“Hamilton people will have another week to theorize about theorize about the Kinrade murder, and the detectives the same length of time to hunt up new evidence in the hope that light may be thrown upon the mystery.”
Hamilton Times. March 13, 1909.
The second session of the Kinrade Inquest which took place on March 12, 1909 lasted five hours, five hours without a break. Anticipating that it could prove to be a long session, Coroner Anderson decided to have an early start and so called it to order at 3:30 p.m.
While there was still widespread, intense interest in the Kinrade case, the inquest was less anticipated than the previous session as it had been assumed that Florence Kinrade had been interrogated enough by the Crown Lawyer. She was not expected to appear at the session:
“The murder and the inquest are still the all absorbing topic of the city and interest in the proceedings of yesterday was at fever heat. All sorts of wild rumors were going around about an arrest and sensational developments; but there was neither. Florence Kinrade, the only known witness of the murder, may be said to have fairly maintained her story, under the severest possible examination as to the minutest details.”
There was only one member of the Kinrade who had yet to be called to testify:
“ ‘Earl Kinrade,’ called Officer Lentz, when Coroner Anderson formally opened the session.
“ ‘He is not here yet,’ said one of the officers, and the coroner called for the next witness.”1
While waiting for Earl Kinrade to arrive, the witness called offered a key addition to the timeline of the crime
The coachman for Miss Tudor, James Street South, George Woodridge said at 10 minutes to 4 on afternoon, he drove Mrs. Counsell to Miss Tudor’s house at 96 Herkimer, about fifty feet from Kinrade home.
He then waited on the coach for Mrs. Counsell until she was desirous of being driven home at 4:15.
The coachman emphatically claimed that he heard no cries of alarm or gunshots. During the time he sat in the coach, no one suspicious entering the Kinrade house.
At this point, Earl Kinrade finally arrived, and sworn in as a witness.
A much more confident member of the family than the rest, Earl mainly provided perfunctory answers to questions. His attitude changed when until the subject of firearms being kept in KInrade house.
Earl Kinrade became quite defensive as Blackstock asked many questions about his own use of firearms. The Crown Attorney appeared to have been briefed with the information that Earl Kinrade’s use of firearms was much more extensive than he first claimed.
A banker by profession, Kinrade claimed that once he found a revolver in the desk of a fellow employee at the Bank of Commerce. Blackstock’s grueling questioning of Earl brought out the information that Earl had once shot a bullet inside the Waldorf Hotel. The witness claimed that it was an accident.
The line of questioning then turned towards the matter of Florence Kinrade and the South.
Blackstock received an evasive answer and push back from the witness in response to the following question:
“ ‘Heard anything about Florence using a revolver in the South?’
“ ‘May I ask for what purpose?’
“ ‘Yes, for any purpose.’
“ ‘I think I heard my father say that when my sister went down to Savannah, where there were no white people, or civilized people, as I took it, who were used to carrying revolvers.
“Mr. Kinrade was given a seat and a glass of water at this point.
“ ‘If you don’t feel well, let me know.’
“ ‘I certainly will.’
“ ‘Did you ever learn what she did with her revolver when she came back from the south?’
“ ‘Kinrade stood up and leaned over the box.
“ ‘Did I say for certain she took a revolver to the South?, the witness asked, cautiously.
“ ‘I think so,’ said Mr. Blackstock. ‘What did you say?’
“ ‘I said that around the house I gathered from what father said that she had a revolver. She practiced with it, but just as protection as necessary when she went to Savannah. That was before she went. I do not know if she took it with her.
“ ‘That was before she went to Savannah.’
“ ‘I did not say that.
“ ‘I thought you did. That is very clear. You said it; of course, you can alter it if you want to.’
“ ‘I don’t want to alter any statement. If I made it, well and good.’
It was a major surprise when P.C. Lentz called out the name of the next witness. Florence Kinrade was again called to the witness stand.
For over four hours, Florence Kinrade was questioned intensely by the Crown Attorney. Most of the subjects posed were no different than had already been asked in the previous session. However, an aggressive Mr. Blackstock tried and tried to poke holes and make cracks in her story:
“During the time Mr. Blackstock was cross-examining Miss KInrade, an air of intense expectancy was evident throughout the court room. Coroner Anderson, his chin resting on his left hand, kept his eyes fixed on the girl. Her lawyer, Mr. Hobson, and his assistants sat back in their chairs, and Crown Attorney Washington primed the Toronto expert once in a while. Newspaper men crept quietly up to the counter in front of the throne. Constable Lentz called for order several times, and though only the rustling of paper was heard, Mr. Blackstock was annoyed by it and commented on it as shuffling.
“Florence KInrade kept her eyes on the ceiling almost all the time. Once in a while she glanced at Mr. Blackstock as he asked a question, and then she would raise her eyes and the expression that passed over her face seemed to be that of one searching in the past to recall dimly remembered events. She slowed very little confusion, but seemed lost at times in the confusion of events.
“After having Florence Kinrade on the stand for four solid hours, Mr. Blackstock, in the last few minutes, at a time when her lips appeared to be getting parched and at times she seemed to find difficulty in either collecting her thoughts or forming her words, with all the impressiveness of which the great criminal lawyer is possible, brought home to her the awful seriousness of departing one hairbreadth from the truth, and again asked her the question, ‘Who killed your sister Ethel, Miss Kinrade?’ The witness’ reply was firm and clear, ‘I do not know.’1
Once Florence made that firm denial of any knowledge of the identity of the person who had killed her sister, there was a dramatic scene played out:
“ ‘If that man was not there, you know only you two girls would be left?’
“ ‘Yes.’
“ ‘That will do, Miss Kinrade.’
“ ‘Water! Water!’
“These words arrested the crowd as it prepared to leave at 8 o’clock.
