Losing Their Grip - the case of Henry Keogh

Author: Dr Robert N Moles

Go to: Networked Knowledge - the Henry Keogh homepage
Go to: A state of Injustice: table of contents

Losing Their Grip - table of contents

Chapter Four - The Trials

Keogh’s first trial ran for two weeks. On Saturday, 11 March 1995, as it was coming to an end, The Advertiser published an article headlined, ‘Feature - A Tale of Treachery’, by Sylvia Kriven. It reported on:

“... an intriguing whodunit about love, greed, betrayal, adultery – and death. How could anyone be so treacherous, so evil?”

It went on to say that:

“… when Keogh took the stand late last month, charged with the murder of Miss Cheney, the eyes and ears of every South Australian were focussed on everything that was said. His Supreme Court trial had it all, and it drew public attention like a magnet. The onlookers filled the public gallery and came from everywhere… Among them sat a conspicuous number of lawyers, keen to study Adelaide’s two top silks at work. And they weren’t disappointed. The gravel-voiced Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Paul Rofe QC took time out from his busy public office especially for this prosecution. Veteran defence lawyer Mr Michael David QC, also made it a priority. Skilfully, they took a trial listed to last five weeks and pushed it through in two. They had spent months agreeing on certain facts and refined complex financial information into summaries, thus sparing court time.”

The article said that throughout the trial, Keogh’s brother David appeared every day, offering stoic silent support. Sometimes his mother came as did his father, with his new wife. But the Cheneys never appeared except to give evidence. For them the pain is far from gone. They have agreed not to comment on the trial and have asked to be left alone.

The next day the Sunday Mail reported, ‘The Anna-Jane Cheney Murder trial – A matter of life and death’, by Robert Mayne. It said that the Keogh trial came to an end yesterday when the jury could not agree on a verdict. Henry Keogh will stand trial for a second time over the alleged murder of his fiancée Anna Cheney, after a hung jury yesterday struggled for more than ten hours to reach a verdict. The deadlocked jury had asked for three extensions of time to reach a decision. The jury at one stage asked the judge for a definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

In murder trials in South Australia, the jury must be unanimous to return a guilty verdict. A majority of ten jurors is needed for an acquittal, after at least four hours deliberation.

The second trial eventually took place in August 1995. It had been set to commence some months earlier, but due to the adverse publicity resulting from The Advertiser 11 March feature article (discussed in the next chapter), the trial had been set back about three months. The second trial involved the same lawyers and judge (Justice Duggan) as the first trial.

We have already outlined some of the evidence. In this chapter we focus on the opening and closing statements; first by the prosecutor and then by defence counsel. The opening addresses at a trial are the means by which each side gives the jury an overview of the case before leading their respective witnesses. The final address by each side is their way of bringing the evidence together in support of their case, before the summing up by the judge. The judge’s summing up is intended to give the jury a balanced view of both the evidence and the law before they retire to consider their verdict.

The prosecution called 47 witnesses. The defence called four, in addition to Keogh. The following account is summarised from the trial transcript.

The prosecution opening address – Mr Rofe QC

The Crown says that the deceased was a fit and healthy young woman with a promising career as a lawyer. She was dead. She had been drowned in a bath, with recent bruising, particularly on the left lower leg, which was consistent with a grip mark. Her fiancé stood to benefit by more than $1,150,000 as result of five life insurance policies taken out some twelve months previously. They were policies for which Keogh was the agent, co-owner and sole beneficiary. They were policies for which he had forged her signature on the application forms, and on the cheques and debit authorities that he used to pay the premiums. To prove murder, the Crown must prove that:

- there was a deliberate act by the accused;

- the act caused the death of the deceased;

- the act was done with the intention of killing her;

the act was done without lawful excuse.

We allege that Keogh deliberately drowned Anna Cheney in the bath. The accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The Crown does not have to prove motive, although it is an important consideration. We say he was motivated by greed. He was determined not to marry her. Keogh wanted to have the money and the freedom to enjoy it. Murder is the only inference open on the evidence, the only explanation. The Crown must prove there is no other reasonable possibility; it was not suicide; there was no one else involved in killing her; it was not an accident.

Her health, the findings of the post mortem examination, the true nature of their relationship and their finances (including the insurances) leave no other explanation. The crime I am alleging is horrific, almost beyond conception. As the accused said to the police five days after Anna’s death:

“I understand it’s not the first time or the last time someone has been killed for money.”

