The Deep Lead Murder Trial.

Southland Times, Issue 4412, 30 August 1882, Page 3

The Deep Lead Murder Trial.

The foi'o-wing comment^ .qnt this. remarkable triallire from %c Melbourne' Argus : Oneof the most. remarkable cates ever tried in this colony has terminated after a hearingr of- three days. r The , .prisoner, a navvy, named Robert Francis Burns, was accused of taking the life df a fellow workman and companion, named Chas. Forbes, at Deep Lead, Stawell, under circumstances of an extraordinary character. On the 17th January last, the l:eadlesß-body of a naked man was discovered in the bush. The deceased could not be positively identified for obvious reasons, but everything pointed to the fact- 1 tbat the remains were those of Charles Forbes, and upon this theory the case for theGrown;was>uil,tnp-j To .establish the charge; againft it had tp jbe •proved, iri the J fiVst -instance, that the deceased had been murdered ; in the next Slace, that the murdered man was Charles 'orbes; and, lastly, tbat Burns was the murderer. Notwithstanding the, obstacles which the police encountered, a strong case-was made put agamst the prisoner. That a murder *had been committed was plsin enough, and that the; victim was Forbes was pretty conclusively proved. This man, who had been about the neighborhood with the prisoner a good deal, suddenly disappeared, and although, he was diligently searched for— not only in this but the neighboring colonies for many months— no trace of him could be discovered. Moreover, the body corresponded as to stature, bulk, and so forth, with the description of Foi bes as given by those who had seen him during life, 'while portions of clothing picked up near tho scene of the crime were recognised as having belonged to the deceased. There was scarcely a'shadow of doubt, therefore, that the murdered man was Forbes. The momentous question which the jury had to decide— upon which the life of another man depended— was, did the prisoner commit the murder ? Suspicion pointed to Burns, and the prosecution took the shape of a long but well connectediochain of circumstantial evidence. The deceased, when last seen alive, was in his company ; the two men, in fact were travelling together, in order to take up some work which had been arranged for. Next day the prisoner was alone, and he had in hi* possession an axe, the kind of weapon with which the murder was committed. Que* ioned as to what had becomes of Forbes, he made a statement as tothewhereabc .t3of his associate, •which was not borne out by the fact. After his arrest he made a number of further statements, all contradictory of each ether, as tojwhere Forbes had gone, and it was proved that at none of the places mentioned had Forbes been seen. It was also shown that after the discovery of the remains had been reported in the newspapers, the prisoner induced an acquaintance to write a letter in the nam*-* of Forbes, stating thatthe writer was at Minyip, and giving directions as to the payment of certain moneys to Burns. Forbes, however, it was proved in evidence, had not been seen at Minyip after the day upon which lie set out with Burns. As already stated, he-has not been seen alive any where since that day. The defence set up against the formidable array : of facts marshalled by the Crown was, that the evidence was purely circumstantial, and, therefore, not weighty enough to justify conviction for a capitai offence ; and, further, that no motive had been shown for the commission by the prisoner of the crime of which he was accused. As tn the former point, it may be allowed that direct evidence is preferable to circumstantial, if it can be obtained. In cases of murder, however, the criminal, as a rule, takes care that no direct testimony shall be' forthcoming, but he is unable to control surrounding circum- * stances, which often lead to detection whilst the murderer is hugging himself in fancied security. As Mr Justice Williams pointed out, it would never do to reject circumstantial evidence merely because ii was circumstantial. To do so would be to encourage crime by reducing the chances of detection. As to motive, there appeared in tbis case to be little or none. But it would be going too far to say tbat because the motive for a crime cannot be seen, it is impossible for the crime to have been committed. ; If the jury in this case had been satisfied as to the main facts, they would not have had to cast about forthe purpose of discovering a motive for the murder. The verdict which pronounced Burns to be guiltless of the murder of Charles Forbes was based, it is easy to see, upon the well-recognised principle that when - juries entertain a doubt they are to give the prisoner the benefit of it, and no one, we imagine, will blame the jury for acquitting in this case if they could not conscientiously conyict. It is better that tea guilty men should escape than that one ; innocent person should suffer, and if the 1 jury have erred, which we do not say they have, they have erred oh the* humane and the merciful side,. After all, Burns has not yet escaped froth Ithe meshes of the law, for. the sequel to this strange and eventful case is the arrest of the discharged prisoner,, on leaving the court, upon another capital charge. »