POLICE METHODS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3912, 5 March 1929, Page 26

POLICE METHODS.

THE ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY.

AUCKLAND, February 25.

The cross-examination of Superintendent .Wohlmann by, counsel occupied the morning session of the inquiry into the conduct of the police in their handling of the Elsie Walker mystery. The superintendent said that Detective Sergeant Kelly had given the order for the removal of the body. Before the examination started this morning Mr Northcroft, who represented the Bayly family at the inquest, made an application to Mr Page that he should be recognised as an assistant at the inquiry. He thought he could be of considerable assistance.

Mr Page said it was not desirable that private individuals should be represented at the inquiry. Such a course would complicate matters. Any assistance ■would havs to come through the Crown. He appreciated the suggestion, and he •would be glad of any assistance that ■would help him in his finding so long as it came through the Crown. The cross-examination of Superintendent Wohlmann by Mr Leary, adjourned from Saturday, then began. Witness said that the instructions given to Constable Collins by headquarters would depend upon the report he made on the finding of the body. Superintendent Wohlmann, after outlining the injuries, said that Constable Collins was justified in the circumstances in assuming that death was not due to violence. Unless there were good grounds to the contrary, decency demanded that the body should be removed as quickly as possible, as the public had learned of the tragedy, and were beginning to visit the locality when the body was removed to the morgue. The medical evidence for about six weeks corroborated the constable’s decision when he found the body. “I am not aware of any reason being given by Dr Murray and Dr Gilmour or their vital change of opinion,” witness said. “ The doctors at first stated that they did not think any violence had beeiT~ done, and later they paid much attention to the bruise on the head.”

Mr Finlay referred to the evidence of Dr Gilmour. He said there was no essential difference betw-een the evidence of Dr Gilmour and his first report. To Mr Noel Johnson: The police regard all cases of sudden and unexplained d°ath seriously. The inquiries concerning the death of Elsie Walker had been continued up till the present day. Replying to questions by the commissioner, Superintendent Wohlmann said he thought the chief detective was overworked, and the inspector had about the maximum burden he could carry. In reply to a further question, witness said . that the time had not arrived in New Zealand when the country could afford the high cost of having a number of detectives in the smaller towns. Mr Page: Taking Auckland only, superintendent, there is no commissioned officer employed solely for detective work?—No. Is it desirable that there should be? — Not at the present time. At noon the superintendent finished his evidence after six hours in the witness Inspector J. MTlveney, officer in charge of the Auckland metropolitan district, was the next witness. He said he did not remember any matters which were crucial to the investigations of the death of Elsie Walker going to the vote at the daily conference between Inspector Hollis. Superintendent Wohlmann. and himself He did remember that it was agreed to send for Dr Murray on one occasion, and see what they could get from him. Witness could not recall any other step in the investigations which was due to a decision at the conferences. He was satisfied that Inspector Hollis was doing all that was necessary. ■ "Mr Currie: Did you have anything to do with the recall of Detective Sergeant Kelly from the Bay of Plenty? Mr Finlay: He was not recalled. He came home. Mr Currie then read a telegram askuig Detective Sergeant Kelly to return and report to Inspector Hollis. Witness: I had nothing to do with it. Are you in a position to express an opinion on the work of Mr Hollis, your co-inspector ? Witness: Before Mr Hollis came I did all his work and my own, too, with the exception of two stations that were put on when the co-ordinated districts were brought in. In the opinion of witness' the work of the chief detective was lieavy. As the population increased the work became heavier in volume. He could not say whether the seriousness of the work had materially changed. He was not prepared to express an opinion about that. To judge it accurately the records would have to be consulted.

Continuing his evidence in the afternoon, Inspector MTlveney said that Chief Detective Hammond carried out his duties “very well and very thoroughly.”

To Mr Noel Johnston: Witness did not mean to imply that Inspector Hollis was not fully occupied. Witness used to have to devote atttention to detective matters.

To the commissioner: When the report from the Government analyst was received the doctor was summoned . for an interview. Dr- Murray did not then state that the probable cause of death was. concussion from a blow. The officers present at the interview were no further advanced when Dr Murray left the room than they were when he entered. Inspector John Walter Hollis, officer in charge of the Auckland Central Police, was the iext witness. He described the routine methods and the system in force

in Auckland. “ The chief detective in Auckland did no more'than was laid down in the regulations,” said Inspector Hollis. Mr Moody: Is not that enough? Asked whether, he thought the work of the chief detective was equal in responsibility to that" of a sub-inspector, witness said he thought it was. Inspector Hollis said that personally he thought the daily conference was a splendid idea. In cases of serious crime there were three sets of brains at work instead of one. “ The Walker case was the subject of a daily conference between Inspector MTlveney, Superintendent Wohlmann, and myself” he said. Witness said he had never handled a case similar to the Elsie Walker matter where the medical evidence showed that no crime had been committed. He did not wholly accept the doctor’s report because he had to look to see whether a crime had been committed. It was his opinion that the doctor’s report did not give them a lead. Mr Johnstone: It was not the doctor’s job to give the police a lead. All he had to do was to supply a report. Continuing, Inspector Hollis said that he was not misled by the report of the surgeons the week following Elsie Walker’s death. It gave him no assistance. At the conference held at the end of October Dr Murray merely substantiated his previous reports. There was still no evidence of crime.

Inspector Hollis next outlined the line of investigation which he directed in the case.

