Samantha Kelly’s killer Peter Arthur has denied in the Victorian Supreme Court that he alone murdered the mother of four in a fit of rage, but says he has lied in statements and under oath about certain aspects of the case.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Crown prosecutors argue that Christine Ann Lyons and Ronald Lyons, Arthur’s former partner and housemate respectively, plotted with him to kill Ms Kelly, so Ms Lyons could have the deceased woman’s young children.
Both the accused have pleaded not guilty to murder and attempted murder.
Read more:
- OUTCOME: Jury finds Christine Lyons guilty of Samantha Kelly murder
- Day 1: “Desperate” desire for children behind Samantha Kelly murder: Prosecution
- Day 2: Murder accused wanted child of her own, witness says
- Day 3: Accused wanted victim to go on "permanent holiday", court hears
- Day 4: Lawyer challenges witness who says she heard plot to kill victim
- Day 5: Witness tells court she heard murder
- Day 6: Woman’s killer gives evidence in trials
Arthur has admitted to killing Ms Kelly with a hammer in the unit of the Kangaroo Flat property the four shared in January 2016, but has told the court that Ms Lyons and Mr Lyons wanted her dead and had first tried to kill her with a drug overdose.
Under cross-examination from Ms Lyons’ defence lawyer Peter Kilduff, Arthur told the court it was true that Ms Kelly had said she could get back at an ex-partner by smothering her baby, as he had first told police in February 2016.
He initially told the court on Tuesday that it had then been the decision of himself, Ms Lyons and Mr Lyons to take away the children away from Ms Kelly, but later said that it had been his choice.
“Save the child and then kill the mother, yes?” Mr Kilduff asked.
“Yes,” Arthur replied.
Arthur told the court that he had seen Ms Kelly hit her children, and on one occasion when he had seen one of the children bruised, she told Ms Lyons that her mum had done it to her.
He said he “wasn’t happy about it”.
“When you lost control with the hammer, that was one of the things that made you angry, wasn’t it?” Mr Kilduff said.
“No,” Arthur said.
Arthur denied under cross-examination he was a violent man, but said it was true that he had gotten into a fight with someone who ‘sucker punched’ him at a pub in NSW.
“Did you black out and lose all composure?” Mr Kilduff asked.
“Yes, I did,” he said.
The court was told that Arthur had reported to his psychologist last year that he at times felt like punching people when they were behaving badly, but would instead go back to his cell to cool off.
The court also heard the psychologist reported that Arthur said he had once hit a man acting aggressively towards his pregnant partner.
Arthur told the court he had not abused or threatened one of the children who lived in the house, as a previous witness had told the court, but said had hit him for discipline and might have called the young boy a “little c—t”.
The court heard that the first time Arthur had spoken of having cried after killing Ms Kelly, or of Ms Lyons saying “About time” after the murder, was when he gave evidence on Monday.
Mr Kilduff put to Arthur that this was because these elements were a “figment of your fantasy”, but Arthur said this was not correct.
Arthur said it was true that the first time he had mentioned Ms Lyons opening the gate as he and Mr Lyons moved the dead woman's body, or that Ms Lyons had purchased the sedative Phenergan to drug Ms Kelly, was also when giving evidence on Monday.
He also told the court that he had not put in a statement that the motive of acquiring custody of the children was brought up during a conversation with Ms Lyons and another witness Shiralee Lyons, as per his evidence the day before.
“You were just making (the conversation) up to drag Christine Lyons into it, weren’t you?” Mr Kilduff asked.
“No, I am not,” Arthur said.
The court also heard that Arthur had first said that Mr Lyons had taken him out to the unit’s bathroom and told him to use the hammer to kill Ms Kelly, and Ms Lyons had agreed to this, at his April 2017 plea hearing.
He first told the court at that hearing that he was trying to protect the accused, and later that he had not omitted the information purposefully but it had come to him in flashbacks. Arthur on Tuesday said these had been truthful answers.
In a recording of Arthur’s November 2016 arraignment played to the court, he swore on oath that the contents of a September 2016 statement were true and correct, but on Tuesday said he knew parts of that statement were lies.
The jury was also played a video of Arthur’s February 2016 police interview, in which he admitted to killing Ms Kelly.
In the interview, the court heard, Arthur first denied having any involvement in Ms Kelly’s disappearance or murder, but after he was shown a recording of Ms Lyons’ telling police she believed he had killed her, he confessed.
In this interview, Arthur asked police to let Ms Lyons go, and then told them Ms Kelly had lashed out at him, a struggle ensued, and he hit her over the head. But Arthur on Tuesday said it had been a lie he acted in self-defence.
Arthur also said it was a lie when he tried initially to make out to police that Ms Kelly had a drug problem.
He said he told police initially that reports Ms Kelly was a doting mother were “bulls—t” in an attempt to explain why she walked out on her children, but said this too had been a lie.
Arthur said it had been true when he told police that Ms Lyons had said to him Ms Kelly had walked out in the night, but told the court his was what Ms Lyons had ordered him to say.
The court also heard that in letters Arthur wrote to his sister before September 2016, he said Ms Lyons and Mr Lyons had nothing to do with the murder.
Mr Lyons’ lawyer Jarrod Williams asked Arthur if he understood that he had signed his first statement in February 2016 – before he admitted to the murder – as true and correct, to which he said yes.
Mr Williams also asked Arthur if he had given evidence on oath at his November 2016 arraignment on the second statement he had since admitted was false, to which he also said yes.
“Why should this jury accept your oath before them in these proceedings means anything?” Mr Williams asked.
The trials continue.