I.—lβ

78

APPENDIX.

Me. H. D. Bell's (Ceown Peosecutob's) Addebss to the Juey. Begina v. Ghemis. Nearly every murder to be proved by circumstantial evidence. Murder is a secret crime not committed in the presence of others. Therefore, if a jury say we will not convict on circumstantial evidence in cases of murder, our lives are not safe. But the circumstantial evidence, like all other in criminal cases, must be conclusive—must leave no room for reasonable doubt. I hope to be able to address you dispassionately ; and, believe me, I remember always that if any word of mine, other than sober argument, could influence you, that word should not be spoken. First, it is conceded that the only direct and positive evidence that the prisoner committed the murder is afforded by the paper, and to that I proceed at once. I begin, and I ask you to begin, with the shreds of paper taken from the wound. The mass of flesh and blood was taken bodily from the wound by Dr. Cahill at the Morgue on Saturday, the Ist June, wrapped in a half-sheet of newspaper doubled several times, and taken to his house. He took it with him to the inquest on Monday, produced it there, took it home with him again,-and on the morning of the 6th June dissected it, extracted cloth, shot, and shreds of paper. Washed and dried the paper, put the shot and cloth in one box, and the paper in another. Took the box containing the paper to the police office, showed it to the Inspector, who did not touch it, and went straight to the Government Buildings, and handed it to Mr. Tasker. That paper is produced to you in Court in three parts. 1. The top of the shipping column of 23rd May pieced together. 2. Some small fragments still in the box—advertisement matter. 3. A small piece of the Evening Post of 31st May. Excluding for a moment the piece of the paper of 31st May, there is no room for doubt of this fact — That the gun of the murderer, whoever he was, was loaded with the fragments now produced to you. They are taken from the wound. They were therefore fired with the shot into the body. Therefore the gun was loaded with them. They are part of the wad of the murderer's gun, whoever he was. Pause now, and ask yourselves, I beg of you, what you will say, being satisfied that you hold in one hand paper fired from the murderer's gun. Is it, or is it not, reasonable to say—or rather can a reasoning being deny—that if you can now find the rest of that newspaper, or the rest of the fragments of that newspaper, from which the paper to load that gun was torn, you then put your hand upon the shoulder of the murderer ? I submit to you that this cannot be put too strongly. It is as certain as that two and two make four, either that the possessor of the balance of that paper is the murderer, or that he must be able to account for the manner in which he came by that balance, and himself point out to you the murderer. Then, I ask you, is it not also clear that it will not in the least matter that there should be a fragment of another newspaper in the same wound which can, or cannot, be accounted for? If there had been fragments of ten different papers in that body, and any one fragment precisely fitted a paper in the possession of the prisoner, it would not matter that none of the other fragments could be traced, and that nine corresponding newspapers intact had been found in the possession of the prisoner. The fragment that fits cannot be an accident. In this case I suppose no one really doubts that the true explanation of the small piece of the paper of 31st May is that given by Dr. Cahill, that it is a piece of the paper in which the mass was wrapped. It was certainly careless so to wrap it, and it is true that the doctor is unable to say it was the Post of the 31st he took, but he does not take the New Zealand Times, and took the first paper to hand on the morning of the Ist June. Very likely, therefore, the newspaper of the night Before. But whether this be so or not, I ask you whether I am not right in saying that ten such pieces would make no difference if any pieces do correspond with any paper outside. Now, is there, or is there not, in Court, the corresponding fragment of the Evening Post of the 23rd —that is to say the fragment from which the wadding for that gun was torn ? It is a fact that ffliere is. That is, as I said in my opening, not a matter of question of evidence. It is a fact your eyes prove for yourselves. Where that corresponding portion came from is a matter of evidence which I propose now to discuss, but the fact that it is here in Court in your hands is beyond all possibility of doubt or question. I wish first to remind you that it is impossible that it can have been fabricated unless these pieces were stuffed into the wound in the Morgue by the police.