OBSTRUCTIVE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 247, 16 July 1935, Page 10

OBSTRUCTIVE

I feel like doing myself in as I have made such a mess of things.’ At the hat shop Mary said when she looked at the mirror, ‘This is the last time 1 will see myself again.’ ” What time did you start to look for Dr. Hewer on the Wednesday?—“We did not look for Hewer on the Wednesday. Mary went home.” Why?—“She did not tell me.” Did she have a small parcel containing a nightdress in it? —“No.” What time were you to meet Hewer? —“No time was arranged.” She went home to get her nightdress? —“No.” Witness said she did not know if Mary had gone to Hewer’s rooms after they parted. Mary Raymond was a complete blank to witness after that afternoon. About a Statement. Witness said that when she went to the detective office she took her statement with her. It was written in Mr. Skelton’s office. It was written the same day as the other statements. There was no reference to Hewer. Skelton asked her time and again if she took Mary to Hewer. Witness told him she did not. The statement was partly dictated by Skelton. Mr. Walsh: Why did you not mention in your statement the intended visit to Dr. Hewer?—“Because I never made any arrangements to go to Dr. Hewer.” i

You have heard letters read by Dudley Bennett?—“Half of them.” Who is the “doctor” referred to?— “Well, Dr. Hewer.” It was stated in the letter that Dr. Hewer was doing the job on Mary Raymond for £6 on account of knowing her girl friend?—“Yes, that was in the letter.” Is that true? —“No.”

Can you explain why Mary Raymond should have written, untruths to Dudley Bennett?—“Yes; she wrote that so that Dudley would not be worried about her. It had been arranged that we should go to Dr. Hewer next day.” When did you think of that answer? —“I did not think of it. It is true.” The only part of that letter untrue is the part that refers ‘to Hewer and you?—“Yes.” To Mr. Singer, witness said she had never met Dr, Hewer until the night after Mary Raymond’s disappearance. Miss Raymond left her at 2.10 p.m. Witness did not wait there until 3.30 p.m., but went into a shop and looked at.some dress materials until 3 o’clock. At 3.30 she became concerned about the absence of her friend. There had been a previous disturbing occurrence that day. Mary had gone to have a drink of water and was scooping the water with her hands and letting it run over her face and down her frock. When witness spoke to her about, it, Mary replied: “I do not care what happens to me.”

Pathologist's Evidence,

Dr. Walter Gilmour, pathologist at Auckland Hospital, said he made a post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Raymond. Decomposition was advanced on June 3, and death had occurred about one month - before. All the pelvie organs were missing. “No cause of death was found,” said Dr. Gilmour. “There was no evidence of death from violence, and there was no evidence of disease in the organs present such as would be likely to cause death. With decomposition so far advanced it was impossible to exclude'death from drowning.” Mr. Walsh: Gould you draw any conclusion from the fact that there was no foreign matter 'in the windpipe?— “If . death had been due to drowning, one might have found some foreign substance in the windpipe.” The coroner: If Mary Raymond had undergone an illegal operation on May 1, and things had not, gone quite right, what might have followed?—“There might have been sudden death from shock and haemorrhage or there might have been fatal blood poisoning.” “I think that if there had been blood poisoning I would have found some evidence pointing to it,” Dr. Gilmour added.

“That is the evidence, your ’Worship,” Mr. Walsh said. “The delay in finalising the matter was due to obstructive tactics encountered by the police in their inquiries. It is to be regretted, sir, that these people were not sent to the police in the first instance. So far as the majority of the witnesses were concerned, and that includes the half-caste girl Anaru, they were not placing themselves in peril in making full discovery to the police in regard to the unfortunate girl.” “I don’t know if Mr. Walsh feels there is any necessity for an answer from me,” Mr. Singer said. “As far as I am concerned it cannot be suggested that there was anything of hindrance.”

Mr, Singer added that from the time the witness Anaru came into his ken everything was done to enable her to give a statement under humane conditions. The coroner said he had thought of asking for some further evidence—he did not know whether he should insist relating to the destruction of letters which had been handed to Mr Hall Skelton.

Mr. Walsh asked what witnesses the coroner might wish to call.

. The Coroner: It is because witness is a solicitor that I am reluctant to call him. He is acting now for Bennett. I shall give the matter some further consideration.

The inquest was then adjourned until to-morrow.