THE ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 52, 25 November 1929, Page 12

THE ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY

TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES “FARM” OR “TRAIN”? A TYPIST’S ERROR A further stage in the controversy over the Elsie Walker mystery is reached this morning in the publication of a statement by the Minister of Justice (Hon. T. M. Wilford) in reply to the criticisms of Mr. O. Cooney, of Te Puke, solicitor for Mrs. Margaret TWhnason. In this the Minister deals fully with the testimony concerning what has been described as the train episode.” . “I feel that I should further reply to and comment on certain statements made by Mr. Cooney,” stated the Minister in an interview with a "Dominion representative “After reading Mr. Cooney’s statement I instructed the Commissioner of Police to furnish me with certain particulars to enable me to reply to Mr. Cooney's questions, and especially asked that the excerpt taken exception to by Mr. Cooney should be considered in order that I might, be able to say whether or not in the original statement of Mrs. Thomason the word ‘farm’ or the word ‘train’ was mentioned. Extract From Statement. “It will be remembered that on October 1, 1928, Elsie Walker disappeared from Mr. Frank Bayly’s farm near the Papamoa railway station. The Commissioner of Police has forwarded to me a report in reference to the excerpt referred to by Mr. Cooney, and states in that report just received that Mrs. Thomason’s statement of October 22, 1928, contained inter alia the following words: ‘lt was some time before the disappearance of Elsie Walker that I saw Bill Bayly on the farm. It. would be about ten days or more before Elsie’s disappearance.’ The Commissioner of Police states to me that this signed statement of Mrs. Thomason was made in answer to the question: ‘When did you last see Bill Bayly prior to the disappearance of Elsie Walker?’ A Typist’s Error. “In my report from the police,” the Minister proceeded, “they further state to me that in answer to my request for a copy of this excerpt referred to a draft was prepared for me for insertion in my statements which was identical with the words quoted, but that when the typist in the Police Department typed from the lead pencil draft of the excerpt from Mrs. Thomasson’s statement to be sent to me, he misread the word ‘farm’ in the lead pencil draft and typed the word ‘train, which typed excerpt containing, the error was forwarded to me for insertion in my statement. The Commissioner ot Police states that it was a typist’s error, an inadvertence which was not observed at the time, and for which the typist has expressed regret. “No Material Alteration.” “While 1 still believe that the statement made by Mrs. Thomason to the police containing the word ‘farm’ is a contradiction to the other statement containing the word ‘train,’ for it was made in answer to /a question as to when Mrs. Thomason last saw Bill Bayly prior to the disappearance ot Elsie Warner, I must express my regret that such a typist’s error occurred as above mentioned. The position does not seem to me, however, notwithstanding the mistake, to be altered materially, for while Mrs. Thomason said to the detectives eight months after the disappearance of Elsie Walker that she saw Bill Bayly on the train on October 1, 1928, I cannot forget that in the same month as the disappearance of Elsie Walker she told the police in answer to an inquiry as to when she last saw Bill Bayly prior to the disappearance of Elsie Walker that it was some time before the disappearance of Elsie that she saw Bill Bayly on the farm, and never mentioned any reference to the train incident whatever, which, if it was a fact, must have occurred only twenty-one days previous to the detective’s first interview. In ‘The Dominion’ report of November 12 last of Mr. Cooney’s statement, Mr. Cooney states: ‘lt is quite true that there is a conflict in the statements of Mrs. Thomason.’ In this I entirely agree, and his admission bears out my contention. In the Interests of Justice. “I understand that the object of all police inquiry is to endeavour to ascertain the truth. Hence it was arranged that the sisters, Mrs. Thomason and Mrs. Langdon, should be interviewed separately and simultaneously on June 23, 1929. This was in the interests of justice—to avoid any suggestion of collusion. . Their statements did not agree. I believe it is correct that Mrs. Thomason.communicated by telegraph with her other sister, Mrs. Richardson, who was subsequently interviewed by tl;e police on June 24, 1929, at Hamilton. The Train Episode. "In connection with Mrs. Richardson, Mr. Cooney says: ‘lt is contrary to fact to state that Mrs. Richardson denies that her sister ever told her about the train episode.’ But is it contrary' to fact? In her statement of June 23, 1929. Mrs. Thomason stated: ‘that on October 1, 1928, when the guard came through the door into the carriage he got jammed into the doorway with a Maori woman. On looking" towards the door I saw Bill Bayly in the passageway.’ “That is the train episode,” said the Minister. “There cannot be any doubt about the definiteness of that statement. Did Mrs. Thomason toll ltrs. Richardson that she saw Bill Bayly in the passageway of the train on October 1, 1928? That is the question. Here is the answer, the signed statement as given by Mrs. Richardson herself to the police: ‘lt is a fact that no person lias ever told me that I can remember that they personally saw Bill Bayly on the Tauranga-Te Puke train on the night of October 1. 1928, or that they had seen him anywhere in the vicinity of Papamoa.’ “I asked Mr. Cooney, in my last statement,” added Mr. Wilford. “ ‘As Mrs. Thomason admitted mentioning a sum of £lO,OOO as being the amount discussed between herself and Mrs. Bayly, what were they talking about?’ He has not yet answered that question. Advice to Counsel. “Finally Mr. Cooney says the essential and important point in regard to the statements is that ‘the persons making them should be examined on oath before a proper tribunal.’ I repeat what I stated on November 7: That no fresh evidence bearing on the cause of the deatli of Miss Elsie Walker has been discovered. Mr. William Bayly has sworn that he was in Auckland on October 1, 1928. It is urged that statements made to the police show that he was on the TaurangaTe Puke train on the evening of that day. if his presence on the train on that day can be established by two credible witnesses there is no difficulty in the way of Mr. Cooney gaining his ‘essential and importlint point’ by taking action against Mr. William Bayly for perjury before the proper tribunal already provided by law. namely, the Court. “The police consider that the value of the available testimony does not justify action bv them against Mr. Bayly.” concluded the Minister. “I agree. If, however. Mr. Cooney or any other person entertains a contrary opinion, the Court is open to him to institute proceedings.”