SMART DETECTIVES

Grey River Argus, 13 December 1940, Page 9

SMART DETECTIVES

JUDGE’S OPINION Evidence at Inquiry ' PALMERSTON N., December 11. The hearing of evidence was commenced by the Commission of Inquiry into police investigations, the members being Mr Justice Ostler, Messrs Comisjh (Solicijtor-Genera.l), and O’Leary (president of the Law Society). Counsel are: Mr H. R. Biss, for four police officers concerned. Mr W. P. Rollings on instructions of the Police Association for the detectives and Mr A. T. Young, for the young wbman concerned and hqr family. Commissioner Cummings, and the local Inspector, Scott, . are also present. The name of the young woman was suppressed, also ail references to the places of her occupation which might lead to her identification, witness being referred to as Miss X. In evidence, Miss X said that she was cooking an evening meal at her home, when two men, with suitcases, came to the back door, and said they were detectives. They asked witness about a man who went in a railcar to Palmerston North, and asked if she had given him a paper. Witness said “Yes.” They said they knew everything that happened in Palmerston North. One man asked if she had seen two women on the station. Witness said “No.” The man said a newspaper reporter had seen her with the woman, and newspaper reporters did not tell lies. The men were Detective Sergeant Jarrold and Detective Allsopp. Witness’s father arrived and went on to the verandah with J'arrold. Detective Allsopp told witness not to worry, that if she told the truth, she would be all right. Jarrold came back, and the two detectives started taking down a. statement from witness on a typewriter. Nothing was said to witness that she need or need not, make a statement. Several times, witness was told not to worry. If she told the truth, she would be all right. The detectives asked her about any letters. She said she burnt them. They said it was funny for her to burn love letters, that she should tie-them up with a blue ribbon and keep them. Witness secured one letter she had received the day before, and gave it to them. When witness’s mother and father came in for tea, witness and the detectives left the kitchen, the door of which was shut. The making of the statement, commenced about 5.30 p.m. Mr Young: Did they tell you they were going to prosecute you, or might prosecute you? Witness: No. They did not tell me. Mr Young: Did they indicate to you that they were going to prosecute anybody else? —No. Miss X added that it was about 10.30 p.m., when they came out of the room. Meantime, Allsopp got cups of tea for the three, and persuaded witness also to eat. He got a tug for her. The detectives read the

statement through, asked if it were correct, if there was anything witness wanted crossed out, and also to s’gn it. She did so. They shook hands and told her not to worry and to go back to her work again. They did not tell her, or leave the impression she would be prosecuted. A week later, Jarrold rang up and said she would have to go to Court. When Mr Biss was proceeding to cross-examine witness, in (considerable detail, relating to the interview, Mr Justice Ostler asked was such detail absolutely necessary. So far as His Honour could see, the girl had not made a single charge of impropriety against these police officers. Witness, to Mr Biss, said the officers were very good to her, and even persuaded her to get a doctor at that late hour.

The father of the girl gave evidence, and said he did not get the impression the detectives were being unfair . He saw no bullying occur. Witness said to one detective when he came out of the room, “You are a long time.” The reply was, “It’s a long story.” Another member of the family who came home well after 10 o’clock, said “it was a shame, • and threatened to go "and pull them all out” of the room. When the girl came out, she was “properly broken down." - Witness did not have any impression his daughter was to be charged. A statement from the girl’s mother was put in. She said she did not see anything against the conduct of the two officers. They appeared to show her daughter every consideration. Mr Biss, making representations on behalf of the police officers, detailed exhaustive detective work in the case, the only clue being the name on a newspaper found with the body of a child. This led to the interview with

the young woman, in furtherance of investigations, purely as one who might assist. Actually, she confessed to being the mother of the child. There was nothing to suggest, prior to this, that she was such. Judge Ostler observed it was a remarkably smart piece of work. Mr Biss proceeded, saying that the detectives called on the woman, believing they were on the track of the person making a living by carrying cut such operations.

Mr Biss mentioned that Jarrold was very ill, and the Court agreed to his evidence being taken in Wellington, later. In evidence, Allsopp said that J'arrold introduced himself and witness to the young woman, after they found her name. She was asked if her mother were present. The nature was explained to her. Detective Allsopp described the girl as very frank, so there was no need to tell her she need not fear telling the truth. Five hours was not an extremely long time for taking such a long statement. It was not till the girl came face to face with her mother and sister at the end that she broke down. She was treated all the time as a prospective witness, and so witness saw no need for a warning. As a matter of fact, it was in his mind that she would not be prosecuted. It was unfair to say that she had been on the grill for five hours and criticism of the way the statement had been taken was not justified. Had it been thought that the girl would be prosecuted she would have

been warned. Detective-Sergeant Meiklejohn said the case was unique in his 24 years’ experience. In almost every other case a professional abortionist had been on the scene. When the girl was before the Lower Court she was represented by counsel, who made no complaint about the way she had been handled by the police. Inspector Scott said that in arriving at the decision to prosecute the girl, what weighed more than anything else was “he serious nature of the offence particularly the pathologist’s report that the child had breathed, and would possibly have lived had it received proper care. Further, what occurred had been premeditated and arranged, the girl travelling a long distance for the express purpose, even bringing a piece of sheeting with her in which the body was wrapped. There was also the concealment of birth. In 1936 a commission investigated the abortion evil, and he prepared the police re-| port, which pointed out that where a woman was not prosecuted the police were criticised, and the result was the acquittal of the accused. The commission adjourned to Wellington, where it will sit on Friday.