Robert Bridge Not Guilty But Insane, And Younger

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29238, 23 June 1960, Page 16

Robert Bridge Not Guilty But Insane, And Younger

Brother Acquitted

(Neu, Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, June 22.

After a retirement of four hours and a quarter, a jury in the Supreme Court today found Robert Edward Bridge, aged 16, not guilty of two charges of murdering his sisters, Carolyn, aged six, and Valerie Juliet, aged two, but insane. The girls were shot in their beds at their home at Waipipi on the night of April il.

Trevor John Bridge, aged 12, who was jointly charged with his brother, was acquitted and discharged.

Mr Justice Turner, who presided, ordered that Robert Edward Bridge be detained in custody at the pleasure of the Minister of Justice. His Honour said that it appeared that the elder accused would be transferred to a mental institution. It would be for the Minister to decide.

The trial lasted three days. Mr G. D. Speight, with him Mr D. Morris, represented the Crown. Mr L. P. Leary. Q.C., with him Mr D. G. Burt, appeared for Robert Bridge. Mr R. K. Davison represented Trevor Bridge' When the trial was resumed this morning, Mr Leary read to Leon Isaac Shenken, an Auckland psychiatrist called by the defence, more excerpts from the writings of Robert Bridge. These were mainly of murders taking place in a small town and he also showed the witness further drawings depicting violence and sadism. The witness said that these showed a “most profuse fantasy mind.” “From the volume of writings and drawings, it seems Robert was preoccupied for much of the time with this fantasy life.” The volume of Robert's writings before the tragedy showed that he lived in a world of violence and tragedy in which violence predominated “There is no thought of right or wrong in his writing,” said the witness, “and at the time of the tragedy he is no more concerned with right or wrong than at the time of writing" Cross-Examination

Cross-examined by Mr Speight the witness said that he had not discussed the boy with his father He had only read the father’s Court testimony, along with the books produced by the defence

The books, he said, must have been written over a considerable period, a year or so. Mr Speight asked what sig' iflcance the witness took from writings in which Robert represented himself as a lawver. gruesome passages dealing with' a hanging, and a love poem abou' a girl which were written abou’ two years ago The witness renlied that, in hts opinion. thc=e were entirely consistent with the diagnosis of schizophrenia he had made. Mr Speight: Would you agree that much of the material taken by itself is colourless? The witness: I would say they support my proposition. Are there not quite a number of harmless passages?—lt is the volume of material and the amount of time this boy must have spent thinking and writing about things of this nature. It is not all sinister materia' in the books?—Not all. But it does show in a very great preoonderance of it. The question of must be governed by the number of years over which this material was written?—Yes. that is quite correct. Short Stories

Would you agree that many boys try their hand at writing short stories?—Yes. Didn’t Robert try out the “New Zealand Herald” with a short story which was returned from the editor with a note to say it was unsuitable?—l don't know. I didn’t see that.

The witness agreed that a number of bovs were taken with the idea of church ministry. Many boys also imagined themselves in heroic and romantic episodes and associated themselves with soldiering. However, he considered that the topics mentioned fitted in with his

theory that they represented a rather extraordinary degree of fantasy. Mr Speight: On this collection of books alone you couldn’t say that Robert was a schizophrenic?

The witness: One never makes a diagnosis on the basis of such literature alone.

Mr Speight produced Robert’s diary for 1960, and referred the witness to passages when the boy recorded his daily experiences. “He talked about the girl he has kissed,” said Mr Speight, “about playing chess, buying a rifle, about the tomato fight he and his father had with some other boys, also about how he plays the guitar, and that he intended to write songs for the guitar and then try them out on his friends.”

Other entries, said Mr Speight, referred to his interest in his new flashlight camera, and told of how he and his brother would sometimes take the tractor after their father had gone out, and practice “four-wheel drifts" on it.

