WHAT LAY BEHIND ATTEMPTED FRAME-UP?

NZ Truth, Issue 1178, 28 June 1928, Page 3

WHAT LAY BEHIND ATTEMPTED FRAME-UP?

Judge Blair Warns Jury That Girl's Allegations Are Clearly "A Figment of Imagination" ELDERLY FARMER'S ACQUITTAL ON SERIOUS CHARGE (From "N.Z. Truth's" Te Kultl Representative.) Who "framed" the diabolical story that might have sent Jeremiah O'Connell to gaol for ten years ? That the whole affair was a ft frame-up" appeared evident to Mr. Justice Blair, and, judging from the brief period devoted to their deliberations, the jury shared this viero. O'Connell Was acquitted.

AT Kopaki, near Te Kulti, there lives a family by the name of O'Keefe, consisting of Francis O'Keefe, the- father, two little boys and a girl of eight. , The mother died some years ago, when the children were infants. Before they were born, a middle - aged man, an old friend of the family, Jeremiah O'Connell, took up 'his residence at the house. He subsequently entered into partnership with O'Keefe to run a dairy farm. O'Connell was described as a second father to the children. He Joined In their childish games, bought them clothes and gratified their whimsical appetites with toothsome delicacies. Invariably, too, he bathed and donned them m their night attire before tucking them snugly into -• bed. • This happy condition of affairs, it was stated, continued until Mary O'Keefe, sister-in-law of Francis O'Keefe, came on the scene with her family. O'Keefe's sister, Kate, had also come out from Ireland aome time previously and was keeping house for the men, but when Mary arrived O'Connell took up his abode elsewhere. A feeling of dislike, if not of hostilThe Girl's Story ity, was said to have developed m the heart of one of the women towards O'Connell, though the reason was not disclosed. Three years had elapsed since O'Connell left the abode of the O'Keefes and no suggestion of impropriety had ever been made againßt him. One day, recently, however, a bomb"? shell struck the door of his whare m the shape of a policeman armed with a warrant for his arrest on charges of having repeatedly assaulted O'Keefe's little daughter during the period m which he had resided with the family three years ago. The arrest created quite a sensation m the district, and when the case came before the lower court m Te Kuiti, it attracted remarkable interest. O'Connell is generally as a mild-mannered and likeable man, who has made many friends m the district. It is to. their credit that they have very largely stood by him m the trying period which haß elapsed between his arrest and his acquittal at the Hamilton Supreme Court last week. The evidence of the little girl was not corroborated. She told ' her story In such a precise, matter-of-fact tone, and In such clear and minute detail, as to leave a very grave suspicion m the judge's mind aa to its authenticity. Not only that, but the child, when .cross-examined, declared that certain incidents had occurred m the ibath-

room when, as a matter of fact — as such occasions, an admission that was was proved later— there was no bath- quite irreconcilable with her previous room In the house until long after statement. O'Connell had ceased to live with the This admission m itself was suffiO'Keefes. dent to cast grave doubt on the girl's The girl told the court that O'Con- story, but there was a further developnell had been living with them as long ment when three subsequent witnesses as she remembered, until her aunt —unaware of the trend of crosa-exam-came on the scene. inatlon — disclosed that during the time As 'in the'ease of her little brothers, O'Connell -was living at the house, he used to 'bathe her and put her to there was no bathroom and that it bed. was built from twelve, to eighteen Her father and O'Connell occupied months later. The girl said it was the same bedroom. ' true that one of her The girl slept aunts had induced with her father and r r jrr 7 r~> 7 ncr to tel * three the two boys with / ifJa/1 UVJfnhflTnJlfl neighbors the. story O'Connell. MuIUCU VV Ufl 1 iXUUiy of O'Connell's allegDuring the night, ■■■■■■ ' . ' - - • ■ ed depravity. O'Connell frequent- . ■■ • She did not know ly took her out of her father's whether her Aunt • Mary had said it bed and over into his own, when he had was unfair for O'Connell to give prescommi'tted the offences complained of. ents to witness and her brothers, and Meanwhile, he put the boys m the not to her (Aunt Mary's) children. . father's bed. Mary O'Keefe, sister-in-law to When cross-examined, the girl de- Francis O'Keefe, speaking with a scribed certain Incidents which were strong Irish brogue, said that when she said to have occurred m the bathroom, went to live with her brother-in-law, It was then elicited that the bathroom m May, 1925; O'Connell packed his was outside and that there were four- traps and went elsewhere. On the teen Steps leading to It. night she arrived, there was a party. Under further cross-examination, Lawyer Gillies: And where did she admitted that she had never been O'Connell sleep that night?— There with O'Connell m the bathroom on was no sleep that night (laughter). IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM^

Catherine Hughes, O'Keefe's married sister, gave similar evidence. The first night 1 she arrived at the house, she said, O'Conriell came up from the cowshed. He bathed and powdered the little girl. She (witness) offered t;o do it, but O'Connell replied! "And It's a | divll of a fine job you would have indade." She always bathed the children after that. • Francis O'Keefe, father of the girl, said that O'Connell lived -with the family for five years prior to 1925. He was there when the little girl, May,, was born. O'Connell and O'Keefe had been great friends. The witness had always found him honest and straightforward. He had nothing to say against him outside the present affair. He had, he said, always previously trusted "Jerry." Dr. Selwyn Graham, who examined the girl, gave evidence that her condition could only have been produced within the past six months at the very outside. It was much more likely to have occurred within the past three months. „. O'Connell, who is between 50 arid 60 years of age, absolutely denied that he had committed the offences described. Lent Them Money He had lived with the O'Keefes for years and had' helped to bring up the children from birth, regarding them almost as his own. He had paid his share, of the expenses of the house and frequently bought the children clothes and other things. Lawyer Vernon (who represented accused): And you lent them money,. I believe? — Yes. , And you had some difficulty m getting it back?— Yes. The Crown Solicitor did not address the jury, while Lawyer Vernbn spoke briefly, remarking that he doubted whether— in view of the evidence — he need say anything at all. " . ■ - 1 His honor warned the jury that • it would be extremely dangerous to con,vict accused on the uncor- . J roborated evidence of a girl of eight, relative to an occurrence . which allegedly took place three years previously. Even had her evidence hot been shaken, he still would have held that it would be dangerous to convict. His honor expressed th© opinion that the story was a figment of imagin- " ation and that the girl must have been prompted m the matter by somebody who bore O'Connell a grudge. The jury after a very brief retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty and O'Connell was discharged. «uimiiwuimn»mHmiiiunmiiuiniimiiinmiuiiiiHmmnmmitinMtiiiiiiiiMnHimimimmimiiiii uutitiMituiiiiitiiißiiiiiiiiinnittiMiiiiiiiiiMittuiiiiiiijiiiititiitiiHiiiiiiiitiiinifiHiitiiiiiiiiiiiiintiiiii(MC