For more than four decades, one detail haunted an
unsolved murder investigation in Australia: a hotel employee had looked
directly at the man who would become the central figure in the case. She had
delivered drinks to his room, noticed his distinctive appearance and given
detectives a description.
Yet despite having a witness who had stood just feet
away from him, police could not identify the man.
The victim, 46-year-old Rex Cable Keen, had been
discovered badly injured in a Brisbane hotel room in August 1976. His attacker
had disappeared, taking several of Keen’s belongings with him. Among them was a
camera that would become one of the most important objects in the
investigation.
For years, the case seemed destined to remain
unresolved. Keen’s family waited for answers, witnesses grew older, and the original
investigation eventually went cold.
Then, decades later, advances in DNA forensic technology,
a renewed examination of preserved evidence and fresh witness information
brought investigators closer to the truth.
In 2019, police arrested Benjamin Jansen, the man who
had been with Keen on the night of his death. Three years later, a Queensland
court sentenced him for manslaughter.
But the outcome raised difficult questions. Why had
the original investigation failed to identify him? How had a man connected to
the killing remained outside the reach of investigators for so long? And why
did the case end with a sentence that made him immediately eligible to apply
for parole?
The Friday Night That Changed Rex
Keen’s Life Forever
On Friday, August 13, 1976, Rex Cable Keen was
staying at Lennon’s Plaza Hotel in Brisbane.
Keen was 46 and managed a motel in Bowen, a coastal
town more than 1,000 kilometres north of Brisbane. He had travelled south for a
medical appointment and to attend the Ekka, the city’s annual agricultural
show.
It was a familiar journey. He regularly stayed at
Lennon’s Plaza when visiting Brisbane, and hotel staff recognised him.
His plans were straightforward. He had arrived
earlier in the week and was expected to return home on Saturday.
But Friday night brought an encounter that would
change the course of his family’s history.
At some point during the evening, Keen visited the
Carlton Crest hotel bar, where he began talking with another man. The two were
strangers, but they spent time drinking together.
Eventually, they left the bar together and returned
to Keen’s room, number 1205.
At approximately 10:30 p.m., a room service attendant
arrived with drinks.
When she knocked, a man opened the door. Keen was
standing behind him.
The attendant had only a brief interaction with the
stranger, but she had enough time to notice his appearance. She later described
a man with his hair tied back in a ponytail using leather.
That observation would become one of the earliest
pieces of evidence in the Rex
Keen murder investigation.
She handed over the drinks and returned to her
duties.
It was an ordinary hotel service call that would
later become an important moment in one of Queensland’s longest-running cold
cases.
A Disturbance Behind Room 1205—and
a Morning Discovery
Not long after the drinks were delivered, other
guests reportedly heard a disturbance coming from Keen’s room.
The noise was noticeable enough to attract attention,
but nobody contacted hotel management or called the police.
Eventually, the disturbance stopped.
The corridor became quiet again, and the hotel
continued operating as usual.
Inside room 1205, however, Keen had suffered a brutal
attack.
According to the evidence later presented in court,
he had been struck repeatedly in the head with a heavy camera. He did not die
immediately. Instead, he remained alive for hours before succumbing to his
injuries.
The following morning, hotel cleaners entered the
room and discovered his body.
His clothing was missing. So was a substantial amount
of money.
And his camera had disappeared.
That missing camera would become particularly
significant because it was the weapon used in the fatal assault, according to
the account ultimately accepted by the court.
Early descriptions of the crime included references
to both a beating and a stabbing. However, the later court proceedings
established a different account: Keen had been struck with a heavy camera.
The distinction matters because the original
investigation and the eventual court findings did not describe every detail in
exactly the same way.
What remained beyond dispute was that Keen had died
violently in a hotel room, and the man who had left with him had vanished.
Police Had a Description—but No
Name
In 1976, investigators had several potential leads.
They had the room service attendant, who had seen the
man at close range. They had people who had been drinking at the Carlton Crest
and could provide information about the pair's movements.
They also had a hotel full of employees and guests
who might have noticed something unusual.
The description of the stranger was distinctive. His
hair was tied into a ponytail with leather, and witnesses reportedly described
him as noticeably effeminate.
Detectives initially believed they might identify him
quickly.
But the investigation did not produce an arrest.
Officers made inquiries around the hotel, the bar and
other locations where the pair might have been seen. They followed up on
witness accounts and attempted to establish the stranger's identity.
The problem was that a physical description, even a
detailed one, could only take investigators so far.
