TAMAKI TRAGEDY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 195, 17 July 1935, Page 8

TAMAKI TRAGEDY

“DEATH AFTER ILLEGAL OPERATION.” FINDING BY CORONER. STRONG COMMENT VOICED. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, July 16. A verdict that death was due to Shock following an illegal operation was returned by Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., Coroner, at the close of a lengthy inquiry into the death of Mary Elizabeth Raymond, aged 21, a half-caste Maori, whose body was found under .the Panmure wharf on June 2. Ihe r Coroner expressed the view that it was unfortunate if the matter of the girls death could not be carried any further. He described the suggestion of suicide as utterly absurd. Before the Coroner gave his verdict the last witness. H. L. M. Buisson, a solicitor, was called The Coroner: Did Dudley Bennett ask you to obtain possession of two letters? —He explained to me that there were certain letters in existence, and indicated that they- were in MiHall Skelton’s possession. They had come into his possession through Mr Hughes. I advised Bennett to give the police a full statement, and that the letters were essential to completing the statement. 1 called at Skelton’s office in company with Bennett and Hughes on Monday, June 10. AVe had a general discussion of the case. I told Skelton that Bennett was making a full statement, and that his papers were necessary, particularly two letters from Mary Raymond to Bennett, one letter having been scored out in pencil. Skelton informed me that he had all the papers, but thev would not be available until the amount of his costs and some money burrowed by Bennett from him had been repaid. The amount of the loan was fixed at £3, and the costs at £8 Bs. T told Skelton I would arrange with Mr Bennett, senr., in Wellington, for the payment of the costs. I rang Mr Bennett, senr., and was authorised to make the payment. At a later interview Skelton produced an envelope full of papers. I asked him to give me his assurance that in the envelope were the two letters designated by me. He said they had been destroyed. I asked who had destroyed them, and he said a member of his office staff. I asked on whose instructions, and he said Bennett’s. I then informed him that, in these circumstances, it was useless for me to take the remainder of the papers, and accordingly I refused to pay over any money whatsoever. The Coroner: Oil the occasion of your first visit you asked particularly about these two letters?—l designated the two letters and asked him if all the papers were there, including these letters. Otherwise, I would not have gone back. And Air Skelton said he had them?— Ho said he had all the papers. That was on the Monday ?—On the Monday, sir. And it was not until 9.30 on the morning of Tuesday that you knew the letters had l>eeu destroyed?—That was my first intimation. CORONER’S VERDICT. In giving his verdict the Coroner said: ‘‘The two letters with regard to which I have just heard evidence have been referred to quite often during these proceedings. After hearing Bennett’s evidence I found that there was a conflict between himself and Hall Skelton with regard to the destruction of those letters, for Skelton had told me that, those letters had been destroyed by him on Bennett’s instructions. Now Skelton is a solicitor, and ns such, of course, is entitled .to expect that considerable weight will be given to anything that he says. Bennett, however, had told me of something that Skelton had not told me—a telephone communication to Bennett at Hamilton by Skelton on the day on which the newspapers published tho particulars of the finding of the body concerning which this inquiry has been held. Bennett said that Skelton then referred to the finding of the body and ndi ised him to destroy all letters in his correspondence relating to Mary Raymond and advised him to keep out of the way of the police. I do not think that Bennett at any time instructed Skelton to destroy those letters, and the destrucion of them, I am afraid, was a grave impropriety on the part of Skelton. The police complain in these proceedings ot obstruction throughout. It may be that they have some grounds for complaint because T have in evidence the tact that statements were prepared bv Skelton in his office for a- number of witnesses who have been called at this inquiry. Acting for Hewer, Skelton seems to'liave been able to get in touch ti itli most of the people who could give information, ami after hearing what they had to say he seems to have prepared a statement for signature bv them, to be copied out by them and then signed, and then to Ije handed by thorn to the police. These statements were very far from being complete and indicate an attempt to suppress information that those witnesses were quite willing to make- available to the police. “A solicitor is an officer of the Court, and I think that to suggest to witnesses that they should make statements that are not accurate is another impropriety.” SUICIDE IDEA “ABSURD.”

Continuing, the Coroner said the suggestion of suicide was utterly al>6uid. He added: “Bennett in evidence refers to one of these letters which, unfortunately, it has not been possible to produce. One of these letters was written after an appointment had apparently been made with Hewer. If I am to accept what Mary Raymond herself said, Bennett says there was in that letter a tone of relief after having met the witness Peggy Robb, who had said she could take her to a doctor who was known to her. Of course, we know why Mary Raymond came to Auckland; it was for the purpose of undergoing an illegal operation, and the thought of having that performed by a qualified doctor had apparently caused a feeling of relief. There is not the slightest reason for assuming that there was at any time anything more than a natural anxiety on the part of Mary Raymond on that day as to the operation that was to be performed, because I think the arrangement had been made.” Continuing, the Coroner said Bennett had been commendably frank in the evidence he had given. “Mary Raymond had been in constant communication with him. She bad written to him telling him she had made an appointment with a doctor. She had told him she had met the witness Peggy Robb, and through the agency of Peggy Robb was to be operated upon by this doctor on Wednesday, May 1. f say it is extremely unlikely that Mary Raymond would in a letter to Bennett misrepresent what had taken place, and I have not the slightest doubt that she had. as she said in her letter, seen someone she called a doctor on Tuesday and made an appointment for Wednesday, wlifen this operation was to be performed.” “I do not for one moment think flint Miss Von Zglinicki was mistaken when she stated that between 3.30 and 4.15 on the afternoon of May 1 she saw Mary Raymond in the company of Hewer She was able a few days later and before she knew that Mary Raymond had disappeared, to point out Hewer and his chauffeur, or seoretjrj. bpojtkeeper, or whatever lie is.

who was in his company the same day. She had a particular reason for remembering Hewer because of bis likeness to some relative in New South Wales, and to my mind it is extremely improbable that she had made a mistake in regard to the two men. Mary Raymond had an appointment with' Hewer for that day and she was in his company for that day. be extraordinary interest that Hewer has taken in subsequent events is inadequately explained by his own statement, which is that he was anxious to help people who weie eiitirely unknown to him. CAUSE OF DEATH. “Now I come to the conclusion that Mary Raymond had an appointment, for the “ performance of an illegal operation on May 1, and I know that she disappeared apparently on May 1 I must form some conclusion as to the cause of her death,” the Coroner continued. ‘‘The idea of suicide I put out of my mind. The post-mortem examination does not disclose the cause of death. I have, however, evidence, which must guide me in trying to form an opinion ns to wliat caused her death. I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that her death was caused by th.s operation; that somebody in possession of the dead body, which could not be buried in a regular way, was forced for his own protection or her own protection to get rid of that body, and did so by wrapping it partly in sacks and partly in canvas, attaching a weight to it and casting it into the sea. At ho did that I am not prepared, on the evidence before me to say. I have in these proceedings evidence that would not be admissible in criminal proceedings. That evidence, however, does enable me to come to the conclusion to which I have come as to the cause of death. I find that the body that was found in the water on June 2' was .the body of Mary Raymond; 1 find I that she died on or about Mav 2. 15)35, I and that the cause of her death was shock following upon an illegal operation that had been performed upon her. If the matter cannot be carried any further it is unfortunate.