Buried Alive!

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6628, 15 August 1931, Page 5

Buried Alive!

Medical Opinion Concerning Death of Phillis Sgmons

Blows Struck on Temple and Back of Neck

Medical evidence given yesterday by Dr. P. P. Lynch, pathologist at the Wellington hospital, concerning the death of Phillis Avis Symons was to the effect that in his opinion all the indications pointed to the conclusion that she was alive when she was under the ground. Detectives gave evidence as to the finding of the body and the arrest of Coats, and the Court reserved till Monday its decision as to whether a long statement made to the police by accused should be admitted as evidence Mr. E. Page, S.M., is hearing the case, which is being conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey). The accused is represented by Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr. H. J. V. James.

Isabella McKenna, married, living at 43 Adelaide road, said she knew the accused, who called to see her on Monday, Juno 29, in connection with letting a room. Witness agreed to let a room at 7/0 a week. Coats had no luggage with him. During tho afternoon of the same day witness left tho house and returned home at about 4 o'clock. The accused's luggage was in his room, and Coats himself came at about 9.30 that night. Ho stayed at tho house until July 6. During that time no girls came to see him, and he did not mention the name of any girl to witness. He did not have a dog while he was at the house.

had contained parsnips. The sack (produced) was similar to the one which had been missing. On Very Good Terms Questioned by Mr. Treadwell, witness said she had a good opportunity of seeing and conversing with both Mr. and Mrs. Coats when they were living in her house. She spoko to them separately and together. “Your impression of those two people was, I suppose, that they were a hap-pily-married couple?”—“Yes.” “And they were both very fond of each other?” —“He was always very affectionate to her.” She thought tho girl might have been rathor shy on account of her condition. Her recollection was that on Friday, Juno 26, Mr. and Mrs. Coats went out together. She heard them when they passed her door. She had no doubt it was Coats and his wife. “I put it to you, you heard two lots of footsteps return after 10.30?”—“I couldn’t say how many returned, but I heard the footsteps go to Mr. Coats' room.” “I put it to you that you thought you heard those two sets of footsteps return Mr. and Mrs. Coats?”— “Yes.” “And if you had been asked next day and there had been no talk of disaster you would have thought it was Mr. and Mrs. Coats?” —“I took it for granted it was them returning.” “Are you quite sure you saw Mr. Coats on the Saturday?”—“Yes; I saw him on the Saturday, the Sunday and the Monday.” “You had a conversation with him each day?”—“Yes.” “I put it to you he did not appear disturbed or alarmed in any way?”—“His manner seemed, quite normal.'' .“Quito friendly with you?”—■ “Yes.” Tho last time witness saw him was on the Monday. He knocked on her door and walked into the kitchen, and witness followed. “You had quite a friendly conversation with him?” —“Yes.” “And his manner on that day was the normal friendly manner ho has alalways adopted towards vou?”—• “Yes.”

Olive Irene Claire Smith, a widow, residing at 140 Adelaide road, said she let rooms. On or about April 2 of this year she let a room to Mr. and Mrs. Coats. The accused was the man, and and she recognised the snapshot (produced) as that of Mrs. Coats. The accused was working on relief works. A few weeks after the pair came to the house, witness suspected that the girl was pregnant. Mrs. Coats had very little clothing, and the pair appeared to bo “very hard-up.'' Witness only saw Mrs. Coats wearing one black dress, and sometimes a pink overall. Witness described the clothing which she had seen Mrs. Coats wear. Tho dress became very shabby towards tho end of their stay at witness’s house. The girl wore a wedding ring and a ring with red stones in it, as well as a string of beads. The girl was very shy and quiet, witness continued. She saw her almost overy day. For the first few weeks the pair were there they spent their evenings in their room, and had frequent visitors. One of them was do Maine, and another was Glover. There was also a woman whom witness understood to be tho accused’s sisder. The Girl “Goes Home’’

