What happens when the predator becomes the prey?
Karcher Detention Centre houses some of the countryâs worst inmates. But not the ones you might be thinking of.
Maximum Security Prison Officer Edward Montana felt that life for his inmates was a little too comfortable, given the severity of their crimes.
Investigative journalist Leif Lacroux endeavours to dive into Eddie Montanaâs psyche, in the hopes to uncover the first-hand truth behind the largest inner jail murders that the country has ever known.
But when the compulsion of Eddie Montanaâs Irish blue eyes draws Leif deeper into the story than heâd expected, he finds himself toiling with the grips of a secret of his own.
What happens when the predator becomes the prey?
Karcher Detention Centre houses some of the countryâs worst inmates. But not the ones you might be thinking of.
Maximum Security Prison Officer Edward Montana felt that life for his inmates was a little too comfortable, given the severity of their crimes.
Investigative journalist Leif Lacroux endeavours to dive into Eddie Montanaâs psyche, in the hopes to uncover the first-hand truth behind the largest inner jail murders that the country has ever known.
But when the compulsion of Eddie Montanaâs Irish blue eyes draws Leif deeper into the story than heâd expected, he finds himself toiling with the grips of a secret of his own.
Prologue
Karcher Detention Centre is a maximum-security prison located in Australia, nestled on the quiet outskirts of the mountainside town of Ellerston. The prison is one of three detention centres on the Von Kelas Complex. What is unique about Karcher Detention Centre is the clientele it houses. The prison is the first of its kind, harbouring some of Australiaâs worst inmates â but not the ones you might be thinking.
Karcher is what is called a maximum protection prison. Its residents are some of Australiaâs most notorious paedophiles, rapists and child killers. The residents â as the word inmate seems a bit of a stretch, for reasons that will be made clear shortly â are housed in dormitory-style accommodation. They are not locked in cells, but instead share a large communal living area in a pod-like arrangement, not too dissimilar to standard office cubicles. The prison is separated into blocks â Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta â and each block has four units. Twenty-five inmates per unit, and thatâs a whole lot of sex offenders.
This story follows a young man by the name of Edward Montana. An unremarkable young prison officer, who rose to notoriety recently in the newspapers, headlining all major outlets.
My name is Leif Lacroux. Iâm an investigative journalist for the Australasian Journal of Criminology, and I have won the exclusive rights to interview Mr Montana. Iâm told that Mr Montana has not once been reserved in telling his version of events, but through a suppression order demanded by the Supreme Court, he has previously been unable to give the reasons behind his actions to the public. The suppression order has finally been lifted, upon the finalising of Mr Montanaâs short trial and, further, his sentencing.
What you will be reading are excerpts of transcripts from the trial that has finally lifted its veil; one-on-one interviews conducted with Mr Montana over a four-part interview piloted solely by myself; and a never before seen insights to the case files behind Mr Montanaâs victims.
Please be forewarned, this story is not for the faint of heart. It involves diving into the depths of Mr Montanaâs psyche, in search of some reasoning behind him committing the murders of seven men. What makes Mr Montanaâs case so intriguing â and thus why a panel of newspapers, magazines and filmmakers all partook in a bidding frenzy over the rights to his story â is that his murders were conducted within the confines of Karcher Detention Centre, a maximum-security prison ⌠while he was on duty.
Transcripts I
1
Transcripts from the trial of Regina v Montana
Stratham Courthouse, Supreme Court 6.1
09:10, 31 March 2018
OFFICER: Silence please. All stand. The Honourable Judge Rison presiding.
RISON: Thank you. Yes, please be seated. I note for the record that we are here for the trial of The Queen v Montana. Members at the Bar, please state your names and titles for our transcriber for identification.
BARRETT: Thank you, Your Honour. Christian Barrett, Crown Prosecutor.
FLOCKHART: Thank you, Your Honour. Manuel Flockhart, thatâs F-L-O-C-K-H-A-R-T. I represent Mr Montana.
