BURWOOD MURDER TRIAL

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3721, 24 November 1927, Page 3

BURWOOD MURDER TRIAL

BOAKES NOT GUILTY, Christchurch, Novemiber 22. The trial of Charles William Boakes, who is charged with having murdered Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Searif at IBurwood, was continued in the Supreme Court this morning. The public galleries were again crowded.] Mr. Justice Adams was on the bench. Mr. A. T. Donnelly prosecuted, and Mr. IC. S. Thomas and Mr. M. J. Burns appeared for Boakes.

Frederick James Arps, a taxidriver, said he knew Miss Scarff, who was introduced to him by accused. He gave evidence regarding a visit to Dallington in company with accused, Miss 'Scarff, and another girl. Eric Horace Mugford gave evidence as to the finding of the body. Mr. Thomas: Did you find someone else at the body?—“Yes, at the head.”

What was the man doing? —“He was kneeling at her head.” At no time did that man turn round and face you? —“No.” As you came in and made a noise this man jumped to his feet and rushed off into the broom? ‘ Yes. You .did not see his face? —“No.” He was a smaller man than Boakes?—“Yes.” You never, saw him again?— “No.” 1

Would this man 'be about my build, but shorter?—“Yes.” And you told the police about this man?i —“Yes.” _ .

The Rev., Cecil A. Tobin gave evidence of Mugford going to him and of his returning with Mueford to where the body was. The body looked as if it had been moved. Detective Laugeson said that he had made inquiries about the spanner which had been found near the scene of the murder. Witness showed the spanner to 1510 persons, but no one was able to identify it. George Hunter McCann, a staff-sergeant-major in the Defence Department, said that the impprtant difference between the two military overcoats produced was that one was about four inches longer than the other.

Leslie George Mcßetli, a taxi-dri-ver, said that he had seen Miss Scarff on the Grand taxi-stand on one occasion, when she was looking for Boakes. He had on several occasions taken telephone messages for Boakes on the stand to ring up the house where Miss Scarff was employed. /

Mr. Thomas: Why in the Lower Court did you say you took the telephone! messages twice or three times? —“It was more than that.” You j-ealise that this man is on trial for his life? —“Yes.” Thenjvffiy do yor do this? Have you any explanation? —“No, I have not.”

George Lewis, formerly a bus proprietor and at one time an employer of Boakes, related a conversation he had with the accused on June 17. Boakes said that he had not seen the girl since the previous Saturday. It had been said that he had been to get some “dope”.for her, but he said that he did not know any chemist well enough to do that. Boakes said that the girl had never been in his taxi. Answering Mr. Thomas witness said that he had never seen Boakes lose his temper. He seemed to be a kindly man. Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young described the scene of the tragedy. Mr. Donnelly: You have not been able to trace the girl since she saw Arps on the night of the 14th? “No.” ' ' Witness said he interviewed Boakes on June 16, and Boakes made his first statement. After Mrs. Boakes had been seen Boakes corrected his statement. On June 25 witness obtained the military overcoat from Leversedge. There were several bloodstains on the coat, which had been shortened considerably. It was found approximately a mile from the scene of the murder.

Mr. Donnelly: On the day the overcoat was found that fact was published in the newspaper?—“lt was.”

You saw accused between June 16 and'27?—“l made it my business to see him each day.” What about it?—“From June 16 till June 27 he did not wear a military overcoat. On the morning of June 27 he wore a military overcoat.”

Between June 16 and 27 he wore a gaberdine coat? —“Yes.” Mr. Thomas: When the first statement was made how long was Boakes at the police station? “From 2.30 p.m. until 9.10 or 9.15.”

Where did he have his meals? — “In the police mess.” I wish to be quite fair to you. Some of that time was taken up with going to see Mrs. Boakes, wasn’t it?—“A great deal of it.” Detective Sergeant J. Bickerdike, now of Auckland, said the accused made! a statement to him in July in his own handwriting. Half-way through the making of the statement Boakes said that there had been a lot of talk about him and the girl, and that a man might have had certain relations with the girl, but that was not to say he had murderer her. Boakes said a man named Charles Keyes knew Gwen Scarff well. Boakes said his only military overcoat was the one he was wearing. Boakes said to witness that the statement of King was true except that he did not buy pills or ergot from King. Boakes asked for King to be brought to the police station. , Witness said to King, “Do you know •this man?” King said, “Yes; that is Mr. Boakes.” Witness said: “Is

this the man you sold pills and ergot to?” King said, “Yes.” Boakes then sprang from his chair and said, “You are a liar.” Witness, afraid that Boakes would strike King, stepped between them. He told King to repeat to Boakes what he had said about the pills and ergot. King did so, and Boakes said again, “You are a liar.” King then left the office.

