WITNESSES AT CORONER'S INQUEST IN
AHERN MURDER CASE IDENTIFY HACKETT AS VICTIM'S COMPANION Story of the Suspects
Movements on the Day of the Crime do not Agree with the Statements Made by Members of His
Family Hackett's Wife had Appealed to Society for Protection |
Although several people identified James Hackett as the man who
was in the vicinity of Cote St. Paul on the day of the fiendish murder of little Edith May Ahern, and the
prisoner himself refused to speak, Coroner McMahon to-day adjourned the inquest until Saturday, at ten
o'clock, when every one who saw the man and the little girl together will be called to see whether they can
identify the man. Among the evidence placed before the coroner's jury was a statement signed by the
prisoner, Hackett, giving an account of his movements on the day of the murder, and each day since, up to
the time of his arrest. His statement of the events of that day differ from that given by his wife, and also from
the statements of Mrs. Mooney, who lived with the Hackett family. |
| EVIDENCE WAS POSITIVE |
The little Neilssen, or Nelson twins gave positive evidence of seeing
the man and the girl together, and the identification of Hackett by Oscar Neilssen was most impressive. The
two Swedes, Marks, and Nygaard, were also very positive in their identification, while several witnesses
testified to seeing Hackett in the vicinity of the Ahern Home on the afternoon of the murder. Aristide Lecours,
upon whom the police had counted a great deal, failed to make a positive identification although he stated
that the trousers shown him as those belonging to Hackett were like those worn by the man who was taking
the little girl along the waterworks at Cote St. Paul. Hackett looked thoroughly scared a couple of times
during the inquest and when he came up to reply to the remarks of the Coroner he looked sheepish enough.
He is an insignificant looking little fellow with a bushy head of carrotty hair, and a light seedy moustache, while
his eyebrows are of the same color as his hair.
|
| KEPT EYES ON THE FLOOR |
He is spare as well as short, and dressed in shabby clothes, without a
collar. He sat at the back of the room in which the inquest was held, between Detective Giguere and Acting
Detective Sauve. A great deal of the time he kept his eyes on the ground. When brought up the Coroner
reminded him that he was under suspicion of having committed this crime. He began to give him the usual
warning in English when one of the jurors suggested that Hackett spoke French. The prisoner said in French
that he understood English fairly well. Coroner McMahon continued speaking in French and gave the
prisoner full warning that he was not bound to speak, that anything he said might be used against him at a
trial, but that he had a right to give evidence, and, further, that his refusal to do so could not be interpreted
against him. |
| DECLINED TO SPEAK |
Hackett hesitated a minute, then said: "I do not want to speak. I do
not know what I could say." He then returned to his seat at the rear. Meanwhile his two lawyers, Messrs.
J. A. O'Sullivan and A. O. Rondeau, were present and taking copious notes of the proceedings. When the
proceedings had been closed for the day Hackett drew out a big clay pipe and quietly enjoyed a smoke, while
the people who had been unable to gain access to the courtroom peered in the door to have a look at the
man who is accused of committing such a fiendish crime. An attempt was made to introduce evidence that
this man had molested a little girl some time ago, but this was not considered evidence bearing upon this
matter, and besides the little girl declared later that Hackett was smaller than the man who had attacked her. |
| IDENTIFIED HACKETT |
Cyrille Verdon, Quesnel street, declared he had not seen the little
victim in company with any man. He continued: "James Hackett came to our place on Tuesday afternoon
about 3 p.m., April 3rd at corner of Albert and Vinet streets. The distance from there to the Ahern residence,
Napoleon street, is small, as it is the next street. Hackett did not say where he was going." "Was he sober
or under the influence of liquor?" asked the coroner. "He was slightly under the influence of liquor." |
| A FELLOW WORKMAN |
Christian Marks, the young Swede, who lives on Levis street Cote St.
