ALLEGED MURDER

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 57, 8 March 1923, Page 8

ALLEGED MURDER

THE NEWLANDS CASE

MEDICAL EVIDENCE GIVEN

DOCTOR'S ADVICE TO COOPER,

The medical evidence regarding the death',of. the.infant which is.the subject of the charge- against Daniel Richard Cooper and his wife, Martha Elizabeth Cooper, that they did, at Johnsonville, on 20th October, 1922, murder the infant female child of Margaret Mary M'Leod and William James Welsh, was the chief feature of this morning's proceedings before Mr. E. Page,- S.M., at the Magis trate's Court. The small Courtroom was used, and the portion available to the public was crowded.

The ■ first witness" was Dr. B. £. Wright, of Johnsonville, who said he first met the male accused in October, 1922, and was informed that a number of women in a certain condition came id him. Witness attended one woman. Cooper said there was money in it for anyone who i would undertake to look after the young women. WitneßS saw the young woman M'Leod after her child was born. The patient did not appear to have had much done for her. He made a casual examination of the baby, which cried, and Appeared to be healthy. Before leaving he had a talk with Mrs, Cooper concerning the regulations with regard to nursing homes. He did this in view of the second woman being in the " crib." ■

" A few days later I saw Cooper in Johnsonville, and told him I had heard rumours that he was doing abortions. He denied it," stated witness. Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, for Cooper, objected to this evidence as having no bearing on the present charge. The evidence" was allowed.

Witness said he advised Cooper rery strongly to have nothing to do with pregnant women, as he was sure to strike trouble if he did. Cooper said he had seen a lot of women, and had effected cures where doctors had failed. On 3rd January witness was called to Cooper's premises, and was shown an open grave, 2ft 6in in depth, ;t the bottom of which was a child's body covered in clay. Witness removed the clay. . The body was face downwards, with the knees drawn up. The child was a female. The right knee joint was open, exposing the bone. There was also an opening on the left side of the abdomen, exposing the ribs. On the following day a post-morten examination was made. The body waa in an advanced state of decomposition. The abdominal wall had given way on the left side. In several portions of the body the bone formation was not complete, as it usually was in a full-time child. The body weighed approximately 1 four pounds. In ground like that, weight would decrease as the body decomposed. The skull openings were wide. The left lung communicated with the external air through the abdominal wound. A further examination was made on. 10th , January for centres of ossificationl in the region of the knees: Decomposition'made the examination of the abdominal wound indefinite. The conclusions drawn were as follows:— DOCTOR'S CONCLUSIONS. "That, the body was that of.a-female child; probably a full-time ctiild: "It had lived for at least three days, probably more. The .condition of the right knee joint showed gross injury either during life or"'after death. -The condition of the abdominal wall indicated violent injury, either anti or post mortem. There is no definite indication as to the cause of death." i( Mr. Macassey (Crown Prosecutor): "Was that owing to putrefaction?" Witness: "No, I wont say that." "Would putrefaction help you in' ascertaining the cause of death?"—"lt would not help. It would have been easier to ascertain the cause of death if the body was not putrefied." _ Continuing, witness said his impression was that the child had lived between six and eight days. One could say definitely that the appearance of the body was consistent with it having been in the ground for two months. It had black hair. Mr. Macassey: "How do you think the injuries could be caused?" Witness said the injuries could have been caused by a person using a spade to bury the child. - They were not caused when the body was recovered. To Mr. Treadwell: Witness woujd not commit himself to saying that the injuries were caused by a spade. Mr. P. W. Jackson,, for the female accused, did not cross-examine. ! Dr. Hector, of Wellington, gave fur- | ther evidence concerning the inquest, generally on similar lines to that given by Dr.' Wright. Witness said the child had, lived at least four or five days, and not more than a fortnight. The evidence as to this was conclusive, and based on the contents of the bowels. The cause of death could not be ascertained. To Mr. Treadwell: It was not safe to say this child had not been four or five months under ground. Many considerations had to be taken into account. . Minnie King, a resident of Taranaki street, said she knew Cooper. He called on her in October last to see if shs would take a confinement case. The patient was Lilian Lester. She was introduced as Smith. Clothing produced (that identified as her baby's by Margaret M'Leod) was brought to her house before the Lester baby was born. The baby wore some of the clothing when it was taken away. The baby was born in the house of witness. Mary Cornick, shop assistant, of Wellington, was then called. i Mr. Macassey: "You know accused?" Witness looked round the courthouse and fixing her eye oh a spectator said "Yes." At the moment accused was invisible to her. For a moment the Court lost' its dignity, Cooper enjoying the mistake as much as anyone. In her evidence witness said she received certain article's of clothing, which she identified, from Mrs. Cooper. THE SUCCESSFUL SEARCH. j A description of the methods of search adopted at Cooper's Newlands property I was given by Detective Jarrold. He ; said he first saw the spade he used inside Cooper's gate' on Ist January. At 11.30 a.m. on 3rd' January his attention was drawn to a spot amongst some trees. He there siiw a patch of clay about eighteen inches 'in diameter. Ho dug in this spot, and noticed a. smell when at a depth of two feet, after which he proceeded more carefully. The body was shortly disclosed. The spade only touched the child on one occasion. This was when the back of the head, about half an inch of it, was disclosed. Absolutely no injury was inflicted to the body. There were marks in the grave into which the spade he found on the property and used fitted exactly. These were made by someone who was digging in the grave before it was filled in and before any police examination. On 16th January, 1923, the male accused was interviewed by Detective M'Lennan at tho waiting-room in the Central Police Station. Mr. J. Maule, solicitor for accused, was present. Cooper was told the child of M'Leod was

born at Newlands and placed in his possession. A request was then made for an explanation as to the child's whereabouts. Cooper replied: "I have nothing, to say." At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. On resuming- this afternoon, the detective continued his evidence. On the same date, in. the presence of Mr. Jackson, Detective M'Lennan asked Mrs. Cooper if she could give any explanation as to the whereabouts of the child. The same reply was made! On 27th January a written demand for the child was made. This was handed to the female accused, and later the maJe accused at the Terrace Prison. Mrs. Cooper said nothing. Cooper said: "It is imposible to produce the child while I am in here." Witness, thereupon said that if accused would give any information as to the whereabouts of the child every endeavour would be made to produce it. Two days later formal charges were made against the accused of unlawfully detaining the child. On sth February Mrs. Cooper was formally charged with the murder of the child. She was then with her solicitor (Mr. Wilford), and replied, "I am not guilty." Cooper charged, said : "I have nothing to say except that I am innocent." WANTED HER SOLICITOR. Inspector M'llvenoy was the next witness. He saw the child exhumed at Newlands. On his return, in company with others, he saw the female accused. He told her the dead body had been found buried on the section near the house. Hs asked for an explanation as to the burial, cause of death, and other particulars. Mrs. Cooper replied that she would like to see .her solicitor, and had nothing else to say. Senior-Detective Lewis, in his evidence, said he interviewed Cooper on 30th December concerning a missing child, not the one the subject of this charge. Accused elected to make a siatenient. This was the statement mnde in ths first trial of Cooper. In it accused said he had carried on business as a health specialist in Wellington for some five years. During this time he had been approached on several occasions to assist single girls, and' to arrange for confinements and subsequent adoption of the I children. (Proceeding.) j