BURWOOD MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 23 November 1927, Page 3

BURWOOD MURDER

BOAKES ON TRIAL. EVI DUNCE CONCLUDED. By Telegraph—Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 22. Sergeant Biekerdike gave evidence of his interview with King, the chemist’s assistant. Witness had said to King, ‘‘l am informed you sold lioakes some drugs for abortion purposes.” King had said, “Mho told you? Witness had replied, “ I’m sorry, I can’t tell you.” King had said, “If I tell you the truth, what is going to happen to me? ” Witness had said. “I’m not the boss, and can’t tell you.” King then said, “ I’d better tell you the truth. 1 did sell some ergot to Boakes for a girl whom lie had got into trouble.” King had subsequently made a statement, writing it out himself in the detective office. King was at the office about two hours, left about five o’clock, and returned about six o’clock with samples of pills and ergot. Two days after (July 20th) King came to the detective office and said lie bad omitted to mention in bis previous statement that be bad sold two boxes of pills, and not one. and be wished to re-write bis statement. King brought a sample of other pills, and sat down and re-wrote the statement, occupying about an hour.

Ml- Thomas: You have hoard tbe statement given by King to Mr Gresson. Did you bully him into making this statement to you? Witness : No, I have never seen the man one coidd bully into making a false statement. .Mr Thomas: Did you threaten to charge King with an offence? Witness: No. In answer to further questions. Detective Biekerdike said it was clear that King was a liar. Detective Walsh said he was present when King was making his statement to Detective Biekerdike. There was a good deal of conversation, but no bullying. This concluded the Crown case. Mr Thomas informed tbe Court that he would not call evidence, and the Judge adjourned the Court until to-morrow, when counsel will address the jury.

COUNSEL ADDRESSES JURY CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 23

The trial of Boakes was not resumed till 11.30 a.m. owing to Judge Alpers’ funeral. Counsel then addressed tlio jury. Mr Donnelly, for the Crown, said he could not ask the jury to take any notico of the statement made hv the witness, King, in the lower Court. Ho, however, repudiated the story that King had been bullied by detectives, who had merely done their duty.

Mr Donnelly said that as far as the witness, King, was -concerned, the fact that he had gone hack on his evidence given in the lower Court completely cancelled that evidence. It would not be proper to tell the jury that They should disbelieve the evidence given by King in the Supreme 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 in the Supreme Court, because ho had made a charge against Detective Bickordike, which in a way was as serious as the one with which the accused stood charged. King’s latest evidence was unbelievable, because King’s conduit from the time he was first interviewed by tbe police, until the Supreme Court trial, was not consistent with the conduct of a man who had boon treated by the police in the way that King said he had been treated. Ti was tbe duty of the police, in eases of this kind, to make enquiries and interview , witnessess beforehand. If King’s story was believed, then it would be impossible for tlie police t<> do their duty in tlie way of collecting evidence. If tbe story was believed the police might ns well go out of business, for if King could go back on bis story and say ho had been bullied by the police, then any witness could do likewise. If Biekerdike had forced the statement from King, lie would not have left him alone for five or six weeks, even after lie had given evidence in the lower Court. King took no action and he did nothing till he was seen by Mr Thomas in Timaru. But for that it was hard to say what- would have happened. Mr Donnelly said he did not want anv misunderstanding about Mr Thomas seeing King in Timaru. Boakes was charged with the most serious charge known t-o the law. I lie Crown was not concerned with getting the accused convicted at any price. AVitncssess who had given evidence for the Crown might he soon by Counsel for tbe defence and asked to explain their statements. Mr Thomas’ action in asking King it his evidence was true, was quite proper. "With regard to Mugfortl’s evidence as to seeing a man run from the body. Mr Donnelly said that he had called Mugford. not because his evidence helped the Crown case, hut because ft 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 no trace of a man having gone that way. MR THOMAS’ ADDRESS.

Mr Thomas, for the defence, said ] that it would be foolish of him to blind himself to the fact that the ease . had created the greatest interest in the city. It would be foolish of him to blind himself to the fact that the ease had been discussed from one end of the Dominion to the other, and that tiieie 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 sure that never, in the experience of bis learned friend, had those whose duty it- was to see that the streams of justice ran clearly failed so in their duty. Never had they, for the sake of creating a sensation and getting praise from tlie public, prejudiced a man to such an extent. Rumour bad been piled upon rumour, until a campaign of slander bad been started that bad 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 the jury must convict or acquit on evidence placed before them. “Unless YOU do listen to rumour, unless you do take notice of what you have heard outside, unless in other words you fail in tho oath you have taken. I say you have got to bring back a verdict of not guilty.” said Mr Thomas Continuing. Counsel said that the evidence in the ease was purely circumstantial. He said the whole of the Crown ease rested on the relationship „f tho parties. Counsel admitted that Boakes was a friend, a close friend of the girl since child-hood, but where did that get them ? It got them nowhere. Was Boakes to he regarded as a murderer because he was a friend of the girl ? That was no argument. For five months the Crown had been searching the town with a small comb 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 i the overcoat. So far as Miss Usher’s evidence was concerned he did npt sug-

gest that she lied about the coat, but some witnesses, and especially women witnesses were liable to take the centre of the stage.