THE COLCHESTER MUDDLE.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 6 August 1901, Page 4

THE COLCHESTER MUDDLE.

Identification Test.

Steps Towards Lillywhite’s Exon-

eration.

The cable service has already advised us that Mr Charles Lillywhite, late of Wellington, has completely cleared himself of the suspicion that he was the person (Arthur Blatch) “wanted” by the English police for the Colchester murder and has been set at liberty. As to what were the final steps leading up to his liberation we shall have to wait for later mails, but the following letter just to hand from our London correspondent, is interesting as indicating the course of events :—• London, 21st June. Mystery still surrounds the extraordinary case of the man who has just been brought Homs from New Zealand under suspicion of being Arthur Watch, the pii oner auapecud of having committed the Colchester murder >n 1893 Ho persists in declaring that tie is not \ithur Blatch, but Charles Lillywhite, who left England for America in 1885, and who was in Kensett, County Tacoma, at the time of the tragedy, leaving there for New

Manifestly, therefore, before the point can be determined whether that murder was really committed by Arthur Blatch at all, it has to be settled whether the prisoner just brought Home be Blatch, or, as he himself alleges. Charles Lillywhite. There are hundreds of people in Colchester who knew Blatch. The prisoner was placed among other men, while some of those whe knew Blmch were invited to see whether they could pick Blatch out from the group. At the prisoner’s own suggestion the test was made in two different ways. He was first submitted to his unshaven state to the ordeal ; on the second occasion ho had all the hair on his facs removed, excepting his moustache, before ho confronted the potential witnesses. The result of these tests has, it is alleged, been kept secret. Even the local solicitor, who is representing the Treasury for the prosecution, stated that when he appealed in Court later on in the day, that he had not been informed. But some facts have come out, which, in the interests of the accused, should be published without delay.

‘it has already gone forth to the world, says a daily paper, “that the police officers who brought Blatch before the murder, identify their man as Blatch. It has already gone forth to the world that the woman who used to be known in Colchester as Margaret Archer, but who married a Chinaman at the Antipodes, has recognised the accused as Blatch ; that, indeed, she gave the information to the New Zealand police which first led to the arrest of the man who was known as Charles Lillywhite, painter and decorator. This being so, it is only fair to publish speedily the news that, whoever identified the accused as Blatch at yesterday’s ordeals, there were some striking instances alsoiof non-identification. Mr Page, farmer, of Fingringhoe, knew Blatch well, and could not see him in the group among whom the accused was pieced. MrSizzey, who was manager at Mr Welch’s tailoring shop, where Blatch was porter, failed to make any identification. Even still more remarkable—lsaac Lillywhite, of Leeds, declares that the accused is his brother, Charles Lillywhite. Certainly, at the first attempt, Isaac Lillywhite picked as his brother the wrong man from the group but he afterwards selected the accused, and if bis evidence is to be accepted, the Grown would seem to be driven to one of two alternatives—either they would have to drop the charge, or else maintain that Charles Lillywhite is the same man who came to Colchester in the name of Arthur Blatch and remained there under that name in Mr Welch’s employment.” Immediately on his arrival, tho prisoner was brought before the Colchester Bench of Magistrates. Much to the surprise and disappointment of the public in general, the proceedings took place in the strictest privacy, it being held by the Bench that a public hearing might be prejudicial to the interests of justice. On Tuesday, however, the accused was brought again before the Colchester Bench, which this time sat publicly. No evidence was offered, but the police simply applied for a remand. The Mayor, Mr Egerton Green, asked the accused if he had anything to say.

Speaking with a strong American accent, the accused said : “ I have not the slightest objection. It is necessary that it should be so, and a few weeks or so more or less won’t hurt. lam somewhat seasoned.” After a short conference between the Bench and the police, accused said : —“Your Worship, if it would be in order, may I speak? My name is not Arthur Blatch. I understand the portion fully, but my point is this In the British nation or any part of the world a man is not supposed to be guilty until he is found guilty. I have not been found to be Arthur Blatch, and you have got a mighty lot of work on hand to show that I am any ono else than Charles Lillywhite. That is my name, and I think I should bo allowed to wear it.”

The Magistrate—So far as this Court is concerned, you stand here charged in the name of Arthur Blatch, and wo do not know you by another surname.

The Accused—l have to prove my innocence, but the Court cannot prove my guilt.

A remand was then formally ordered. It was quite evident that the sympathy of most people present went very strongly with the accused man, whe was several times loudly cheered, an experience that very rarely falls to the lot of any one accused of murder—the general tendency being to suspect that he would not have been standing his trial on such a charge unless fairly strong grounds existed for the step. In this case, however, the public generally may be said to favour the idea that there has been a mistake in identity. Certainly it was very remarkable that a number of witnesses appear to have maintained stoutly that the prisoner is not the man they knew seven or eight years before as Arthur Blatch. Some go even, so far as to assert that there is not even any strong degree of resemblance between the two men. On the other hand, Mr Isaac Lillywhite, as to whose identity and good faith no question whatever has been raised, or appears likely to be raised, is quite convinced that the accused is his brother, Charles Liliywhite, and I understand that he has been so identified by other persons who know him.

Meanwhile, the authorities are closely watching everything that appears in the English pagers on the subject, and have allowed it to be pretty well understood that they will proceed stringently against any journal which publishes anything calculated to defeat the ends of justice, whether by being likely to prejudice a jury against the prisoner or to impress unduly the idea that he has been wrongfully accussed. Thus, apart from its exceptionally and curiously-sensational character in itself, this case possesses the potentiality cf almost innumerable developments in the way of side issues, and it is rumoured that already one or two press prosecutions are in contemplation on the score of statements of comments that have appeared. The extraordinary frequency of suicide at the present time has been the subject of remark. One recent case is that of Dr. Bond, the eminent army surgeon, who threw himself out of his window at Westminister, and falling 70ft was killed almost instantously. It appears that Dr. Bond was intimately connected with the proceedings in this remarkable affair, seeing that it was very largely on his medical testimony, given in 1893, that a verdict of wilful murder was returned against Arthur Blatch. I imagine that Dr Bond would necessarily have been an important witness for the prosecution had he lived, and it is not a little strange that he should have been thus tragically removed by a violent death, self-inflicted, through delirium.