PIHA FIRE CASE TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 14

PIHA FIRE CASE TRIAL

SUPREME COURT HEARING

Evidence For Crown Continued COMPARISON OF CLAY DESCRIBED DETECTIVE FROM SYDNEY IN BOX (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 24. The trial was continued in the Supreme Court of the two Australians, Gordon Robert McKay, aged 43, alias Tom Bowlands, wool and hide dealer, and James Arthur Talbot, aged 38, a labourer, on the charges on which they were committed for trial in the Lower Court, that on or about February 12 they wilfully set fire to a dwellinghouse, thereby committing arson and further, that on or about February 10 they interfered with a dead human body. They were also charged with conspiring by deceit to defraud the Mutual Life and Citizens Insurance Company, Limited, Sydney, of £25,500 by representing that McKay was dead.

Mr V. R. Meredith and with him Mr N. I. Smith, appeared for the Crown. Mr W. Noble defended McKay and Mr J. Terry defended Talbot. The first witness today was John Oxspring, storekeeper, who said that he noticed no lights in the bach when he saw it at about 8.45 o’clock on February 11. On the Tuesday after the fire he found five pieces of bone and a padlock in the debris near where human remains were found. Mr Terry: You don’t suggest that there was not a light turned low in the house when you saw it? Witness: No. I didn’t see a light. That’s all. SMELL OF KEROSENE Andrew Littlejohn Sutton said that he noticed a strong smell of kerosene when about 60 yards from the burning house. Mr Meredith: When you smelt kerosene as you came along the road, where was the fire? Witness: In the bedroom above the garage. Mr Noble: Do you know if you are the only person who smelled kerosene? ' •

Witness: No. Ope other person smelt

Mr Noble: Why did you say you smelled kerosene? —Because I did smell it. You didn’t smell it very long, did you?—No. t Did you know there were kerosene lamps in the house?—No. Douglas, Mitford Thurston, a baker, who was spending a holiday at Piha, said that when he arrived at the fire with Sutton there was a definite smell of kerosene. He smelled it 75 yards away. All the bach windows were open. A woman cried out: “There is a baby inside.” The witness knocked in the back door with an axe. Talbot arrived with Fraser 10 minutes after witness. When .he asked about who was in there Talbot replied: “My mate, my mate.” The fire was burning only over the garage. Talbot attempted to enter, but when the witness told him not to he did not enter. The flame the witness saw was a distinctly light, bluish-white flame. Later the witness broke the garage door with an axe and assisted to remove the car. There was no fire in the garage then.

Mr Terry: How many windows did you see open? The witness: The sun porch and the four side windows. In hot weather it is not extraordinary for seaside baches to have their windows open, is it?—No, but I noticed they were not open for nine days, nor open at 6 o’clock when I passed that evening. But the bach was not occupied until 6 o’clock. It is a matter for the particular individual?—Yes. Did you ever see McKay there?— No, not the whole time I was at Piha. TALBOT’S STATEMENT Constable Pollard, of Henderson, described his arrival at the scene of the fire about 6.30 a.m. Portion of the embers was still burning. He saw a skull and what appeared to be a vertebrae. He interviewed Talbot at another bach, and typed Talbot’s explanation of the circumstances of the fire. Talbot read and signed it.

Mr Noble asked that it be pointed out that the statement was not evidence against McKay. His Honour: It is not evidence against McKay on the charges of interfering with a dead body and of arson.

Constable Pollard then read the statement, in which Talbot said he took a cup of tea to McKay about 11.30 on the night of the fire. He awoke about 1.30 to find smoke filling the bach. He tried to get into McKay’s room, but the flames drove him back. Talbot’s hair was slightly singed and his face red. Witness said that he saw the detectives remove a coffin from a grave bearing the nameplate “Gordon Robert McKay, aged 43; died February 12, 1939.” It held the box containing the bones the witness had found at Piha.

Mr Terry: When you interviewed Talbot he was singed about the eyebrows and head? The witness: Yes. He was quite agitated?—Oh, yes. His Honour: he seem agitated or upset at the inquest next day? The Witness: Yes.

Frederick Daniel Miller, laboratory attendant at the Auckland Hospital, described the post mortem examination and said that he also received burned bones which were marked “The remains of Robert Gordon McKay.” Mr Terry: Did you notice a clip in the skull? The witness: The skull was not examined.

