TRAIN MYSTERY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10891, 4 March 1914, Page 7

TRAIN MYSTERY.

MURDER OF A BOY,

THE POLICE BAFFLED

Although exactly a week had elapsed since the discovery of the dead body of the six-year-old boy, William Starchfield, in a train at Shoreditch, London, on January Btb, public interest in the mysterious circumstances surrounding the murder showed no signs of abatement when the inquest was opened at the Shoreditch Coroner’s Court. The inquest had been deferred for as long a period as possible, in order to afford the police every oppor fcunity of investigating the crime. In view of the difficulties of the case, however, few people antioi pated i that the inquiry before Dr. Wynn Westoott would throw much additional light on a wholly ines plioable outrage. As a matter of fact, although several witnesses were called, their evidence added little to what was already known, and eventually the inquest was adjourned. Mrs Starchfield, who came in a taxicab, was protected from snapshottars by a friend, who held an umbrella in front of her until she entered the building. Dr. Wynn Westoott expressed regret that he could not produce evidence to show who caused the child’s death. The jury might have to consider whether the crime could have been committed by an insaue person, or simply |by a common criminal in a fit of passion. EVIDENCE OF PARENTS.

The principal witnesses were Mr and and their evidence was followed with the closest attention The father, who is the newspaper seller who received a bullet wound when trying to capture Titus on the occasion of the Horse Shoe Hotel murder in 19?3, stated that on the day his sou was killed he was unwell, and waa in bed until late in the afternoon. Ha added that he had not seen the boy for the past thiee weeks. Mrs Starchfield, who waa dressed in deep mourning, was greatly affected during the evidence, and bore up witli difficulty. She, like her husband, gave her evidence very clearly and definitely, however, and she also was unable to account for the hoy’s disappearance. In fact, no fresh light was thrown on the mystery. No one, so fai, could speak to seeing the boy in company with another person, and ChiefInspector Gough stated that no evidence was forthcoming of the sale of a child b half-ticket on the afternoon in question. The post mortem examination has satisfied the police that the murderer strangled the boy with his hands. Marks on the back and front of the neck indicated also that the head was pressed back over some hard substance, such as the edge of a ohair or seat, or, alternatively, that the boy bad been forcibly held face downwards with his neck against the edge of the seat. Although this permits of no very definite deduction, it certainly points to the probability of the boy having been strangled against the edge of the seat. PURPOSELESS MURDER. In discussing the possibility of the crime having been committed in the train, emphasis has been laid on the fact that the time between any two stations does not exceed three minutes But the time it would take to strangle a person depends on the strength of the murderer and the degree of resistance of which the victim is capable, and in this case a prominent medical man states that ten seconds would suffice. The presence of scratches on the boy’s ohin indicate that he struggled hard for his life. All the known facts of the case point to the murder as a purposeless and motiveless one. Neither of the parents nor anyone acquainted with them can offer any reason for suggesting that the crime is one of revenge. The general belief is that the murder must have been the work of a madman. Dr. Bernard Hollander, the well known mental specialist, states, however, that so far he oan see nothing to support this theory. “It is my experience,” he said, “that a lunatic who commits a murder invariably leaves some trace of his work. Here, according to all we know at present, nothing has been left which would afford a clue. If it was the work of a maniac it is some person who is only slightly demented.”

Another distinguished authority on lunacy said that on the very meagre facta known he could express no opinion as to the murder being the work of a lunatic. It was suggested to him that perhaps someone who had lost by death a curly-haired boy might have brooded over his sorrow until his mind became obsessed with a jealousy that led him to commit the murder in a spirit of revenge upon fate. “I think this is quite probable, ” said the specialist, “but I certainly cannot recall a parallel case.” BOY’S LAST MESSAGE.

The story related to a press representative by Mr James Starchfield, a brother of the murdered lad’s father, leaves no doubt that the hoy was decoyed away to his death while on an errand to a neighbouring shop. He stated that only Mrs Starchfield and the boy lived in the house at Hamatead Road, the husband living apart from the wife for several months. He had, he said, seen Mrs Starchfield. and she had informed him that shortly after one o’clock on the Thursday the boy was sent out by the landlady for some bread and immediately afterwards was again sent to get a card “Apartments to let,” from a paper shop only a few yards away. He does not appear to have reached this shop, and from there he never returned, said the uncle, “and after waiting for him for a long time his mother and other people tried to find him. As they could not do so they communicated with thd police. The police telephoned to Kentish Town and other police stations, and late at night they heard what had happened, and his mother was called down to Shoreditch to see her body.” . [The boy’s father is now on trial on a charge of murder ]