Whispering Eehoes of Nelhe Mouat's Mysterious Fate

NZ Truth, Issue 1177, 21 June 1928, Page 7

Whispering Echoes of Nelhe Mouat's Mysterious Fate

FRIENDS BELIEVE SHE IS STILL ALIVE — : * — - ; "Truth " Insists That She Was Slain, But Discredits Crown Theory That Body Was Dismembered FREDERICK MOUAT'S JOCULaFIETTERS FROM PRISON CELL .iniiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiimiiiiiiiMiiiimiiiiiiiiim imniiiniiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiuiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniinimiuiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiuHiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuiiiiMiiHiHuiH a n n v v itttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiMiiiiiiiiriiitiMiiiiiiirintiiitiiii.iiit iiiniliiitiitiiiiini'-E-uiitiiimHHHifllniliiiiiiiiiHinmHunMiinHiinHmimnMiiiimHiinmHmiumttiimMHituniiminiiiiiiMUHimimiiHH^ n n n nm n tiiliitiiHiiiitiiiiiitiiliintnitituiiuuutiiiiiiHiiiiiintiiHliniititiiHiiuii!; = \\ (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Commissisoner.) - II II BEHIND THL GRIM WALLS of Mt. Eden prison, Auckland, there lives a man whom the law has branded as H II the slayer of his wife, and, incidentally, has conferred on him the title of the cleverest man m New Zealand, if (j II not m the British Empire. His name is Frederick Peter Mouat, who, at his second trial m Christchurch m 1925, II II was found guilty of the manslaughter of his'wife, Ellen ("Nellie") MoUat, at their home m Beckford Road, St. Martins. II !I The criminal law of this country has satisfied itself that Mouat was so amazingly clever, after killing his wife, I| l! . presumably by strangulation, that he was able to dismember the body and dispose of it by burning m such a way 1| 11. as to leave practically no trace of his crime, save a few fragments of charred bone found m his back garden. j(

IN crediting this amazing and almost unbelievable criminal feat to Mouat, the law sentenced him to 17 years' hard labor and exalted him to the level of a super-pathologist,, capable Of working wonders under the most primitive and disadvantageous conditions. ■■'•■■" It is three years since this astounding human drama staggered the public mind, but. the passing of time sees no abatement m the interest that is being displayed m the real fate" of Nellie Mouat. < Barely a week goes by without some fresh crop of rumors springing up to the effect that she has been seen and is still . alive. Christchurch yields the greatest crop,, but m Auckland, Wellington and elsewhere may' be heard the same old story that she has been seen. "N.Z. Truth's" only reason for reviving a crime three years old is to explode once and for all the rumors that will persist. If Mrs. Mouat is still alive, where is she and why do those who have "seen" her not produce her? Mrs. Lucy Prosser, a neighbor of the Mouats when they lived m Beckford Road, and who knew them intimately, firmly ' believes m Mouat's . innocence. He writes regularly to her husband and is happy— even jocular — m his correspondence. ■' But m settling the rumors that abound, "Truth" disagrees entirely with the theory of the Crown that Mrs. Mouat -was dismembered and burned — and gives its reasons. In the opinion of . this paper, Mrs. Mouat's body was consigned to the Heathcote river, being carried out to sea. That any man- outside the ranks of the medical profession could do what the Crown convinced a jury Mouat did m his little bungalow home three years ago, is as amazing as it is mysterious— that is, if Mouat did it.

Bungalow Horror

| "N<Z. Truth" wishes, it clearly .to be understood that it does not take up the stand that Mouat is an : innocent man who has been the victim of a glaring miscarriage of justice. He was accorded a fair trial — two m fact, the jury disagreeing at the first one — and he was convicted on the strongest of evidence, although the bulk of it was purely circumstantial. Then the whole of Mouat's actions after the disappearance of his wife were highly suspicious. His flight to the Cashmere hills, fol- , lowing his first interview -with the Christchurch police, was the most telling thing against him, although Mouat had an explanation for his suspicious behavior. His whole course of conduct, circumstantially, was presumptive of guilt, but at the same time his actions were capable of supporting a wholly feasible explanation. Be that as it may, Mouat was found guilty of manslaughter after standing his trial on a murder charge — and on the evidence tendered no other verdict could have beem reached. On the evidence tendered. That is a point well worth bearing m mind. The police theory was that he killed his wife, then dismembered her body and burned the remains.' The jury, m finding its verdict on the manslaughter issue instead of the murder indictment, must have inferred that the slaying occurred during a fit of anger following the altercation Mouat admitted he had with his wife m bed over money matters. The verdict ruled out premeditation, but the fact remained that m the jury's view Mouat killed his wife. Three years have elapsed since the case thrilled the country, but the rumor that Mrs. Mouat was not killed, but is still alive, persists, not only m Christchurch, but m other parts of New Zealand. Quite a number pf people who knew the Mouats intimately hold this view and nothing can shake them from it. In' the opinion of "Truth" this sublime faith m Mouat's innocence is certainly not based on anything more

