THE ADDINGTON MYSTERY.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16141, 20 February 1918, Page 10

THE ADDINGTON MYSTERY.

I THK BOY CUtltlCK'S death. I MOTHER FOUND NOT (,ni,TY. j r.H"ro !»«•■> Honour Mr .Justice ( hup- ' in:. 1 > :iml a jury. of v.llir'l Mr V. IT. I ! I;;%.'•!! \\-j- foreman. the trial 01' Win;li. il Carrick on the charge of having i up December Stli. 1017. at Addingion, v. 'tally murdered Unnald I.enis C'arrirk. iva? resumed yesterday morning: • :it the Criminal Sessions of the Su- ! |ir< ire Court. Mr >. I'ayniond, K.C.. prosccuted : .-.in behalf of the Crown. Mr O. T. .1. Alpers represented accused. ! The jhil ic* ;:ailery was again lilied with interested spectators. 'j'lir cwsp for the prosecution was : eontinuod. Mr Raymond calling further ! evid< nee. | ACCUSED'S MOVEMENTS. : Martha C'hillingworth deposed a? to I accused lodging with her on different j occasions and engaging _a room on tin* afternoon of December 7th last, whien ! accused .said she would not want tdl the following day: her room _was not occupied oil the night of the 'th. Isabella Patrick deposed as to accused leaving a suit-ease and umbrella at the parcels office at the tramway shelter in Cathedral square on December 7th. 'Jnomas Henry Plavtord deposed as to having conveyed the child Carrick, i in company with an attendant- from j the Keeeh inci Home. arid Dorean I Burns, to Burns's house in Addington. j ns to having driven in an opposite 1 direction in order to mislead accused, i and as to accused subsequently cti tempting ,to ascertain from him where j he took the. child. ACCUSED'S ARREST. Detective-Sergeant T. Gibson tieposed as to the arrest of accused, as to accused asserting that she did not knovr where her child was' boarded, and refusing to <iive information as to where she had spent the night of December 7th. He was present in the Supreme Court oil August 2nd, 1913, when accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for having unlawfully abandoned her child. A. 11. Holmes, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the information upon which accused was charged, and to which she pleaded guilty, in respect of the abandonment of her child. Nono of the witnesses was crossexamincd. This concluded the ease for : the prosecution. •The .jury were at 11 a.m. taken to inspect the scene of the crime, and also the scene of the abandonment of the child. NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. The Court resumed at 1.50 p.m. His Honour (to Mr Alpers): Do you call evidence? Mr Alpers: No, youi- Honour. j CROWN PROSECUTOR'S ADDRESS. Mr Raymond, addressing the jury, said that the case had' been presented as fully and completely as it could be on behalf of the prosecution. The issuewas restricted to an extremely narrow one. An unusual feature of the case was that there was no question of the credibility of the witnesses involved: no serious challenge had been made of the truthfulness of the witnesses. The sole question they would have to consider was whether the Crown had established, beyond all reasonable doubt, tbo identity of tlio accused with the offender who perpetrated the murder. They would not be justified in finding accused guilty unless they were satisfied morally and intellectually that the Crowu had removed its .onus to establish her guilt: it was not however, incumbent on them to raise what ho miglit call fantastical doubts. They could have no doubt that a murder had been committed, or as to who was the person murdered: ' An infant of three years old had been rutlrclcrod; if it had been an adult he might have given provocation, or might have i'-ad quarrels, or. all sorts of difficulties with different people. In this case the murdered child, in his brief life, could not, in the ordinary meaning of the word, have given offence to, . or quarrelled with, anyone. There were'two sets of individuals who might possibly have committed the crime. Counsel went on to show the impossibility of any of the Burns's household, or of some person, as had been suggested, from tho Addington prison, having committed tho crime. The crime was a planned one, probably committed early in the morning : at that time of the year the- sun toso shortly after 4 a.m.. and it was light about 3.30 a.m. As to the question of the identification of the murderer, one of the most important elements was motive; it was not always conclusive, sometimes crimes were motiveless. In the present case it was submitted that there was the amplest evidence of motive. In an ordinary case of mother and child, maternal affection was strong and great, and it was almost inconceivable that a mother had murdered her child, particularly in the brutal way that this child was murdered. That had been negatived by the evidence presented in th© present case. In