La Mattina Found Guilty Of Murder

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28450, 3 December 1957, Page 16

La Mattina Found Guilty Of Murder

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, December 2. In a crowded court, the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) late this afternoon passed sentence of death on Angelo La Mattina, aged 23, for the murder on September 3 of Angelo Odorico, custodian of the Garibaldi Club, Wellington. The jury returned its verdict of guilty after deliberating for a little more than an hour and a half. La Mattina was not visibly affected by the verdict and sentence.

The Chief Justice released the jury from further service for three years. Throughout this morning, while counsel gave their final addresses, the public portion of the back of the court, and the gallery, were filled with spectators. Senior Counsel for La Mattina (Mr R. Hardie Boys) addressed the jury for a little more than an hour. He was followed by the leading Crown counsel (Mr W. R. Birks). His Honour began his summing-up just before the luncheon adjournment, and when the Court resumed at 2 p.m. more than 300 persons who had gathered outside the doors of the court were unable to gain admitttance to the trial.

Mr Boys said in his address that, when questioned by the police. La Mattina said that New Zealand was trying to kill him. As counsel in care of his interests, Mr Boys said, he wished to place on record that the accused had been considerately treated by the police and the prosecution. He would be an ungrateful man if he did not admit that he had received British justice during the investigations and at his trial. Accused’s Evidence Counsel submitted that La Mattina’s evidence accorded entirely with that of witnesses for the prosecution. It was admitted that he had lied when he denied that he had been at the club on Sunday. But the jury would know with what fear he faced the police questioning. La Mattina has also been proved wrong over what he said he saw through the keyhole of the door, which in fact had no keyhole, but after all that had no vital part in the events of the fateful Tuesday night. “All along the line, the accused’s story has been upheld by witnesses,” said Mr Boys. La Mattina had been upheld as to what he had done and where he had been on the Tuesday night. He had told the police of his taking the clothes to the dry cleaners and that any blood on his coat had been caused by wiping his hand on it. He had admitted to the police that he had been wearing the coat at the time of th£ affray. “If the accused’s evidence is a lie, then it is a poor one,” said Mr Boys. “He could have improved upon it. and I suggest that it rings true. How easy it would have been for La Mattina to have lied about an attack on him by Odorico. There were only fisticuffs at first. The devilry only began when Odorico struck La Mattina with a chair and a cup.” Mr Boys submitted that the motive of jealousy had already been disposed of. “What cause had La Mattina to be jealous—he had the girl.” Referring to robbery as an alleged motive, counsel said that before September 3 La Mattina had more than £9O. and the Crown’s contention of theft was a suggestion only. “How can you be free of doubt in this matter?” asked counsel. “If you are not free of the doubt of robbery, it is still not proof of murder. It may be that La Mattina was a thief, but he is not a murderer.” If the jury had any doubt about the whole affair, could it remain in the light of Dr. Alexander’s evidence? Dr. Alexander had found nothing to support the evidence of Dr. Lynch, called by the Crown, that Odorico was battered to death at a low level. “What was it turned this young, simple, over-amorous Italian into a cruel killer?” asked Mr Boys. “He carried no implement of murder with him to the club, and it was the attack on him by

Odorico with the chair and other implement that roused his passion, a rousing which resulted in the death of the caretaker.” Crown Address Mr Birks said that one wondered whether Odorico had any interest in the girl Anna at all. Any suggestion that he had, came from the accused, and no-one else. “Clearly this is a case of killing, and clearly it is the accused who wielded the bottle that caused death.” On his own statement, Mr Birks submitted, it was clear that La Mattina killed Odorico. La Mattina admitted that he had forced his way into the club and attacked Odorico with his fists. The defence of self-defence which had been raised on behalf of the accused could succeed only if the force was no more than sufficient to repel any attack by Odorico. Summing-up Summing-up, his Honour said it had to be proved by the Crown that it was homicide, and that it was the prisoner who killed Odorico. There had, he said, never been any doubt that the case was one of homicide, and a great deal of evidence had been produced by the Crown to support the contention that La Mattina was the killer. Moreover, it was admitted by the defence that La Mattina was the killer. The jury had to consider whether there had been any opportunity for La Mattina to retire from the affray at the club.

“When he saw Odorico with the bottle in his hand, he could have retreated, but he did not. and on his own admission he followed Odorico into the kitchen,” his Honour said, “Indeed, La Mattina admitted on three separate occasions that before the final blows were struck he could have withdrawn.”

His Honour expressed the view that the plea of self-defence was not available in La Mattina’s case.

His Honour also pointed out that the Crown had said La Mattina stole a sum of money from Odorico. The money was the property of the club. La Mattina was out of work for some weeks and short of money, and he had been borrowing money. The Crown had shown that after Odorico’s death La Mattina had been able to spend a great deal of money. Among the money missing from the club was a large number of 10s notes. La Mattina had a large number of 10s notes, though short of money and out of work.

There was evidence, on the other hand, that before the killing La Mattina had had £9O. but whether the question of robbery was the motive behind the killing was for the jury to decide. It was one of the several questions before it.