THE KIDWELLY CASE.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16986, 8 November 1920, Page 7

THE KIDWELLY CASE.

T.TNHR OF THE DEFENCE. (Br. Cable —Press Association—Copyrie&t.) (Australian and G&blo Association.) LONDON, November 5. Sir E. Marshall Hall, opening for tho defence in the Kidwelly poisoning case, intimated that ho would call expert evidence to show that the death of Mrs Greenwood was due to acute gastric attacks, and not to arsenical poisoning. Greenwood's daughter would give evidence that she took a glass of the same wino as her mother for lunch, and an-

other for supper. MORPHIA OB ABSENIC? THE ACCUSED IN THE BOX. (Received November 7th, 7.50 p.m.) LONDON, November 6. Thrf accused Greenwood, in the course of cross-examination, declared that the police superintendent's notebook purporting to contain his statement m reply to the police inquiries before the exhumation of his wife's body, was not tho original notebook, or else pages had been substituted for others which had been torn out. The statement had been mutilated by omissions and additions, and the signature was forged. The nurse told him that his w 'l died from the effects of the morphia pills. He told tho doctor just before the exhumation that the latter ! had made a mistake in giving morphiapills which were too strdng for his witc, and the doctor replied that the morphia pills were not injurious. . The doctor, recalled, denied that Greenwood ever spoko to him about tlio The • nurse, recalled, denied telling Greenwood that the pills were too S The"prisoner's daughter, aged 22, gave evidence that sho drank Burgundy at luncheon with her mother from the bottle out of which, the prosecution al-ieo-es the prisoner administered tlie Tatal ' dose of arsenic. Her mother came ill after tea-time. ltness had another glass of Burgundy at supper from the same bottle, and she suffered j no ill effects. The police had never asked her for ft statement regarding the events of which she gave evidence. Sir E. Marshall Hall for tuo defence pointed out that Greenwood, if he had ; been guiltv, could have obliterated the | traces of t/he poison by cremation. j The accused, under examination, denied having caused the death of his wife. He was, he said, not on affectionate terms with his present wife during the deceased's lifetime. The latter had an income of £900 per annum, which went to the children. His pre- , gent wife had nothing. _ . Colonel Toopood, London County Council toxicologist, stoutly adhered to the opinion that death was due to mor- i pliia. *'