Paul, near where the child's body was found, declared that it was seven or eight minutes walk to where the
child was found. He did not see the little girl going to that wood, on Tuesday, but he saw a man on the
Grand Trunk track, a couple of minutes walk from the house. The man came down from the station way and
was going towards the city. This was about twenty-five minutes past six. "The man was a man who used to
work at the same place I had worked in the Point. That man's name was Hackett." "Do you see that man
here?" asked the coroner. The witness looked around the room, Hackett was sitting at the rear of the room,
and when his eyes rested on Hackett, he pointed at the prisoner and said: "That's the man." |
| NEVER SPOKE TO HIM |
"I did not speak to him," continued the witness. In reply to questions.
"I never spoke to that fellow in my life. Hackett was coming towards the city from the direction of the woods.
My friend Johannes Nygaard was with me. The two Nelson boys told me on that Tuesday that they had seen
this man go down on the track, and that he was the same man whom they had seen go in the other direction
with a little girl. They saw the man a couple of minutes before we did." At this point, Coroner McMahon asked
that an interpreter be sworn, and Mr. Gustav Gylling was sworn in that capacity. In reply to questions put
through the interpreter, the witness Marks explained that the Nelson children had described the way the man
had been dressed and it corresponded exactly with the way Hackett had been dressed when witness and
himself had seen them. The Nelson children were Oscar and Nils. They told him they had seen the man with
a little girl going along the Aqueduct, which led to the road going to the woods. They had been surprised to
see a little girl with a man like that. The Nelson children had told their father about it, but he was so busy that
he had not paid any attention to it. The children said that the man and the little girl were hand in hand, and
sometimes the little girl walked ahead. The children told these things themselves without being questioned.
The witness worked at the same place as Hackett, but did not see him at work that day. It is possible,
however , that Hackett may have worked without having been seen by the witness. |
| MET HACKETT ON TRACK |
Johannes Nygaard, of Verdun , was examined through Mr. Gylling.
He had not seen the little girl going into the woods with a man, nor had he seen a man coming out of the
wood. On Tuesday evening, about 6.20, when on his way home from work with the previous witness, along
the Grand Trunk track, they met a man who was rather drunk. He had never seen the man before, but saw
him in the police station since. "Do you see him in this room,? Was the question. The witness looked all
around, and pointing to Hackett, said: "There he is sitting there." The witness declared that he had never
gone to the little wood where the child's body was found, but knew where it was. It was about twenty
minutes' walk from where they met Hackett. As they met him witness said: "That fellow is an ugly, ill-favored
individual." Marks replied: "I know him, he used to work with me at the switch works." Witness and Marks
were going away from the city, while Hackett was coming toward Montreal. They had merely crossed Hackett
on the track. The same evening, he heard the Nelson children speaking of seeing the man. Witness was
attracted to that neighborhood by a slight fire, and went to the Nelson home. He remarked that possible the
man whom they had seen on the track, whom they found so evil-looking, had started the fire. The young
Nelsons then said they , too, had seen that man on the track. "We gave a sort of description of the man we
had seen, and the children said it was the same man they had seen. The children said he had a soft hat, and
a rather wide belt, with a bright buckle. He had remarked the same things himself." Hackett's belt and hat
were shown to the witness, and he positively identified them as being the articles worn by Hackett on the
evening of the murder. |
| THE NEILSSEN TWINS |
Caroline Paulsen, wife of Oscar Emil Neilssen, or Nelson, lived on
Levis street, Cote St. Paul, near the wood where the child's body was found. She is the mother of the two
little lads known as the Nelson twins, though they spell their name Neilssen, after the Norwegian fashion.
Some merriment was injected into the proceedings when Coroner McMahon proceeded to question Mrs.
Neilssen about the age of her little boys. "Which is the elder?" asked the Coroner. "Oscar," she replied.
"How old is he?" "Eight years old on the twenty-fifty." "And the other little boy?" "Nils, he is eight too" replied
Mrs. Neilssen. "Then they are twins?" remarked the Coroner, to which Mrs. Neilssen assented laughingly.
