GIRL'S AMAZING REPUDIATION

NZ Truth, Issue 1293, 18 September 1930, Page 3

GIRL'S AMAZING REPUDIATION

Accuses Man of Serious Offence, Then

Goes Back On Statement

ALWAYS CALLED HIM FATHER

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) It was a difficult and extraordinary situation which confronted Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., m the criminal proceedings against George Frederick George, a man of 48 years, who was charged with a serious offence against a girl under the age of sixteen, when the latter, after having made a statement to the police accusing George; of having had improper relations with her, repudiated her allegation. She blamed a boy m the country, but with a further startling change of front again went back on what she had said and re-accused George. ,

INTERROGATED by Chief-detective Hammond, the girl stated tha,t she had been living at the Salvation Army Home since the middle, of August, prior to V;hich she had been at home with her mother and George.. Though she was m the habit of calling George "Father," she admitted that she knew he was not her real father. She also stated that she was aware that she would have a child towards the end of the year. ' To a question from the chief-detec-tive as to who was the father of the unborn' child, the girl remained stubbornly , silent, and even after being questioned two or three times she refused to speak. Her persistent silence caused his Worship to remind her that she had promised to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and, must do so. Questioned further the . girl stated that all the other children m the house were boys and were her brothers. Chief -detective Hammond: Your moLnor would sometimes go out and leave you m the house with your father? — Yes. A direct question from the chiefdetective concerning her relations with George again left the prirl silent. "You know you are m a certain condition r" enquired the magistrate, m an effort to get the child to answer questions put to her. The girl admitted that she did. "Then who is responsible?" asked his Worship - bluntly. The girl remained stubborn and refused to answer the question. Do you know who is the cause? — Yes. Well, will you tell us who is responsible? — Witness was silent. "Would you like to write it down?" asked Mr. Hunt, m an endeavor to make t the examination easier, but again the girl refused to speak. Have you told the police? — Yes. I told the police it was Mr. George, but it was not him. A boy m the country is responsible. Chief-detective Hammond: Did George ever have intimacy with you? —No. You have made a statement concerning the paternity of your child. Is it true? — No, the man I made the statement to put the words into my mouth. Did the police also tell you that George had had intimacy with you two or three times a week?— Yes. And did they also tell you that he was responsible for your condition? This question was, at first, answered m the negative, but on 1 being questioned again -on the same subject the witness said the detectives had told her George was responsible for her condition. The girl's startling and unexpected repudiation of her previous statement gave an unusual turn to the case and left the police m a position where they were unable to proceed with the examination. The hearing was then adjourned pending . enquiries regarding the Frank Robinson whom the girl had named as being responsible for her condition. When the case again came, before the court a few days later, the girl added a new interest to the story by going back on her answers given at the initial hearing, and again upholding her original statement that George was the father of her child. Though

she proved less stubborn m giving Her answers than when she first appeared before his Worship, Chief-detective Hammond still had great difficulty m eliciting replies to his questions. She denied the truth of her previous contention that a man named Frank 'Robinson was responsible for her condition, and when the chief-detec-tive again "asked her if George had ever been intimate with her, she stated that he had./ It had not occurred very often, she declared; Chief-detective Hammond: More than once? — Yes. When did this first of all occur? This year or last year? — This year. What month? — February. Where did it take place? — At home. Did Mr. George notice your condition? — Yes. Did you tell him or did he tell you? — He told me. When was that? — Not very long ago. Where did he tell you? — At home. Witness denied that any other man had eyer had improper relation's with i her, and alleged that George alone was responsible for- her condition. Asked how long she had been living with him, the girl stated that she could not remember, but it was ever since she was very young. She had always, she said, known George as "Father," though she knew that he was not her real father. "So," concluded the chief-detective, "the evidence you gave at the last hearing waa not quite true?" After a slight hesitation, the girl re-

" Would Help Me and Help The Baby "

plied that it was not. Asked what had prompted her to make a false statement, she remained silent, and Chief-detective Hammond did not repeat the question. Opening his cross-examination, Mr. J. J. Sullivan (for George) asked the girl if any police had seen her since the case first opened, and was told ;by her that she had been interviewed by two detectives. y Mr. Sullivan: Were those two detectives the same who saw you the first time you made a statement? — Yes. v Were they the two whom you said put the words into your mouth on the first occasion? — Yes. V Just so -that there will be no confusion, tell me what they said to you? — They told me to tell the truth as it would help" me and help the baby. Asked about the day the detectives saw her, she said they came the day after the first hearing and stayed about an hour. Mr. Sullivan: Were they talking all the time? — Yes.-. ■ About this 1 man ? — Yes. - Did they tell you that the mt>n Frank Robinson was all 'a lie? — Yes. Did they also tell you that George was the man? — Yes. Of course, you remember that last day you were before the court you stated that there had never been improper relations between yourself and George? — Yes. They told me it would be m the interests of myself and the baby to tell the truth. Was anyone present at the interview? — The matron was outside. Did they say anything about being punished? — No. Can you recall anything else they [said during the hour?— They were talking. about the boy Robinson.

Further questioned, witness said that she had been asked where Robinson was to be found and what he was like. Mr. Sullivan: And of course you told them and gave a description? — Yes. Was it after that that they told you that the Robinson story was not true? —Yes. . . "Did you contradict that?" enquired Mr. Sullivan sharply. The girl thought for moment before replying that she had agreed with the detectives who said it was untrue. Asked whether she had sat down during the interview, she stated that both she and the detectives had beer* sitting. "One would talk to me first and then the other one would start," she told Mr. Sullivan, describing the details of the interview. She also said that she had spoken to Major Annie Gordon, female probation officer, who had advised her to tell the truth and stick to it. Mr. Sullivan: You remember that she was m court oh the first day of the case? — Yes. What did she say about' the boy Robinson? — She told me it was untrue. That was here m /court after it finished on the first day. What did you say? Did. yoii say it was correct?— l said it was untrue. What did she say?— She said she would see the magistrate and tell him I was sorry for what I had said. The. girl also stated that she and _____^______ Major Gordon had discussed the case on the morning of the second hearing". J Mr. I Sullivan: """ When the detectives called xm- Tuesday did they ask you about Frank Robinson? — Yes. '" Did they tell you that George was the father of your child? — No, . they did not. The mother of the girl was then called, and answering questions put to her by Chief-detective .Hammond, she stated that she was divorced from her husband and was living with : George. She also gave evidence as to the girl's age, and Astated George had lived with her for the past' seven years. She called him "Father.',' Chief -detective: And I believe you have children of which George is the father? — Yes. Detective Allsop, giving evidence, stated that he interviewed George m the .middle of August concerning the matter, m company with Detectivesergeant Bickerdyke. '■•'.'.. As a result of the interview, -stated Detective Allsop, George admitted having had improper relations with the girl early m January or February"' Xpi\ the present , year.; -..,.: - "'V. "The statement he made was read by him," concluded- the detective, "and m it he admitted paternity." "I never read it," affirmed George . from the dock, speaking for the first time since the proceedings opened. Detective-sergeant Bickerdyke corroborated the evidence of Detective Allsop.. He also affirmed that not only had George read the typewritten statement, but that afterwards, at George's request, Detective Allsop had read it over to him. "George did not sign the statement," remarked Detective-sergeant Bickerdyke m conclusion. George did not enter the witnessbox, and after pleading riot guilty he was. committed to the Supreme Court for trial.