spinofflive
hatchet

SocietyJune 4, 2018

‘Horrible murders at Auckland’: the story of NZ’s first ever whodunnit

hatchet

Black Sheep is a RNZ series about the shady, controversial and sometimes downright villainous characters of New Zealand history, presented by William Ray. Here he introduces Joseph Burns and Margaret Reardon, partners in murder.

October 10th, 1847. The brutal murder of a Devonport family leaves Auckland fearing an invasion of vengeful Māori. But when that threat fails to materialise the police are left trying to solve New Zealand’s first ever whodunnit…

Listen to the podcast that accompanies this story here.

A newspaper clipping from the Daily Southern Cross reporting the murder of the Snow family. Photo: PapersPast

It began just after midnight, when lookouts on the HMS Dido spot flames rising from the house of Lieutenant Robert Snow.

The sailors rush ashore and extinguish the blaze but after, find the badly mutilated bodies of Lt. Robert Snow, his wife Hannah and their four year old daughter, Mary.

Pieces of flesh had been cut from all three bodies. The sailors know what that means… Cannibalism.

The New Zealander (one of Aotearoa’s very first newspapers) is quick to lay blame for the murder of the Snow family:

“There can be no doubt that the natives were perpetrators of this foul deed. Our native police pronounced the wounds to be Maori handiwork at once. The mutilation of the bodies, from all three of which large pieces of flesh had been cut by knives, and the parts from whence they were cut, is conclusive evidence.”

The only controversy is whether the Māori killers were motivated by personal revenge against Snow, or if this is a precursor to a wider attack on Auckland itself.

As The New Zealander put it: “If the matter be political, this act, according to Maori custom, is a declaration of war.”

Most of the prominent Māori chiefs who live near Auckland are equally convinced the murders were committed by Māori and are even more anxious than the European colonists to find the perpetrators.

“Chief Patuone over on the North Shore was very friendly towards Pākehā and chief Te Whero Whero in the Northern Waikato was also” says Terry Carson, author of The Axeman’s Accomplice – a book about the Snow family murders. “They were quite keen that nothing interfere with the relationship” he explains.

Eruera Maihi Patuone was one of the paramount Rangatira in the area surrounding Auckland at the time of the Snow murders and played an active role in attempting to find those responsible. Photo: Gottfried Lindauer, Auckland Art Gallery

Māori leaders assure the colonists that they will track down the person responsible and at first they have some success. A few weeks after the murders a group of prominent chiefs from Ngāti Maru and Waikato-Tainui arrive in Auckland with a prisoner; a man called Mamuku, who they say killed the Snows.

Mamuku is publicly interrogated on the veranda of Government House, but the questioning quickly reveals he knows nothing about the murders.

Police and Māori are stumped. But then, a break; the killers give themselves away.

It begins with a horrific act of domestic violence involving two of the Snow family’s neighbours, Joseph Burns and Margaret Reardon. The pair had been living together for four years and had reputations for heavy drinking.

Joseph arrives at the house of Margaret’s sister asking to see her. When she comes to the door the pair argue and Joseph lashes out violently.

“He produced a razor which he’d hidden in his hat,” says Terry Carson. “He attacked Margaret Reardon and quite badly injured her.  The description of her injuries given by the medical people we’re quite horrific. Very, very deep cuts [to her throat]. She was extremely fortunate they didn’t sever an artery.”

At trial the jury are told the cause of the argument was that Joseph wanted to emigrate to Australia with one of the couple’s children, and sell the land where they lived to fund the trip.

Joseph is convicted of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to transportation. After the sentencing the police ask Margaret Reardon if she knows anything about the Snow family murders. Cryptically she replies that Joseph might have the information.

Somewhat astonishingly, Margaret agrees to visit Joseph in prison alone. After a discussion they both emerge saying two of their neighbours killed the Snows, a man called Thomas Duder and his brother in-law Oliver.

In a preliminary hearing, Margaret Reardon claims she overheard the following conversation between Thomas Duder and Joseph Burns.

DUDER: Lieutenant Snow has got a swag of money from Auckland and we must have it.

BURNS: But I will never consent to imbrue my hands in innocent blood.

DUDER: There is only little Mary and I will manage that; but it must be done tonight; if you don’t want to come I will manage myself.

BURNS: Where shall we put the stuff.