During tho last six weeks while the couple wore at tho house the accused went out in the evening more frequently than before, and Mrs. Coats stayed in her room. About June 24 witness spoko to Coats about the rent, asking if lie could let her have the two weeks’ rent which was owing. He replied that he was not earning much money, and there was only enough to buy food. If tilings did not improve he would have to send his wife home and go to a cheaper place. He did not say at that time whether he wanted Mrs. Coats to go home. On Friday, June 26, witness could not remember Mrs. Coats being around the place. About 8 o’clock that night she heard tho footsteps of two people coming down the stairs. Slio formed the impression that they were the footsteps of Mr. and Mrs. Coats. Later on in the evening she heard footsteps returning to the accused’s room. This was some time after 10.30 o’clock. On Saturday afternoon, June 27, she again mentioned tho rent to accused, asking if he could let her have tho rent then. Ho said he had not got the money then, but was expecting to receive some money, and that he had sent his wife home the previous night. “Was that the first knowledge you had that Mrs. Coats had left your house?”—“Yes.”

“When you were in your room and they in theirs, could you hear them talking?”—“l could hear their voices, but not what they were saying.” “I put it to you that you never heard them quarrelling while they were living with you?”—“Never on any accasion.”

Witness said that when she received the sacks of vegetables she entered the details in a book which was in the possession of the police. The book was produced. Witness said that while she was in the greengrocery business she purchased only six sacks of vegetables. The rest of her supplies eamc in boxes or small bags. Coates once brought in a sack of wood, but it was of a different type from those in Court. Mr. Treadwell: “Did Glover cal] on you on Tuesday, the day after Coats left?”—“No.”'

“ Were you on perfectly good terms with her?”—“Yes.”

"Did you see Glover at any time after Goats left?”—"No." Witness added that Glover would probably have gone up to Coats’ room if ho did not, know that the latter had gone. Ho would have to go past witness’s door, but if she had been in the room under that which the accused hait occupied she might not have heard him. If she had heard anyone moving about in the accused’s room silo would have gone up to see who was there. If anybody had been moving about in the room she might have heard the footsteps, but not the mattress being turned over. She certainly did not hear anyone.

"Did she leave without saying goodbye to yon?"—"She never mentioned leaving at all." The girl's condition at that time was very noticeable, witness went on. On Monday, June 29, the accused told her he was leaving. He said he had sent his wife home, although he did not like doing it, as ho and the girl’s mother were not on good terms. He said he was going to a place in Brougham street. He took away his suitcase, and that was the last witness saw of him. A carrier called that afternoon and collected a wooden box which the accused had left outside his room. When witness went up to his room the door was locked. Do Maine called in the evening about 7 o’clock and witness took the key of the room from him, got the cushion he had come for and gave it to him, retaining the key. A Missing Sack

"And Glover did not come to you and tell you he had found a letter?"— "No."

She had moved the bedclothes by the Tuesday. She threw the top mattress over, but did not touch the bottom one on the bed in Coats’ room.

In reply to Mr. Mneassev, witness said that her part of tho house was shut off from that occupied by the boarders upstairs. All the boarders entered the house by the back door, and she would not take any notice of visitors, who used to go upstairs without seeing her. Glover could quite easily have gone upstairs without her seeing him. More About the Sack Maurice Erie Teeling, a single man and a relief worker boarding at 140 Adelaide road, said he knew the accused Coats, who had lived at 140 Adelaide road for some months. A girl lived with the accused, and witness identified the girl from the snapshot of Phillis Symons (produced). He knew her as Mrs. Coats, and said she was a very quiet girl. Between 7 and 8 o’clock on Friday, Juno 26, he heard Mr. and Mrs. Coats going out of the house, and he did not sec Mrs. Coats again after that date. Witness knew that Mrs. Smith ran a small greengrocery business in April and May of this year, and during that time he did tho buying for her at tho market. Altogether ho bought six sacks for her. When he bought the vegetables at auction he gave the initials, "T. and S." to the auctioneer. He saw some of the sacks marked by the storeman. Witness identified the invoices (produced) as tho ones relating to his purchases in the market. As tho

