TATTOOED ARM CASE

Grey River Argus, 10 September 1935, Page 5

TATTOOED ARM CASE

TRIAL OF BRADY Delay With Jury (Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn.) SYDNEY, September 9 The trial in connection with the * ‘ shark ’ ’ arm case opened this morn ing, intense public interest being taken in it. More than an hour was spent in empanelling the jury. Brady exhausted his right to challenge. Challenges by the Crown exhausted the panel, before the requisite number of jurymen for th e , trial had been obtained. At 11.30 a.m., endeavours were still being made to complete this initial step in the proceedings. Police Evidence OF BRADY’S DEMEANOUR. NO GOOD TO THE COURT. (Aus. and N.Z. Cable Assn., (Received September 9, a: 6.50 p.m.) SYDNEY September 9. The jury for the trial of Brady in connection with the tattooed arm emitted by a captured shark in the Acquarium at Coogee. »was eventually secured to day. Thc empamieTing was con pieced at 12.10 p.m. The t) ury then ictired, wn.le the admissabnty of certain evidence was argued. Detective Sergeant Almri.l stated tx.at, at di'aG} ’s request tn.e latter had been shown the two statements that were made by the late Reginald Holmes. Brady had said that Holmes’s first statement was all lies; but he had eaid that HoJmes’s second statement was a.'l right. Detective Almond added that Brady’s demeanour when he was read ing the first of Holmes’s statements was as usual, but “when he read the second statement,” said witness, “I noticed that .his face changed colour, and he appeared shaky. His hands were shaking and his voice was quivering/’ Mr Evat-t’, counsel for Brady, said that this evidence was denied by the defence.

Chief Justice Jordan said that, in his view, it was impossible to construe these words as being a n admission, and that, as regards Brady’s demeanour, anyone would be likely to turn pale. “IT seems to me,” said the Chief Justice, “that if the evidence rests on this, I should reject it, as far as these statements are concerned.” The Crown prosecutor, Mr McKeen. said that this decision of His Honour had “thrown him out of gear a little.” At the request of the prosecutor, an adjournment was then granted till the afternoon. Case to go On “ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.’’ (Aus and N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received September 9, 9.55 p.m.) SYDNEY, September 9. After the adjournment, the Crown Prosecutor announced that( the case would go on. He then proceeded to outline the Crown evidence. He said that in view of certain legal argument which had taken place during the jury’s absence, the case depended entirely on what* he termed “circumstantial evidence.” It was competent for the jury, he said, to return a verdict of manslaughter, but, in his opinion, it was -a case of murder or nothing. At; the conclusion of the Crown Prosecutor’s observations, Mr Evatt submitted that the case could be taken from the jury. Mr Justice Jordan replied that there was no practice by which a ease could be taken from a jury on a Prosecutor’s opening. Mr Evatt: “There is a precedent.”

The Crown Prosecutor: “There is not >a reported ease of any precedent. I did not open in any detail, and certain facts may come out during the progress of the, case. I suggest that the jury should hear the evidence.” Mr justice Jordan: “Unless the Crowf asks me, I do not propose to withdraw the case.” Evidence was then entered upon, but the case was adjourned until tomorrow.