SENSATIONAL TRIAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 January 1921, Page 10

SENSATIONAL TRIAL.

POISON -Jr DRAMATIC INCIDENTS DURING! ’ PROCEEDINGS. , , ' , A DOCTOR’S MISTAKE. It was briefly mentioned in recent cables that sensational developments occurred during the hearing of the charge of murdering his wife preferred against Greenwood, a solicitor, of Kidwelly, Wales, and for which he was ultimately acquitted. Additional details are now -to hand:—FIGURES IN THE DRAMA Harold Greenwood, solicitor, charged with murdering his first wife, Mabel, by administering arsenic. Mrs Greenwood, who married the prisoner 15 weeks after his first wife’s e death. Formerly Miss Gladys Jones, daughter of a Llanelly public man. Dr. Griffiths, late Mrs Greenwood’s medical adviser, whose evidence was the sensational feature of the hearing. Nurse Jones, who attended Mrs Greenwood in her last illness. Miss Phillips, an intimate friend of the dead woman, whose evidence was an important feature of the Crown case. Mr. Justice Shearman. Sir Edward Marlay Samson, counsel for the Crown. Sir Edward Marshall Hall, K.C., counsel for the defence. Sir Edward Marlay Samson, the Crown Prosecutor, delivered an eloquent address, in which he outlined the facts concerning Mrs. Greenwood’s death on June 16, 1919, the exhumation of the body in April last, and the verdict of the coroner’s jury against Greenwood, followed by his arrest on June 16 last. FRIEND’S STORY. An important witness was Miss Florence Lorraine Phillips, who was very friendly with Mrs. Greenwood. She said Greenwood was very fond of making his wife jealous and irritated her, and that caused unpleasantness. On June 15, the day before Mrs. Greenwood’s death, witness said she went to the house after church at about one o’clock. The family were having lunch. Mrs. Greenwood came out and spoke to her. She looked very ill. She i asked witness to go to supper, and wit- ■ ness went to the house again about a I quarter past seven in the evening. ■ Gfeenwood then told her his wife was i ill, and asked her to go upstairs. She ■ did so, and then went to fetch the dis- ■ triet nurse, Miss Jones. Counsel: Greenwood has said it was . he who asked you to 1 go for the nurse, j Is that true? Witness: No. No one suggested it to me. Witness said that she returned to Rumsey House after she got the nurse. Dr. Griffiths was there. She went into the kitchen to get hot water. Greenwood came into the kitchen once or twice while she was there. She remained in the kitchen until supper time. “On the table at supper,” said Miss Phillips, “I noticed a small flask at the seat where Mrs. Greenwood sat. I did not see any bottle of wine of any sort. I had never seen the flask before.” At eight o’clock the nurse asked for the doctor, and Greenwood volunteered to go and get him. After an hour had elapsed witness saw from a window the doctor and Greenwood coming back. In cross-examination Sir Edward Marshall Hall asked:— If Irene (prisoner’s daughter) says there was a bottle of wine on the table and that she had some of it, it would not be true?—No. Witness added that she remembered positively there was no bottle of wine for the reason that there usually was some, and she missed it. Are you positive that Irene drank water?—l think she drank water. Are you sure she did not drink wine? —I am certain she did not drink wine, because if she had I would have had some of it. When were you asked to say specifically whether or not there was a bottle of wine on the table?—l cannot tell you. Not before November?— l would think not before November.