,p, , February 26. there was a somewhat dramatic opening to the police inquiry concerning the methods adopted in investigating the mystery of the death of Elsie Walker, which was continued before Mr E. Page, S.M., this morning. In the New Zealand Herald this morning publication was made of a letter sent by Mr R. B. Lusk on behalf of the Bayly familv to the Minister of Justice (Mr T. M. Wilfond). in which it was suggested that the scope of the inquiry should be widened.

Mr Lusk wrote, inter alia: “I think I am entitled to observe that in this case, while possibly there may be some doubt as to the sufficiency of the inquiries made, there is already room for serious doubt as to the propriety of their presentation to the coroner. My complaints are as follows:—

“ In the manner of conducting the case presented for the police to the coroner there was a very definite suggestion that william Bayly was a proper subject for suspicion. The police records allowed that he had been interrogated on three separate occasions and his answers compared and checked by independent inquii ies, with the result that there were three separate reports on the police files to the effect that he was not in any way involved in the matter. Notwithstanding this information and a clear declaration that William Bayly could not afford any information as to the cause of the death of the unfortunate girl, he was severely cross-examined in public for many hours with a view to showin" that his statements to the police were untrue. In view of the police knowledge of the complete truth of his statements, this was .most unjust and unwarranted, conveying as it did, however unintentionally, an invitation to the public to assume that he was the person, if any who was responsible for the girl’s death’ In fact, this cross-examination was not and could not pretend to be directed to the cause of death, but could have been directed only to an attempt to incriminate Millam Bayly. I respectfully suggest that as this was done for the Police Department through the counsel it employed, it involves the fairness of the police administration and should be inquired into by Mr Page during this present inquiry. In addition to the complete innocence of William Bayly, which was known: to the Police Department, other matters concealed from the coroner are now being revealed. Although the commission has only just commenced its proceedings, I submit that these are serious omissions, and as they also would have tended to induce a different finding by the coroner, they should have, been placed before him. May I respectfully suggest that the publie is equally as interested in the use made of police informaton as in its collation, and that in this case this part of the police duties appears to have been handled defectively and it should be investigated? May I respectfully submit that the scope of the inquiry should be enlarged to cover this phase of police duties in this particular matter?

“ At the same time I would ask that provision should be made to permit .those adversely affected by the matters complained of to be given the right of audience on the grounds that— (1) They have been prejudicially affected already and should be given ah opportunity to rehabilitate themselves; (2) of necessity they are in possession of detailed information on many matters upon which the representative of the Crown Law Office is deficient. The significance of this arises only from time to time," and the' information cannot be employed effectively except by the constant attendance of counsel familiar with it. This application has been shown to the commissioner, and he has been given ’ a copy. It is made to you as the commissioner has forbidden the right of audience to my clients. Moreover, Mr Currie, to whom counsel was referred by the commissioner, says that the presentation of the evidence to the coroner is not within this inquiry, and he is not prepared to ; pursue that aspect of it.” When Mr Page reopened the inquiry to-day, Mr V. R. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor) addressed the commissioner,. “ My attention has been called to a lottot in the New Zealand Herald,” he

said, “ in which an attack, thinly veiled, is made upon myself in regard to the presentation of the evidence in the Elsie Walker inquiry. The propriety of making such an attack in an official letter and handing a copy to the public press so that it may be promulgated to the world at large, with no opportunity to the person attacked of replying, is a matter, of course, that does not concern this commission. I would like to say, however, that it is typical of the counsel concerned, as he has followed a similar course in other cases in which he has been engaged previously. I will leave it at that. In fairness to myself, however, I think I should have an opportunity given me of being allowed to give evidence before this commission. I am prepared to take full responsibility for any decision arrived at by me and any course of action adopted in pursuance of that decision. I therefore ask to be allowed an opportunity of tendering myself as a witness at a later and convenient date.”

Mr Page: I will consider the matter, and if it comes within the scope of the inquiry I will give you that opportunity.

Mr Allan Moody said that so far as he and Chief Detective Hammond were concerned no suggestion had been made against Mr Meredith? Mr Johnston said his clients had no complaint concerning the action of the Crown Solicitor, even at the present stage of the inquiry. """ Mr Finlay, who represented Detective Sergeant Kelly, also joined in dissociating himself from any attack on Mr Meredith.

Inspector Hollis then continued his evidence. Asked what possibilities were presented to his mind when the body of Elsie Walker was found, witness said he thought at first that she had died either of exhaustion or of fright; but there was nothing to suggest how she died.

From the doctor’s report you entertained the possibility of death by suicide?—Witness said the case was reported to him at 11 o’clock at night, and in the morning he interviewed the chief detective concerning it. He could not draw any possibilities at that time as he did not know the facts of the case. The possibility that Elsie Walker died from natural causes was also entertained at a later stage. Evidence was given by the inspector of the finding of Elsie Walker’s body, and also of an inspection of the ground. At that time they did not suspect foul play.