"Then you are about the only one who can tell which is the elder of the two." "Oscar is just seven minutes
older than his little brother" declared the witness. The witness proceeded to describe the situation of her
house from which the little wood where the body of the murdered baby Ahern was found can be seen. She
also told how, on the other side of the waterworks, near the Church avenue, the wood came down much
closer to the house. She proceeded: |
| TALE OF THE CHILDREN |
"I was out at work that day. When I came home, the children ran to
meet me, and said they had seen a drunken man going along the waterworks there with a little girl. They
went along to Church avenue, and crossed the bridge on Church avenue. The man had to get through a
barbed wire fence, and got hooked. He made the little girl unhook him. The children kept on talking about
this. I told them not to talk foolish, and went out. "The next night, Mr. Marks, who boards at our house, told
me he thought the man they had seen on the track may have been the one who set the fire. "The night of the
fire, my little boys had told me that they had seen the man go back on the track after, without the little girl."
Oscar Neilssen, the elder of the twins, was called, and was not sworn. He was a very bright little fellow. He
told of seeing the man and the girl going towards the woods. He had told his farther and Mr. Marks, before
his mother came home. He could give no reason why he had left the field where he was playing to go and
tell his father. The man had not done anything wrong there. He was walking ahead, and the little girl was
behind him. The little girl had a red cloak and a red tuque. She was not crying. She carried a little basket,
and he told his father about that, but did not tell his mother. Later, about an hour after, the little fellow says
he saw the same man coming back alone along the track towards Montreal. His little brother and young
Taylor were with him. |
| THERE HE IS |
The little lad was stood up on a chair and asked whether he could
see in the room the man he had seen with the little girl. He looked along both sides of the room, and said:
"I don't see him here." Mr. Lacroix, the coroner's officer, turned the little fellow around still further, and when
his eyes rested on Hackett, he started, and pointing out Hackett said, excitedly, "There he is." The little cloak
and tuque worn by the Ahern child was identified by the little witness. Nils Neilssen, the twin brother of the
last witness, was next brought to. He was so much like his twin that one of the jury remarked, "Why that is
the same boy over again." When the Coroner began to question him, however, it was seen that he was far
more nervous than Oscar, as he broke down and cried a little. After his mother, Inspector McMahon, and the
Coroner, had soothed him, he told practically this same story as his brother. He added the information that
Armand Poirier and young Taylor were with them when they saw the man and girl going together to the
woods. The Coroner was careful to ask him whether he saw them go into the woods, and he said, "yes," that
they had crossed the bridge and gone into the woods near Church street, but he had not seen them go into
the woods where the body was later found. Later he saw the man going back towards the town without the
little girl. The little girl was dressed in red coat and tuque. |
| JAMES NICHOLSON'S EVIDENCE |
James Nicholson, Ashe avenue, was sworn. He declared that he had
seen on the Tuesday, the day of the murder of the little Ahern child, a man with a little child. The little one
was dressed in red. The coat shown him was exactly like that worn by the child, and so was the tuque. He
had seen them at the Grand Trunk bridge, walking west on the canal bank, which is higher there than the
street. He did not know the man. This was about five minutes past four. The child had a little basket in her
hand, and she went along quietly. The man was the worse for liquor, and this caused the witness to remark
the man. He could not see the man very well, as he did not get a good look at his face. He was short,
reddish, with sandy hair and moustache. He had been called to detective headquarters to identify two men.
They both fitted the description fairly, but the second man was more nearly like the man seen, but he
could not positively identify him. Louis Alcide Lecours, of the Montreal Wheelhouse, testified that he had
seen the child about five minutes past six on Tuesday evening, at the second bridge past Cote St. Paul, at
Church avenue, with a man. He recognized the clothing which the child had on, and was positive of it.