The prosecution is not saying this is a confession, or an admission, or anything but an accurate description of what occurred. The prosecution will take you through the events of 18 March 1994, involving the police and ambulance officers; the post mortem examination by the pathologist Dr Manock; the photos of the house; the police investigation; the relationship between the accused and the deceased; their finances and insurances and the statements by the accused after the death about the insurances.

Keogh left his wife in June 1991. Soon after he moved into the house with Anna at Parkside. In February 1992, Anna bought a townhouse at Homes Avenue, Magill, with a loan from the State Bank and some money from her father. Keogh moved in there in May 1992. There had been a break in their relationship in March 1992. Keogh had a relationship with Ms A from July 1992 to December 1992. In November 1992 Anna and Henry became engaged.

Keogh proposed to her whilst he was in the relationship with Ms A. In March 1992 he said to Ms A that he was going to break the relationship with Anna, as he did not intend to marry her. There is also evidence from Ms B, who was also employed by the State Bank. She said she went out with Keogh late in 1992; it developed in intimacy through to early 1994; it was still current at the time of Anna’s death. Six weeks before Anna’s death, Keogh apparently told Ms B that Anna was his ex-girlfriend who was obsessed with him and wanted to marry him and that he would never marry Anna.

At that time the wedding date had been set for 24 April 1994. The preparations and planning were well and truly in hand. Did he ever intend to marry her when he had in place arrangements to benefit from her death by more than $1m?

Keogh was paying some $340 per week to his former wife. That amount included the mortgage and maintenance payments, as well as paying for the daily incidentals for the children. Keogh left the State Bank at the end of January 1994 to work for a firm of financial planners. He was on a gross annual salary of $50,000 with the opportunity of earning commissions up to another $50,000. On leaving the State Bank he consolidated his debts into a loan of $124,000 by securing it against a mortgage over the former matrimonial home.

At that time Anna was working with the Law Society of South Australia. She was Acting Director of Professional Conduct. She had borrowed $120,000 from the State Bank to buy the house. She had obtained a further $30,000 from her father.

The Crown says that Keogh was not financially desperate. The motive was greed, not need. Life insurances were taken out between February and April 1993. Keogh was an insurance agent as well as working for the State Bank. He had taken out insurances with five companies with which he had agencies. Each policy was for an amount between $200,000 and $300,000, so that medical examinations would not be required. On each proposal there was a question about the existence of other policies. He stated on each that there were no other policies. This meant that all proposals, except the first, were answered falsely. We say his objective was to conceal the fact of these policies from Anna. Keogh was the co-owner and the sole beneficiary of each of the policies, and he forged Anna’s signature on each of the applications. With two of the companies he took policies out on his own life for $300,000 and $400,000 at the same time. Whether this was done as a cover or a diversion is up to you [the jury] to determine.

A joint account was set up at the end of January 1993 at the State Bank at Magill. That account was used exclusively to pay the premiums on the policies. Keogh forged Anna’s signature on five cheques to pay for the initial premiums, even though he could have signed them himself. He forged her signature on the direct debit authorities to continue paying the premiums. Factually there is little in dispute.

He will agree to the fact that he forged the signatures and to the general setup.

What knowledge did Anna have of all this? The Crown says she knew some things, but not the true situation. Why would a fit and healthy 29 year old woman insure her life for more than $1m? In April 1993 she told her brother she had $400,000 worth of insurance and income protection. She discussed life insurance with her friend and secretary, and also with her solicitor friend who prepared the wills [for Keogh and Anna] with each nominating the other as the main beneficiary.

In April 1993 Keogh and Anna went on an overseas holiday. The policies and the wills were done in the 2-3 months prior to that. Was the trip used as a pretext by Keogh to tell part of the truth about the insurances in case of correspondence arriving from the companies which Anna might see? We say she was unaware of the real situation, which was her life was at risk. On return from overseas she resigned from the law company she was working with in disapproval of some of the things done there. She had a break in her employment for six weeks. After a job at the Crown Solicitor’s Office she got a job with the Law Society in March 1993 as Acting Director of Professional Conduct. [It was actually in June.] Keogh resigned from the State Bank in January 1994 and took a position with a firm of financial planners in February 1994. From October 1993 to March 1994, Anna was busy with the wedding arrangements. According to Ms B, from October to March, her own relationship with Keogh intensified.

On 17 March 1994, the night before her death, Anna Cheney and Keogh attended at the wedding celebrant’s house and signed the notice of their intention to marry.

