INSPECTOR HOLLIS CROSS-EXAMINED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 598, 26 February 1929, Page 1

INSPECTOR HOLLIS CROSS-EXAMINED

WAS GIRL MURDERED?

Police Considered All Possibilities

NOT MISLED BY MEDICAL MEN

WHY did I send two detectives to examine the girl’s body at midnight for marks of violence if I was convinced that she died from natural causes,” asked Inspector J. W. Hollis, officer in charge of the detective branch, at the Police Inquiry this morning. He vigorously denied allegations by Mr. A. E. Currie, of the Crown Law Office, that at the outset he had acted on the sole assumption that Elsie Walker had died a natural death.

The inquiry is being conducted by Mr. 12. Page, S.M., of Wellington, and Mr. E. A. Currie, of the Crown Law Office, Wellington, is marshalling and leading the evidence. Superintendent Wohlmann is represented by Mr. N. Johnson, of Hamilton; Inspectors Hollis and Mellveney, of Auckland, and Inspector Eccles, of Hamilton, by Mr. A. H. Johnstone; Chief-Detective Hammond, by Mr. Allan Moody; Detective-Sergeant Kelly, by Mr. G. P. Finlay; and Sergeant Lambert, of Otahuhu, and Constables Collins, Pollard, Nield and Moloney, by Mr. L. P. Leary. Superintendent Wohlmann and Inspector Mellveney have now been examined and Inspector Hollis, who has charge of the city, waterfront and North Shore areas as well as the criminal investigation department, continued his evidence this morning. The evidence of Superintendent Wohlmann and Inspector Mellveney was confined principally to questions of police control. That Inspector Hollis had the maximum work he could manage was the opinion expressed by the superintendent. Inspector Mellveney agreed regarding the chief-detective, but considered Inspector Hollis had sufficient time to devote to the detective branch.

Both officers considered the time had not arrived for the appointment of commissioned detective officers. “When a detective is promoted to subinspector in the uniform branch the detective force substantially loses the experience gained by that detective,” said Inspector Mellveney.

“The experience of a good detective could be conserved either by not promoting him or by promoting him to commissioned rank within the detective branch,”

said Superintendent Wohlmann. In murder cases one usually looked for stabbing or poison, but in this case there was nothing, said Inspector Hollis. The medical report gave the police no lead. Although he personally was of opinion that no crime had been committed, inquiries were pursued as if a crime had been committed. They were not misled by the report. The inspector was also questioned at i some length regarding the abandoned > car. It was suggested by Mr. Currie th ’ a) a te steps shoe’ ' ' • been taken to discover what time the car ' had been abandoned. The body was i found on October ti and Mrs. Anderi son's statement regarding the car was dated October 2S, said Mr. Currie. Mr. 1 Deary pointed out that Constable ; Moloney had mentioned in a report i dated October 13 that Mrs. Anderson J had seen the car. WHY WAS CAR ABANDONED? This morning Inspector Hollis was examined by Mr. Currie at some length regarding the preliminary inquiries. Counsel was reminded by the commissioner that witness was not actively handling the case at that stage. Witness said the car was closely examined. With the exception of mentioning the fact of the discovery of the button he preferred not to detail those investigations. Mr. Page; What were they about? | Witness; Fingerprints, sir. The abandonment of the car, in his opinion, was not relevant. The police were principally concerned with finding the cause of the girl’s death. Mr Currie: I suggest that you could : find no reason for the abandonment of the car. The police stuck a stick in the tank to ascertain if there vyas

benzine there. Was any examination made to discover if it was abandoned on account of mechanical trouble ? i Witness: No. i Mr. Currie: I thought not. Witness said the car was examined by a garage proprietor. They had no j niotor-car experts on the staff. QUESTION OF MURDER When the body was discovered and i reported to him he entertained the I possibility of death by natuial causes. . . Mr. Currie: You did not entertain j any other possibilities; death by vioi lence. for instance? “Why did I send two detectives along to the morgue at that time of the night, if I entertained only one possibility? We would still investigate, in any case," said the inspector. The first investigation of the snot where the girl was discovered was : carried out between 1 o clock and .» ; o'clock during the night of the disi covery of the body. It was a moon- \ light night. They returned in the j morning at about 10 o’clock. Mr. Currie: Why couldn't they get .there earlier? 1 Witness: We were waiting for the medical report. Mr. Currie: Murder did not enter ! into the question then? Witness: There was nothing to indicate it in the medical report, i Mr. Currie; You were not sus- ; picious? . . 1 Witness: We are always suspicious up to a point. Mr. Currie; Do not the regulations | say that the body shall not be dis-

turbed until viewed by the coroner or surgeon?

Witness replied by quoting another regulation which said that in suspicious circumstances the clothing should he removed in order to ascer-! tain if there are marks of violence, j Mr. Currie: In stripping the body, i don’t you think a breach of regula- j tions had been committed? Witness: In view of the regulation j I have just read to you, I don’t think 1 so. The two detectives went to the morgue specifically to look for marks of violence. That it was Dr. Murray who suggested that the girl’s clothing be sent to the bacteriologist, and that that decision was arrived at prior to the conference with the police surgeon, was also stated. WAS THE GIRL ALONE? In regard to the removal of the body, Inspector Hollis said that providing there were no suspicious circumstances, he would always order a body to be brought in. In common decency I would not leave a body out all night, he said. Mr. Currie: Do you think the constable’s opinion that there were no suspicious circumstances was sufficient to act upon. Witness: He was the man on the spot. He should know. The inspector said he was of opinion that the girl had travelled m the car alone. The agent for that make ol' car at Te Puke said it. would be quite possible. “Yes, of course. He would say the car would go anywhere and do anything,” retorted Mr. Currie. Mr. A. H. Johnstone: That is not fair comment. Questioned by Mr. Currie regarding the medical report, the inspector said he was surprised to find that the second medical report had been altered. About this time he heard certain murmurings in the streets, and the Press was also giving the case considerable publicity. This caused him some concern. The fact that the medical report j said there were no signs of violence did not stop the police from looking, said the inspector.

At this stage Mr. Page intimated that it would be advisable for Mr. Currie to arrange for the examination of the medical men concerned.

Mr. Moody: Perhaps at this stage, sir, Mr. Currie could tell us if he is decided in his own mind that Elsie Walker was murdered.

Mr. Page: How can he tell? It is not even within the jurisdiction of the commission.

Inspector Hollis said his attention was never drawn to the statements made at the inquest that the police had endeavoured to search Bill Bayly’s goods without a search warrant, and that Detective-Sergeant Bickerdyke endeavoured to obtain' information under the seal of confidence. If any of the detectives had committed a misdemeanour, it would he reported to him by the chief detective. Mr. Finlay: The detectives denied that on oath at the inquest. (Proceeding.)