“Man Smaller Than Boakes”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 208, 22 November 1927, Page 15

“Man Smaller Than Boakes”

BOY’S EVIDENCE IN MURDER TRIAL Witness Retracts Former Statement Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, To-day. THERE was a dramatic development in the trial of Charles William Boakes, charged with the murder of Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarff, at Burwood, on June 15, which opened at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Adams.

Sydney Charles King, a witness for the Crown, made a new statement, amounting to a complete denial of his evidence in the lower Court, and accusing Detective Bickerdike of coercing him into making the first statement.

TLTR. A. T. DONNELLY, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown. Mr. C. S. Thomas, and with him Mr. M. J. Burns, appeared fdr Boakes, who pleaded not guilty. King, who is a chemist's assistant, said he had met Boakes about 12 months ago. Mr. Donnelly: You remember giving evidence in the lower Court? —Yes. Mr. Donnelly: Did you make a statement to Mr. Gresson in his office on November 4?—Yes. Mr. Donnelly: Which is true? That made to Mr. Gresson or that made in the lower Court? —That made to Mr. Gresson in his office. Mr. Donnelly: Your Honour, in the statement which I put in I submit I am entitled to treat King as a hostile witness and cross-examine him. His Honour: That is so. Mr. Donnelly: Do you remember your lower Court evidence?—Yes. Mr. Donnelly: The statement was altogether untrue? —Yes. • Mr. Donneliy: Why did you give evidence before the magistrate which you now say is false? —I was bullied into it by Detective Biekerdike. Mr.-Donnelly: In the statement you say that on July 18 Detective Bickerdike got you into the police station and bullied it out of you?—Yes. * Mr. Donnelly: On July 18 you wrote out at the police station a statement substantially the same in effect as the one you gave in the lower court? Where did you get the information to put in the statement? —Detective Biekerdike made me write the statement. Mr. Donuelly: How did he make you write it?—He threatened that he had a charge against me. Mr. Donnelly j On the following day you brought back to the detective samples of the drugs you said you had sold to Boakes?—Yes. The detective asked me to bring the samples. Mr. Donnelly: Why, then, did you bring the stuff back if you knew the statement was untrue?—He practically ordered me to bring it back. Mr. Donnelly: But if it was not true, why did you not tell your employer?—Biekerdike told me to say nothing. Mr. Donnelly: You knew it was very wrong to make the statement if it was not true?—Yes, I do now. Mr. Donnelly: In the statement did you tell Mr. Gresson all you knew?— Yes. Mr. Donnelly: Why did you not tell Mr, Gresson that you had made two statements instead of one? —I did. Mr. Donnelly: It’s not in your statement. After various other questions, Mr. Donnelly said to the witness: If your statement is true, you knew you were doing a dreadful thing by lying? Witness answered, I da know now. Mr. Donnelly: Why did you not speak to somebody about it?—There was nobody to speak to. Counsel said he proposed to read tile statement and if there was anything in it witness objected to, King could stop him. KING’S STATEMENT “THEY DICTATED IT” King said in effect that when Detective Biekerdike questioned him at the police station regarding supplying pills to Boakes, he denied having done so, or having been asked by Boakes to do so. According to the statement the detective kept on saying it was no use witness denying supplying some pills. He alleged that the detective threatened to bring a charge against witness and eventually bullied him into admitting that he had supplied pills. The statement continues:—"l said ’yes,* because he had frightened me so that my nerve was all gone. I was so bad that I had to go down to the chief detective’s office and sit in front of the fire for half aa hour. I had been shivering all over for about half an hour and Biekerdike suggested that 1 should go and warm myself. “The statement that I sold the pills to Boakes was untrue, and I made this statement now knowing that I have sworn an untrue statement in the Lower Court. After I went up to the room again Biekerdike said that Boakes had obtained a bottle of liquid from me. I denied it, but I wasn’t feeling much better and eventually I said ‘yes’ to that. . . . He then said, ‘This bottle contained ergot, did it not?* This was referring to the bottle which Boakes was supposed to have got. They produced an unlabelled bottle which I recognised as ergot. ‘Detective Walsh had come in by then, and Biekerdike went right through it all again. This time I admitted everything as they went along. Biekerdike suggested making a state- ■ ment. They dictated it and I wrote it out. When finished they read it through and I signed it. They said I was to keep quiet and not say anything to anyone. They said I could go then. X had been at the station from a quarter lto three till a quarter past five." The statement went on to describe the occasion on which King had been taken to the police station and confronted with Boakes. Biekerdike, it said, told him that Boakes wanted to see him, and when King was taken to the room in which Boakes was sitting asked, “Do you know this man?” Kins said that the man was Boakes, and replied in the affirmative when asked if he was the man to whom he had supplied the pills and ergot. Boakes jumped up and said “That is a lie.** and Biekerdike told King to go out of the room.

