SIDELIGHTS FROM BOAKES TRIAL

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

SIDELIGHTS FROM BOAKES TRIAL

Boy's $tory

Conflicting

Ghastly Burwood

Pages

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Representative.)

Murder Passes Into the Sombre of Unsolved Crime

AND so, out of the ashes of suspicion, — ill-founded suspicion as the acquittal of Boa\es, abundantly proved, — there rises before the public, the gigantic note of interrogation, who £///e</ Gwen Scarff, the 20-year old domestic, whose body was discovered, with head frightfully battered, m the dense scrub m a lonely section at Burwood on June 15 last ? Will the murderer ever come to Justice?

tiearly twenty-four hours and he only makes one wrong statement — one omission— and that, I suggest, was a very human one." It was points like these, emphasized by Lawyer Thomas, that pricked the bubble of circumstantial evidence and made Boakes,'' acquittal almost a foregone conclusion. And, after all, there was nothing actually against him. ' It is only when the main factors m the case are unearthed from the mass of evidence that the real weakness and hopelessness of the Crown case as presented can be appreciated at its bedrock value. The most striking point m Boakes' favor was the story told by Mugford concerning what he saw when he literally tumbled across the scene of the crime. Mugford said m the witness-box last week that when he first saw the body, a man was kneeling at the head with hia Dack turned towards him. Mugford, although he did not get a face view of the man, was sufficiently clear m his impression, fleeting though it was, to say definitely that the man was not like Boakes. The police more or less ridiculed this story, Detective Sergeant Young informing the jury that he could find no trace of anybody having bolted through the scrub as Mugford said he did. Young went further, and said that the scrub was so dense that it would be impossible for a man to have done what Mugford described him as having done.

A schoolboy, just fifteen years of age, Mugford may of course have gained a totally wrong impression, and the police m scouting the idea of the mystery man by the boy, may be right. <

But how does Mugford's story stand up to the acid test of consistency over a period of five months? It has to be remembered that the lad has never once wavered; not an inch hag he deflected from the story he told originally when interviewed at the scene of the crime soon after the discovery of the body.

What Mugford told to "N.Z. Truth" representatives, less than two hours after the removal of the body; what he says he told the police the same afternoon, is the same identical story lie told m the lower court at the end of August and the same one he told to the jury last week. If his story differs at all it is m hia description of the scene of the kneeling man, his statement to "Truth" being that when he first saw the body the mystery man was bursting his way to freedom through the bushes. Why should Mugford tell such a story, and stick to it practically without any variation as to detail over a period of five months if it were not true? It is, of course, quite possible that he imagined, he saw the mystery man m the initial shock of his ghastly discovery, and that such an impression, formed m suoh circumstances, has crystallized into

a definite and fixed belief.

Judging by tlie attitude taken up by the Crown with regard to Mugford's story, it would appear that the Crown held the view that, however Mugford believed what he said — and his honesty and veracity were never once m question — too much reliance was not to be placed on his story of the man kneeling by the body

At any rate, Detective Sergeant Young, while he did not belittle Mugford's story, made light of it and declared that from his inspection of the broom m the particular spot it would be impossible for a man to have escaped as Mugford described.

But the detective's evidence m no way eliminated the possibility of Mugford being right about the matter.

- Not one tittle of evidence either circumstantial or direct, was advanced to show that Boakes was anywhere near Burwood other than on the night he boarded the tram a week before the murder.

From the Saturday, June 11, until the following Wednesday afternoon, when Gwen Scarff's body was discovered, Boakes could not m any way be linked up. There was a complete blank m the Crown's case of four days during- which, for all the Crown could show to the contrary, Boakes and the girl had not so much as communicated with each other.

But although Boakes was not seen with her after the Saturday afternoon, June 11, there was direct evidence tendered at the trial to show that Gwen Scarff had been seen about the city, apart from her regular presence at the Federal Hotel.