NURSE’S EVIDENCE. • Elizabeth Lewis Jones, the Kidwelly district nurse, who attended Mrs. Greenwood at the time of her death, said she was sent to Rumsey House by Miss Phillips. When she arrived later, Mrs. Greenwood was in bed in a serious state of collapse. She told Greenwood she would like him to send for a doctor. He went out, and returned in about three-quar-ters of an hour. Greenwood, she said, spoke to Mrs. Greenwood from time to time, and asked if she felt better. She replied, v No.” Later he said he could not rouse the doctor. Witness then went and knocked at the door. Dr. Griffiths came to the window immediately, and then came to the house. He prescribed some pills, and Mrs. Greenwood had two. She became very drowsy, and then comatose, her breathing being affected. About 3 o’clock Greenwood again went for the doctor, and twenty minutes afterwards she died. Counsel: What was his condition of mind?—He did not seem to be much put out. Sir Edward Marshall Hall: You believe Greenwood went away and was away for half an hour or three-quar-ters? Witness replied that he was away from the room three-quarters of an hour or an hour. He brought the doctor back with him, and also a box containing two pills. At about 1 o’clock Mrs. Greenwood herself took the pills and put them on her tongue. In a few minutes of taking them she became very drowsy. Sir Edward Marshall Hall: She was well enough to take the pills, and herself put them on her tongue, and within five or ten minutes she was asleep? — Yes, soon afterwards. Did you say to Mr. Greenwood: “Damn those pills?”—I did not. Did vou know what was in the pills? —No, I did not. If you had known that they contained one grain of morphia, would, you have given them to her?—No, I would not. DRAMATIC INCIDENTS. The really dramatic incidents of the day were crowded in the closing minutes. The sensation was provided by Dr. Robert Griffiths, of Kidwelly, who . attended Mrs. Greenwood her last

illness, and signed the deatli certificate. . , The doctor told the court how nd prescribed two pills for the deceased just •prior to her death. One was to be taken immediately and one after an interval of ari hour. Each pill contained half a graifii of powdered opium and one-fortieth of a grain of morphia. Here Sir Edward Marshall Hall made a dramatic intervention. He stated that the witness had previously said that each pill contained half a grain of morphia. “One grain of morphia,” said Sir Edward, “is a false dose, and Dr. Wilcox’ has been cross-examined on that point. This is entirely new evidence, of which the defence should have had notice. I might as well throw up the whole case.” Mr. Justice Shearman: Don’t get excited. You can decide whether you will accept or attack this amended evidence. Sir Edward: I am not excited, but this entirely changes my case. Questions have already been asked as to Whether two half-grains of morphia is not a dangerous dose, and I have expert evidence to prove that it is. Mr. Justice Shearman: I don’t like to be taken by surprise in this way. How came you to say that it was half a grain of morphia when it W opium? Witness: That was a mistake. Sir Edward: The mistake is a vital one.

The judge he could not exclude the evidence or say the trial could not continue because a mistake had been made.

Sir Edward Marlay Samson said he had no idea what Mr. Griffiths’ evidence was going to be. The judge (to the witness): When did you first discover you had made a mistake in your evidence?

Witness: To-day, My Lord. Sir Edward Marlay Samson: Did you say before the magistrate in the present case that the quantity of .28 of a grain being found left you in some doubt as to the cause of death?—l did say so. . If you gave two half-grain morphia pills at 1 o'clock, you would not be surprised if a person died at 4 o’clock? —Yes, I would.

SIR MARSHALL HALL’S ADDRESS.

In a speech lasting more than three hours, Sir Edward Marshall Hall said:— “Greenwood’s case is and always has been ‘whatever caused my wife’s death I never administered arsenic to her.’ The case for the prosecution was that Greenwood poisoned the bottle of red wine with arsenic, and that in consequence of taking a glassful of it his wife died.” Sir Edward snapped his fingers with the remark: “That case had gone into thin air.” .Two bottles of red wine had been examined to show that arsenic added to it practically made it unaltered in appearance. They saw in the box a witness who must have aroused their • sympathy—a young woman standing there while her father was on trial for his life. If she loved her mother, as :it was admitted she did, she would hard'ly be likely to have a kindly feeling for the father whose hands had foully done to death the mother she adored. Yet, her evidence destroyed the case for The Crown. It was tested by the most searching cross-examination, but was never shaken one iota. “I submit,” proceeded counsel, “that. if you believe Irene Greenwood this case is at an end. Irene says: T swear to you that having taxed my memory on the Tuesday as to what I did on the Sunday, I drunk Burgundy out of the same bottle as my mother on the Sunday at dinner, and I drank it again on the Sunday night at supper.’ Have you a particle of doubt that that girl is telling the truth?”

