- e. Some Keas in captivity would eat meat, fat, skins, etc.
At first sight this evidence seems quite conclusive enough to condemn the Kea, but we must remember that circumstantial evidence can never by itself prove a scientific fact.
To see how far we can err from the truth by depending on this kind of proof, we have only to go back to the days of supposed witchcraft and note how an English court of law condemned many people to punishment and death for what it honestly believed to be an undoubted fact. We can see, now, how the level-headed men of those times came to an absolutely wrong decision, because the evidence that seemed so conclusive was merely circumstantial.
On the other side there was also some evidence to show that the Kea might be innocent. This may be classed as follows:—
II. For the Kea:
- a. The lack of the records of eye-witnesses.
- b. In many places where Keas were known to live, no sheep had been killed after the Kea’s method.
- c. Many Keas in captivity would not eat meat, etc.
- d. Many of the men who accused the bird were paid for exterminating them, and they would naturally wish the story to be believed.
Over this circumstantial evidence a war of words has waged for many years, and once or twice it has seemed as if the Kea would be exterminated before the question was finally settled.
In order to try to bring this important question to a final conclusion, I set to work to collect written statements from actual eye-witnesses, who lived or had lived in Kea country, and by carefully sifting and arranging this evidence to obtain the actual facts about this interesting bird.
In response to several requests, kindly published for me by the newspapers, I have received a large amount of evidence from men who live, or have lived, in the Kea country, viz., musterers, shepherds, head-shepherds, managers of stations, runholders, and station owners.
