Confronting Murderous Men, page 17
The coroner asked, ‘Would it be possible for a man, despite the presence of insanity in branches of the family, to have nothing wrong with him?’ Wallace, ‘A portion of such a family could be normal and the others abnormal.’
Wallace’s assessments were galling for their inaccuracies. He had examined the evidence gathered by the police and had obviously relied on some of the evidence as it was given to the inquest. Rather tellingly, he had never met Nowland and at best his diagnosis was speculative. When pressed by O’Halloran, he folded and would not commit himself to solid answers. There was ample evidence of Nowland being a young, healthy, loving and caring husband and competent police officer – and it must not be forgotten that he had been the latter for almost ten years and none of it featherbedded by support from colleagues. He had largely worked alone in one-man stations. Anything occurring to a lone officer in a remote location would stand a high chance of never being corroborated by others. This seems not to have been considered.
Wallace also overlooked the fact that Florence Nowland and her brother Herbert had heard a voice; Florence had heard the same voice on both nights. It did not aid the identification of the complainant, but it did corroborate what Nowland had said about talking with the man. Nowland shared the man’s concerns and wasted no time in attending to his complaint. Contrary to Wallace’s assessment, Nowland made enquiries on his way to the bridge at the Bendemeer Hotel, where he spoke with Oswin Whorlow in an attempt to find the man. He walked with Whorlow and did not discourage him from joining him. He probably declined the offer of Herbert Brown on the second night to accompany him because he was more comfortable leaving him with his sister while this strange character was about. He didn’t like the look of him to the extent that he took a baton with him to search for the alleged trouble. He sensed something was amiss.
Little or no weight seems to have been given to Nowland being about to ring the theatre to make a booking for 7 October, two days away.
Wallace also inflated the number of anonymous letters received. There was no mention in the case of them being at the station or received at police headquarters. All operational police would know of anonymous letters of complaint, hoaxes and nuisance. They were a precursor to electronic trolling and anonymous online gripes. The experience of his predecessor at Bendemeer may have been useful in determining if a pattern of similar letters had been observed, but no mention was made of it.
It also has to be remembered that had there not been a false positive colour test showing the presence of strychnine the possibility of suicide may not have been so deeply and fantastically encouraged. Instead, the least line of resistance was followed to clear the matter up. And lastly, this case, so earnestly reconstructed by Dr Wallace, had taken place when people were still confined and treated in mental institutions despite not being mentally ill. Psychiatry was still a developing field and Wallace was a game man to make some of the observations of Nowland that he did. It would be interesting to know what a psychiatrist of today would make of his observations. The prospect of Nowland manufacturing the scenario envisaged by the doctor to simply kill himself is just too outlandish to be accepted at any time.
Dr Thomas Sholto Douglas told the inquest that he had treated the deceased for kidney trouble and had not had his suspicions aroused concerning his mental condition. He added that the medication he had prescribed him did not contain any poison.
Constable James Doggan gave evidence of searching for the ‘madman’ but of not being able to find a trace of him, although the police had questioned many men on the roads and kept a close watch. A man named Arthur Morris had camped at the river bridge on the night of the constable’s death, but he had not heard any noises nor seen anyone strange in the vicinity in the afternoon or that night.
Another traveller, John Riley, a labourer who had been on the road for a year, had arrived at Bendemeer carrying his swag on 5 October, the day of Nowland’s disappearance. He had seen no man acting suspiciously. In his travels he did not know of anyone who would do the constable an injury. He would have heard if there was anything like that.
Constable James Passfield gave evidence of finding no traces of burrs or grass on the constable’s clothing when he was recovered from the river. His handcuffs and revolver were found in their place on the deceased. There was nothing to indicate a struggle had taken place on the riverbank.
Constable Nowland and his wife had been laid bare, their lives opened to public scrutiny in an attempt to discern a truth that was probably evident from the start. The blemish of insanity was seized upon by investigators who failed to make progress in identifying his attacker. It was an easy way out of a complex puzzle. The period and location in which Nowland’s death had occurred should not have prevented a more thorough investigation. The Great Depression had forced many men onto the wallaby track in search of food and work. Not all of them could be found or interviewed. But, as will be seen, more could have been done.
What remained was a man presenting to Bendemeer police station allegedly fearful for his safety and even seeking to be accommodated in the cells, a not uncommon request. This was refused and help was sought to suppress violent behaviour at the nearby bridge over the Macdonald River. Nowland responded to the complaint, made inquiries at the hotel on the way to the bridge and went part of the way there with Oswin Whorlow. The complainant was not seen, but if his intent was to injure Nowland, he had been thwarted by Whorlow’s presence.
