PONSONBY MURDER

Southland Times, Issue 18834, 29 May 1920, Page 5

PONSONBY MURDER

GUNN FOUND GUILTY. SENTENCED TO DEATH. VINDICATION OF FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 28. The trial of Delias u;.nn ler tns i'onsonby murder war concluded to-night, wh.n th»- : n- I•" a verdict b» *ruil y.

After further evidence Mr J. R. Reed, K. 0., ciaatisecl tae jury on bchaif of accused. Ho quoted the opinion of the Ch ; ef Justice of Victoria in 1912 to the effect that the theory of finger prints, was not generally accepted by scientific men, and had not been sufficiently studied to enable its propositions to be accepted as scientific

;• t- up .. a opeenu attention to tne remark by authority quoted that finger print evidence savoured of rnysterju In the present case this had been noticeable, he said, the experts repeatedly saying that a certain similarity in the prints would not be appreciated by laymen. The Chief Justice's opinion, he remarked was overruled by the majority of tlie Court, which held that finger prints evidence might be accepted. Taking the finger prints as a whole, Mr Reed continued, the most that could be said of them was that they perhaps pointed to accused as the author of the burglary. Even if it was held that, finger prints on the revolver were from accused’s hand, the most that could be concluded was that he handled the weapon after it was cleaned, for the evidence showed that it had been cleaned after it was last fired. From the position of the print it was probable that the man who made it did so in putting the weapon away.

. . .sing to the revolver print itself, Mr need declared that neither this print nor the one on top of the cash box tray, which were alleged to be from the same finger, howed the scar which was apparent in acused’s print with which the Ciown sought ;r> identify it. The explanation of the disrepancies given by the experts was that here was a blur, or that a piece of dirt rad intervened, or that the man had been andling bricks, none of which went to ncrease the layman’s confidence in the sysfiu. Counsel pointed out a number of the Teged similarities upon enlarged prints produced in Court, and submitted that no : milariiy whatever on these points was ■pparent to the lay eye. Mr Martin addresser! the Court on behalf if the Crown after the luncheon adjourn •aent. He said he felt justified in saying hat nothing had been disclosed (hat was ’rtrimental to the character or motives of ny of the Crown witnesses. On the other ■.■ and, he did not wish to suggest that ncused's friends and relations who described '■. is movements were to be distrusted be •ause of their relationship to accused. It vas only fair, however, to point out that t was obvious that the interests of these witnesses lay in one particular direction. Dealing with the other witnesses, counsel ciid (hat (he man who stated that he saw accused outside (he theatre shortly before 8 v.m. was obviously of a highly nervous 1 -mperament, and from the way in which he gave his evidence it could readily be nferred that hr- would be very open to ucecstions from other people upon such a latter as the exact time he saw accused, vpi-v important point. Addressing the prisoner, the Judge said ! hat he had been found guilty after a long trial in which the jury had shown the -rcatest care to see that he should only he -onvicted on the most absolute and convincing evidence. The evidence, in hi Honour's mind was absolutely conclusive that accused murdered a worthy servant of the State. Mr Ilraithwaite. The Judge then assumed the black cap -nd passed the death sentence. In further remarks his Honour said the -».“p had vindica'ed the finarer prints gys--*em of investigation and identification, if ••indication wore needed.