PICTON MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 24 November 1932, Page 5

PICTON MURDER

TARRANT’S TRIAL

SKULL OF VICTIM DISPLAYED.

(Per Press Association Copyriyht.)

BLENHEIM, November 23.

When the, Flood murder case was resinned this afternoon Dr Lynch continued his evidence, detailing the result.s of.his post mOrteni ' examination. A gasp, [ran round the Court- when the wiuiyss nonchalantly..producedh"a series .of line drawings showing the extent of the injuries in the soft parts and the seat of the skull fracture. Dr Lynch also brought forth, from a little trunk, the dead man’s skull, and taking it to the jury box he demonstrated the locality of the injuries, showing that the skull had been split in many directions, by a blow and also demonstrating the locality of the severance of the neck bones.

Tho grisly relic was neatly mounted on a stand, the cap of the skull having been sawn through, so that it could he removed, like the lid of some grotesque tobacco jar, and the interior thus inspected. The jaw bone with tho teeth complete, was held in position by a couple of small springs. Witness stilted that he believed that tho wounds Were eausedi by an axe, because they were short, dean cut and bit right through all of the structures. Tho weapon must have been both sharp and heavy. He could not think of any other weapon but an axe. The injuries to the head, in witness’ opinion, were struck with violence and with skill by a left-handed man.

Cross-examined by Mr Parry, the witness admitted that, if the deceased had turned his head suddenly, just as the hjow was struck, it was possible that the blow might have been a right-handed one Witness stated his theory was that the deceased was stuck on the head, and toppled into the fireplace into a crumpled condition. The murderer would then have to straighten him out for the purpose of robbing him, and witness believed that lie was pulled on to his back. Then he probably breathed strongly, and the murderer struck him in the throat with the axe. The bank teller at Picton, James Fuller, detailed the deceased’s accounts at the hank, showing the amounts of the interest payments and the denominations of the notes paid him. He also produced cheques drawn m favour of “E. Tarrant,” “C. Tarrant” and Tarrant, the accused’s son, who was also named E. Tarrant. Detective Sinclair’s , evidence , was (( mainly on the lines that was given in the Lower Court. He was present in the Courthouse when the accused reported to Constable Condon that lie had borrowed £3O from the deceased in six five pound notes.

Elspeth Pratt-, who resides next door to Tarrant’s, said that she was in bed ill ,on November 4. She saw through her bedroom window at a quarter past seven, dirty black smoko coming from the window of Tarrant’s washhouse. It was not their usual >vash day. Witness went,' to Wellington on November 7, and after her return she told the detectives of the smoke coining from Tarrant’s washhouse.

The Court adjourned at 5.10 p.m