Gunn Found Guilty.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 141, 29 May 1920, Page 5

Gunn Found Guilty.

DEATH SENTENCE PRONOUNCED. EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVE. FINGER PRINT SYSTEM VINDICATED. I Per Press' Association.) Auckland, Maj- 28. The trial of Dennis Gunn for the Ponsonby murder concluded to-night, when the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Addressing the prisoner the judg" ■said he had been found guiltj' after a long trial in which the jurv had shewn the greatest eare to see that he should only be convicted on the mostabsolute and convincing evidence. That evidence, in his Honour’s mind, was conclusive that accused murdered a worthy servant of the State, Mr. Braithwaite. The Judge then assumed the Black Cap and passed the death sentence.

In further remarks hi.s Honour said the case had vindicated the fingerprint system of investigation and identification, if vindication were needed. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL.

When Mr. Reed addressed tTie jurv before the verdict on behalf of accused, he quoted from the opinion of the Chief Justice of Victoria in 1912 to tineffect that the theory of fingerprints was not generally accepted by scientific men, and had not been sufficiently studied to enable its propositions to be accepted as scientific facts. Counsel drew special attention to the remark by the authority quoted that fingerprint evidence savoured of mystery. Ir, the present case this had been noticeable. Ho said the experts repeatedly said that a certain similarity in the prints would not be appreciated bj- laymen. The Chief Justice’s opinion here remarked that this was overruled bja majority- of the Court, which held that fingerprint evidence might be accepted, taking fingerprints as a whole. Mr. Reed continued that the most tliat could be said of them was that they pc.haps pointed to the accused as the author of the 'burglary. Even if it were held that the prints on the revolver were from accused’s hands the most that could be concluded was that he handled the weapon after it was cleaned, and the evidence shewed that it had been cleaned after it was last fired. From the position of the print it was probable that the man who made it did so in putting the weapon away. Passing to the revolver print itself, Mr. Reed declared that neither this print nor one on the top of the cashbox tray, which were both alleged to bt from the same finger, showed a scar which was apparent in accused’s print, with which the Crown sought to identify it. The explanation of the discrepancies given by experts was that there was a blur or that a piece of curt had intervened, or that the man had been handling bricks, none of which went to increase the layman’s confidence in the system. Counsel pointed out a number of alleged similarities upon the enlarged prn.te produced m court and submitted that no similarity whatever on these points was apparetr to the lay eye. Mr. Martin addressed the court on behalf of the Crown after lunch adjournment. He felt justified in saying that nothing had been disclosed tliat was detrimental to the character or motives of any of the Crown witnesses. On the other hand he did not wish to suggest that accused’s friends and relations who described bis movements were to be distrusted because of their relation to accused. It was onlyfair, however, to point out that it was obvious that the interests of these witnesses lav in one particular direction. Dealing with other witnesses, counsel said that the man who stated that he saw accused outside a theatre shortly before 8 p.m. was obviously of a highly nervous temperament and from the way in which he gave his evidence it could readily be inferred that he would be very open to suggestions from other people upon such a matter as the exact time he saw accused, a very important point.