NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 209, 23 November 1927, Page 13

NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

BURWOOD MURDER HEARING CONCLUDED BOAKES AWAITING VERDICT \ (Special to THE SUN) CHRISTCHURCH, To day. THE hearing of the evidence in the Burwood murder trial, in which Charles William Boakes is charged with having murdered Ellen Gwendoline Ifeobel Scarff at June 15, was concluded yesterday and the case adjourned, until to-day.

Detective-Sergeant Young, in describing the scene of the tragedy, said there war, no sign of a struggle. The only article about the dead girl which had any mark of identification was a handkerchief with the name “Gwen” written on it faintly. Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike, now of Auckland, said that accused made a statement to him in July in his own handwriting. Half way through the making of the statement Boakes said 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 murdered her. Boakes said that a man named Charlie Keyes knew Gwen Scarff well. Boakes said his only military overcoat was the one he was wearing. Boakes said to wit ness that "the statement of King (the witness who retracted his original statement on the first day of the trial) was true, except that he did not buy pills or a drug from King. Boakes asked for. King to be brought to the police station. CALLED KING A LIAR Witness continued that he 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 a drug to?” King said, “Yes.” Boakes sprang from his chair and said. “You are a liar.” Witness, afraid that Boases would strike King, stepped between them. He told King to repeat to Boakes what he had said about the pills and drug. King did so, and Boakes said again, “You are a liar.” King then left the ofllce. The detective detailed what occurred at an interview with King on July .8. He said King, when asked about the matter, said he sold pills to Boakes about three months ago. After warming his hands at a fire in the chief detective’s office, King went back upstairs and wrote out a statement, which witness produced.

Mr. Donnelly: How long was he at the station?—About a couple of hours. At five o’clock he said he wanted to get away before Mr. Coltart left the shop, as he wanted to get a sample of the pills and drug 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. “THERE WAS NO BULLYING” Mr. Thomas: You have heard the statement made by King? .Did you bull}’' him into making his statement? —No. I have never seen the man one could bully into making a false statement. Mr. Donnelly: Did you threaten to charge King with an offence?—No. Detective Walsh, of Wanganui, raid that when King was making his statement to Detective Bickerdike witness arrived before King had commenced ( to write. The writing of the tatement took King about an hour. There was a good deal of conversation, but there was no bullying. The statement was made deliberately and —oluntarily. King left the station and later returned with pills .and a drug, stating they were samples of the drugs he had sold to Boakes. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr. Thomas intimated that he did not propose to call evidence, and the court was adjourned till to-day. The trial was not resumed till 11.30 a.m., owing to the funeral of the late Mr. Justice Alpers. Counsel then addressed the jury. Mr. Donnelly said that he could not now ask the jury to take any notice of the statement made toy the witness King in the Lower Court. He, however. repudiated the story that King had been bullied by the detectives, who had merely done their duty.

KING’S EVIDENCE

DISCOUNTED BY CROWN Mr. Donnelly said that as far as the witness King was concerned, the fact that he had gone back on his evidence given in the Lower Court completely cancelled that evidence. It would not be proper to tell the jury that they should disbelieve the evidence given by King in the Supreme Court and rest on the evidence that he had given in the Lower court. At the same time he wished to refer to King's evidence in the Supreme Court, because he had made a charge against Detective Bickerdike, which, in a way, was as serious as the one with which accused stood charged. King’s latest evidence was unbelievable because King’s conduct from the time he was first interviewed by the police untit the Supreme Court trial Was not consistent with the conduct of a man who had been treated by the police In the way that King said he had been treated. It w r as the duty of the police in cases of* this kind to make inquiries and interview witnesses beforehand. If Icing’s story was believed, then it would be impossible for the police to do their duty In the way of collecting evidence. If the story was believed the police might a 3 well go out of business, for if King could go back on his story and say that he had been bullied by the police, then any witness could do likewise. If Detective Bickerdike had forced the seatement from King he would not have left him alone for five or six weeks, even after he had given evidence in the lower court. King took no action, and he did nothing till he was seen by

Mr. Tliomas in Timaru. But for that it was hard to say -what would have happened. He did not want any misunderstanding about Mr. .Thomas seeing King in Timaru. Boakes was charged with the most serious charge known to the law. The Crown was not concerned with getting accused convicted at any price. The witnesses who had given evidence for the Crown might be seen by counsel for the defence and asked to explain their statements. Mr. Thomas’s action in asking King if his evidence was true was quite proper. With regard to Mugford’s evidence as to seeing a man run from the body, Mr. Donnelly said that he had called Mugford, not because his evidence helped the Crown case, but because it was the duty of the Crown to put before the jury all the evidence, whether in favour of the accused or not. He suggested that Mugford must have been mistaken as the ground had been examined, and there was no trace of a man having gone that way.