Mrs. Coats did not come back to clean out the room as Coats had said she would, and witness did not see her again after June 2(3. There was a lot of burnt paper in the fireplace. She took all tho burnt rubbish and put it in tho dustbin. On the duchesse table was a bottle labelled "Poison." She also saw the string of beads which Mrs. Coats used to wear broken on the floor by the fireplace. Witness identified a pair of pink slippers and two pairs of boots with clay on them, which she had handed to the police. Witness did not search under the mattress, and she did not notice the letter which was subsequently found by Glover. While the accused was at her house he did not have a dog. From April 23 to May 3 witness conducted a small greengrocery in the shop at the front of her house. She used to get Teeling, one of the boarders, to buy vegetables. She bought six sacks of vegetables, and as the sacks were emptied they were put in the coal-house at the rear of tho house. Tho sacks w r ero numbered and marked when she received them, and the numbers and markings were shown on invoices (produced). Witness identified five of the sacks (produced). On July 18 she was present when the police checked the sacks with the invoices, and five corresponded with the invoices. The missing sack, according to the invoices, was marked "16" and

sacks became empty he put them in the coal-house at the Tear of the house. These six sacks were the only ones about tho premises. According to one of tho invoices a sack of parsnips he bought for Mrs. Smith had an identification number, “16.” When the police inspected tho sacks at 140 Adelaide road thorp were only five sacks there, and they were marked in accordance with the invoices. Tho missing sack corresponded with the one shown on tho invoices. Witness said a sack shown to him was similar to the missing one. Mr. Treadwell did not cross-examine.

Alba Coozc, single, employed by D. Bowie and Co. as a storeman at the produce market, said that it was his duty to paint the numbers on sacks of produce sold. -The sack marked “16” was one of -a kind which usually contained carrots or parsnips. He had painted the number on the sack produced. Such numbers would be shown on the invoices. As a rule tho carrier checked the numbers or other markings of tho sacks with tho invoices.

Charles Henry Buchanan, carrier, said ho had carried produce to 140 Adelaide Toad on a number of occasions. When he got the goods ho checked the numbers with tho invoices, and when the goods were delivered the invoices were handed over to the purchaser. Burying a dog

Lancelot Lee, married man, said that he know the accused, having first mot hiin last year in Mortimer terrace. He had also worked with Coats on the Hataitai relief job during the latter part of April. About April 27 witness was working with accused on the lower tip when a young man who was carrying a sack came along. The man said the sack contained a dead dog. He said his father was a chemist and that the dog had been ran over by a car, and that ho often got the job to poison dogs. “Had he poisoned this dog?”— “Well, I understood he had.” “What did you do with the dog?”— “I scratched a bit out of the bank side and put the dog in. “Was that in the bank sf the lower tip?”—“Yes.” Witness said that after he had put the dog in the hole the next' tip from the truck covered it up completely. “Was the accused present when you did this?”—“Yes.” Witness said he visited the accused at his room in Adelaide road on three or four occasions.

“Did ho make any remark about his position?”—“Ho said he was out of work and didn't have much.” Witness said ho visited the accused's house on Thursday, June 25. Witness had given two of his wife’s wristlet watc-hes to Coats to repair. Two men whom he now knew as Glover and de Maine were there, and also a young girl whom the accused called Phillis. They played cards, but Phillis did not take any part in tho game. During the evening the accused made a remark that on the next Saturday ho would be going out to Miramar, and witness invited him in for tea if he did go out.

Witness left the house about 10 o’clock, leaving Coats and Phillis there. He did not see Phillis again after that.

The accused came out and had tea with witness on the night of June 27. He said that Phillis had gone back to her brother’s place and would bo all right there. “Did he say why she had gone back?”—“Ho just said he had to be out of his rooms, as ho could net pay the rent.”

Noel Evan Burbery, shop assistant, said that his father was a chemist at Hataitai. Towards the end of last April lie was requested by a lady to poison a dog which had been run over by a car in Moxhara. avenue. However, there was no need to poison it, as it was dead when witness arrived. He put it in a sack and took it over to the tip on the relief job to bury it. He saw two relief workers there, and asked one of them to bury it. When dogs were run over, he told the man who buried the dog, they often were asked to dispose of them. Witness’s father-had poisoned a great number of dogs which had been ran over. The last time he had buried a dog was about two years ago. Ho made a practice of burying dogs on the Town belt. James Edward Taylor, carrier, said be had known the accused for over two years. Coats rang up witness about Juno 20 last and said he had been discharged from the relief work. Witness agreed to let him ride on the wagon so that he would be able to take on any job he heard of. He did a little work for witness and was paid a few shillings. Coats was living at that time at 140 Adelaide road, and tolS witness he was going to a cheaper place. One Monday near the end of June he asked witness to store a box which he had left at 140 Adelaide road. Witness collected the box and stored it for tho accused. The box and its contents were subsequently handed over to the police. During the period when the accused was assisting him they sometimes filled in the spare time by playing cards in the office at Bond street. De Maine also occasionally played, In xeply to Mr. Treadwell, witness said that the box was only wired and could be opened by anyone. Helping the Girl

