JUDGE SA YS HE WOULDN'T HANG A DOG ON KING'S EVIDENCE

NZ Truth, Issue 1148, 1 December 1927, Page 7

JUDGE SA YS HE WOULDN'T HANG A DOG ON KING'S EVIDENCE

Purely Friendly

?«iiritiitiiiiiiif JiiiiJrit 1 1 1 f tiiiiiit tiiiiiiit tit iiiiiiiiit f iiif ttiirtt ■■■■iMiiiiiitittiitttiiiiiiiiiiititt 1 1 iiiiiiiit liiitiiiiiitf iiiiiiiiiiiiitt liiiiiiiiintttiiiiiiiiiiif itiiiiiiiiii>tii((iitiiiinir*i I Boakes is not guilty. Never was a man more com- § } Jr pletely exonerated on the evidence tendered by j f £ the Crown. But — who is the murderer, where is he, 1 j and will he ever be apprehended? 1

ii>iii'iimmimmimimm(iimmiiii((Hiiiii([i(iiii(iiiii(i(iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilr-

peration the police arrested Boakes,

THE acquittal by a^ Christchurch 1 jury, after a retirement of forty -

five minutes, of Charles William Boakes, the taxi-driver, who faced a three days' trial on the capital charge last week, and the abandonment on Friday of the minor count that was to be preferred against him of having supplied the girl with a noxious thing for an unlawful purpose, proved one fact and one only.

That is, that Boakes was not the slayer of the girl and that he was m no way connected with the brutal tragedy. But that is all. The trial threw little if any light on the identity of the possible murderer, although the sinister wraith of an unknown mystery man has flitted across the stage of the legal drama.

Who killed Gwen Searff? Who was the man whom the boy Mugford swore Jie saw kneeling by the body at the fcnoment of the discovery of the crime? Once more the impenetrable fog of (baffling mystery shrouds the crime, and whether or not the ghastly secret of Burwood will ever be known time alone can tell.

It may be said at once that the tease built up by the Crown against ißoakes was one, of the weakest that fever .went before l a jury m the annals of murder m this country. '

It was freely and candidly admitted 'by the Crown Prosecutor at the very outset that there was no direct evidence whatever to associate Boakes with the murder. There was nothing to m any way implicate him but an amazing mesh of circumstantial evidence which, when boiled down, did no more than prove that Boakes and Gwen Scarff were friendly. But the Crown did not have to face the slightest opposition on this point, the defence frankly admitting that Boakes had been friendly with her for a considerable time. Boakes himself, m his statement to the police, made no attempt to conceal the fact. Fm-ther, the greatest weakness In the Crown case was the admitted fact that there was not a shred of evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that Boakes had even seen the girl after Saturday, June 11, five days prior to the murder. All of which prompts the question: Why, '-then, did the police with so little definite fact to work on, arrest Boakes? Leading counsel for the defence, Lawyer C. S. Thomas, made no secret of his views on the subject when de'Jivering his brilliant fighting address ,to the jury, "Why -was Boakea arrested?" counsel masked. "Remember this. A fearful (murder had been committed, there was la long delay, questions were asked m ,the House of Representatives about jthe case, and I put it to you, gentleixnen of the jury, that m sheer des-

."l put it to you" further. If the public had not been pressing for something to be done, do you think that this man would have been arrested? I say this, that on a murder charge, the penalty for which would be this man's life, never has such a case been brought into this court with more flimsy and unsatisfactory evidence as m this case.

"In this court the traditions of the police are high — deservedly high — and I bow to none m my respect for the police, but don't you think that m

this case their desires have over -run their discretion? Don't you think that that is the position?" Whether the jury took this aspect of the case into consideration m arriving at their verdict the twelve and true alone knew. But assuming that counsel's point was completely ignored, it is not an occasion for the slightest surprise that Boakes secured his acquittal. On the evidence presented, he was clearly entitled to it, for there was hardly one concrete point m the whole case against him. If he lied at all m his statements to the police, he erred, as Lawyer Thomas conceded, m denying that he had boarded the tram from Burwood at a spot near the scene of the crime at 10.31 one night a week before the murder. But, as counsel rightly pointed out, that was a very human lie m view of the circumstances that followed. "There is one point m Boakes' statement on which I think he lied. 1 want to be perfectly franK about it; that is when he said he had not been, to Burwood on the night of June the Bth. "But remember this fact," emphasized Lawyer Thomas; "at the time Boakes was making that statement he was being 'chivvied' and chased, and everybody was pointing the finger at him and saying he was the murderer. I suggest to you that, on the spur of the moment, he lied. "A frightful murder had been committed, and he realized that to admit that he had been anywhere near the scene, even a few days before, would be a damning admission indeed. Boakes, realized that such an admission would be getting him from ordinary friendship nearer to 'the murder itself. "The police checked up his statements from A to Z; he was under /examination by detectives for m all,