The examination of the ground, did not help them very much. Mr Currie: Murder did not enter into the matter then ? —There was nothing in the medical reports to suggest it. Were you not suspicious ?—We are always suspicious up to a point. Mr Page: Is it. the usual thing to strip a body at the morgue?—lt is not the custom unless there has been violence or something of the sort. Mr Currie: When the clothing was submitted for expert examination, at whose suggestion was it done?—l understand at the suggestion of Dr Murray. Inspector Hollis said he thought it was quite right that the body of Elsie Walker was taken to the morgue on the night it was found. The constable on the spot was the best one to judge whether there were any suspicious circumstances. He would certainly not allow the body to stay out all night if he could avoid it. He did not think that bringing the body in could be called interference. He thought that mutiliating or washing the body, or doing anything that would make it hard for a doctor to find the cause of death could be called interference. Witness later said that it was his opinion that the girl had travelled in the car alone. The agent of the car at Tauranga had said it was quite possible for the girl to drive the distance. The examination of Elsie Walker’s shoes showed that she might have driven the car. He did not pay much attention to that fact, and he did not know whether any investigations had been carried out as to the length of driving that would be necessary to cause the impression on the shoe. Witness thought, that Elsie Walker could drive a car.

Inspector Hollis said there were certain , murmurings going on concerning the case, and this made them particularly interested in it. He handed the file over to the Crown Prosecutor and detailed a detective-sergeant to make investigations. The medical report of December 6 made some difference to his opinion of the case.

The commissioner: I don’t quite understand what you mean by -■ certain murmurings. Just what Jo you mean? —Press reports from week to week and other things which came to my knowledge made me wonder what was underneath it all.

Mr Page: Underneath what all? Witness: These newspaper reports and other things.

Mr Page: You mean there was q large amount of public interest? Witness: Yes.

Mr Page: You mean that the large amount of public interest caused you to direct more personal interest to the case.

Witness: Not more, sir, but it caused me a certain amount- of concern and worry.

Mr Currie: Did the medical-report distract your mind from any line of inquiry you should pursue?—No. Mr Currie: I suggest that from the start you should have entertained the possibility of violence.—There was nothing to show siolence, but that did not stop us from looking for it. Mr Page suggested that the medical practitioners concerned should be called, They might have something to say about the condition of the dead girl. It was only fair to the practitioners that they should be heard. J

Mr Currie concurred with this view Mr Moody asked if Mr Currie sug. gested that the girl was murdered. Even th® coroner had not gone so far as that. The commissioner said that the inquiry was not to decide whether the girl was murdered. The facts as they existed had to be considered, and in the light of those facts it had to be decided whether the police were reasonably diligent. J

When the inquiry was resumed in the afternoon the commissioner made the suggestion that the press should not quote the names of the people involved in the police investigation. They were not represented by counsel, and he considered it would be an act of justice if the name of one person about whose movements the police had made inquiries was not published. “Ido n propose to make an order, but merely a suggestion,” he said. To Inspector Hollis Mr Currie said: There now comes the question of responsibility. Supposing anyone is held to be remiss in the inquiries made in December and January, do you think you are responsible?—No.

Who should be held responsible?—The officer in charge of the case. He reports to the chief detective.

If there was a delay in making those inquiries, who is to blame?—The field officer making them. He would have to follow up the inquiries. " - The commissioner: Is it left to the discretion of the field officer as to when he shall bring the case before his chief?—

We have no rule. He uses his discretion. . If he found that the matter has serious aspects he should go to the chief detective for ..dvice at once?—Yes. Mr Currie: Is it fair to say that there was a stage when the chief detective became responsible through these inquiries?—l could not say. Do y<su regard the decision of what inquiries should be made as within the work of the chief detective ?—Yes. And although you-were not responsible, do you wish to express an opinion whether the officers handling the investigation were remiss in their work?—l make no statement of my opinion. My last question-—have you ever made any pencil notes when .working this case out?—No. I have not. After being examined by Mr Currie for six hours, Inspector Hollis was then questioned by Mr Johnston, 'who commenced his cross-examination at 3 o’clock. “ You have been questioned for the best part of the day on what, it is suggested, are apparent omissions of your duty,” Mr Johnston said, “ Will you now tell us what you did do?” Upon receipt bf information of the disappearance of the ear and the girl all stations were advised, Inspector Hollis said. Detectives were sent to the scene on the night of the discovery of fhe body and again next morning. Full and careful inquiries were made by the detective staff. Over 100 statements were, taken from persons, and there were dozens of

• inquiries which proved negative. He supposed there would be as many as " another 100 persons seen whose statements were not worth taking. Detdc tive Sergeant Kelly and his staff worked the Auckland end until it was cleared up, while Constable Jackson, of Te Puke, made inquiries there. exhaustive inquiries had been ade in Auckland Detective Sergeant Kelly was sent to Te Puke, where he took a large number of statements. The movements of a number of people were investigated and'* reported upon. Inquiries were made as far south as Christchurch. Large files were produced, and Mr Johnston said he wanted to draw attention to the fact that the inquiries were extensive, and that' the bulk of the work was well done. The commissioner replied that he was going to read the file. Mr Johnston (to Inspector Hollis): I put it to you that the brief in this case does not represent all the inquiries made and sifted by the detectives?—Oh, no not by a long way. There were scores of inquiries to make. The brief only comprises what was considered worth while putting in from the file. And yet you did not cease the inquiry even after the matter was given to the Crown Solicitor for coronial inquiry?— No. We are still inquiring. Many anony mous messages are received. They are all inquired into. Do you see any reason for Constable Collins’s decision that there were no signs of violence on the body being characterised as an ungrounded decision?— No. In his position I think he was

right. Can you see why Detective Sergeant Kelly should not order the body to be brought into the morgue in view of what he was told by Constable Collins? —No, none at all.

February 27. Further evidence was heard to-day at the inquiry into the methods of the police when investigating the death of Elsie Walker. The cross-examination of Inspector J. W. Hollis by Mr Johnston was continued.