On the Sunday she spent best part of the day with Mrs. Alice Parr, m Sydenham. On the Monday she kept to the hotel, but on the Tuesday, late In the morning, and the day 'on which she left the hotel, she was actually seem talking to a man m the street. Sidney Ernest Neate, a taxi-driver, admitted under cross-examination by Lawyer Thomas, that, on June 14, he had seen Gwen Scarff standing near the Federal Hotel talking to a man, but that man was not Boakes, he said, and when asked if he could describe him Neate said he was a man of about counsel's build (fairly tall and slim).

The same day Neate it was who called at the^Pederal m response to a telephone call and picked up a female fare and two suit-cases.

The lady he drove away was Miss Scarff and he deposited her and her

luggage at the tramway shelter wait-ing-room m the Square. Neate also yielded some further interesting information. He told Lawyer Thomas that on the afternoon of the murder, some two hours after its discovery, he was near the scene of the crinie, having been to the Bottle Lake Hospital. . Asked if he saw anything, Neate replied that when about 400 yards from the scene he saw a man cross the road m his shirt slee ves and walk into the broom on the opposite side of the road. The man he saw at BUrwood was a heavier build than the man he had seen Gwen Scarff talking to the previous day. In any event Neate was positive that the man was not Boakes. Neate's story m many respects substantially corroborates that of Mugford, and the more the subject of the mystery man was discussed and dissected at the trial, j the more color, m the opinion of "N.Z. Truth," was lent to the boy's story.

This was one of the most favorable

points m favor of Boakes, apart from every other consideration of the strength or weakness of the web of circumstantial evidence that was weaved about him. But there were many other points equally valuable.

In the first place, there was the question of motive, and no evidence whatever provided one so far, as Boakes was concerned.

Then, again, the military overcoat, bloodstained and the other one produced could not be traced to Shim. One of the coats found near the scene of the crime and which bore bloodstains, provided Lawyer Thomas with a wonderful talking point for the jury.

Counsel pointed out that the man who struck- some 18 heavy blows with a short spanner would have to be right next to the • victim, and that necessarily would mean that not only the coat the murderer was wearing would be blood-stained, but his other garments would be stained also. But the fact remained, unshakeable,- that no bloodstained shirt, no bloodbespattered leggings, or anything whatever, m any way stained with blood, had been traced to Boakes.

Further than that, there was no evidence of any clothing of his having been destroyed.

The spanner with which the murder was committed was never traced into Boakes 1 possession; the Crown admitted this, as it also admitted that it

had failed to link him up with the military overcoats. . * Then, as to the taxi-cab No. 22, one witness admitted that he had driven that cab some time before the murder, although it was put forward that Boakes was the only man who drove It. ■ . Another taxi-driver admitted that he had made a trip to Cashmere to pick up a fare early one morning about a week before the murder from near the ftouse where Gwen Scarff workedThis evidence was brought out m connection with that given as to Boakes allegedly having been hear the same house and talking to Scarff early on the morning of June 8, the day she left the service of her employer, Mrs. Derisely Wood. Another great weakness m the Crown case was the allegation of intimacy between Boakes and the girl, the prosecution going so far as to say that Boakes was responsible for the girl's condition. This allegation -vraa absolutely negatived toy the complete absence ot any evidence m support. The only evidence that could possibly have had any bearing on this aspect of the case was that whicti was given by the chemist's assistant, Sidney Charles King, m the tower court, when he declared on oath that he had supplied pills and a drug to Boakes for a; certain purpose. The value of this evidence was manifest m the jury 'trial when King went completely back on his former evidence and branded himself as a perjurer and ». liar, his excuse being that he hadTseen bul-

lied into the admissions by Detec-. tive-Sergeant Bickerdike, an. alle? gation which was emphatically denied by the detective m question.

But dismissing King altogether, another point which told m favor .of Boakes, and one which Lawyer Thomas did not fail to stress m his address to the jury, was the improbability of irregular relations between Boakes, and the girl Scarff. The trip to Dallingtpn— -that little foursome comprising Boakes, another