MAREO RETRIAL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21811, 17 June 1936, Page 18

MAREO RETRIAL

COUNSEL ADDRESS JURY DRUG SEtF-ADMINISTERED, MR O’LEARY CONTENDS CROWN PROSECUTOR ATTACKS DEFENCE EVIDENCE CFBXSS ASSOCIATION TILBQEAM.) AUCKLAND, June «. The court was crowded when the trial of Eric Mareo on the charge of murdering 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, and the defence is again being conducted by Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C. (Wellington), and Messrs Trevor Henry and K. C. Aekins. Mr O’Leary has addressed the jury, and the Crown Prosecutor had not concluded his address when the court adjourned. The evidence was completed with the cross-examination of Ernest William Giesen, medical practitioner of Wellington, by Mr Meredith. “You have contradicted all the evidence of the medical witnesses. Can you quote any literature to support your view?” asked Mr Meredith. The witness: I don’t know if I can, Mr Meredith: You remember Mrs Mareo's weight was given by Freda Stark as just under eight stone? The witness: Yes, Mr Meredith: Does it not follow that there must have been many times six grains of veronal in the whole of the body at her death? The witness: All we know as to the amount of veronal at death is the amount extracted, and we know there must have been more; as to how much more, nobody can make any estimate. Mr Meredith: I put it to you that there must have been many times more. The witness: I cannot concede that. Mr Meredith: Is there any other medical man who can support you in your propositions? The witness: I don’t know of any. Re-examined by Mr O’Leary, Dr. Giesen said that he had been in active practice in Wellington for 30 years. Other medical men still consulted him. For 12 years he was examiner for the University of New Zealand —for two years on toxicology and medical jurisprudence. After several technical questions had been asked by the foreman of the jury. Dr. Giesen left the box. Another Crown Witness The Crown called George Seymour Dennis Sheard, of Mount Eden, who in 1928 was a member of the Humphrey Bishop Musical Comedy Company. He said that in Adelaide he was he tenor of the show, and Thelma Trott —afterwards. Mrs Mareo—was the soprano. They sang duets. He saw her every day and night for five weeks, and she stayed with his people for three or four weeks. “I have no knowledge of her ever taking veronal in that period,” said witness. “She was not dopey and depressed: on the contrary, brightness was one of the greatest of her assets. I knew her on tour in Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand for about two and a half years, and never saw any signs of the ‘dopiness’ which has been referred to. Miss Trott not only did her ordinary show work, but also acted as Mr Humphrey Bishop’s secretary.” Cross-examined by Mr O’Leary, the witness said he realised that Mrs Mareo would be an asset to Marieo. Re-examined by Mr Meredith, he said that in view of Miss Trott’s experience with the Humphrey" Bishop Company she would be an asset as a secretary. Case for the Defence Counsel for the defence, Mr O’Leary, addressing the jury, asked them to consider what would be 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 possibility that Mareo had given veronal to Mrs Mareo. He did it, the Crown said, at a time when Mr and Mrs Mareo were said to be happy, and when Freda Stark was present. The defence contended that the most likely alternative was that Mrs Mareo, by accident or design, took the veronal herself. It was most likely and most consistent that she had had some innocently 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 Mareo’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 Mareo 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 he been guilty? All Mareo’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 her, and he was not candid about the medicine because he thought he had committed an offence. ‘T ask you to contrast his actions over the corrective medicine and his action regarding the veronal. On the one hand he 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 Mareo died.” It was surprising, Mr Meredith said, that it was necessary to bring witnesses 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 Aufftr” I** 1 ** 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 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 ymo would have come forward in the interests of justice to support Dr. Giesen. Mr Meredith had not finished his address when the court adjourned.