As You Were

"I SHOJJLD not have been destitute when my husband has a good home and servants," said Annie Kelly, an elderly married woman separated from her husband, m the Wellington Maintenance Court before Magistrate Page ' last week. "I had to pawn my weddingring to buy food," she told her counsel, Lawyer Percy Jackson. Annie, who has been separated for some years, asked to have the existing maintenance order of _61 increased, as the amount was insufficient. She had been living m a room, she said, but was unable to pay ' the rent and had to leave, Annie and her rich Irish brogue took refuge m the Ohiro Home, afterwards moving to the Home of Compassion at Island Bay. Lawyer Jackson, m pleading the woman's cause, said her husband owned a farm m the north, approximately 259 acres. On this he had cows, sheep and horses. He was also drawing a pension of £7 Bs. 4d. a month. William Henry Kelly, whose evidence was taken on commission, set out m detail the mortgages which encumbered the farm and under which he was laboring. He counter-petitioned for a reduction of the existing order. The S.M. declined to make any alteration.

tangible than Sentiment and the incoherent accounts that have been given from time to time by people who have declared they have seen Mrs. Mouat since her disappearance. Many people claim to have seen her, • but not • once ' have these people, knowing the vital issues at stake, ever spoken to her or taken steps to detain, her for inquiry. Dozens of people claimed to have seen the • ill-fated- Tasman flyers m various parts ..of -the-' Dominion arid time has shown how ill-founded -were those claims. ' , So it may well be m the case of Mrs. Mouat. There is not' a tittle •of real evidence' available that. in a.ny way supports the theory that she is alive. All the evidence is' dead against , any I such supposition, but, while the trial revealed . very plainly that m some way arid by sOriie riieans Mouat killed his wife, "Truth" is definitely., of I opinion, that {he Crown established 'its case on an entirely wrong . hypothesis. There /was nothing m any way: substantial produced by way of evidence that could support for a' moment the theory.' that Mouat dismembered and]

What a remarkable man -was Mouat to be able so successfully to dispose of the remains of a full-grown woman so that the. Crown could only produce as definite and conclusive proof of her death ten specimens of bone fragments. What facilities did he have to carry out such a clean job, so effective an eradication of his crime? To begin with, the rubbish fires m the garden. At best, a rubbish, fire smoulders and would certainly never develop a heat sufficient to reduce human flesh and bones to fragments. The same would apply to the fire m the sitting-room. As for the fire under the copper — a fire-box which would hold at the most a shovelful of fuel — this can be ruled out almost entirely as an eliminating agency m the grim disposal of human remains. But the Crown offered no other theory for the jury's consideration. And assuming that Mouat, after killing his wife, removed the body to the garden and there, m the dark of, night, set about his grim task, where was the evidence of blood-soak _d soil ? Had he done his fiendish work m the I

IN HAPPIER DAYS.— Mouat and his wife m affectionate mood. A photograph taken some months before the tragedy m 1925.

burned the remains of his wife m the] bung-alow. . • J Mouat admitted m one of his statements that when he and his wife returned home after visiting Mr. and Mrs. D. G. Prosser, neighbors, on the evening of February 19, 1925, the same night on which the Crown held the crime had been committed, they had a quarrel m bed over money matters. Mouat said they quarrelled for a while and then went to sleep. The Crown said — and Judge Reed stressed the point .when passing sentence — that Mouat did. not complete the story. The case put before the jury was that the quarrel m, bed was the prelude to the tragedy and that Mouat ended it by killing his wife, afterwards dismembering, and burning her body over a period of several days. But where was the evidence of any such thing having occurred i when the police began their m- ! vestigations? Any butcher knows that the • dismembering and cutting up of a carcase is a messy performance, yet nothing about the house, on the floors or m the joints of the floor-boards, indicated the. presence of blood. '-•! All the police could, find in -the house was a sheet and a blanket showing signs of bloodstains — the amount of blood that must have caused them being computed at something like a teaspoonful. Some bone fragments, . identified later as undoubtedly human, \vere found m burnt rubbish heaps m the garden, while from the back . of the sitting-room grate was taken a quantity of soot, analysed as containing a fairly high percentage of animal fat. From under the copper fire m the wash-house was taken fhe remains of a woman's hat — a small toque. .Although the case rested on the evidence of the bones, the experts could only swear to ten specimens out of over two hundred as^ being definitely human. " " : Qf the rest, some were held to be human bone from a scientific point of [view, but with an- element of doubt, while the rest were classed as doubtful, but probably human.