Discussing the statements taken in connection with the Walker mystery, witness said that 11 statements were taken from one of the principal figures in the inquiry. Mr Johnstone: Was there anything to indicate that the witness did not tell the truth?—No.

Was any suspicion placed on him by yourself? —No. Mr Page: You did not include him as a suggested witness?—No, sir. Mr Johnston: I suppose you included all the witnesses you thought would throw light on the mystery?—Yes. When the statements were forwarded to the Crown Prosecutor the inquest passed out of my hands.

Cross-examined by Mr Allan Moody, Inspector Hollis said he had no complaints about the chief detective’s work, and he kept him fully informed as to the steps that were taken in connection with the Walker case. There was nothing in the conduct or methods of investigation of any of the officers to call for any comment by witness. * Discussing his reason for the belief in the first instance that death was due to natural causes, Inspector Hollis said it was due to the absence of motive, the condition of the locality, and the reports submitted. Referring to the analyst’s report, Mr Currie asked: In view,of what has been said, do you wish to modify your statement that no information was likely to be lost through the removal of the clothing from the girl Walker ?—No. The commissioner then said he had some questions to ask witness. Had you g definite theory of the case of the girl Walker prior to the inquest? —Yes. Will you telV us what it was?

Witness said he had thought that the girl went away because she was dissatis- \ tied and took umbrage at the arrival of her cousin. He thought, too, that she was responsible for the disappearance of certain articles from the Baylys’ home and had taken fright and possjjdy died of exhaustion. - •- '

Mr Page asked why Detective Sergeant Kelly was replaced. Witness said that in view of the publicity given the case it was desirable to have a fresh mind working on it. To Mr Johnston, witness said that a girl had been seen by the driver of a steam, roller, and if she was the girl Walker she had an opportunity to make a complaint. Had a stranger been at the Baylys’ farm when the girl disappeared the dogs would have barked. Referring to the chief detective, Mr Johnston asked: There must be a number of matters in which he must take a lone hand?—Yes.

Witness considered that the girl Walker had driven the car in view of the statement of the steam roller driver, and he' still maintained that she left of her own accord and abandoned the car in fear of the act of taking it. Inspector Hollis concluded his evidence at this stage after nearly two days in the box.

Detective Sergeant Issell gave evidence relative to finger prints, work on which he had been engaged for 17 years. z By arrangement with the Crown, the evidence of Chief Detective Hammond was led by Mr Moody, counsel for Hammond.

The chief detective said he had been in the Police Force for 34 years, and had been in the detective branch for 21 years. On the night of October 5, when the body was discovered in an old scoria paddock at Tamaki, he received information by telephone at his house. He was informed that a woman’s body had been found and that it was then at the morgue. Detective Sergeant Kelly was on duty that night. Witness told Sergeant Cliss, who had telephoned him, to leave things alone until the morning, when he would attend to them. Next morning at 7.45 he communicated with Dr Murray and met him at the morgue at 8.15. He also sent a message to Detective Sergeant Kelly and telephoned to Mr Hunt, the coroner, who told him to get Dr Murray to make a post-mor-tem examination in the morgue. They found the body stripped of clothing. He made no comment in regard to this, but he was surprised. Witness requested Dr Murray to look for certain things and suggested certain causes which might have led to the girl’s death. He also told the doctor to preserve the contents of the stomach for an analyst. “I suggested it might have been a case of murder, but it did not look -like one,” witness said. At that time he did not know who the gitl was. A. thorough external examination of. the body was made by himself and Detective Sergeant Kelly. There was no mark on the°body to show that the girl had been struck or had met with any violence, and his experience in such examinations was large. Dr Gilmour arrived at 9 o’clock. An external examination of the body was made by both doctors, who informed him that there were no external injuries likely to cause death.

Witness said that when at the detective office he read the report of Actin" Detective Waterson, who had seen the body at night and who had reported that he suspected violence. He commented that the acting detective had been wrong in assuming violence. It was then that he knew the identity of* the deceased. The clothing found on the body was given to him by Waterson. It was damp, and was hung out to dry. Witness sent Detective Sergeant Kelly Detective Mills, and Acting Detective Waterson to the scene at Tamaki to search for any weapon and to make an examination of the ground. 4part from that he told them to examine the car at the garage at Papatoetoe. Before the detectives left he obtained from Dr Gilmoui the result of the .post-mortem examination, which was to the effect that they could find no injury of any kind wh? at ?'2r le ’ -if 1 ® rang U P detective unite at Hamilton and gave him the particulars he had, as well as the verbal result of the post-mortem examination. He requested Detective White to net in touch with Te Puke and get Frank Dayly, sen., to catch the noon train to Auckland to identify the body. Several ph dc , tectlv ? s had gone to the races at Elleishe, where they were on duty 1 here was a riot at the races, and on Saturday night a good deal of his time was taken up in detailing men for race duty as a result of the riot. Various police stations were rung up on the telephone during that same day That night he arranged with Mr Bayly Mv be n at i the lnqUest next da U Sunday. Mr Bayly was strongly of onininn that the girl had driven the car, and had endeavoured to get home to Opotiki; but that, when she got to Rotorua she had missed the road. He told witness thaf the girl had opce started the car with the cranking handle, “ and we all know ” the chief detective said, “ that if a person can start a car with the crank handle he can drive it.” After talking with the aunt of a certain witness at the inquest witness was satisfied that the man had not been away from Auckland. On examining the girl’s shoes he saw a mark on the waist of the left shoe which indicated that she had used her foot for the clutch. He had pointed out this mark to the relatives of the deceased, Dr Murray, aud the officers. All the clothes found on the body were shown to Dr Murray on the Sunday, and witness and the doctor had a discussion concerning the clothing. On the Monday he handed the contents of the stomach to the Government Analyst.