ABSENCE OF MOTIVE. There were, five things it was necessary to prove in such cases—motive, means, opportunity, action and death directly resulting. “But where in the name of Providence is the motive here?” asked Sir Edward. “The prosecution has had more than twelve months to search the district, but there is not a tittle of evidence against Greenwood or Miss Gladys Jones of any relationship that is ev,ep capable of an immoral interpretation. There is no suggestion of clandestine meetings or intimacy.” If by his wife’s death a pecuniary gain might have resulted the jury would have been told that they were justified in drawing the inference that Greenwood caused his wife’s death to gain £9OO a [year. “But if that is so,” said Sid Edward, “am I not entitled to say that the corollary is true? If a man loses £9OO a year and is marrying a woman who, according to the evidence, has not a penny of her own, is it not corroboration of the absence of motive?” Having murdered the woman, according to the allegations, in a gossiping place like Kidwelly, Greenwood drew upon himself the attention of everybody by marrying Miss Jones within a month or so. He had two and a-half pounds of arsenic, labelled all over, sent by rail, so that everybody could see it. For a few pounds he could have had the body cremated, and so have eliminated all possibility of detection.

THE ALLEGED FATAL WINE. It would be idle to suggest, continued .counsel, that Greenwood had not the opportunity of administering arsenic, but what opportunity had he for administering a fatal dose? The sole evidence was that of Hannah Williams. She stated that the bottle was labelled “Port Wine.” “Have you,” asked Sir Edward, “ever seen a label on a bottle with the words ‘Port Wine’ or ‘Sherry Wine?’ ‘Port’ or ‘Sherry,’ yes; but ‘Port Wine,’ no. It is just a touch of the domestic servant.” Hannah Williams declared that she only put one glass upon the table at lunch. Then she said she put two, but that Irene’s glass was not used.. The discrepancies were of supreme moment. Hannah Williams said that Greenwood went to the china pantry and stayed there for fifteen minutes. “That woman, I submit to you,” said Sir Edward, “is lying and wilfully lying in her description of Greenwood’s visit to the pantry for fifteen minutes.” There was a visit, but it was only for the purpose of Greenwood washing his hands. “Do you think,” said Sir Edward, “that Greenwood would have put the. bottle of wine on the table where his daughter and son Kenneth were sitting? Do you thing that he would place such a bottle, containing 12 doses of deadly poison, on the table, with the knowledge that his wife might say to the daughter, Irene, you are looking a little pale. Have a glass of wine?’ Suppose, also, as a Sunday treat, Mrs. Greenwood asked her son Kenneth if he would like a little drop of wine? The man would have had a fit. Yet that is the case for the prosecution.”

A MISTAKE SUGGESTED. Coming to the question of arsenic in the body, Sir Edward said arsenic was found in sulphuric acid, bismuth, glucose, magnesia, and face powder. So dangerous was it the point of

view of contamination that an Order in Council was issued only a- few days back prohibiting the carrying of weedkiller in the same van as foodstuffs. As, to the tests adopted .in this case, while they were dealing with one' fivehundredth part of a grain, which no power on earth, could possibly weigh, they could not accept the tests as sufficient to send a man to the gallows. This was the first case on record where such a small quantity, as thatt estimated to have been found, had ever been put forward as consistent with a fatal dose.

Then, coming to one of the 'most extraordinary things in the case, counsel said, Dr. Griffiths told the coroner and the ’magistrates that he prescribed bismuth mixture for Mrs Greenwood. He had a bismuth mixture in a stock bottle, and also Fowler’s solution of arsenic. He said it was impossible for him to have made a mistake, “But supposing he made a perfectly horiest mistake, but one colossal in its results ? If he made that mistake, then instead of two teaspoonfuls of bismuth mixture at 8 p.m., there were , given this unfortunate lady two teaspopnfuls of Fowler’s solution, which would contain one grain of arsenic. I hope you will think I am justified in saying that at 8 o’clock that evening, to any man who might have been in a hurry, with both bottles available for his use, he may have made this mistake by pouring out Fowler’s solution instead of the bismuth solution. The color is practically the same, and detection would have been practically impossible. It is admitted that after bismuth was administered, it would not cause any discomfort, but that if arsenic were afftoinisteredi it would cause a burning sensation.* It is proved by the nurse, that when Mrs. Greenwood took it she complained that it caught her throat. I am making juo allegation against Dr. Griffiths; I am not going to admit that there was a mistake with regard to morphia, but in regard to this mixture of bismuth I am suggesting that is was in fact done.” Sir Edward went on to point out contradictions in the doctor’s evidence, and asked: “Would you hang a cat on the evidence of such a man?” Was it more improbable that Dr Griffiths gave the wrong medicine by mistake, or that Greenwood was the cruel murderer of ■the wife he apparently loved, and to whom he owed most of his comfort? CASE FOR THE CROWN.