RISON: Thank you, gentlemen. And in the dock, we must have Mr Edward Montana, I presume?
MONTANA: Yes.
2
RISON: Gentlemen, first off, I would like to commend the correspondence between both parties and my office. I understand there are a few housekeeping issues we must first address before we hear from the defendant Mr Montana, is that correct?
BARRETT: Yes, Your Honour.
FLOCKHART: Yes, Your Honour.
RISON: Okay Mr Barrett, Iâll hear from you first; I believe you wish to impose a suppression order on behalf of the victims in the matter?
BARRETT: Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.
RISON: Would you like to be heard against that, Mr Flockhart?
FLOCKHART: Yes, we would, Your Honour.
RISON: Okay, well Iâll hear from Mr Barrett first, and then Iâll hear why youâre opposing. Are you following along, Mr Montana?
MONTANA: Yes.
RISON: Okay, to you Mr Barrett, why does the Crown feel that a suppression order should be imposed?
BARRETT: Your Honour, itâs no secret that this is a highly publicised case, and I understand the publicâs right to information. However, we the Crown find that given the victims are all offenders who were, at the time of the attacks, serving sentences for an array of child sex crimes, aggravated sexual assault and sexually motivated murders, Your Honour, we the Crown feel that the publication of the deceased persons in the matter opens up a â and forgive my colloquialism â can of worms, so to say, for the victims of the deceased.
MONTANA: Ha!
FLOCKHART: Eddie, please âŚ
RISON: Mr Montana, youâll have your time to vocalise your thoughts in due course. For now, however, you must remain quiet and allow the Crown the right to speak. Is that clear? Yes. I note for the record that Mr Montana is nodding. Back to you, Mr Barrett.
BARRETT: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I donât wish to extend this further, outside of highlighting that under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedures Act, the court may suppress the evidence of a trial pertaining to that of a sexual nature, which I would argue may encompass the deceased persons and further, their victims. It is a matter for His Honour, ultimately, but we would be amiss if we werenât to pursue such a course of action.Â
I do note that there stands a full gallery of family members of both the accused and the victims, along with members of the press. It is our submission that a suppression order be imposed, and members of the gallery be forewarned of the legalities surrounding such undertakings. I am not for a moment suggesting that the members of the press are unaware of what such orders mean; however, for the sake of a blanket clarity, I believe it is worth mention. Unless you wish to hear further on this, those are my submissions on the matter.
RISON: No. Thank you, Mr Barrett. Yes, Mr Flockhart, you wish to be heard against those submissions?
FLOCKHART: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, it is my understanding that â and I must quarrel with my friend here for just a moment â under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedures Act, and Iâll get the correct quote if youâll indulge me just one moment ⌠yes, quote âSection 302 of the Criminal Procedures Act enables the court to suppress publication of evidence for proceedings for prescribed sexual assault offencesâ end quote. Your Honour, it is my submission that the charges laid against my client Mr Edward Montana are in no way that of a prescribed sexual assault offence. It is my submission that to withhold the evidence of the proceedings would be an unjust course of action, especially considering the entries of an early plea. Your Honour, my client has been a willing participant throughout the investigation process, offering pleas of guilty at the earliest convenience, and due to the proceedings of the case being no more than a simple agreement of facts, pleas of guilt and no lengthy proceedings outside of sentencing, I believe a suppression order is not only not required, but would be unjust to the publicâs right to information.
RISON: Mr Flockhart, I must say this is a first for me, as usually it is quite the opposite and I have the defence attorney submitting suppression requests. I must ask, under what instructions do you, or rather, your client, Mr Montana deem the publicâs right to information outweighing the suppression of the deceased and further, their victims?
FLOCKHART: Your Honour, I have been instructed by Mr Montana to speak his opposing views in regard to the suppression order. I concede the uniqueness of the submission, as it is a first for me also, however that doesnât change the crux of my submission, which is that the identities of the victims, nor their crimes, do not fall under the umbrella of Section 302 of the Criminal Procedures Act. Mr Montana believes in the freedom of information and is willing to forgo a publicised case in pursuant. Your Honour, those are my submissions, unless I can be of further assistance.
