LORIMER FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31058, 13 May 1966, Page 3

LORIMER FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER

Mercy Rider; Sentence Of Life Term Nola Gertrude Lorimer, a 48-year-old land agent, was found guilty of murder when the Supreme Court jury late last evening returned its verdict after her four-day trial. The jury, which deliberated for four hours and a half, recommended mercy, but his Honour pointed out that the sentence passed was mandatory. However, the recommendation would be passed on to the Minister of Justice, he said.

Mr Justice Macarthur sentenced Lorimer, who received the verdict calmly, to life imprisonment.

Asked whether she had anything to say before sentence was passed, Lorimer said: “No, sir. I would just like to thank everyone in this Court for giving me a fair trial.”

Lorimer killed her 74-year-old mother, Reta Jane Coxhead, on December 1, by attacking her with a heavy wooden barometer, and then cutting her throat.

His Honour summed up late in the afternoon before a packed gallery and crowded solicitors’ benches. After traversing the medical evidence, he told the jury that it was not a question of the number of witnesses for one view or another, but of the quality of the evidence.

Lorimer was defended by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr J. R. Milligan. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) had with him Mr N. W. Williamson.

Yesterday’s hearing was occupied largely with defence evidence by Dr. R. W. Medlicott, a Dunedin psychiatrist, and his cross-examination by the Crown, and evidence in rebuttal of insanity by Dr. P. P. E. Savage, of Auckland. Evidence Continued Continuing his evidence yesterday morning. Dr. Mediicott, in support of his view that Lorimer had lost the balance of her mind when she killed her mother, said there was no evidence of premeditation; the act was quite out of keeping with her normal care of her mother; and her account of the whole series of events was qu te confused. “I feel she had no really clear memory of what she did and felt during this time, in spite of her attempt to reconstruct the death,” he said. In her attempt at recon-1 struction, it was as though! Lorimer had seen events through a haze. She had felt it impossible she could have struck s< many blows. “Finally, I think there was a large elemei t of frenzy, as evinced by the numerous blows, and the force of the cut throat,” the witness said. “I feel that provocation led to insane conduct,” he said. “Her conduct, I felt, was not like the ordinary behaviour of ordinary persons similarly placed. “Suddenly it seemed all over. She now realised, in full depth, what she had done. I think at this stage her intense wishes to preserve her family tcok over. She maintains right at the time afterwards she felt she must commit suicide, but she must not disgrace her children.” At this stage Lorimer’s capacity to shut off unpleasant facts, and her ability to put on a bold front, stood her in good stead. Stale Of Mind On Lorimer’s state of mind at the time of killing her mother, the witness said: “I believe that she was temporarily insane, that all her defences had broken down, and that she was not responsible, in a criminal sense, at that time.” Cross-examined by Mr Roper, Dr. Medlicott was first asked whether he could throw any light on the meaning of the note written by Lorimer on December 7. when she intimated her confession was a figment of her imagination. He replied: “It does net surprise me.” What doesn't surprise you?

—That she vacillated on this. I had little doubt that she would confess.

Do you infer that she had confessed, and then retracted it as a “figment of her imagination,” and wanted to stop you coming up from Dunedin?—l had come up from Dunedin. I had seen her. After she had seen you, she wished to retract the confession?—At the moment of time she wrote this note she did. The witness was then asked whether he thought that Lorimer, at the time of killing her mother, suffered from a temporary insanity lasting for a matter of seconds.

“1 think it would be more like minutes,” he replied. It was a psychotic episode of a hysterical personality, he said. There could have been a psychotic breakdown even with Dr. Lough still there, although it was unlikely. Mr Roper: If she did not understand the nature and quality of her actions, it wouldn’t matter who was present? The witness: I have never yet found anybody who did not have some knowledge at a level of nature and quality. And Mrs Lorimer had some such knowledge?—The knowledge of an onlooker, the knowledge of a person who was at that time temporarily insane.

She knew she was hitting her mother?—Yes, knowing at a level. She registered that she was hitting her. It would also be registering, would it not, that her actions were going to cause her mother considerable harm? —I don’t know. I don’t know what was going on in her mind then. But didn't you state, doctor, that she is not criminally responsible because she didn't understand the nature and quality of her acts? —I said she didn't fully understand. Elaboration Asked to elaborate, the witness said he thought Lorimer was able to register that she was hitting her mother, but was unable in any way to reason about it. Do you consider that any person in these circumstances reasons as he commits the act?—Oh, yes. You say a more or less ordinary person reasons, as he strikes, “I know this is wrong, I know what I’m doing, and know it’s going to cause harm.” They don’t go through that? —No.