At that stage there was no apparent motive for murder or injury likely to cause death,” said Mr Hammond, “ and since then we have been unable to discover any motive.” Dr Murray had mentioned a small bruise on the head of the girl, and one uight' the doctor had

said to him, “ I keep worrying about that bruise on the head. I cannot* understand, though, why there was no hsemorrhage. I think there is a case on the point.” This was before the supplementary report of December. As a result of what the doctor'said, he was invited to the daily conference of Super intendent Wohlmann and Inspectors Hollis and MTlveney, at which they discussed the case for an hour. The clothing was sent to a bacteriologist on October 23, but Dr Murray and he had talked of sending the clothes to a bacteriologist before that. About November 5 the Inquiry was handed over to Detective Sergeant Bickerdike from Detective SergeaV: Kelly, who was then interested in cases in the Supreme Court. From that time onwards witness had little to do with the case, and saw little of the correspondence. Inspector Hollis was responsible then, and Detective Sergeant Bickerdike conferred with him direct.

Speaking of the extensive nature of the inquiries in the case Chief Detective Hammond said: “In all my 34 yars of work in the Police Department I san say this case has received much more attention than any other case I have known in New Zealand.” The case had nor merited the large inquiry it had receiv.-d, because it was not a murder, nor did it have the elements of murder. The pub licity given to it had caused a great deal of investigation to be made—investigation which was not warranted. Enterprising reporters from newspapers had rushed about the country getting scares here and there.

When questioned by Mr Johnston as to the extent of the inquiries, witness said: “ We took 20 statements after interviewing- 100 persons.” Asked by Mr Currie if it would not have been better if the body had not been stripped, witness said that honestly speaking he thought it would have been better if it had been left alone.

. February 28. Chief Detective Hammond continued his evidence at the inquiry to-day into the police methods of investigating the death of Elsie Walker. One fresh c tinsel appeared at the investigation, Mr H. O. Cooney, of Te Puke, appearing to repre sent Constable Jackson.

Discussing the brief prepared in connection with the Elsie Walker case, which, he said, he had had no oppor tunity of reading, Chief Detective Ham mond said: “ This is the first time I have had an opportunity of speaking on the case, and lam glad to have it. I tried to make my way into the inquest, but I could not get there.”

Mr Currie (Crown Law Office) : The important point is whether you exercised any discretion at the various stages as to what work of investigation would be done. Did you exercise discretion, or was that the responsibility of the inspec tor?

Mr Hammond: I took that responsi bility in the early stages. But there came a time when the responsibility was no longer yours?— Yes. When I was ill the matter was handed over to Detective Sergeant Bickerdike, and from that time the in vestigation had nothing to do with ma apart from an odd file, although I discussed the matter with the inspector several times.

Mr Currie : Did you receive the full reports from the detectives as they were returned?—l would know the contents. Were the detectives in the field .cTt for any considerable time without guidance?—No. My discussions with De tective Sergeant Kelly were almost daily, and sometimes more often.

Dr Murray had an opportunity of seeing all the girl’s clothing?—The doctor looked at every garment so far as I can say.

Witness said he could not recall that the doctor’s attention was directed specially to the bloodstains on certain gar ments. He admitted that the Police Gazette notice concerning the case should have been inserted earlier than was ..etually done, but there was little reliable information. The police were always care ful concerning the accuracy of the information published in the Gazette. Discussing the instructions issued to the various police stations to prosecute inquiries along certain lines Mr Currie said that when it came to a scrutiny of the replies received it. would be seen that the directions givea were inadequate. Some of the replies were very perfunc tory. The indication was that the inquiries at some of the garages were in sufficient.

Mr Page: Why do you suggest that the document relates to garages only? Mr Currie said it failed to to the police that inquiries should be made at private places where benzine could be procured in addition to garages. Some policemen had obviously gone only to the garages.

Continuing his evidence, Mr Hammond said that reports from country constables were placed before him. These reports contained the results of inquiries made. Some of the reports had been sent back for further information.

Mr Currie produced an anonymous letter, and interrogated witness concerning what had been done about it. “They would drive you mad, these anonymous letters,” declared Mr Hammond.

Mr Moody: The proper thing to do would be'to put them in the waste-paper basket.

Mr Hammond: That letter got more attention than it merited. The inspector gave instructions for inquiries, and I allotted a man for duty.

Mr Currie wanted to know whether the instructions were typical of Bow the investigations were conducted.

Witness: The letter w..s written to the inspector.

There have to be some instructions, I suppose?—lt was an anonymous letter from a man “ F.R.F.,” who said that a Mr Pye might know something. Mr Pye had been been, but instructions were given to make further inquiries. There were dozens of similar letters on the file. Mr Page: The witness does not say it was his main or sole \means of investigation. Mr Currie: Then I misunderstand him.

Mr Page: It was a suggestion from the public, and it might have been a valuable one.

Mr Currie: Whether the suggestion came from the public or from something the police discovered, who is to give a direction, the inspector or the chief detective? I want to know if this is typical. Chief Detective 'Hammond: If the matter came before me I would give it to an officer to inquire into, although I might think it did not merit inquiries. The commissioner subjected the chief detective to a series of searching questions.

