Mary Raymond Did Not Commit Suicide

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 166, 17 July 1935, Page 5

Mary Raymond Did Not Commit Suicide

Coroners Finding In Tamaki Tragedy

“GRAVE IMPROPRIETY” ALLEGED AGAINST SOLICITOR STRONG COMMENT ON DESTRUCTION OF LETTERS Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Last Night. A verdict that death was due to shock following an illegal operation was returned by Mr. AV. E. McKean, S.M., Coroner, at the close of a lengthy inquiry into the death of Mary Elizabeth Raymond, aged 21, the halfcaste Maori whose body was found under the Panmure wharf on June 2. The, Coroner expressed the view that it was unfortunate if the matter of the girl’s death could not he carried any further. He described tho suggestion of suicide as utterly absurd.

Before the Coroner gave his verdict tho last witness, H. L. At. Buisson, solicitor, was called. The Coroner: “Did 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 Mr. llall iikeiton's possession. They had come into his possession through Mr. Hughes. I advised Bennett to give the police a full statement and the letters were «sscntial to completing the statement, 1 called at Mr. Gkelton’s oiiieo in company with Bennett and Hughes on Monday, June 10. Wo had a general discussion of tho case. I told Mr. rfkelton that Bennett was making a fuT? statement and that his papers were necessary, particularly two letters from Mary Raymond to Bennett, one letter having been scored out in pencil. Mr. Skelton informed me that he laid all the papers but they would not be available until the amount of his costs and some money borrowed by Bennett from him had been repaid. The amount of the loan was fixed at £3 and the cos/ at £8 Bs. I told Mr. Skelton I would arrange with .Bennett, senr., in Wellington for the payment of costs. 1 rang Bennett, senr., and was authorised to make the payment. At a later interview Mr. Skelton produced an envelope full of papers. I asked him to give me his assurance that in the envelope were tho two letters designated by me. He said they had been destroyed. I asked who destroyed them. He said a member of his office staff. I asked on whoso instructions. He said Bennett's. 1 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: “On the occasion ot your first visit you asked particularly about these two letters?”

“I designated tho two letters and asked him if all the papers were there, including these letters, otherwise i would not have gone back.” “And Air. sk.-dtim said he had them?” “He said ho had ail the papers.” “That was on tire Monday?” “On the Monday, sir.” “And it was not until P. 30 on the morning of Tuesday that you knew the letters had been destroyed?”

“That was by first intimation.’’ 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 Mr. Hall Skelton with regard to the destruction of those letters, for Mr. Skelton had told me that those letters had been destroyed by him on Bennett s instructions. Now Mr. Skelton is a solicitor and as such, of course, is entitled to expect that considerable weight will be given to anything that lie says.

“Bennett, however, had told me ol something that Mr. Skelton had not told me —a telephone communication to Bennett at Hamilton by Mr. Skelton on the day on which the newspapers published particulars of the linding of the body.concerning which this inquiry has been held, and Bennett said that Mr. Skelton then referred to the linding of the body and advised him tu destroy all letters in his correspondence relating to Alary Raymond, and also advised him to keep out of the way of the police. I do not think Bennett at any time instructed Mr. Skelton to destroy those letters and t-lio destruction of them, I am afraid, was a grave impropriety on the part of Mr. Skelton.

“The police complain in these proceedings of obstruction throughout. It may bo that they have some grounds for their complaint because I have m evidence the fact that statements were prepared by Mr. Skelton in his office for a number of witnesses who have been called at this inquiry. Acting for Hewer, Mr. Skelton seems to have boon able to get in touch with most of the people who could give information, and after hearing what they had to say he seems to have prepared a statement for signature by them, to be copied out by them and then signed, and then to be handed by them to the police. These statements were very far from being complete ar.d 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.’’

Suggestion of Suicide Absurd. Continuing, the Coroner said the suggestion of suicide was utterly absurd. He added that Bennett in evidence refers to one of these letters which unfortunately it has not been possible to produce. One of these letters was writ-

.on 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 ot having that performed by a qualified doctor had apparently caused a feeling of relief. There is not tho slightest reason for assuming that thero was at any time anything more than, a natural anxiety on the part of Mary Raymond on that day as to tho operation that was to be performed because I think an arrangement had been made.” Continuing, the Coroner said: “Bennett has been commcndably frank in Die evidence he has given. Mary Raymond had been in constant communication with him. She had written to him telling him she had made an appointment with a doctor. Site 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. I say it is extremely unlikely that Alary 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 cm appointment for Wednesday when this operation was to be performed,’ said the Coroner.

“I do not for one moment think that Miss von Zgliuicki was mistaken when she stated that between 3.30 and 4.15 on the afternoon of Alay 1 she saw Mary Raymond in the company of Hewer. !Bhc was able a few days later and before she knew that Alary Raymond had disappeared to point out Hewer and his chauffeur or see rotary-book-keeper, or whatetver he is, who was in his company the same day. She had a particular reason for remembering Hewer because of his likeness to some relative in New South AVales, and to my mind et is extremely improbable that she had made a mistake in regard, to the two men. Alary Raymond hart an appointment with llerocr fo” that day and she was in his company for that day. The extraordinary interest that Hewer had taken in the subsequent events is inadequately explained by his own statement which is that he was anxious to help people who were entirely unknown to him.”

The Coroner proceeded: “Now if I do come to tho conclusion that Mary Raymond had an appointment for th« performance of an illegal operation on Alay 1 and I know that she disappeared, apparently on Alay 1, I must form some conclusion as to the cause of her death. 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 as to what caused her death. I can come to only one conclusion, anil that is that her death was caused by this operation, that somebody in possession of a dead body which could not be buried in the regular way was forced for his own protection or her own protection to get rid of that body, and did so by wrapping it iiartly in sacks and partly in canvas, attaching a weight to it, and casting it into the sea. AViio 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 which I have corno 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 that she died on or about May 2, 1935. and that the cause of her death was shock following upon an illegal operation that had been performed upon her. J.£ tiie matter cannot be car ried any further it is unfortunate.’’