to be lying on its back
with its skull facing up the bank.
"We didn't touch it," he said.
"We basically left it how it was."
Mr Rava expected the shock of the discovery not to sink in until later.
"To see a human like that is not something you'd like to see every day,"
he said.
Skeletal remains found in Hobart are male
Posted
Tue May 29, 2007 5:18pm AEST - ABC
The human remains found on the banks of the Derwent River
in the northern Hobart suburb of Claremont yesterday have been identified by
police as those of a middle aged man.
It proves wrong speculation the remains could have been that of Lucille
Butterworth who disappeared in 1969.
Detective Inspector Tony Cerritelli says police will continue to assess
information relating to missing people in the Claremont area in the past three
to five years.
But he says there doesn't appear to be any suspicious circumstances
relating to the cause of death.
A report will now be prepared for the Coroner
Police make murder breakthrough 42 years on
Edith Bevin
Updated
August 03, 2011 05:39:23 - ABC
Tasmanian police are reporting an apparent breakthrough
in a cold case that has baffled them for 42 years.
On August 25, 1969, 20 year old Lucille Butterworth was on her way to
a Miss Tasmania fundraising meeting at New Norfolk and went to a bus stop at
Claremont in Hobart's northern suburbs.
Ms Butterworth has never been seen since, and her body has never been
found, but police never gave up hope.
Recently, they were given fresh information and four detectives
working on the case believe they now have a suspect.
Detective Inspector David Plumpton says the suspect is a man who was
living in New Norfolk in 1969 and was known to Ms Butterworth.
He is now in his 60s, has served jail time for an attack on a woman,
and is still living in Tasmania
"We've got a circumstantial case, I can argue it's strong, but I'm
probably too close to it," said Detective Inspector Plumpton.
Police are investigating whether Ms Butterworth accepted a lift from
the man, believing she had missed a bus to New Norfolk.
Detective Inspector Plumpton says they are still hopeful of getting a
confession.
"They did a horrendous thing at a period in their life, now is an
opportunity to possibly do a great thing and balance the ledger and that is
resolve what happened to Lucille."
Miss Butterworth's parents died without knowing what happened to their
daughter.
Her brothers, John and Jim, and fiance John Fitzgerald still struggle
with her disappearance.
"All of us have been desperate over the years as you can understand,
Mr Fitzgerald said.
"You can't put these things to rest until such time as there is an
answer."
Police are trying to pinpoint the whereabouts of Lucille Butterworth's
body.
They believe it was dumped in bushland somewhere between Claremont and
New Norfolk.
I may have found Lucille’s remains: Former mayor tells of grisly
discovery
FORMER Kingborough mayor and business pioneer Don Hazell
hopes to be called before the coroner to detail a grim
discovery he made about 40 years ago.
FORMER Kingborough mayor and business pioneer Don Hazell hopes to be
called before the coroner to detail a grim discovery he made about 40
years ago, which he believes could be related to one of the state’s most
baffling cold cases.
Tasmania Police yesterday confirmed a coronial investigation had started
into the 1969 disappearance of Lucille Butterworth from a Claremont bus
stop.
Lucille, 20, of Montagu Bay, had finished work at radio station 7HO and was
on her way to New Norfolk to meet her fiance John Fitzgerald and to attend a
fundraising meeting for the Miss Tasmania Quest. Her body has never been
found.
Founder of construction company Hazell Brothers, Don Hazell, 87, yesterday
said he believed he had dug up Lucille’s remains during building work at
Kingston in the mid-1970s.
The company had won its first contract for a subdivision and Mr Hazell said
he was driving a loader to tidy up the edge of the road when he made the
discovery.
“I came to a heap of dirt which must have been carted there years ago and
tipped in the bush,” he said.
“When I pushed that towards where I was spreading it out to look nice, all
of a sudden some bones came up on the top of the loader.”
Mr Hazell said he called a co-worker over to look at the bones, which he
described as an unbroken ribcage, to determine whether they were animal or
human.
“We spread the dirt around and, to this day, I don’t think there were any
other bones in that particular area,” he said.
“So I buried it closer to the kerb and gutter which we’d just put in and I
covered it up with loam.”
In 1986, a man was extradited from WA after confessing to Lucille’s murder
and police excavated an area at Kingston less than 100m from where Mr Hazell
made his discovery.
Mr Hazell said he went to the police in 1987 after he connected that man’s
story to his own.
Tasmania Police yesterday said Mr Hazell’s claims had been investigated
twice.
Mr Hazell said he regretted not going straight to the police and he would
now like to see a full inquest.