There were no modern hotel surveillance systems, no
widespread digital records and no searchable facial-recognition databases.
Detectives had to rely heavily on people remembering a face, recognising a name
or volunteering information.
The man had entered the hotel, spent time with Keen
and walked away.
Despite months of investigative work, police could
not establish who he was.
The case gradually lost momentum.
For Keen’s family, the disappearance of the suspect
meant something much more painful than an unsolved police file. They were left
without a clear explanation of what had happened to someone they loved.
His mother would die without learning the full
circumstances of her son's death.
The Social Climate That May Have
Kept Witnesses Silent
The investigation also unfolded during a particularly
difficult period in Queensland's history.
In 1976, homosexual acts between men were
criminalised under Queensland law. The state did not decriminalise them until
1991.
That legal environment created a serious obstacle for
investigators seeking information from people who might have known Keen, the
other man or the places where they socialised.
For gay and bisexual men, speaking openly with police
could expose private relationships and personal details at a time when those
disclosures could have serious social, professional and legal consequences.
This does not establish why any particular witness
remained silent. But it provides important context for understanding the
investigation.
People who might have known something about the
encounter could have been reluctant to speak. Some may have feared being
questioned about their private lives rather than simply being treated as
witnesses.
The broader history of violence against gay men in
Australia has since received renewed attention through criminal investigations,
public inquiries and campaigns for legal reform.
The history
of LGBTQ+ rights in Queensland is therefore relevant to
understanding the social conditions surrounding the Keen case.
It also highlights a difficult reality: an
investigation can be affected not only by the forensic tools available at the
time, but also by whether people feel safe enough to approach authorities.
The murder remained unresolved while the legal and
social environment around the community slowly changed.
A Law That Later Became Known as
the Gay Panic Defence
Another important part of the case involved
Queensland's former provocation laws.
Under the state's criminal code, a defendant could
potentially rely on provocation in circumstances involving an alleged unwanted
sexual advance. The provision became widely known as the gay panic defence.
It did not make killing someone lawful, nor did it
automatically excuse violence. However, if the relevant legal requirements were
met and a jury accepted the argument, a murder charge could be reduced to
manslaughter.
Critics argued that the provision reinforced
prejudice against gay men by allowing an alleged sexual advance to be used to
reduce responsibility for a killing.
The issue became especially prominent after the 2008
death of Wayne Ruks, who was kicked to death in a churchyard in Maryborough,
Queensland. The men responsible claimed that Ruks had made an advance towards
one of them. They were ultimately convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.
Father Paul Kelly, the priest whose churchyard became
the scene of the killing, began a campaign to change the law. His petition
attracted substantial public support, reportedly approaching 300,000
signatures.
In March 2017, Queensland Parliament amended the
relevant provision.
The change narrowed the circumstances in which an
unwanted sexual advance could support a partial defence, requiring
circumstances of an exceptional character.
The reform was an important moment in the state's
legal history, although it did not simply erase every possible provocation
argument from the criminal code.
For the Keen investigation, this legal history became
relevant decades after the original killing.
By the time Jansen was arrested, Queensland had
already changed the law that might once have been raised in a case involving an
alleged unwanted advance.
The Cold Case Review That Changed
Everything
More than 40 years after Keen's death, Queensland
police returned to the investigation.
Around 2017, the homicide group's cold case
investigators began a detailed review of the file. The examination continued
for approximately 18 months.
This time, detectives had access to forensic methods
that had not existed when Keen was killed.
The original evidence had been preserved. Material
collected from the hotel room could be examined again using developments in DNA profiling,
forensic analysis and laboratory testing.
Investigators also revisited the human evidence.
They contacted people who had given statements in
1976, when many were young adults. By the time of the renewed investigation,
some were in their 60s or 70s.
Decades had passed, but memories and information that
had not been shared during the original inquiry could still matter.
Detective Inspector Damien Hanson later explained
that people sometimes disclose information many years after an event because
circumstances change or something they have kept to themselves becomes harder
to carry.
The review involved more than simply putting old
evidence into new machines.
Detectives had to compare original witness
statements, examine exhibits, revisit property records and establish whether
information that once seemed insignificant could now help identify a suspect.
The investigation combined two essential elements of
modern cold case work: forensic
DNA testing and renewed witness cooperation.
One could help establish a connection between a
person and a location. The other could help detectives understand the events
surrounding that connection.
Together, they provided a path forward.
DNA Evidence Finally Points to a
Living Suspect
In January 2019, forensic testing produced a DNA
profile from material collected during the original investigation.
