WAS SHE INSANE?

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 35, 10 February 1926, Page 6

WAS SHE INSANE?

——-♦ THE KAIKORAI TRAGEDY

TRIAL OF ELLEN HART

FOE MTJBDER OF HER CHILDREN.

(By Telegraph.) (Special to "Tha Evenini Post.")

DUNEDIN, This Day.

On trial for her life, the Crown's case being that she was sane when she slew her three Children on the morning of 9th November, at Kaikorai, Mrs. Ellen Hait had to be helped into the dock of the Supreme Court yesterday morning, when called to- answer three charges of murder. She was neatly dressed, but presented a pitiful sight, and had to be helped into the dock by a warder and Ensign Coombs, between whom the stood with bowed head when the charge* were read.

The charges consisted of three informations impeaching her with murder of her three children, Lindsay Alexander Hart, aged live yean; Andrew William Hart aged three year* and five months; and Nola Ellen Hart, aged fourteen months.

Mr. J. B. Callan appeared for the accused, and entered a plea of not guilty.

Mr. Justice Sim, who presided, asked if the woman had pleaded. "No," replied the warder. ♦'Then ask her," said his Honour. The warder turned and spoke to the, woman, who still stood rigidly with her head bowed low.

"She pleads not guilty," said the warder.

When, at the, request of her counsel, his Honour granted accused permission to be seated she sat down and buried her head in her gloved hands. Only once, when the Judge spoke, did she look up, with her hands to her head. The recital of the incidents of the fatal morning by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. F. B. Adams) was evidently too much for her. She sobbed quietly, then bowed beneath the rail of the dock. In this way she was for the remainder of the morning's hearing out of sight, leaving only the warder and Ensign Coombs in view. She had to be assisted to walk when the luncheon adjournment was taken. THE CASE OUTLINED. A little over an hour was occupied by the Crown Prosecutor in outlining the case'for the Crown. "There is no need to emphasise the extreme horror of the crime," he began. It was difficult, he said, to imagine a more shocking crime thail that with -which the woman was charged. There was ■ but one defence—that of insanity—and it was for the jury to decide whether at the time of the act the woman was responsible in such a way as to be liable to the consequences of the criminal law. Whatever their decision, the issues were extremely grave. Mr. Adams reminded the jury that on their verdict more depended than Mrs. Hart's life. While he asked them to bring in a verdict of insanity if they found that grounds existed, they had to remem-, ber that if the grounds did not exist there might be far-reaching results. "These children were unprotected," he said, "and unable to raise any protest. If you say that accused was irresponsible, that decision may have a harmful effect. It is on verdicts of juries such as you that the, safety of children depends. The possibility of any laxity on the part of the • jury might have consequences such as none of you would care to contemplate." The defence must satisfy them that the accused was insane,' and unless it satisfied them there was but one verdict they could bring in. Another requirement in'the defence of insanity was that accused, by reason of natural imbecility or disease of the brain,; was incapable of responsibility. . They must determine whether accused was eonI scious of the aft. The facts in the case against Mrs. Hart seemed to satisfy that she Was conscious. If she was conscious, did she know the nature f That was the next point. DID SHE KNOW? , "I might qutte fairly put it this way," said Mr.TK.dams. "Did accuse 1 know in this case that she was killing her children t • She might have abhorred it or tried to resist the act, but the point is did she know?" The third requirement in a defence of insanity was that a person must be incapable of knowing that the act was wrong. Mr». Hart must, therefore, hava not only not known that she was killing her children, but also not have known that she was doing wrong in killjng them. The Crown did not propose to go into the question of insanity. The onus was on the accused. Evidence of insanity would no doubt be called by the defence, and if the Crown thought itnecessary, evidence in rebuttal would afterwards be called. When accused was before the Lowjr Court little was known about her, and it was desirable that she should be observed for that reason. She had been committed to a mental hospital at Seacliff. "I want to emphasise," said Mr. Adams, '' that committal to Seacliff was merely for the purpose of observation." No other place in the district offered better facilities for that. There was no ground for any suggestion that she had been sent to the hospital as a patient. .She had been placed there so that the jury might bo put in possession of the fullest information. Certain observations had been made, and with these counsel for tho defence had been acquainted. Dr. Buchanan, medical superintendent of the institution, would be called by the Crown if he were not called by the defence, and if it were necessary to call him. ATTITUDE OF ACCUSED. Proceeding to review the evidence, Mr. Adams mentioned points bearing upon Mrs. Hart's attitude. "They will hang me for this," she had said to Mrs. Ufton, her next door neighbour, just after the murder. That showed that she was able to recognise the nature of the act and that it was wron;j, and that it would be visited by the laws of the country with hanging. Tho statement? was made five minutes after the act, and was not necessarily evidence of her. state of mind at the time, but it was evidence. It showed that a few minutes after the crime her mind moved to the consequences. In answer to the question from Mrs. Uftou as -to the whereabouts of her husband, Mrs. Hart also said: "I left a note for him." Upon the mantelpiece had been found a paper with the address "Wilkie road" written on it. That was where her husband was working on the day of the murder. The inference was that before the murder of her children she had taken a pencil and pad, so that the first person that came would see the address and acquaint her husband with the happening. Evidently she had contemplated sui cide, as there were marks on her throat. She had also said to Mm. Ufton that "he (her husband) had told me this morning that he did want me, but I would not stay on his terms." Mr. Adams reviewed many other points of the evidence, including thd statement that "religion made me do this.'' She had also said, '' worry made me do this.'' But while religion was mentioned, continued Mr. Adams, there was not a single piece of evidence that such was the case. Religion had been talked about between