this case the child was an illegitimate, an unwanted, child, and it had been shown that shortly after its birth tbo mother had unholy and unnatural feelings towards it. Counsel went on to emphasise the point that the jury must not take the evidence of tho abandonment of the child by the accused as evidence against her in tho present charge, bub to consider it only as 'indicative of'motive —tlia.t she was careless whether tho child lived or died. Counsel submitted that accuscd had been possessed of an obsession in respect of the duties incumbent upon her, and that she possessed that obsession • tutil the commission of the crime of which she now was charged. After referring to the evidence, counsel said that it showed, on the part.of accused, a determination to avoid not only payment of arrears of maintenance, but to avoid payment of any future maintenance. Counsel commented ou <: tho extraordinary coincidence" that the day of tiie discovery by accuscd of the whereabouts of her child was the night of the child's death : and contended that whoever murdered the child knew where it was. Everything known, or gathered, about tho circumstances of the crime, had been laid before them. Counsel drew attention to that portion of the evidence dealing with accused's failure to explain her doings on the night of T>ocember 7th, and said-it was of the utmost importance. She had been out all night. Mr Alpers: There is no evidence of that. Mr Raymond: I submit that is the inevitable inference. Mr Alpers: There is absolutely no evidence . Mr Raymond contended that it was proved inferentially. Commenting on accused's reply to Detective-Sergeant Gibson's question as to where she spent the night, counsel said it would have been the simplest thing in the world, and the pfoper thing, if she -were an innocent woman, to have stated where she had been. That part of the case, he asserted, was of enormous significance. Concluding, after an hour and a half's address, counsel asked the jury to exercise their common-sense as to whether there was any moral or reasonable doubt whatever as to who was the perpetrator of the offence. ADDRESS BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr Alpers said that it was with a deep feeling of responsibility that he rose to address them, and he felt certain that they shared in that feeling,

i seeing that an adverse verdict must be . followed by sentence of death, and that thai sentence be a wotnan. They probably knew heiorc entering the jury-box that needed had not boon a virtuous woman : but he was confident that not one of them would a 1 low thar to or.erate to her prejudice I in the slightest decree. I hey had been. I nrobablv. surprised that tho evidence j f nr Crcr.vii include:! evidence ot an | crl rlier crime. They were aware pron- ' iblv of »h-.' broad principle ot I'.nghs'i i i., v —ilia: at the triai i"«»v one crime it j jn. not p rniissihle m bring evidence !„f ;1 r-rin'e committed by me accused at ! wn-p previous time. Thai !>'inetp.e wa> j at the verv foundation of Iv'simmi law: i; was nol a principle >>< French or .i? ! German law: he thought he was ncht ' in snrWig it was a pnn-ip'.o el 'Jo other ! | ;n - rnir.Trmn, hiw ui I\n£iand. j ft was the expression, in jurisprudence, of the nrineiple which found expression in our social life in that national cjUiiJ- ' ity. prized ro highly, and which they i v. ere proud to call "'tlie British >?port- ! in-' instinct.'": it was the legal exi nressioa of the other expression I -- that the hunted fox _ should ! have a fair run. Coun.="l explained the exception- to the principle—such evidence being admissible in murder ! charges to show that accused assaulted i or threatened the same victim. This was, however, qualified by the provi- ] sion that, the eircumsnuues of the preI vioi l s orimo. or ;u*t. wort* so closely conj nected, or. to quote the word* ol a great judjre. "so inextricably mixed." with the charge thd jury was investigating and the earlier one. as to be two acts in one transaction. Counsel went on to submit that in the present ease the circumstances of the abandonment and of the. murder were not so closely aliied; the weight to be attached to evidence regarding the abandonment was a matter entirely for the jury; they alone were the judge; and they had to look at this evidence from the point of view of motive more than anything else. AY as it. he asked, a necessary inference that a woman who abandoned her infant .'i three weeks' old persisted in her mind and had the. same motive that animated her then, and murder her child (if .she were guilty) when it was three years old. and to murder it in a peculiarly brutal and revolting manner? Did it not strike them as a most dangerous inference:' He referred to as fantastic the Crown's theory that, the obligation to pay 5s