CONDUCT OF POLICE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 130, 26 February 1929, Page 12

CONDUCT OF POLICE

METHODS IN ELSIE WALKER CASE

EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY

7 ■• Dominion Special Service.

Auckland, February 25. The cross-examination of Superintendent Wohlmann by counsel occupied the morning session of the inquiry into the conduct of the police in their handling ®f the Elsie Walker mystery. Before the examination started this

' morning, Mr. Northcroft, who represented the Bayly family at the Elsie Walker inquest, made an application to Mr. Page that he be recognised as an assistant at < the inquiry. He thought he could be of considerable assistance. Mr. Page said it was not desirable that private individuals be represented at the inquiry. Such a course would complicate matters. Any assistance would have to come through the Crown. He appreciated the suggestion and he would be glad of any assistance that would help him in his finding, so long as it came through the Crown. The cross-examination of Superintendent Wohlmann by Mr. Leary, adjourned from Saturday, then began. Witness said that the instructions given Constable Collins by headquarters would depend upon the report he made on the finding of the body. Superintendent Wohlmann, after outlining the injuries, said Constable Collins was justified, under the circumstances, in assuming that death was not due to violence. Unless there were good grounds to the contrary, decency demanded that the body be removed as quickly as possible, as the public had learned of the tragedy and were beginning to visit the locality when the body was removed to the Morgue. Change of Opinion. “I am not aware of any reason being given by doctors Murray and Gilmour for their vital change of opinion,” witness said. The doctors at first stated ■ they did not think any violence had . . been done, and later paid much attention to the bruise on the head. Mr. Finlay referred to the evidence of Dr. Gilmour. He said there was no essential difference in the evidence of Dr. Gilmour to the first report.' : . •. ' Replying to questions by the Commissioner. Superintendent Wohlmann said he . thought the chief detective was overwork- ’ , jed, and the inspector had about the maximum burdfn he could carry. In reply to a further question, witness said that the time had not arrived in New Zealand when the country coiilid afford the high cost of having a number of detecfives in the smaller , towns. ■ Mr.- Page: Taking Auckland only, superintendent, there is no commissioned offi,cer employed solely for detective work? —“No.” Is it desirable there should be?—“Not at the present time.” At noon the superintendent finished his evidence, after six hours in the witnessbox. Inspector J. Mcllveney, officer in charge of the Auckland metropolitan district, was the next witness. Recall of Detective. Mr. Currie: Did you have anything to s do with the recall of Detective-Sergeant Kelly from the Bay of Plenty? Mr. Finlay: He was not recalled. He came home. Mr. Currie then read a telegram asking Detective-Sergeant Kelly to return and report to Inspector Hollis. Witness: I had nothing to do with it. Are you in a position to express an opinion on the work of Mr. Hollis, your co-inspector?-—“Before Mr. Hollis came I did all his work and my own too, with the exception of two stations that were put on; when co-ordinated the districts were brought in.” In the opinion of Inspector Mcllveney [tie work of the chief detective was heavy. As the population increased the work became heavier in volume. Continuing his evidence in the afternoon, Inspector Mcllveney said Chief Detective Hammond carried out his duties "very well” and "very thoroughly.” To Mr. Noel Johnston, witness did not mean to imply that Inspector Hollis was not fully occupied, but Inspector Hollis had more time than witness used to have to devote attention to detective matters. System at Auckland. Inspector John Walter Hollis, officer in charge of Auckland Central Police, was the next witness.He described routine methods and system in force in Auckland. The Chief Detective in Auckland did more than was laid down in the regulations; said Inspector Hollis. Mr. Moody: Isn’t that enough?Asked whether he thought the work of the Chief Detective was equal in responsibility to'that of a sub-inspector, witness said he thought it was. Inspector Hollis said that, personally, he thought the daily conference was a splendid idea in cases of serious crime. There were three sets of brains at work, instead of one. ■

“The Walker case was the subject of a daily conference between Inspector Mell veney. Superintendent Wohlmann, and myself," said • Inspector Hollis. Witness said he had'never handled a ease similar to that, of the Elsie Walker matter, where the medical evidence showed no crime had been committed. He did not wholly accept the doctor’s report, because he had to look to see whether a crime had been committed. It was his opinion that the doctor’s report did not give them a lead. Mr. Johnstone: It was not the doctor’s job to give the police a lead; all he had to do was to supply a report. lnspector Hollis said that he was not misled by the report of the surgeons the week, following Elsie Walker’s death. It gave him no assistance. At the conference held at the end of October, Dr, Murray merely substantianted his previous reports. There was still no evidence of crime. Inspector Hollis next outlined the line of investigation which he directed in the case. 'Vhe inquiry was adjourned.