garden, there would surely have been some evidence. • And it must not be overlooked that the whole surface — for a foot or more beneath it — was strained through a, sieve by the police. Another point: It is impossible to dismember a • body without a certain amount of. noise. Bones must be sawed; even, a chisel and mallet would have to be called into, play, - but where was the evidence of any neighbor being awakened at night by the sounds of sawing and chiselling? There simply was no such evidenc^ but the law said that Mouat did all these things. Certainly, the Crown produced a saw, chisel and other implements that would be used m such a ghastly undertaking, but if Mouat had used them he had managed to spare the time to polish- them, -for they were all bright and shiny,, ' • Of Mouat's. mysterious actions after his : wife's 'disappearance, they were all highly suspicious — on the surface. - The Crown, theorized that he was about the house, several days after his wife's disappearance — the Crown said her death— for the purpose of disposing of the remains. ' ' But Mouat's actions were also capable of a perfectly innocentexplanation, considered solely from the point of plausibility. There is npthing suspicious m, a man burning rubbish m his garden, hanging out a sheet which he said his wife had washed and left to soak the previous day; nothing suspicious about a man heating hot water for a bath' from a fire m his house. / Nor is there anything suspicious m itself m a man being seen, when somebody calls at the house to inquire for his wife, spraying the fireplace with disinfectant because "he had lit the fire with garden- r.ubbish which caused a stench about the place." All very feasible actions on the part of a man who is at home, waiting and wondering when his wife is coming, back, but the 'Crown put the most damning, complexion on them all. What Mouat failed to explain was the fact that his wife must have left

home with comparatively no clothing on; nor could he explain why, living about the house during the day-time, he yet chose the expense of an hotel for sleeping purposes. He said it was to be near his barman friend, Tom Heaney, ' who knew his wife and who might receive a 'phone message from her as to when she was coming home. Then why should he prefer to sleep on the verandah of his house for two nights, after he found the place locked up, instead of going to an hotel? His flight, after his first interview with the Christchurch police, and his wanderings m the hills, "were fatal moves. His excuse that he was searching for his wife, who "had threatened to take her life," did riot ring- convincingly. "N.Z. Truth" believes that Mrs. Mouat is dead and that Mouat killed her, but does not believe for a moment that the body was cut up and disposed of m the manner established by the Crown. It is more likely that, under cover of night, Mouat carried the body to the Heathcote river, weighted it and threw it m. It is a possibility that cannot be ruled out altogether m view of the paucity of any real evidence supporting the butchery theory m the bungalow. But still those ten bone fragments remain, sinister arid accusing, but not conclusive of the case that convicted Mouat. Mrs. Lucy Prosser, who was intimately acquainted with- both Mrs. Mouat and her husband, firmly believes to 'this ' day that Mouat is an innocent man. In view of the persistent rumors that are circulating round the country, ' "Truth's" representative interviewed her last week and asked for her views.. "He writes to my husband at every Her Fake Teeth opportunity," she said, "and we write back to him. "He is very happy m prison ahd writes .not only cheerful letters, but even jocular ones. "His answer to the charge on which he was convicted was never varied. It is always the same; 'I never touched her." • ' . '■■' '■• '- Mrs. Prosser .said that' the very day after Mouat was supposed 'to have killed his wife, he came over and had a meal with them. He never looked a guilty man and certainly did not behave like one. Mrs. Prosser laid great stress on the false teeth that were produced m court 'at the trial, remarking that although they .were Mrs. Mouat's teeth, they were not the only set she possessed. Where is the set she often wore with the three greenstone teeth?" ' Mrs. Prosser demanded. ' "They were; never found, were they?" She believed that Mrs. Mouat was alive and had disappeared because' she was "fed-up." - "She had lived m Africa with her husband and also m London and on the Continent. She loved the gay life, the lights and the bustle of big places, and from what I knew of Nellie Mouat she would be likely to go away if she made up her mind to do so." But all this gets nowhere. To suggest that she is alive is to brand her as a fiend out of the depths, who is so heartless as .to allow her husband to suffer the pangs of durance vile for a. crime he never committed. For if she is alive, she must have read of the case — aftd for three years she has remained silent. Why? Because Nellie Mouat is dead, slain by her husband's hand, and her body put out of reach. Where and 'how? By consigning it to the river . a.nd the passage to the open sea — or else m the manner by the Crown. But if the latter, then Mouat is not only an arch-fiend lucky to escape the rope, but he is m all truth a superpathologist and the cleverest criminal the annals of violent crime can show.

Homeward Bound

WHEN Arthur Cecil Dalley, a young man serving a term of twelve months' reformative detention at Wi Tako prison camp, recently decided that it would be nice to take a run home and see his wife and child, he very considerately left a note behind him notifying the authorities of his intention. Not every chap m gaol would do that. As his wife is living m Wellington and the prison camp is only a comparatively short distance away ■" the-Hutt Valley, Dalley thought the task of visiting his wife little more than a home-to-lunch proposition. _ > Not being subject to the more rigid discipline of an ordinary prison, Dalley wrote a note intimating his intention to call on the wife, gave the address and quietly slipped away. ' Of course, soon after he put m an appearance he was arrested. Somehow the news had spread. The following morning he fac«d the Wellington magistrate and a charge of being an incorrigible rogue m that he had escaped from Wi Tako. Chief- Detective Ward stated the facts of Dal ley's "absence without leave" move very, fairly, . and Magistrate Salmon, taking into consideration Dalley's thoughtfulness, only handed him out an extra month, to.be served at. the expiration of his present sentence. ,