Mr Rofe outlined the events on the day Anna died. The accused appeared to be very distressed that night. The Crown would say that the apparent distress was either an act or a realisation of what he had done. It was determined by those in attendance that the death was not suspicious. At that time the factors about the bruising and the insurances were not known.

The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr Manock on the Sunday (20 March 1994) and then completed on the Monday (21 March 1994). The cause of death was determined by him to be fresh water drowning. He found bruises on the top of Anna’s head and at the back of her neck. He found bruises consistent with fingers applied in a grip on the left lower leg. He also found a row of bruises on the lower right shin. The Crown says that those bruises were consistent with, and indicate, a forced drowning. The head of the deceased was pushed under the water. The bruises on the back of the neck were caused by the neck striking the edge of the bath as the head was pushed down. The bruising on the left leg was consistent with the leg being gripped to immobilise her. Her blood alcohol level was 0.08%. That was a level Dr Manock and another pathologist (Dr James, who checked the findings) said was not significant.

There were no other drugs involved, and no other contributing cause was found. There was no heart attack, stroke, epilepsy or electrocution with a hairdryer or a radio, for example. Dr Manock contacted the police. Detectives from Holden Hill Criminal Investigation Branch took a statement from Keogh on 22 March 1994. They went to the house at Homes Avenue where Keogh handed them the wills. A detective asked Keogh who the beneficiary was. He said, ‘I don’t know’. Keogh then handed the detective a two-page handwritten document setting out the financial and insurance arrangements.

The document stated that there were three policies on Anna Cheney’s life, which amounted to $625,000. Keogh also gave the police a number of documents in relation to those three policies. There was no mention of a further two policies which amounted to a further $400,000. Those two were handed over on 7 April 1994 by Keogh’s solicitor. At the time Keogh was handing this information to the police officers on 22 March 1994, he commented that, ‘it would not be the first or the last time someone has killed for money.’ This does indicate that Keogh knew what the police were on about and that awareness was relevant to the disclosures he made about the insurances and the statements he made that week to various people. Keogh was arrested on 7 May 1994 by a detective of the Major Crime Squad and exercised his legal right not to answer questions.

Keogh spoke to Dr Cheney, the father of Anna Cheney, two days after the death and said to him he had no knowledge of any insurances. Three or four days later he said he remembered that Anna had taken out a $400,000 policy before their overseas holiday and he had taken a larger one for $700,000.

The Crown says that Keogh lied on numerous occasions about the insurance situation and even when alerted by the police investigation, he did not reveal the full extent of them. The Crown says this was in the hope that he could get away with what he had created. He was the sole agent, beneficiary and co-owner. He would be the only one to handle all the details. None of the other insurance companies knew of the other policies. No other family or friends were involved.

The possible causes of death are suicide, stranger, accident or murder by Henry Keogh. The Crown says there was no evidence to suggest suicide or stranger. The Crown must exclude them beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown must also exclude the possibility of an accident, leaving death by the deliberate act of Keogh as the only inference reasonably open on the evidence. The Crown will suggest that the evidence, particularly of the bruising on the head and legs, the grip mark on the left leg, the amount and circumstances of the five insurance policies (including the forgeries) and the relationship between Keogh and Anna Cheney in the light of the evidence of Ms A and Ms B, the lies told by Keogh about the insurances after the death, lead inevitably to the conclusion that he murdered his fiancée by deliberate drowning in the bath.

No one aspect might necessarily satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt, although the bruising and perhaps the insurances may well do. It is a combination of all the circumstances. The Crown says there is no room for doubt it was murder. The ground work for the motive, ‘the why’, was in place twelve months before; but not the opportunity in the form of ‘how, when and where’. Anna was in the bath, unsuspecting and unconcerned by his presence in the bathroom. Perhaps he vacillated until the inevitability of the wedding was reinforced by signing the notice of intention the night before. The Crown does not have to prove precisely the ‘why, how and when’ he committed the murder, but rather beyond reasonable doubt the fact that he did, particularly eliminating the suggestion it was a tragic accident, which but for the post mortem findings, would have provided the accused with his freedom and the means to enjoy it.

Defence comment

At the completion of Mr Rofe’s address, Mr David QC (for the defence) told the jury:

“With a normal trial counsel would be rather sensitive about reference to a previous trial, but in this case, everyone knows there has been a previous trial. Therefore, I have no objections to references to it whenever the occasion arises.”

Suppression orders

The court issued suppression orders regarding the identities of the witnesses Ms A, Ms B and Keogh’s former wife.