The man was carrying the lunch basket when he saw them. They were walking ahead of the witness for a
couple of acres. The man was holding the child by his left hand. In passing the witness noticed that the
child's face was quite dirty, though she was not crying at the time. He had not remarked the man any more
than to see that he was drunk. He had been shown some man's clothing at the police station, and it
corresponded to what the man had worn. He had not got a good look at the man's face, however, and
could not identify him. Robert McManus, 51 Selby avenue, saw the man and child passing on the canal bank,
between four and half past four on Tuesday. He does not believe he could recognize the child. He did not
pay much attention; she had something red on her, and seemed to be carrying something. The witness had
not paid much attention to either the man or the child, and could not identify the man who had passed him
on the canal bank with the child. John Dowling declared he had seen the man pass the canal bank with the
child. He could not identify the man. |
| WILLIAM CARTERS STORY |
William Carter, special constable of the Montreal Steel works, living at
72 Grand Trunk street, swore that he knew James Hackett. He ceased working on Thursday last. He
worked Wednesday night. On Friday morning Hackett came to the shop, and witness remarked that Hackett
looked like the man who was described in the papers as the murderer of the little child. Hackett said he was
coming for his time and said he thought of going away from Montreal. This made the witness suspicious, and
he started to examine the time book for the week of the murder. On Monday, Hackett started work at 6 p.m.,
and stopped at 7.15 p.m., an hour and a quarter. On Tuesday he did not work at all, day or night, but he did
work on Wednesday night until Thursday morning. |
| CAPT. COLEMAN IN THE BOX |
Captain James Coleman, who arrested Hackett, told of getting
instructions from Inspector McMahon to watch the Montreal Steel Works for a suspect. Then William Carter,
the watchman, had communicated his suspicions, and they had worked on the case. On Monday the witness
went to Hackett's house and got him from there to the detective headquarters, then went to the Place Viger
station, where young Mark, on stepping off the train saw the man Hackett and identified him at once. Next
day, with Detective Riopel, the witness had made Hackett a prisoner, and gave him the statutory warning.
Then the witness read a statement prepared before by the secretary of the detective department from a
conversation which Chief Carpenter had with the accused, which was noted in shorthand, and later
transcribed. Captain Coleman produced this statement which covered nearly four typewritten sheets. |
| HACKETT'S STATEMENT |
Coroner McMahon, after questioning Captain Coleman on the
manner of obtaining this statement, decided to read it to the jury: It detailed the movements of Hackett all
day Tuesday, April 3rd. The prisoner gave his age as 32, his weight 125. On Tuesday he went to his
mother's at 9.30, and while there his cousin sent for a bottle of porter and one of ale and they had some
drinks. Then he went to his brother's, St. John street, St. Henri, where he remained until 12.30 p.m., and
went back to the Point, where he got a drink at a saloon on the corner of St. Patrick's. His wife was out, so
he got his own dinner and started out getting various drinks, then he went to Seigneurs street, later to
Dominion street, then to Albert street. He went to a saloon, corner Albert and Vinet streets, and got a drink
of whiskey. Leaving there between half past two and three he went west on Notre Dame to Napoleon road,
and crossed over to the Point again, and walked around there until he reached Wellington bridge, meeting
no one he knew. He went back home near six o'clock, and found no one there but Mrs. Mooney's little girl,
aged about ten. Mrs. Mooney boards with him, he declares, and cooks her own food. He lays down and
when he awoke it was dark and his wife had got home. He had some words with her but no quarrel. He had
got no liquor as he had no money. He got his supper when he woke up late that night. He saw no one he
knew and no one saw him come into the house but Mrs. Mooney's daughter or Mrs. Mooney herself. Then
the prisoner proceeded to tell what he did the next few days. Captain Coleman declared that this story of the
prisoner did not agree with what he had been told even by the prisoner's wife and Mrs. Mooney, and other
people. He could give no evidence personally, however, to disprove the statements. Inspector James
McMahon testified that the girls who had seen a man throw clothes into the rear of Cote St. Paul Church
had failed to identify Hackett or any one else. Coroner McMahon declared that the witnesses who had seen
the man going along with the little girl should be looked up and brought before the jury, so that it might be
found whether or not they could positively identify the prisoner or any other person as the man they had
seen with the little girl. |
| MRS. HACKETT SOUGHT PROTECTION FROM BRUTALITY OF HUSBAND |
The Star had an interview to-day with the secretary of the Society for
the Protection of Women and Children, and received an account that goes to show that James Hackett was
not all that a family man might be expected to be. Last week the wife of the man who is now detained by the
police on suspicion of being the mysterious stranger who abducted little Edith May Ahern and brought about
her death under the most terrible circumstances, called at the office of the society on palace street and
applied for protection against her husband. This was three days after the murder had been committed. The
secretary of the society, Mr. O. H. Skroder, told the Star to-day of the interview he had with the woman. If it
does not tally with the story told to the police by Mrs. Hackett, the reason may be given that it is the very
natural desire of the woman to shield her husband to the best of her ability. On Friday last Mrs. Hackett
called at the office of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. She gave her name as Mrs.
