CHARGE OF MURDER.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 256, 28 October 1931, Page 1

CHARGE OF MURDER.

Mysterious Death of Girl in Wellington. TRIAL OF GEORGE COATS. WELLINGTON, October 28. A true bill was returned by the Grand Jury in the Supreme Court yesterday in the indictment against George Errol Coats, who is charged with murdering Phillis Avia Symons at Wellington on or about June 26. It is understood that four other cases will be disposed of first, and that the Coats trial will not be commenced until next week.

Mr Justice MacGregor, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said that the evidence in the case would be very lengthy and somewhat complicated, but he did not think it necessary to deal with the facts at length, but rather to give the Grand Jury a broad outline of the facts suggested, so that they would be able to judge for themselves whether the case was one that ought to go to trial. Coats, proceeded his Honor, was thirty-three years of age. He was a labourer, formerly a seaman; his wife was dead, but he had six young children, all of whom were being brought up in an orphanage and for whom Coats was at all events legally responsible. According to the papers, in 1930 Coats was pretty hard up and was working on relief works near liataitai, but his Honor said he understood that Coats had lost his job shortly before the tragic occurrence that was alleged to have taken place. In 1930 Coats became acquainted with Phillis Symons, a girl of seventeen years of age, who seemed to have been a simple kind of girl. They became friendly, and apparently the girl was seduced by Coats some time in 1930. The girl left her home and went to live with Coats in a room in the neighbourhood of Adelaide Road, where they lived together as man and wife during the early months of 1931. Girl’s Disappearance.

The case for the« Crown, continued his Honor, w r as that Coats finally determined to get rid of the girl, who had become a burden upon him. First of all he appeared to have attempted to commit abortion on the girl, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Coats appeared to have struck the girl a blow on the. back of the neck with a piece of wood which stunned her, but she recovered. Apparently the poor girl, who was in bad health and very much run-down, was a consenting party to this act. However, towards the end of June the girl disappeared. No trace could be found of her; she had ceased to live with Coats. According to the Crown case. Coats killed the girl and buried her in the spoil from the new Hataitai tunnel. It W’as alleged that Coats took the girl over there one evening, and struck her a blow on the head with an instrument, which was supposed to be an iron pipe, and caused severe injuries inside the skull. Coats was alleged to have buried the girl in a hole, whether dead or alive the doctors seemed to disagree, and covered the body up with a sack, knowing that the site would be covered with spoil, and would be away from discovery. Discovery of Body. The body of the girl, said his Honor, lay hidden by the spoil from June 26 to July 12 in the cold winter weather. The body was preserved by the cold, and when, after prolonged digging, it was found by the police searchers, it was easily identified as that of Phillis Avis Symons. The police had not been acting in the dark, but upon information pieced together from the statements of Coats to his friends and to the detectives. The very sack that covered the girl was finally identified as having come from Coats’s place. On those facts Coats now stood charged with the murder of the unfortunate girl. The charge of murder, said his Honor, involved consideration of two questions: (1) Was the girl murdered? (2) Was Coats the murderer? As to the first question, his Honor said there could be no doubt that the girl was murdered. Suicide was out of the question. There was evidently foul play—from the severe injuries to the girl’s head, from the fact that a bandage was placed around her head and from the incriminating fact that the sack placed over her was identified as having come from Coats’s place. Circumstantial Evidence. Dealing with the second question, his Honor said it w r as quite true no one actually saw Coats kill the girl, so the evidence against Coats was largely what was called circumstantial. That was to say, the Crown said the whole circumstances of the case pointed Coats being the guilty man, and in all such cases of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of more direct evidence, one must always look at three things—motive, preparation and subsequent conduct. Had Coats a motive? Did he make preparation? Was his subsequent conduct that of a guilty man? To each of those questions the Crown said that an affirmative answer should be given. First, as to the question of motive, his Honor said that the Crow’n alleged Coats had the strongest possible motive —that, in view of certain circumstances, he made up his mind to get rid of the girl. His Honor said he thought the jury could take it as established that Coats had a strong motive to get rid of the girl. On the question of preparation there was evidence of attempted abortion — some evidence of a previous attack upon the girl with a piece of wood. ; which failed. Then, there was evidence j that Coats borrowed a soade to dig a | hole, which he said was for a dog, and ; final!'’ there was the disappearance of the girl. Coats’s Conduct. Referring to the question of Coats’s j subsequent conduct, his Honor said he seemed to have made a number of false and contradictory statements to’l

the police, so his whole conduct afterwards was strongly suspicious and was certainly largely consistent with guilt. In the result, said his Honor, the probabilities pointed to Coats being the guilty man. If the Grand Jury believed in that view, they would no doubt deem it their duty to find a true bill against the accused and leave it to the common jury to sav whether Coats should be found guilty or not guilty of this brutal crime.