THE TRIAL OF CAROLINE WITTING FOR MURDER.

Southland Times, Issue 1669, 29 November 1872, Page 3

THE TRIAL OF CAROLINE WITTING FOR MURDER.

We now supply the speeches at the recent trial of Caroline Witting for the murder of her three children, which our limits did not permit of our producing at the time : — MB WADE'S DEVKITC-B. Q-entlemen of the Jury — It would appear from the evidence we hare heard that the prisoner at the bar, having no particular motive to commit an unusual act, took four of her children, with the alleged intention of going to look for a co\r, about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 19th October last. According to the evidence of the child who states that she was thrown into the water, the conduct of the prisoner showed no excitement ; she simply took the children to the creek, and without any display of temper, it being then nine hours' later than a quarrel she bad had with her husband in the morning — after this lapse of time, and without any assigned motive, it would appear that she took her children, her own flesh and blood, to the creek, and then deliberately put them into the river one after another, thus causing the death of three of them. If there were no other evidence than this, the evidence of the child, and of those who deposed to the unhappy domestic differences between the husband and wife, I do not think that you could come to any other conclusion than that if iuch an act were committed, the prisoner must have been mad at the time. You would naturally believe, gentlemen, that the woman who committed such an act waa mad, and the supposition so formed would be an extremely strong one, 80 strong that almost any corroborative evidence, showing that the woman's mental health at the time was somewhat different from other people's, or that there was anything unusual or unaccountable in her demeanor, not consistent with a proper healthy state of mmd — this supposition would probably be converted into something very like a settled opinion that insanity did exist in the mind of the accused. The evidence that will lead you to come to this conclusion is - as follows : — There is something, however slight, in- the evidence of the doctor, who stated that she was in a low or desponding state of mind. , 1x0m,.. any -indication of madness shown at a prior time, coupled with indications of madness "alter the ; circumstances of the act, you will be naturally led to the conclusion that madness was the cause of the act itself. The doctor's evidence.

indeed, was by no means strong in itself, nor that of the matron of the hospital, but they both showed either an indication of incipient madness, or a fear on the part of the patient at the time that, her mental condition might develope into nw'nrsf, which is by no means an uncommon indication of n Intent evil which ultimately, as a matter of fact, does develope into madness She fi-nrpil something about her heart by which she wrulrl be led to do something hereafter that wouH cot. her into trouble. The evidence of Mr Perkins showed that both before and after her admittance into the hospital she showed a wandering of intellect. Another indication whi-jh will lead you to believe that she was not in a previously sound ptafe of mind is to be found in the evidence of Mr Dyer. Mr Dyer relates circumstances which, though they did not lead him at the time to suspect mental derangement, do, at any rate read in the light of subsequent events, furnish an indication that her mind wns unbalanced. But the evidence for the prosecution is much stronger on this point than that led for the defence, and the only object of showing, as was done for the defence, that her mind was previously unhinged, was to give further effect to the evidence given by those gentlemen who first came into contact with the accused immediately after the act. Mr Morton's evidence was to the effect that the Saturday night during which Btie was out in the bush wns a severe winter night. Mr Fox stated that there were violent shower* of rain and hail, and that it was blowing hard, and bitterly cold. She was out io this weather nearly 24 hours after she left her house, probably without food, and very imperfectly clothed. When Mr Morton Baw_her, her appearance was, to use his own expression," as if her superior faculties were suspended," r.o 1 doubt meaning her intellects, " her eves glared, and she had the appearance of a wild animal rather than of a reasoning being." She had taken eff her gown, an incomprehensible proceeding, more like the act of a mad person than of a sane being. She was also found deprived of her stockings, which, according to the evidence of her daughter, she had on in the morning. ( 1 Why did she t»ke off her stockings ? Another incomprehensible act ! Can you conceive, gentlemen, that any person with even a glimmer of sense would deliberately take off her stockings, and go about that wild winter night without even j the protection which these stockings would have been ? Further, Mr Morton says that her mind appeared to wander, lhat she always broke off the conversation, and did not appear to be in a sane condition. When Mr Fox arrived he described her as being in a condition which he states was as -wretched as that of acy human being ho had 1 ever seen ; and Mr Pox, gentlemen, must in the course of his experience have seen a good deal of human misery and wretchedness. It ma v be suggested that this was a mere attempt to feign insanity. Mr Fox's experience, however, would render it very likely that he would at once detect any attempt to simulate madness, a thing, let me I tell you, gentlemen, exceedingly difficult to do. But be did not suspect any such design. Arter she had a little refreshment her state of health was apparently verj considerably improved, but there was no perceptible improvement in her mental condition. I will ask you, gentlemen, to avoid falling into a common error, the idea, namely, that madness always shows itself by premonitory