IN DEFENCE OF BUTLER.

Dunstan Times, Issue 948, 18 June 1880, Page 3

IN DEFENCE OF BUTLER.

(to the EDITOR of the dun’ST ax times.)' Sir —lii looking over a recent issue of flic Dunedin Echo 1 noticed a letter signed “Ali,ha,” written in condemnation of the jury acquitting BiVtler for the murder of Dewar, notwithstanding the damning facts tlie Crown proved against him. The writer also makes' reference to other acquit'als’ for capital offences where like damning facts were proved, to wit, Ryan’s case" at Hokitika, and Waters's case at Dunedin.

Now, Sir, I trust you will grant m'e'spaee with a view of commenting on “ Alpha's ” letter ; with few exception's I will confine liiy rein irks to' the facts quoted by tlie writer, as the damning facts' proved by the Crown, which are numbered respectively from 1 to Id ; in fact many - of the same need but little cohiidei'A, I will therefore Passover No. 7, where attention is drawn to Butler’s peculiar denreanou'r and conduct on his arrest and in the lock-up. No doubt what took place in the look-up was most Remarkable, so far as the police were fioii(Sernek There’was nothing remarkable in Butler’s demeanour but what might be' expected under the cireuiust’ii'cea; Now, 1 ask, where is the man, let him be innocent or guilty, who on being charged with siibh a diabolical murder that would not shudder and become convulsed oil' bcihjg told Ujf a police officer, “ Yes, tliede is sufficient evidence to convict you.” Now, who would hot become excited add shudder on being given to Understand 1 the’gallows was' their doom. No. S. Finding accused's clothes. During the interview in the lock-up a question was put to accused indirectly, these are not the clothes you left th'i Scotia in. Keply : No, I threw them away in the North-East Valley yesterday. Again, I ask, previous to the interview in the lockup was there sufficient evidence to convict? No, Sir, there was not, and if there was

anything damning as to facts, it arose from' what took place in the lock-up. The finding (if the clothes stained with blood would appear to'bo the strongest facts’proved by the Crown. Strati Ip; to say Bfitleiywheh'asked, told the polide the locality in which lie threw the clothes away. Had he said he threw them into the bay or some other such place, probably their whereabouts d’ouhl still be a mystery. 1 consider the finding of the clothes iii’tha locality pointed out or close by, was much in’ Butlers favour, and was’ good grounds" of defence. Now, is it likely' a man’ committing a murder and changing his olothds in consequence ft them' being smeared with the blood of His victim, would make such a disclosure ? It would be bad generalship, on the part of an expert and hardened criminal if he was really the murderer. An old fencer would Sot be so easily entrapped, and it ii to be wondered at how shelf rt' fav,niralili poiiit escaped Butler’s notice during bis'defence. BJtler being seen' in tlj(; viiiiiily' of the murder shortly afterwards was not a tellingpoint. No doubt it was right in bringing it out in evidence. An assassin ii more likely to decamp from the scene of murder than to loiter about the locality ;’although it does sometim’es occur on the alarm being given the assassin retraces his steps and mingles with the crowd, and perhaps becomes most conspicuous in condemnation of tWatrocity.

Now as to the acquittal of Butler, I think there is hardly any intelligent person w ho watched the proceedings aild perused the evidence adduced on the trial, hilt would come to the same eonchisioti as tile jury did—that is, there was not sufficient evidence to convict, thofefore tllere was no other alternative but to acquit the prisoner, and tlie jury should he highly commended, notwithstanding the prejudice brought to hear by a portion of the public aqd a certain journalist. They acted independently; and there guided by the evidence adduced. It is hot because the accused stands in the dock as a convicted thief, with his former convictions fresh in the memory of the public, that he should not obtain a fair and impartial trial. No, Sir, such is not law nor justice, and it is credible that Butler obtained a fair and impartial hearing throughout the trial. lam aware that theie are some of the same opinion as “Alpha,” that is tnat Butler should have been found guilty, but taking the majority of the public End tlie Press they coincide with the verdict of acquittal. Some persons are of opinion that Butler’s acquittal was owing to his able defence, which is borne out by some members of the I’ivss. One editor in commenting on the trial, states the prisoner Butler snowed liims'df to be a very able man by the ih.anhor in which he conducted liis case. He completely shattered the theory set up by Hie Crown, find exposed In a masterly manner the carelessness in which evidence is nearly always given in Courts of Justice. He crushed the evidence brought against him, and broke down the prosecution so that the jury had no other course but to acquit him. Now, Sir, I have not looked on Butler’s defence as an able one. It is true in addressing the jury he spoke nearly six hours, but i think had he said less he would be as well off. 1 am of opinion he said too much, and if he was versed iu the Jaw or rules of evidence, especially that of circumstantial evidence, he would not have occupied the time of the Court so long iu his address to the jury. His' dfoss-cxafffina'lioiis also iu many instances were out of place so far as he was Concerned, —I am, &c , Ax Oiist.rver. South Dunedin, 12th May, 1880.