ARMSTRONG TRAGEDY

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 July 1938, Page 7

ARMSTRONG TRAGEDY

ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. (Owing to congestion, telegrams from Wellington were delayed, yesterday afternoon, and some portions of the following messages were not included in our early editions. For the convenience of readers, we are republishing the following messages in connection with the Wellington murder trial. — Ed. Star.) [per press association.] WELLINGTON, July 1. Accused’s statement, submitted to the Court by Acting-Detective Grace, read: I am a single man, 20 years.and 11 months of age. Usually I live with my parents at. 20 Hinau Street, Hataitai, Wellington. I have been advised by Detective Turgis that anything I may say in the following may later be used ’as evidence, but I wish to make certain explanations over something which has been causing me some worry. I am within two months of finishing my apprenticeship at the Hutt workshops. I have, been learning the trade of fitter and turner there. I had intended on completion of my apprenticeship to leave New Zealand, and endeavour to get a job in Australia. I had this idea in view, as I believe I would have better prospects .in that country, and apart from that. I wanted to see something of that part of. the world. I had made mention of. these intentions to my mother, and as a matter of fact [ had intended leaving about September of this year. When I had thought about leaving home in this way, I had also then thought of other things. Matters at home, in respect Io my father's presence, were at times not too pleasant. As a matter of fact, my father has only been back from Australia about two months, after having been over there for some seven or eight months. He went, to Australia following my mother giving him about £l3O in cash, on the understanding that he would stay away for over. This was brought abou.t following a. period of unhappiness in the home. For as long as I can remember he has always been most inconsiderate of mv mother and my brother and myself. ' If we ever had visitors or callers at rhe house he was always 1 moody and growled and would probably insult. them before they left. When he was away in Australia, we were a very happy family. On his 1 return from Australia, we expected he would only stop a short time, and then get out. He knew he was not wanted. I know that my mother had given him practically all her savings, when she had given him the £l3O to leave this country, and further, than that, since we have been living in Wellington, after coming from Dunedin, had given him sums of money to start business on his own account, but he had only wasted them. 1 know that in □no instance my mother gave him £lOO. and this was wasted just as the rest had been. Everyone of us detested him. His manner was crude, and his language lurid. We never talked to him and he never spoke to us. but that he growled. I know that ho also had a good few opportunities to get jobs, but ho would never take them. When he was about the place, my mother’s friends were afraid, to come, near, while when he had been away everything went great. 1 had thought things over, and realised if L went away from New Zealand, my mother was getting old and probably not. in a. position to retain her position aS teacher indefinitely, and was more or less dependent on my brother Bill and 1.

THOUGHT FOR MOTHER. I could not imagine what would have happened with Bill away from the house, myself away altogether, and ray mother left at home with him alone. In every way he retarded our progress, socially and otherwise. On several occasions since his return from Australia, I have bet'll involved in disturbances or quarrels '.villi him, not done for my own sake, but for mother’s. Always these scenes would end by me telling him to get out of the place. He often ramped and raved at me during these scenes, and I think his brain was a little gone. Usually, my mother has gone to business by 8.30 a.m. 1 have usually gone rayself by 7 a.m. I could never bring friends home, due to the atmosphere created by my father, and practically the same thing applied to ray brother Bill. This was in direct, contrast to when only mother was home, and it was really like home.

I did not want to have a talk of this kind with my mother present, as her nerves are bad, and it has happened before, and the strain has been too groat, for her. At times she had nervous breakdowns, but during his absence in Australia her health improved greatly. In addition to- these facts, her holidays were commencing from May 6, and. if possible, I wanted him out. of the home before that. Actually. she had a breakdown just after he came back from Australia, showing her health was bad. These combined facts determined me to stop at. home on the morning of May 6, and do my best to make sure he went off out. of the place, altogether. I left the house at the usual time as if going to work. but. came home about. 9 a.m. In the meantime I had gone into town and just walked round and came back. When I came home about 9 a.m. I went straight, to him in the kitchen and spoke to him. I asked him when lie thought he was going to get out, and ho told me to “go to Hell and mind my own business,” and that he would get out when he felt like it. I then told him that he definitely hud to get out, and that,we had had enough of him, and ho then ranted and raved at; me, and called mo everything under the sun. Ho then started to threaten me, saying that he would kill me if I did not get out. He had a, boot black brush in his hand, and raised it over his head in a threatening way. I started into liim with my -fists, and I think that. I went berserk. That’s about, all I want to say about that part, but. afterwards I realised the necessity of cleaning the body up, as I did not. "want Mum to see it. I was frantic by that time, and thought. I would leave it- all, but then I thought I had better not, and I knew that 4 could not. take the body out -whole. I cut the body up w T ith a skinning knife I usually went deerstaking with, and plso an ordinary tenon saw. I removed the head rnd legs by using these instruments.