Mr Hammond said that in cases where a body was found in circumstances which might indicate death by foul play or death from natural causes the body should not be moved till it had been seen by experts.

In this case, knowing all that we do Tcnow, would it have been safer and better not to have moved the body?— No. I think the constable was justified in the circumstances in forming the opinion that the, girl had crawled in there and died either from natural causes or by suicide. The fact that the body had been lying there for a week, preyed upon by rodents, has to be considered. Had the body been left there for another few hours little good would have been served, but the rodents would have been given a further opportunity for feeding on it. As a result, the body would have become even more decomposed. In he circumstances it was wise to shift the bodv.

Mr Page: The brief was not submitted to you for .approval or otherwise prior to its being handed to the Crown Solicitor? Mr Hammond: No.

The brief did not suggest death by foul play?—l don’t think the brief suggested death one tfay or the other, with the exception of Detective Sergeant Bickerdike’s covering report and the doc--tor’s report. Does the brief as a whole suggest death by foul play ?—No. It is based rather on the proposition outlined by the inspector yesterday ? — I can’t say how it was based. Your theory is similar to that which the inspector mentioned yesterday?— Yes. I think he has stolen my theory. Mr Page: Do you find that the supervision of the detection of crime falls on your shoulders?—Yes. I carry the responsibility, I think. Mr Page said he had had a number of communications of various sorts sent to him, and he intended to question witness concerning the contents of some. One communication said that a member of the Thompson family at Papamoa heard a car pass out from Bayly’s at 1 o’clock in the morning.—Was that witness called at the inquest?—No. Do.you know why*—No, because it was definitely proved that the car left much earlier. The mere fact that a woman heard a car pass her house was not of much importance. Your view was that it did not carry the matter further?—That is so. Mr Page said it was also suggested that Lees and Mortons had seen an important witness in Papamoa on the night the girl Walker disappeared. “You inquries don’t suggest that? ” he asked.— Not at all.

This concluded Mr Hammond’s evidence.

. Detective Sergeant Kelly commenced his evidence, but it was suspended to allow Dr Murray to be heard. Confirmation of what he. had said at the. inquest was given by Dr Murray. Speaking of the conferences, he said he had had one with Superintendent Wohlmann and the inspectors and Chief De tective Hammond, but usually he had spoken with Detective Sergeant Kelly. When he saw the body in the morgue on the morning after the finding of it the clothes had been taken off. Usually bodies were stripped, but the clothes were handy. In cases of shooting and stabbing and such serious cases the clothes were not touched.

Mr Currie: Did the police make suggestions to you at the post-mortem as to what to look for?

Dr Murray: No. Why should they? I was competent to do the examination. Extracts from the Chief Detective’s evidence, in which he said he made certain the doctor, were read by Mr Currie.

“ What do you say to that?” Mr Currie asked.

Dr Murray: It is untrue. Chief D active Hammond and Detective Sergeant Kelly were not in that building more than 10 minutes after the post-mortem examination. He handed the contents of the stomach to Mr Hammond about 11.45 a.m. He told the detective the poisons he thought the girl was likely to get hold of if she had taken poison on a farm. He made no com ment on the matter of the clothes to the chief detective, because he took it for granted that the police considered they were of no importance. On all previous occasions where there had been stains of any kind on the clothing it had been shown to him, and he trusted the police

on this occasion. At that time, too, he told Mr Hammond they could find no actual cause of death, but that the girl had a blow on the top of her head which he could not explain. He also said there was a bruise on the scalp about the size of a shilling. He stated then that a person could get an injury producing cohcussion, and probably death, without showing any more sign. That was the finish of that interview. The same night he called on Mr Hammond again, and brought up the question of the blow on the head. He suggested that the girl might have been sandbagged, and the chief detective wanted to know who would sandbag her. Witn ss than mentioned money, anl the chief detective replied that she might have hst it on the road. More discussions followed, and Mr Hammond said that the girl probably died of exhaustion. However, witness said he could not sec how she could have died of exhaustion, because she had had a meal a few hours before death, and she was a healthy girl. Questioned by Mr Currie as to whether be had said to Mr Hammond that he was worried over flic bruise on the head, Dr Murray said he would very much like the chief detective to tell him where he had said it. At the conference with tnc superintendent and inspectors he mentioned again the bruise on the head, and-' said it was usual U find haemorrhage ’of the brain in fatal cases of concussion. None had been found in this case, and sc he could not definitely state that death was due to concussion. He had then made his first report, but told them he could not add to it. . “ With reference to these clothes I am supposed to have seen,” said Dr Murray. “ I saw them for the- first time at the bacteriologist’s. I saw the undergarment first at the bacteriologist's, and it was 14 days later that the other clothes were sent to the bacteriologist.” He considered it was the duty of the police to have shown him everything. Referring to the making of a supplementary report, Dr Murray said it was written by Dr Gilmour in the presence of witness and Detective Sergeant Bickerdike, who asked for it. Cross-examined by Mr Moody. Di Murray said he had not told Mr Hammond he was worried over the bruise ok the head. He had mentioned it to Detective Sergeant Kelly, but not to Mi Hammond. “ You know what Chief Detective Hammond said about the discussion at the morgue? ” Mr Moody asked. Dr Murray: Yes, and it is wrong. But the chief detective is an experienced detective?—Yes, he may be; but not in medical matters.