DUDER: We can bury it under the flagstaff 

Earlier in the day, Joseph confirmed that Margaret’s account of that conversation was accurate, but said he only acted as a lookout while Duder and Oliver carried out the killings.

But suddenly, while Margaret is still on the stand, a man comes rushing into the courtroom. The Southern Cross newspaper reported what happened next:

“…an alarm was given, that the convict Burns had cut his throat, and was bleeding to death. The Colonial Surgeon, who was in Court, hastened to the gaol, and after an absence of considerable duration, returned and informed the Court that the wound was not mortal, and that Burns was not in immediate danger. He added, however, that Burns now denied what he had stated relative to the murder.”

It seems Burns had a sudden attack of conscience over falsely accusing his two neighbours of murder. And, as you might expect, this led to immediate suspicion that Burns himself was the man who murdered the Snow family.

Joseph Burns is committed for trial, and Margaret Reardon changes her story – now testifying that Burns alone was the killer. However, Terry Carson says the admission that she’d previously lied under oath was problematic for the prosecution of Joseph Burns.

“It was hard to see her being a very reliable witness,” Terry says. “But I think everyone was very keen to convict Burns of the offence and they had to make use of what they had.”

A plaque near the waterfront in Devonport marks the site both of the murder of the Snow family and the execution of Joseph Burns. Photo: www.visitdevonport.co.nz

Burns is hanged on June 17th, 1848. He is the first European to be judicially executed in New Zealand.

Shortly afterwards Margaret Reardon faced her day in court. She was convicted of perjury and became the first and only woman to be sentenced to transportation. She was shipped to a convict colony in Tasmania but was released after seven years and lived the rest of her life in Australia.

Listen to the full Black Sheep podcast to hear more about the murder of the Snow family, and Joseph and Margaret’s badly covered lies. 

Keep going!
Testing a house for meth contamination. Photo: Katy Gosset/RNZ
Testing a house for meth contamination. Photo: Katy Gosset/RNZ

SocietyJune 3, 2018

The great NZ meth-test hysteria: how the hell did we get sucked in?

Testing a house for meth contamination. Photo: Katy Gosset/RNZ
Testing a house for meth contamination. Photo: Katy Gosset/RNZ

The debate over the danger of methamphetamine contamination was settled once and for all last week when the country’s top scientist revealed it was nothing more than hysteria. RNZ’s Benedict Collins  explains how it all unfolded

Sir Peter Gluckman’s report found New Zealand that has been in the grips of a moral meth panic – and there’s no health risk whatsoever from meth residue. There was not one single case on the planet of anyone, ever, having become sick from third-hand exposure to meth residues.

Sir Peter had advice for people considering getting a property meth tested – don’t even bother.

But for years, meth contamination was considered to be a serious risk to health.

‘Zero tolerance approach’

Housing New Zealand (HNZ) adopted a zero tolerance approach to contamination in its properties and would evict the tenants it accused of being responsible.

It began spending millions of dollars on remediating homes.

The Tenancy Tribunal would then award enormous costs against those HNZ had accused.

Former Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett endorsed Housing New Zealand’s zero tolerance approach towards meth contamination in 2015. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King

Rental homeowners and prospective buyers would have their homes tested by the meth-testing companies that ballooned around the country and forked out tens of thousands of dollars to remove forensic level traces of the drug.

The clean-up would leave homeowners distraught and out of pocket.

Sir Peter noted this week that New Zealand was the only country where this type of meth testing industry existed.

But the meth myth wasn’t just affecting homeowners.

Insurance companies were paying out tens of millions of dollars for remediation and Auckland Council threatened to prosecute homeowners if they didn’t immediately begin clean-ups.

Auckland Council also records meth contamination on homeowners’ Land Information Memorandum (LIM) – so future buyers are alerted to meth contamination.

HNZ started evicting more and more tenants and hundreds of homes were now empty in the middle of a housing crisis.

The housing agency’s chief operating officer, Paul Commons, publically celebrated enormous decisions against the tenants they had accused of contaminating their properties and warned “we will not be taking a backward step”.

“The rulings send a strong message to all of our tenants – Housing New Zealand will not tolerate criminal activity in its homes and we will move swiftly to end tenancies where it occurs,” Mr Commons said.

In 2015, the Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett endorsed the agency’s approach and described it was upping its efforts to detect personal use of the drug.

“We will not tolerate any meth use in HNZ properties,” Mrs Bennett said.