per week maintenance constituted a burden to accused and induced her to murder the child. The set of circumstances surrounding the abandonment of the cliild were totally removed in time and degree as to the motive which actuated her if she did indeed commit this crime. Counsel admitted that the Crown Prosecutor had plu-ced the evidence regarding the abandonment of the child before the jury fairly, and the witnesses had given their evidence, not only truthfully but moderately and sincerely. Turning to the evidence a* to the murder, counsel said that it was entirely circumstantial; it was none the worse for being circumstantial, but because it was so it demanded from the jury careful and scrupulous examination—much more so than if witnesses had stated that tliey had seen the deed done. The evidence fell into four definite and distinct classes: (1) The evidence that accused had a motive for committing the crime.; (2) that she- made preparation to commit it; (3) that she had opportunity to commit it; and (4) evidence from her demeanour, her movements lier dress, that she did, in fact, commit the crime. He ventured to put it that not one of these four classes of evidence had proved cogent enough to justify them in"finditfg accused guilty; and if the whole--tour were considered they were not enough to remove from their minds that reasonable doubt without which they would not- be justified in convicting accused. Counsel then dealt with the cvidonco under these four heads. On the question of motive he argued that the Crown had tailed to suggest any adequate motive for so foul and so revolting a crime. As to preparation, he suggested that accused in arranging for an interview with the child at the Receiving Homo might have been actuated by curiosity; and tliat the conduct of the officers at the Receiving Homo—conduct that he in nowise blamed thorn for —caused accused to become pig-headed: she was galled and stung by it. When she asked _ Florenco Burns where the Burns's house' was, arid had it pointed out to her, she had gone as far as the gate with the child —there had been no concealment; she had not been furtive, or stealthy. As to opportunity, counsel pointed out that all • the evidence there was that accused was . in tho neighbourhood of the house about 2 p-.m.,- on .the day. preceding the crime j and 'that evidence was a mere bagatelle. Dealing with the final class of evidence, • counsel pointed out that accused, when accosted by Detective-Sergeant Gibson, had been actuated in her failuro to explain where sho had spent the previous night by the fact that she" had had experience of gaol, and of police methods, and this made her cautious. He emphasised the point in. connexion with the fact that at 7 p.m. the girl's skirt, stockings, and handbag were found to be damp, that Mrs Burbury, who had engaged her as a domestic the same ,niornmg, had noted nothing peculiar about accused's dress. Reverting to the circumstances connected with"-;her •airrest, he said that if she had' 'bae«( guilty she would have shown some sign of emotion when she realised how quickly Nemesis had got her. Counsel ridiculed • the evidence regarding the grass seeds found on accused's stockings, and pointed out that while tho Crown had brought Dr. Champtaloup from Dunedin to testify that the blood on the spade' and spanner was' human blood, it had not called Dr. Hilgendorf to testify to the grass seed. He commented on the difficulties and risks connected with the commission of the crime, and spoke especially of tho fearful force with which the child must havei been struck so-'that its head was buried nearly Up to the cars, and said .that the circumstances pointed to the murderer being a man. In ma Icing that suggestion ho did not mean to connect either Mr Burns or Mr Springford with the crime; but some man in come way, by overlooking tho house, or gaining information by calling as a pedlar, had bccome sufficiently acquainted with tho geography of the house to enable him to commit tho crime. Mrs Green's evidence showed that the girl was reticent about the father of the child. It was possible that the father had determined to abduct it, - and when it cried had killed it. Counsel admitted that this did not seem credible: but it seemed to him almost as credible as the story put before them by the Crown. Looking at all the evidence, he ventured to say that the. jury could not convict, and concluded, after speaking close on two hours, bv quoting a summing up of LfOrd Guthrie, in which that judge emphasised the point that it was the Crown's duty not to show that, the accused person was the probable murderer, but was, in fact, tho murderer. HIS HONOUR-'S SUMMING UP. His Honour, in summing up, addressed tho jury, for about three-quarters of an hour.. His Honour referred td the singular