Lucille’s brother John Butterworth yesterday said the family had been happy
with how police had handled investigations and looked forward to the coroner
making further inquiries into the case.
POLICE forensic teams have begun excavating outside Granton
in a search for clues to the 1969 disappearance of Lucille
Butterworth.
BEN WATERWORTH, Mercury
POLICE forensic teams have begun excavating outside Granton in a search
for clues to the 1969 disappearance of Lucille Butterworth.
Heavy machinery will first clear thick scrub at a site on the banks of the
River Derwent before forensic teams divide the area into a search grid.
Forensic Services Acting Sergeant said a systematic search would take place.
“With the thick vegetation we can’t tell what’s at the base,” he said
yesterday.
“Once we get down to ground level, we’ll have more of an idea of the best
way to do that, but at this stage it will be broken into more suitable
grids.”
The site has been fenced and will be monitored by 24-hour security over the
next three weeks.
Detective Inspector David Plumpton said the search was not just about
finding remains.
He said the team would also look for any other evidence, such as jewellery
and clothing, that could finally help solve the case.
“I think it is a priority to give some level of closure [and] if possible
return Lucille’s remains to the family,” he said.
“After that, investigations will proceed but first and foremost at the
moment it is about providing the Butterworth family with some opportunity to
bury Lucille. We would hope that we are only here for 24 hours and find
something – but obviously we have got a plan for the long term.”
Police believe Miss Butterworth, who was 20 at the time of her
disappearance, accepted a lift to New Norfolk while waiting for a bus at
Claremont 46 years ago – on the night of August 25, 1969.
They believe she was murdered by the person who picked up her up and that
her body was dumped, possibly at the site of the current excavation.
The area came to light when new information was presented to investigators
in relation to a man who remains a person of interest in Miss Butterworth’s
disappearance.
An inquest into her disappearance is scheduled for August 31.
Tasmania Police to call off dig in Lucille Butterworth search
A TWO-week dig for clues seems unlikely to shed light on
Tasmania’s oldest cold case — the disappearance of Lucille
Butterworth 46 years ago.
PATRICK BILLINGS, Mercury
A TWO-week dig for clues seems unlikely to shed light on Tasmania’s
oldest cold case — the disappearance of Lucille Butterworth 46 years
ago.
Police are expected to end their excavation of the search site near Granton
today.
No evidence had been unearthed as of yesterday.
The dig was sparked by information about the 20-year-old’s suspected
murder, which will be the subject of an inquest next month.
Inspector David Plumpton, of Hobart uniform police, said the lack of new
evidence was frustrating.
“It’s absolutely disappointing for the family,” Insp Plumpton said.
Forensic officers had been searching for Miss Butterworth’s remains along
with jewellery, clothes and other belongings.
Police had considered using a ground-penetrating radar which was used to
find the remains of slain teen Daniel Morcombe in Queensland.
The machine was brought to Tasmania in 2012 as police searched for missing
teenager Eve Askew.
But a geophysicist advised the machine would not reveal anything in this
instance and police instead conducted electromagnetic surveys of the site.
“People would say it’s a slim chance but the family would jump at that
chance,” Insp Plumpton said.
Persons of interest in the disappearance are expected to be called to the
inquest which starts on August 31.
Miss Butterworth was last seen on August 25, 1969, waiting for a bus at
Claremont.
New witness emerges in 50yo Lucille Butterworth cold case
A new witness has reignited the investigation into the disappearance and
suspected murder of Hobart model Lucille Butterworth 50 years ago.
In one of Tasmania's most notorious cold cases, 20-year-old Lucille
Butterworth vanished from a bus stop in Claremont near Hobart on August 25,
1969.
Her body has never been found.
The witness, now aged in his 60s, has given police a detailed statement in
which he claims that as a child he overheard a conversation between two men
on a farm in southern Tasmania.
He believes one of the men was Geoffrey Charles Hunt.
He claims the man spoke about dumping a woman's body on the outskirts of
Hobart near Granton.
In 2016, a coroner found Mr Hunt had strangled Ms Butterworth but the
Director of Public Prosecutions said there was not enough evidence to lay
charges.
Mr Hunt, who now lives under a different name in the state's north-west,
denied any knowledge of what happened to Ms Butterworth when he gave
evidence at the inquest.
The new claim has reignited the investigation because there are details in
the man's statement which correspond with times, places and events
surrounding the disappearance.
Deputy Commissioner Scott Tilyard said "it would be inappropriate to comment
on matters under inquiry".
It is understood there are no plans at this stage to dig at the site named
in the witness's statement.