If a metal slip was there would you have noticed it?—lt all depends where it was. I do not think metal clips are used on a skull. William George Leland, inquiry officer of the Post and Telegraph Department, produced the originals of the cablegrams referring to the death of McKay and the funeral arrangements endorsed “J. Talbot.” They were addressed to Dudley Westgarth (solicitor) , Mrs Gordon McKay, Mrs J. Robertson, John McKay and McKay, all of Sydney. EXPERT WITNESS CALLED The first expert witness to be called was Kenneth Massey Griffin, Government analyst, of Auckland. He said that he received from Detective-Ser-geant Trethewey a sample of clay and a long-handled shovel taken from a garage at Avondale on February 22. He also received samples of clay in en-

velopes marked with the names of 29 cemeteries and another containing clay from Shine’s grave at the Waikumete Cemetery. He compared the clay from the garage with the other 29 samples by examination under an ultra-violet light. The clay from the garage had the same -number of diatoms as the clay from the Waikumete Cemetery. Mr Meredith: Diatoms are what?— They are skeletons of small animals that exist where there is water.

On March 2 the witness went with Detective-Sergeant Trethewey to the Waikumete Cemetery and took samples from five different parts of the cemetery and also from Shine’s grave. In every test he made of the clay collected from Shine’s grave he also examined clay taken from the coffin of Shine and clay taken from two feet and three feet levels in Shine’s grave. Clay from the depth of two feet showed slight variations. It was the same clay, but showing variations. On the back of the long-handled shovel and on the wood between the shoulders there was a good deal of other earth. He tested the clay there by the same method and found that it agreed with the clay from the garage, from the coffin and from a depth of two feet in the grave. Mr Meredith: What conclusions did you come to?—That the clay from the garage and from the shovel came from the lower soldiers’ portion of the Waikumete Cemetery and was exactly identical with that which had come from the grave of Patrick Henry Shine at a depth of about two feet. From Detective-Sergeant Aplin the witness received a quantity of soil and ashes taken from where the bones were recovered. From those ashes he was able to recover a trace of the residue of a paraffin distillate, such as benzine or kerosene.

Mr Meredith: What does that indicate ?—That the wood of which the ashes are composed had had kerosene on it. Discussing the wire-woven mattress which he was shown, the witness said that the iron was fused in a number of places. He received from Dr Gilmour three pieces of bone on which he found brown spots. These he found to be iron oxide and black spots, which were iron. HEAT REQUIRED “The fusion of the iron on to the bone would require considerable heat,” said the analyst, “and the tests I carried out at 1750 degrees Fahrenheit would not fuse iron into bofie. I obtained a similar fusion by a process known as the thermite process, using a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium powder. A temperature of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit upwards is got with that. That did fuse the iron into the bone. I examined the mattress and it showed that there had been a fusion of mattress and iron into the bone. This would require a very much higher temperature than would be given by the burning of a wooden house.

To Mr Noble the witness said that he got a fairly small amount of clay off the shovel.

You say you could test diatoms in that?—Yes, they are very small. I should point out that we had to do a great number of tests with the clay and I’m sorry that there is not much left. You know that McKay was walking in the cemetery?—Yes. Might no clay have come from his boots?—lt may have as far as the garage floor was concerned, but in my opinion not the clay on the shovel. The clay might have got on the sack in exactly the same way?—Yes.

The witness added that he had been forced to the conclusion that something had been used in the fire to supply extra oxygen. It was not necessarily thermite. It might have been potassium chlorate, for instance. Benzine or kerosene would spread a fire rapidly, but would not add to its heat, because the vapourization of the spirit actually took away from the heat of the flames. Kerosene in the garage of the house at Piha, however, might well have accounted for the residue he found in the sacking and wallboard. EXAMINATION OF BODY A member of the staff of the Auckland Hospital, Dr Stephen Empsom Williams, gave evidence of a postmortem examination he had performed on February 8 on the body of Patrick Henry Shine. Answering Mr Terry, the witness said that no surgical clip was used in the post-mortem examination.

Dr Walter Gilmour, pathologist at the Auckland Hospital, said that he received from Dr Williams pieces of burned bone of various sizes. They were burned unequally and some still had portions of the flesh adhering to them. The witness said that an emaciated body would burn very much more easily than a well-nourished one, as soft tissues were very difficult to burn. Some of the bones had been , burned white and that required a very fierce heat indeed. The muscular development of the bones was suggestive of a male rather than a female. The sutures in the skull definitely pointed to an adult and it could be said that this individual had reached middle age. From the wadding adhering to the palate he concluded that the body had been prepared for burial after death and, therefore, it must have been burned after death.