The profile matched a living man.
He was living in Bundaberg, Queensland, approximately
four hours north of Brisbane.
His name was Benjamin Jansen.
The discovery transformed the investigation. The man
connected to the events in room 1205 was no longer an unidentified stranger
described in a witness statement.
He was someone detectives could locate and
investigate.
However, DNA
evidence alone did not explain everything that had happened inside
the hotel room. A forensic match could establish an important connection, but
investigators still needed to build a case around the circumstances of Keen's
death.
Police continued examining the evidence for another
six months.
On July 1, 2019, plainclothes detectives arrested
Jansen in Bundaberg. He was 69 years old and was charged with murder.
Keen had been dead for almost 43 years.
The arrest brought an extraordinary development to a
case that many people had assumed would never be solved.
For the first time, the man who had left room 1205
was facing criminal proceedings.
Police notified Keen's family, who had spent decades
waiting for an answer.
But the arrest was not the end of the legal process.
The prosecution still had to establish what had happened and determine how the
case would proceed in court.
What Benjamin Jansen Told the
Court
The later proceedings brought forward an account of
the events inside room 1205.
The version presented to the court came from Jansen
himself. It was not independently corroborated by another surviving witness to
the encounter.
According to his account, he had met Keen while
drinking and agreed to return to the hotel.
Jansen claimed that he did not want a sexual
encounter. He said he believed Keen was gay, or that Keen had suggested he
could pay for the meal with his body and wanted to photograph him.
He told the court that Keen approached him holding
the camera and that he feared he was about to be touched.
Jansen said he took the camera and struck Keen with
it, intending to knock him unconscious.
The court heard that he struck him as many as 12
times.
The prosecution rejected the suggestion that this
reaction could be understood as a reasonable response to the circumstances
described.
It characterised the violence as a dramatic and
complete overreaction.
After the assault, Jansen took Keen's clothing, money
and camera before leaving the room.
He did not call an ambulance.
He did not alert hotel staff.
He did not seek help for a man who, according to the
court's account, remained alive for hours after the attack.
That decision meant Keen spent his final hours alone.
The camera was never recovered.
A Murder Charge Ends in a
Manslaughter Sentence
Jansen was initially charged with murder following
his 2019 arrest.
However, prosecutors later accepted a plea to
manslaughter. That was the offence for which he was sentenced in the Brisbane
Supreme Court on October 18, 2022.
The sentencing was presided over by Justice Declan
Kelly, with members of Keen's family present in court.
The judge considered Jansen's explanation of the
encounter and addressed the historical argument involving an alleged unwanted
advance.
He noted that the circumstances described by Jansen
involved a suggestion about payment for a meal, a stated wish to take a
photograph and Keen approaching with a camera.
The judge made clear that none of this justified the
extreme violence that followed.
Jansen's own barrister had conceded that there was no
excuse for his reaction.
Justice Kelly also addressed the suffering
experienced by Keen's family, particularly the fact that his mother had died
without learning why her son had been killed.
The judge observed that Jansen had had opportunities
over the years to come forward and explain what happened, but had not done so.
For the family, the proceedings finally provided a
legal account of the death that had remained unexplained for so long.
Yet the sentence itself created another difficult
question.
Nine Years in Prison—and Immediate
Parole Eligibility
Jansen received a nine-year prison sentence for
manslaughter.
By the time of sentencing, he had already spent 1,205
days in custody following his arrest. The court credited that time towards his
sentence.
As a result, he became eligible to apply for parole
immediately.
Eligibility to apply for parole does not mean
automatic release. It means the relevant authorities can consider an
application under the applicable rules.
Nevertheless, the outcome was striking when viewed
against the 43 years that had passed between Keen's death and Jansen's arrest.
For decades, the case had remained unresolved. Keen's
family had waited for answers, and the man responsible for his death had lived
outside the criminal justice system.
The court proceedings finally established
responsibility for the manslaughter, but the sentence could not restore the
years that had been lost.
There was also an unusual numerical detail in the
record.
Jansen had spent 1,205 days in custody before
sentencing. Keen had been murdered in hotel room 1205.
The matching numbers were a coincidence, not evidence
of any connection, but they became an unsettling detail in an already
extraordinary case.
The Missing Camera and the
Evidence That Survived
One mystery remained after the sentencing.
The camera used in the fatal assault had never been
recovered.
According to the account described in the case,
Jansen took it from the hotel room and later buried it near his home.
If that account is correct, the object may still be
somewhere in the ground.