The site is just a few hundred metres from an area near Granton where police
dug for Lucille Butterworth's body in 2015.
The witness statement has been sent to a detective in the north-west of the
state for further investigation.
'It ate him away'
Ms Butterworth's only surviving sibling John Butterworth described it as "a
fantastic breakthrough "
"I really hope that they [the police] pursue it … vigorously, most
vigorously," he said.
But while they are happy there is renewed hope of finding her body, the
family is angry police have had the witness statement for more than six
months and are yet to put the allegations to Hunt.
His daughter Kassie-Lee McDiarmid said the not knowing what happened broke
his heart.
"It possessed dad's life even the last couple of months was all about
Lucille — it ate him away, really, it destroyed him," she said.
"I'm excited that we might finally get some answers but I'm also a little
bit sad that we've since found out that prior to dad passing away in April,
police actually knew about this evidence or this information and did nothing
about it, so dad could have had the peace he wanted in passing."
Investigation concerns persist
Coroner Simon Cooper was highly critical of the police handling of the
investigation before a new team took over in 2011.
After the findings, Tasmania Police Commissioner Darren Hine apologised to
the family for the inaction of police in the past.
But the Butterworth family said now that the investigation team had been
disbanded, those delays and deficiencies in following up key leads, such as
this new witness statement, have returned.
"[It's] disgusting," Mrs McDiarmid said.
"They did it to the family once, they've now done it again. They apologised
for their mistakes previously but there's no apology for this. This needs to
be followed up properly."
John Butterworth agreed.
"It's disappointing … and certainly for modern era police I think that's
disappointing," Mr Butterworth said.
"It was disappointing enough with the older era police withholding evidence
and information from us all those years ago."
Police continue to receive leads
The ABC understands that in the past 18 months police have received about 15
information reports relating to the case but this is the only one resulting
in a detailed statement being sought and given.
Deputy Commissioner Tilyard said: "Tasmania Police periodically receives
information in relating to the Butterworth case from time to time" and that
"all information that is received is assessed as to whether further police
inquiries are conducted".
Police are not commenting on why it has taken so long for the witness to
come forward.
Last month was the 50th anniversary of the disappearance of Lucille
Butterworth.
Her brother John said he has watched his mother, father and brother all die,
tortured by not knowing what happened and the surviving family need answers.
Mr Hunt is on parole for the 1976 rape and murder of Susan Knight. His
parole period ends in July 2020.
Lucille Butterworth's family said it had lost faith in Tasmania Police.
The legal move comes after revelations police had a new witness statement about
the suspected murder, but did not follow it up for about 10 months, and then
only after the ABC
reported on it.
Ms Butterworth's niece Kassie-Lee McDiarmid said it was the latest episode in a
50-year investigation that had, as a 2016 coronial investigation found, a myriad
of deficiencies associated with it.
"We're going to be seeking legal advice immediately … and will be commencing
action against Tasmania Police.
"It's a very big move but what can we do, because clearly their bad patterns are
repeating themselves."
For 50 years the family held on to the hope that one day it would learn what
happened to the 20-year-old model.
But now Lucille Butterworth's only surviving sibling, John Butterworth, said he
had "lost confidence in Tasmania Police's handling of the case".
"We were never kept up to date, never a courtesy call — this is my sister who
has been missing for 50 years, half a century, it is a debacle of the highest
order."
The new witness came forward earlier this year.
In a detailed statement provided to police, he said that when he was a teenager
in the late 1960s he overheard a conversation between two men about the disposal
of a girl's body near Granton, on the outskirts of Hobart.
He believes one of the men was convicted killer Geoffrey Charles Hunt.
Despite having the statement since at least January this year, police only spoke
to the second man allegedly involved in the conversation after the ABC broke the
story two weeks ago.
Police say they are reviewing the new information
Deputy Commissioner Scott Tilyard said "the latest piece of information has been
investigated by police".
"A man was spoken to in relation to the information, however associated
investigations did not reveal a specific line of inquiry. The information
remains under review at this time," Mr Tilyard said.
"The enquiry remains open and police are still seeking information from the
public regarding the disappearance of Lucille.
"Police remain in contact with the Butterworth family and this will continue."
But the family is not happy. It says members of the 2011 review of the case,
praised by coroner Simon Cooper for their investigation, should have been tasked
to investigate this lead and to vet any other tips that come in.
"How many other leads have not been pursued and followed through with?" Mr
Butterworth said.
Mrs McDiarmid agreed, adding the entire community should be concerned.