Alfred Victor Smith, a married man, said he was an architect with offices in Cuba street. He was interested in missionary work and was a member of the Tory street hall. He helped people in ditsTees whenever ho could. Mr. Treadwell: “We all do that, I hope. ’’ Witness recognised a girl shown in a photograph (produced) as Phillis Symons, whom he had known for about six years. She was about 11 or 12 when he first met her. At one time witness lived in Mortimer terrace, where the Symons family also lived. That was how he came to meet Phillis. He remembered Phillis calling on Mm early in June or late in May tMs year. In reply to an objection by Mr. Treadwell, Mr. Macassey said the object of the evidence was to negative a statement made by the accused to the effect that the girl had gone to the witness’s place. The Magistrate allowed the evidence to be given, except with regard to any conversation. Witness said that the girl saw him on four occasions. T,he first time he gave her 2/6. On three occaMons he gave her 2/6 or 2/. On the last occasion he lent her £1 for her husband. These visits took place within two or three days. The girl was of a shy nature and had a retiring manner. “Was that the last occasion on which you saw her?” : —“Yes.” Pathologist’s Evidence Dr. P. P. Lynch, pathologist at the Wellington hospital, read and put in a report of his association with the body of the deceased girl, and the result of

his post-mortem examination. In tho course of his report he described the position of tho body when ho was called to the spot whero it was found on the afternoon of Sunday, July .12. The body was hunched and tho face was pressed into tho earth. A small sack was lying over the lower part ot the body. A muffler, or scarf, was over the face. When the body was removed the impression of it was left in tho clay. A further examination on the same day at tho morgue showed that tho scarf was bound two and a half times round tho face, covering the face, eyes, ears, and back of the head. It was snugly but not tightly bound, and was caugbt with a small pin. On the next day, in company with Dr. Hector and in the presence of detectives, a further examination was carried out. It was revealed that tho girl had been pregnant, a normal, uninterrupted pregnancy. The bory was in an excellent state of preservation owing to the cold. Dr. Lynch detailed head ’injuries which were found in tho course of examination, and said that there was no fracture of the underlying bone. _ He had made tho following deductions: That tho deceased was struck a violent blow on tho right temple; and that the deceased was struck a blow, or ho thought very likely a scries of blows, on tho back of tho head and neck. Ho thought it was very unlikely that a single blow would produce haemorrhage to the extent described.

Tho injuries to the right side of tho head and neck wore, he thought, caused about the same time, and ho considered either would cause unconsciousness. In regard to the weapon used, all ho could say was that it was a weapon with a broad surface.

The immediate cause of death was asphyxia, due to stomach contents being vomited into the windpipe. Ho thought the scarf had been placed round the mouth to lessen the sound of stertorous breathing or other noise. He concluded that death occurred in the attitude in which the body was found.

Dr. C. M. Hector agreed with and confirmed Dr. Lynch’s report. Mr. Macassey: “In your opinion, was this girl alive when she was buried?” —-“In my opinion, all tho indications point out that she was alive when she was under the ground.” Mr. Macassey: “Did tho attitude in which the body was found correspond with the' attempting of a person to rise from the ground?” —“Yes, attempting to rise against difficulty caused through weakness or superincumbent weight.” Pinding the Body