Mr Moody then asked if it was possible that the chief detective had suggested certain causes of death at he morgue.

“He did not,” Dr Murray replied. “ 1 am not going to agree with what did not happen.”

Witness said it seemed that an endea vour was being made to throw the whole thing on the medical men. Mr Moody: Oh, no, no, Dr Murray. “ Well, I cannot think anything else,” said the witness. From what he had read in the papers he thought other people would think the same thing too. He had been police surgeon for 16 years and had not had a dispute with the police, with whom he had got on all right, and he thought he could still get on with them. Suggestions from the police were welcome. The description of a post-mortem examination was given by the doctor. It was incorrect for the chief detective to say that witness had commenced the examination before he had left. Witness had told Mr Hammond that he did not know what had caused the bruise on the head. He did not know now.

The difference between you and Mr Hammond is as to what he has sworn took place at the conferences, chiefly the one at the morgue, and what you say took place?—Yes; but there is no disagreement between us.

And you resent the suggestion that the chief detective made suggestions as to what you should do at the post-mor-tem examination?—No. I say he did not do it.

Do you suggest there was a delay in sending the clothing to the bacteriologist?—l think it should have been sent- earlier. “ Looking at the whole general position now,” Mr Finlay said to Dr Murray, “ the actual cause of death has not even been found.” Dr Murray said that was so. The commissioner: Do I understand you to say that you do not now know the cause of death? “Yes, sir,” Dr Murray answered. “We cannot say whether she died of concussion or not, but it is is probable the bruise on the skull had something to do with the cause of death. However, we would not advance that on a criminal charge I do not think in court. A jury might convict on medical evidence.

Mr Johnston: You have said you were genuinely worried about the case? —Yes.

Witnss said the first time he had ever been called to a police conference was when he met Superintendent Wohlmann, and the inspectors. It lasted about three-quarters of an hour, in which time the whole matter was discussed. The officers were anxious to clear the matter up. However, his investigations would not allow him to go into the witness box at a criminal trial. From the very start he was of opinion that the bruise might have had something to do with death because it was the onljf mark.

Answering questions put by Mr Leary end Mr Johnston, Dr Murray said it was possible for the girl to have died from shock following a rat bite at night, but he had eliminated shock because of the blow on the head. “ You can get all those possibilities, but it all comes back to the blow,” he said. “This case was an unusual one?” the commissioner asked.

Dr Murray sqid it was. The first ..report by Dr Gilmour and himself was Jonsidered, and he did not wish to alter it. In it they said there was no evidence of the actual cause of death, and that was so now. The supplementary report only drew attention to what was probably the actual cause of death. “ Why did you wait two months before making a second report?” asked Mr Page. Dr Murray said they had to review the whole case. They" had to consider the garments. The ~ first report and the second report were the same in his opinion. At the moment even he had no opinion as to the cause of death, but he still thought the blow’ had something to do with it. He could not get beyond that.

Why did you not give the probable cause of death earlier?—We were waiting the result of the test of the stomach contents. There may have been poison. When you got that result why did you not tell the police then?—We* were waiting for the final examination of the clothes. Did you always intend making a final report?—Yes. When did you get the final result of ihe clothing?—On November 21 I think. And you made the report a fortnight later? —Yes. You cannot say why that was?—No. This concluded Dr Murray’s evidence. m , - - March 1. The assumption that Llsie Walker died by foul play was revived at the policy inquiry this morning. Theorv after theory has been advanced as to the probable cause of death, but the evidence of Dr Walter Gilmour, pathologist at the Auckland Hospital, eliminated the assumption of death from natural causes or exhaustion. The doctor stated that the evidence in the possession of Dr. Murray, the police surgeon, and himself pointed to concussion as the cause of death.

In opening his evidence Dr Gilmour said he entered the case on the invitation of Dr Murray. When he reached the morgue at 9 o’clock Dr Murray and the post-mortem attendant were the onlv persons present. Dr Murray had already commenced his examination. Witness made a complete examination himself. Mr Currie (for the Crown) : Did any police officer come in during the •examination ? Witness: I cannot recall one being there. °

Did you ma’-e notes at the time?—We made notes as we went along. Was there any feature of the body to which you found it necessary to give particular attention? —Yes. There were stains on the jaw that suggested the possibility of poisoning. This was one of -the reasons why we thought it necessary to have a chemical analysis made of the stomach contents. One other condition to which importance was attached was a bruise on the scalp* Congestion of the brain was also noticed. Has" it any significance?—lt_has very great importance, but in this case we were unable to account for it, due to the absence of a diseased condition of the body.

What other cause can be assigned forsuch congestion ?—lt may be the result of injury. Did you see any clothing?—l saw no clothing until I arrived at the laboratory under my control. You know now what the clothing was and its condition?—Yes.

Had you seen it at the time of thfc post mortem examination would it have made any difference to the examination? —I am quite sure it would have made a great difference. Mr Page (the commissioner) : A great difference in what? Witness: It would have made this difference: We had performed a post mortem examination in which there was inconclusive evidence as to the cause of death. The presence of blood and other stains, no source of which could be found on the body, would have immediately suggested that someone had been present with the girl. This we could have proved within a period of from 24 to 28 hours. Witness added that the small stains subsequently examined showeel the blood to be from a group to which only about 5 per cent, of people belonged. The chemical analysis of the stomach was reported subsequently. Mr Currie: As a result of the report did you consider a modification of your report?—No. We never-really suspected poisoning.