“ ‘Call the nurse,’ sang out Mr. Blackstock in a sympathetic tone.
“Nurse Walker and her fiancée, Montrose Wright, rushed to Miss Kinrade’s assistance. They picked her up from the chair where she had slipped over against the witness box.
“They gathered her up and carried her back of the coroner. Just as she passed that official’s chair, she uttered a piercing scream, long-drawn out and high-keyed:
“ ‘Oh.’
“ ‘I see the man. I see the man.’
“ ‘He will shoot me.’
“ ‘He will shoot me.’
“ ‘Oh, quick, help!’
“The hysterical girl, screaming violently, was carried into the small side room which the family has had to itself, and her screams continued to pierce through the hall and court room.”
“The Kinrades left the police station in a cab, Florence and her mother having sufficiently recovered from their swoons to walk as far as the vehicle. This morning both mother and daughter were greatly improved, and there are no signs of after effects of the terribly pathetic scene which closed the inquest.”
The reporter for the Toronto Globe captured the scene of Florence and her family after the session had concluded in the following manner:
“Just how Mr. T.L. Kinrade looks upon the line of cross-examination and investigation taken by the Crown in Friday night’s sitting of the inquest on the death of his daughter Ethel was very emphatically indicated when Miss Florence Kinrade was carried screaming out of the court room. Mr. Kinrade was in the little room where he and his family had been placed during the sessions, and as his daughter was laid out on the long table he was seen to clench his fists and raise his hands above his head.
“ ‘Were there ever such brutes of men”’ he exclaimed.
“ ‘Be quiet, father; don’t get excited,’ said his eldest son, Ernest taking him back into the room.
“The figure lying on the table was alternately sobbing and shrieking: ‘Oh, Ethel,’ she cried, ‘Ethel, they think I did it. I! I! Oh, Ethel! Oh, he will shoot me! Oh!’ amid the voice rose in a wail.
“Nurse Walker hurriedly brought cold water and bathed her charge’s temples.
“ ‘Get a doctor,’ cried someone.
“Dr. Bruce Smith was found and entering the room and said, ‘Come, come, there’s nothing the matter with you. You’re all right.’
“The doctor’s words seemed to have an instant effect. The girl became quiet and was soon able to stand on her feet supported by the nurse and friends. A few moments later, accompanied by Mr. Wright and the woman in uniform, she walked downstairs and out to a closed coupe. Little groups of curious people stared after her as the door slammed and the horses, turning, trotted briskly away towards James Street.”2
2“Police Will Continue Search : Looking for Further Evidence in Kinrade Case.”
Toronto Globe. March 15, 1909
An editorial writer with the Times had the following to say about how the Kinrade had been conducted and how Hamiltonians should react:
“The public expectation that the Kinrade murder inquest would be concluded this week will not be realized. There is every indication that the Crown authorities are impressed with the great importance of the inquiry at this stage to the discovery of the cruel murderer, and that they do not propose to risk any chance of the miscarriage of justice by hastily concluding the inquest. Of this determination the public will heartily approve.
“The prolonging of the agony will doubtless be a sore trial to Mr. Kinrade and the members of his family. This is something which the public would gladly have spared them; yet there appears to be no means of doing so without incurring the danger of handicapping the officers of justice in their search for the miscreant who shot down their daughter and sister; and keen as the public interest in the discovery, conviction and punishment of the murderer, the members of the family have a still keener and more personal interest. In enduring the pain and annoyance of this prolonged inquisition, Mr. Kinrade and his household will at least have the consolation of knowing that by this sacrificing of their feelings, they are aiding justice to assert her dignity and to avenge the killing of a loved member of their family.
“In the trying ordeal to which the several witnesses have been subjected, there has been no sparing of the legal probe. Sometimes, indeed the Crown Examiner’s methods have been taken exception to as unnecessarily persistent and severe. While we deeply sympathize with the members of the bereaved family, we are not prepared to cavil at the Crown methods pursued. It would be a misfortune, indeed were they marked by carelessness or laxity. The crime was a mysterious one, and interest in it is in proportion to the seriousness which enshrouds it. Perhaps many people infer too much from alleged discrepancies in the evidence. Some think that the examination was carried far afield. Such views indicate a failure to grasp the importance of a wide inquiry, covering even trivial matters, to the solution of such a difficult problem. Few witnesses subject to hours of legal grilling could leave the witness box without apparent discrepancies in their statement. These might mean nothing or they might mean much. The objection to the Crown examiner asking apparently irrelevant questions about Miss Kinrade’s travels, vocations and avocations is not well taken. By just such questions, sometimes, important clues in difficult cases are discovered. And it may be that this will prove to be one of those times. The authorities seem to have pretty well eliminated the ordinary tramp theory of murder from their minds. It is hard to believe that any ordinary tramp or burglar entered the house in broad daylight, shot down the girl then fired bullet after bullet into her dead body, each discharge of the pistol imperiling his own safety. They seem to see a more probable explanation in the crime being committed by one committed by an insane or vengeful person quite lost, for the time, at least, to considerations of his own safety. Whether this theory may be right or wrong, it is not one to be neglected in the inquiry. All those questions relating to the sister’s travels, acquaintances, occupations and amusements, seemingly so irrelevant to many, may be of the first importance in leading to a clue to the criminal. Not to inquire in that direction would be extremely short-sighted.
“Meanwhile, the inquest remains open, and the minds of thousands will be concentrated on the task of bringing the girl’s murderer to punishment. If the ordinary tramp be eliminated, the deed would appear to be one of remorseless personal enmity; of an irresponsible maniac. Whatever the motive, and whoever committed the deed, it is earnestly to be hoped that the ends of justice may be served and the apprehensions of the community dispelled by a full disclosure of the facts bearing on the murder.”