Detective Prank Hayhurst said that on the afternoon of July 7, while making a search of the plantation and reserve between Ruahine street and the tip at the now recreation ground, he had found the shovel produced in Court. It was concealed underneath the branches of a fir tree 75 feet from whero the body urns subsequently found. Ho described the digging operations and tho diseovssy of the body. He identified the sack produced as that covering the body. The spot whero the body was found was tho lowest part of tho gully. It was buried under 14 to 16 feet of soft clay. On the morning of July 14 witness and Detective Murray interviewed Coats in gaol and told him that the girl’s body had been found. They told him then that the medical opinion was that the girl had been murdered, and that lie would probably bo charged with her murder. Coats was told that tho polico had been informed that he had dug a hole at tho relief works early in June and that he had said it was for shelter and to bury a dog. “We told him that de Maine had told us that Phillis had agreed that he should kill her, and that early in Juno ho and Phillis had gone over to the relief works and that ho had hit her with a piece of pipe and stunned her. He was told that ho had said to de Maine that after he had done it he did not feel like doing it. He felt sorry for her. Coats was also told that de Maine had said that on Thursday, June 26, he had left de Maine, telling him that he was going to Hataitai to ask a cobber to leave a shovel out for him.

“We also told him that we had been informed that he had tried to borrow a shovel. Accused was asked if he had anything to say or any explanation to make. Accused replied: ‘No; nothing to say.’ ” Mr. Macassey: “During that interview, how did accused appear?’’—“He seemed quite calm, and listened seriously to what was said.’’ On tho morning of July 16, with Detective Murray, witness was present when the accused was charged with tho murder of the girl. He was cautioned in the usual way, but made no reply. Detective Nelson William Baylis said that on July 12 ho was with Detective Hayhurst, Acting-Detective Hall and a police party under Sub-Inspec-tor Ward at Hataitai when tho body had been found. A line of stones appeared to have been placed there to hold the earth or to prevent tho body from rolling down. Detective William Robert Murray said he interviewed Coats with Constable Smith on the morning of July 6. That was in reference to a complaint made by Symons in respect of the girl, upon whom it was alleged that an attempt to perform an illegal operation had been made.

Coats made a statement, which Detective Murray was about to read when Mr. Treadwell interrupted and asked that he should be allowed to read the statement first. It had been made some time before Coats had been charged with murder.

Mr. Treadwell was permitted to examine the statement, and he then crossexamined the witness as to the circumstances under which the statement had been made.

Detective Murray told him that the statement of eight pages had been made between 9.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., before which Coats had been questioned for perhaps 15 minutes. ■ Detective Murray was the only one who took an active part in the interview. Pages 9 to 12 of the statement were taken in the latter part of the afternoon, between 4 and 5 o’clock, or possibly between 4 p.m. and 5.30. It took about an hour. The last two pages were taken between 11.15 p.m. and midnight. Mr. Treadwell: “Well, according to my instructions, he was called from his bed at 8 o’clock and didn’t get bade to his cell until a quarter to two the next morning, and that he was questioned almost continuously all that time.’’—“That’s ridiculous.’’

“Well, we’ll see how 1 ridiculous. How long after making that statement did he go to bed?’’—“l can only say that I charged him in the watch house at half past one a.m. and left him.’’ The cross-examination of Detective Murray was continued for some time, during which witness said that accused was sitting in the detective office all day, smoking and reading. He made himself at home. He was accompanied when he left the room.

Detective Murray then told Mr. Macassey that after taking the first statement he told Coats that he would like to go through his room and make

some inquiries. Coats assured them that the girl had gone to some friend’s place. After they had got him some dinner, witness, with Constable Smith and Coats, went to the room he was then occupying, whero certain articles wero found, and then to the room in Adelaide road, whore they mado inquiries. When they got back to the detective office they interviewed him further. Coats had tea there and sat smoking and reading most of the time, while witness went out and made further inquiries and returned late at night.

Coats then made a further statement in connection with those further inquiries. At the end of the statement Coats signed the whole statement and said it was true. He also thanked witness for the fair treatment he had given him. “Throughout the whole of these interview's,’’ witness said, “'ho was not cautioned because I did not know ho was going to bo charged. The charge that was laid was with attempting to supply a noxious thing for the purpose of procuring a miscarriage.’’ At this stage the Magistrate said he wished to hear evidence from Constable Smith before' deciding upon the admissibility of the statement.

The Court adjourned until Monday morning.

Copies of the statements will be available to Mr. Treadwell, who said he thought counsel for the defence were entitled to the intervening time for consideration of the legal aspect of the admissibility of the statements.