The defence opening - Mr David QC

The defendant will give evidence and there will be four witnesses. At this stage I may only outline my case, and not criticise the Crown case. Keogh said he took out the insurances to keep his agencies alive. He vehemently denies these charges. Professors Ansford and Cordner will give evidence to say that an accident cannot be excluded. Dr Manock said there would be signs of unconsciousness if that happened before drowning. Professors Ansford and Cordner will say that is medically incorrect. Unconsciousness can occur without there being any signs. Dr Edwards will say that the evidence about resuscitation here is consistent with what has been said. A good friend of Anna Cheney and Keogh said Anna told her she had taken out life insurance and that she knew of the policies and how they were prepared. 

The Hearing of the evidence

At this point, each side took turns to present their evidence. The prosecution went first, introducing its witnesses to the court. The prosecutor elicited the evidence in the form of question and answer. This is called the evidence-in-chief. The prosecutor has the witness’s statement in front of him, and asks questions much in the way the police had done in taking the original statements. This part of the proceedings is usually fairly straightforward and predictable, as both prosecution and defence lawyers know what is in the statements.

As each witness concludes their evidence-in-chief, the lawyer for the defence then has the chance to engage in cross-examination. By asking questions of the witness, they attempt to probe any weaknesses in their evidence. At the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor can ask further questions by way of re-examination.

When the prosecution has concluded its case, the roles are then reversed. It is now the turn for the defence to lead its witnesses, who will first give their evidence-in-chief by way of question and answer. When that has been done, it is then the turn of the prosecution to cross-examine.

At the end of the case, when all witnesses have been heard, each side makes their final address to the jury.

The prosecution final address to the jury - Mr Rofe QC

It is most unusual that a fit and healthy 29 year old woman would drown in the bath. ‘Go out and investigate’, is what Professor Cordner would say. That night the death was not thought to be suspicious. By Monday, Dr Manock had conducted the post-mortem examination and discovered there were abnormalities. Dr Manock (or his office) rings the police. The police begin to investigate. Keogh is asked about the insurances. He does not disclose everything. He doesn’t say they are worthless.

The facts are for you, the jury, to decide, and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This is a very important case for Mr Keogh. He has been accused of the most serious crime; a horrendous example of that crime. If he is guilty, the community asks you to return a verdict of guilty.

The Crown, for murder, must prove that the accused, by a deliberate act, caused the death of Anna Jane Cheney; that, at that time he intended to kill her or do her grievous bodily harm; and that he did that act without any lawful excuse such as self-defence. You must be satisfied of all those elements before you can convict the accused.

This case has come down to homicide, murder or accident. Suicide is not a reasonable possibility, nor is natural causes. Dr Cordner, in effect, agreed with that, although you can’t totally eliminate epilepsy. Dr Ansford talked about myocarditis.

Did Henry Keogh deliberately drown her in the bath that night, or, was it some tragic accident when he was absent?

For a slip, faint or fall there are no indications. Dr James said there would need to be a ‘complex choreography’. No choreography explains the bruising on the legs, particularly the bruising on the left leg. If she banged her head, then she has to land with her face submerged and with no revival. The bathroom is a slippery place. Whether she had a blood alcohol level of 0.1% or 0.08% does not matter. The bath may have been slippy. There are indications that Anna did not bath very often.

There are no positive indications of accident, whereas to murder, I suggest the bruising on the left leg, if that is a grip mark, is almost in itself conclusive, providing you accept that it was applied at or about the time of death. 

Whether in the way I put to Dr Manock as a possible factual situation, or not, does not matter. But if her lower left leg was gripped by someone just before she died, then that must indicate murder. Whether it is a folding over, or not, or whether it is just a pull up to bring her head under the water, with rapid unconsciousness when the water goes up the nose, does not matter.

The Crown doesn’t have to prove precisely the method. It has to prove a deliberate act by the accused. There is no suggestion that anyone else was involved. There was no forced entry. I suggest that there was no resuscitation. Keogh says he grabbed the tracksuit and wiped her face with it, but there is no mention of that in his statement to the police. Then we discover the insurance policies. Why did he continue paying the premiums after the death? The evidence of Ms A and Ms B is important. Did he intend to marry Anna? It was twelve months before that he had put in place the policies.

The pathology is something you will have to consider. All of the pathologists, to varying degrees, will say, or have said, that this is consistent with homicide. Dr Manock said, ‘it was not consistent with an accident because I can find no evidence of loss of unconsciousness internal or external.’ The other three don’t go that far. They all conceded the possibility of an accident in a complex, complicated scenario of a fall.