Dr Edgar Francis Fowler, a pathologist, said that he had, in company with Dr Gilmour and Dr Kenneth McCormick, examined the exhibits and came to the same conclusions as Dr Gilmour.

Detective-Sergeant William Lindsay Alford, of Sydney, said that he had known both the accused for a number of years. They lived in McKay’s house at Burwood. They had been engaged very closely in business for many years. He produced a declaration in McKay’s handwriting made at Auckland on February 6, when he and Talbot arrived.

To Mr Terry, the witness said that the association between the two men would best be described as that of a partnership. The witness did not think that Talbot ever was an employee of McKay, who was a man of considerable means, whereas Talbot was not. POLICE INVESTIGATIONS Long evidence was given by Detec-tive-Sergeant J. Tretheway covering the police investigations. He described the opening of the grave of Patrick Henry Shine on March 10 and finding the coffin empty. Later that morning the witness asked Talbot to call at the detective office to identify a ring found in the debris at Piha and Talbot went there with him. At the office Talbot said that the ring was McKay’s. “I then said to Talbot,” the witness continued, “ ‘Did you know a man named Patrick Henry Shine?’ He received a great shock and was extremely dumbfounded. After about a minute he said: ‘No.’ The witness told Talbot it was believed that the bones found at Piha were those of Patrick Henry Shine. Talbot received a further great shock and after a long pause said he did not know anything about it. He added later that it was absurd to think the body was not McKay’s and he sat for a time apparently in a trance.” About 20 minutes later, the witness continued, Detective-Sergeant Aplin brought a warrant for Talbot’s arrest on a charge of interfering with Shine’s remains. Talbot received a further shock; he slumped on h's chair and said he knew nothing about it On March 22 witness continued, he and Detective-Sergeant Aplin went to a \

house in Grafton road. He related the circumstances of the arrest at 10.5. p.m. of a bearded man whom they believed was McKay on a charge of interfering with Shine’s remains. The man denied that he was McKay or that he knew a man named Talbot. His beard and hair were long and he was without teeth. Up to that time he acted sensibly, but on the way to the police station he pretended to be silly. At. the station, when the warrant was read to him, he said: “I don’t know what you mean,” but when the warrant was read a second time he remained silent Mr Terry asked why the witness had not asked Talbot straight out if he had been to Avondale. Witness: I had my reasons. He might have left by the next boat. You had no right to ask. him a trick question.—lt was not a trick question. After asking about the custody in which the bones were kept, Mr Terry asked if the witness had any explanation of how the bones and the box in which they were came to be photographed and a nicture published. The witness said that he had none. Was it not a very surprising thing?— If it was so. Do you not know that such a photograph was published?—l heard something about it. Where did the reporters get the information from?—Not from the police. You suggest that you had no interviews with any reporters ?—Plenty of interviews, but no information. His Honour asked how the questions asked could help the Court in the case. Questions, he said, should be confined to relative matters. Mr Terry said that statements appeared in the Press apparently carrying the imprimatur of the police. STATEMENT IN PAPER Mr Terry (to witness): There was a statement, for example, in one of the papers that you were inquiring into the interference with graves in Auckland i province. Did you see that?—Yes. Where could they get that statement' from but from the police?—From quite a number of people. His Honour: I fail to see what this cross-examination is directed towards. Mr Terry: It is directed this way. There were statements in the paper which seemed to Talbot to have come from the police, which indicated that serious doubts were being cast on the death of McKay. Mr Meredith objected to the questions as, he said, the questions shoul-i be relevant to the inquiry and that inquiry only. Obviously, he added, the foregoing questions bore no relation whatever to the case. Mr Terry (to witness): There was no doubt, was there, that the papers made positive assertions? They seemed to get the information, but not from the police. The witness agreed that some of the published reports were against the interests of the police and the accused. He had read also that there was a theory that McKay might have wandered out of the bach and left it unknown to Talbot. The witness said that it was not just a subterfuge when he asked Talbot to come to the police station to identify the ring. After the way Talbot reacted to his questions it was obvious that he knew about Patrick Henry Shine. Talbot might not be the brains of the scheme. Mr Terry: You had no right at all to

have interrogated Talbot as you did that day. Witness: I say we had. I put it that you went down Queen street to arrest Talbot?—lt is untrue. It is very significant, isn’t it, that he was 'arrested three minutes after his arrival?—He was arrested on instructions from the inspector. Mr Terry’s cross-examination of this witness was adjourned until the Court resumes tomorrow.