BURWOOD MURDER

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 23 November 1927, Page 5

BURWOOD MURDER

TRIAL OF C. W. BOAKES

CHEMIST'S RETRACTED EVIDENCE.

THE CROWN’S CASE CONCLUDED

(Per Press Association),

Christchurch, Nov. 23. The trial of Charles William Boakes, charged with the murder of Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarft'! on Juno 15, at Burwood, was continued yesterday afternoon.

Detective Sergeant Bickerdike gave evidence of his interview with King, the chemist’s assistant. Witness said to King: “I am informed you sold Boakes some drugs for abortion purposes.” King replied: “Who told you?” . Witness replied: “I’m sorry, 1 can’t tell you?” King said: “If I tell you the truth what is going to happen to me?” Witness said: “I’m not the boss, and can't tell you." King said: ‘‘l’d better tell you the truth I did sell some ergot to Boakes for a girl whom he had got into trouble.” King subsequently made a statement, writing it out himself in the detective office. King was at the office about two hours. He left about five o’clock and returned about six with samples of pills and ergot. Two days later, July 20, King came to the detective office and said he had omitted to mention in his previous statement that he had sold two boxes of pills and not one, and he wished to re-write the statement. King brought a sample of other pills and sat down and re-wrote the statement, occupying about an hour. Mr. Thomas: You have heard the statement given by King to Mr. Gresson. Did you bully him into making this statement to you ?—No, I have never seen the man one could bully into makin ga false statement. Did you threaten to charge King with an offence?—No. Tn answer to further questions. Detective Sergeant Bickerdike said it was clear that King was a liar. Detective Walsh said he was present when King was making his statement to Detective Sergeant Bickerdike. There was a good deal of conversation but no bullying. Ulis concluded the Crown’s case. Mr Thomas informed the Court he would not call evidence, and the Judge adjourned the Court until today.

COUNSEL’S ADDRESS TO JURY. The trial of Boakes was not tesumed this morning until 11.30, owing to the funeral of Mr. Justice Alpers. Counsel then addressed the jury. Mr, Donnelly, for tho Crown, said he could not now ask the jury to take any notice of tho statement made by the witness King in the Lower Court. He, however, .repudiated the story that K'ng had been bulled by the detectives, who had merely done their duty. Mr, i Donnelly said that at far as the witness King was concerned th< fact that he had hack on his evidence given in the Lower Court completely cancelled that evidence. It would not be proper to tell the jury that thev should disbelieve the evidence given by King in me Supremo Court and rest on the evidence that he had given in the Lower Court. At the same time, he wished to refer to King’s evidence tn the Supreme Court, because he had made a charge against Detective Bickerdike, which, in a way. was as serious as the one with which the accused stood charged. King’s latest evidence was unbelievable because K'ng s conduct, from the time he was first interviewed bv the police until the Supreme Court trial, was ncfli consistent with the conduct of a man who had been treated bv the police in the'way that King said he had been treated. It was the duty of the police, in cases of this kind, to make enquiries and interview witnesses beforehand. If King’s story was believed then it would be impossible for the police to do their duty in the way of collecting evidence. If the story was believed the police might as well go out of business, for if King could go back on his story and say he had been bullied bv tho police then any witness eould do likewise. If Detective Bickerdike had forced a statement from King he would not have left him alone for five or six weeks, even after ho had given evidence in the Lower Court. King took no action and he did nothing until he was seen by Mr Thomas in Timaru. But for that it was hard to sav what would have happened. Mr. Donnelly said he did not want any misunderstanding about Mr Thomas seeing King iu Timaru. Boakes was charged with the most serious charge known to the law. The Crown was not concerned with getting tnc accused convicted at any price. A witness who had given evidence for the Crown might be seen by counsel for the defence and asxed to explain his statements. Mr. Thomas’s action in asking King if his evidence was true was quite proper. With regard to Mugford’s evidence as to seeing a man run rion. t.»o body, Mr. Donnelly said that he had called Mugford not because his evidence helped the Crown case out because it was the duty of the Crown to put before the jury all the evidence. whether in favour of the accused or not. He suggested that Mugford must have been mistaken, as the ground had been examined and there was t no trace of a man having gone that way. MR. THOMAS’S ADDRESS.' * Mr. Thomas, for the defence, said that it would be foolish of him to blind himself to the fact that the case had created the greatest Interest in the city. It would be foolish of him to blind himself to the fact that the case had been discussed from one end of the Dominion to the other, and that there had been a wild and universal call for blood which was a disgrace to the country to which we belonged. Never in his experience—and he was cure that never in the experience of his learned friend—had those whose duty it was to see that the streams of justice ran dearie failed so in their duty. Never had they, for the sake of creating a sensation and getting oeace from the public, nrejudiced a man to suen an extent. Rumour had been piled upon rumour until a campaign of slander had been started that had threatened to engulf the accused.

'The jury must forget what they had heard in the street. One of the first

rules of British justice was that ths jury must convict or acquit on th# evidence placed before them. “Unless you do listen to rumour—unless yon do take notice of what you have heard outside—unless, in other words, you fail in the oath you have taken —I say you have got to bring back a verdict of not giulty,” said Mr« Thomas. Continuing, counsel said that thf evidence in the case was purely ci» cumstantial. The whole of the Crown ease rested on the relationship of the parties. Counsel admitted that Boakes had been a friend—and a close friend—of the girl since childhood, but where did that get them? —lt got'them nowhere. Was Boakes to be regarded as a murderer because be was the friend of the girl? —That was no argument. For five montbs the Crown bad been searching tho town with a small eqmb to find out what Boakes was doing. Had they searched as hard to find out if the girl had other men friends ? There was no connection between Boakes and the spanner or between Boakes and th eovercoata. So far ns Miss Usher’s evidence was concerned, he did not suggest that she bad lied about the coat, but some witnesses, and especially women witnesses, were liable to take the centre of the stage. The judge will sunt up at 3 o'clock.