BODY INJURIES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20079, 27 October 1939, Page 9

BODY INJURIES

WOMAN'S CORPSE

RIBS AND WINDPIPE

PATHOLOGIST’S OPINION

WIFE-MURDER CHARGE

TRIAL OF PATIENCE

(Per Press Association,) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. The principal witnesses for the Crown at the trial of Arthur John Patience, aged 48, a labourer, charged ‘with wife-murder at Claverley on October 4-last year, were heard in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. A. T. Donnelly conducted the case for the Crown, Mr. Alan Brown being with him. Mr. R. A. Young appeared for accused, with him Mr. T. A. Gresson. Mrs. Irene Maud George, Riccarton, said she was a niece of Mrs. Patience. Mrs. Patience was about nine or 10 years older than the accused. She last saw Mrs. Patience on September 18, 1933. That was a Friday. Mrs. Patience caxne with her husband and she stayed until. Sunday, but the accused did not. Towards the latter part the accused was very off-hand with his wife. The cause of the trouble was Mrs. Chapman. Witness said she wrote a letter to Mrs. Patience early in October, but it was sent back to her at Riccarton. The day she first knew her aunt had disappeared was October 15. Her clothes had been left at her house, together with a note. Some days earlier she wrote to the accused, but did not get a reply from him. She also wrote to the son, Steve. She next saw the accused on October 21. He came to her house in the evening and she asked if he had Jane with him. He said: "No. Isn’t she here?” She said: "Haven't you seen her?” He said: "No.” She asked him to tell her how Mrs. Patience had gone, and he said that he had come ip to have tea and found his wife all-dressed lo go old, quite happy, to hear an election speech. He had then gone to Fletcher’s place and had come back about 8 to 8.30, and found she was not there. “Sick of Camp Life” He said that in the morning iie found a note in which his wife said she had left the camp because she was sick of camp life and did not want any more from him. Mrs. George said that she asked him if he had informed the police and ‘he said “No.” He said when he went t.o Kaikoura he was going to inform the police, but someone had told him not to do that, as by the time he got back his wife would be back.

Mrs. George said she was positive that the body she saw in the morgue at Christchurch was that of her aunt. Mrs. Mary Ann Soulhen, Riccarton, mother of Mrs. Patience, said that her daughter was in her sixtieth year when she disappeared. She said that when she went to the morgue she saw the body of a woman which she was positive was her daughter. Dr. A. B. Pearson, pathologist at Christchurch Public Hospital, said that he began a post-mortem examination of the body of a woman on July 22. It was the body of a woman over 50. He considered it had been dead for some months. It was in the condition of a body that had been in contact with wet soil or clay, and was preserved from putrefaction. He did not believe it could have been long in the sea, because although there did appear to be destruction- by sea life, there was not much of it affected in this way.

Ribs Fractured

The condition of the body was consistent with its having been buried in wet soil or clay for some time, then gone into the sea and then been washed up. There was a bruise in the pit of the stomach and the ribs bore signs of injury. On the front of the chest on the left side, on the lower part some of the ribs were separated from their gristle attachment and, on the same side at tire back, six ribs were fractured. There had been bleeding from these ribs. Such an injury could have been done by crushing. It would not necessarily be a fatal injury, but it would be a disabling injury, and it must have taken place before or very soon after death, because of the bleeding from the ribs. These injuries could have 'been caused by pressure of a knee on the chest. Dr. Pearson continued that it was very unlikely that they would have been caused by rocks or stones on the beach. There was a bruise on the left side of the neck under the chin. It was comparatively small and stood out markedly. It was an inch and a quarter at its greatest diameter. It was not deep-seated. There was an indentation in the windpipe. It was three-quarters of an inch in length and half an inch at its.greatest width. That dent could have been produced by the pressure of a thumb on the windpipe. In most cases of strangulation the pressure was higher up. There was no evidence of the cause of death. All organs were well preserved except the brain. There was no sign of natural disease, but if death bad been from cerebral haemorrhage it would have been impossible because of the condition of the brain to determine it. The arteries, however, were in a natural state, and one would not expect them to be if death had been from cerebral haemorrhage.

Mr. Donnelly: So this woman had injuries to her ribs, a bruise in the pit of the stomach and an indentation of the windpipe. Arc these injuries consistent with someone having knelt on her and fractured her chest by pressure of a knee and gripped her throat by the hand? Dr. Pearson: Yes.

If the person who did this put his other hand over her mouth, would she have died quickly?—Yes. If she had been suffocated in that way, traces of suffocation could not have been defected by your examination?—No.

Traces of suffocation could have been apparent if you had seen the body promptly after death and it had lost its life in this way?—-Yes, if a day or so after.

Dr. Pearson said that the body bore signs of some sacking, and there were also ligature marks. It appeared as if it had been wrapped in sacking and then bound up. The trunk and upper limbs and the lower limbs down to near the knees appeared to have been wrapped in sacking. There was also an indication that the woman had been wearing a woollen singlet. Everything appeared against the possibility of suicide, but the possibility of drowning did exist. There could not have been a suicidal drowning, because the body could not have wrapped Itself up. Cross-examined by Mr. Gresson, the witness said that most of the soft tissues of the face were trussing and the skin was missing off the forehead. Looking at the face and head alone, it would have been a very difficult matter to identify it. It would need a very intimate acquaintance with a person to be able to identify the hands as they were. On the whole of the body there was no birthmark, no scar, and no abnormal feature of any kind. Decision Not Possible It was quite impossible to determine the actual cause of death. He did not think a heavy fall would have fractured a rib without producing external injuries. He could not explain the fractures of the ribs at the back as well as the injuries to the front being caused by a fall. It was impossible to express any definite opinion about the brain, because.of its decomposition. He could not exclude the possibility of death from cerebral trouble. The damage to the ribs could have occurred shortly after death. Such injuries might possibly have been caused by the sea beating on the body when it was wedged between the rocks, but this was unlikely. The injury to the windpipe was such as he had never seen in any person as a congenital deformity. He could not exclude the possibility of its being a a congenital deformity. Anything was possible. An enlarged thyroid could have a flattening effect on the windpipe. He could not imagine a stone or rock producing such a localised indentation on the windpipe as there was in that of the body he examined. Mr. Gresson’s cross-examination of the witness was in progress when the court adjourned.

Dr. Pearson is the thirty-eighth of ‘br> 4:1 witnesses for the Crown. More medical evidence will be heard to-day. The whole of the evidence may be finished in the afternoon, leaving counsels’ addresses and His Honour’s charge to the jury to be given.