symptoms. The disease of the mind which we call madness is as yet very imperfectly understood. There are circumstances recorded in which sudden madness has occurred without any premonitory symptoms at all. A case occurred within my own knowledge in whic'.i a young lady went suddenly deranged without the slightest premonitory symptom, and the description given by Mr Morton of this poor woman's appearance brought the circumstance vivid'y to my mind. But it passed away, and left no apparent trace behind. This shows, gentlemen, that madness may arise suddenly, without producing any premonitory symptoms. such at least as ordinary p reons would be likely to notice. The children, particularly liltle children, would not be likely to notice them, for the simple reason that their mother is the standard by which little children judge other people, and accordingly they would be far more likely to conclude, if they saw anything strange in her, that all other people were like her in that respect, rather than that she was different from them. If you wish a cause suggested, gentlemen, for this madness, I say that the unhuppy life which the poor woman led with her husband might have the effect of culminating in insanity which renders her irresponsible for her actions. Such unhappiness is in 'act or.c of the causes which do lead to insanity. Under all these circumetances, I ask you, gentlemen, knowing the stute that the woman was in at. the time — knowing the I indications that she had given beforehand of a tendency at any rate to a diseased state of mmd — knowing that after these children were drowned — as there is no doubt they were — th : s unforiunate creature had wandered about in a wintry ni^ht, in which no being with even a glimmer of sense could have endured to remain out exposed to the weather — you must remember it yourselves, and will conclude that any person who could deliberately stop out on a night like that must be , mad — can you believe, gentlemen, taking all these circumstances into consideration, that she was responsible for her acts on that eventful afternoon ? Is it capable of belief that such a thing could be done ? Can you from the evidence placed be'ore you come ti> any other conclusion than that the woman was mad ? I cannot. The conclusion will probably occur to your minds that even if she is mad she is of homicidal tendencies, and that if you acquit her, she may go forth and do more mischief again. But there is provision made by the law against suuh a risk, and even if there were not, it is no part of your duty, it is ths part of the legisla* ure, to provide again-t such danger. If you are satisfied from the evidence that this woman put her children into the river, but that she was not responsible for her acts when she did so. it will be your dwy to bring in a verdict of ' Not Guilty ' on the j ground of insanity. The r-fter treatment of the prisoner will be attended to without further consideration from you. With such a belief as to her state of mind this will be your duty, whatever the consequences to the prisoner or to society. Gentlemen, I leave the interests of my client in your hands, with every confidence that that duly you will impartially and faithfully discharge. MB HAKVET'S ADDBESS. Q-entlemen, — The question with which the learned counsel for the prisoner has concluded his address, " Can you believe it is possible ?" may be easily replied to by the axiom that anything that is capable of being proved by sufficient evidence is capable of belief. We often find that serious crimes are committed, of which it is almost impossible to believe that any intelligible motive can be assigned for their commission. In the case now before you, it is my duty to tell you that of the committal of the crime there can be no reasonable doubt. There can be no question that this unhappy woman succeeded in drowning three of her children, and attempted to drown a fourth. The evidence is co clear and conclusive on this point, that I feel it would be a mere waste of time were I to endeavor to comment upon it. I will not therefore do so, but will confine myself to the question which you will have to deal with, the plea of insanity which has been set ap for the defence, and on behalf of the Crown it ia now my duty to show you that that plea has signally failed. It is not necessary for me, on behalf of the Crown, to prove or even suggest a motive for the act which has been proved against the prisoner. Under correction from His Honor, and I think His Honor will bear me out, the absence of motive is no ground on which to rest a plea of insanity. It has never been possible, in the case of a vast proportion of the most serious crimes, to assign a sufficient i motive for their commission. In casea of murder, the crime has sometirres been committed from motives of revenge, sometimes for purposes of gain ; but, in a large number of cases, there has ! been no possibility of assigning any motive whatever, while yet no plea ot insanity has been sustained, or even set up. The law further requires, to sustain such a defence, that the insanity should be clearly proved, and that the