“In this collection of matters he talked about," said Mr Speight, "surely their normality would negate your claim that he had lost touch with reality?" It was rare for this touch with reality to disappear all at once, the witness replied. “It is a gradual, insidious, imperceptible process." he said. “It is going on all the time in the person’s normal every-day life It is what we call ‘latent schizophrenia’.” He was confident, he said, that Robert was in a schizophrenic state on April 11, the date of the tragedy. Emergence Asked when he considered Robert to have emerged from the schizophrenic influence, the witness replied: “Possibly when his father unexpectedly appeared on the drive. Or he could have returned to reality when walking across the fields with Trevor to the boat. He would then have realised what he had done." The witness considered that, while the boy was under the influence of schizophrenia, he was unaware that what he was doing was morally wrong. Mr Speight: Was not the fact that he waited for the little girl to finish her prayers—rather than dispatch her with her prayers unsaid—a sign of moral judgment? The witness: He delayed because he considered she would have a better chance of going to heaven. This, to him, would be morally right. Mr Speight asked why Robert had sent Trevor out of the room then and told him not to watch. “He did not want to cause him any mental distress," said the witness. Mr Speight: Surely it is an indication that he did not want Trevor to share his wrong. The witness: There is here a logical twist, for although he sent Trevor out of the room, he had wanted him to shoot the other girl. Shooting Discussed The witness told Mr Speight that he had discussed with Robert the shooting of both girls. Mr Speight: What did Robert say his question to Trevor was about the shooting?

The witness: I think it was, “Would you take care of Valerie?”

Was there a question asking Trevor if he could do it?—There might have been. But I cannot recall it.

Was it of some significance that Robert was in doubt that Trevor was not up to it?—lt would seem there were doubts that Trevor could do it. Why do you think these doubts should develop if he didn’t associate right with wrong, anyway? —He was concerned solely with the dispatching of the girls quickly and painlessly. This was part of his illogical thinking. I assume that his doubts about Trevor reflected this.

He added that he thought Robert’s only doubts were about Trevor’s physical capabilities of carrying out the shooting. The witness agreed that rudimentary escape plans were made by Robert before his parents returned home on the night of the shooting. Mr Speight: Doesn’t that Indicate that he thought it must be necessary to get away?—ln his fantasy world it was part of the odd story. Why does one have to get away?—Because in his stories in his fantasy world he will be apprehended and purished. The witness said it was Impossible to say whether the attempts to fake an escape were a continuing part of the fantasy or a return to reality by Robert. If Robert had returned to reality by this time .it was "pretty quick." Religious Beliefs The witness said that the boy had very strong religious beliefs. Mr Speight: He has prayed for forgiveness and that God has forgiven him. Do you think he believes that?—l think so. Believes it very strongly?— Yes. Couldn’t that be a factor which affects the amount of remorse he shows?—lt is unreasonable to expect the normal person to say he is forgiven and then not be worried about it. The witness added that he could not imagine any degree of religion which would render a person impervious to normal reaction.

Re-examined by Mr Leary, the witness said he thought that Robert had allowed his sister Carolyn to finish her prayers before he shot her, because Robert thought that it might make I-' entry to heaven more easy. Mr Leary then closed the case for the defence.

Mr Davidson told his Honour that he was calling no evidence for the younger boy.

In Rebuttal

Mr Speight then said he would call three doctors in rebuttal of defence evidence. The first was Kenneth Robert Stallworthy, a psychiatrist, of Tokanui, who examined Robert on May 6 and 9. He told Mr Speight that “considering all things together Robert is probably suffering from schizophrenia, but it is impossible to be absolutely positive.” Assuming that schizophrenia did exist, “it does not necessarily mean that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong,” he said. Most schizophenics lived within the law without any apparent difficulty. He believed Robert was labouring under a disease of the mind at the time of the tragedy. He would have an awareness of what he was doing, but probably not an appreciation of the act. The witfiess agreed with Mr Leary that ’there was very little reason, by normal reasoning, why the boy should kill either of his parents and even less why he should kill the children. He said that Robert could not be returned to normal society tomorrow, as there would be a serious risk of further violence. It would require a very prolonged and detailed study to decide when that risk disappeared. William O'Reilly, a medical officer at the Auckland Mental Hospital, said he had worked in such hospitals for 20 years. From talks he had with Robert he came to the conclusion that the boy knew that what he was doing was wrong.