circumstance, agreed to bv both counsel, that there was not a disputed fact frcm beginning to end of the evidence. It was admitted that all the witnesses bad spoken the truth, and the jury would agree with him that they had spokeu with great moderation. The question arising from this undisputed evidence was what was the proper inference to be drawn? It was incumbent on the Crown to convince them by all reasonable means that accused was guilty of the crime—a preponderating, clear, and unmisUikable case had to'be made out. There could bo no doubt that the child was murdered some time -between Deeembor 7th and Sth. The question was: How were they to set about the investigating of the' case with the view of determining who was the author of this horrible

crime? Motive was always invoked as a means or determining; but in the present case, where the victim was « harmless, helpless child, they had to consider whether there was any person they could point to as being unniistakeably the only person with a motive, and whether that motive had been made out. Motive alone was not, however, sufficientbut it was a powerful indicator. It was' obvious tnat they could eliminate the persons in the house : the Burns's iindSp ring lord were obviously 'respectable persons, and did not come ''i'lito' the class, of persons who had any motive for the destruction of the child. The Crown, therefore, had taken motive as a means of indicating the perpetrator. There had been no particular physical difficulty in committing the crime, but obviously it was a hazardous act, arid involved great risks, and, whoever had the motive to do the deed was prepared to take these risks. They had to satisfy themselves whether any person had a motive, and, if so, who that person was. It was not enough for them to speculate on the subject; they must bo fully satisfied before they found accused guilty. The case for the Crown was, obviously, that there was no one else hut accused who had a motive and that there was no room for suggesting; anyone else; if they thought that there was room for supposing that there was anyone else, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Referring to the admission of evidence regarding-the past history of accused, his Honour said that there was always a danger in admitting that kind of evi- , dence because it might bo said, from j one point of view, to invite the jury to convict the person for one crime because he had committed a similar one on some previous occasion; it was always the duty of a judge to impress on the jury not to convict on ono charge by reason of the accused having misconducted himself on a similar charge. They must make up. their minds-to give only the proper value to that evidence and carefully guard against convicting accused of murder because two years before' the woman had acted as she had acted. It had been necessary for him to admit the evidence so that they might understand the whole relation between this woman and her child. His Honour then leferre'd at some Idngtli to the evidence in connexion with the present charge, ' and asked if the jury were satisfied that the accused had a very strong motive for getting rid of the child—a motive so strong that, taken in conjunction with her previous conduct, that they were satisfied that she was the author of this crime. That was a' matter entirely for their consideration, but they, could not consider it apart fiom the general circumstances of the case—they had to take the ■whole history into consideration. It! was for thom to test the evidence with | the view of ascertaining whether it ■ showed irresistibly that the child was killed pursuant to a plan and that the accused was the only person who hadj any conceivable motive. Writers had j debated whether circumstantial or I direct evidence was of the higher! value; but the question was not worth i discussing; in some instances circurn-, Stantial evidence was of higher value 'than direct evidence. The present was; a case of circumstantial evidence, thoj Crown suggesting that the accused was the one person in the world who had a motive for the crime. If they found a flaw in that reasoning, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. : It had been suggested that the jury's' verdict might necessitate the condemn- ; ing of a. .woman to death, but what they-had to consider was their ver-' diet and not its consequences; if they: found accused guilty tho consequences would rest with the Governor-General and his advisers. j VERDrCT OF NOT GUILTY. i The jurv retired at 5.12 p.m., and returned at S p.m. with a vcrdict of not guilty. L His Honour: Prisoner is discharged.' His Honour thanked the jury for their attendance, and relieved them of further attendance. j The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-, day. i