The following night, he complained again, his voice being detected faintly by Florence Nowland, who also heard the front door of the police station being closed. It was suggested that the complainant had called from the front gate and the door shutting would have been Nowland closing it after a short discussion. He went to his residence and prepared himself to again visit the bridge, no mention being made of the river according to Herbert Brown. He was wary and took a baton with him. No mention was made of the baton after Nowland’s body was found. On this occasion, Nowland did not accept the offer of assistance from Brown, instead leaving him with his wife. He ventured out alone, something he would have always done in a one-man station. He met the Whorlow women and escorted them back to his residence. No other person was seen. Was the complainant hiding? Why would he not accompany the police officer to the scene of his complaint that night, or the night before? Was he stalking in readiness for a mad attack?
Another outstanding feature of the complaint was that the man, though allegedly fearful, claimed to have remained at the bridge, or at least returned to it, on the second night. He was itinerant and could have moved on or moved to another location had he feared for his safety.
Nowland did not get to the bridge where Arthur Morris was sleeping undisturbed by Nowland or the alleged madman. For some reason Nowland’s attention was drawn to the riverbank roughly opposite the police station. He would have needed to cross a fence according to one witness, to make his way to the river. Was he enticed by the complainant? Why would he have gone there otherwise, the location not being part of the complaint he was investigating?
A heel impression was found by tracker Dennison. No evidence of a cast being made of it exists, nor was a comparison made with the footwear worn by Nowland. Whose impression was it? Dennison found no other signs of footprints. Just the one impression being seen would indicate that the ground was not capable of retaining others, Nowland’s or an attacker. The absence of other footprints did not mean one or two people had not walked there. Was the work of the madman done when Nowland was struck, pushed or slipped into the water? Although he could swim a little according to his wife, he was burdened by a heavy greatcoat, his uniform, pistol and handcuffs – but he was only in a metre or so of water and could have remained standing had he been conscious. The water was very cold as was the night, hence the greatcoat. Without a better indication of the search of the entry point there remains the possibility Nowland was struck and pushed into the river.
It is also possible that Dr Buckley’s examination failed to find a head injury, or that the injury was not evident due to the type of implement used to stun Nowland. The doctor had said there was no injury apparent. The doctor would not have been as experienced as a forensic specialist employed in this duty on a full-time basis. It is very unlikely Nowland went into the water without being forced in some way. There was sign of disturbance of foliage on the embankment – something had caused it, and a strike to the head and forceful entry to the water was possible – and probable.
The only proven fact was that Constable Nowland died from drowning in the execution of his duty. And he had been led out on consecutive nights by a man who had invented a madman and his behaviour. There was no need for him to have been out otherwise.
In his summing-up, Mr Geikie PM would not be swayed by the confusing and disparate evidence presented to him. He was an experienced magistrate and not a civil justice who could have been left floundering. The inquest came to an end with some telling comments made by the coroner. He noted that the case was marked by many conflicting and mysterious statements.
If suicide was committed by a sane man, the first thing to do was to look for a motive, but none had been shown by the evidence. If he was insane, no motive need be looked for.
What evidence is there of his insanity? Family history shows that many of the members on both sides of the deceased’s parentage suffered from mental derangement, but not all of them, as has been disclosed to this court.
There is not one tittle of direct evidence of mental derangement, right up to the time he was last seen. As an officer of the police he would be under close observation by his superior officers and the public generally in a small village like Bendemeer.
Yet nobody closely or intimately associated with him at Bendemeer or elsewhere has testified as to any strange or unusual conduct by him, although if such had been apparent it would be feasible to assume such evidence would have been readily available.
Due weight must be given to the evidence of a mental specialist like Dr Wallace, but although he has given us his opinion on the statements he has perused and also the mental history of deceased’s family, he never saw the deceased and he would not swear definitely that the deceased was insane or that he committed suicide while insane or sane.
The evidence of Dr Douglas showed that he saw no trace of any indication of insanity, and that the deceased appeared quite normal. Everybody must be presumed to be sane until they were proved insane, but insufficient evidence has been placed before me to allow me to assume insanity in this case, although there might be suspicion of insanity. The evidence adduced does not enable me to find the deceased met his death by violence or otherwise.
I find that Trevlyn Cuthbert Nowland was found dead in the waters of the Macdonald River at Bendemeer on October 6, without any marks of violence on his body, and that death was due to drowning, but how or by what means that drowning was brought about the evidence adduced does not enable me to say.
The inquest had taken evidence from 24 witnesses over six sitting days and the coroner sorted through the evidence to reach his conclusions, which were all he could achieve. He at least put Dr Wallace’s theories to the test and so, too, the flimsy spectre of Trevlyn Nowland suffering some form of mental derangement.
If only the false positive poison test results had not been released publicly and taken up so eagerly by investigators, the focus on the cause of Nowland’s death may have remained true. It is unfortunate that records of the inquest are now lost.
An interesting case played out at Armidale Police Court on 26 October 1931, two weeks before the conclusion of the inquest, and was reported in The Armidale Express.
A STUDENT OF CRIME
Madman Before the Court
Sequel to Tilbuster Scare
The man who terrorised campers at Tilbuster Creek last week was before the Armidale Police court this morning, charged with being an insane person, found wandering at large.
He was charged under the name of Jack Gale, but was said to be identical with H J Bryant who was sent to an asylum after being charged with being insane at Tamworth Police Court in June, 1930.