“HNZ are working more closely with police and focusing more on meth use as opposed to previously targeting only home-based drug manufacturing.”

But in 2016 it began to become apparent that there were major concerns with the science of methamphetamine testing in New Zealand.

Science behind the testing draws criticism

Doctor Nick Kim, a senior lecturer in environmental chemistry at Massey University, warned that HNZ’s evictions weren’t scientifically sound.

And he pointed out an investigation by TVNZ’s Fair Go had found levels of meth on bank notes higher than that at which the housing agency was evicting its tenants.

“When I look at the New Zealand guidelines they don’t refer to de-tenanting houses – they refer to reoccupying meth labs,” Dr Kim said.

HNZ was using 2010 Ministry of Health Guidelines – designed to indicate if former meth labs were safe to reoccupy – and was twisting them to say a property wasn’t safe if meth from smoking the drug had been detected.

In October 2016, RNZ revealed the Health Ministry had repeatedly told HNZ it was misusing the guidelines.

“The guidelines are very clear – that they are only for use in houses where methamphetamine has been manufactured. We have pointed out (to Housing New Zealand) and communicated that these guidelines are clearly for use in houses where meth has been manufactured,” the Health Ministry’s director, Doctor Stewart Jessamine, said.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said HNZ was causing enormous harm by deliberately misusing the standard – while the Greens said the housing agency’s conduct was deplorable.

But HNZ didn’t listen, and fought back instead.

HNZ chemical contamination manager Charlie Mitchell acknowledged the test “was not entirely suitable” but was adamant there was zero tolerance for illegal activity.

“If we can determine that the tenant is responsible for the contamination then we’re going to terminate that tenancy,” Mr Mitchell said.

At least two cases emerged where HNZ was blamed its tenants for contamination and tried to sting them with exorbitant clean-up costs.

In August, the Minister in charge of the housing agency, Bill English, acknowledged the tests were not fit for purpose but took no action.

The criticism of HNZ began to grow.

Officials express outrage over evictions

In an interview on Morning Report Labour’s Phil Twyford was outraged – calling it a scandal and saying the housing agency was staggeringly incompetent.

Former Maori Party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia said HNZ was tearing families apart.

Former Maori Party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia said HNZ was tearing families apart. Photo: RNZ

In early 2017, HNZ’s new chief executive Andrew McKenzie appeared at parliament, defended the evictions and claimed the Health Ministry had never told his agency it was misusing the meth test.

“I think that is what was reported, but if you were actually working with the Ministry of Health, they certainly do not say that they told us we were using it wrongly,” Mr McKenzie said.

He accused the media of misreporting and refused to answer the media’s questions following the select committee – he was being paid $46,000 a month as chief executive.

A review of the standard in 2017 saw a new level developed for the use of meth, as opposed to meth labs.

In October 2017, there was a change of government.

One of Phil Twyford’s first moves as Housing Minister was to ask the Prime Minister’s chief science advisor to review the meth standards.

Mr Twyford said this week’s report has revealed HNZ wasted $100 million and evicted hundreds of tenants from their homes unnecessarily.

“Hundreds and hundreds of homes have been left vacant in the middle of a housing crisis and many hundreds of tenants, individuals and families a significant number of whom will have been evicted on the basis of faulty information,” Mr Twyford said.

Twyford’s response to findings

Today Mr Twyford issued a wide-ranging apology and ordered a comprehensive reportinto the whole “sorry chapter”.

“I made some pretty stringent comments about Housing New Zealand’s behaviour when I was in opposition – and I stand by those comments,” Mr Twyford said.

“And I want to apologise to people who have been affected in this way – I think it is appalling what happened.

“I want to apologise to the people who were badly treated by the last National government – who were evicted, who were kicked out of their homes, they were forced to pay the costs of remediation on the basis of goodness knows what evidence – all because the National government played along with the hysteria over meth contamination in housing.

“And failed to provide any kind of leadership.”

HNZ’s chief executive Andrew McKenzie has refused to do any interviews on the matter.

Chair of the housing agency Adrienne Young Cooper would not be interviewed but said she will not resign.

Tenancy Tribunal’s principal adjudicator Melissa Poole has refused to be interviewed and will not answer questions about the Tribunal’s misuse of meth lab guidelines to award enormous costs against tenants. 


This post originally appeared at RNZ