THE MONTE CARLO TRIAL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, 21 January 1908, Page 7

THE MONTE CARLO TRIAL.

CLOSING SCENES. A correspondent, describing the cosing scenes at the trial of the Goolds, for the murder of Mme. Levin at -Monte Carlo, on August 4th, says:— The Court was crowded when the Advocat-General, M. Allain, began his speech for the prosecution. For some time he occupied himsef in going: once more over the Goolds’ life history. Everything possibe was raked up against them. It was when he came to the actual narration of the murder, as he imagined it to have been committed, that the Advocat-General’s dramatic gift was given the rein. He'~stormed at the prisoners opposite him. He raised his voice high in horrified contemplation of their crime; he dropped it impressively as he described the furniture of Mrs Goold’s bedroom, including “mosquito curtains of virginal whitenesshe ran over the gamut of all the emotions except pity; “piled up the agony” as high as he could; and worked himself up into a, passion of abuse. A DREADFUL SCENE.

The spectators clearly enjoyed - it. “Qu’ilparle bien, ” they whispered. “Regardez la femme Goold. ” The unhappy woman was, indeed, in a desperate state. She had maintained her statuesque position while M. Allain accused her vehemently of taking part in the murder, while he dwelt upon the loathsome details of the cutting up and packing away of the body, while he thundered at her the question, “How could you sit and eat your dinner with the head and legs of your victim underneath the table?” She almost seemed to smile when he contrasted in moving tones the noble behaviour of the members of the “classe laborieuse” who caused the Goolds to be arrested, in spite of the offer of heavy “tips” with the atrocious act of this degraded “baronet,” who, nevertheless, still retained, he admitted, some traits ‘* de gentleman. ’ ’ But by the time lie came to the question of the punishment to be demanded Mrs Goold’s strength had begun to give way, and when, with outstretched arm and malevolent gaze, he accused her husband of attempting to shelter her from justice she broke into hysterical cries.

It was a horrible scene. As my eyes rested upon the crucified figure hanging behind the president’s chair, I could not help wondering how Christ would have dealt with such malefactors as these. Qf one thing, at any rate, I am certain. Nothing could be less in accord with the spirit of Christianity than such torture iniflcted even upon the most hardened criminals. In conclusion, the death sentence was demanded against both, the chief points M. Allain relied upon to convict Mrs Goold of direct complicity being—first, that she invited Mme. Levin to tea; secondly, that she changed her clothes after the crime ; thirdly, |that there were on her body marks indicating a struggle. ; fourthly, that Mme. Levin’s wounds could not have been inflicted by one person ; fifthly, that Goold could not have used boch the large and the small knives himself; and finally, that Mrs Goold could not have been out of the room when her husband received Mme. Levin, because two liqueur glasses had been used, and it was not ‘likely that a whisky-drinker like Goold would take kirsch. MOVING DEFENCE. In striking contrast to the weak voice and factitious indignation, obviously assumed, of the official advocate, who was nevertheless doing his duty under a system utterly foreign to English ideas, were the vigorous utterances and masculine sincerity of Goold’s counsel, Maitre Kunemaun. Eloquently, but without any taint of theatricalism, he put forward eveiy possible argument in his client’s favour. I have written “his client” but in our sense of the word the relations between them are not really those of counsel and client at all. Maitre Kunemann was appointed to make out the best case he could for the male prisoner, but he stated distinctly that the only direct instruction he had received was to denounce as an insulting invention the statement that Mrs Goold was Goold’s mistress before she became his wife. As a matter of fact, Maitre Kunemann took entirely his own line. He described the crime as it appeared to him to have been committed, but he did not give by any means the same account of it as Goold himself. He suggested that the idea of stunning and robbing Mme. Levin originated with Mrs! Goold, who induced her husband to j conspire with her to carry it out. i He further invited the Court to believe that when Goold failed to stun Ms victim and, in a state of terror and desperation, stabbed 'her to stop onies, Mows were also struck by Mrs Goold. (Both these views were an direct conflict with Goold’s own statements. INdMDNTS. life was at «tkis point that Mrs Goold was seized with -another -distressing fit of weeping, and, to -the everlasting shame of the people of Monaco, it must be chronicled that the -crowd in court greeted her choked exclamation, “Chest terrible,' 5 ’ with laughter and goers. Reference was made fey Maitre Burtarin at the ©utset of his speech on behalf of Mrs Goold to this -inflamed and malevolent public opinion against'which the prisoners had f t® contend. They stood, he pleaded, absolutely alone, deserted even by their ueece, their adopted daughter. Their pitiable position surely called for sympathy, irf not indulgence. 1 That Mrs Goold -.was the “ame maitresse” her husband coald not! deny, any more than lie could deuyj that the murder was committed, but' ‘■fee did moat strenuously contest the theory of the prosecution that the oiiime was planned foy Mrs Goold. Ifjwas clear Ao his mied that there was no premeditation at all. The penal code defined premeditation as design formed before action, and there was not «. tittle of -evidence to show that eit&er prisoner had a ay idea ©f killing Mme. Levin beforehand. Then Maitre Barbarin gave his version of the sinister event. In a pleasantly modulated voice and with skillfully phrased explanations, he elaborated the theory that Goold struck Mme. Levin with the pestle in order to stun and job her, but that the fatal blow was delivered in a fit of drunken madness in order to stop her cries, and that all Mrs Goold did was to help her husband to endeavour to escape the consequences of his shocking and insane act. Then the prisoners were asked if they had anything further to say. Go*ld shook his head and answered.

casually glancing to right and left, ‘‘No, no. ’’ His wife replied firmlj, ‘ ‘ Non, Monsieur le President. ’ ’ Thereupon the judges left the court to consider the verdict. GOOLDS’ LAST FAREWELL, Follows a period of tedious expectation tor the audience. But what must be *the state of mind of the prisoners? Are they contrasting their position a few mouths ago, when as Sir Vere and Lady Goold they weie rich in acquaintances, free, and —more important still—unburdened with horrible memories? Are they stupefied by the change in their circumstances, or are they thinking of the future? Mrs Goold even in the midday interval, has spoken to several journalists of the possibility of her acquittal, and of starting again in business. Whether her hus-band-was under any such illusions is far more doubtful. The only words he has been heard to speak to his wife during the trial are, “God keep you,” which he murmured as they were both brought into court this morning. That they were sincere no one could doubt who saw the glances of solicitude he cast towards his wife in the moments of her intense suffering. Did he mean them in the nature of a farewell? If so, he had ajiruer presentiment of the situation than she. For at five minutes past seven, after an hour and three-quarters’ discussion, the members of the tribunal returned, and the president read out with long, legal formalities, which in the circumstances of suspense seemed terribly cruel, sentences of death on the woman and hard labour in perpetuity on the man. With a haunting shriek of “I am innocent” she fell back in the arms of the warders. Goold merely nodded his head and looked pitifully at his wife. Never, surely, has a sentence of death been pronounced with less direct evidence of guilt.