Its absence is significant because the camera was not
simply another stolen possession. It was the weapon used in the attack that
ended Keen's life.
But the camera's disappearance did not prevent
investigators from building the case decades later.
The critical forensic material had been collected in
1976 and preserved.
That evidence survived changes in technology, police
personnel and the passage of time. When investigators eventually had access to
more advanced DNA
analysis, material that had once offered limited investigative
value could be examined in a new way.
It is a powerful example of why preserving physical
evidence matters in unsolved crimes.
A case may remain dormant for years, but evidence
collected carefully at the beginning can become useful when forensic science
develops.
The breakthrough also demonstrates why cold case
investigations often require patience. A successful review may depend on
combining old records, new laboratory methods and information from witnesses
who are finally ready to speak.
Rex Keen Was More Than a Name in a
Police File
After the sentencing, Keen's family released a
statement that focused on the person they had lost rather than allowing the
offender's actions to dominate the story.
They described Rex as hard-working, resilient and
respectable, someone who was highly regarded by his family and community.
They called the attack violent, heinous and
unjustifiable and spoke about the suffering that had continued for decades.
Their statement also highlighted the role of
witnesses who eventually provided information to investigators.
They hoped that the outcome might encourage other
people holding information about unresolved crimes to come forward.
That message was particularly important in a case
where the social conditions of the 1970s may have discouraged some people from
speaking openly with police.
The family also expressed hope that the result would
offer encouragement to other families still waiting for answers.
For them, the conclusion of the legal proceedings was
not simply about a conviction or a sentence. It was about having Rex's death
acknowledged and seeing the investigation finally reach a courtroom.
What the 43-Year-Old Cold Case
Reveals About Modern Forensic Investigations
The Rex
Cable Keen cold case illustrates how dramatically criminal
investigations can change when evidence is preserved and technology advances.
In 1976, police had a witness who had seen the man in
the hotel room, people who had observed the pair drinking together and physical
evidence collected after the death.
But those clues were not enough to identify a
suspect.
More than four decades later, investigators were able
to revisit the evidence with modern forensic capabilities. They also returned
to witnesses whose memories and willingness to speak had changed over time.
The case demonstrates several important lessons for forensic science and criminal
investigations:
·
Preserved
DNA evidence can become more valuable over time. Scientific methods may develop
long after investigators initially collect material.
·
Cold
case reviews can uncover overlooked information. Old statements and exhibits may
take on new significance when examined alongside modern evidence.
·
Witness
cooperation matters.
People who were unwilling or unable to speak decades earlier may eventually
provide information that helps investigators.
·
Historical
context can affect investigations. Laws and social attitudes may influence whether
witnesses feel safe approaching authorities.
·
A
legal outcome does not always answer every question. The court can determine criminal
responsibility while some physical evidence, such as the missing camera,
remains unrecovered.
The story also highlights the importance of
distinguishing between an arrest, a charge and a conviction. Jansen was
arrested and charged with murder, but the final sentence followed his plea to
manslaughter.
That distinction is essential when reporting on
criminal cases, particularly those involving complex histories and decades-old
evidence.
The Hotel Room That Never Gave Up
Its Secret
Rex Keen travelled to Brisbane in August 1976 for a
medical appointment and a visit to the Ekka.
He checked into a hotel he knew well, spent an
evening drinking and returned to his room with a man he had just met.
A hotel employee saw that man face-to-face. She
described his appearance to police. Guests heard a disturbance. Keen was
discovered dead the next morning.
The investigation had evidence, witnesses and a
description, but it did not have a name.
For almost 43 years, the case remained unresolved.
Then, in 2019, forensic testing helped investigators
identify Benjamin Jansen, and the renewed investigation led to an arrest. In
2022, Jansen was sentenced for manslaughter.
The missing camera was never recovered. Keen's mother
never received the answer she had waited for. And the sentence could not undo
the loss suffered by his family.
But the case did establish something that once seemed
impossible: the man connected to the final hours of Rex Keen's life was finally
brought before a court.
The most important evidence had not come from a newly
discovered witness or a recovered murder weapon. It came from material
collected in a Brisbane hotel room in 1976 and preserved long enough for
science to reveal what investigators could not establish at the time.
For families waiting decades for
answers, that is the enduring significance of cold case investigations:
evidence can outlast the investigation that first collected it.
Editorial note: This article is based on the reported investigation and court proceedings. Jansen was sentenced for manslaughter after initially being charged with murder. The account of the encounter inside the hotel room reflects the version presented to the court, rather than an independently witnessed or recorded conversation.
Post a Comment