RISON: Thank you, Mr Flockhart. Mr Barrett, what say you? The attacks werenât prescribed to a sexual assault offence, per se. How do you recommend I proceed?
BARRETT: Your Honour, I concede that the attacks may not have been entirely that of sexual assault offences but I believe that one could argue, based on the agreed facts, that the accused did act in a calculated and motivated fashion, targeting inmates specifically for their sexually based charges. Your Honour certainly does have the ability to interpret such an act through a residual finding, on behalf of the victims.Â
Your Honour, a point I wish to make is that in the trials of the deceased, a large portion of them had their trials undertaken in a closed court and further, on I believe two trials, a suppression order was imposed on behalf of the victims. I donât wish to quibble with Your Honour unnecessarily, but it is my submission that the high publicisation of the trial runs a heavy risk of exposing the deceasedâs victims, which have otherwise been ordered not to be exposed. Your Honour, perhaps to answer your question more directly, while the accusedâs attacks werenât prescribed to a sexual assault offence, the order is really intended for the protection of the victims of the deceased, which I donât believe can be overlooked. There were suppression orders in place. While I admit, not everything was suppressed, nonetheless, these orders canât be ignored entirely and I believe on that basis alone, the suppression order must be invoked.
RISON: Thank you, Mr Barrett. Mr Flockhart, anything further you wish to expand upon?
FLOCKHART: Your Honour, just that my client has no intention of revealing the names of the deceasedâs victims, beyond his interview by detectives Corscina and Artem, which need not be played during the course of the day, given that His Honourâs chambers have already received the transcript of the interview. The names and exact details of crimes are not necessary in the pursuit of justice in this trial. Therefore, I must submit that a suppression order need not be imposed, giving the public their right to information. Those are my submissions, Your Honour, unless you wish for me to address anything further.
RISON: No, thatâs fine. Thank you, Mr Flockhart. Gentlemen, how about this: Iâm thinking about ordering a non-publication order for the duration of the proceedings, until the finalising of sentencing, where I then believe that the press and members of the public should be able to report on and speak of the events, both of the case and the court proceedings. What are your thoughts on this method of proceeding, Mr Barrett?
BARRETT: May it please the court, Your Honour.
RISON: Thank you, Mr Barrett. I note that in the matter of Mr Edward Montana, on this date, the 31st of March 2018, I make an order of non-publication, until so far as the conclusion of the date of sentencing.
BARRETT: May it please the court.
FLOCKHART: May it please the court.
3
RISON: Mr Montana, what happens now is, and I know youâve already made a plea of guilty upon your arrest, the Court Officer will now formally arraign you by reading your charges to you, and you are to respond whether your plea is guilty, or not guilty, for each of the charges. Is that understood?
MONTANA: Yes. Understood.
RISON: Right, okay madam Court Officer, when youâre ready.
OFFICER: Mr Edward Montana, you stand accused that on 18th October 2017, you did murder seven men at Karcher Detention Centre. On the first count of murder of one Mr Hank Sablet, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the second count of murder of one Mr Kane Elsey, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the third count of murder of one Mr Calvin Ryan, how say you, guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the fourth count of murder of one Mr Bernard Hills, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the fifth count of murder of one Mr Aiden Whiting, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the sixth count of murder of one Mr Edward Everett, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
OFFICER: On the seventh count of murder of one Mr Yusef Bulli, how say you, are you guilty or not guilty?
MONTANA: Guilty.
RISON: Yes, thank you Officer. Mr Montana, you may be seated. That will conclude todayâs proceedings, I will adjourn for sentencing on Monday the 10th of May 2018. All relevant correspondence and requests need to be submitted by April 20. Anything else, gentlemen of the Bar?
