I've
met a lot of doubters while I was researching this book. People would
say to me, "I just don't know," or "It's hard to believe
he did it," or "I've never been able to understand this case,"
and "If he did do it, why?" and "If he didn't do it,
then who did? and Why?"
I
was in much the same state of mind when I began research for this book.
I'd read about it in the papers and found some of what I'd read difficult
to believe. Why would a man hire someone to shoot his wife and then
get into bed and lie down beside her while he waited for this hitman
to enter the house? It seemed a pretty stupid way to go about it, if
you ask me. But I didn't know Andrew or Megan and there's that old saying
about fact being stranger than fiction.
Then
I read about Bill Vandenberg - the hitman with a conscience. Common
sense told me that something was very wrong with his story. And so,
I began a scrap book, then I began more serious research, then I attended
the Inquiry.
Much
of it still is a mystery. The deeper you dig, the bigger the hole gets.
I still don't know who killed Megan or why.
I'm
not a lawyer or a detective, and it's not my job to point a finger and
say whodunit. There are no heroes or villains in this book. It's a book
about real people, and I've tried to get to know them - dug a little
below the surface to get to know what makes them tick.
I
introduce the main players in this story in the first few chapters.
I've studied court transcripts, statements and newspaper stories on
them to flesh them out and present them as whole people to my readers.
I also saw them all from the back of the court when I sat in on the
Inquiry. Often I felt like an intruder, a voyeur, looking in on other
people's lives. All I could do is report what they did and/or what they
said. I don't know what is true and what is false. I can guess and so
can you. You can make an educated guess when you know a little bit about
it. For this reason I've presented Vandenberg's suicide note in its
entirety to the reader - without editing or correcting any of the spelling
or grammar. And for all its' poor spelling and grammar, I think it speaks
very eloquently of this man's confusion and distress. Interestingly
I don't see a confession in it. But, I'll let you read it for yourself,
and make up your own mind about it.
Often
I found there are two or more versions of the same event. For example,
if I look at what Elkins said about the briefcase that Andrew Kalajzich
was supposed to have used to deliver the payment for the murder, on
the Tuesday after.
Elkins
said it was pre-arranged that Andrew would meet him outside Jim and
Michele's place on this night to hand over the money in a slim black
briefcase.
Andrew
said he suddenly decided to go down to the hotel to pick up a large
bulky briefcase, a pilot bag which contained some files he thought might
be relevant to Megan's murder and the attempt on his life. His sister
Olga drove him in her car and his mother came along for the ride. On
the way home again after Andrew had picked up the pilot bag, Olga suggested
they drive to Jim and Michele's place to see if everything was okay
there. Andrew had organised for two men to be standing guard outside
the house because everyone in the family thought it might be their turn
next. They met Elkins there who had followed them into the road and
parked alongside. Andrew says he had second thoughts about the wisdom
of removing that bag from his office and so he took some files out of
it and gave the almost empty bag to Elkins and instructing him to return
it to his secretary's office.
Which story is true? I don't know. Justice Slattery, in his Report of
the Inquiry into Andrew's conviction, found Elkins story more credible.
I tend to believe Andrew's version.
I
don't want to criticise lawyers, but the law. It seems to me that a
good dose of common sense could be applied in a case like this. For
example, the reason I believe Andrew's story over Elkins is because
I couldn't understand why Andrew would hand over the money in front
of his sister and his mother, when they'd just been to the hotel and
Elkins should have been in Dalleys, the disco which was right next to
Andrew's office. I also had difficulty with the possibility of Andrew
leaving the ten thousand odd dollars Elkins claimed he handed over for
the murder, in a briefcase in his office for over 48 hours after the
murder. What if the police had searched his office? If Andrew had planned
Megan's murder then this was a pretty clumsy method of paying for it.
On
the other hand, we've got Elkins story which is supported by his mates
who were standing guard outside Jim and Michele's house.
You
can disagree with me. What I've done in this book is present the material
to you to make you think. All I ask is that you read it with an open
mind.
One
of the most powerful experiences I had when I was putting this book
together was at the end, when I looked through the family photograph
albums. They're like the photograph albums we've probably all got in
a cupboard somewhere. They're photos of a happy family. Children dressing
up in fancy dress costumes, on the beach, Christmas parties with three
generations, proms, Engagement parties, weddings, Megan and Andrew at
a Mayoral Ball and at a Friends of Manly barbecue, at K's Snapper Inn
in the 70s, at their weekender at Cottage Point. All these photos were
meticulously dated and labelled in Megan's handwriting. Nothing was
ever the same again for this family.
It's
easy to lose the plot. There have been so many hearings - Committals,
the Trial, attempts at Appeal, which failed, and the Inquiry, as well
as the Sentence Review Hearing and all the hearings associated with
other players in this drama such as the Inquest into Vandenberg's suicide,
Kerry Orrock's Sentence Review and so on. It's easy to forget that this
story started with the murder of Megan and what looked like an attempted
murder of Andrew.
I
think we lost the plot during the Inquiry when Kerry Orrock turned and
gave evidence against Andrew. Kerry Orrock you'll remember was serving
a life sentence for supplying the murder weapon. Andrew did pay money
to Kerry Orrock's family while they both had cells in the same wing
in Parklea. He was also helping with Orrock's legal fees.
One
of the stories Orrock told Andrew and his legal team was that the gun
which was known as JJ (it's on the back cover) was not the murder weapon.
