IS HE INSANE?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 154, 1 July 1936, Page 16

IS HE INSANE?

OR ONLY "SHAMMING." MAN SENTENCED TO DIE. RECLUSE MURDERED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, June 22. On May 0 last police officers arrested a man named Frank Maudlen at Oak Flats, near Lake Illawarra, and charged liim with the murder of Charles Da-wson. The two men were well known in the district—Maudlen, 27 years old, of the "hobo" type, a nomad whom many people thought "not right in his head." Dawson, 47 years old, a tram driver by occupation, but on sick leave at the time. Dawson had a little property at Oak Flats, and he lived a solitary life there during liia illness, while Maudlen was camped on Dawson's ground not far away. Evidence produced later went to show that a constable called at Dawson's shack on May 5 and saw the two men together, talked with them, and incidentally warned Maudlen that the police were searching for some stolen property lost in the neighbourhood. Maudlen said that he was going away next day, a statement which, in view of his well-known wandering habits, occasioned no surprise. But next morning, however, the police, in view of certain "information received," made another call on Dawson's little home, and the condition in which they found it demanded further investigation. The ground at the back of the house was bloodstained, there was blood on leaves and grass near a well, which had been partly filled in. The police dug there and found a. pillow and some bedclothes, and then the body of partly enclosed in a sack. He had been shot through the head twice, apparently with his own rifle. The police at once arrested : Maudlen, who was wearing some of the dead man's clothes. Before this a few facts had come to the notice of the police which seemed to justify their suspicions. The day before a radio agent named Lindsay had called at Oak Flats and left a valuable radio set for Dawson, who, recluse as he was, took a special interest in broadcasting. Maudlen was there at the time, and warned Lindsay as he was leaving that Dawson had no money to pay for the instrument, and that he himself was going away next day, as Dawson had refused to pay the wages due to him. "Gone Away For Few Days." - 1 Next day (May 0) Maudlen called at Lindsay's business office in Wollongong and handed in the key of Dawson's shack, saying that Dawson had gone away for a few days, apd advising Lindsay "to go out and pick up his radio. This was one of the suspicious circumstances that induced the police to look for Maudlen when they found that a murder had been committed.

On May 7 Maudlen was interrogated by the detectives. According to the police evidence he said at once: "I know what you have come for—l shot him in selfdefence." He then —voluntarily, according to the police—made and signed a statement which purported to give a full account of the tragedy. Maudlen's story was that on the evening of May 5 he was in Dawson's shack, listening to the radio, and he asked what Dawson was going to do about a crosscut saw and other articles, alleged to have been stolen. This annoyed and alarmed Dawson, who picked up his rifle, already loaded, evidently with the intention of preventing Maudlen from spreading reports about him. Maudlen alleged that, being in danger of his life, he pulled a revolver out of his pocket and shot Dawson to save himself.

'When the police canie to consider this statement they pointed out to Maudlen that Dawson had been killed not by a revolver bullet, but by a rifle bullet, and that he had been shot twice. Maudlen then admitted that the killing was done with Dawson's own rifle, which he had snatched up, but he still maintained that he had fired in self-defence; and this was the line which he took at the trial. He also made a long statement from the dock in which he spoke of a terrible accident that he had met with 10 years ago, of severe pains in his head and occasional loss of memory, protested that lie and Dawson had been good friends, and declared that he had no clear recollection or definite knowledge of what had happened on that fatal night. All this was consistent with the arguments put forward by' his counsel, who relied less on the plea of self-defence than on that of insanity, for it was on this second ground that the defence chiefly relied. Story Corroborated. Strangely enough, nearly everything that Maudlin had said about the accident which had happened to him in 192G and its physical effects was corroborated by unimpeachable evidence. Dr. Goldie, who was in charge of the Wollongong Hospital when Maudlen was admitted •there after being knocked over by a sulky, testified that when the patient arrived the doctors gave him "ten minutes of life," that he was unconscious for eight days, and that the skull was depressed by fracture, so that an operation was too dangerous to risk. Dr. Goldie gave his opinion that a man in this condition would tend toward insanity, and he further testified that after his removal from the hospital Maudlen showed many signs of a disordered mind, He had made himself a "nuisance" by his fantastic tricks both at the hospital and with relatives, and Dr. Goldie had seen letters written by him which' seeriied: to him to bear all the marks ,of insanity.' Another doctor and two brain arid nerve specialists, all well accredited practitioners, supported Dr. Goldie's view that a man suffering permanently' from such injuries as Maudlen, had sustained would be likely to lose his reason, or at least become unbalanced and uncontrolable.

Corroborative evidence as to Maudlen's Inental condition was given by James Royal, a miner, of Corrimal, who testified that Maudlen had paid attention to his daughter, but that he (Royal) had warned him to keep away, because he thought that Maudlen was not mentally sound. A rather remarkable piece of evidence as to the effects of the 1926 accident to Maudlen was given by the secretary of the Wollongong Hospital, who stated that Maudlen had been admitted to the institution four times since—in 1931 and 19&4 for treatment, and twice in 1935, when he was supposed to have taken gpoison. Firewood for Ten Years. All this seemed to make a strong case in Maudlen's defence, and Mr. Morgan, his counsel, endeavoured to improve upon it .by suggesting that Dawson, murdered man, was himself mentally unbalanced. He showed that Dawson had been in such a state of destitution at Oaks Flat that residents had gent

messages to his relatives asking them to come and look after him; that he had been a patient at Gladesville Mental Hospital, from which, said Mr. Morgan, he should not have been released; and that his eccentricities proved that he was mentally unbalanced. He had laid in a ten years' stock of firewood and kept a fire burning night and day in all weathers, yet slept on the verandah under a single blanket on the coldest nights; and lie was in the habit of trying to shoot fish in the river for sport. All this, argued Mr. Morgan, was strong evidence in favour of this theory that Dawson himself was more or less insane, that he had attacked Maudlen, and that Maudlen, being himself mentally unbalanced through the longstanding injury to his head, lost his self-control and killed Dawson in selfdefence. The argument from insanity thus played a large part in the defence advanced ori Maudlen's behalf, but the police were able t% counter it effectively enough. They produced several witnesses of high professional standing, who maintained that Maudlen was. to all intents and purposes quite sane. The visiting surgeon at Long Bay, where Maudlen had been under arrest, considered that Maudlen is "quite capable of distinguishing right from wrong*" though lie admitted that he was suffering from the pressure of the fractured skull on the brain. Dr. MeGeorge, one of our most distinguished psychiatrists, said that he had examined Mandlen three times and found no evidence of loss of memory, that he could find no proof of mental disturbance, "and that, in his opinion, Maudlen would understand clearly the nature of his o\Vn actions, so that the theory of automatism was untenable."

An even more serious piece of evidence that evidently told against Maudlen with both judge and jury was the statement of Detective Wilks, to the effect that on May 13, when he was escorting Maudlen from Keame to Sydney, the prisoner said to him: "I suppose that they will fatten me up for a neck-tie party, and I will have to 'pull' the rat 'stunt' to beat it." The implication, of course, wa3 that Maudlen was deliberately feigning insanity, and that any sign that he was "ratty," in the vernacular sense, must be taken as merely, a trick to evade the consequences of his crime!

In the end, the jury found Maudlen guilty, and he was sentenced to death. His counsel at once gave notice of appeal, and in view of the strong evidence offered by doctors and mental experts to the effect that, the injury from which he suffered, could have caused some form of ' mental derangement, it is very likely that public opinion, already strongly roused against any needfess enforcement of the death sentence here, will bring pressure to bear upon the Executive Council on his behalf.