KILLER HELD INSANE

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28267, 3 May 1957, Page 7

KILLER HELD INSANE

Auckland Jury’s

Verdict

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 2.

After a retirement 40 minutes in the Supreme Court at Auckland today, a jury acquitted William John Glynn, aged >37, an electrician, of the murder of his wife and two sons at their home at Glenfield on the night of February 16, on the ground of insanity. Mr Justice Shorland, who presided, ordered that Glynn be detained in a mental institution at the pleasure of the Minister of Justice.

Glynn pleaded not guilty to, murdering his wife Dorothy Rose: Glynn, pged 30, Geoffrey John Glynn, aged two and a-half, andi Phillip Ronald Glynn, aged 13 months. A third son, Wjlliam James Glynn, aged nine years, was admitted to the Auckland Public Hospital' critically injured, but has since recovered. When opening the Crown case this morning Mr Cleal said the Crown contended that Glynn meant to kill his family and then himself. In addition to the evidence of neighbours, expert medical evidence would be called to the effect that Glynn was a schizophrenic, and' that although he was aware of his actions at the time of committing the murders, he was not a war' of the legal significance of what he was doing. Mr Cleal said that after considering ’this evidence, which he had turned over to the defence, the jury might see fit to bring in a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. “Split Personality” Two psychiatrists gave evidence that Glynn was a schizophrenic—or split personality. Detective-Sergeant F. A. Gordon produced a statement in which Glynn said the thing had been building up in him for some time. He was worried about finance, and his wife was expecting another child. Glynn said that on the night of the murders he went to bed and lay awake for some time. Suddenly he felt an illness coming over him. and he felt he had to kill everyone, including himself. The witness said that while being driven to Auckland in the p, lice car Glynn kept repeating. “I had to do it.” In his summing-up, his Honour saiu there was no dispute that the people died as a result of an unlawful act cori ! tted by Glynn. The case was not one in which a verdict of manslaughter could be returned. The verdict should be either one of guilty of murder or not guilty on the ground of insanity, on each of the three charges.