RUNANGA MURDER.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16155, 8 March 1918, Page 9

RUNANGA MURDER.

DISCOVERY OF. ANOTHER DUG-OUT. (rRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) GREYMOCTH, March 7. A frcih discovery has been made in connexion - with the Runanga murder. A dug-out nas been found in the bush a hundred yards from the railway. Tne dug-out was under a stump coven;.! with corrugated iron and fern, and contained an alpenstock and bags that contained tlio stolen money and the cloth used for a mask. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE rRESS." Sir, Your leader in this morning's "Press" regarding above has interested a great many law-abiding citizens who have carefully followed the Runanga murder case from the t'ma the dreadful outrage was committed till the finai episode, resulting in the death penalty being imposed on tTie man known as Frederick William Eggers. Now, I may state I hold jio brief whatsoever from a personal point of view as regards the direction or interest I may assume in my views, and I may also fearlessly state a very large percentage of the general public will also agree, although justice has been met, a grave error of justice may have been committed. This case had its peculiarities, and the most prominent of these was the fact that the Crown case was purely circumstantial. The fact that the accused had the stdlen money in his possession was not conclusive proof of the crimc of murder. There were four distinct charges preferred against the prisoner. The first charge was the killing of John C'oultliard, vet we had the paradox of the fourth charge in the summing up of Justice Chapman being made li e basis of a conviction on the first charge,, which, by the way, must have influenced the jury in an otherwise very weak Crown case. I think, **nd have always been led to understand, where 110 direct evidence is available and the Crown are compelled to depend on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that every link in the chain of evidence should be complete. AVere there any links in the chain in this particular case missing? I think so. Let. us consider the case carefully without prejudice or bias. Was the identification of tho man who occupied the hut near the vicinity of the crime proved to be "Eggers" ? No. Were the bullets found in the body ol : Couit-hard proved conclusively to have been fired from a revolver in the possession, of Eggers? No. The bullets in the murdered man's body were 32in calibre. The revolver in Eggers's possession Avas, I am led to understand, a 38in calibre. It was admitted in evidence that it was possible for a 32in bullet to have been fired, but the gun expert stated that if so the magazine of the revolver must have been very carefully cleaned, < vidence which I should consider very inconclusive. Jt has always been a point of Ijritish law that any prisoner or accused person is not guilty until ho is tried. I suggest that owing to the publicity this case aroused, there was the danger—l say without hesitation a grave danger—that the c<7se for the defence was endangered fr r >m the time of the arrest of the accused person. It may be urged: why <'id accused give no explanation of the stolen money found in his possession? 1 repeat it was the Crown's case to fix tlie guilt of murder on tho accused, and not the accused's place to explain the robbery; In conclusion, I mav state that it is a growing conviction amongst a large body of intelligent citizens that a grave error of justice may lia'e been committed, and aiLhotinli the law has been met. it is to Ijo hoped in future that juries v/ill consider the evidence, carefully weighing every link until they feel perfectlv satisfied the chain is complete, and if any doubt aiises through a weak.u;s in the case for the Crown, it is their duty to give the benefit of the doubt to the prisoner.—Yours, etc.. ANALYST. March 6th.