WESTPORT MURDER.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3079, 28 December 1908, Page 4

WESTPORT MURDER.

THE CASE *OR COMPENSATION. SOLICITOR EXPLAINS THE DEFENCE. LIST OF CONVICTIONS. AN INCORRECT COMPILATION. WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BELIEVED BY JURY. By Telegraph—Press Association. WESTPORT, December 2fi. Interviewed with reference to Sir Joseph Ward's statem Q nt during an interview in Wellington, that one of the reasons for the Government refusal to grant compensation to Hallinen and the relations of Andersen in connection with the Westport murder case was the fact that the men did not give evidence on their own behalf at the Nelson trial in June last, Mr M'Donald, who acted as solicitor for the men throughout the whole proceedings, stated that he shared with Mr Herdman, the responsibility for not putting the men in the box. "The men," said Mr M'Donald, "were anxious to go into the box, but left the final decision with us. The defence at Nelson was an alibi, and was proved so, out of the mouths of twelve independent witnesses, incluling Haakonsen, who swore that he was in company with Hallinen and Andersen from 7.15 to 11 p.m.,. that they were never near the scene of the tragedy, and did not even see Connelly until two hours after the murder. The men themselves could tell nothing. The more vital part of Connelly's statement—viz., that Hallinen and Andersen met Connelly and Bourke just outside the hotel immediately prior to the murder—was flatly contradicted by two of the Crown's witnesses (Missßowring and William Murray), who swore that Connolly alone escorted Bourke from the hotel. Moreover, the cross-examination of Connelly, while not so effective as at Hokitika. so involved him in a labyrinth of contradictions and absurdities as to % render his evidence utterly unworthy of credence." . "Did the list of convictions supplied to you by the Crown influence your decision?" "Certainly; but 'it is hardly correct to say that the list was supplied by the Crown. It was shown to us by the courtesy of the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Myers. That list of convictions was compiled, we understood, in the office nf the Commissifner of Police, after fingerprints of the man had been taken in Westport. Andersen admitted to us minor offences; mainly sailors' rows, but he point-blank denied that ( he had ever been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, and the record of convictions contained several of these offences. The motive of who ever murdered Bourke was robbery. Had Andersen jriven evidence, he would have denied crimes involving dishonesty, and the Crown would probably have put in a list of convictions against him. The jury would probably have believed the records as against Andersen's oath, especially. in view of the fact that Andersen had been finger-printed. If they disbelieved this part of his evidence, would they not have thought his whole story concocted with the purpose of saving his neck; and instead of bringing in a verdict of manslaughter, might they not have, brought in a verdict of murder? During the perjury proceedings it was admitted by Chief-Detective M'llverney that; Andersen was not the man convicted of offences involving dishonesty on the list shown to us at Nelson. The Jay after the murder, and subsequently on the night they were arrested, Hallinen and Andersen frankly told the police where they were on the night of the murder, and the police took no steps whatever to verify their statement."