But, said the witness, professional criminals might quite clearly reason the whole time when caught in a compromising situation. Do you agree with Dr. Dobson that details of Lorimer’s confession, as to her actions and thoughts, might well be figments of her imagination, made up after?—l think some of them could well be. Should we, perhaps, reject the whole of her confession as a figment of her imagination? Even when her accounts differed, 1 am sure she was registering what was going on, even if it was in a haze. “Discrepancies” But she has, in fact, been quite explicit as to her actions, and, in particular, her thoughts?—When you take her through the whole episode (and I have taken

her through it four times) there are quite wide discrepancies.

Did you make any attempt to dissuade her from confessing, on the basis that mentally she was not really competent to confess?—The whole ethical aspects of this were such that we had to be extremely careful, and consequently I gave her no indication as to what she should do.

What have you to say of Mrs Lorimer’s knowledge that what she was doing was morally wrong?—l think her knowledge was less than her knowledge of the nature and quality of the act. ... It is tied to a mixture of guilt, and mercy killing. The witness said he did not think that at the time any knowledge of the moral wrong of the act was completely absent.

Would you agree that after the striking with the barometer, Mrs Lorimer’s immediate thoughts were how she could cover this up, and so escape liability herself in the interests of her children?— I think the thoughts she had at that time were tied up with her mother being ill. Having regard for her subsequent actions when she concealed vital clues, doesn’t it seem as if her thought was to ensure her mother was dead?—l don’t think you can take it together, what happened at the time and her actions immediately after. She got over her temporary psychosis very quickly?—That is not unusual. And acted with remarkable shrewdness immediately after? —Yes. I have already pointed out that characteristics of her personality made it easy to do that. “Same Degree” The witness said he did not distinguish between the attack with the barometer and Lorimer’s cutting her mother’s throat. Both had the same degree of frenzy. But cutting the throat was a considered act? There had to be some preparation, namely, the getting of the knife? —She had to obtain the barometer. But she had to get a suitable knife?—Yes. And either by luck or design got the only knife out of eight that would have done the job?—Yes, but surely the insane murderer has to find a weapon. Would you agree it is unusual to have two different types of attack, such as this, if Mrs Lorimer was insane?— I think the whole episode is extremely unusual. In final questions, Mr Roper asked:— She claims she was not angry at the time. —This to an ordinary person would be practically impossible. She admits being terrified? —Yes.

She admits to feeling guilty?—Yes, but I think that 17 blows, and the force of

the cut throat, make it reasonable to assume that, although consciously she could never accept it, it was anger which came out. Crown Witness Dr. Savage, then called by the Crown in rebuttal of the defence evidence of insanity, said that he first saw Lorimer in March, 1963, when she was referred to him by Dr. A. J. K. Simmance. The symptoms complained of then were chronic anxiety and periods of confusion—the latter related to him by Ruric Hunter, the man who had brought her. He concluded there were no pyscho-neurotic symptoms and that the confusion could have been brought about by drink or unwise doses of drugs. He next saw Lorimer on December 22-3, after the inquiries into the incidents at Albany street. It seemed that her relationship with her mother had deteriorated, because of the latter’s three strokes and personality changes. No clear-cut psychiatric symptoms could be detected. Lorimer knew where she was, thought at normal speed, showed no evidence of delusion or hallucination, appeared neutral in mood, showed no anxiety, thought normally and logically, displayed good and unaffected memory, and had at least normal intelligence. Information from other sources, the witness said, suggested that Lorimer had been under considerable strain for years, but that she was also a rather cold-blooded and somewhat selfish individual even with her own family. Responsibility On the aspect of Lorimer’s criminal responsibility for the killing of her mother, the witness said:—“l felt she knew what she was doing at the time. She gave me a clear picture of what happened before and after the event, although not until a certain time afterwards. She could even describe her own feelings at the time . . . trivial details recalled, and even her state of panic—panic, not rage.

“I finally formed the opinion that the crime was not premeditated, but was probably due to her impulsive nature while under her menstrual period, and precipitated by the circumstances of the mother-daughter quarrel. “I thought she knew what she was doing,” he said. He thought she knew the nature and quality of her actions, and that they were morally wrong. Dr. Savage was first crossexamined by Mr Young about newspaper publicity both in Christchurch and Auckland about the killing of Mrs Coxhead.

