ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY

Evening Star, Issue 20312, 22 October 1929, Page 2

ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY

IS THERE FRESH EVIDENCE ? MINISTER THINKS NOT LONG DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT [From Ous Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 21. Whether or not the Elsie Walker inquest should be reopened was debated in interesting fashion in the House of Representatives to-night, the Minister of Justice (Mr Wilford) going as far as to promise that he would, within a few days, make a statement regarding the two- women who had given statements to the newspapers. Mr Wilford added, however, that he believed the public would feel after he had made that statement that they should not be called as witnesses. The Minister also said he had a written statement by one of those women, in which she said the opposite to that which she had stated in the newspaper interview. The question of the desirability of reopening the Elsie Walker inquest was raised when Mr Macmillan, the Reform member for Tauranga, introduced his Coroner’s Amendment Bill. This measure would give authority, lacking under the existing law, for an inquest to bo reopened in any case where the cause of death had not been ascertained, but whore fresh evidence of an important nature was available. UNEASINESS IN PUBLIC MIND. Mr Macmillan, in asking for leave to introduce his Bill, recalled the circumstances of the_ finding of Elsie Walker’s body, and reviewed the salient features of the evidence. The inquiry respecting the police methods, ordered by the Minister, had resulted in the police being exonerated, but those interested in the case now believed that fresh evidence was available, but as there was a weakness in the existing law it could not bo called. As there was much uneasiness in the public mind, a statement by the Minister was awaited by the country. Mr Macmillan believed that a simple Bill, such as the one he had introduced, would be effective, and, if given the opportunity, would be passed by Parliament. He had asked the Minister of Justice whether it was proposed to introduce an amendment this session, and the Minister had replied that it was not proposed to do so. Mr Macmillan could see no reason why provision for the reopening of an inquest should not bo made. If this were done New Zealand’s law would he brought into lino with that of the Old Country. What wore the Minister’s reasons for not bringing forward such an amendment? Feeling was running very high, and it seemed that, sooner or later, there would have, to be such an amendment. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION GIVEN. In associating himself with Mr Macmillan, Mr Young (Hamilton) said it seemed that insufficient information had been given the public. Mr Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) said a Bill of this kind should come from the Government, and not from a private member, if it was to go through. “What I am puzzled about is whether there is any bar to the Justice Department making further inquiries into the case?” Mr Wilford: None whatever. Mr Holland confessed that he did not see why, if there was any fresh evidence as to the circumstances of Elsie Walker’s death, there should lie anything to prevent it being made public. Mr Wilford: There have been very misleading reports published. Mr Holland said ho would like to hear a statement from- the Minister whether, in his opinion, the Police Department had done everything possible to clear the matter up. Mr Wilford; 1 believe they have. Mr Nash (Palmerston North) thought Mr Macmillan’s request was very reasonable, and it was to be hoped the' Bill would bo given at least its second reading. TALK OF A LEGAL QUIBBLE. “ It seems to me we need something more than a second reading,” said Mr Savage (Auckland West). The public mind was disturbed, and there was an absence of legislative authority for the reopening of the inquest. The Government should introduce an amendment, and not leave it’ to a private member, whose Bill might be blown on to the rocks. If there was fresh evidence available, it was only a fair thing that it should be made known. Mr Wilford: Do you mean further evidence as to the cause of death?

Mr Savage: Yes. Mr Will’ord: But the two doctors concerned said they couldn’t say what she-died of.

Mr Savage, after several similar exchanges with the Minister, remarked that he did not want any red herring drawn across his track to lead him away from the point. What he wanted was to get at the cause of death and the persons ’responsible For, it. Mr Wilford; There is no evidence that wo have not got. Mr Savage; Is there no evidence that the coroner has not gotf Mr Wilford: There is no evidence that the police have not got, Mr Savage: That is not the point. If there is evidence, then the coroner should have it. Mr Wilford: Evidence of the cause of death!-' Mr Savage: It seems to me it is going to be a legal quibble, and I’m not going to be a party to it. I want to know if the Government is prepared to do what is its duty, and whether the law is to be amended to make it possible for the coroner to have fresh evidence put in front of him. Mr Poison (Stratford) failed to see the necessity for the Dili. Mr Harris (Waitematn) supported Mr MacMillan. He believed that if there was any fresh evidence it should be made possible for it to be brought forward. Mr Hal! (Hauraki) spoke in similar strain. It seemed to him a strange anomaly that, once an inquest was closed, it could not be reopened. The police could not publish the evidence in their possession, and it seemed that the only way to make it public was to reopen the inquest. Mr Howard (Christchurch South) said there was a feeling in every father’s mind that all that could have been told about this case had not been told. Mr Wilford interjected that when the police had a case against a man they could arrest that man at any time, despite the open verdict. Mr Campbell (Hawke’s Bay) said there was the feeling over a great part

of tiie North Island that justice had not been done. Mr Wilford: Would you make the Bill retrospective r* Mr Campbell: 1 don’t like to make anything retrospective. Mr 'Wilford; This Bill would lie useless unless retrospective. Mr Campbell: Well,-it should have sufficient retrospection to enable this case to bo reopened. Mr Field (Otaki) sajd ho had beer informed that the medical evidence al this inquest was not altogether satisfactory, especially regarding the head injuries, and he had been told that the coroner and the public had never been given full information respecting these injuries. The Government would be wise to have the law amended.

THE MINISTER’S STATEMENT, “ To-day 1 received a heap of files concerning this case,” said Mr Wilford, •‘and I spent part of the morning, the whole of the lunch hour, and a great part of the afternoon upon them, but 1 ani not yet in a position to make a statement. It should be understood that inquests are held to ascertain the cause of death. In this case the doctors,- after making a post mortem examination. were unable to ascertain the cause of death. However, if the police were in a position to show the guilt of any man they could arrest him. To compare the Coroner’s Act in England with our Act is not a fair analogy because in England a Coroner’s Court consists of a'jury, and that jury can commit anyone for trial. A coroner in New Zealand cannot do that; all he can do is to call medical men, whoso evidence he follows in giving his verdict. JUDGMENT RIGHT-REASONS V/RONG. Mr Wilford said he had analysed all the evidence in the possession of the police, and lie intended to make a statement concerning that evidence. He did not think it would be said that the fresh evidence should bo called. Mr Savage; Didn’t the coroner recommend that it should bo reopened? Mr Wilford: Yes, he did. Mr Savage: Then there must have been something wrong with it. Mr Wilford: Ho gave a good judgment. His judgment was all right, but his reasons were all wrong, and that's what 1 think of it. .Eater, when Mr MacMillan was replying, Mr Wilford asked if that member was trying to get at the point that two women who had given statements to the newspapers should be recoiled; and, if that was the case, would Mr MacMillan believe him when he said he had a written statement from one of those women expressing the opposite to that she made to the newspaper? Mr MacMillan said the point should ho whether there was a weakness in the law. An inquest would not be reopened in a. frivolous manner, but only if the Attorney-General was satisfied that there was , sufficient fresh evidence to warrant a reopening. Mr Wilford: Oh, you have got it all the wrong way round. ' The Bill was read a, first time.