DEATH OF ELSIE WALKER

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 597, 25 February 1929, Page 1

DEATH OF ELSIE WALKER

Superintendent Supports Constable CHIEF DETECTIVE OVERWORKED THAT in the absence, even now, of evidence of violence 1 Constable Collins was justified in coming to the conclusion that there had been no foul play, when he saw the body of Elsie Walker,” was the opinion expressed by Superintendent Wohlmann when the Police Inquiry was resumed before Mr. E. Page, S.M., this morning. Witness also expressed the opinion, principally on the score of expense, that the time had not arrived for the appointment of detective officers as is done in other countries.

]y£EMBERS of the force principally * concerned in the inquiry are:

elusion that the blow had something to do with death.

SUPERINTENDENT W. G. WOHLMANN, officer in charge of the Auckland head district. INSPECTOR J. W. HOLLIS, in charge of the city area and the detective force. INSPECTOR J. McILVENEY, in charge of the metropolitan area. CHIEF-DETECTIVE HAMMOND, responsible for the arrangement of the detective work. DETECTIVE-SERGEANT KELLY, who had charge of the case in the early stages and was responsible for the primary investigations. CONSTABLE MOLONEY, who discovered the abandoned car and CONSTABLE COLLINS, of Panmure. who reported on the discovery of the body and who effected its removal. MR. A. E. CURRIE, of the Crown Law’ Office, Wellington, has been entrusted with the onerous task of marshalling and leading the evidence.

Mr. Finlay: It will be remembered tffiat at the inquest the medical witnesses said that since making their original report they had discovered very little to cause them to alter their opinion. Mr. N. Johnson, who is representing the superintendent, questioned witness on the steps taken by the police when the body was discovered. NO AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE “Inquiries were made immediately the car was found,” said the superintendent, and they were continued after the body was found, even in the face of the medical opinion that no violence had occurred.

“Those inquiries are still being continued,” he added.

Regarding the daily conference of the police chiefs, witness said they were informal discussions where any of the three concerned could seek the advice of his associates.

Five counsel are engaged on behalf of the police. Mr. N. Johnson, of Hamilton, is appearing for the superintendent, Mr. A. H. Johnstone for Inspector Hollis. Mcllveney and Eccles, of Hamilton, Mr. Allan Moody

for Chief-Detective Hammond, Mr. G. P. Finlay for Detective-Sergeant Kelly, and Mr. L. P. Leary for Sergeant Lambert, of Otaliuhu. and Constables Collins. Moloney. Pollard and Nield Mr. W. B. Mcllveney, Commissioner of Police, is also present at the inquiry. j A busy time was spent by Mr. Page during the week-end. At one o’clock j on Saturdav he left by car for Papa- ; moa in the Bay of Plenty district, where he inspected the various routes leading from the district which Elsie Walker may have taken on her tragic journey. He also visited the farm where the girl lived. The examination of Superintendent Wohlmann, who had already been in the witness-box for four hours, was continued this morning. A call man, erect, and with a military bearing emphasised by a heavy black moustache, he had answered the questions of counsel in quiet, precise tones. His evidence was confined principally to questions of police control. He had indicated that. although officer in charge of the head district, and in charge of the district in which the body was found, the case practically passed out of his hands when taken over by the detective branch. CONSTABLE WAS JUSTIFIED Mr. L. P. Leary, who represents the officer concerned with the finding of the body. Constable Collins, of Panmure, also cross-examined the superintendent. At the inquest strong condemnation was made by the coroner, Mr. F. lv. Hunt, S.M., on the action of the constable in removing the body that evening. Mr. Leary: Had he reported that there were suspicious circumstances in the case he could well expect to receive special instructions? Superintendent Wohlmann: Yes. Further to this question the superintendent stated that the report of the girl's condition stated that there were 1 no marks of violence. “As the constable was then situated, and even now in the absence of evidence of violent death, I think the constable was quite justified in coming to the conclusion he did,” said the superintendent, Mr. Leary: I suggest that in view of the condition of the girl’s boav and the fact that the public was being S attracted to the spot, it was in the ! interest of public decency that the body should be removed. Witness: Unless there were good i grounds to the contrary that would apply. It would be in accordance with i police regulations. ! The superintendent also agreed that j for at least six weeks the medical evi- < deuce corroborated the constable’s report in regard to injuries. The medij cal men gave no reason, as tar as | he was aware of their change of 1 opinion, other than stating at the inquest that after eliminating all other j causes, they were forced to the con-

It was Detective-Sergeant Kelly who gave instructions for the removal of the body. To Mr. Currie: Inspector Hollis was the immediate superior officer of Chief-Detective Hammond. The fact that the girl’s eyes were closed and had to be forced open was not mentioned in the medical report or at the inquest. Mr. Page: After handing over the case to Inspector Hollis would you have any further jurisdiction over the case to the extent of interfering? Witness: I did not hand it over to him. It came into his hands through his officers.

