McKay Alleges Use Of Third Degree

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31145, 23 August 1966, Page 3

McKay Alleges Use Of Third Degree

(Neto Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, August 22.

Allegations of third-degree methods by the police during an eight-hour interrogation at the Auckland Central police station were made in the Supreme Court at Auckland today by a man accused of murder.

Kenneth Mervyn McKay, of Station road, Henderson, is charged with murdering Anne Elizabeth Kievit, of Seymour drive, Henderson, on May 2.

McKay has pleaded not guilty. Mr G. D. Speight, and Mr K. Palmer are appearing for the Crown, and McKay is represented by Mr P. A. Williams and Mr K. Ryan.

The allegation of third-de-gree methods was made in McKay’s evidence when Mr Williams was asking about an interview at the police station some days after Mrs Kievit disappeared. McKay said the police called for him at 7.30 a.m. He spent eight hours at the station. “They refused me legal aid at my home and at the police station,” he said. “I told Inspector Stevenson that I would like to see counsel. “His reply was: ‘After we have finished with you, you can have one’.” McKay said they asked whether he could help them find Mrs Kievit’s body. “They more or less insinuated that I knew exactly where that body was.” Mr Williams: What answers did you give? McKay: I told them that I didn’t know anything about Mrs Kievit’s disappearance, nor did I know where her body was. Were the police satisfied with your answers or did they continue asking questions?— They continued asking me questions. What was their attitude?— Their attitude was one of persistence. It was third degree to deliberately break me down. The inspector has admitted that he implored you to say certain things. Do you agree with that? —Most definitely. “Crook In Bed” McKay said he had been at work on the Friday before Mrs Kievit disappeared. He denied buying three knives at a department store on the Saturday before Mrs Kievit disappeared. He was in bed “because I was crook.” He was also in bed on the Sunday. He was attended by a doctor on the Sunday and was still in bed on the Sunday night. He said that on the Monday morning he was still in bed. To Mr Williams, McKay said

that on the Monday, at 8 a.m., 8.10 a.m. and 8.20 a.m. he was in bed asleep. He remained in bed during the afternoon and evening. Shown Clothing McKay was shown a number of articles of clothing. He denied owning a singlet or rubber gloves. Some of the articles were his, but he had not worn them on May 2.

Shown three knives which had been produced in the case, he said he had not seen them before the police showed them to him. Mr Williams: It has been alleged against you that on May 2 you met Mrs Kievit. Did you meet her that day? Mackay: I did not, sir. It has been alleged against you that on May 2 you killed Mrs Kievit?—l did not, sir. Cross-examined, McKay told Mr Speight that up until B’ebruary and March this year he and Mrs Kievet were “still going together.” Mr Speight: Had there been any cooling between you from the time of meeting until, say, February-March this year? McKay: No, sir. We were on very good terms, both of us. He said he believed Mrs Kievit was going to work on Thursday and Saturday nights. Instead he found she was going to a dance hall. He found this out by following her. He denied that he and Mrs Kievit were living as man and wife. Assault Case Mr Speight: When you found out this woman was lying to you, patronising dance halls, going off in a vehicle with another man, how did it affect you? McKay: Very slightly. I would have forgiven her. You mean you never taxed hpr with it?—No, sir, I never did anything about it.

What about these men who were constantly calling at her

house at all horn's? Who were they?—Mr Kievit repeatedly was seen at her property by myself and Mrs Kievit

When this year came she accused you of having assaulted her?—That is correct.

And during a period of seven months you were very worried and upset about this?—This alleged assault?— Yes, sir. Seeing I had done so much for Mrs Kievit and her three children I could not understand—not even to this day—why she took those proceedings against me. I have no reason at all to harm Mrs Kievit nor to harm her three children.

McKay said that on three occasions Mrs Kievit had called him to her home because someone was trying the doors and windows. That was in 1965.

Mr Speight: She was hostile to you in her attitude at Court on April 6? McKay: I don’t know. Did the Magistrate speak tn you about Mrs Kievit’s attitude to you when he put you on bond?— l forget now. Did he say to you, “You must have nothing to do with her” or words to that effect? —He may have done. I cannot recollect. McKay said that when he was visited by a doctor on May 1 he was treated for a sore throat. He told the doctor he had influenza and that his stomach was “playing up” again. “He ignored what I told him.” “Truth Drug” Earlier Mr Williams, in his opening address, warned the jury against any prejudices they might have and against taking too much notice of pretrial publicity. Mr Williams said McKay had voluntarily undertaken a “truth drug" test and evid ence would be produced to show that he maintained throughout the two-hour examination his protestations of innocence. Mr Justice Gresson, at the start of the afternoon’s proceedings, told the jury that whether or not such evidence could be received in a court of law would be distinctly arguable and would depend upon his ruling.

The trial will continue tomorrow.