Charles FRANCIS AM RFD QC interview 4/11/2003

One of the matters you’re best known for was the infamous exorcism trial that took place in Horsham back in 1994 and that made headlines around the world at the time. Perhaps you could briefly recount what took place before describing what you actually did. I believe you acted for the husband of the dead woman

This is a very strange case, it’s partly a matter of religion and it was also partly a matter of science. Most Australian people would not believe in possession. It so happens (that) I do believe in it, but it has nothing much to do with the case. But I was interested, because subsequent to the case, I was invited to lecture a body of psychiatrists on possession. I lectured to them, and I was interested to find that half of the psychiatrists in fact believed in demonic possession. We can’t really go into that now, but there’s a lot of scientific material on it and I think anybody who studied all the material who might come to the conclusion that there was demonic possession. But of course, if you’ve got no religious belief and don’t believe in Satan or an evil power you don’t believe in possession. Of course, a lot of people don’t have a belief in Satan or an evil power.

So in the instance of this case, at the time, the husband and a couple of other people were charged for his wife’s murder.

What happened was this. They all came to the conclusion that this woman was possessed and they decided they would exorcise her and she was tied down to a chair and a frame. It was in Horsham in mid-summer and it was very hot at that relevant time. They kept trying to exorcise her for about a week.

What did they do when they were trying to exorcise her?

They were mainly praying, but they would’ve inflicted some physical injury on her and then she suddenly died. It was never quite clear how she died, but they were all charged with manslaughter.

The two people who primarily conducted the exorcism - they were both convicted of manslaughter. I acted for the husband and he was acting in a lesser capacity and he was acquitted of manslaughter and he was found to have inflicted serious bodily injury but he got a bond. But the facts of the case were extraordinary.

Can you go into some detail?

Yes. There were certain signs which people who had studied possession would say indicated the possibility that this woman was possessed.

One of the things which occurred was witnesses said there were voices emanating from inside her which weren’t her voice. Now that is one of the recognised signs of possession amongst those who believe in it. Also this occurred in very hot weather. On most of the days, the temperature was 39 or higher, and yet one witness said her arm felt icy cold, now that’s another sign that’s said to be an indication of possession.

Another woman who saw her, said there seemed to be extraordinary changes in her appearance, although you could see it was her, suddenly she looked like a pig, then like a young girl, her facial appearance, and at the time she was acting like a young girl, and at times she was acting like herself. There were many strange features like that, and those were the features that led the two main exorcists to believe she was possessed.

I might add this too. The Catholic Church believes in possession and there is a priest in Victoria who does exorcisms. He has many people who come to him who think they’re possessed, most of them he immediately diagnoses as not being possessed and tells them they simply need psychiatric treatment, but some he does diagnose as possessed, and then tries to exorcise them. His name is Father Shanley and he’s down at Lakes Entrance (Victoria). People come to him from all over Australia to be cured of possession and he was one of the witnesses who was called at the trial. He gave expert evidence about it.

In the long run, I don’t think it mattered whether she was possessed or not; the question was whether their conduct caused her death. It seemed fairly clear to me that these people were not expert in exorcism and they should not have involved themselves in it.

What denomination were they?

They had been Lutherans. They left the Lutheran church, but were still in effect Lutherans.

Why did they not call on someone with more proficiency if you like, in conducting an exorcism. Why did they feel they should do it?

That was part of our problem. They felt they could do it, they were very confident they could do it and it was clear they couldn’t.

What was ultimately ruled as the cause of death?

It was never clear what the actual cause of death was and when we went to a court of appeal we were arguing because it was not clear what the cause of death was, they should not be convicted.

There was some very interesting evidence on this, there is a nerve in the neck, which goes down to the heart; the Vegas nerve. Some people have a very sensitive Vegas nerve and by merely stroking that nerve or applying pressure, you could cause them to have a heart attack and die.

One of the medical witnesses called said that he knew of a case in England (he was from England) where a young man had been dancing with a girl and he was stroking her neck in the vicinity of the Vagus nerve and she dropped dead whilst dancing. But, there are two things involved in that, firstly, you have to have the sensitive Vagus nerve, it would not happen with most people, (probably a tiny percentage have that sensitive nerve) and secondly you have to interfere with that nerve in a particular way.

That was raised as the most likely possibility as they were holding onto her throat and they may well have interfered with her Vagus nerve and caused death in that way, but it was never entirely clear how she died.

The Coroner couldn’t quite work that out?

We went before a magistrate and the magistrate for that reason acquitted them of all charges, but then the Crown decided to prosecute independently of the Magistrate’s finding, as the Crown can do.

It got a lot of lurid newspaper coverage at the time.

Yes. One of the features that caused the publicity was that the husband firmly believed that shortly after her death, she would rise from the dead. Well, of course that didn’t eventuate.

What was your own impression of them? Were they people who were deeply misled?

Well, the husband was a very innocent type of person and very religious - a simple man and he really relied on the others. The two main exorcists who were convicted of manslaughter, they were very religious people, but they were confident of their beliefs and confident that they could effect a exorcism and I think that was part of their problem. They didn’t know enough about it.

Conducted for the Bar Oral History project by Juliette Brodsky in the Neil McPhee Room, Owen Dixon Chambers and filmed by Stewart Carter (People Pictures)