Really, however far the pathology takes you we have to look at all the circumstances. If everything else was in favour of the accused, you might give him the benefit of the doubt; explain away, in some way, the one positive indication of murder, namely the grip mark on the bottom left leg.

Anna Cheney was very much in love with Keogh. She relied on him. On the Tuesday in March 1994 he saw Ms B. On the Thursday he went to the marriage celebrant to sign the notice of intention to marry. Did that have some significance in looking at his position? He was maintaining an ex- wife and three children as well as the former house, costing him a substantial ongoing commitment. You might think more children, particularly with Anna, was one thing he was not prepared to accept at any cost.

You might think Keogh is a man who enjoyed money and also spending it. He is obviously a man who impresses. He impressed the Bank immediately.

He had a big mortgage on the family home. He had no financial interest in the house at Homes Avenue. He was paying $145 per week for a flat where he had no furniture. With the policies and the way they were taken out, the companies would have paid out on them without any checking up on them. If everything had blown over, the money would have gone straight to him. Anna Cheney told her brother Marc she had $400,000 of life insurances. She could only arrive at that figure if she was deceived. Keogh deceived the insurance companies and the police. Keogh said he didn’t mean to. He told his friend that he was too distressed and that was why he had deceived Anna’s father. Did he also deceive Anna? The answer is ‘yes’. There are the forged signatures and the joint account which he said was set up for the overseas trip. But he has to have a cover in case she comes across a letter. Maybe he told her he had arranged some insurance cover? She said, ‘I have insurance to pay my debts and to leave something for Henry.’ Why would she need over $1m? Why would she tell others that she had some if she knew it was forged?

Dr Manock, will no doubt be roundly criticised by my friend, because he got this wrong, about unconsciousness leaving bruising on the brain. However, he is the most experienced pathologist who was called in this trial, quite clearly; 30 odd years and 10,000 autopsies.

He was the one who saw the body; who put his hand on the marks on the lower leg and said, ‘that’s consistent with a grip mark and I can’t think of anything else it could be.’  Even Dr James said, ‘well, it is the obvious explanation in the absence of anything else.’ Dr Cordner says she could have bumped herself on two, three or four different occasions in the previous 12-24 hours. There was a lot of imagination. What are your limits of imagination in this area?

Then there were his agencies with the insurance companies. Under his contract of employment, he was not supposed to have other outside jobs, but so be it. Keogh received the letter from the Bank in January, saying that he had a good position, and at the same time he is saying he had fears for his job. There is nothing from the insurance companies to say he had to perform, but Keogh wanted to be in charge. He resigned from the Bank.

The premiums on the Anna Cheney policies were $1,831 pa which was about $350 each. How could such small policies help his agencies? Keogh was talking about $20,000 pa. How could $280 or $400 help? There were no production standards at that time. How easy was it for him to get an agency reinstated? The fact that they tightened up in late 1993 does not affect what he was doing early in 1993.

The policies on Anna were taken out with the intention to benefit from her death. Those on his life were a diversion. Why not make them genuine? Was it to save her trouble? Or was it because she would then have known she was worth more than $1m? Given her finances, there is no way that she would have agreed to pay $1,800 pa for them. Less than half of that would more than cover her debts and her needs.

On the loan applications she had put some $36 per week for insurances; but that could have been for the medical and household insurances. Even Keogh admits that she did not pay anything for life insurance. Household insurance was required for the home loan. What it probably indicates is how Keogh dominated her financial matters.

With regard to the insurances, there is not a lot of dispute about the documentation; but very different inferences are to be drawn. The bank account starts with a genuine signature. Then there are five cheques to pay the premiums. Four are forged and one signed by Keogh. He forged a cheque to reinstate the superannuation to avoid repayment of the commission. The policies and applications, with regard to their overall financial situation, are all set out in the loan documentation.

He increased the mortgage on his house from $80,000 to $124,000. She had a home loan and four personal loans. Whatever Keogh says, he was tight financially. There was his inability to help her with the car payments or the mortgage, despite the fact he was living there.

She had a good job with the Law Society, but financially she was hopeless. Would her dad continue to help her after they were married? We say that greed, not need, was the motivating factor. Would she have been a financial burden to him?

Pathology really can be dismissed, in the sense that it can’t solve it for us. It can give us assistance, but we have to look elsewhere, as Dr Cordner said. It does square the issue down to murder or accident.

