CASE FOR DEFENCE

Southland Times, Issue 21088, 21 May 1930, Page 5

CASE FOR DEFENCE

MUNN MURDER TRIAL : MR NORTHCROFT COMMENCES ADDRESS ACCUSED TO ENTER WITNESS BOX (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 20. The announcement that accused would later go into the witness box was made in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr Northcroft in opening the case for the defence of Arthur Thomas Munn, who is charged with the murder of his wife, Lillie May Munn, at Northcote, on February 11. “Munn is determined to face his accusers and say that he did not do this thing with which he is charged,” said his counsel. After the hearing of one further witness who gave evidence relative to the result of an analysis of two pills found in a bottle in a drawer in a duchess at Munn’s house, Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, closed his case. The remainder of the day’s sitting was occupied with Mr Northcroft’s opening address. Mr Northcroft spoke for four hours and still has considerable ground to cover before leading his evidence. Mr Northcroft argued that the conduct of accused was not consistent with the allegation that he had slowly poisoned his wife. Counsel also attacked certain of the medical evidence, claiming that the convulsions suffered by Mrs Munn did not necessarily conform to the type induced by strychnine poisoning, but might have been caused by blood pressure. At the time of the adjournment, Mr Northcroft was propounding what he termed “alternative solutions to a very difficult problem” to show that there were other possible hypotheses to explain how Mrs Munn came to die from strychnine poisoning. Mr Northcroft said that whether Mrs Munn had one of a number of doses of strychnine was a matter of extreme importance on which the Crown case was based. Dr Gunson, blood pressure specialist, had stated under cross-examination that Mrs Munn’s high blood pressure arose from some other condition present before February 4. “Doctors All at Fault.” The effect was far-reaching because it showed that the doctors were all at fault and negatived, if not entirely, disproved that Mrs Munn received frequent doses of strychnine. The Crown had not set out to prove that in all the circumstances it was the proper conclusion that Munn, with, criminal intent, administered strychnine to his wife, and that accused had a motive. However much motive the jury decided had been shown, Mr Northcroft said that the necessity of the Crown to prove with reasonable evidence that Munn's hand administered the strychnine was not overcome. Mr Northcroft said that Munn’s meeting with the other jvoman was in October and the poisoning occurred four months later, the strychnine being purchased three months before it was used. “These are the sort of circumstances on which the Crown asks you to say Munn is guilty,” added counsel. Mr Northcroft went on to state that having found a substitute for his wife, and having had her will prepared, Munn still waited for a month or six weeks before he carried his plan into effect. A more abominable and hideous proceeding it would be hard to imagine, and so revolting that it is not worthy of credit, unless mere suspicions are proved by substantial evidence. Counsel submitted Munrt had no knowledge of poisons. Strychnine poisoning entailed a lingering death with most marked and distinct symptoms, and it was difficult to imagine anyone would take poison which could be readily detected by a medical man and traced in a post mortem examination. A man intending to carry out murder by poisoning, he suggested, would be more likely to seek out a poison obscure in its symptoms and difficult to detect. Munn, he said, was represented as having undertaken his abominable task of poisoning his wife under the eyes of a doctor and yet before a neighbour could arrive. Munn had gone for medical attention for his wife. A murderer might take a risk with an old outback medico, but not so with a live and fresh doctor of Dr Dudding’s type. Munn had arranged that the doctor should drop in at any time. If accused was the murderer, that was the last thing he would have permitted to occur. Instead, he would have been rushing along to the doctor to tell him Mrs Munn was doing well and to conceal his purpose. The most important and amazing difficulty in accepting the Crown’s case was that there was no attempt to raise the defence of ■suicide. Some scheme of justification must have been developed concurrently with the poisoning itself. It was clear this was not done. The Police Visits. Mr Northcroft asked the jury to consider Munn’s attitude when the police visited him the day after his wife’s death. Munn, who, according to the police had only completed the horrible task of poisoning his wife, answered the detective’s questions readily when one would expect him to be wary and distraught. When inquiries were made for poison, Munn could with complete propriety have refused to answer further interrogation until he consulted his solicitor, but he replied freely and frankly. The same applied to the police visit on Saturday, whereas if accused was guilty he might well have fled from the country. Counsel referred to the way Munn purchased the poison and how there was evidence that the place was infested with rats. Mrs Munn was not the hopeless invalid Mr Meredith would lead them to believe. Munn said his wife was out of bed on occasions, and Dr Dudding had said there was no reason why she could not have got out of bed. Another point on which the Crown relied was the finding of a bottle with two pills., There was an extraordinary mystery, about the pills which on analysis proved to be nux vomica. “What connection can the pills have with the case?” asked Mr Northcroft. “Munn will tell you the pifls lay in the drawer year after year, and that the search made by the detectives Was not made properly.” Continuing, Mr Northcroft said: “Ordinarily I might be disposed to say there is no case, but Munn is determined to stand before you and say these allegedly suspicious circumstances are not suspicious at all. He desires to stand before his accusers and say ‘I didn’t do it,’ and ask ‘what justification have you for saying it’ ? He is not prepared to leave it to his solicitor to explain away the suspicious circumstances. Since his arrest, Munn has been in prison without bail, and everything that had to be done in preparation of his case had to be by proxy. He not only had been faced with this handicap, but had suffered constriction of mind through lying in gaol day and night undergoing the ordeal before facing a jury of fellow citizens. Munn is prepared to go into the box and will do so to answer questions which the Crown Prosecutor can put to him with all his skill to prove the suspicions groundless.” Two possible solutions of a very difficult problem would be presented by the defence, said Mr Northcroft. The first was the hypotheses of suicide. Where was the police theory that the woman had had repeated doses of strychnine ? They were without the skilled observation of a doctor who might have distinguished between a convulsion from blood pressure and a convulsion from strychnine. There was the gravest doubt whether Mrs Munn had strychnine on any day prior to < the fatal day. That disposed of the criticism of the suicide theory to the effect that after having taken one dose, she would certainly not take another.

Counsel said he was not prepared to offer any substantial reason why Mrs Munn should have committed suicide, but that did not exclude the possibility. Mr Northcroft was still discussing this when the Court adjourned till to-morrow.