“On July 18 in the afternoon I called at Mr. Coltart’s shop,” continued witness, “about King’s statement. I told him who I was, and asked for a private interview. He said ‘No.’ I asked him if he would come along to the police station, and he said he would. On the way to the station he told me he was a native of Timaru. At the’detective office I told him I was making inquiries about the Burwood lpurder. I asked him if he knew the taxi driver Brown; he said 'Yes.’ I asked him if he knew a taxi driver named Charlie Boakes, and he said ‘Yes; he was introduced to me by Brown.’ I said ‘I am informed that you sold him some drugs.’ He said, ‘lf I tell you the truth what is going to happen to me?’ ‘I am not the boss, and cannot tell you,’ he said. ‘I had better tell you I did sell pills to Boakes about three months ago for a girl he said he had got into trouble.” I asked him to make a statement, and he said, ‘My hands are cold; can I warm them?’ I asked him to come down to the chief detective’s office, where there was a fire. We stayed there about five to ten minutes; he warmed his hands and then went back upstairs. Detective Walsh was there then. King then wrote out a statement which I produce.” Mr. Donnelly: How long was he at the station? —“About a couple,.of hours. At 5 o’clock he said he wanted to get away before Mr. Coltart left the shop, as he wanted to get a s'ample of the pills and ergot that he sold to Boakes. He came back with them on July 20. About 7 p.m. King came along to the detective office. Detective Walsh was with me. King said he had omitted to mention in his previous statement that he had sold another box of pills to Boakes, and asked to rewrite his statement. To Mr. Thomas: You have heard the statement made by King? Did you bully him into making his statement? —“No, I have never seen the man one could bully into making a false statement.” Did you threaten to charge King with an offence?—“No.” John Walsh, detective, of Wanganui, said that when King was making his statement to Bickerdike witness arrived ( before King had commenced to write. The writing of the statement took King about an hour. There was a good deal of conversation, but there was no bullying. The statement was made deliberately and voluntarily. King left the station, and later returned with the pills and ergot, , stating they were samples of the drugs he had sold to Boakes. This closed the case for the Crown. “Are you calling evidence. Mr. Thomas?” asked His Honour. “No, sir,” replied counsel. • The Judge said he proposed to allow the jury an opportunity to escape from the poisonous atmosphere of the Court. He therefore would adjourn the Court until tomorrow. LATER. Counsel for the Crown and accused addressed the jury at some length. JUDGE SUMS UP. His Honour, summing up, referred to the danger of bias in the minds of jurymen from the unhealthy and mischievous publication of rumour and conjecture concerning the case. The evidence, he said, was all circumstantial, and the jury must be satisfied that the facts were inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the person charged was the guilty person before they could bring in a verdict of guilty. There was no evidence before the Court, he went on, of intimacy between prisoner and the woman Scarff although counsel for defence had conceded there might have been intimacy, j His Honour reviewed at length the events between June 8 and 15. “You saw King and heard his evidence,” said His Honour, “and you might conclude that you would not hang a cat on any evidence he might give.” He warned the jury that if they believed he had lied in Court, they must not assume therefore he spoke the truth on the former occasion. The jury must close their eyes and minds to any statements made by King outside of the witness box. They must make their minds a blank to what he said in the Magistrate’s Court. NO DIRECT CONNECTION. The Judge, referring to the main proved facts of the case, said the jury would find it impossible to show that Boakes had a direct connection with these facts. There was nothing to justify the attaching of a sinister meaning to interviews between Boakes and the girl between June 8 and June 15. He referred also to the evidence of the boy Mugford, that the man he saw at the scene of the murdei was a smaller man than Boakes. There is no fact in connection with the spanner which identifies it as having been in the possession of accused. You must fill up some gaps in the evidence by reasonable inferences or guesswork before you are able to say there is any proved connection between accused and the military overcoat.

NOT GUILTY. “I have been asked to rule that there is no evidence to go before you at, all and to make a direction to you to that effect. I confess I have had some hesitation in the matter, but I have decided to leave it to you.” The jury, after a retirement of less than an hour, returned a verdict of not guilty. The Judge said he entirely approved the jury’s verdict. On the minor charge of having supplied a noxious drug, Boakes was remanded till November 30. Bail of £IOO in his own recognisance was allowed.