WHERE WERE YOU?

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 254, 23 October 1920, Page 17

WHERE WERE YOU?

TRAP FOR THE UNWARY. EASY ROAD TO THE SOCK. "Where were you last Tuesday week at hall-past e : <rht at niptht?"' Thi 5 question is Middenly put to you by a man who dif-pla.voiJ :i policeman's warrant card by way i.f demonstrating his authority. You aro told tli?.t there has been a Toblicry —it lifts been discovered, in fa-.-t, that your * <>mplover's private safe, which he seldom opened, had been rifled of mom-y.nnd valuables, that it wa* intiict at S o'clock lasL Tuesday week, and that you are wanted to explain yocr movi>nu>nU. Could you on the spur of tlie moment give a reply of such a satisfactory nature as would prove your absence from the scene of the crime at the time it was committed beyond nil reasonable doubt? asks a writer in the Sydney "Sun." The problem is one which has troubled ihose interested in criminology for many years. It is a trite, faying tint the innocent man has nothing to fear at any time; but there have been occasions •when the guiltless have, found themeelves faced with sets of circumstances so damning that they have had extreme difficulty in extricating themselves and establishing their innocence. The question put unexpectedly by a detective who. nu matter how fairly he desires to act, U tilled with suspicion, and an anxiety to clear up the robbery,! constitutes a trap into which the unwary' may fall and t'.ieir answers may provide] evidence which would go a Jonjr way to- | wards convincing a jury of their ffuill. So long as it is applied to the guilty there is no ground for concern, but while the questions may help to send a criminal I to goal, they may just as easily place ani innocent, person in an uncomfortable position, and may even result in a coniviction 'being recorded against him. A SUPPOSITITIOUS CASE. Let us peruse the hypothetical case indicated "by the opening query, and consider the possibilities of the situation. l*st Tuesday night week a" private cafe in Smith's office in the city was robbed, hut the robbery was not discovered ijT ten days. Jones, one of the clerks, had once or twice returned to the office at night for his bag or for papers to take home. The , head of the firm, by a coincidence, had seen him there on a couple of occasions, | and this immediately created an air of suspicion. On top of this was the fact i that Jones was fond of the races, and had mentioned a number of recent losses to fellow-employees. •When 'Detective XXX, vrho was investigating the robbery, was told of these facts he 'believed that he was on the right track, for he knew from experience that racing, losses aften provide the motive for ci irae. "Where were you last Tuesday night week?" he demanded of the suspected cleric. Jones thought for a few seconds. "I was at 'home," he answered DANGEROUS HESITANCY. The hesitancy suggested to the suspicious detective that Jones found it necessary to think the matter out" so that he could hide something, and went away by no means satisfied with, the innocence of Jones. Then further inquiries revealed that Jones was not at home last Tuesday n"<rht week, and that he was seen a hundred yards from the office. - As a matter of fact Jones had made a legitimate mistake. He was at home on 'Monday night, but on the night of the robbery he had dinner, in! the city, and did walk past his office on his way to an appointment. But did h.e not entangle himself in a ■web of suspicion, and could not a jury be pardoned, in the event of him "being presented for trial, for hesitating before accepting the true story of his movements? His first story, it could be argued, was designed to remove any suspicion from him;, while the correct vereion might be construed into an 'afterthought necessary when ihe discovered what the police knew. And Jones, although innocent, might be convicted •nd sent to gaol. This is not an impossible case. Almost •very week the police are called upon to deal with problems of this kind. XKEPEOTrVES OA'NT? BXFLABN". Some years ago John 'Roche, then a ■uperintendent and the astute head Sydney's detective force, was unexpectedly asked by a newspaperman to detail what he did on a night about a fortnight shrewd detec-j tive that he was, 'ffi declined to be caught off his guard. He admitted that ha could not supply the information offhand, but explained that if he were permitted to look at his diary he would probably find an entry that/would indicate to 'him what he did after 'he left his •fflce for the day. Inspector Campbell, a noted thiefeatcher, who is now in charge of the Bathurst police district, wae atso unable to provide the information sought. He thought he was at such-and-such a place, but he was not prepared to swear to it. •These are hardly fair cases to quote, lor immediately the question was pat to them the detectives, being shrewd men, looked to *cc where the catch was. But urihen two such officers •ppreciated the possibilities of the situation, how much more difficult must it become when applied to the average man in the street? Policemen generally admit that the endden demand on a suspect for an explanation regarding his movements a fortnight back frequently leads to a eupply of incriminating evidence, and that it is just as likely to embarrass an Innocent man cc to help send a guiltyone to gaol.