ELSIE WALKER CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17877, 25 November 1929, Page 5

ELSIE WALKER CASE.

MR. COONEY’S CHALLENGE.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER.

A TYPIST'S ERROR

WELLINGTON. Sunday. A further statement has been made by the Minister of Justice, lion T. M. Wllford, In regard to the Elsie Walker case. “ I feel that I should further reply to and comment on certain statements made by Mr>. Cooney,” said Mr. 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 Mr. 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 in the original statement of Mrs. Thoma3son the word * farm ’ or the word ‘ train ’ was mentioned.

“On October i, 1928, Elsie Walker disappeared from Mr. Frank . Bayly’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 stales in that report, just received, that Mrs. Thomasson’s statement of October 22, 1928, 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 Elsie’s) disappearance.'

St 'efnent by Mrs. Thomasson.

•‘ Th Commissioner of Police states to me ■ :at this signed statement of Mrs. Thomasson’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 i 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 slatement, which was identical with the words above quoted, but that [ when the typist in the Police Dcpart--1 ment typed from the leadpencil draft ( he misread the word ‘ farm ’ and typed the word ‘ train,’ which typed excerpt, containing the error, was for- ! warded to me. ! “ The Commissioner of Police states 1 that It was a typist’s error, an inad- ! vertence which was not observed at the time, and for which the typist has expressed regret. While I still believe that the statement made by Mrs. Thomasson 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. Thomasson last saw pill Bayly prior to the disappearance of Elsie Walker—l must express my regret that such a typist’s error occurred.

*> position Not Altered Materially.

•• The position does n'ot seem to me, xowever, notwithstanding the mistake, to be altered materially, for while Mrs. Thomasson. 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 Walkor she told the police that it was some time before the disappearance 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 Cacti must have occurred only 21 days previous to the detective’s first interview. “ In a newspaper report of November 12 1929, or Mr. Cooney’s statement, he (Mr. Cooney) states: ‘lt is quite true that there is a conflict in the statements of Mrs. Thomasson.’ 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. Thomasson and I)lrs. Langdon, should be interviewed separately and simultaneously on June 23, 1929. This was in the interests of justico, to avoid any suggestion of collusion. Their statements did not agree. “ I believe it is correct that Mrs. Thomasson communicated by telegraph with her other sister, Mrs. Richardson, who was subsequently interviewed by the police on June 24, 1929, at Hamilton. In connection with Mrs. Bichardson 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, 1929, Mrs, Thomasson stated ‘that on October 1, 1928, when the guard came through the door Into the carriage, he got jammed into the doorway 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. Did Mrs. Thomasson 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 has ever told me, that I can remember, that they personally saw Bill Bayly on the Tau-ranga-Te Puke train on the night of October 1, 1928, or that they had Seen him anywhere in the vicinity of Papamoa.’ What Were They Talking About ? “ I asked Mr. Cooney in -my last statement: ‘As Mrs. Thomasson 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 gays the essential and important point in regard to the statements Is that 1 the persons making them should bo examined on oath before a ' proper tribunal.’ “I repeat 1 what I stated on November 7, that no fresh evidence bearing on the death of Miss Elsie Walker lias been discovered. Mr. William .Bayly bas sworn that ho was in Auckland on October 1, 1925. ' It Is urged that statements made to the police show that he was on the Tauranga-Te Puke train on j-hc evening of that day. If his presence on the train on that day can be established by two credible witnesses, there is no difficulty In the way of Mr. Cooney gaining his ‘"essential and important point ’ by taking action against Mr. William Bayly for perjury before the proper tribunal already provided by Jaw, namely, the Court. “ The police consider that the value 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 uomrury opinion the-Court Is opau to fciia Ip icsUtu.te proceedings."