PICTON PROCEEDINGS. Continuing his statement, the accused said; “I then got two suitcases which were in the house. I divided

the remainder of the body into those two suitcases. I put the trunk, with the decapitation of the head, in one suitcase, and the head and the legs in the other. I was too upset to do anyI thing to the clothing. I did not wrap the remains in anything before placing them in the suitcase. I had to tie the suitcase with some light rope which I had about the house, as the lid was almost, hanging from one suitcase. I had to clean the mess up, mainly in the kitchen, but there had also been some struggling in the passage. I used a knife and a. saw on’ the body in the bathroom, which adjoins the kitchen. I think that, it would have been, about twelve (noon), when I 'left home with the two suitcases. I though that mj' mother may, have come home about that time, and I did not want, her there then. I went across the street, to the garage which I rent for my car. I placed the two suitcases in there, and then I went and ’phoned for a taxi. It picked me up at the garage, and I directed the driver to go to the Union Steamship Company. I got out there and left the. suitcases in the taxi, and went in. and purchased a. ticket on the boat for Picton. After that. I came back to the taxi. I instructed the driver to drive round to the Wellington Post Office Bank. I had taken my bank book from home with me. and I withdrew the whole lot that. I had deposited there. It was onlv five pounds. I then went back to the taxi, and went straight down to the Tamahine. I went straight on board, and I stopped there until sailing time. 1 put the suitcases under a seat, and I stopped there myself, as I was feeling pretty sick on it.

“On arrival at Picton. it was raining heavily, and very dark as well. I got off the. boat, with the suitcases, and went down towards the stern of the ship, after walking towards the end of the wharf. I heaved the suitcases into the water on the same side ot the wharf as the ship. I would not have been more than several paces from the end of the ship. I think I walked round a van drawn up on the wharf, and there was also a shed close to that. I then returned to the place where the railway carriages pulled up on the wharf. I bought a first-class ticket on the train, and went to Blenheim. I booked in at the Masonic Hotel in mv own name. I went to the Union Steam Ship Office at Blenheim on the following morning, and booked a passage for a return to Wellington that day by the Union Airways.

I left Blenheim by ’plane about one o’clock in the afternoon. About twenty minutes to half an hour alter landing. I came into town by a. Company car. I do not wish to say how I spent the next few hours, but at 12.30 a.m., on the following morning, which would be Sunday. I booked in at the Waterloo Hotel in the name of J. Campbell. I stopped there all that day. and I slept there that night, leaving the hotel in the morning, about, ten o’clock. I do not wish to say what I did between the time of leaving the hotel and about three o’clock rhe same afternoon, when I left Wellington. When I did leave Wellington. I commenced to walk, and got as far as Tawa Flat, when I was asked bv a man with a car it I wanted a ride. I accepted this, and went as far as Paekakariki with him. I airived there about 6 p.m., on Monday night, May 9. I had some tea at the station refreshment rooms, and then I went down to the little township toi a while, and I was back at the station about 8 p.m. I purchased a secondclass ticket from Paekakariki station, which would take me as far as Frankton Junction, but. on arrival there, t procured a further second-class ticket, and continued the journej to Auck making this statement I was informed by Detective Turgis and was cautioned bv him that I need not. say anvf'hing about how my father came bv'his death, but, in spite of that cam tion, it was my wish to make this voluntary statement concerning ti e matter, which I have road over, and is

11 “I would further like to add that, at ' times I have been in fear ot m.v own i life, and ho had threatened me. Ph>- • sicnllv. 1 am sure 1 was more than a match for him. but, duo to his frame < of mind, I had fears that ne ma> have done anything in an attempt to taL my life.” , j NEWSPAPER REPORT. ' — ■ ] CONTEMPT ALLEGED ] . ( WELLINGTON, •) uI.V , 1 - , ’ • In the Magistrate's Court, to-daj, ] Mr O’Learv drew attention to what | he submitted was a case of f os f c °m < tempt of Court, committed by ihe io- ( cal evening paper, in a report ot ye. - , terdav’s proceedings. _ “It is elementary in our administia ( tion of justice," he said, “that .V 1 ’ 1 ™ < to a trial, nothing should be said, oi rather that nothing should be repoited. in the way of comment which ( mav mean the accused would not have a fair trial. Four years ago. in j the Supreme Court, Wellington, a lo- , cal paper, or the publisher of a local , paper, was fined £lOO for publishing, prior to the trial, a photograph ot a - person charged with murder That case is reported as the Attorney Ge era I versus Tonks.” , Mr. O’Leary quoted the following extract from the judgment, oi Mi. trstice Blair: “A person accused ot crime is entitled to have the c . lia rge against, him heard and adjudicated upon, by a jury of his he is entitled also -to have the case presented to such jury with then minds open, and unprejudiced and untrammelled by anything, which anj newspaper, for the benefit, ot its readers (which is, of course, for the benefit of the newspaper itself), takes upon itself to publish before any paid of the case has been heard. When a charge against an accused person m that of murder, public interest is always aroused, and the gravity oi the charge imposes upon newspapers a special duty of care in the selection of matter it takes upon itself to publish Excess of zeal may be fraught with gravest consequences, either to the accused person himself, or to the ; administration of justice, ft would be lamentable, indeed, if there was - allowed to creep into the conduct, of newspapers- in New Zealand, the piac- : tice, before trial, of publishing any matter which even remotely could be [ construed as a comment, on the case r -still to. be heard.” . 5 “When I looked at the report in the L ‘Evening Post.! last night,” Mr O’Leary j proceeded, “candidly. I was shocked at ! the .captions.” i Mr O’Leary read the captions to the i Court, emphasising the last heading, r “Accused Written Admission.” Of I what? Mr O’Leary asked. Of guilt or „ of murder? i Counsel said he,did not know how } far damage of a head note of that kind L . rn'ght go, when one realised the case eventually had to be tried by twelve men, unknown at present, from the general body of citizens, who might read that head-line, and not go any >. further. ’ s That was not all, said Mr O Leary, i In the second colurhn, where the

