Mother of 3 insane, jury finds

Press, 11 May 1979, Page 1

Mother of 3 insane, jury finds

Because she believed that she was a failure as a mother and was passing on her mental illness to her three young children whom she loved, a woman battered them to death one at a time by striking them on the head repeatedly with a claw hammer — and then drove to Iter husband’s dental surgery at Hornby and told him that he should come home because she had killed their children, Mr Justice Roper and a jury were told in the Supreme Court yesterday. After deliberating for 20 minutes, the jury found Elizabeth Anne Mackenzie, aged 35, a housewife, not guilty on the ground of insanity on three charges of the murder of her children — Andrew, aged three; Caroline, aged six; and James, aged eight — on March 6. His Honour made an order that Mrs Mackenzie be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health Act. As the defence had not disputed that Mrs Mackenzie killed the children, the Crown called only two witnesses, a neighbour and the detective who interviewed the accused. No application was made for the renewal of the suppression of Mrs Mackenzie’s name. Publication of her name had been prohibited until yesterday by an order made in the Magistrate’s Court.

On the application of defence counsel, his Honour made an order prohibiting the publication of the evidence of Dr L. L. Treadgold, the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination on the bodies of the children. Throughout yesterday’s hearing, Mrs Mackenzie, wearing a grey skirt and brown corduroy jacket, remained in the dock which shielded her from the gaze of a big public gallery. She was seated between two woman prison officers and a psychiatric nurse. His Honour made an order that the accused be permitted to be out of the courtroom during any stage of the trial that the psychiatric nurse considered appropriate. The accused left the courtroom for about 10 minutes while a detective was giving evidence about her account of killing the children. Messrs N. W. Williamson and I. McCaw appeared for the Crown, and Messrs S. G. Erber and J. J. Brandts-Gie-sen for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the three charges. Mr Williamson told to the jury that it was a case of “murder in its simplest form.’’ On March 6, Mrs Mackenzie killed her three children by hitting them on the head with a hammer at their home at 32 Urunga Avenue, Papanui. Because the accused admitted that she had killed her children, the evidence called by the Crown would be short. The law provided that everv person was sane until the contrary was proved. The Crown had been advised that the defence of insanity would be raised.

His Honour said that the accused, for the purposes of the trial, admitted that she had struck her three children with a hammer, thereby causing their deaths, but said that at the time she did not understand the nature and quality of the acts nor that they were morally wrong. Glennis Ann Sinha, who lives opposite the Mackenzie home, said that she had known the family for about five years. About September, 1977. the accused had told witness that she was worried about her children’s schooling, but there was no real basis for that concern because they were very bright. At the start of the 1978 school year, the accused had also expressed some anxiety about the schooling of the elder boy, James.

On March 6, 1979, the accused visited witness about 8.50 aun. and again at 1 p.m. when she spoke quite normally but on the second occasion said she should not get depressed. At 2.50 p.m., Mrs Sinha said, she sent her son over to see if the accused’s younger son, Andrew, would come for a walk with them to meet the children coming from school. There was no reply to the door. A little later they saw James Mackenzie walking towards his home. To Mr Erber, witness said that the accused was a loving mother who was concerned for her children. She knew the accused had psychiatric problems and had suffered a breakdown last year.

The accused had become concerned about a remark passed by a kindergarten teacher that Andrew had looked pale the day before and had not concentrated when sitting with other

children listening to a story. Deteotive J. P. Whiting said that he arrived at the Mackenzie home soon after 3.30 p.m. on March 6 after being directed there by a radio message. Mr Mackenzie came running out to meet him.

