THE BURWOOD MURDER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3720, 22 November 1927, Page 3

THE BURWOOD MURDER.

TRIAL OF BOAKES. Christchurch, Last Night. The Supremo Court was crowded to-day when the trial began ot‘ ■Charles William Boakes, taxi driver, before Mr. Justice Adams, on the charge of the murder of Ellen Scartf, on June 15, at Burwood. Mr. Donnelly represented the Crown. Mr. Thomas, with him Mr. Burns, represented the prisoner who pleaded not guilty in a firm voice. Mr; Donnelly said that the girl had been battered to death with a heavy motor spanner and the injuries to her head and face were of an exceedingly brutal character. From the time that her watch had stopped it would appear that the murder took place at 12.27 o’clock on the morning of June 15. The doctors considered that the girl lingered from eight to twelve hours after she was struck. Mr. Donnelly submitted that the relationship between Boakes and the girl Scarff reasonably excluded the possibility of her murderer being any other person than the accused. Accused' was, on thef acts that would be placed before the jury, the .only person who had motive, interest or opportunity for doing away with the girl. NETWORK OF FACTS. He added that the case for the Crown depended on circumstantial evidence; there was no direct evidence; there was nothing mysterious in the circumstantial evidence; it was a network of facts round an accused, the person. ■He wished to present the case to the jury under three heads. The first was the relationship of the girl with the accused over a number of years up to the- end of last year and from the end of last year till June Bth of this year. Under the second head he would ask the jury to' consider the movements of the girl between June 8 and June 15 and her relationship with the accused during that period. Under the third head was the : conduct of the accused and his movements and statements after the murder was committed and up to the time of his arrest. ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. Mr. Donnelly, continuing his address, said that accused had made three statements. His first, in, which he stated he had not been out with the girl Scarff, had been proved untrue. In the second statement he said he met the girl in Oxford Terrace. But he had been seen to pick her up in his taxi obviously by appointment. In the third statement he had stated he had not gone out the evening of 1 Monday, June 15th or Tuesday, June 16th. He had later amended the statement by stating that he' went out to buy tobacco on Monday. The Crown submitted he was; out Tuesday also.

Accused could not be connected with the spanner nor with the overcoat found near the scene of the crime, both of which were stained with human blood. However with regard to the coat there was a suggestion accused must have had two similar coats.

Immediately the coat was found in the scrub Boakes appeared in a khaki coat which it was suggested was different from the one he had previously worn. “The ease for accused,” said Mr. Donnelly, “is that you can’t identify the spanner, you can’t connect him with it, you can’t connect him with the overciat except as I have said, and from June 14th you can’t connect him with the girl at all. He can’t be traced to Burwood neighbourhood except on June Bth when he was seen on a tram and about which he lied.” UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT. The evidence was the same as that tendered in the Lower {Court except that of Sidney Charles Bang, a chemist’s assistant. He said he remembered an occasion when (Brown, a taxi driver, introduced him to Boakes about a year ago. He met Boakes again two or three times, but just passed him. Mr. Donnelly: “Did you make a statement to Mr. Gresson in his office on November 4th?” Witness: “Yes.” “Which is true —that made to Mr. Gresson or that made in the Lower Court?” Witness: “That made to Mr. Gresson in his office.” Mr. Donnelly then asked for and was granted permission to treat the witness as hostile, and he proceeded to cross-examine him. Mr. Donnelly: “Do you remember your Lower Court evidence?” “Yes.” Donnelly: “The statement was altogether untrue?” “Yes.” ‘Why did you give evidence before the Magistrate which you now say is untrue.” “I was bullied into it by Detec-tive-Sergeant Bickerdike.” Witness continued that he had written out his statement at the police station on July 18 under pressure of a threat from Detective Bickerdike that he would lay a charge against witness. He had brought drugs to the police station, samples of the stuff he had alleged he had supplied to Boakes also', because he was practically ordered by Bickerdike to bring them. Mi-. Donnelly: “You came back to the station and said ‘here’s the pills and ergot I sold Boakes?’ ” “Yes.” ' When you went to Mr. Gresson you knew you position was difficult?” “Yes.”

“Why did you not tell him that

you had been to the police station twice?” “I did.” * “It is not in your statement, Mr. King.” “I told him, but he left it out.” Mr. Donnelly: “I’m bound to put it to you that that is unlikely?” “Yes, but I told him to put it in.” “You stick to it that you said that to Mr. Greesson?” “Yes.” Witness’ statement to Gresson was read to Mr. Thomas. The effect of it was that Biekerdike had “kept at him” and he was frightened and his nerve was all gone. Twenty-two witnesses were heard during the day. Evidence should be completed to-morrow.