Andrew Kalajzich invested a lot of money in investigating this possibility
and believed, after he'd had reports from American experts that it was
highly probable Orrock was telling the truth. But three quarters of
the way through the Inquiry it became obvious that Orrock had lied about
this. So, when Andrew's barrister, John Gordon said:
"Your
Honour, might I just add on behalf of Mr Kalajzich that there is no
doubt now that JJ was the weapon that caused the death of Mrs Kalajzich."
This
marked a turning point in the Inquiry.
Why
had Orrock lied about JJ? It was obvious to me and I couldn't understand
why no one else seemed to be able to see it. He lied because he was
serving a life sentence for supplying the murder weapon to Vandenberg.
If he could cast doubt on the gun JJ being the weapon then he'd virtually
got his get-out-of-jail card. I predicted he'd do an about-face after
this announcement because he no longer had anything to gain by supporting
Andrew.
When
the Inquiry recommenced, Kerry Orrock claimed Andrew Kalajzich had promised
him a million dollars to lie - and that the stories Kerry Orrock had
told private investigators and lawyers were all fabrications. The focus
of the Inquiry shifted to quantifying the amounts of money, the dates
the money was sent and so on, and in the end it amounted to a few thousand
dollars. To my mind the question of what, amongst the tales Orrock had
told, was true and what was false was pretty well ignored by the Inquiry.
I
went to the Inquiry because I wanted to know if Andrew Kalajzich was
guilty or innocent, and I still believe he is innocent, even though
he paid some money to Orrock. It probably wasn't the wisest thing for
him to do, but I believe he was under some pressure. Prison is a dangerous
place and he was living in the same wing as Orrock who was one of the
men involved in the murder of Megan. I don't believe the promise of
a million dollars. Andrew Kalajzich was no longer a wealthy man by this
stage. He was struggling to pay his lawyers. This is an important chapter
in this book and I can't read minds so I don't know the truth. Again
I present the reader with what people did and what they said and all
I can ask is that you read it and think about it.
Truth
is a high ideal, probably unattainable, yet we're all searching for
it. In order to find it we rely on memory which is extremely unreliable.
Our memories are coloured by our biases and by what we've been told.
In a case like this, looking at events in 1986, I'm more likely to pay
attention to a report or statement that was taken close to that date,
when memory is less likely to be influenced by hindsight or other people's
versions of what happened. When two people disagree about a certain
event I have to remind myself that it's easy to confuse belief with
the truth. It needn't be that one person is deliberately lying.
Unfortunately,
the Inquiry was held eight years after Megan's murder and I'm sure people's
memories have been coloured by the amount of media attention this case
has received.
There
are so many rumours surrounding this case! I've heard some beauties!
And I bet many of you have too. I guess the fact that these rumours
are so plentiful demonstrates how much it still worries the public imagination.
People are more likely to believe rumours when they're not satisfied
with the facts.
Andrew
Kalajzich is no fool. He's highly intelligent and very determined. On
visits he talks endlessly about his case and his fight for justice.
The irony is that it's his refusal to admit guilt, what the judges see
as his lack of remorse that has kept him in prison. No one else connected
with this case is still in prison.
I've
got to know him since 1994 when I first visited him, and I could not
believe this man would be capable of murdering anyone.
My
visits with him have often been emotional. I've asked him some hard
questions and he's had to revisit that dreadful night when Megan was
murdered over and over again. He's often tearful, then embarrassed by
the tears and he suffers panic attacks. I'm always impressed by his
strength though, and his determination to continue to fight for justice.
When
I discussed this book with him I asked if he could write to his lawyers
and ask them to give me access to documents relating to the case. I
told him that I would give the reader a "warts and all" Andrew
Kalajzich. I explained that I would not leave anything out. I knew I'd
be accused of bias because of my relationship to members of the family,
and so it was most important that I present both sides of the story.
I believe I've done this.
I
have a lot of people to thank. First, I'd like to thank Andrew Kalajzich
for his extraordinary trust. He can't be here tonight - he's otherwise
detained. In fact when I last spoke to him he hadn't even seen a copy
of the book, though he saw the manuscript at various stages - to ensure
I'd got facts straight, dates, names, spellings etc.
I'd
like to apologise to his immediate family and close friends for this
intrusion into their lives. They've suffered so much and I hate to do
it to them again. I know they all support Andrew, but the media can
be insensitive and they're understandably media shy. They have also
been very helpful in giving me access to documents and photographs.
I'd
like to thank my own family for supporting and encouraging me. I've
been working on this book since 1994 - some would say I've been obsessed
with it - so thank you for putting up with me for all this time.
I'd
like to thank all my wonderful writing friends who've read parts of
this book - often as it came fresh off the printer - and given me their
criticism and advice as well as support and encouragement. You must
be sick and tired of it by now, but I see many of you are here tonight,
so thank you again.
I'd also like to thank Colleen and Diane and the team at Parker Pattinson
who understood what I wanted and were sympathetic to my purpose, and
I think have done a brilliant job in setting out this book.
I
really haven't written this book all by myself. I've used many sources
and lots of people have had input and I've acknowledged them either
in the text or footnotes. Of course, some don't want to be named and
so I've had to change names and fictionalise descriptions occasionally.
Thank
you Alan Jones and thank you Merrill Barker for helping out tonight.
To
everybody who has come here, Thank You. While I'm proud of my achievement,
I must remind myself that this evening is not about me. It's about this
book which tells a story that needed to be told. I'm only sorry it's
taken so long. I ask all of you to read it, think about it and talk
about it.