Wild-eyed and obviously unbalanced, the man kept up and incoherent muttering in Court, but obviously understood what was being said about him. He gravely thanked each witness at the conclusion of his evidence, and made a deep bow to the Court as he was taken back to the cells.
Sergeant Drew said that on October 18, in response to a telephone call, he went with Constable McGuiness, to Tilbuster Creek and after making inquiries from campers in the locality proceeded along the Armidale–Guyra road to a point about a mile from ‘The Pinch’. He saw Gale and asked his name. The man said ‘Jack or Joe Gale’.
He told the sergeant he had come from Bendemeer and had stayed there a day and a half. Previous to that he had been in the west. He then refused to answer any further questions and after walking off about five paces ran to his swag and made off. He was intercepted as he went to cross a creek.
Sergeant Drew said that on searching the swag he found £3 in 2/- pieces. Under the straps of the swag was a stick about two feet long. Gale said he used it for poking the fire. At this time the man was very much excited, and would not answer any questions. He was arrested and brought into the lock-up; he had been erratic and had raced up and down the exercise yard, stopping for a moment and then racing off gain.
The sergeant in answer to the Bench, said he was of the opinion that the man was insane. Gale: ‘That’s right. Thank you, sergeant.’
The sergeant produced a quantity of written matter found in the defendant’s swag and told the Bench that it consisted of a jumble of words and mentioned sexual matters, police revolvers and many other things.
Sergeant Drew said he had ascertained that Gale was identical with H J Bryant, who had been charged at the Tamworth Police Court on June 12, 1930, with being deemed to be insane and was committed to an institution.
Gale kept up a murmur of conversation with the police officers attending him, telling them that the evidence was ‘all lies’; and that he was not insane.
Dr R B Austin deposed to having examined the patient in the lock–up and as a result expressed the opinion that his conversation was incoherent and rambling. He could not tell where he went to school. He stated he was born in Canada and was a citizen of that country, but that was probably a delusion. He could give no definite information regarding his recent movements. He stated he was a student of crime and had helped the police frequently. This, the doctor said, was a delusion. The Dr said he had examined writings taken from his swag and found them incoherent, indicative of an unbalanced mind.
The doctor said the patient was insane and should be removed to a mental hospital.
Dr Crossin stated he had examined Gale and found that he was unable to say whether he was born in Canada or whether his parents were born there. He said he wanted to go to Sydney to ask the Consul-General to deport him to Canada. He also said he was a keen student of criminology and wanted to become a policeman, but had not the necessary physique. He said he wrote notes about sexual matters, because he had heard them from others and wanted to put them down.
The Bench: Does he seem to be a sexual maniac? — No, I don’t think so. He is just generally insane.
The Sergeant: Is he a fit person to be at large? — No.
The Defendant: ‘Why, Doctor?’
As the doctor was signing his depositions the patient attempted to rise to his feet and said to the police. ‘Are you sending me to an asylum? That’s what they said in the evidence.’
Then as the police attempted to quiet him, he said, ‘It’s all right. Don’t be in a hurry. I won’t get up.’
When the bench, Messrs P C Hipgrave and D W Oliver Js P made the order for the removal of the man to an institution, he stood up and said, ‘Thank you, your Worships’ and as he left the Court with his escort, he made a deep obeisance to the Bench.
What had brought this man to attention was an incident at Tilbuster Creek, out of Armidale. He had received a lift in a motor car and was dropped off at the creek among men who had established scattered camps. Uninvited, he entered a shelter where a man was preparing his meal, and sat on his swag. He didn’t return the man’s greeting and could not be engaged in conversation, apart from incoherent muttering. Gale opened his swag and took out some food, which he began to eat. Without warning he rose and took up a pick, shouting, ‘I’ll murder you,’ and rushed at the camper, who ran off chased by Gale. Agitated, Gale then called at other swagmen’s shelters, unsettling them. One of them somehow alerted the police.
When arrested the following day by Sergeant Drew and Constable McGuiness they learnt he had been at Bendemeer and prior to that had been ‘out west’. When searched he had a stringybark cudgel wrapped in his swag and a short, stout stick in his pocket. He was said to be 23 years of age.
Not 12 months before,10 a man named Harry Bryant, who was 23 years of age, had been arrested in Bathurst on suspicion of being of unsound mind. He managed to talk his way out of being detained and his demeanour, though explained away in the court, rightfully aroused the interest of local police. It appears that Bryant, or Gale, had indeed been ‘out west’ before arriving in the New England district – and had been at Bendemeer. He threatened violence to the campers at Tilbuster Creek just 12 days after Constable Nowland had drowned. Was he tall and dark? Were impressions taken of his footwear? McRae made no mention of this madman being arrested on 18 October when giving his evidence at the inquest on 7 November. In fact, he told the coroner that no madman had been located among itinerate men. With the inquest now closed McRae moved on to other serious crimes that would enhance, and ultimately destroy his reputation.
