“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.”