Cntil the trial King did not say a word to anyone about the ease and at the trial he gave evidence in accordance with his statement. After the trial he was advised by a friend named Miller to see Mr. Thomas. He did not see Mr. Thomas until Wednesday, November 2, because he had in the mean-

time gone back to his family in Timaru. He had told his mother one night that his statement was not true. The statement concludes: “I am making this statement after having been advised by Mr. Gresson that I am liable to prosecution for perjury for the evidence given in the lower court and my motive is a wish to put right the wrong that I have done.” CROWDED GALLERIES The public galleries were again crowded when the trial this morning. Eric Horace Mugford gave evidence as to the finding of the girl’s body. To Mr. Thomas he said that after he saw the body he first saw Mrs. Delamain, a storekeeper, who told him to go to the Rev. Tobin. Mr. Thomas: Did you find someone else at the body?—Yes. at the head. “You told kir. Tobin about this man?” ‘Wes.” ‘What was the man doing?” “He was kneeling at her head.” “You told Mr. Tobin that the man had his back to you?”—“Yes.” “As you came in and made a noise, this man jumped to his feet and rushed oft into the broom?”—“Yes.” “You did not see his face?” —"No.” “He was a smaller man than Boakes?”—“Yes.” “Did the man dash into the broom?” asked Mr. Thomas. "Yes.” “Right into the solid broom? You never saw him again?”—“No.” Would this man be about my build but shorter? —Yes. You realise the tremendous importance of your evidence? —Yes. And what you have told the jury is true?—Yes. You told Mr. Tobin within a few minutes of finding the body?—Yes. And you told the police about this man? —Yes. Mr. Thomas asked the boy to tell him how far he was from the man, and paced backwards across the eourt room till tb# hoy ’told him to stop. The boy stopped Mr. Thomas when he had gone about ten or eleven feet. To Mr. Donnelly: He told Detec-tive-Sergeant Young what he saw, and showed him where the man went through the scrub. The Rev. Cecil A. Tobin gave evidence of Mugford going to him and of his returning with Mugford to where the body was. The body looked' as if it had been moved. George Hunter McAnn, a staff sergeant-major in the Defence Department, said that he had examined the two military overcoats produced. They were the ordinary issue overcoats. To Mr. Thomas: The size and numbers of the coats were not distinguishable. They were approximately the same size. To Mr, Donnelly: The important ; difference between the coats was that one was about four inches longer than the other. Leslie George Mcßeth, a taxi-driver, said that he had seen Miss Scarff on the taxi-stand on one occasion when she was looking for Boakes. He had on several occasions taken telephone messages for Boakes on the stand to ring up the house where Miss Scarff was employed. Mr. Thomas: Why, in the lower court, did you say you took telephone messages twice or three times? It was more than that. Do you realise that this man-is on trial for his life? —Yes. Then why do you do this? Have you any explanation?—No. I have not. George Lewis, a fruiterer, and formerly bus proprietor, said that from December 24, 1925, to October 16,, 1926. Boakes drove one of his buses. Witness saw the girl Scarff in the bus on one occasion. To Mr. Thomas: Boakes was 10 months in witness’s employ. Ire was not a hot-tempered man. Witness had never seen Boakes lose his temper He seemed to be a kindly man.