PUKEKAWA MURDER

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160812, 20 November 1920, Page 5

PUKEKAWA MURDER

TRIAL OF SAMUEL THORN

ADDRESS FOB THE DEFENCE,

MBS EYRE SEVERELY CRITICISED. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Nov. 19. The trial of Samuel John Thorn, charged with the murder of Sidney Seymour Eyre at Pukskawa on August 24th, was continued to-day. Mr Martin announced he would call no further evidence for the Crown. Mr Singer then addressed the jury for the defence. He pointed out that if the verdict was adverse the Judge must pass sentence of death. It was the duty of the -Crown to proye to the last inch the necessity to take a human life. They would remember that at the inquest the accused, who was a compellable witness and had refused on his counsel's advice to answer questions,, had on oath given an emphatic denial that he committed the murder. With reference to the conversation between Taylor (the hotelkeeper) and Thorn, when the witness Shugar was a mere listener, the jury would have to be satisfied not only that the accused's remarks were not an admission, but was a natural answer to what hadpreviously transpired. Counsel thought he could show there were the gravest doubts in the case,' and that there was not only a possibility but an extreme probability that not the accused, but someone else, committed the murder. The report given to Detective-Sergeant Cummings that Thorn’ had been seen outside on the night of the murder was untrue. If anyone had seen him evidence would have been given. Circumstantial evidence must be strong in every link. The expert Hazard, he might -call him the Hazardous expert, and two doctors declared that the shot had been fired by a left-handed shot. It was suggested that Eyre was shot in the left eye. A left-handed shot, firing from a window, would have struck Eyre’s right eye. It was , extraordinary that the witnesses declared the shot was necessarily fired from outside the window, when the same angle could have been obtained by moving the bed. For some weeks Eyre . was sleeping heavily. Was he given something, or had he taken something, to make him sleep? Was he such a heavy sleeper that he would not be disturbed by the moving of the bed? Outside tbe house there were no footmarks and qo fingerprints. The Crown’s theory was based on a planned murder. Was it unreasonable to suppose that those who planned it planned it so that everyone should believe. Eyre was shot outside the window;? Mr Singer commented on the fact that the contents of deceased's stomach had not been analysed. That was nearly as extraordinary as the feet that there was no evidence of footmarks by the window. In regard to the horse-shoe prints in the mud, these had only been traced for ’4£ miles. If . these marks were the wonderfully distinct things they were said to be why were they not traced to Granville’s place? Surely that cast considerable doubt upon the suggestion that they were made by Micky's shoes. A detective had' examined some 1300 horses, of which 418 1 were shod. It might have been-that the 419 th horse had had his shoes taken off before the police arrived. If it could have been shown conclusively that the marks were made on the night of Tuesday, August 24, it might have slightly strengthened the Crown’s case. It had Le-eii admitted by the Crown that even if ( it was proved that they were ’Micky’s shoe marks at the post, that did not prove that Thorn was there that night. The question of motive was one of the most important in a case of circumstantial evidence. It was a great peg upon which the Crown had hung its hat. Even strong evidence of motive was not sufficient. Mrs Byre had said that the accused had her in his power. Did the jury think anyone could get that calm, cold, callous, calculating woman in his power? Or would she be the one to put her tentacles round some man? Here lay the destruction of the Crown’s theory of motive. When Thorn packed up his things more than once, that woman who hated him, despised him, feared him, instead! 'of saying “Here is a month’s wages; get out for heaven’s sake,’-"’ asked him “What is the matter? What are you going for?’’ Then in regard to the advertisement. She showed it to her husband, but never asked what it meant, and, despite a woman’s natural curiosity, she never asked about certain letters Eyre received from abroad 1 and which he burned immediately he read them. W r as the advertisement put in the paper by someone connected with the murder? Must not Mrs Eyre’s • attitude have been that of a woman who did not care or had some animosity towards her husband? Could a woman admitting misconduct as she had done have any regard for him? Mr Singer added that it had been suggested that counsel had cast a slur on a dead man.

His Honor: If you were not making a charge of improper conduct against the husband I do not know what you meant. & ,

Mr Singer: I made no such charge. I am not it is a crime or a weak thing to use bad language. lam suggesting that this woman was of such a nature that no ordinary man would have failed to use bad language towards her. I invite you, gentlemen, from her evidence to say that if he did not use had language to her then he was an absolute angel. Did she deserve it? Am I casting a slur on the dead by saying that this man called, her bad names? There are no names I •have in my vocabulary which I think this woman does not deserve. With regard to the incidents of the night of the murder, counsel said that Mrs Byre could not tell within two hours when the dog barked. If that was so, then the barking cculdl have been before she went to bed. If the. evidence raised the question whether it that Mrs Eyre fired the shot, shen the accused was entitled to the benefit. There was no flurry,' fear, or horror on her part when counsel repeatedly referred to her husband's brains and blood,. and showed her the horrible photograph. Had they ever seen calmer demeanour? Was there any meaning in that? She had admitted that on the night of the murder she was satisfied it was Thorn’s footsteps she lizard and also his gun; and she admitted she told her children not to mention her familiarity with Thorn, because they “might be the means of hanging an innocenf? man.” Significant words! Why should she come here and blast her reputation? Counsel presumed she would rather have her reputation blasted than be . tried for murder. That was likely her choice. Why did she not tell the police that she heard Thorn’s steps? The most conclusive fact iji the' case, said counsel, was that when accused asked Mrs Eyre on September 4th why she suspected him) she replied because, under the circumstances, he was the only one she could think of. Did the jury not think