James Hackett, and her address as 92 Grand Trunk street. Her complaint was: "My husband drinks and
often threatens me. He has often made me suffer for want of food. In many cases I have had to go to my
mother's home in order to get something to eat." "Have you any children?" asked Mr. Skroder. "They are all
dead, thank God," exclaimed the woman bursting into tears. Such was the account given by the wife to the
secretary of the society, that the latter asked her if she would not decide to leave her husband and work for
her own living. She gladly agreed to do this. The day after the arrest of Hackett on the charge of murder,
Mr. Skroder was walking down street and he saw on the Star bulletin the announcement of the arrest.
The name struck him and he at once returned to his office and mailed to Chief Carpenter a copy of the
report he had made of his complaint. This will probably be used as important evidence in the case. |
| MRS. HACKETT SEES HER HUSBAND AT NO. 14 POLICE STATION |
Hackett was somewhat nervous last night, and since his arrest has
been ill. Sub-Chief McMahon procured some medicine for him at a neighboring druggist's which somewhat
eased the condition of the accused. About 8 o'clock Sub-Chief of Detectives Charpentier called at the
station along with Foreman McManus, and his men, Alexander Milson, "Jimmy" Madeck and A. Parent, who
were engaged at work on the Atwater avenue bridge the time the man and his little victim passed that point.
All men passed into the corridor in front of the cells at the station and Hackett was brought out and made to
walk up and down a few times to see if the identification could be made. After this Hackett was taken into
the office of the station and was placed opposite the four gentlemen under a strong electric light. Not a
word was spoken until Hackett had been removed to the cells once again, and then the men were asked if
they had recognized him. Only one of them, Mr. Parent, could give any information. He stated that he
thought Hackett was the man who passed him at the swing bridge at Redfern's Mills. The party then left
the station. |
| MRS. HACKETT'S VISIT |
Mrs. Hackett and her sister were the next visitors on the scene.
Mrs. Hackett brought to her husband bed clothing and a pillow in order that he might lighten the discomfort
of his situation. She requested from the officer in charge, Captain Dubois, a few minutes talk with her
husband. This request was granted. Before the cell door had been closed perfectly tight Mrs. Hackett was
heard to ask her husband: "My God! why won't you tell me what you did Tuesday?" Whether or not this was
the end of the phrase spoken the reporter could not say, as the door closed at that stage of the conversation.
The interview with her husband was thought by Mrs. Hackett, to be sealed from outside ears and protected
by the police within the bonds of the utmost secrecy. But she was mistaken. Every word and every movement
were closely watched and noted by two police officers who had been ordered to remain in a neighboring cell.
Constable Savard and Detective Laflamme had been chosen for that duty and their notes were submitted to
Chief of Detectives Carpenter this morning and Mr. Carpenter will decide whether or not they will be used
at the coroner's inquest. The visit of Mrs. Hackett lasted for about half an hour, and during that time her
husband seemed to be very nervous. After she had left he arranged his bed clothing and then sat and
smoked until about midnight, when he lay down and slept until he was awakened this morning for his
breakfast. Hackett says he does not remember what he did Tuesday An admission that may have the
greatest importance in the Hackett case was made by the prisoner James Hackett to a police officer when
the latter brought him his breakfast this morning.
The following statement was made by Hackett: "I do not deserve to eat, if I am guilty of that crime.
To my knowledge I am not guilty, but I do not remember anything that I did on Tuesday. Every time I drink I
lose memory of things, places and acts." In addition to his own confession the police have information that
Hackett was drunk on Tuesday. He returned home about 7.15 drunk. His wife refused to stay with him in
the house for the reason that as certain witnesses stated in the Star yesterday, he was very violent when
in this condition, and often threatened to injure her. Another important find of the police is the fact that
Hackett was in the habit of going to Cote St. Paul, especially during the summer, as he had relatives in that
town. On these occasions he often paid visits to the woods, which he would, for this reason, know very well.
It has been established by a large number of witnesses that when intoxicated the man was inclined to
molest little girls. |
The Montreal Star 12 April 1906 |
|