“You really don’t know how

much was the product of Lorimer’s mind and how much she had been told?” Mr Young asked. The witness replied that Lorimer talked to him quite rationally about the matter. He agreed that Drs. R. W. Medlicott, T. E. Hall, P.R.E. Dobson, and W. N. Rogers were men of experience and ability. Mr Young: You wouldn’t be prepared to say that all these four doctors would be wrong in their diagnosis?—l have considered all their opinions, and I have considered mine. And I incline to my own, sir.

You are a sort of Lone-Star Ranger in this field? —I am getting to be used to it, sir. Mr Young then cross-ex-amined the witness at length about the report he wrote when Lorimer was taken to see him at the Christchurch Hospital psychiatric outpatients’ department in March, 1963. Questioned about the lack of reference to Lorimer’s mother in the report, the witness said Lorimer had probably not told him about it. Mr Young suggested it was a notable omission: and that Lorimer’s stresses and strains about her mother had been in the denial area (referred to by Dr. Medlicott in his evidence on Wednesday). The witness: You could be right, sir, you could be wrong. I don’t know. Epilepsy Issue On the balance of probabilities, the witness said, he did not think Lorimer was epileptic. If that were proven, he would be the first to admit that a sound defence had been established. Mr Young: So that the case, in your view, turns on whether or not it has been established she was an epileptic? The witness: She could only be excused on the ground of one of the more unusual forms of psychomotor epilepsy. It would have to be an unusual form because of her background of alcohol. Challenged about his description of Lorimer as coldblooded and selfish, the witness said there was considerable evidence that Lorimer had behaved in a sociallyunaccepted manner. Further challenged about

the source of his information, the witness said he had been told things about Lorimer by persons who had not given evidence at the hearing. He agreed there was no motive and no premeditation by Lorimer and that menstrual matricide was well recognised by psychiatrists. Defence Address Mr Young, in his address to the jury, suggested it could not ignore the evidence of the four psychiatrists he had called. “Dr. Savage conceded himself to be a Lone-Star Ranger,” said Mr Young. “With all the resources of the State, surely they could have found one more doctor to support Dr. Savage. I am entitled to say that, and I do say it. You may feel that the weight of evidence is stacked heavily against him.” The jury might wonder why Lorimer’s male friends had been called, and might form an unfavourable view of their association, as married men, with her.

But their evidence showed that Lorimer must be given full marks for the upbringing and education of her children, and the discharge of her duties to her mother. Was Lorimer the coldblooded, selfish woman that some people had chosen to tell Dr. Savage about? Could the jury feel that his report, and evidence were not coloured by some evil-thinking, rumour-mongering people who had elected to tell him so, the expert witness for the Crown? Dr. Medlicott and the others had said that Lorimer was suffering from severe psychoneurotic disorder, and there was clear, indisputable evidence that Lorimer had been taken for mental examination in 1962-63.

Insanity, even if partial, before the events of December 1 was such as to render Lorimer in a state of mind in which she was not responsible for the killing of her mother. Even putting the doctors aside, and taking the commonsense view, was the woman who wielded the barometer which crushed her mother’s skull, and used the knife which cut her mother’s throat, a sane one?

“I say she could only have so acted if the control mechanism of her brain had

broken down,” said Mr Young. The issue, Mr Roper said in his address, had narrowed down to whether Lorimer had been temporarily insane. As to that, Lorimer was a more than unusual personality—twice married, from a mother three times married. She had done the best for her children, in a rather material way, but had caused dissension in her home by taking Hunter in to live there. The Crown would concede, said Mr Roper, that Lorimer was under emotional stress on December 1, but no more than that. But Lorimer was also the woman who was taken for mental examination in 1962 as suffering from outbreaks of anger and irritability, sometimes accompanied by violent language. “You might think defence witnesses have been loyal to Mrs Lorimer, but less than frank in their opinions of her,” Mr Roper said. Dr. Savage had been criticised for reporting Lorimer as cold-blooded and selfish. But if the jury held that Lorimer had known the nature and quality of her act, and that it was morally wrong, it would appear Dr Savage was absolutely right. Accounts Of Killing Mr Roper then read to the jury accounts Lorimer had given of the killing of her mother to the police, to Dr. T. E. Hall, and to Dr. Savage.

After commenting on their similarity and detail, Mr Roper said: “If they are the product of a diseased mind, it was a disease for a matter of minutes only.” The accounts, he suggested, showed that Lorimer knew what she was doing, and that it was morally wrong. Dr. Hall had admitted she knew she had done something terrible. Lorimer had been composed after the crime, and had made a quite clever attempt to cover her tracks. “Mr Foreman and members of the jury, it will be a sad day when we can kill, and escape the consequences because our emotions happened momentarily to overflow,” Mr Roper said. After a short adjournment, his Honour summed up.