On entering the front door, witness found three small children lying on the floor in the hallway. A boy was lying on his back with severe head injuries and was obviously dead. A small girl was lying face down in the doorway into the kitchen in the same condition. Witness lifted a blanket covering a small boy and found that he, too, was dead. There was a hammer in the hall leaning against the wall. During an interview at the Central Police Station later that day, the accused was extremely quiet. She answered any question put to her but she w'as very difficult to hear. She did not cry at any time but when questioned about the actual striking of the children her eyes had watered. It appeared obvious that the accused had a mental problem, witness said. In reply to questions, the accused had said that she could remember clearly what had happened at her house that afternoon. “I felt totally responsible for shaping the lives of my three children which I couldn’t do any longer,’ s she had said. After having coffee, the accused had said: “As long as my children remained with ine, I was going to contaminate them. They looked to me for moral and spiritual guidance and I couldn’t supply that. I wanted to love them but I was happier when they were under someone else’s influence. I had no right to marry in the first place, I have my weaknesses.” Asked about events of that afternoon, the accused had replied that her younger son, Andrew, had been asleep on the couch and she had thought that she could not make any more decisions for him or any of the children.

“I thought I’ve got to stop the children’s nightmare and my own,” the accused had said. “I got a hammer from a shelf in the pantry. I thought, T’ve got to do it while he’s sleeping’, I hit him with the hammer and kept on hitting him, and he never woke up.”

The other children were stid at school, the accused had said. It was about 2.50 p.m. and so she had driven to the school to pick up her daughter. She had not moved Andrew but had shut the door so that her daughter would not see him. He was still on the couch in the living room. Her daughter was to have gone riding that day but it had been cancelled. Her daughter had expected to be picked up from the Waimairi School. While she was waiting for her she had spoken to a man and woman teachers.

“I took Caroline straight home,” the accused had said. “I knew she mustn’t see Andrew. She had an orange drink and that was the last thing she knew, I think, because I hit her with a hammer in the kitchen.” After she had hit Caroline on the back of the head with the hammer, she had fallen to the floor. Accused

had continued to hit her. She had left Caroline lying in the kitchen doorway.

James h d come home about five minutes later. Accused had taken care that he did not see Caroline. Accused had opened the door for him into the back hall and after he had walked past she had struck him with the hammer on the back of the head. The boy had fallen and she had continued to hit him.

After moving Andrew into the hall with the others, the accused had covered him with a blanket. She had driven to her ’-usband’s surgery and told him that she had killed the children. He had not believed her at first. She had asked him to go home with her. To Mr Erber, Detective Whiting said that he had gained the impression that the accused was aware of what she had done but was firmly of the opinion that she had been justified in do’ r »» it. For the defence, Mr Erber said that the matter was a terrible tragedy for all those involved. The defence of insanity which would be raised was not challenged by the Crown.

The defence would prove that the accused was and had been suffering from a disease of the mind known as manic depressive psychosis which caused such a massive depression that when she had killed the children she had not known that what she was doing was morally wrong. More than that, it would be shown that she believed that tn killing the children whom she loved she had been acting in their best interests. At the time the accused had killed the children she believed that she had failed them as a mother and was contaminating them by having passed on to them a mental illness. It was hardly necessary to say that those delusions were completely wrong.

Evidence would be given by Mr Mackenzie that he knew that when he married his wife she had a history of psychological trouble and had been in a mental institution twice. He would sav that given that it was difficult to live' with a person whose moods fluctuated so violently, the marriage had been happy, and that they had had three children whom they both loved. At times his wife had become severely depressed and in 1977 she had received psychiatric treatment. After a violent outburst in 1978, she had been admitted to Sunnyside Hospital. On that occasion she had been so depressed that she had wanted to commit suicide. She had been discharged from Sunnyside Hospital and for a time had seemed to be recovering but at the end of February she had begun to have delusions that she was poisoning her children with canned tomatoes that had been left in the refrigerator too long. Mr Mackenzie would give evidence that at times his wife had claimed that she was no good for the children, that she could no longer; cope and was a bad mother, that the children were not doing well at school, and that they were being laughed at because their mother was mad. All those things were untrue. When she was on top of things she had been a good mother and wife who had an obsessive concern for the welfare of her children, Mr Erber said.

A psychiatrist called by the defence gave evidence ' that Mrs Mackenzie was insane, a conclusion which was not refuted by the '“’•own.