SHARK-ARM CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 219, 16 September 1935, Page 5

SHARK-ARM CASE.

BRADY'S ACQUITTAL.

TRIAL IN SYDNEY.

WHO KILLED JAMES SMITH?

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, September 12.

On Tuesday, September 3, Patrick Brady was brought to trial on the : charge of having murdered James Smith at Cronulla on or about April 8 last, this being the celebrated "shark-arm" case. Mr. McKcan, for the Crown, explained that when Brady heard the police read over the second statement, in which Holmes had incriminated him, he was evidently much disturbed; but his comment was, "That's all right"; and the Crown Regarded this as an admission of the correctness of the statement, which must therefore come in as evidence. But Mr. Evatt, for Brady, denied that the statements had been read to the prisoner, as asserted by the police, or that Brady had assented to either of them, and he ridiculed the suggestion that any sign of anxiety which Brady may have shown could be construed as proof of guilt.

After hearing argument on both sides, tlio Chief Justice decided in Mr. Evatt's favour. lie could not agree with Mr. McKean that Brady's remark, "That's all right," must necessarily be interpreted to mean, "Everything in that statement is right and correct and true." Also, his Honor was not disposed to regard <is proof of guilty the fact that Brady turned pale and tremble and that his voice shook after hearing the ■second statement. Anyone might well do that, said his Honor, after hearing himself charged with murder. Accordingly lie decided that the statements signed by Holme? could not be accepted as evidence against Brady; and the Crown Prosecutor, admitting that his plan of campaign had been "thrown out of ;rpar." a«kpd for a brief adjournment so that he might readjust himself to the new circumstances.

In the afternoon Mr. McKean pro

cccded to outline the case for the Crown —having now to depend on circumstantial evidence alone. He recounted the facts brought out at the inquest and in the Lower Court —Brady's visits to Cronulla, his renting of the cottage, his association with Smith, his purchases of articles afterwards substituted for others at the cottage, his hurried drive from Cronulla the morning after Smith's disappearance, and his disordered and bloodstained condition when the same morning he saw Mrs. Holmes.

Prisoner's Misleading Statements. j Mr. McKean dwelt also on Brady's misleading statements after his arrest and the identification of the arm disgorged by the shark as Smith's—his assertion in the first place that he had not been near Cronulla and his subsequent statement to the effect that "he would not carry the baby" leading up to a minute account of his visits to Cronulla, and closing with an ingenious attempt to connect Holmes with the murder, on the ground that he was the last person seen with Smith before Smith's disappearance. When Mr. McKean had presented his case, Mr. Evatt asked for an acquittal on the pica that no evidence had been outlined on which a jury could possibly convict. But the Chief Justice refused to withdraw the case from the jury at this stage, and so the proceedings went on.

On the following day the Crown closed its case. Mr. McKean emphasising in his final address several important points—Brady's false assertion that he had just come back from Tasmania, his highly suspicious account of his conversation with Holmes, the inference from his second statement that he knew that the "shark arm" was Smith's before it had been identified, the letter received by Mrs. Smith which contained a phrase that Brady used in his own statement to the police and which on the testimony of an acknowledged expert was in Brady's handwriting. On all these grounds Mr. MeKean urged that though the case against Brady was purely circumstantial, it was a matter on which the jury slioula adjudicate.

Judge's Mind Made Up. But the Chief Justice had clearly made up his mind about the legal aspects of the question? raised by Mr. McKean and Mr. Evatt, and he could not agree with the Crown. Ho pointed out that in all

cases in which evidence is purely circumstantial, "it is well established that the jury is not entitled to convict unless there is no other reasonable explanation of the evidence than that the accused is guilty. In such cases, if it is within reasonable probability that there may be a reasonable explanation of the evidence which is consistent with innocence, the jury must acquit."

Applying these principles to the case before him, his Honor proceeded: "There can, I think, be no doubt that there is plenty of matter for suspicion in the evidence that has been placed before'the Court during the last two days. But the "clear opinion which I have formed i 3 that, upon the settled principles, a conviction upon that evidence could not be allowed to stand. In the circumstances, it seems to me that I have no alterna- ' tive but to direct an acquittal."

And so the jury returned a formal verdict of "not guilty" and so far as this charge is concerned Patrick Brady was once more a free man.

Brady left the Court by a back door so as not to attract the attention of the crowd that had gathered at thf? front entrance. As soon as he had got outside the precincts of the Court a detective stopped him with a provisional warrant. He was taken at once to Darlinghurst police station, about 50 yards away, and there he was charged "with having forged a money order for £400 on "the Bank of New South Wales at Hobart, in January of this year. Bail wat fixed at £1000; but next day Mr. Evatt applied for a remand of four weeks.

It seems that Brady had already been charged with this offence in Tasmania, but that the jury had disagreed. The charge was now eight months old, and no further steps had heen taken against Brad3\ though his address in Sydney was well known, and he has lived here all his life.

Eventually, after argument, the case was adjourned for three weeks and bail was reduced to £400. But it was noted that, when these matters were settled, Mr. Evatt asked if "there are any other charges in contemplation," and the officer conducting the caseanswered: "At present I am unable to say."

So the people of Sydney are still asking pointedly. "Who killed James Smith?" and —even more persistently — "Who killed Keg. Holmes?"