THE SATHERLEY MYSTERY. A SENSATIONAL CONFESSION.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 73, 23 September 1898, Page 5

THE SATHERLEY MYSTERY. A SENSATION AL CONFESSION.

THE POLICE DISBELIEVE IT. The somewhat mysteriously worded telegrams arriving from Invercargill yesterday relative to a statement made by a prisoner named Thomas Petersen, and which it was alleged "cleared up" a fourteen months' old Blenheim mystery, have caused some sensation. The alleged disclosure has been cited as another instance of the truth of the old saying " murder will out." But the police assert that the story told in the South is absolutely untrue — is in faot a " mare's-nest." It is the cjrcum,stances surrounding the death of Harry Satherley at Blenheim in July of last yenr which the confession — if such it can be called — presumes to "clear up." Satherley disappeared on the 9th July, 1897, so iji was believed, though two persons swore to having seen him the following day. On the afternoon of the 9th a man named Beattie missed £37 which he had had in his possession, and informed the police that he had been robbed. In this connection a suspicious circumstance in the minds of the police was that that night Satherley was in tho Marlborough Hotel, under the influence of drink, and was seen to be Hashing money about in an unusual way. He was with a man named Victor Ohlsen and others, and when he left about 10 p.m. Ohlsen followed him out, and returning about five minutes later, said that Satherley had gone horne — he lived about a quarter of a mile away. During the enquiry into the robbery from Beattie a warrant was issued for Satberley's arrest, but no trace of him could be found, though later on a £5 note was picked up just inside a wire fence near the river, where Satherley would have had to pass on his way home. Nothing further, however, was discovered until some days later a boy picked up a £10 note, and a plug of tobacco similar to one which the missing man had purchased shortly before the 9th was also found. Suspicion of foul play was rife, and the mystery was the cause of much agination and speculation until the 18th September— some months later — when Satherley's body was found in the river about a couple of miles by water and a mile by land from the Marlborough Hotel, in an altogether opposite direction to deceased's house. There was a wound on the top of deceased's head, which the doctor said might have been caused by a fall. But the coroner's jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. There were some who held to the belief that Satherley had committed suicide, but investigations by the police and Detectives Broberg and Cox did not clear up the mystery. In Satherley's clothing, when his body was recovered, was found a watch and about 24s in silver, but no paper money. Victor Ohlsen meanwhile had been arrested charged with the theft of Beattie's^» money, and was committed for trial. When the case came before the Supreme Court the evidence was followed with the greatest interest, as it was believed by many that it would clear up the whole matter, the suspicion being that Ohlsen was implicated iv the disappearance of Satherley. 73ut the jury found the prisoner Not Guilty, and Mr. Justice Edwards, it will be remembered, ridiculed the suggestion of murder. In this unsatisfactory position the affair has remained ever since. It will be remembered that at the recent Police Commission a charge was brought by Mr. E. Purser, the then Mayor of Blenheim, against the police of " failure to take prompt action re disappearance of Harry Satherley," a charge which, after careful investigation, was disproved, the finding of the Commission being — "We consider the police did all iv their power under the circumstances. Whether Satherley died from accident or was murdered has yet to be proved." This statement of Petersen throws no further light on the mystery. His story is, in effect, that he, with a friend, had a quarrel with Satherley in a Blenheim hotel, and afterwards followed deceased when he left the premises, coining up to him near the river, about a mile away, where Peterseu's friend again assumed the aggressive and suddenly struck Satherley in the head with something — probably a stone. Petersen the.n went through the fallen man's pockets, and his friend next rolled the body into the river, and the two decamped. It will be noticed that the "friend" played the chief part in the tragedy — probably because Peterseu was fully aware that a reward of £500 was offered for such information as would lead to the conviction of the murderer, and a free pardon to any person, " not being the principal offender, who gave such information. The Invercargill prisoner, however, is careful not to fix any date for "the alleged perpetration of the crime. It is certain Irom enquiries made by the police that in July of last year Petersen was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in the Lyttelton gaol for a pejtty theft. He is wellknown to the police. Immediately on receipt of the news of this " confession " yesterday the police instituted enquiries. Telegrams were sent to all parts of the colony, aud official gazettes called in.to requisition. These established beyond all doubt that Peterseu, as before stated, was in gaol at the time, and his " friend," it is believed, was similarly confined in Auckland, and, it is certain, could not have been in Blenheim. Both men have spent portions of their time in this city. Reported "confessions" on the part of persons in custody are anything but rare, and only few of them are made public. For instance, it has not hitherto been made public that some months ago another (in police phraseology) "old bird" kindly voluntarily "cleared up" the Satherley mystery; but such is the case. He too gave a most circumstantial detailed account of the "murder," which he said was committed by him and the convenient " friend." In that instance, as in this, it was proved that he had been " doing time " in the month when — according to his story — Satherley was murdered, and his " friend " was many miles from Blenheim. What actuates criminals to make statements of this description can only be a matter of conjecture. "A desire for notoriety " is the general opinion. As for gaining reward, it is not likely to be paifl unless something substantially corroborative of the statement was forthcoming, and besides, nearly every movement of criminals such as th,ese is perfectly well known to the police. The "Satherley mystery" appears to remain still as great a mystery as ever, though there are opinions and theories in plenty.

[BY TELEGRAPH — PBESS ASSOCIATION. J Inveecabgill, 22nd September. The police are still closely reticent about the statement alleged to have been made by Petersen in reference to the Satherley mystery in Blenheim. Petersen, who is a thick-set, power! ul mau, between 30 and 40 years, was sent to gaol for a month for robbing a till. Since liberation it is said that he has been trying to find out the position that an accessory to a murder would be in as regards ;the reward as an informer. It is also current that he has referred to the Blenheim affair as. if he knew more about it than other people. It is possibly a trumped-up stor} r .