paper set out that letter, that striking letter by the, boy to his mother, the paper had not just merely published the particular letter as it was entitled to, but it had interpreted the letter. Mr O’Leary read the floilowing paragraph which preceded the text of the letter as set out in yesterday’s “Post.”

At, this stage, Mr O’Leary read Douglas’s letter to his mother, a long and well composed letter, in which the son said that because of his treatment of the family he had killed his father. Mr O’Leary said the lettersaid nothing of the kind'. That was the paper’s interpretation of it. The question of interpretation was a mattertor the jury, which tried the boy* At once, said Mr O’Leary, he had endeavoured to have something dohe to prevent untold damage being done to the boy’s case, but it. had gone out, not only in Wellington—the report,, not the captions,—but also to every evening paper in New Zealand, which got the news from the Press Association. MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT. The paper didi not realise that, while the boy in his letter said that he had killed his father, it was a very different thing from murder, or even manslaughter. Th.? interpretation given to the letter, in a way, affected the defence which they had, and which would be put forward, namely, of self-defence and’ provocation, and so he. had deemed it his duty to bring the matter before the Court. Mr O'Leary added that he did not think it was a. matter upon which Mr Luxford had power himself to ex er ci s e jurisdi c t i o n.

The Magistrate said that was quite clear. Mr O'Leary said that, notwithstanding, he deemed it his duty to bring the matter to the notice of th(7 Court, and said he thought it should, be brought to the notice of the Attorney-General, so that appropriate action might, be taken. From his experience in this case, and from his experience in earlier cases, the privilege given to the Press, of reporting the proceedings in the Lower Court. was so abused and so tended to prejudicing accused, that the only way to deal with it satisfactorily was to prevent it. by legislation.

The Magistrate said that he did not know whether legislation was necessary. The Justices of the Peace A.ct. was specific. The view he took — .ho did not know whether it was the view of all Magistrates. but it was shared by the Magistrates at present in Wellington—was that accused had the right to demand a, hearing in camera, in respect of his preliminary hearing, should he so desire.

Mi'. O'Leary replied that he deemed it. best, in the interests of the boy, to have an open hearing, because of matters of rumour which it was desired to have cleared away in the Lower Court, but he never anticipated, in his endeavour to do that, that such a blow would be struck at the defence as had been struck by the paper. How he could undo the damage that had been done, he did not know. He could only ask that, if it had a regard for fairness and justice, it would at least publish verbatim the protest he made on behalf of the boy. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Cunningham) said that he would like to associate himself with the principles Mr O’Leary had enunciated, as to the scruplous care which should be taken by all newspapers, in reporting preliminary proceedings. As regards the actual caption, and Mr O’Leary’s remarks on the question of damage, he did not at present desire to say anything. He did not think it proper for him to do so. There was a good deal to be said, he thought, particularly where a crime charge was murder, for having the preliminary hearing confined entirely to the Magistrate, who had to decide on the facts, whether there was a prima facie case, and whether accused should take his trial, and the real trial was the trial in the Supreme Court. The Magistrate said 1 that he. was verv glad Mr O’Leary had brought the matter before the Court in the way he had. He was going to make no comment, on the propriety or other wise of what had appeared in the paper. Mr O'Leary had a. duty to his client, and he had forcibly pointed out how he might be prejudiced by what had appeared in the paper, lie had allowed Mr O’Leary to do it. for though he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Im was quite certain that, what Mr O'Leary had said would be published 1 verbatim, and for the reason that if it he that hisclient was prejudiced, what he had said would do much to dissipate the prejudice. The matter* having- been brought to his notice it was his duty of course to send the particular paper to the Attorney-General for him to consider what action if any was necessary by reason of what had been published, and the way it had been published.