THE COOPER CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1923, Page 3

THE COOPER CASE.

[by telegraph—rot PRESS association.] DEFENDING COUNSEL'S ADDRESS WELLINGTON. May 21. When the Court resumed after lunch Mr Treadwell commenced his address. He warned the juiy against coming to hasty conclusions. The only point before the jury was whether or not Cooper had murdered McLeod's child. They had nothing to do with the other eases introduced by the Crown. Counsel then proceeded to trace the circumstances surrounding the birth of McLeod’s -child, which were characterised by tile greatest- kindness on the part of Cooper to this woman. Was it possible, lie asked, that this man could adopt this attitude of "‘kindness towards his client, and the next minute become an inhuman monster who could kill her child? The jury must remember that a corpus delicti, that is a murdered body, had not been found, and our law took up the position that, in such circumstances, the jury must he satisfied of guilt right up to the hilt, that the body was muredeicd. and was murdered by accused. What the Crown relied on for the identity of the body found with McLeod's child was the colour of its hair, hut oil this point, no two witnesses agreed. McLeod’s child was full grown and healthy. but Die medical evidence concerning the body found was conclusive. It was not a full term child, and therefore it could not have been Mrl.eod’s child. At all events there wore high odds against it being the same child. For the Crown’s case the child must have been buried for tuo months, but Doctor Hector said it was not safe to sa v Hint it had not been in the ground lor five months, if it had been in tho ground for five months, then the whole structure of the Crown’s ca.-e falls to the ground. Counsel said that the evidence of a '‘system” introduced by the Crown was evidence of an extremely dangerous class, ft laid bean brought in to bolster up a weak cae. As to Die absence of an official record of adoption, he said that it was net remarkable. Women who had no children of their own should hardly want to proclaim tile whole fact to the world through the publicity involved. In reviewing statements cf the ne-t-used. cmm'■•el said the first one was made under pressure. It "as the act of a stupid man. Alter that he told the police all lie’ knew. No motive had been disclosed compatible with murder. He cautioned the jury against being influenced by public- sentiment, or newspaper headlines, which, in a desire to create a sen-ation. might tend to undermine their judgment. The evidence had gone to show that Cooper was a kind, humane man in his own homo. He asked the jury to try him on the evidence before tho court, and net on pro-conceived ideas, remarking that it was not obligatory on the accused to prove his ’innocence, hut the responsibility was on t'ae Crown to' prove him guilty. Mr Wilford asked leave to postpone his speech, till the morning, it being necessary, in the interest of Ins client that ho should do so.

Under the circumstances. His Honour granted the request-. The Court adjourned until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.

MR WH,FORD’S ADDRESS. WELLINGTON, May 22. When tile Supremo Court resumed this morning, the galleries and door of the Cuirt roc-ni were again crowded by interested listener:-, many hoii'lreds of late comers being compelled to content themselves with a less advantageous position outside the building. Looking pale and anxious. Cooper and .Mrs Cooper entered tlm dock. A few minutes after 10 o’clock, Mr Wilford commenced his nddre-.s on bell,ill’ of Mrs Cooper. He pointed out Ali- : ; 1 ,--iu co: not under tried lor (In- murder of either of tho Beadle or bister children, hut only, with the murder of McLeod’s child. The Crown v,-as entitled, under the law, to introduce evidence of ‘’system”, but he asked the jury to remember the fact that any evidence of “system” must not be counted as evidence against 1 1 is client. ’l’iie Crown I’rosecutor had said yesterday “So far as the male accused was ceneenied the ease is a clear one.” That was a pointed inference that the ease against Ins client was not clear, and he thanked Mr Macas.-ey lor saying what he did. He proposed to show them not only was the ease against Mrs Cooper not clear, lint that there was a great deal of evidence in her favour. It was the duty of the jury to impartially weigh the evidence and if, as the result that in weighing they had any doubt, then liis client was entitled to acquittal. Ills client had been prejudiced all through the case by the “atmosphere” which had been created. As an instance there was the disappearance of the Beadle children which had been prominent in the case, but the Crown admitted Mrs Cooper was absent from New lands for months before the child, was horn, and for months after it disappeared, so that Mrs Cooper could not possibly be concerned in it, and be believed the absence of .Mrs Cooper made it possible for a grave to be dug and a child buried close to the Crib. There was not a tittle of evidence connecting Mrs Cooper with the disappearance of the Beadle children, and the case against tier was limited to her connection with the McLeod and Lister children. In this connection was it strange that she believed vvluit her husband told her. that lie was having the children adopted. All the other witnesses were convinced by Cooper. Even the police believed his story till something turned up to smash it to pieces. AA hat then, was unreasonable in Mrs Coopers btv lief and if she did believe they were being adopted then the ease for the Crown falls to the ground. Her conduct all through was consistent with adoption, and the Crown had not suggested Mrs Cooper had killed McLeod's child. They dare not do that. Nothing had prejudiced Mrs Cooper so much as tho fact that she consented to take up a secondary position to Beadle in the household at Ncwlands. His explanation was that Mrs Cooper "as completely dominated by her husband, not that there was anything in the nature of coercing in the ordinary way. but the fact was she was reduced to the position of a household drudge without any mind cf Iter own. All the women who came to Ncwlands were “dumped” on Airs Cooper. Her wishes wore never consulted, until her resistance gave out. and she left for Dunedin. How then did Cooper obtain this ascendancy over Airs Coopei He sug>»>stcd iivpnotism or mesmerism both of Which' had long passed the experimental stages. That was the only possible explanation of the extraordinary conduct m permitting Beadle to take her place. She was a woman sinned against rather than .-inning. She believed her husband until the bodies were found. After that her answers to questions by toe police was:—”l have nothing to say which was simply the answer of an automntuni whose will power was in . Her statement made to the police he tore the bodies were found was made under pressure and that was why it was subsequently withdrawn. Coming next to Cooper's methods, counsel pointed out he always employed an intermediary between the mothei ami himself. He never took the child from the mother himself. In the case of the second Beadle child he employed jjjjfto Adn.nw, When Adit ms spit] she

