MAREO RETRIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 209, 17 June 1936, Page 3

MAREO RETRIAL

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL.

GONTENTION BY DEFENCE.

SELF-ADMINISTRATION 0F DRUG. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 16. The court was crowded when the trial of Eric Marco, on the charge of mur—dering his wife, Thelma Clarice Mareo, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr Justice Callan presided. The Crown case is being conducted by Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr F. McCarthy. The defence was conducted by Mr H. F. ,O’Leary, K.C. (Wellington) and Messrs Trevor Henry and K. C. Aekins. Case for the Defence. Counsel for the defence, addressing the jury, asked them to consider what would he the end of the trial for the man in dock, charged with murder, the penalty of which they knew. Would he. be free to return to his children and his friends, or would he return to the cell where he had been incarcerated? Veronal was not a murderer’s weapon, counsel went on. Records showed that deaths from veronal in the case of adults were caused in the main by misadventure and suicide. What might kill one person might have little or no effect on another. A person setting out to murder by veronal could have no idea as to how much to give. The Crown selected the DOSSII‘ bility that Mareo had given veronal to Mrs Marco. He did it, the Crown said, at a time when Mr and Mrs Marco were said to be happy, and when Freda Stark was present. The defence contended that the most likely alternative was that Mrs Marco, by accident or design, took the veronal herself. ]t was most likelyJ and most consistent that she had had some innocentty on the Friday night; that on the Saturday she got up, after the manner of persons under the influence of veronal (or she may not even have got up), took the store of veronal, and that was what killed her. Mr O’Leary dealt next with the relations between Mareo and Eleanor Brownlee. He spoke of the quarrel which took place after a Dixieland party, when Miss ‘Brownlee brought Mareo home drunk. That in itself was an indication that there was nothing improper between. them. A man did not bring home his mistress into the bosom of his family. When he was allegedly murdering this woman Mareo was drafting a. letter to J. C. Williamson, Ltd, asking them to take over “The Duchess of' Danzig,” the play in which his wife played a leading part. Thelma Mareo was essential to Marco’s future projects, and yet the ‘ jury was-asked to believe that he had murdered her. It might be suggested that Miss Brownlee was to take Mrs ‘Mareo’s place; but she was not an actress. “To procure veronal Marco went to chemists who knew him,” said Mr O’Leary». “He told the. detectives he was taking veronal, and told others he was taking it. Are those the actions of a guilty man? ‘Would he not have got rid of the stuff had be been guilty? All Marco’s actions in regard to the veronal were frank, and were certainly not those of a guilty man.. As soon as his wife died, he candidly admitted the possession of veronal. He did not hesitate. He thought his wife’s condition was due to medicine he had given h-‘erL and he was not candid about the medicine because he thought he had committed an offence.

“I ask) you to contrast his actions over the corrective medicine and his action regarding the veronal. On the. one handvhe was candid, truthful, and straightforward, and on the other he Was not,” said Mr O’Leary. Crown Prosecutor's Address The Crown Prosecutor, in addressing the jury, attacked the defence evidence. “I am going to put it to you,” said Mr Meredith, “that that evidence. has no bearing, or practically none, on this case. The whole case now depends on a careful. consideration of the incidents from the Friday night to the Monday afternoon, when Thelma, Marco died.” It was surprising, Mr Meredith said, that it was necessary to bring wit—nesses from Australia to prove Mrs Mareo’s drinking habits. There should have. been plenty of people in New Zealand and in Auckland who knew her intimately. Persons who knew her in Australia and performed with her there said they knew nothing of these accusations. Dr. Giesen who was called for the defence, put up the most amazing proposition, Mr Meredith continued. He was a man who admittedly had studied the case from the outset and advised‘the defence. He advised the defence that everyone was wrong; but he did not come to the last trial and give evidence, and it was only now that he got into the firing line. Dr. Giesen’s theory was a contradiction of several reputable men who gave their evidence with certainty and who were supported by text-books. Surely out of the thousands of doctors in New Zealand there must have been some who would have come forward Tn the interests of justice to support Dr. Giesen.

'._MITVN-leredith had not finished his address when the court adjourned.