WHY DID DETECTIVES BUNGLE?

NZ Truth, Issue 1227, 6 June 1929, Page 3

WHY DID DETECTIVES BUNGLE?

• - ■„,••■."■■•■■■ ; - ♦ . -■ ■ - : ■■'• "■..'■ ■■''• -.' , ' ' . ''■■..■■• '. .'■'' ■,■■.-•■■. ■'■' ". . \. ■, \ +' ■■ ■" ' ' '" ■ . ■■■'■..'•..' ' • - : '.''■■• ..-■■•■■ "•.•■'■ i -..'. . ' ■ ■ ' .... • .' . ■ ■ ■ .

ACCOBDING to the police' evidence at the inquest the detectives had definitely decided at a conference on May 12, that McAleese had been killed accidentally. . . Yet it was not until the inquest was opened' on May r 2B, sixteen days later, that they . disclosed their 'complete change of front. What was the reason for this reticence? ", There had been no hesitancy to announce the sensational conclusion that a brutal .murder had been committed and thus arouse -public indignation against some unknown person; why then, should they [hesitate -to make public the reassuring decision of ■ a conference of/ detectives that the first theory was ill-founded? .. It is true that the -police were endeavoring to implicate certain motorists m the mystery,. and "N.Z. Truth"' hais ; reason to know that" every effort was made to keep this , fact secret. Why? If the police had: boldly stated their theory that McAleese had. been accidentally shot, and his body subsequently accidentally run into by a motor-car, they might , reasonably Much Too Hasty have expected a straightforward statement from the motorist concerned. But when they were, according to their own statement, looking for someone who was responsible for a particularly callous and motiveless murder) could they expect a man who had been quite innocently involved to come forward and implicate himself? The manner m which the police, handled the McAleese case is m striking contrast to the . methods adopted m the inquiry into Elsie Walker's death, and one is no more to their credit, m the opinion of "Truth," than the. other. When Elsie Walker's body was dig-, covered she was reported to have died of exhaustion, and there the matter was practically left until this paper demanded a more exhaustive investigation. ..■''';'']■'. The police, cannot: be charged with dilatoriness m following up the death of McAleese, for as soon as the news was received, Detective Mcrieod set out m a special car from Gisborne and was travelling- nearly all nig-ht to ; reach the scene of the tragedy. But "Truth" does allege that the police, once on the scene, made the same fault as m the Elsie Walker case. They were top hasty m reaching 'their decision. ' ' \ By concluding that Elsie Walker died froni exhaustion, they immediately reduced the possibility of securing evidence of a less natural death.

(Froin^N.Z. Truth's" Special Commissioner).' t.. The sensation caused by the death of Samuel. McAleese on Papamoa hill on May 9— ;a i sensation for which the police must be held largely to blame— has died a natural cleath. . > > . With the pblice/.in charge of the case broadcasting' an assertion that a brutal mtfrder had been committed, < and then, when they realised their error, instead of publicly acknowledging the fact, keeping quiet about it, it was not surprising that .the public had been worked up : to a pitch of excitement. ■ ■ /■■ .>- . ," , • .; . „ • ■- __> y •

