Mr Loomes took 18 minutes to read his finding.
Mr Loomes: These inquisitions charge me as coroner to inquire, on the part of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, when and where the deceased Gilbert Stanley Bogle and Margaret Olive Chandler came to their deaths and the manner and cause of his and her death.
The compass of that charge is contained in the words of Mr Justice Wills to the grand jury in the Crewe murder trial at the Chester Assizes 46 in 1890, concerning the office of coroner. I quote the relevant extract.
He said: "The coroner also has one advantage from a certain point of view. Namely, that of being fettered by no precise rules of evidence and bound to collect as far as he could all information and knowledge of disasters from neighbours and others who could throw any light on the cause of death, where death had taken place under suspicious circumstances.
"He could often times collect evidence, facts and statements which, whether or not they might ultimately be capable of being turned into evidence against the parties who were to be put upon trial, were often very valuable as supplying material for investigation by the police and as affording clues which might lead to successful inquiry."
As opposed to that, I am bound to have regard to the rules of evidence, notwithstanding that by section 18 of the Coroner's Act (1960), a coroner is not bound to observe the rules of procedure and evidence applicable in a court of law.
To fulfil the obligation placed on me over a period of 14 days in this court, some 50 witnesses have been called to give evidence. They have been skilfully examined by one of the most astute police officers of this state, who was specially assigned to assist me in these proceedings. Just as skilfully, they have been subjected to intense cross examination by the eminent counsel appearing for the different interests in the proceedings.
Every person who, I felt, could give any information as to the deaths of these unfortunate persons has been summoned to appear. A mass of evidence in addition to the scientific and medical evidence has been presented, and some 63 exhibits tendered. This evidence has been sifted and dissected.
The evidence has ranged over the widest possible field from the events at the New Year's Eve party at the Nash residence to the scene near Fuller's Bridge on the banks of the Lane Cove River, to the lonely rough track by the river in the grey dawn of New Year's Day, to the finding of, firstly, the body of the deceased Dr Bogle and some time later the body of the deceased Mrs Chandler, and to the searching police and scientific inquiries from that point. One would like to feel that no stone has been left unturned to have all available evidence that could assist in any way placed before this inquest.
One finds it hard to believe that, notwithstanding the wealth of evidence that has been presented, the herculean efforts of so many police officers, medical officers, analysts and so many others; the questioning, cross examining and probing that has gone on in this court for so many days, I am today no more able to fulfil the charge placed upon me, that is, to ascertain the manner and cause of the death of these two unfortunate people, than I was on the day I opened this inquest.
I think not only my hopes but the hopes of everyone engaged in these proceedings were that at some stage of the proceedings, some insignificant fact, dropped perhaps at random, might be the key to unlock this mystery. For, in the words of one witness, "a baffling mystery" it certainly is.
I do not intend to theorise as to the possibilities of how the deceased came to their deaths, for I have found that to theorise, unless there is evidence beyond any doubt to support such theory, is dangerous. Here one can find evidence to support a particular theory, but also evidence just as convincing to destroy it.
In any case, I do not consider that I should endeavour to impose my own opinions on anyone. Nor do I think it proper that I should express any opinion when I cannot support it with evidence to prove it beyond doubt.
As this court is not a court of morals, neither do I intend to offer any comment on certain evidence placed before me. There is one thing, however, that I feel I can say with absolute certainty, and that is that each of these unfortunate persons died an unnatural death.
One might ask, what is an unnatural death? All deaths can in a sense be regarded as natural. This is true in a philosophical sense in that it is part of man's lot to die. It is also true in a medical sense, in that in all cases, death is brought about by the failure of one or other of man's organs.
There is no legal or medical definition of what constitutes an unnatural death. One meaning of an unnatural death is that it is death not due to natural causes, or directly or indirectly caused by any sort of accident, violence, or neglect, or to have been attended by suspicious circumstances.
The Concise English Oxford Dictionary defines a natural death as "one by reason of old age or disease, other than a death from violence, accident or poison." From that definition, one might say that the converse would be the definition of an unnatural death.
Another meaning is that of "unexpected, exceptional or extraordinary death, unexpected in the light of all the circumstances." This is in line with the dictum of Mr Justice Stephens in R. v. Price (1884 12 QBD 247), that there must be something peculiar about the death. In the light of all this, I say with certainty that each of the deceased died an unnatural death, but as to its manner and cause I am unable to say.
Having come to that conclusion, naturally there springs to mind the question, was it all worthwhile? I answer that by saying I consider this inquest has provided an opportunity for public examination of the thoroughness of the police, medical and scientific investigations and, in fact, of all investigations made, and even of this inquest itself. At least the facts have been brought out into the open for all to judge. I believe this to be in the interests both of all those investigating officers, and of the public itself.
If I considered on the evidence before me any criticism should be directed against any person, organisation or department concerned, I would deem it my bounden duty to express it, and not hesitate to do so. I have no constructive criticism to offer, therefore, I make no such criticism.
I feel that everything humanly possible has been done. Because these efforts were unrewarded is no justification for criticism.
It is so easy to criticise. I find, unfortunately, that the people who applaud when success is attained are usually the first to decry those efforts when they are unsuccessful.