BARRETT: No, Your Honour.
FLOCKHART: No, Your Honour.
RISON: Court is adjourned.
OFFICER: All rise.
MONTANA: Hey, Manny, come here.
FLOCKHART: Iâll come and speak with you downstairs. Go with the officers, and Iâll come speak with you in the legal box. The green light is still on there, see? So, everything is still recording. Iâll come see you in the legal box.
MONTANA: Alright.
TRANSCRIPT END
10:05, 31 MARCH 2018
Interviews I
4
FAIRVIEW PEAKS DETENTION CENTRE
2 JULY 2018
I was surprised by what I saw, upon laying eyes on Edward Montana. I donât know what I was expecting, given the nature of his crimes, along with the potential gusto of a man of his newfound stature. I guess I was expecting an air of hauteur, of aggression or petulance â which most inmates seem to harbour. I witnessed none of these things. I felt no emotional twinge beset me, nor any nervous pluck of a chord within. He entered the room unshackled, which was a world away from the Hannibal Lecter image Iâd worked myself up to on the drive in. Unbefitting his role as crazed mass murderer, he was wearing a plain white button-down shirt with navy blue pants and brown dress shoes, not too dissimilar to a banker or businessman in smart-casual attire. His dark hair was combed over neatly, held it seemed by memory rather than product. I was taken aback a little at just how normal the man looked.
âMr Montana?â
âYes, sir. Eddie Montana. You must be Mr Leif Lacrooks?â
âUh, yes. Well, no. Itâs pronounced Lacrew. Itâs a French name and youâre far from the first person to mispronounce it.â
âFrench? Very well. Lacrew it is.â
He flashed a genuine smile and I found myself engulfed by the sincerity of it. His eyes creased, squinting to a close, and despite his youthful exuberance you could see the tread-marks of crowâs-feet already setting in. Something told me this guy was a smiler by nature. His dimpled cheeks and almost fluorescent white teeth were just added confetti.
âIâll be happy with Leif, just Leif is fine.â
âWell, only if youâll call me Eddie. Mr Montana was my grandfather and I couldnât hold a candle to that man.â
Something about the way he tilted his head in earnest at this statement told me that there was more behind the curtains. Things maybe even Eddie wasnât aware of. I would endeavour to find out, but not yet.
âRight, well ⌠shall we get started, Eddie?â
If you have the chance to read A Screw Loose: The Montana Files, be forewarned that it's going to stick with you a bit. And to still have lots of questions when the curtains finally close. For a first-time novelist, the fact that Cameron Wright is able to achieve that here is honestly amazing.
Based on the premise of a mass murder being carried out behind prison bars by a guard and not an inmate, the killer becomes fleshed out over the course of the novel. Split into sections rather than chapters, most of these sections are either transcripts from the trial or interviews between the killer, Eddie Montana, and the journalist assigned to cover his story, Leif Lacreux. From a reading standpoint, I much preferred the interviews over the transcripts because they are where the novel excelled.
The connection between Eddie and Leif can be felt even from the start of their very first meeting. And because we view those chapters largely from the latter's vantage point, as they get pulled into the charismatic killer's orbit, so do we. There is also an underlying tension that grows between the two characters, one that always kept me wanting to turn the next page. I think this contrast with the much dryer transcript chapters is one of the reasons they fell a bit flat for me.
Overall, I found A Screw Loose maybe not an easy read because of the content, but one more than worth my time. Part social commentary, part character study on how a person can just break even if they appear stable, expect some twists and turns even though the story opens with the killer having pled guilty already. Masterfully weaving in so many elements, I'm still a bit shocked this is someone's first novel.
Wright included a warning at the beginning of the novel along with encouragement to seek help if needed. But the wording of what to expect was general enough that I need to advise some caution to readers sensitive to certain topics. There are multiple and often graphic depictions of sexual harassment and abuse that involve both minors and adults as victims. In addition, body horror and graphic violence are major elements.