■ ' ■ ■ ■ ; ■ ' ' -. ' ' 'V With the. case of McAleese the position . ; was reversed. By definitely 'deciding that a mur.d.e'r had • been committed they \ overlooked ■ •; evidence which might ■'• have, pre--1 vented such a sensational mystery as the one -they created. '.;."• From the outset the police -assumed that McAleese-had ! been shot with his own rifle. The rifle' was found m a bag, on the roadside, and yet some days elapsed before the bag was examined and; the bullet-hole m it, discovered. No explanation of this was given at the inquest; nor did the police m any way. seek to justify the.ir original conclusions. • If:thebag had been closely examined m 'the first place, there would never have been any. suggestion of'' murder, because' it would be obvious that no one could deliberately fire : the gun through the bag. How then, 'did 'the police overlook this important point? Another question which the police should answer is this: What steps' did they take to ensure that the motor-car which they certainly. , had under suspicion was left untouched yntil after, it had ; been examined by the police? . It -was revealed at -the inquest that the car was actually stopped ;it Motu by a constable an hour' after . the tragedy, and the occupants questioned. The day after -their, arrival 'in.Gisborne the motorists made a statement to the police. . . r But the car itself was allowed to be taken Into a garajje and the tray under the engine scraped and cleaned before the police examined it. To put the position 1 m a nutshell, it appears that the police officers who were first on the scene were so obsessed with the fact that they were investigating a dastardly murder that they completely overlooked important points which would have led to a much less dramatic , When reinforcements arrived ■ and a belated examination of the^ sugar-bag was, made, the mystery was practically solve.d., and the polipe again erred by refraining from admitting their mistake.

There are occasions when the police are justified m 'withholding: information from the public, but this was not one of them. ' : .. ;. • No one likes to admit a mistake, but ■"Truth" is quite confident that if the police had been. more .open they would have stood a much better- chance of securing information . which ' would have assisted -them to .solve the: whole matter. . . '/. , -■'. ' ".' .;..'':'' '•''■•'■ Practically the. whole. of the evidence called by the police at' the inquest seemed to have the object of discovering how. much, if anything, William Noad, the -licensee, of the .Masonic Hotel, at .Gisborne, and his companion, ■William Ewart \Richardson, of Remuera, Auckland; knew about the tragedy. The evidence did not justify the 'jury m: deciding that they were connected with the tragedy. In the first place .the police allowed five days to elapse before Noad was fully questioned, and. in the .meantime his companion had. returned to Auckland. ■ Noad, according to the police evidence, had first stated that, he drove through to. Motu without stopping 1 / arriving- tlicre .'it 1.30 p.m! They did not ko to the hotel, but went , to a store for a drink. of lemonade. ;■• ■ . In his evidence Noad said he did- not know what time they stopped at Motu, but it was stated that it was 3 o'clock! when the constable spoke to him 1 / , Had ■ Noafl )?ee7i ' at.- Motu at 1.30 o'clock as, according' to the police, be stated m the first place, he would : have passed Papamoa while,; the rpadmeni were having lunch, but it was some time after lunch that he, was seen by Lappin and Makarihi. . ' . < ' Subsequently Noad said that they stopped at Tqatoa, on -the Opotiki side of Papamoa, -for lunch, . and^ that they had several other stops on account of engine trouble. ... „ , Measurements, made by the police showed -that when Noad's car, passed' Lappih it was just over 5 Q chains away from where McAleese was killed. , Lappin and his companion walked

o : . — . : straight down the road and discovered their mate's body. It was on . these facts, coupled with the fact that every other person on the road had been accounted for, that the police sought to implicate Noad and Richardson. . - The jury; howeyer, was content to return a verdict that death was due to the accidental discharge of McAleese's .own rifle, adding a rider that they were of the opinion that the Injuries on. the face were received after death and the body moved. . They were unable to say who was responsible for the injuries, or who moved the body. The jury was satisfied, however, that the police had made every possible inquiry into the circum- , stances and that they might be complimented on the way they conducted the inquiry and carried out the investigations. ■ ; "N.Z. Truth" does not agree with the Jury on this point. Certainly the police are to be complimented upon having avoided the stigma oC having another unsolved

Obvious Clues

murder .to their' discredit, .but this . paper cannot g-o. into rhapsodies over the fact that there was so much delay m seeing the clues right, under their noses, and over their failure to pro--1 duce evidence which would have cleared up what is now the major mystery: Who was/the motorist who drove his car into the corpse on the road, callously pushed it out of the way, and drove off? That is a problem that has not been cleared up and, perhaps, never will be. ■-.■■• ■•'. .. . ■ i- ■•'■■■ ■