THE ADDINGTON MURDER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 131, 20 February 1918, Page 8

THE ADDINGTON MURDER

WINIFRED CARRICK ACQUITTED

COUNSELS' ADDRESSES

case;of circumstantial evidence

By Telegraph-Prc3s Association,

Christchurch, February 19.

The trial of Winifred Carrick on a charge of murdering her soil Donald Lewis Carrick, aged three, was continued to-day. ' Martha Chillingworth gave evidence that accused hired a room on December 7, but did not occupy it that night.

Isabella Patrick, employed at the Parcels Office, Cathedral Square, said the accused left an umbrella and suit case on December 7, returning the following day for the luggage.

Thomas Henry Playford, cabman, who drove the children to Burns's house from the Receiving Home, detailed a conversation with ii woman who was anxious to know where he took the children. He could not swear that accused was the woman.

Detective-Sergeant Gibson gave evidence as to arresting accused, who denied knowledge where the boy was, and declined to inform him where she spent tho previous night. This closed the evidence for the Crown, and the Court was adjourned to enable the jury to visit the scene of the murder, and also the scene of the abandonment of deceased when an infant.

Mr. Alpers announced that he would not" call any evidence for the defence. In opening his address, Mr. Eaymond, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, said the fact was clear that an inoffensive baby had been killed, and the jury had to consider who were the persons likolv to be included in tbe category of those who might have committed the crime. It was ridiculous to consider any of those who resided at Burns's. A well-known quotation was, "Show mo iho motive, and I will show you the man." That might not quite apply in this case, but it had its significance. The maternal instinct in this case had been shown to be wanting. In the ordinary course of nature the mother of the murdered child had withheld the protection of a mother, and had abandoned it. The jury -should reject the i nature of the charge of abandonment of the child, but the facts had an im- | portant bearing in the present case as showing in one aspect that tho mother was careless whether the child lived or died. It might be said that if the woman had wished to got completely rid of the child she would have put it straight into the river; but the reply to that was that she feared to take at first the great plunge. ■ Subsequently, lie suggested, she became obsessed with the desire to be rid of her offspring. Mr. Raymond went on to refer to the significance of the accused's actions in trying to locate the whereabouts of the child, and the fact that after her arrest her stockings showed that she had been walking about in her stockinged feet. The accused had also given a false account of Her movements to different people, and it was clear that she was out all night on the night of the murder. Under all the circumstances the jury would have no difficulty in fixing the responsibility for the crime. Mr. Alpers, counsel for the accused, in his address to the jury, spoke of tho responsibility that lay before cho jury, considering the natnre of the evidence, and reminded them that thero coiild be only one penalty in case of the accused being found guilty, and that was tho death penalty. Would tho jury be prepared to take that responsibility? Counsel thought not. He sketched tho accused's career, and remarked that the woman had had an unfortunate career. Referring to the introduction, of a previous charge against the; accused as part of the Crown evidence, Mr. Alpers contended that it was against the English law, which had as a basic principle that a hunted fox' should bo given a The Crown had attempted to show thaS the previous abandonment and the present case were part of one transaction. The jury,'must not consider the case from a criminal vjejvpoint, but from that of motive. The motive of abandonment and that of murder were entirely different. It was common for mothers of illegitimate children to abandon their offspring; not in, a literal sense, but by adoption, by roadside/or by other means. The motive in all such cases had to be found. Shame was a chief motive, but that did not apply in the, present case. The child was three years of age, and all tho early distresses had passed away. There was no similarity in the motives that would have prompted the abandon■inent of tho infant and the brutal murder three years later, by the same person, if for argument's sake it wero contended that the two were carried out by the same person. The jury would abolish from their mind all thought that the accused had acted in a selfish manner so far as the child was concerned, and as to her moral character also. The evidence of the crime of December 8 was entirely circumstantial in regard to the accused. The Crown had endeavoured to show the strength of that evidence. It was his (Mr. Alpers's) duty to disclose its weaknesses, and it would bo for His Honour to balance the two; but after all that it was the jury's job to weigh the whole. He said that none of the evidence . was cogent enough to justify them in • finding tho accused guilty. Re argued that the Crown had failed to suggest any adequate motive for so foul and revolting a crime, and that there had been no concealment on the part of the accused. When accosted by Detcctivo Gibson the accused had been actuated in her failure to explain where she had spent the previous night by tho fact that she had bad experience of gaol, and of police methods, and these made her cautious. He suggested that the fearful force with which the child had' been struck pointed to the murderer being a man.' It was possible that the father of the child 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 the evidence he ventured to eay that the jury could not convict, and concluded by emphasising 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.

Mr. Justice Chapman summed up mainly on the question of motive. He snid the present was a case of circumstantial evidence, the Crown suggesting that the accused was the one person in the world who had a motive, for the crime. If the jury found a flaw in that reasoning, the accused must bo given tho benefit of the doubt.

Tho jury retired at 5.12 p.m. and returned at 8 p.m. with a verdict i> not guilty, and tho prisoner was discharged.