MURDER OF U.S. MARINES

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23947, 14 May 1943, Page 6

MURDER OF U.S. MARINES

CRAWFORD FOUND GUILTY IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 13. Found guilty of murder on both counts after a retirement by the jury of two hours and three-quarters. John Sidney Crawford, a South African seaman, aged 26, was sentenced by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court to imprisonment with hard labour for life. “I agree entirely with the verdict of the jury," said his Honour. “You acted like a ruthless bandit in murdering two young defenceless men of the United States forces, who had given you no offence or provocation whatsoever. Many may think you will suiter little by comparison, but as that is the sentence fixed by the law for any number of murders, I now proceed to impose that sentence. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned with hard labour for life.” Admitting that Crawford had shot and killed the two marines, Elmer William Geti and Sydney Samuel Sparrow, at Wellington on January 7, counsel for the defence urged the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter, submitting that Crawford was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intention to murder. No evidence was called for the defence. Addressing the jury, the Crown Prosecutor. Mr W. H. Cunningham, said that the defence had had a difficult task. Without casting aspersions on defending counsel, they had adopted the tactics of the cuttlefish, which, when in difficulties, squirted inky fluid and tried to escape in self-created murk. Of what avail was it to attack one or two of 15 Crown witnesses on material facts? The most vicious attack was made on Miss Salmon. Not content with blasting her body, the accused had handed to counsel ammunition to blast her character as his last gesture. The Court was not a Court of morals. It was a Court of criminal justice, and it was not the function of the jury to ascertain the kind of apartment house the defence had endeavoured to show the landlady ran. Murder was murder, wherever it was committed. A verdict of not guilty was unthinkable. Insanity had not been suggested, so that could also be ruled out. The third alternative was manslaughter. The evidence negatived drunkenness to the degree necessary to excuse murder. Geti gave no provocation, and so far as Sparrow was concerned, Miss Salmon was entitled to have what friends she liked in her room. “Two splendid young men, members -if the fighting forces of our Allies, in pride of their youth, have, been done to.,death,” Mr Cunningham concluded. "So far as the accused is concerned, I submit to you that there is not one redeeming feature disclosed by the evidence. In fact, it ;s no fault of accused that there is not a third count to this indictment. The cold, calculated cruelty displayed in the shooting of Hazel Salmon has never been surpassed in the annals of trials in this Court. In all seriousness, I submit that the evidence for the Crown not only justifies, but demands a verdict of guilty." Mr W. J. Stacey, for the accused, submitted that the accused’s mind was so clouded and his reason so dethroned by drink that he could not have had ‘he intention to commit murder. He submitted that when Crawford saw Geti outside Miss Salmon’s door, the thread of consciousness in his drink-soaked bram snapped, and he shot in the back a man he did not know. It was a cowardly act, which a man in his normal condition would not have committed, and the maniacal fury displayed afterwards was consistent with a man who did not realise what he was doing. He was acting like an automaton. Counsel submitted that Crawford realised what he had done only when he collapsed outside the landlady’s room. If he had intended to kill Miss Salmon nis action in taking her to the bathroom to help her was inconsistent. Counsel agreed that a verdict of not guilty would be unthinkable; but he asked the jury to bring in a verdict of manslaughter. The jury retired at 1.30 p.m,