proof should go to show that the insanity actually existed at the very time the crime was committed. It will not do to show that the prisoner was insane ton months before, or even ten days before, or that she was insane after the deed was perpetrated. This will not do ; even if the proof were clear, and the evidence distinct, it would not nvail if it did not refer to the time of the act itself. But I need not tell you that the proof that the prisoner was ever insane at all. is by no means clear, nor the evidence distinct. Far from it. On what proofs of insanity does the learned counsel for the prisoner depend ? First, there is the appearance and conduct of the prisoner when npprehendpd ; and second, the evidence of the Hospital Matron and others as to certain illnesses of the prisoner some considerable timo prior to the date of the commission of the crime. The evidence of the children as to her condition in the morning an! during the day before she left the house, is that they observed nothing unusual in her appearance and manner. I cannot a r ree with the learned counsel that children are unlikely to observe a difference in the conduct of their mother, because, a 9 he says, she is the standard by which they judge all other women. No doubt she is, in the case of young children especially ; hut I hold that on this very account th<*v would be even more likely to marlc any variation from her usual demeanor, any perceptible change in that standard to which they had unconsciously been accustomed to appeal. And the evidence of the children is the only evidence we have as to her condition on that particular day. We have, therefore, no proof of insanity even on the day that the act was committed, not to press further "-re question of time. The evidence of her grown-up son, rhe evidence of the children who observed her up to four o'clock, the evidence of the little girl who went with her as she left the house, to what does it all tend ? To this, gentlemen, and to nothing else, — that she calmly, coolly, and deliberately selected the four youngest children, the four she could master, quietly and coolly she collects them and takes them with her, and she gives a feasible reason, to look for a cow. Afterwards — and to this fact I call your special attention , as showing a calm calculation of chances — she removes her gown, folds it carefully, and place? it on the stump of a tree for safety. Does this look like the act of a woman who had lost her reason ? To me it seems as if she then had the determination of carrying out this crime on her mind , and that she removed her dress to prevent it being marked or stained, with the intention of putting it on afterwards when she returned. Her ac f s, when she committed the crime, showed an amount of clear reasoning, in first putting in the eldest, whom she considered might be most capable of resiotancci then dashing in the child which she held in her arms, and then the other two ; all these systematic acts showed an amount of di'liberate planning incompatible with insanity. Then we ha^e the evidence of the medical man who attended her in the hospital, but who never surmised even that she was insane. Can you, as reasonable men, for one moment come to the conclusion that at this time the prisoner was insane ? Certainly nok. \e*y Well, then, what are the other points relied on to prove her insanity ? Her strange manner when she was found by Morton. Gentlemen, I put it to you, if the woman had a human mind, and human heart, in what other state would you expect to find her ? Here we have the action of a woman, perfectly sane, horrified at her own act, remaining concealed in the bush through a wild, wintry night. Are you surprised that when found next day by Morton, the expression of her eyes should be described as the expression of those of a wild animnl ? What other expression would you expect to find in the eyes of a woman who but a few hours before had murdered her own children ? To entitle you, gentlemen, to return a verdict of not guilty on the plea of insanity, it must bo made out to your satisfaction that at the time she committed the crime with whioh she is charged, she w»9 incapable of understanding what she w«8 doing, or if she did understand, she did not know she was doing wrong. No evidence has been called to show what the state of her mird has been since her apprehension. Why are the gaoler an '. the m itron of the gaol not calle i ? The only evidence we hive is that of pariies who sjw her manner under the influence of the hi<jh excitement that followed on that wild night in the rush. It is therefore my duty (o state to you, an) I rpgr t it, that the plea of insanity has utterly failed. Now as to the motive. It is no part of the duty of the Oown to euguest a motive, but it appears to me that it is very likely that we have not got the whole truth regarding what passed in the morning. It may be that she received extreme provocation. It had frequently been thrown up to her that Bhe was fonder of other men than of her husband, and I put it to you, as at least a possible motive for this crime, that from the woman's outraged feelings after this imputation of want of faithfulness to her husband, her passion had carried her away, and, with a determination and a coolness, which, in> the case of women committing such acts, men seldom equal, she perpetrated the murders with which she is charged. 1 believe if a motive is to be found for the commission of this unhappy offence, it is there. I believe that in a moment of excitement, urged on by passion, she committed this crime. I put it to you, therefore, that it will be your duty to find the prisoner guilty of wilful murder. THE JTTDOK'S CHAEGB. Gentlemen, — It would be no great stretch of imagination were I to say that the circumstances you have heard narrated to-day are in all probability the most painful that have ever been brought under your notice, andthatyou will now ha\ c to perform one of the most painful duties that you have probably been ever csiLed on to perform, and, I sincerely hope, that you may ever be called on to perform again. When we hear the circumstances of the crime with which the prisoner is charged, they are so revolting to the ordinary feelings of a woman to her offspring, judging of them by the feelings with which we of our own sex usually regard our children, and giving woman credit, as we naturally do, for more tender feelings than our own, the first impression on our minds is that there must have been some mental derangement existing in the mind of the prisoner at the time. But that impression is one which we must discard. It assails us when we hear of some atrocious or unusual crime, and it is natural that it should do so ; but let me remind you thttt you are sworn to determine the case on tho evidence which hns been brought before you, and on