RUSDEN MURDER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26629, 27 November 1947, Page 7

RUSDEN MURDER

MAIN POINTS REVIEWED ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL CONSIDERATION OF VERDICT TO-DAY ( P.A. AUCKLAND, Nov. 26. The jury will to-morrow consider its verdict in the trial of Mrs Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, who is charged in the Supreme Court with the murder of Mrs Gladys Ruth Rusden at her home in Horotutu road, One Tree Hill, on June 5. Counsel for tiie prosecution and the defence delivered their final addresses to-day, and Mr Justice Callan will sum up in the morning. The jurors spent the whole of their eighth day of the hearing listening to counsels’ submissions. No evidence was called for the accused, and after the Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith, had spent two and a-half hours in a review of the salient points of the case he was followed immediately by the senior defence counsel, Mr Robinson, speaking for over three hours. Mr Robinson completed his address at 5 o’clock, when the court adjourned. The .public galleries were again crowded. . . , , ~ ... Persons who could be held guilty of murder were the person who committed the crime and anyone else who helped, advised, counselled, procured or instigated the murder, said the Crown Prosecutor Mr V. R. S. ( Meredith, addressing the jury to-day in the trial of Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, who is charged with the murder of Mrs Gladys Ruth Rusden. Mr Meredith said that Mrs Rusden was dealt at least five blows. A spanner or small piece of iron could have inflicted the wounds. The blows would not require any great muscular power. The inference was that there had been no struggle and that she had been attackedsuddenly. The attack was no doubt continued after she fell to the floor. The accused and the witness Rix were two people who would not be invited by Mrs Rusden into her house. Anyone possessing a key could enter and attack Mrs Rusden while she was about her household duties. ( After Mrs Rusden’s death, the key to the front door was found in her handbag The other key was later discovered by the police in a drawer in the accused’s bedroom. Probable Time of Murder Dealing with the .probable time of the murder, Mr Meredith said Mrs Rusden must have taken in the niuk from the front gate some time aftei 7.25 a.m. The assault must have occurred somewhere in the vicinity oi 8.30 and 9.30. i. . Rix would not know the inside of the house, as he had neved been in, Mr Meredith continued. Only Rusden or the accused, because she had a key, could enter the place unknown to Mrs Rusden. Rusden was not there. He clocked in at work at 7.34 a.m. He was seen working all day. Referring to the movements of Rix, Mr Meredith said Mrs Clearie, now Mrs Rix, had testified that Rix got up at 7.30 and went to make a telephone call to his employer, who said Rix arrived at work between 8.20 and 8.40. He had gone to the police and made statements. If he was implicated in any way, why should he put his head in the lion’s mouth and tell the police about the previous assault on Mrs Rusden? . Mr Meredith said Rix had testified that the accused had offered him a bar of iron with which to attack Mrs Rusden. Subsequently, a similar iron bar was found in the accused’s wash-house by the police. Mr Meredith suggested that this discovery was .significant.

Unless he was bribed, Rix had no motive, but it was abundantly proved that the accused had a motive, said Mr Meredith. There were her illicit relations with Rusden, her own statement that she was infatuated with him, and evidence had been given of the accused’s hatred for' Mrs Rusden. Submissions for Defence

The defence counsel, Mr M. Robinson, said he did not propose to say he was going to show who committed the ,murder, but would show it was possible that some persons called in court might have committed it. The Crown had failed to establish that the accused did it. Counsel referred to the evidence of Rusden protesting that he did not wish to break up his home, but carrying on adultery after promising his wife not to do so. Mr Robinson asked: Was it conceivable that the accused would engage Rix to perform q murder after such a short association? Was it not possible that he was engaged by someone else? Would the accused go out in a car with Rix on the afternoon of the murder attempt and make an inspection of the locality so that she could be readily identified after the crime had taken place that night? Would Rix do the job without money in advance? After the assault, would the accused get out at the corner of Green Lane road dressed as a soldier and run the risk of being found in the locality? “ I have said that Rix was a potential murderer,” Mr Robinson said. “He does not admit it himself, but there are some things he cannot get away from. Mrs Rusden was on that occasion marked on the throat, and there was an attempt to choke her. llow could she have fallen out of the car, as Rix said? It does not ring true. Does it not seem that the car used in this incident was owned by Rix’s partner and bought bv him only for one purpose? This man has not been produced.”

Dealing with the tragedy on June 5, Mr Robinson said a pathologist, Dr Gilmour, had stated that the wounds could have been inflicted as early as 7 a.m. and the Crown depended upon a schoolboy and a neighbour to show that Mrs Rusden was alive at about 8.30.

Finding of Key

Counsel emphasised that no instrument used in the murder had been found, and no fire could have destroyed it. The prosecution would have the jury believe that the accused committed the murder, destroyed possibly mai'ked clothing and then was foolish enough to leave a key to the Rusden house in her wardrobe, knowing that this would link her with the crime. It was foolish and impossible. The key could have been lost or destroyed a thousand times more easily than the instrument of murder. Rusden had asked the court to believe that he rose on the morning of the tragedy, had breakfast with his wife and left without bringing in the milk billy. He had further stated that his wife was preparing fowls’ food and that dishes were lying about. There was nothing to prove it except his own word. Was the jury satisfied he had not inflicted the injuries on his wife before there were any dishes or fowl feed about? , . Referring to Rix, counsel said his alibi should be fixed not only by people who were relatives, but by other independent witnesses. According to his own story, he got up at 7.10 a.m. and although only 31 minutes away from his business, he decided he was late for work. He went to ring up his employer, taking 20 minutes to half an hour to do what a detective had done in two minutes. The person who had received Rix’s phone call at about 7.50 said it came from a public call box. but she could not say what box. Could it not have come from the neiehbourhood of Horotutu road?

“ Has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered Mrs Rusden? ” counsel con • eluded. “Are not the' matters I have raised open to the gravest suspicion? Does it not convince you that there is such a doubt when there are opportunities for at least two of the witnesses to murder this unfortunate woman? If you think both or either of these men could have done this thing, the law is clear. That there is reasonable doubt is screaming from the mouths of the witnesses themselves.”