THE KAIAPOI MURDER.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15605, 1 June 1916, Page 8

THE KAIAPOI MURDER.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TBES?." Sir. —Eighteen days have elapsed since Mi and Mrs Holland were _ foully murdered at their home at Kaiapoi, and nothing has Leon discovered to elucidate the mystery surrounding the crime. An inquest, postmortem examinations, police enquiries, and a promised handsome reward, have all failed to point .suspicion on the murderer, who is hoping his crime may never be detected, while, oil the other hand, the public locally is still agitated by the brutality of the all-air. It has been pointed out there was much delay at the shocking discovery made on the 12th, also at the inquest being held so late as the -!-lth. I should like to point out in contrast that in connexion with an outrage at Kaiapoi on a girl in the eighties it wa.s a couple of civilians who traced the crime, and irave their report to the police, who promised to look into it next, day. Tho -- two citizens, howe-ver, decided to act themselves. They hired a. buggy to follow the suspected criminal .about eight miles on a pitch dark night- At the last minute the sergeant- of police agreed to yo. They arrived at the man's house before he had time to get there, and his wifo identified his hat, which they had found near the scene of the outrage in scrub in the river-bed. The suspected offender arrived ■without his hat, and resisted an examination of his clot-hcs, etc., which left no doubt he ought to be arrested. ife was orought up "before Mr Wliiteford, S.M., committed for trial, and convicted by a jury at the Supreme Court, and sentenced by Judge Johnston to seven years' penal servitude, -with a flogging, on . entering the term of imprisonment, and also on

its expiry Since then that crime has not been repeated in Kaiapoi. In this murder case the police, "while working on their own theories as to how the crime wai, committed, may not have received all the assistance they oould iiavo; had afforded to them, and I may observe that officers could not be _ expected to follow up the case unaided. The bodies were buried before the main inquest was held, aiid if the Coroner had been sitting with a jury, and any point had been raised uy them or by a witness or a counsel acting for anyone, it would have been impossible to again inspect position of wounds or marks that might, have been sworn to as differing perhaps from the medical examination. From report I can relate this fact in proof of the value of jurymen at inquests. In a case at Auckland a juryman noticed on a body marks which no one else had obsei'ved, which changed the whole story as to the cause of death set up by the police. Locally I remember a very useful juryman, who was empanelled for the inquest on a young man. who died suddenly; it was believed naturally. When the lagt witness was giving her evidence the juryman asked what she did with' the medicine bottle, at the same time producing a phial. The witness had simply thrown it away into a road. Then it came out that the deceased had drank something from a bottle and was sick. At the adjournment rendered necessary, Professor Bickertori gave evidence the botI tie had contained poison, and -the stomach of deceased, as analysed, contained the_ same kind of poison. Why a jury was _ not empanelled in the Kaiapoi murder case may be capable of explanation to alteration in the law as to inquests, but the idea prevails that if inquests are only for coroners, medical men, and policemen, why should the public trouble, hence the apathy in this shocking instance. Jurors, I maintain, hearing the whole of the evidence, and judging the way in which it was given by the witnesses, might have been a very valuable assistance in this case, and each one would have been now able to materially assist the police by their local knowledge.—Youi-s, etc., COMMON SENSE.