no other consideration whatever. Feeling must be banished. I do not mean to say that you are to harden your hearts as men, and banish those feelings of compassion which all must feel to the poor creature, the prisoner at the bar. But what I mean is this, that as an ingredient in your verdict compassion must be kept out of sight altogether. As to the facts, it would be a waste of time to suppose that you could come to any other conclusion than that these poor children came to their deaths from no other cause than the act of the prisoner at the bar. The principal witnesses were children, but children a 6 a rule give their evidence very distinctly. The case rests almost entirely on the evidence of the young girl who escaped, but it is confirmed by other circumstances. You will have very little doubt in giving credit to her testimony, and even to every word that came from her lips. From what motive such an act was committed we cannot imagine. Nor is it necessary to discover a motive when the act itself is clearly proved. When the act itself is somewhat doubtful, as when an apparently accidental fire occurs, and the tenant is charged with setting fire to the premises, the discovery of an adequate motive may add strength to the chain of evidence by which the act itself is brought home to the perpetrator. But in a case where the evidence is clear, specific, and intelligible, it is not necessary for the Crown to supply evidence oi any motive at all. If, for instance, a man were seen in the street to strike another with an axe and kill him on the spot, what need for a court of justice to enquire into his motive P to hear whether it were jealousy, hatred, or revenge ? The act itself constitutes the crime, and it is for the prisoner or his counsel to supply facts which will amount to a justification. Assuming then

that you accept the evidence of the little girl who escaped, I now come to the defence. The defence is insanity. I must caution you that you must not draw any inference from the nature of the act itself. It does raise the supposition that something of a morbid character operated on the woman's mind, but that is not enough. The law requires that insanity should be proved by competent witnesses, and that the pi oof should attach to the very moment that the act was committed. If the evidence had shown that the woman was mad — it may have been from puerperal mania — eleven months before, that would not have proved insanity on the 19th of October. It would have been important if there had been proof of insanity on the 19th of October itself, for that would have strengthened the proof of insanity at the time of the act itself. But taken alone, what does all the evidence for the defence amount to ? Scarcely that the woman wns out of an ordinary condition of mind. That she was dull and out of spirits, but no more. When Dr Grigor was asked, Tery properly, whether she had symptoms of puerperal mania, what was his answer ? " No, nothing of the kind." And even if it had been proved that she was afflicted with puerperal mania at the time of the birth of her youngest child, that mania is usuallj of very short duration, of a peculiar nature in itself, and does not necessarily lead to insanity at any other time. On women who are afflicted with that distressing disorder passing the period of child-bearing, generally speaking it subsides altogether. At all events the proof, even if it had been led, of such a disease existing ten months before, would not do at all. lo find the prisoner not guilty on the ground of insanity, you must be convinced that at the time she committed the act Bhe was in such a state of mental derangement as to be incapable of knowing what she was about, or knowing it, not to know that it was wrong. The question for you to consider thus clear\y divides itself in two branches : whether at the time the act was committed the prisoner was in such a state of mental derangement as to be ignorant either of the nature of the act she was committing, or, supposing the prisoner at the bar was well enough to know the nature of the act she was committing, she was so deranged as not to know whether it was right or wrong. From the opinions of the English judges delivered to the House of Lords in answer to certain questions put to them in consequence of the acquittal in M'Nagh ten's case, I quote the answer to the second and third. The second question was, " What are proper questions to be submitted to the jury where a perßon alleged to be afflicted with insane delusions respecting one or more particular subjects or persons is charged with the commission of a crime (murder for example) and insanity is set up as a defence ?" and the third, "In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury as to the prisoner's state of mind at the time when the act was committed ?" The answer was — "The jury ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to poggesg a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for hia crimes until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction, and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he wbb doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know whether he was doing what was wrong." It is for you to decide either that tho woman did not, when she was committing this act, know its nature ; or, supposing that she knew that she was killing the children at all, she did not know whether it was right or wrong. The only evidence we have at all of the woman's state of mind is that of Mr Samuel Morton, and, slightly, that of Sub-Inspoctor Fox. The passage in Mr Morton's evidence is this, and you will recollect she had been out in a very cold and stormy night, having put her children to death, wandering about without food, and with very insufficient clothing, c uses in themselves almost enough to produce a wandering wild state of mmd — Mr Morton says, " She looked wild " (this is 24 'hours afterwards, gentlemen), " 1 thought all her superior faculties were