PARK MURDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 115, 18 May 1933, Page 15

PARK MURDER.

CRAIG'S SECOND TRIAL JURY DISAGREE AGAIN. SENSATIONAL INCIDENTS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 12. Eric Craig, now serving a sentence of 20 years for the manslaughter of May Miller, has been indicted a second time for the murder of Bessie O'Connor, and a sccond time the jury has failed to agree. Before the date fixed counsel for the defence asked for an adjournment on the ground that accused had difficulty in securing legal assistance. This obstacle was surmounted when Mr. Curtis, K.C., one of Sydney's ablest barristers, was retained for the defence; and there can be no doubt that he did all that could be done to put Craig's case in a favourable light before judge and jury. The case proceeded on much /the same lines a3 before. When Craig was called upon to speak for himself, lie reiterated that he was innocent and that he had never known Bessie O'Connor; and his wife repeated , her evidence, which appeared to establish a complete alibi for him on that fatal night. When Detective Comans was in the witness box, Mr. Curtis successfully raised the point that the evidence which lie gave consisted of statements extracted from Craig by misrepresentation, and the Crown was compelled to withdraw him from the case. \

Collapse of Witness. But in the meantime Mr. McKean, Crown Prosecutor, had scored a much more important point through the agency of Thomas Brown, a witness called by Mr. Curtis for the defence. Brown had informed the police and also counsel for the defence that on the night of the murder he had been stopped some distance from National Park by a man whose car had broken 'down, who seemed flurried and distressed, whose clothcs were bloodstained —and who was certainly not Craig. The description that Brown gave of this man was extremely detailed, both in regard to dress and appearance, and was published in all the newspapers to secure identification of the man wanted by the police. But when Mr. McKean proceeded to cross-examine Brown, he speedily, in colloquial language, "turned him inside out," and with a few trenchant questions compelled the trembling witness to admit that his meeting with the "man" was imaginary, that the whole description was invented by him, and that he had committed deliberate perjury-— endeavouring, he declared, "to shield somebody else." It is easy to imagine that the collapse of this principal witness for the defence created a tremendous sensation in Court; and immediately after Mr. McKean had requested _ Mr. Justice Davidson to give permission for the indictment of Brown for perjury, Brown himself, crying out that he was poisoned, subsided on to the floor in a state ot abject nervous collapse, and was ;liurned off to the hospital. The judge deferred his decision in regard to the proposed prosecution for perjury, and when, after the jury had been discharged, the qucstion was raised again, hie Efonor deciuetl at the suggestion of Mr. Curtis that it would not be fair to Craig to give fur- ! ther publicity to this matter, but reserved it for discussion in chambers. -

Brilliant Address. Of course, Mr. Curtis was to- some extent embarrassed by the defection of Brown; but his final appeal to the jury has been described as "one of the most brilliant examples of pleading heard in our criminal courts for a decade.' He did hie best to undermine the identification of Craig by several of the Crown s witnesses; he charged the police with having extorted admissions from Craig by "monstrous" practices, such as dragging Craig off to view the scene of the crime in the dead of night after subjected for hours to "the third degree"; he tried to make capital out of the fact that no finger-prints could be found on the steering wheel of the stolen car; and he naturally laid great stress on the evidence of Mrs. Craig, which, if accepted by the jury, must exculpate her husband. Mr. McKean'e reply, though naturally less impassioned and emotional, was singularly effective. He repelled with indignation the charges brought by Mr. Curtis against the police, attributing them to the natural chagrin of that eminent lawyer at the collapse of his chief witness, Brown; he repudiated the suggestion that he had taken an unfair advantage of the defence by allowing them to put Brown in the box; and he disposed of poor Mrs. Craig's evidence in one rather original sentence: "She would be a very poor wife who would not come to her husband's help in his extremity."

"Left to the Jury." I The summing up of Mr. Justice Davidson seemed to be a model of lucidity and impartiality. He pointed out that though the Crown's case might sound convincing, the evidence wa,s largely circumstantial. On the other hand, he warned the jury that they must not pay too much attention to the attack made by counsel for the defence on the police, as it was impossible to define the precise point to which they might legitimately go in preparing such a case as this. On the whole, his Honor "left it to the jury," and the jury, as mi°-ht have been expected, failed to agree. So that the Attorney-General has to decide once more whether the purposes of justice can be best served by putting Craig on trial again. But if this course is adopted, the Crown, more especially in view of the two disagreements and the anonymous letteis received by Mr. Justice Davidson, may apply for a changc of venue.