TAMAKI MYSTERY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18759, 16 July 1935, Page 11

TAMAKI MYSTERY

YOUNG WOMAN’S DEATH CAUSE hot ascertained EVIDENCE AT INQUEST CORONER NOT SATISFIED (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, last night. The inquest was resumed to-day mto the. death of Mary Elizabeth Raymond, the half-caste Maori whose hotly was found in the Tamaki River on June 2. Eileen Anaru, known as Peggy Robb, said she lived at the Pitt- Street- Hote • She knew Mary Raymond well, auci had known her for about a year, sut visited a Queen street shop on April 30, and there met Mary Raymond, who was by herself. That was the first timo sue had seen her since before Christmas. She did not know how much money Mary Raymond had, but- she wanted to borrow £3 IDs from witness Mary RaVmind had said that sire had been living in Wellington with Dudley Bennett and his people. “She told Uie that, site was living with Mrs. Wilson in Manning street-, and said she had come to Auckland to be fixed up,” declared witness. “She said Mrs. Wilson would not do her because she. did not have enough money. I offered to help her. 1 told her J could not- lend, her any 7 money as I was not working. She asked me if I knew of anyone who would do her, and 1 told her I had heard of Dr. Hewer.” TALK OF “WATERY CRAVE-” Mr. Walsh: Was Mary Raymond pleased that you Were able to tell her of someone, who would attend 1o her? Witness : Yes. Mr Walsh: Wits She anxious to see Ilewer?—She was, indeed. Mr. Walsh: What search did yon make for Dr. Hewer? —No search. Mr. Walsh: You heard a. former witness v say fe that Mary was bright?— I would not say that. Mr. Walsh: Well, yon have said she was relieved?—She was relieved, but very depressed. Mr. Walsh: Now what can you tell us about this phrase “watery grave”? —She did not say that to me. The expression “watery grave” I first heard from Mrs. Wilson. That- day Mary Raymond came in and said, “Oh, Peggy, I don’t know what to do. I feel like -doing myself in, as I have made such a mess of things.” At- the hat shop she said when she looked at the mirror, “This is the last time I will see- myself again.” Mr. Walsh: What time did you start to look for Dr. Hewer on the Wednesday? —We did not look for Dr. Hewer on the. Wednesday. Mary went homeMr. Walsh: Why?—She did not tell in#. Mr. Walsh: Did she have a small parcel containing a nightdress in it? — No. Mr, Walsh: What time wero you to meet Dr. Hewer?—No time was arranged, Mr. Walsh: She went home to get her nightdress?—No. PART OF LETTERS UNTRUE The witness said she did not know -if Mary had gone to Dr. Hewer's rooms after they parted. Mary Raymond was a completo blank to witness after that afternoon. The Witness said that when she went to the detective office -she took her statement with her. Tt was written in Mr. ,Skelton’s office. It was written the same day as the other statements. There Was no reference to Dr. Hewer.. Mr. Skelton asked her time and again if she took Mary to Dr. Hewer. Witness told him she did not. The statement was .partly dictated by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Walsh: Why did you not- mention in ydur statement- the. intended visit to Dr. Hewer? The witness: Because I never made any arrangement to go to Dr. Hewer.; Mr. Walsh : You have heard letters read bv Dudley Be-nnett?—Half of them Mr. Walsh: Who is the “doctor”: referred to?—Well, Dr. Hewer. Mr. Walsh: It was stated in a letter that Dr. HcWer was doing the job onMary Raymond for £6 on account of knowing her girl friend?—Yes, that was in the letter. Mr. Walsh: Is that true?—No. Mr. Walsh: Can you explain why Mary Raymond should have written untruths to Dudley Bennett?—-Yes, she, wrote that so that Dudley would not be worried about her. it had been arranged that wo should go to Dr. Hewer next day. Mr. Walsh: When did you think of that answer?—l did not think of it. It is true. Mr. Walsh: The only part of that letter that is untrue is the part that refers to Dr. Hewer and you?—Yes. PATHOLOGIST’S EVIDENCE To Mr. Singer, the witness said she had never met Dr. Ilewer until the night after Mary Raymond’s disappearance. Miss Raymond left her at 2.10 p.in. Witness did not wait there until 3.30 p.m., blit went into a. shop and looked at sonic dress materials until 3 o’clock. At, 3.30 she- became, concerned about the absence, of Iter friend. There had been a previous disturbing occurrence that day. Mary had gone to have a drink of water, and Was scooping the water with her .hands and letting it nut over her face and down her frock. When witness spoke to her about it, Mary replied : “I do not care what happens to me.” Dr. Walter Gilmotir, pathologist at the Auckland Hospital, said lie. had held a post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Raymond. Decomposition was advanced on June 3, and death -had occurred about one month before. All the pelvic organs were missing. “No cause of death was found,” said Dr. Gilmour. “There was no evidence of death from violence, and there was no evidence of disease in the organs present- such as would be likely to cause death. With decomposition so -far advanced it- was impossible, to exclude death from drowning.” Mr. Walsh: Could you draw any eon-i elusion from the fact that there was no foreign matter in the windpipe? Witness: If death had been- due to drowning, one might have found some foreign substance in the windpipe. HINDRANCE. OF POLICE The coroner: If Mary Raymond had undergone an illegal operation on May, 1, and tilings had not- gone quite right, what might have followed? Witness: There might- have been sudden death from shock or haemorr-; hage, or there might have been fatal blood poisoning. I think that if therehad been blood poisoning, 1 would have; found some evidence pointing to it. , i “That is the evidence, Your Wc*N ship,” said Mr. Walsh. “The delay" in finalising the matter was due toj obstructive tactics encountered bv the police in their inquiries. It -is to b©’ regretted, sir, that these people werenot,sent to the police in the first in--, stance. So far ns the majority of the' witnesses were concerned, atid that- -in-; eludes The lftilf-TUste girl Anaru, 'they

were not placing themselves in peril in making a. full discovery to the police in regard to the unfortunate girl.” “I don’t, know if Mr. Walsh feels there is any necessity for ail answer from me,” Mr. Singer said. “As far as I am concerned, it cannot- be suggested that, there was anything of a hindrance.” Mr. Singer added that, from the time tho witness Anaru came into his ken. everything was done to enable her to give a. statement- under humane, conditions. The coroner said he had thought oi asking for some further evidence—lie did not know whether he should insist on it—relating to the destruction of the letters which had been handed to Mr. Hall Skelton. Mr. Walsh asked what witnesses the coroner might, wish to call. The coroner: It is because the witness is a- solicitor that I am reluctant to call him. He is acting now for Bennett. 1 shall give the matter some further consideration.

The inquest was then adjourned until to-morrow.