At a later date you saw the undergarments?—Yes. They were handed over to Mr Armitage. M itness also said he saw other ar—tides of clothing, and he was one'of the fiist. to know the I’esult of the mirmscopical examination.

Mr Currie: In consequence of what you learned, did you consider modifying Di Murray s first report?—Dr Murray and I were constantly discussing the case. We had not formed any intention of providing an additional report, but \' ele making up our minds more definitely. As a result of the post-mortem examination and other examination, did you propose to furnish the police with a further report i— We had not considered that. ion expected to be called at the inquest? Yes. We decided that the evidence at the inquest would correspond with the additions we had made to our report.

After further evidence regarding the reports made by the doctors to the police, Dr Gilmour said: “We are absolutely satisfied that all the organs were healthy and free from disease, and that the theory of exhaustion was not entertainable, as it was impossible for a girl so healthy and well built, and who had nad a meal shortly before death, to have died of exhaustion.”

Mr Johnstone: liven if she were out nil night in the thinnest of garments and up the whole of the previous -night?— Yes.

What about fear?—Fear, perhaps, is more difficult to exclude, but on the other hand it is extremely unlikely that a girl such as I have described—a girl brought up in the country—should die of hidden fear.

Discussing the reports made by Dr Murray and himself, the witness said: ‘We determined that the only evidence we had pointed to concussion as the cause of death. We could-find no evidence of any other condition. This evidence of concussion, however, was not sufficient for us to say absolutely that death was due to concussion.” . ■

In discussing the removal of the body, Dr Gilmour said he would not go so far as to say it should not have been removed. The basis for the assumption that Elsie Walker- died of concussion was

the congestion of the brain and the blow on the head, Supposing the girl received a blow on the head coining from Dapamoa in the car, but did not receive con cussion, it was possible for her to walk around for some hours. Congestion was not produced unless there was a degree of concussion. Witness was of the belief that Elsie Walker must have lost consciousness after receiving the blow that produced congestion. Mr Leary reminded witness that he ha I said at the- inquest that it would have been possible for the girl to have walked about for hours after receiving the blow. Dr Gilmour: Did I say that? Mr Leary: Possibly we are at cross purposes, and you are tired of being in the witness-box for so long. Dr Gilmour: Yes, I am very tired. Mr Page decided to adjourn the inquiry until the afternoon. Constable Collins, of St. Helier’s. who was stationed at Panmure in October, gave evidence regarding the finding of the body at Tamaki and its removal to the morgue. He said that when he saw the body he thought death was due to natural causes or suicide. People began to collect when the discovery was known. There had been a bazaar in the vicinity that night. When describing the large amount of inquiry work he had put into the case, he said he had made a house-to-house call in some parts of his district. Mr Leary: Do you think you could possibly have done more than you did to elucidate this mystery?

Witness: I am sure I could not. I think Detective Sergeant Kelly will bear me out in that statement. I inquired everywhere I thought I could get information.

Speaking of the finding of the body. Constable Collins, questioned by Mr Currie, said he did not suspect foul play. Mr Currie: What was there to dispel the natural suspicion you, as a policeman, would have? —

Witness: The position the body was in. The girl had no hat, and was wearing an apron. There appeared to be no signs of any wound, and the general appearances led me to believe that death was due either to suicide or to natural causes. The position of the bushes also helped me to form that opinion. " Mr Leary: What was the'position of the bushes?

Witness replied that the giri looked as if she had crawled in under the bushes. If it were a case of concealment it certainly was a “ bungled job.” The commissioner: Approximately, how many people did you interview in the course of your inquiries? I do not want you to be accurate to a dozen or so. Witness: I should say I interviewed between 300 and 400 people during mv inquiry. March 2. When the police inquiry into the Elsie Walker case was resumed this morning Constable Neild, of Otahuhu, gave evidence detailing the comprehensive inquiry he had made for information concerning Elsie Walker at boarding houses, confectionery shops, tobacconists, etc. Mr Leary: According to information we have the three constables in that district must have interviewed over 1000 people in the Course of their investigation. Witness: More like 2000.

Have you ceased your inquiry now? — No.

J. Mr Currie said he had not suggested at any stage that witness had been remiss in his duties.

Mr. Leary said that witness had been called to show just how thorough the police methods had been.

Detective Sergeant Kelly, the taking of whose evidence was suspended on Thursday in order that medical testimony might be heard, was recalled. - He outlined the search he made in the locality in which the body of Elsie Walker was found. Witness said he made a minute exmintion of the car that had been abandoned, particularly for finger prints, but without result.

Mr Finlay: It is suggested that a magnifying glass would have revealed finger prints on the car. Did you have one with you ? I had one with .me, as I knew the car had to be examined. I realised that-much depended on the result of the examination.

Witness denied that on Monday, October 8, he showed some of the girl’s clothing to the police surgeon, as stated by Dr Murray. “ The doctor’s memory must have been at fault,” submitted the detective sergeant. Referring to the report summarising his investigations in which he said, “There was no'information to show that the car was driven by other than the deceased,” witness said that when be made the report he particularly asked that inquiries be made at Te Puke. He went to Te Puke on October 17 and discussed the case with Constable Jackson. As a result he decided to take statements from the whole of the Bayly family on the following morning. He was employed all day on this work, and also took a statement from a man who had seen the car leaving Bayly’s farm, but it was not very helpful.