handed the child to Cooper to be adopted was her evidence to bo believed? Of course it was. AVliy then not believe Mrs Cooper when she said she believed Cooper when ho told her he- had given ATeLeod’s baby to .some people who were going to adopt it. Before the jury could convict his client, they must unanimously arrive at the conclusion that she did not believe her husband. The case was intricate and it was hard to know and hard to see. He could only conclude in the words of Thomas Braek-

“Oh God that men might see a little clearer, Or judge less hashly where they cannot see.” 11 IS HONOUR SUAIS UP. His Honour began summing up at 11.32 a.m. He said the evidence which tho jury had to consider was conlined between very narrow limits, and they had to carefully separate the evidence which might tie proof against one prisoner and not the other. It was the duty of the Crown to lay a complete case before the Court, and they must lie satisfied that had been done and that there was no flaw in the evidence which would raise doubts in their minds. If they had any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of either party, the accused must receive the benefit of that doubt. They must lie satisfied the body of AfeLeod’s child was dead, that it was murdered and that it was murdered by one or both the accused, lo prove tiiis crime it was not necessary that the Crown should produce the body, as the counsel for Cooper had ■suggested. It was only necessary that the Crown should prove t.lie crime, and this was especially so in the case of a very voting child. Such a child was. in a sense, a trust, and coinmonsense dictated that the last person known to he in charge of it could he held responsible, and evidence had been submitted to the jury, all of which went to show that the body found near Cooper’s house and which the Crown i 'aimed was Aid.cod’s child, had not been honestly dealt with.

llis Honour then proceeded to justify his action in admitting evidence ol “system” principles of wlich. he explained in detail, ami illustrated them by particulars of celebrated cases. Cooper in one of hi.-> statements made an admission which "as tantamount to an admission of “.system” in the receipt of young women and adoption of their children. It was therefore open to show- what his system was. They were not to convict Cooper of murdering McLeod’s child because they believed lie murdered other children, hut the evidence of “system’’ submitted would aid them in arriving at a. conclusion regarding McLeod's child.

Alter dealing with the element ol accident in causing the death of young children, his Honour pointed out Llint four children were missing and three bodies liad lrccn found on Cooper’s property. AYhat. then, were the chances of three accidental deaths on a 19-acre farm. If all farms in New Zealand were dug over, on how many would tile bodies of infant children be found. Not many, he thought, so they had to consider how no less than three were found on Cooper's 19-acres Linn. 1 hen what weie tile chances of some invader having placed the bodies there. Cooper had suggested Lupi and Goulder might have placed them there, hut that suggestion had been disproved. A) as it then a. mere coincidence that four children weie missing ami three bodies were found on Cooper's property. Cooper’s story 1 f how lie handed Lister s child to l.upi for adoption, is now proved to be a pure fabrication, and it "as ior the jury to consider how that boro, upon iiis statement regarding Ale Lend s child.

Cooper's treatment of Beadle’s second child, was unjust, have a bearing on the date ' f Alcl.ood s child. Then they had i-> remember that not at any time during the long enquiry had 'Cooper made’ any statement which would help i lie police to clear up the mystery. \A as it feasible ii ( impel had properly given the child to I’almer»,toii North people to adopt that they would not now come forward and produce the child, and what had Cooper done to help himself. Nothing, except

!,.,(! Ik-,-11 j mini linin'.". He hud not said one "Old \*'nrli would help to de,close the whereabouts ol the missing child. A. motive was to he lound in the money arrangements ( coper made with AA’elsh ami Lupi. Though it was not necessat’v lor the brov.ll to pinto motive so far as Airs Cooper was concerned. if they believed she was so much under the influence of Cooper as to believe the story r.f adoption, then they must give her the benefit <’f the position which the law allowed to such a one. hut to arrive at the conclusion as to what she really (lid believe, they had to consider tlm untrue statement she made regarding Lister’s child, and when she withdrew that untrue statement, she never alter" ards made any explanation which would clear the matter up. Later on "hen she was lint under the evil eye of her husband, site persistently refused to say more than refer the police to her solicitors. This, and her untruthful statement, must he < onsidered " 11011 tho jury was deliberating on her mental attitude. If Hjere "as doubt she must get the benefit of the doubt. THE JURY RETIRES. \t two minutes to one the jury retired and -His Honour adjourned the Court till 2 p.m. THE JURY’S VERDICT. COOPER FOUND GUILTY MRS COOPER FOUND NOT CUILTY COOPER SENTENCED TO DEATH. AYF.LLINGTON, May 22. The jure returned a verdict o, “Guiltv” against Cooper and a verdict of “Not Guilty’’ against Airs Cooper. Sentence cf death was passed on Cooper.