Crown Ends Evidence In Haast Murder Trial

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32392, 3 September 1970, Page 12

Crown Ends Evidence In Haast Murder Trial

The hearing of a charge against a 19-year-old Greymouth youth, Terence Wayne Birchfield, of murdering Cleve Edward Jones at Haast on June 27, was continued in the Supreme Court at Greymouth yesterday before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury.

The accused, who has pleaded not guilty, is being defended by Mr R. A. Young, of Christchurch, and Mr C. R. McGinley, while Mr D. J. Tucker, Crown solicitor at Greymouth, and Mr J. Cadenhead are conducting the prosecution.

Senior-Sergeant James Stuart Cromie, officer in charge of the police arms bureau in Wellington, said the rifle that had been used was manufactured in England in 1917, but had since been modified.

The witness told Mr Young that, while he would not say the rifle was dangerous, it was not in first-class condition. Constable Dennis Patrick Pennefather said he was on relieving duty at Haast in May and June. At 1.30 p.m. on June 27 he went io Mr Jones’s hut and after finding the body of a dead man he telephoned the police at Hokitika. Later he was present when Mrs Knox washed the body, and on their discovery of a wound in the neck he telephoned the Christchurch police.

Bullet In Wall

Lionel Lawrence Treadgold, pathologist of Christchurch, said that on Sunday, June 28, he accompanied a police party to Haast and made a preliminary examination of the body of a heavily built male. He found an entry wound on the right jaw, about jin in diameter, and a jagged wound on the right side of the back of the neck about Ijin in diameter. There was also a ragged hole in the mattress on the bed, and a hole in the pinex on the wall. On the outside of the hut there were two recent holes in the weatherboard.

The next day the witness said he found in the weatherboard what appeared to be part of a .303 bullet. The witness carried out a post-mortem examination of the body at Christchurch on June 30. The right side of the lower jaw was completely pulverised in front and badly fractured on the right side. The bullet had severed the right internal jugular vein. An examination of the blood revealed a content of 55 milligrams of aleobol to 100 millilitres of blood.

Witness expressed the opinion that the muzzle of the rifle could not have been closer than from 6 to 8 inches away from deceased when it

was fired. The right hand side of the face had been cleaned up before witness arrived.

“In my opinion the cause of death was a gunshot wound in the right side of the jaw fired at a distance of between 18 and 30 inches,” said the witness in reply to his Honour.

To Mr Young, the witness said that the body had been substantially moved after death. He may have been helped in his investigations if the face had not been washed. There were no signs of any powder granules. Norman Patrick Alcorn, Government analyst, of Christchurch, said he assisted Dr Treadgold in his examination of the hut. They found holes in the pinex and outer wall. From the appearance of the hole in deceased’s jaw and the size of the holes in the pinex, it appeared that one or more .303 bullets may have been fired. When a portion of the outer wall was removed, a piece of metal was found embedded in it. This was found to be portion of a .303 bullet.

Shot At Close Range

Witness and Detective Smart carried out tests with all 18 rifles handed to the police and by comparing the strike pin impressions it was discovered that there was only one which coincided with that fired through Kelly’s rifle. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the cartridge case found and the piece of metal recovered came from Kelly’s rifle. He was also of the opinion that the shot which killed Mr Jones was fired at close range. Ordinary .303 ammunition had smokeless powder even at short range. In reply to Mr Young, the witness said he was unable to estimate the distance the muzzle was from the jaw when the shot was fired. If there was no deflection of the bullet the distance would be only 4 or 5 inches, but in the case of deflection it could be a great deal further. He was inclined to the opinion

that Mr Jones's head was raised two or three inches from the pillow when the shot was fired.

Detective Bruce Edward Smart, of Christchurch, said he was present when Dr Treadgold and Mr Alcorn examined the rear wall of Mr Jones’s hut on June 28, and also the ground round the hut He produced a section of the pinex on the wall of the hut showing a bullet hole. The pillow, mattress and clothing from the bed, a cartridge case found on top of a water tank in the ablution block at the rear of the hut, and a piece of metal found in the wall. Interviews With Accused Detective-Sergeant David Porteous, of Greymouth, said he spoke to the accused in the normal course of early inquiries. He asked the accused about the scuffle between himself and Trevor Anderson, a driver, of Haast, in a dance hall on the night of June 26. The accused said the scuffle took place because he swore in front of two girls. Witness asked accused if he had anything to do with the death of Jones. He replied: "I didn’t do it.” Accused asked if it was possible to kill a person without know it, and was told that it was, the witness said.

The witness said the accused had said that he could not shoot anyone. If he wanted to kill he would use a knife as there would be less noise. Asked if he had shot. Jones by mistake, the witness said “no.” He was not wild with Anderson, and had been in a good frame of mind when he went to bed.

In a statement on June 30, the accused said he had been at Haast for three weeks before meeting Jonhs. He did not see much of Jones and did not know why anyone should harm him.

He borrowed Trevor Kelly's rifle on June 26 and went to shoot a deer. He fired two shots, one of them at a bird. He put the rifle back later, probably on the Monday. Before going to the hall, Kelly and he had some beer to drink and later some more at the hall. At the social Anderson had grabbed him by the front of the shirt, but he had not wanted to fight. After the social he went back to his hut and went to sleep, not waking until about 10 a.m.

The witness said the accused asked him about the rifle, and said that it would look bad for him if Mr Kelly’s rifle had been used.

Witness said he again interviewed the accused and told him the police believed he knew a lot more about the shooting than he had admitted. Accused replied. “I couldn't shoot anyone if I wanted to.” It was suggested to the accused that he had shot the wrong man, but the accused made no reply. The accused had asked what would happen if anyone was charged with murder, and had been told. “Like A Nightmare” Asked to tell the truth, the accused said, “Hold on, I’ll tell you. It’s like a nightmare. I don’t know why.” He said he had gone to Kelly’s hut and got a rifle and taken it to Jones’ hut where it had gone off. The witness said that at this stage he had cautioned the accused.

The accused asked about a cartridge and when told he said he knew he would get caught in the end. the witness said. Continuing, the accused said that he had gone into the hut and that it was the wrong hut. He thought Anderson was in that hut.

“He started to sit up and I pulled the trigger. There was a terrible noise. It was an accident. I wanted to frighten Anderson. I wanted to fire a shot over his head,” the witness said accused told him.

When Anderson came into a hut the next morning accused said he “felt good” because he thought he had mUssed him.

The accused said he had wiped the barrel of the rifle. If anyone else had been charged with the murder he would have given himself up.

When arrested the accused said he would plead not guilty to murder as he didn’t want to do 15 years. “Manslaughter would be more like it as I would get only four years for that.” said the accused. He repeated that all he wanted to do was to give Anderson a fright. He didn’t want to kill anyone. To Mr Young, the witness said that Detective-Sergeant Rodgers had said to accused, “The position is clear, Terry, you shot the wrong man.” Witness had not made that statement in the Magistrate’s Court. When accused said he wanted to see his father in Greymouth, witness told him he could make no promises.

This concluded the Crown evidence, and, in reply to His Honour. Mr Young intimated that evidence would be called for the defence.

The hearing will be continued this morning.