The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1925. AN ANALYSIS.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 September 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1925. AN ANALYSIS.

I in: conviction of Peter .Mount by a Christchurch jury last week brought to a close one of tin- most remarkable murder uers ever brought to trial, In analysing the ease, the Wellington “I‘e.st" remark.a! that : When ; cop! ■ spoke ni the case for the Crown as weak he: au.se it was entirely dependent upon ci i-cuiiista ill ini evidence, they overlooked tile fact that at least »>ne murders out- of ten and a large proportion of other rrimos, run pnnvd only in the sumo way. A mmdefer who dees the deed , n (|„, j )ro . s-'Uce of witnesses is either so deprived ni his reason by passion or bv some more permanent disability as to ho mentally irresponsible, or he has been the victim ol some rare mischance. But against the murderer who does not give himself away by thus negh- ting the ordinary precautions of prudence or by con I essi ng his guilt, so irtv would !e without protection if it. could not rely noon circumstantial evidence, lor all evidence which is not the direct testimony

ol eye-witnesses is circumstantial. I lie great advantage of this kind of evidence is that. ‘*f a - t s cannot lie’’ as witnesses sometimes do. and that the inferences to he drawn from them are often irresistible. Tint though fa -ts cannot lie they .. may easily mislead if limy are not cautiously handled. It is this defect.

ii'i inherent in the facts. Iml ini iliinu to tlm process of iiitercnco. ilmt create. tin- need for caution in dcal- - ing with a cla.ss of evidence wliih un-tli-r proper ootid it ions may !»> just ns irresistible ns a proposition of Kin-lid. Tito -pOi ill! di filial!ty of tin- pro-eett-t'.oii in the Mimm ease wits Lliat i-hev were compelled to rely upon < iroumstautinl evidence for tlie proof of tlie fmiilamental fact which is usually the one absolute lertaim.v in tlie whole I business. and that on another cardinal iwiiiit which is always a matter I tor circumstantial evidence they could produce no evidence at all. The two Points to which we refer are the death ol the woman who was supposed to have been murdered and the motive of tin- man who was alleged to have murdered her. Mrs Mount was last seen alive by any person other than her husband on tlie 19th. February, when she returned from a neighbour's about 10 p.m. What hapened to her after that was known to Mount alone. Her dead body was never seen by the police or the- Coroner or anybody else, but the murderer. A few charred fragment.s ot bone which were found in | the garden and were probably those of a woman were the only evidence to which tlie Crown could point as presumably part of her remains.- In the I

absence of nnv j’ltoriiativo theory the presumption of identity was in itself fairly strong: ln.it there was. on the other hand, a contrary presumption of (onsideiahh. strength arising from the complete disappoaranee of every other trace of the body. and from the improhability that Mount con id have disposed of all the other parts without exciting the curiosity or the .suspicion of the neighbours hy a foul smell or hv prejia ra t ion - whi n must have heen fairly extensive. As so often happens

in these enc-. the prisoner's own words and actions presented the chief obstacles for his counsel to get over.

hut in view of the uncertainty arising from the (onllicting presumptions as to the fundamental fart, i: is not surprising that the itiry at the first trial refused to take the resnnsiliility of finding Mount guilty or not guilty. Though outside the Court it wa~ practically impossible to P.dicve him innocent the obligations of a juror demand something stronger than a fairly high probability, and it was not unreasonable to hold that the prosecution had not discharged its onus of proof. The possiblitv that the woman who had disappeared had really disappeared alive, and that she might, for instance, have been at sea without knowledge of the proceedings taken against her hit-band may have weighed with some of the jurors and helped them to give the prisoner the 1 enelit of the doubt. The three months that have elapsed .-ime the first trial have weakened to vanishing point such an assumption as ibis, and it may have done the same for other elements that contributed to the abortive result in May. Another point, that helped to ease the ia-k of the second jury was the -tress that counsel for the Crow,, wisely laid on the possibility that the jury might prefer a verdict of manslaughter to one of murder. This was something better than an illogical appeal for a compromise verdict, and brings us to what we have mentioned as the second of the tv.o striking paints in the ease. Though evidence of motive is not essential if usually play- an important part in these cases, hut here tilt l prosecution had none to oiler. Ihe nulv evident' on the subject showed that the prisoner and his wilt l had been on very good lerms. and there was no plausible suggestion of a motive which might have induced a deliberate desire to get rid <>l her. In those oirf a in- 1 , anres it was net merely easier and more merciful hut probably juster also for the jury to bring in the lighter verdict. Counsel for the deleave was -aid to lit' intending to attack the verdict on the ground that then 1 was no "vhleneo o| :t nji ns|a ugh i or. Hut there "as certainly no evidence <>! premcilit at ion and Ihe .1 ud"e in pa- sing referred to a lilt about money matters w hit'll the accused had mentioned to the police a- justifying tlte jury's interdict 1 that the crime had been committed in the heal of piis-ion. Ilotli the ittries seem to us to deserve the gratitude of the public for their treatment of a very diHe-uP