In pathology, I put an assumed factual situation to Dr Manock. You will remember it: grabbing the leg, folding the leg with or without the pushing of the head down. There is no doubt such an action can cause drowning. That’s not disputed.

What you must be careful about is that the Crown is not saying that’s how she was killed. It is a possible situation; Dr Manock says that will explain the grip mark on the bottom of the left leg; the head hitting the back of the bath as it came down. Whether she was pulled or pushed down will explain the bruising on the back of the head. 

It doesn’t explain everything, the bruises on the right shin in that situation, the right leg thrashing, hitting the side or end of the bath, but you will remember certainly Dr Cordner’s criticisms, and Dr Ansford, about the problems they have with it.

Dr Cordner, particularly with the bruising on the top of the head, has difficulty seeing how that happened in the bath. Dr Ansford had a problem about the grip marks; they should have been even, and even-pressured.

If you are doing things, particularly like pulling something up, the compression may vary from finger to finger depending on what you are doing. The lower bruise mark on the left calf is the darkest; it is the most significant. If you are pulling something up, would that finger be the one that applies the most pressure?

The most important part is there were injuries. They are not just injuries in one area, the head and neck, as you might expect if it was a complicated fall, but injuries to the legs that can’t be explained in any way, shape or form by an accidental slip and fall. No one except Dr Manock is prepared to rule out the possibility; anything is possible.

Even if Dr Manock is wrong medically about the evidence on the brain, the loss of consciousness, there is no reason you would just dismiss Dr Manock out of hand, a man of 30 years experience, around 10,000 post mortems.

When we talk about the bruises, if they were inflicted at the same time, and if the time is at or just before death, then the bruising to the legs can be explained by no other evidence or situation than murder, and murder by the accused.

At this time Ms A is off the scene, but she was still in a relationship with Keogh when he was getting engaged. We are not leading this evidence to say that he is a nasty fellow, that he deceives people in relation to sexual things, but to give you an insight into his relationship with Anna Cheney. There is direct conflict between the evidence of Keogh and that of Ms B.

We cannot say that because he is a liar he is also a murderer. But about the time that Keogh left the bank, Ms B rang it and they thought she was Anna. She confronted him about it. Is the evidence of Ms B that of an infatuated woman, under psychiatric care, misreading a platonic relationship? Can she have made up the details, got them wrong, the films, the flat, the scars on his body? Her sister came home and saw them. She was not cross-examined on this at all. So it is not just Ms B who makes things up, her sister does too. What about all the people who saw him distressed on 18 March? Ms B and her sister thought he was distressed when his daughter was supposed to have gone missing. So he is either putting on the distress, or he has realised what he has done. What of the Valentine’s card and the pager messages? Was it an infatuated woman or a situation Keogh created? She made a lot of sexual harassment claims at the bank. However, they did exist. She got $17,000 and an agreement from the bank to re-educate their staff.

On 18 March there was no evidence of injury, of knocks or bumps or complaints and there was no evidence that Anna was in any way affected by alcohol.

The only definite time this evening is the phone call at 9.32 pm to the ambulance people. He may have killed her between 8.10 pm and 9.32 pm, before he went or when he came back from his mother’s. The ambulance officers say the body was dry when they arrived at 9.38 pm. Keogh said he did not dry the body and that he only put the towel over her to protect her modesty. How reliable are the accounts from his mother? Why doesn’t he use the phone in the bedroom? He cannot remember 000? He looks it up in the phone book. Then he has to find the 111 number.

Anna would not have been alarmed that he was in the bathroom. It wouldn’t have alarmed her that he actually reached in to touch her or grab her. This was the man she loved, who she had been living with.

There would have been no noise, no struggle, exactly as the neighbour related. The resuscitation wouldn’t have taken place, the fact there was no wetness, no staining. Dr Edwards said there might be nothing. Keogh says he used track pants to wipe it away. So why is the body dry? The ambulance people didn’t have to do a thing.

He spent the night at the house to clear up? Keogh has given two accounts, one to police officer Tyson and one to police officer Man, about his movements. They are not particularly consistent.

One of the critical parts, I suggest, of the evidence in this trial is what he said to various people over the next few days. The other critical part over the next few days is his interest, you might think, in the post mortem examination. What is that going to show? Just bumps on the head, that’s fine. We know it showed more than that; the grip mark on the ankle.

We then have Ms A and Ms B. As irrelevant a bit of evidence as we will ever get? Or as dangerous a body of evidence as you will get? It casts aspersions on his character.