"How many other cases out there are unsolved, which we know there are numerous
well-known cases unsolved, has the same thing happened?" she said.
Police Commissioner Darren Hine formally apologised to the family in 2016 for
what the coronial inquest found was "the myriad of deficiencies associated with
the investigation in the past".
The family said the police handling of the case over the past year showed
nothing had changed.
Lucille Butterworth’s brother John is still digging for answers
John Butterworth has spent the past week getting his hands dirty
as he continues his search for answers into the unsolved
disappearance of his beauty queen sister.
THE unsolved quest for answers into the disappearance of his beauty queen
sister has led John Butterworth to physically dig in the hope of finding her
remains.
Lucille Butterworth vanished from a Claremont bus stop in August 1969 which has
long troubled the Butterworth family and puzzled police, media and members of
the public for five decades.
Mr Butterworth, who now lives in Queensland, flew to Tasmania last week to begin
digging at a new site in the state’s South where he believes Lucille may have
been buried.
Over four days this week Mr Butterworth dug with a shovel in an area close to
the 2015 dig site.
He said his new site of interest — a roadside lay-by near New Norfolk that was
once affectionately known as “Lovers Lane” — was “worth a shot” based on a
premonition.
“No one else has dug there and I was mainly interested in why there are a couple
of man-ferns there. It’s the only area in the Murphy’s wetlands with man-ferns
and I woke up one morning with something telling me that’s where Lucille was,”
he said.
“It was just something else that had to be explored in my opinion.”
He has previously expressed disappointment over Tasmania Police’s handling of
his sister’s disappearance.
He said despite police investigations slowing, his efforts to find his sister
would never cease.
Tasmania Police today said it would continue to remain in contact with the
Butterworth family.
“Tasmania Police periodically receives information in relating to the
Butterworth case,” a police spokeswoman said.
“All information that is received is assessed as to whether further police
inquiries are conducted.
“The inquiry remains open and police are still seeking information from the
public regarding the disappearance of Lucille.”
Lucille Butterworth’s fiancé has passed away, now her brother is
worried he won’t find answers
The last surviving brother of suspected murder victim Lucille
Butterworth says he may die without answers to “the perfect
crime”, as the family now mourn the loss of her fiancé.
THE last surviving brother of suspected murder victim Lucille Butterworth
says he may die without answers to “the perfect crime”, as the family now
mourn the loss of her fiancé.
Since age 15, John Butterworth – now 66 – has searched tirelessly for
information into the disappearance of his sister who vanished from a Claremont
bus stop in 1969, aged 20.
The Butterworth family was last year given hope of finding Lucille’s remains
after Mr Butterworth was informed of a witness coming forward to police.
But no tangible evidence has been found.
Lucille’s fiancee John Fitzgerald this week passed away following a long
illness, aged 74.
The pair met through their shared love of ballroom dancing, and developed a
relationship while working at nearby shops in New Norfolk.
Mr Butterworth described his late sister’s partner as “very astute and a good
businessman” who will be missed.
“He was quite a go-getter and sort of an entrepreneurial-type in his earlier
days,” Mr Butterworth said.
“John spent some time living in Melbourne where he ran a takeaway business
before coming home where he was quite successful in running a New Norfolk bottle
shop.
“He was just a lovely guy, very gentle, and was pretty good to me when Lucille
went missing. He used to come over to my parents house to speak with my mother
following Lucille’s disappearance. He and mum used to comfort each other.”
Mr Butterworth said he was saddened that Mr Fitzgerald died without finding
answers into Lucille’s disappearance.
His death follows the passing of Lucille’s parents years prior, and the death of
her brother, Jim, last year.
“It’s very upsetting. Jim’s passed away, Mum and Dad are gone, now John
Fitzgerald’s gone. To be honest, I cannot see this ever being solved,” Mr
Butterworth said.
“I still hold a small hope that someone may come forward, but it’s 51 years and
it’s very hard not to come to terms with it.
“It’s got to the situation where, although it’s still open, unless someone comes
forward with credible information, I can’t see it going anywhere and I’m afraid,
my wife Deb and I are going to pass away at some stage [without finding
answers].
“I don’t like to admit that somebody has committed a perfect crime, but it looks
that way.”
Mr Butterworth said the search for his late sister had taken an emotional toll
but said his immediate family had been pillars of support.
“Over the last few months I’ve had some bad nights,” he said.
“I talk to my daughter about it, and also Deb who has come to the conclusion
that I have to get over it which I’m finding pretty difficult.
“I refuse to give up, I refuse to say that something won’t reveal itself for
us.”