Typist's Error Made in Police Statement

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 829, 25 November 1929, Page 11

Typist's Error Made in Police Statement

ELSIE WALKER CASE ■ NOT MATERIALLY ALTERED” fSveciol to THE Sf.V WKI.I.IXGTOX. Suudii'. A typist's error resulted in the confusion of the words "farm" and ••train'’ in the original statement of Mrs. Thomason concerning the movements of Mr. WilMam Bayly at the time of the disappearance of Elsie Walk er. Nevertheless the Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford. considers the position is not materially altered by this fact. If the presence of Air. Bayly on the train on October 1. 1925. can be established by credible witnesses, there is no difficulty in the way ot Mr. Cooney gaining liis -essential and important point” by taking action against him for perjury before the proper tribunal, namely, the Court, says Mr. Wilford in a statement issued today. “1 feel that I should further reply to and comment on certain statements made by Mr. Cooney,” says Air. Wilford. ' After reading Mr. Cooney’s statement I instructed the commissioner of police to furnish me with certain particulars to enable me to reply to Air. Cooney’s questions, and especially asked that the excerpt taken exception to by Mr. Cooney should be considered, in order that I might be able to say whether or not in the original statement of Mrs. Thomason the word 'farin’ or the word ’train’ was mentioned. ‘‘On October 1. 1928, Elsie Walker disappeared from Mr. Frank Baylv’s farm near the Papamoa railway station. The commissioner of police has forwarded to me a report in reference to the excerpt referred to by Mr. Cooney, and states in that report, just received, that Mrs. Thomason’s statement of October 22. ID2S. contained, inter alia, the following words: ‘lt was some time before the disappearance of Elsie Walker that I saw Bill Bayly on the farm. It would be about ten days or more before j Elsie’s disappearance.’ STILL A CONTRADICTION “The commissioner of police states to me that this signed statement of Mrs. Thomason’s was made in answer to the question: ‘When did you last see Bill Bayly prior to the disappearance of Elsie Walker?’ In my report from the police they further state to me that, in answer to my request for a copy of this excerpt referred to, a draft was prepared for me, for insertion in my statement, which was identical with the words above quoted, but that when ihe typist in the Police Department typed from the lead pencil draft he misread the word ‘farm* and typed the word ‘train.’ which typed excerpt, containing the error, was forwarded to me. “The commissioner of police states that it was a typist’s error, an inadvertence which was not observed at the time, and for which the typist has expressed regret. While 1 still believe that the statement made by Mrs. Thomason to the police containing the word ‘farm’ is a contradiction to the other statement containing the word ‘train—for it was made in answer to a question as to when Mrs. Thomason last saw Bill Bayly prior to the disappearance of Elsie Walker —I must express my regret that such a typist’s error occurred.

“The position does not seem to me, however, notwithstanding the mistake, to be altered materially, for while Mrs. Thomason said to the detective eight months after the disappearance of Elsie Walker that she saw Bill Bayly on the train on October 1, 1928. I cannot forget that in the same month as the disappearance of Elsie Walker she told the police that it was some time before the of Elsie that she saw Bill Bayly on the farm, and never mentioned any reference to the train incident whatever, which, if it was a fact, must have occurred only 21 days previous to the detective’s first interview.

“ln a newspaper report of November 12, 1929, of Mr. Cooney’s statement, he, Mr. Cooney, states: —‘It is quite true that there is a conflict in the statements of Mrs. Thomason.’ in this I entirely agree, and this admission bears out my contention. I understand that the object of all police inquiry is to endeavour to ascertain the truth. Hence it was arranged that the sisters, Mrs. Thomason and Mrs. Langdon. should be interviewed separately and simultaneously on June 23, 1929. This was in the interests of justice, to avoid any suggestion of collusion. Their statements did not agree. “IS IT CONTRARY TO FACT?” “I believe it is correct that Mrs Thomason, communicated by tele graph with her other sister, Mrs. j Richardson, who was subsequently , interviewed by the police on June 24. 1929, at Hamilton. In connection with Mrs. Richardson Mr. Cooney says: ‘lt is contrary to fact to state that Mrs. Richardson denies that her sister ever told her about the train episode,’ but is it contrary to fact? In her statement of June 23, 1920, Mrs. Thomason stated ‘that on October 1, -1928, when the guard came through the door into the carriage, he got jammed into the dorway with a Maori woman. On looking toward the door I saw Bill Bayly in the passage way.’ "That is the train episode. There cannot be any doubt about the definiteness of that statement. Bid Mrs. Thomason tell Mrs. Richardson that she saw Bill Bayly in the passage way of the train on October 1, 1928? That is the question. Here is the answer, the signed statement as given by Mrs. Richardson herself to the police: ‘lt is a fact that no person lias ever told me, that I can remember, that they personally saw Bill Bayly on the Tauranga-Te Puke train on the night of October 1, 1928, or that they had seen him anywhere in the vicinity ot Papamoa.’ THAT SU.VI OF £IO,OOO “I asked Mr. Cooney in my last statement: ‘As Mrs. Thomason admitted mentioning a sum of £IO.OOO as being the amount discussed between herself and Mrs. Bayly, what were they talking about?’ He has not yet answered that question. Finally, Mr. Cooney says the essential and important point in regard to the statement is that ’the persons making them bhoulci

be examined on oath before a proper tribunal ’ "The police consider that the valu*' of the available testimony does not justify action by them against Mr. Bayly. I agree. If. however, Mr. Cooney or any other person entertains a contrary opinion the Court is open to hixn to institute proceed-