husband and wi*e, but it was tho husband who had been affoeted. Dr. Evans had questioned tho womeu after the crime. She had told him that she did not know what had conw over her. In her evidence Mts. Ufton said accused threw her arms around her neck and said: "Whatever you think, its nothing but religion that has been tho cause of it." She said she had killed the children on the spur of tho moment. She asked where their souls would go to, and wanted to know whether they would suffer for her sins. She added that she had had a hard life. She stated that they had decided to live a Christian life, and that her husband had forgiven her, but said thnt there were "some things God would never forgive me for." In hi.i evidence Dr. Evans said that the accused stated that she had been a Catholic up to twenty-two years of age, but since her marriage had gone to the Baptist Church. Differences with her husband, she said, had not had anything to do with the crime. The impression he got from the conversation was that her husband appeared to believe that the oldest child was not Ms. .

Evidence was given fdr the prosecution by Margaret Ufton, Gladys Newell, and Dr. Evans, gaol surgeon, on the lines outlined by the Crown Prosecutor.

Under cross-examination Dr. Evans said the act of the woman was not th.it of a rational person, but he admitted that he was puzzled to define her state of mind at the time.

EVIDENCE Fdß ; THE DEFENCE. Called for the defence, Dr. Hall, specialist in eye, ear, and throat diseases, stated that he had examined accused on Saturday last and found that she had only one half of the vacuity of the right eye and about 50 per cent, of left. The blindness with which she had been affected had lasted nine months. During the examination be came to the conclusion that accused was abnormal, as she had shown no signs of emotion or feeling when he had occasion to question her about her children. In fact, she appeared perfectly cheerful. :

Mr. Callan read evidence from the doctor who attended Accused during the illness with her eyes, that it was caused by hereditary disease.

Ensign Coombs, probation and samaritan officer,-said she kept a diary of accused's behaviour. Accused was interested in trivialities, and did not suffer want of appetite or sleeplessness. She suffered periods of worry over trifles, and wondered if her fowls would be attended to or the cat be fed. Then she would have< fits of weeping. On one occasion she, had asked leave to play with the ensign's watch. On,the day of departure for Seacliff for observation, she had remonstrated with her husband because he had a new suit and she did not have a new costume which she considered she was entitled to. Since her return from Seacliff accused frequently amused herself playing dance music on the piano. At times accused seemed to be trying to remember things. She never detected in accused the natural emotion of a mother.

Henry Meredith Buchanan, lately medical superintendent at Seacliff Mental Hospital, said he had first seen accused on the day of the tragedy. He was surprised at the attitude of the patient, for he certainly expected her to exhibit more emotion than she did. He detected no sign of fear or worry about her. She told him that for four or five weeks she had found herself very absent minded. On the morning of the tragedy she had a feeling that everything was pulling her down. When asked about the tragedy her replies were: "I don't know. I can't remember." He found her ideas limited. She had been under his observation from December' until Friday last, and he never detected an attitude such as he would expect from a mother if she were fully conscious of what she had done. Her interests were very superficial, like those of a young Child. Her letters to her husband concerned the merest trivialities. Dealing with a mental disease, he would assume the mental disease in some form or other to be present when the deed was done. Asked whether he considered accuse"d was insane in the eyes of the law, witness replied, "In my opinion I think that the murders were caused by an uncontrollable impulse. Whether she was actually aware of the. deed or not I am unable to say." *;

His Honour: "She understood, I suppose, that she was cutting the throats of her childrent*'

Witness: ''I could not even gay that." Continuing, he said he did not think it .was a case of epileptic autonomism. He detailed several conversations with the accused. Any indications of worry she had given were merely transitory. A mental test showed her intelligence approached that of a normal child of twelve. He did not think she was fully conscious throughout the crime.

William Marshall Macdonald, medical specialist in nervous diseases, deposed that accused had told him she was much surprised at the evidence given in the Lower Court, as so much of it was new to her. She said She had been shown a picture of her baby, published in a paper, and said: "I think that is the cruellest thing they have done to me." Then she, burst into tears. Certain indications point to a change in her mental condition. Prior to the tragedy, she said she became forgetful, and lost her appetite. Witness mentioned several facts, pointing to mental disease—a brain tissue that had been sub-normal might suddenly break down. In a literal sense she might have had knowledge of the nature of her act, but in the full and complete sense, he was satisfied that she did not. He did not agree that the fact that she intended to commit suicide proved she was aware that she had done wrong.

The Court adjourned.