Remember the conversation with Dr Cheney? It was never put to him that he was in error. Dr Cheney says the conversations happened on Wednesday or Thursday, after suspicion had been raised. The full matter of the insurances was not raised because he hoped it would blow over. He goes to his solicitors and sends letters to the insurance companies. They saw that as the beginning of the claims process. He not only does not come clean, he carries on paying the premiums for the next six months. He says it was so he doesn’t have to pay back the commission. But he pays out more in premiums than he would have had to pay in commission. He had to transfer the direct debit authority. It did not just roll on.

The evidence from the wife and Ms B is that he is not a violent man. It may not have been a violent end. Was he really intending to marry? He had not applied for leave from his new job and Anna had not applied either.

It’s a verdict you will find on all the evidence. No one piece of evidence, you might think will solve this for you. The forensic pathology, you have heard the experts, ‘we can’t solve it for you.’

But there are two things, you might think, that are crucial to this case. If those four bruises on her lower left leg were inflicted at the same time, and that time was just before she died in the bath, there is no other explanation for them, other than a grip. If it was a grip, it must have been the grip of the accused. If it was the grip of the accused, it must have been part of the act of murder.

What about the policies? How can he remember three and not the other two? It’s the job of the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In a case like this, that means that I must exclude all other reasonable possibilities, particularly in this case, accidental death. If you have a reasonable doubt in that area, if you think an accident is a reasonable possibility, then obviously you will do your duty to the accused and acquit him.

In my submission the evidence is such that the only true verdict in this case is one of guilty of murder.

Defence final Address to the jury - Mr David QC

Much of the evidence in this case provides a genuine risk of improper prejudice to Keogh. What has it got to do whether he had an affair 14 months earlier? This is an entirely circumstantial case. You must look at each piece of evidence and see if it allows for an alternative explanation. Do not be overwhelmed by the volume of it.

The first, the most important issue in this case, and the most important body of evidence in this case, is what happened in that bathroom, not financial events 13 months before, what happened in that bathroom on that night as told to us by the medical experts.

The medical evidence is based on Dr Manock’s theory. But the medical evidence does not take us anywhere. It is perfectly consistent with accident and innocence. Dr Cordner, Dr Ansford and Dr James all say that. Dr Manock says that if she was knocked unconscious we would see a sign, therefore, in the absence of that it must be a homicide. The three other pathologists say that is nonsense. On the evidence, Dr Manock is wrong. When you weigh up what Dr Manock says, isn’t there a real question mark about what he says about the bruises? Dr Cordner says the bruises are consistent with other things. Dr Ansford is not even happy that they are finger marks. He says they could have been caused by the ‘fitting’ that goes with any drowning.

It is unclear from cross-examination whether Keogh’s hand was measured. But would not that have been better evidence than Dr Manock’s experiment with his own hand? The bruising on the head is consistent with a fall. The bruises on the right leg stretch the imagination. Even Dr Cordner could not understand it. How can it bang seven times on the edge of the bath when Keogh has his arm around it? She was tired, the bath was slippy, it was a warm bath, with alcohol and she slips, hits her head and is drowned. It is said that epilepsy or a heart condition might be a one per cent chance.

What about the mess on the floor or lack of it? Dr Edwards says that argument is nonsense. What Keogh said he did would produce very little, almost nothing, which might get onto the carpet. Keogh did not have a defibrillator, just his own amateurish efforts of fifteen years previously. Dr Edwards’ evidence remains uncontradicted. If the medical evidence points to innocence, what is left? We are left with the policies; $1m and a plan to kill? But he admits the forged signatures and says he did it because his job at the State Bank looked rocky. He had five agencies and took out five policies. Anna Cheney knew of some of those policies, so she must have known about the forged signatures, because she didn’t sign any of them.

‘Tombstoning’ is not unknown in insurance circles. You may say he didn’t lose his job, he resigned. But you were told that everyone was nervous, no matter how senior. Whether these policies would have saved them is not to the point. It was a start. Anna Cheney knew of the policies, knew of the signatures and knew all that before they went overseas. If he was going to do her in, why not have one genuine policy?

The forgeries, when related to murder, do not make sense. If it was a planned killing, why have five policies and all the complications that would bring? $36 per week is the premium of the five policies. That loan document is between Anna and the loans officer at the bank and has nothing to do with Keogh. The same appears on the previous loan application. What an incredible coincidence if it is supposed to mean something else. The Crown says that the medical, house and disability insurance could come out at $36 per week too. But the form has a blank next to medical insurance which is the truth. She didn’t have any house or medical insurance at that time. Well, says the Crown, it could be her superannuation, but her superannuation would also have stopped at that time and she would have known about that. The Crown then says that she didn’t pay the life insurance. But it was paid for out of her joint account. Perhaps, says the Crown, it is motor vehicle expenses.