I have personal knowledge of the efforts made by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Allan, and all his officers engaged in the investigation. The number of man hours of their investigations, if calculated, would be astronomical.
I am also aware of the efforts of the Government Medical Officer, the Government Analyst, their assistants, and the efforts of Professor Thorp, and of their exhaustive tests and the tremendous amount of detail which attended their searches in their respective fields.
Knowing all this, one appreciated the evidence of Dr Laing, the Government Medical Officer, when he said: "It gives me no satisfaction to sit here and tell you that all we know about this is that the two bodies died from acute circulatory failure, the cause of which is still unknown."
The Commissioner of Police saw fit to enlist the aid of the world's finest police organisations, Interpol, New Scotland Yard, the FBI, the police departments of Malaya, Hong Kong and all Australian States, and received from those bodies a great deal of information which has been placed at my disposal. I feel that I should acknowledge and thank those organisations for their endeavours to assist this inquest.
I have received an enormous number of letters from the general public offering suggestions and theories. They have come from all over Australia and as far afield as New Zealand. I have had innumerable telephone calls at my home. I appreciate that in many cases they were sincere efforts to help. In the fierce glare of publicity an inquest can become a merciless thing. In this jurisdiction one may well hesitate and say, there but for the grace of god go I.
One also can never lose sight of the fact that the deceased, whoever it may be, is someone's mother, someone's father, someone's sister, or someone's brother. And very often the one left behind are the ones to suffer, or find their reputations damaged. Where there are little children involved one surely must remember that their whole life lies before them and ask oneself the question, am I to be the one to crucify them? When the question of what evidence is to be called or allowed, or what evidence is relevant, arises. It is here that one is torn between his oath of office and his desire to protect such persons. I must truthfully admit it has cost me many sleepless hours to find that answer.
It is so difficult to say how far one should go, what evidence should be allowed, if he is to carry out the charge of Mr Justice Wills that I have referred to, remembering that evidence collected may be valuable as supplying material for investigation and as affording clues which might lead to successful inquiry. One has to remember that inquiries are going on, and will continue to go on, to endeavour to find the answer to this mystery. Where should the line of demarcation be drawn?
These are all the problems and questions which confront one in an inquest of this nature and magnitude. Be that as it may, I believe the findings I propose to return are the only possible findings on the evidence before me.
Before I deliver these findings I feel in fairness to a number of people, who being shall I say innocent bystanders, suddenly find themselves drawn into these proceedings, that I should refer to the commencing point of this inquest and where the evidence began, that is at the New Year's Eve party at the home of Mr and Mrs Nash, at Chatswood. The guest list comprised guests who were carefully chosen for their diversity of interest, intelligent and cultivated people.
Strangely, the names of Mr and Mrs Chandler were not on that list, but fate stepped in to make their invitation a last minute one. The guests were asked to bring some artistic work as a talking point. Dr Bogle's contribution, for example, was a sketch in the Picasso style of abstract design.
It is not strange if that form of enjoyment to these people represented part of the night's proceedings. That was their choice, just as others would choose indulgence in say, dancing, music or games to pass the time away. In the interests of many innocent people, I therefore say I am satisfied on the evidence before me that this was a sober, orderly and well conducted New Year's Eve party.
I find that the deceased, Gilbert Stanley Bogle, on January 1, 1963, on the eastern bank on the Lane Cove River, near Fuller's Bridge, Chatswood, died from acute circulatory failure, but as to the circumstances under which such circulatory failure was brought about, the evidence adduced does not enable me to say.
I further find that the deceased, Margaret Olive Chandler, on January 1, 1963, on the eastern bank of the Lane Cove River, near Fuller's Bridge, Chatswood, died from acute circulatory failure, but as to the circumstances under which such circulatory failure was brought about, the evidence adduced does not enable me to say.
I feel it is incumbent on me to express my appreciation of the help that has been given me in this difficult matter.
First, I refer to you gentlemen of the legal profession. As we know, in our system of law, it is the duty of the legal profession to represent their parties and press their case with the utmost vigour, while on the other hand bearing in mind their duty of extending courtesy to the bench, their colleagues and witnesses. This you have done, and more, during the 14 days of the hearing, and I am sure the parties you have represented must be grateful for your efforts in this regard. I certainly am.
Next I must refer to the able assistance of Sergeant Goode. Anyone following the course of this inquest could not fail to have been impressed by the manner in which he has assisted in presenting the evidence. I have been fortunate in having his assistance in other inquests and I value that assistance, because I know he shares my views as to the coronial jurisdiction. That is, that in this jurisdiction, one should endeavour, if for no reason other than for respect of the relatives of the deceased, to conduct the proceedings quietly and with dignity. Dignity, after all, is more than the picturesque adornment of a court. A court conducted without decorum fails to impress. I thank you indeed, Sergeant Goode, for the assistance you have given me.
I particularly pay a tribute to the deposition clerks, on whom has fallen the brunt of the whole transcript of these proceedings, particularly Mr C. Bentley and Mr W. Carlton, who relieved you for a short period. I think the fact that in the recording of almost 250,000 words, over 14 sitting days, not one witness asked to have a correction made other than a minor misuse of a word, speaks for itself and shows the merit of your work.
Lastly, may I, through Messrs Ward, Collins and Murray, convey the sympathies of this court to the relatives of the deceased.