VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24261, 19 May 1944, Page 6

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

CHARGE OF MURDERING BABY WANGANUI TRIAL CONCLUDES (P.A.) WANGANUI, May 18. After a retirement of 40 minutes the jury in the Supreme Court returned a verdict of not guilty against Grace Rosaline Robertson, an adding machine operator, single, aged 26. of Auckland, who was charged with the murder of her infant son, aged 14 days, near Mangaweka on December 18. As she left the dock accused turned to the jury and said: "Thank you. Thank you very much.” The trial, which lasted three days, was heard before Mr Justice Smith. Mr N. R. Bain appeared for the Crown, and Mr I. J. Goldstine, of Auckland, for the accused. Accused, giving evidence, said her mother belonged to a sect known as the Exclusive Brethren, members of which kept strictly to themselves, and excluded themselves from the outside world. Witness was not allowed to take playmates home, not allowed to take part in organised sport, and did not go to the pictures until she was 22. Witness described her meeting with an American serviceman at a relative’s, and attending a party in a hotel lounge. Witness said she had never taken drink, and distinctly told those at the party that she did not want any. She had one drink that night, and it went to her head. She did not know what it contained except that it had "scotch” in it. The Train Journey Describing the journey in the express train, witness said there was lot of noise, and it was impossible to rest. She and the baby were both upset. Witness had a portion of a meal and felt queer. The baby was awake and crying, and thinking he was cold, she picked him up in her arms and cuddled him. Mr Goldstine; I want you to try to tell us what happened after that. Accused replied: “The last memory I have of my babe is that I had him in my arms I was cuddling him close. I was standing outside the carriage, leaning up against the ladies’ compartment—the babe had gone—l did not know just what had happened. I was in the act of throwing myself off the train, and on the verge of doing so, when someone from the next carriage opened the door and walked through. I pulled myself together, and groped my way back to the seat, and on arrival found all the clothes I had made strewn about everywhere.” Mr Goldstine: Do you remember removing the clothes from the baby? Witness: The last memory is of, my baby in my arms, hugging him close. Mr Goldstine: You don’t remember removing the clothes?—l don’t remember. Cross-examined by Mr Bain, witness said she had tried to feel normal when boarding the train at Wellington. Mr Bain: You know the child was found without clothes. Can you account for the absence of these clothes? Witness shook her head, and made no reply. Medical Evidence The Crown called Dr. T. G. Gray, direc-tor-general of mental hospitals in New Zealand, to give evidence in rebuttal of that given yesterday by Dr. George H Robertson, of Wanganui, in which Dr. Robertson said accused, at the time she threw the baby from the express train, was suffering from puerperal insanity, and, incapable of knowing what she was doing. “In my opinion there is no evidence to support the suggestion that she is suffering from puerperal or any other form of insanity.” said Dr. Gray. Cross-examined by Mr Goldstine. witness said he was asked to give evidence on Monday, and he had not seen the accused previously. Mr Goldstine: Is it not a fact that the authorities say that recovery from the first attack of puerperal insanity is comparatively rapid. Witness: Some authorities say so, others say the opposite. Mr Goldstine: You agree that mental abnormality following child birth is unfortunately common? Witness: I would rather not answer yes or no to that. It would give a wrong impression. . , His Honour: At the time of the act. would you say the accused was capable of understanding whether she was doing right or wrong'according to the accepted standards of reasonable people? Witness: In my opinion she was. Mr Goldstine. for the accused, said that he had examined the factors in the case, and said they had made it abundantly clear to him that the accused had never had the will or the intention of surrendering her baby, nor had any direct proof of a criminal act been adduced by the Crown. Dr. Gray, counsel submitted, was not in a position to rebut the evidence of Dr. Robertson. Mr Bain, for the Crown, said the facts were admitted, there being no dispute over the fact that the child was thrown from the train, and that it had been thrown was further proved by the fact that the defence had raised the Question of accused's sanity at the time. “Those of you who are married, and probably those of you who are not, will have observed that what this young woman has gone through is nothing but what a normal woman experiences in child birth, and has to go through every time she endures it,” said Mr Bain. Summing up. his Honour said it was an extraordinarv case. To throw a child from a fast-moving express train on a bare hillside at night left no other inference than the realisation that if a sane person committed this act, the child would meet its death. There was no doubt that accused was highly strung, and had been living in two capacities, one as Mrs Jones, the other as Miss Robertson. With her departure on the train from Wellington as Mrs Jones, these two capacities were being drawn closer and closer together as she travelled towards Auckland, where she was known as a single woman without a child.