The rest of the evidence is peripheral nonsense. Whether he is strapped for cash is nothing to do with it. All of the people who saw him thought he was devastated. Detective Man said he had ‘vague wandering thoughts’. I would ask you to be careful of any petty inconsistencies. One of the other bank witnesses completely changed his story. That is no criticism of him. Yet any inconsistency with Keogh and he is damned. Is it not likely, that after this appalling death, the real information about these policies would have surfaced in dribs and drabs? How does the delay of two weeks for the other policies affect things?

The Crown says that Keogh is a two-timer. The Crown says it shows his relationship with Anna. But, even if we assume he cheated on his girlfriend, so what? With Ms A, Keogh admitted to all she said. But he did disagree with Ms B. She says she saw his penis 25 times over a year, and thought he was circumcised, but he was not. It was apparently always erect, not going up, not going down. Is that just nonsense? She says there was no intercourse because they might be interrupted. But she says she could play with his penis, suck it even, what is the difference?

What of the evidence about the State Bank building? She says she went there and parked there, but did not go in because it was messy. It has State Bank emblazoned at the front and an automatic teller machine. The back is connected to the front.

What about all those complaints of sexual harassment? Running through the fields and kissing her hair. Were they the product of a fanciful disposition? He was good to her and kind to her. Everyone who has been asked has said he is not violent. That he is kind and gentle and looks after his children. So, he stayed on his own that night. On the Crown’s case he has had over a year to prepare his story. There was no evidence to destroy. The police had been there all night. The timing on the Crown’s case is impossibly tight. What about the dryness of her body? It was a warm night and he pressed her against him. There was not a noise? If it were really like that you would need to be a professional assassin. There was no yell, no scream.

A verdict of guilty would be a dreadful miscarriage of justice.

The summing up to the jury - Justice Duggan

I direct you on the law. You are bound to accept my directions on the law, but you alone are the judges of the facts, including the ultimate question as to whether the accused has been proved guilty of this offence.

Trial by jury is not a meaningless phrase. It very accurately describes the nature of a trial in this court. The facts and the way in which the facts are to be interpreted are your responsibility and no-one, judge or counsel, can exercise that responsibility for you.

The accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden of proving the charge is on the Crown. The accused does not have to prove a defence. The Crown has to disprove it or say it was irrelevant, otherwise the Crown will not have proved its case. Proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot convict if there is a reasonable doubt as to an essential element of the crime charged against him. You have considerable experience between you all. A person commits murder if he causes the death while intending to cause death or grievous bodily harm. There must be a killing by the accused, and the acts must be deliberate, and with a certain intention. It must be unlawful. Circumstantial evidence is a common method of proof. The principle facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence. This evidence is to be distinguished from direct evidence coming, for example, from a person who witnesses an offence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence from which the prosecution ask you to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed and that the accused committed it. Circumstantial evidence is a common method of proof.

With circumstantial evidence, I direct you that you cannot find guilt, unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. To be satisfied that the accused is guilty, it must be the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn. Sometimes there may be no doubt about whether someone is trying to tell the truth. The ambulance officers; no one has suggested that they were doing anything other than to genuinely recall what happened. On the other hand the evidence of Ms B and the accused is challenged; you must assess their honesty and motives for doing otherwise. You have seen how counsel have had to be selective in their address to you; so must I. You must decide the evidence. You must not have regard to anything which you have heard outside the courtroom.

The judge then summed up the evidence, finishing as follows.

Keogh gave evidence on oath and submitted to cross-examination. He does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the Crown.

Now, ladies and gentlemen I conclude my summing up by saying this to you: If you are to return a verdict of guilty you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased without lawful excuse and intending at the same time to kill her or to cause her grievous bodily harm. It is not enough to find at law that an offence of this nature possibly took place, or even that it probably took place. As this is a case involving circumstantial evidence you are entitled to consider those facts which you find proved in their combined effect, but you cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than that the accused is guilty.

I therefore now, ladies and gentlemen, at this stage ask you to retire and consider your verdict.

Jury retired 12.06pm
Jury returned 5.30pm. Unanimous. Guilty. 

On 15 February 1996, Keogh was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment.

Top of Page