suspended; she looked with the wildness of an animal ; her eye glared ; she broke off conversation suddenly ; she trembled ; she broke off conversation suddenly" (he repeated it twice); "for instance, when talking about Albert's dog Bhe suddenly broke off. and said she was afraid her husban.i would beat her. I thought she was ir.sane, and spoke soothingly to her, as I should to an insane person." The only other evidence is that of Mr Fox, who saw her shortly afterwards. It is not so strong. " Her appearance was most wretched. I told her the charge against her, and ahe made some unintelligible muttering." It is for you to say whether, taking all these facts, detailed by both Morton and Inspector Fox, whether all these appearances were not such as would be not at all unlikely to arise after the event— after the woman had committed and recollected the act, and then wandered about for 24 hours in that dreadful season of the year, snow on the ground, hailing, wind, and equinoctial gales — you will probably recollect the period — ill clad as she was, without food for 24 hours, in a state of extreme wretchedness in her appearance — it is for you to say whether all these circumstances, to which she had been exposed during these 24 hours, were not sufficient to produce the wildnese which Morton describes, and whether you can feel yourselves conscientiously justified in saying — on evidence 24 hours after the /act — in saying that she was deranged, and that she either was not aware of the nature of the act itself, or did not know whether it was right or wrong. What was her conduct before the actP There was a quarrel between her and her husband. We hear from the eldest son that the father and mother were constantly quarrelling and bickering together. He taunted her with being fonder of other men than of himself, her husband, and left her in anper. When he left her she was crying. No doubt her mind must have been ill-regulated. No person commits crime with a well-regulated mind, but it does not follow that the criminal does not know whether he is doing wrong or right. She goes about the house all day. Nothing unusual is seen in her manner. Mr Wade suggests that to these children, their mother would be the standard from which they would judge all other women, and that they would be incapable of judging whether there were anything unusual in her manner or not. It seems to me that hia very proposition involves a contradiction. If the mother is the children's standard under the ordinary circumstances of life, and no doubt she is so, they would be more alive to anything ex- j traordinary in her conduct. All the children concur in the same evidence, that they observed nothing unusual about the mother that day. Well, she goes out, about 4 o'clock, and takes the three children with her, carrying the fourth, her baby, in her arms. What is her conduct then ? When she gets part of the way to the creek, she divests herself of part of her clothing — and I wish you to mark this, to view it as a possibility to lead us to conjecture what her intention was at the time — she takes the strongest one first and pushes her into the water. How the poor child got out of the creek seems almost a miracle. She can hardly tell how she got out. But when she got out she saw and heard all that took place — and I wish you to couple this with the conduct of the woman in divesting herself of part of her clothing, and saying to the children, "Go down, co down. 1 will come to you." Is it not possible that she left the house with the intention of destroying herself after she had killed the children ; but when she came to the last stage she was afraid to complete the act ? There is a possibility, if not a probability, of this, as an explanation of the act which has taken place. There is no need to couple this with an insane, but with a disordered mind. The man who steals a purse has not a sane, that is, a healthy mind ; but if we were to couple all such variations from the healthy standard with the effects of insanity, we should never be able to punish crime at all. To justify an acquittal on the ground of insanity, the jury must be able to come to the conclusion that the prisoner at the time the offence was committed was in such a state of mind as to be

incapable of understanding the nature of the net she was committing, or, if she understood it, of knowing that it was wrong. This is all, I believe, to which I need call you* attention. I have already stated that the Crown is not bound to furnish a motive for a crime that is proved. We cannot expect children, speaking of their parents, to speak Very strongly of their faults. Even in a court of justice, where we expect to get the whole truth, we should probably bo disgusted with children who would give it to vs } and in such cases we ought not to expect to hear the whole truth. But what we got was this ; that the father and mother lived a wretched life, that he was taunting her in a way I need not repeat) and that when he left her she was crying. I think there is a probability that she did intend to include herself in the sacrifice she was making, but when the tittle came, the love of life prevailed ; and that afterwards ( having escaped from the seme, her wandering about the whole of these 24 hours in the cold weather may possibly have been sufficient to account for the appearances described by Morton and Fox. I leave that to your judgment. If you believe that she was not able to judge of the nature of her act, or if able, that she did not know that it was wrong, you will find her not guilty on the ground of insanity. On the other hand, if you think that defence has not been established, and belieWng the other evidence as to the facts, jou will find her guilty. There is no medium. The offence is either murder, Or it is nothing at all. Gentlemen, I leave you to your deliberations. Our readers are already aware that a verdict of " Guilty" was returned, and that the unhappy woman was sentenced to death.