DEATH SENTENCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 November 1939, Page 3

DEATH SENTENCE

(Continued from page 5.) The court crier then made the special demand for silence before sentence of death was passed. His Honour said: “Patience, you have been convicted, and I am bound to say I think properly convicted of the crime of murder.” Sentence of death was then passed. Jurymen were thanked for their services and exempted from jury service for the next five years. To the Crown Prosecutor, his Honour said he considered it proper to comment Oh the debt to the police, who were entitled to the thahks of the community. A great deal of work had been done efficiently, and while it was perhaps invidious to make a distinction, Senior-Sergeant J. Bickerdike, under the direction of his superior officers. had discharged his duty with commendable efficiency. Constable J. B. keaftori, police photographer in this case, as in many others, had helped materially in the presentation of evidence by his good work. The Court then adjourned, spectators hurrying out in the hope of seeing Patience depart. Beginning his summing up. his Hohour yesterday impressed upon the jury the absolute onus upon the Crown to prove the guilt of the prisoner beyond all reasonable doubt. He reviewed shortly the law’s definitions of murder, manslaughter and justifiable or excusable homicide. He spoke also and quoted English judges upon the subject of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, he said, was like a series of stepping-stones upon which the jury could venture to take footing only if it was absolutely convinced that they were sound and secure. The Crown claimed that the stepping-stones in this case were safe ones and the defence that they were not. . In the ai’gumeht over the idehtificatiori of the body there was the direct type of evidence proffered and also circumstantial evidence. His Hohotii said the jury must weight all this evidence very carefully and sift the merits of every part of it. There was four main points for the jury’s consideration. They were identification of the body, the cause of death, the question (if homicide was proved) of whether Patience killed his wife, and then if he killed her the question of whether the circumstances under which he became responsible for her death were those amounting to murder or manslaughter. The Court was adjourned at this stage and his Hohour resumed his summing-up this morning. Discussing whether the death was accidental or natural., his Hohour reminded the jury that the doctors had said there was no sign of abnormality. The absence of external injuries usually associated with accidents causing rib injuries should also be kept iti mind. Had the woman accidentally fallen it should, have been discovered. There had been no immediate quarrel before the woman was missing. Had she been angered, her departure might have been understandable. There was no evidence of preparation, and according to her son’s evidence she had left her own hoard of money, about £7. That was extremely important and significant. Then was it suicide? Suicides did not kill themselves by crushing their chests; suicides did not wrap themselves up (if the evidence of sacking marks was accepted).

Considering the question of homicide, stopping her breath might have been done to prevent her shouting. The wrapping of the body was an important factor in deciding whether the attack was homicidal and deliberate. If the imprints had been made when the body was buried, then it must be asked if it had been buried for concealment. The evidence of the doctors, if accepted, seemed to show conclusively that the body was wrapped up and then buried. Might anybody but Patience have had an opportunity to murder the woman? asked his Honour. She had been seen about the place in the normal way and had she stayed at home no one else could have done it. “Patience himself undoubtedly did have a motive and opportunity,” continued his Honour. Recalling the difficulties caused by Patience’s relations with Mrs Chapman, it was proper to consider if that was an adequate motive. The Crown did not have to prove motive, but it wqs useful in pointing to the individual. In this case it seemed to point to Patience. The defence had criticised statements taken by the police from Patience. If they were taken under unfair circumstances the judge could exclude them on application, but no application had been made.

If Mrs Patience had merely gone away it was surprising that Patience' should have given some of her clothes, to Mrs Chapman. The confident way in which he set about disposing of clothes and furniture was held by the Crown to show he was sure that they would not be needed again. If the story of £4B was untrue it might have been invented by Patience to show that his wife had really left It was strange, because witnesses had been somewhat surprised that he had so much money, and the discovery of Mi-s Patience’s own money showed that she had not gone voluntarily. The discovery of that sum by Patience when his son was present was probably the most sinister aspect of the case. > Then the jury had to decide whether it was murder or manslaughter. There had beeh no suggestion of manslaugther during the case, but it should be pointed out. If it had been manslaughter it would probably have been preceded by the noise of a quarrel. According to the doctors ..death occurred under circumstances "in wH— I noise would br> M a qm | anti tileni 1 ’lsio‘