"He gave me a very clear account of what happened,” the witness said, “and told me he and his younger brother had been discussing the killing of their father over a period of years. He said he knew what he had done was wrong but he prayed and now was forgiven.”

Mr Speight: Was he sorry for what he did?

The witness: No. He regarded the girls as being better off in heaven than where they were. Alexander West, senior superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital, said that Robert told him that he knew he was doing wrong. The witness did not ask the accused if he would do it again. “However, I did ask him why he didn’t think of shooting himself, and he replied ‘There was no need for that”

Robert mentioned that he had asked God for forgiveness, the witness said. He believed the boy had done this immediately after the shooting and the witness agreed that the reasons given for wanting to kill the parents and the killing of the children were absurd. The boy told him while in prison that when he thought of what he had done he became depressed and tried not to think about it. To Mr Leary the witness said that the reasons given for the killings were completely insane.. The insanity lay in what the accused felt, thought, and did at the time. Counsel's Address

In his final address to the jury Mr Leary said there was no doubt that Robert Bridge slew his sisters and that the brother Trevor fired no shots but had to take responsibility for having taken part in the act. “I only have tj show that Robert suffered from a disease which stopped him from knowing the difference between right and wrong,** said counsel.

He asked the jury if it had any doubt that Robert led a double life. If the jury found that Robert did not know what he was doing, then he was entitled to be found not guilty but of unsound mind. Robert came from a good home with a virtuous mother and a virtuous father, and the tragedy was caused only by his wrong thinking. Mr Speight said that if the jury felt, taking the case for Trevor, that he knew what he was doing, he invited it to stick to the rules, whether it be in respect of his age or ir respect of his sanity. Mr Speight said he submitted Trevor knew that all of the acts he was alleged to have committed were wrong. He discussed with his brother whether or not he could kill his sister himself. The fact that Trevor said he was “hang of a scared o' his brother” had no right in the eyes of the law

Referring to the case of Robert Bridge, Mr Speight said: “When you or I read of a hideous crime such as this, we ask ourselves, ‘is he mad?* ** He advised the jury

not to confuse its already difficult task by asking in which way would Robert Bridge get the best treatment. He added: “The law will only flourish in this country if the rules are observed." Mr Davison, for Trevor Bridge, submitted that his client was a child in fact in the eyes of the law. “Here we have a lad who loved his father, loved his mother, and loved his sisters,** said counsel “It is inconceivable that auch a lad could take part in such a tragedy.** He said there was no evidence that he either fired a shot or aided and abetted his brother. Judge Sums Up

His Honour’s summing-up took little more than half an hour. Speaking of Robert Bridge, he said it had not been challenged by Mr Leary that all the elements of the definition of murder had not been met by the Crown. That was a question for the jury. The question of his insanity was also one for the jury. It had to decide if, when he fired the gun, he knew, or was capable of knowing, that what he did was wrong. His Honour said It was always possible tor a jury to consider a verdict of manslaughter. That had not been suggested in this case. There was nothing he could see that would make nim urge such a verdict

In the case Of Trevor Bridge, said his Honour, it had to be shown that he unlawfully killed his sisters, and at once the conclusion must be that he did not. It was said by the Crown that he aided or abetted Robert The jury first had to conclude, before considering the case of Trevor, whether Robert unlawfully killed his sisters. “If you do, you may then consider whether Trevor aided or abetted," said his Honour. “You have to decide that what Trevor is alleged to have done he did, and he knew it was wrong. “You may ask yourselves wnether the statements made to Dr. Stall worthy showed that Trevor knew what he was doing was wrong. If you come to that conclusion you will sternly put aside the protection offered by section 42 of the Crimes Act in relation to children between the ages of seven years and 14. You will consider, from the evidence, whether Trevor stood by and encouraged his brother to commit murder."