Mr. Page: Well, even in that case, could you interfere? Witness: I would have no authority. Outlining Inspector Hollis’s work Superintendent Wohlmann said that about half of the inspector’s time would be occupied by work in connection with the uniform branch. He controlled both the city and waterfront police as well as the detective branch. Reports of crimes, and of court cases, interviews, appointments, heavy correspondence and conferences with other officers constituted the

usual busy day. “He is lucky to get his table clear befo rs tea,” added the superintendent. “It is just as much as one man can handle.” The general practice is for the qliiefdeteetive to conduct the detail of* the office. Witness did not think the inspector had sufficient time to attend to that. CHIEF-DETECTIVE OVERWORKED The chief-detective's work consisted of perusiDg reports, allocating duties, supervising, personal interviews with complainants and others concerned in court matters, and personal directions to detectives in a great vai'iety of cases. He also had to inspect prisoners and suspects and supervise the clerical work of his department. It was a busy office, and the duty of prosecuting at court must interfere with the opportunity of overlooking the work.

In a case such as at present under review he did not think the chief-detective would have the time to sit down and quietly review the case.

He thought it desirable that the chief-detective should have that time. An improvement could be effected by relieving him of court work. Mr. Page: Assuming the fact that in the early stages of the inquiry, a wide enough view was not taken and a sufficiently early inquiry not made, do you think that is attributable to pressure of work. Mr. Johnson: You are asking him to accept something with which he does not agree.

Mr. Page: Yes. I think you are right. I will put it this way: Do you think both officers are overworked. Witness: Yes, I think the chiefdetective is overworked and the inspector has the maximum work he can manage. DETECTIVE CONTROL Mr. Page: Do you think the experience gained by a detective is wasted on administrative duties when he is promoted. Witness: It is never lost. Such experience would make him a more valuable officer. His experience could be served either by not making him an officer, or by making him an officer in charge of detectives as is done in other countries where conditions are not the same as in New Zealand.

He did not think the time had arrived fOT such a system in New Zealand, and did not think it was necessary to have a detective ( officer in Auckland yet.

To Mr. Leary: He thought everything possible had been done in the case.

Before leaving the witness box Superintendent Wohlmann assured counsel for Inspector Hollis and ChiefDetective Hammond that he did not

infer that overwork had caused neglect by either of these officers in

the Walker case. The superintendent had been in the box for six hours. NOT RECALLED Inspector J. Mcllveney was the next to be examined. Asked if he could recall any crucial decisions regarding the Walker case made at the daily conference, witness said it was decided at one conference to hold a conference with the medical men concerned. They were satisfied that Inspector Hollis was doing all that could be done. Witness did not see the special inquiry form before it was sent out. Mr. Currie: Did you have anything to do with the recall of Detective-Ser-geant Kelly from the Bay of Plent3 r . Mr. Finlay: He was not recalled. He came home. Mr. Currie then read a copy of a

telegram asking the Det.eetive-.Ser-, geant to return aiid report to. Inspector Hollis. Witness: I had nothing to do with it. Mr. Currie: Are you in a position to give an opinion regarding the amount of work done by Inspector Hollis. Inspector Mcllveney: I should think so. I used to do it all before he came. Both departments were under my control.

Mr. Currie: Are you in a position to state an opinion regarding the chief-detective’s work? Witness: I should think so. I was chief-detective myself once. In my opinion the work is heavy, and is getting heavier as the population increases. Witness said he had been in the Police Force for 34 years, 2G years of which had been spent in the detective branch.

The examination of Inspector Me

Ilveney was proceeded with after lunch.

To Mr. Moody witness said ChiefDetective Hammond had about 33 years' experience. He had worked under witness, who considered he was a. capable and efficient officer. In 1928, G. 563 files had passed through the chief-detective’s hands. To Mr. Johnson: He considered that Inspector Hollis had sufficient time to devote to the detective branch; certainly more time than witness when he held the two positions. To Mr. Page: We were no further ahead after the conference with the medical men as to the cause of death than before. Having regard to the amount of administrative work a sub-inspector would have to do, is mere opportunity for a detective to exploit his experience when he is promoted? Does the detective branch lose his service.

Witness: Yes. As a sub-inspector he no longer controls detectives. However. he did not think it would be practicable to promote detectives to commissioned rank and keep them in that branch. It was his opinion that an improvement could be effected to the position of chief-detective if someof the detectives handled their own cases in court. (Proceeding)