Sir -Edward Marlay Samson, in his concluding speech for the Crown, submitted that the most modern and scientific methods had been used in ascertaining the quantity of arsenic contained in the body, and that the jury might be satisfied that approximately a quarter of a grain was the amount fdund in the organs by the system of chemical analysis. The next question was: How did the arsenic get into the body? The theory that Mrs. Greenwood might have been poisoned by Dr Griffiths, Kidwelly, having given her a dose of arsenic solution in mistake for bismuth was only an eleven th-hour defence. Dr. Griffiths denied that he would have made such a mistake. Moreover, there was the evidence of Nurse Jones th'at she had taken half a dose of the medicines and suffered no ill-effects. The real value of Hannah Williams’ evidence was that at 12.30 on the Sunday she did, in faet, see Greenwood go to the china cupboard and go on to the dining room. The real value of her evidence was that there was a bottle of wine on that day; that she saw Greenwood go to the dining room at meal times; and she never saw the bottle the following day.

THE MOTIVE. As to the motive, counsel said: “This case has turned in a great measure on the question of the relationship of this man and Gladys Jones. W$ know that in 1917 and 1918, in the absence of the late Mrs. Greenwood!, Gladys Jones stayed at the house. It is suggested by the accused that the Jones girls came to keep his children company, but Miss Irene’s evidence does not bear that out. The whole crux of the situation is: What was the relationship between that man and woman during Mrs. Greenwood’s lifetin/e ? The case for the Crown is that this man was animated by a desire for Gladys Jones, and it was to consummate that that he removed Mabel Greenwood from his life. He has been defended by counsel wise and experienced, and I am entitled to say that their wisdom and experience has led them not to call her in this case, because she would not bear out what the man has told you. It is submitted to you on behalf of the Crown that human desire was Greenwood’s motive.”

“PROBABLY BETTER JUDGES.” In his summing up, Mr. Justice Shearman spoke slowly and with deliberation, but it would have puzzled the keenest intellect to probe the judge’s mind and discover his personal opinion on the merits of the case. As to the legal aspect, he was, of course,' the supreme arbiter, but he gave the jury early to understand that on their shoulders, and not on his, lay the decision on matters of fact. Time after time he reminded them of the difference between his function and theirs, but it was with a twinkle of amusement that he again pressed the point when dealing with the question of motive, whTch he said the Crown alleged was animal passion. “Twelve men of business,” he said, “are probably better judges than an elderly lawyer oh a. question of that description.” Were they satisfied that there was a dangerous dose of arsenic in Mrs. Greenwood’s body and that it was administered through the mouth? If so, they must also satisfy themselves that prisoner put it there, and this the judge pointed out, was a real difficulty in the present case. During the summing up Greenwood at times wore an expression of extreme boredom; at others he stroked his care-fully-trimmed moustache and chatted gaily with the warder, but he exhibited the greatest interest while the judge was reading his notes of the evidence.

IN RECORD TIME. The hearing has lasted exactly seven days, and no trial is remembered in that part of the country which has created such widespread interest. The reporting constitutes a record, if not in the actual number of words transmitted to the newspapers, at any rate in the method of transmission. With the aid. of the telephone authorities, who placed every facility at the service of the agency, the Press Association made arrangements to telephone from Camarthen to London .each day of the trial a full report of the proceedings, and, as the staff of reporters engaged on this work dictated their reports direct from their shorthand notes, it was possible for the agency to issue a continuously-running story of the trial. On many occasions, evidence given in court was available in typewritten form in Fleet Street ' within a few minutes of its haviiyj been

giyeri at Camarthen, 230 miles away. During the seven days of the trial, the Press Association received over the telephone wire, 74,271 words, an average of some 11,000 per day. Photographs appeared daily in one of the evening papers, a few hours after they were taken. (By aeroplane they were brought to town, and the films developed and printed in the ain ■