Ambach trial Day 9 The possibility that an elderly man tried to rape the young tourist who then killed him in a frenzied attack was raised in court today as the prosecution and defence summed up their cases in the Ambact trial before a High Court jury. Ferdinand Ambach (NZ Herald photo) Hungarian tourist Ferdinand Ambach, 30, is accused of murdering Auckland man Ronald Brown in the early hours of December 8th, 2007. While the crown has charged Ambach with murder, his lawyers, who do not dispute that the fatal attack occurred, have been trying to convince the jury to find a lesser verdict of manslaughter instead. Summing up for the Crown today, Deborah Marshall reminded the jury that Brown was "brutally and fatally" injured, hit with such force that brain injuries had occurred, and suggested that the accused caused the injuries because he was angry and intended to kill. She tasked the jury with finding beyond reasonable doubt that Ambach had murderous intent. Marshall was careful to dismiss suggestions of drug use which emerged over the past two weeks, pointing out that the only possible drug apparently available, a 30-pill bottle prescription sedative found in Brown's trashed home, had only one low-dosage pill missing, most likely consumed by brown himself when he was prescribed the medication. She wondered why, if he had drugged the accused, Brown would have agreed to neighbours summoning the police when they called him after hearing sounds of a disturbance. She said analysis of glasses and drinks used by the pair found no trace of drugs, and that the crown medical expert had never seen a 'paradoxical' or hyped up reaction result from a mixture of sedatives and alcohol as the defence had suggested. Instead, she suggested, Ambach had drunk just enough alcohol to "disinhibit" his behaviour, but not enough to produce such a frenzied attack as had taken place. Marshall reminded the jury of a hospital nurse's evidence that Ambach had said twice "I should have killed him" "He still desired to kill Mr Brown," she said. She also said there was evidence of a willfully selective recall of events on Ambach's part. "Left with overwhelming evidence against him," she said of Ambach, "he knew that he had not been drugged and that he had committed the most terrible crime so he took the refuge of the desperate, memory loss." Marshall highlighted that Ambach had sustained only a cut finger that night, during which he was observed trashing the home, "so it is doubtful he fought with Mr Brown... He was able to form a murderous intent and he did so." She said the severity of the attack meant Ambach meant to kill. Of the friends who had given given, via video link from Hungary, glowing testimonials as to Ambach's character, Marshall observed that the witnesses said he had had a girlfriend but she had not herself appeared, nor had any members of his family. She reminded jury members that Ambach's Auckland employer of two weeks had seen the accused angry on two occasions, including one case when he had become "inexplicably angry." Of the severity of the attack, Marshall said study of impact splatters showed that even when the banjo he had been using as a weapon had broken, he continued to use it to attack Brown." Addressing the pile of household goods blocking the stairs, with Ambach agitated above and Brown dying below, Marshall said that contrary to his evidence, Ambach had not needed to block Brown's route as Brown was already unconscious on the stairs. Some of the items had been thrown down onto Brown, indicating that the accused "was angry, wanted to show his anger and to make sure that Mr Brown was dead." She recounted evidence from gay men who had met Brown that, even though secretive about his homosexuality, he was a friendly, happy person. "At the most the provocation here was a low-level homosexual advance with no violence by a 69-year old man who was a little drunk," Marshall said. Marshall reminded that jury that provocation, a mitigating factor raised by the defence throughout the trial, is legally anything said or done which deprives the accused of self-control, and asked them to consider what an ordinary person might have done in this situation. "Can it seriously be suggested that an ordinary New Zealander would lose their self-control and batter Mr Brown to death? The Crown says: 'No, of course not.'" DEFENCE: 'SOMETHING' HAPPENED Ronald Brown For the defence, Peter Kaye reiterated his suggestion that "something happened to cause that horrible loss of self-control. A casual touch of the groin wouldn't account for all of it... there's something else... this got much beyond a repeated touch, this became an attempted rape." He referred to fecal stains found in several parts of the house and traces of semen on bedclothes. Although the Crown claims Ambach's anger was fueled by alcohol, Kaye said, "it is common sense that people do not work that way." The violence that night was horrific, the work of a crazed monster, he said, "so it does not add up to the terrible explosion and loss of control." Kaye said that when the pair met earlier in the evening at an Onehunga bar there was no indication that the closeted Brown was homosexual, which Kaye described as Brown's "dark secret" and "double life." He said elements of Brown's advances on Ambach fitted a pattern other witnesses had observed, that of an older man attracted to younger men who brought them home, dimmed the lights and played music. Kaye told the jury there is no evidence his client has a low anger threshold and that, unlike Brown, he didn't have a "dark secret." He pointed out that Ambach had been jovial and happy before going to Brown's home and after the attack was polite and cooperative when interviewed at length by police. He identified a 45 minute gap in the timeline of events that night. "What caused that sudden and temporary explosion of fury? Why would you barricade yourself upstairs? Why would you put a banjo neck between someone's lips... because Mr Abach was completely out of control. Why was there none of Mr Brown's blood on Ambach's clothes? The answer: he wasn't wearing them at the time." Kaye suggested the fecal and semen stains suggested much more had gone on than the jury had been told of. "It could have been attempted rape." The jury, Kaye said, has to decide this case free from sympathy, to be very "clinical" about what had happened. He acknowledged that homicide had occurred but asked if there was murderous intention. "Of course not, he was completely out of control." If the source of the attack was provocation, the jury must identify the trigger, Kaye said. "The only explanation is attempted rape, at least... it may have gone further." "Would an ordinary New Zealander have lost control? This is a difficult area and you have to use your common sense there. What does it feel like, homosexual rape? Can we even begin to imagine what it would have been like for the accused?" Kaye told the jury that Ambach was younger and under the effects of alcohol, and that Brown may have at any stage had the upper hand. "The sentence must at the very least be reduced to manslaughter." Tomorrow morning the judge will deliver her remarks and the jury will then retire to consider its verdict. GayNZ.com Daily News staff - 6th July 2009
Credit: GayNZ.com Daily News staff
First published: Monday, 6th July 2009 - 6:11pm