COOPER MURDER TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 18280, 21 May 1923, Page 8

COOPER MURDER TRIAL

CROWDED COURTHOUSE.

CROWN CASE CONCLUDED.

[Pee United Phess 1 Association.]

WELLINGTON, May 21.

Public interest in the Cooper murder trial has evidently in no respect diminished, judging by the crowded condition of the court when the hearing of 'the Grown evidonco was resumed tins morning. Acting-detective M’Lemmn deposed as to finding the body of a child 1 buried at Nowlands amongst material which, bore evidence of having been through fire. Some burnt forks and spoons wore found in the grave, and similar burnt forks andi spoons were also found under the building known as the “crib.” The witness also gave evidence as to finding a third body on Cooper’s section. When asked for an explanation as to the presence of these bodies on their property, the male accused denied .ill knowledge of them, and Mrs Cooper said she could only refer the police to her solicitor.

■ Similar evidence was given by Scniordotectivo Lewis, Detective Nnttal, and Acting-detective Jarrald. Samuel. Gouldor (carpenter) deposed to making an arrangement with Cooper to purohnse. a section at Nowlands from him. They had a difference of opinion over it, but witness denied ever saying ho would “get even” with Cooper, and he never buried any bodies on Cooper’s property. Ho had babies of his own, and thought too much of them for anything of that kimh Ho still had some of Cooper’s tools in his possession, and would hold them until the deposit paid on the section was returned.

Constable O'Donnel, stationed at Johnsonviilo, deposed to being present when an -altercation took place between Cooper and Gouldor. At no time did he hear Gouldor threaten to “got even” with Cooper. This witness also gave evidence ns to two fires at Cooper’s. His house was burned down on September 30, 1921 and his store on May 8, 1922.

Mary Coudrick deposed to going out to Cooper’s place at Nowlands. Slid was then pregnant. Subsequently she was taken to Linden Hospital, and there her child was born.

to Mr Wilforcl; She knew of no reason why she should have been “ dumped” down on Mrs Cooper. L T p to the time of going to Nowlands she had never heard of Mrs Cooper, and did not know whether Mrs Cooper approved of her going to Newlands or not.

Godfrey Anton Jorgensen, tailor, deposed to making arrangements with Cooper for the reception of Mary Coudrick in his "rest homo.”

The police' proved certain correspondence found on Cooper dealing with this case.

A representative of the RegistrarGeneral’s Office deposed that ho had not been able to find a record of the adoption of a child under the name of Bell, the name under which Beadle’s second child was born. This closed the ease for the Crown. No evidence was called for either accused. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Maccasey) then proceeded to address the jury, CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS. In opening, Mr Maeasscy thanked the jurors for their close attention to the lengthy evidence, and lie felt confident that when they went into the jury room they would give most just consideration to the facts put before them and to evidence of system which the Crown was entitled to Lay before them. He then proceeded to review the evidence as to the birth and the alleged adoption methods of the child, Mrs Cooper was the last person known to be in possession of that child alive. She took it away from the mother, telling her that people had come to adopt it; but no record of adoption had been found, and the question was: Where was that child'? If it was alivo it was the duty of accused to produce it. The Crown was entitled to assume that the first child found under the ground was M’Leod’s child. The age, sex, and weight all corresponded, and it had on the body a wound similar to one remarked: upon by Cooper to the mother after it had been taken away from the mother. It was not, however, necessary for him to prove that the body found in the ground was, in fact, M’Leod’s child. It was sufficient to prove that the child was missing, and that it had been murdered bv accused.

The history of the Lupi-Listor child was then traced. Both Cooper and his wife told Lister that people had corno to adopt it, and she handed it over to them for that purpose. Subsequently Cooper told Mrs King that the people would not take the child, because she had notified its birth.

Counsel then proceeded to comment on tho contradictory statements made by the male accused concerning this child, all of which were “pure lies, nothing else.” This was proved by uncontradictefl evidence. With regard to Beadle's first child, it was ono day taken away by Cooper, and had not since been seen. In this case there was nothing connecting Mrs Cooper with it, except that she was aware of its birth, because it was in tho house where, sho was for some days. Tho second child found, the Crown contended, was Beadle’s second child, because all tho known facts about it coincided with that theory. Tho third body found was clearly _not ono of tho four given to Cooper for purposes of adoption, and the Crown could offer no theory concerning it; but the medical evidence showed that it had lived and had been subjected to violence, either before or after death. As to who buried the bodies there, it was clear that it could not have been done by anyone but the Coopers. If they had been buried by someone else during the day time they would almost certainly have been discovered by Mrs Cooper, who was living there with tho children, and nq_ ono was likely to bury bodies in Cooper's garden, where they were likely to be discovered, when there were many acres of vacant land in tho neighborhood w-hexo they could have been buried secretly. As to Mrs Cooper’s knowledge of what was going on, sho knew that the babies were born ; sho took part in their alleged and it was reasonable to suppose that she must at some time have asked her husband concerning them. It had been suggested that Mrs Cooper was under Cooper’s domination; but ho put it to the jury that compulsion was no defence in a charge of murder. Efforts had been made to show that there was evidence of hypnotism and mesmerism by reference to polished discs; but if this was tho case ho would point ouo that when persons were put into these trances they remembered nothing of what took place while they were in them, so that - in that respect they must accept tho Crown’s evidence, which went in tho direction of proving that there wore no practices of this kind going on. Coming to tho silence of the accused concerning tho whereabouts ot the children, this silence was their responsibility. It Mrs Cooper was innocent why had she made no statement ? But she offered not ono word of explanation. Taking into consideration all the circumstances under which she was living with Cooper, it was impossible that she did not know what was going on. Her statements concerning the children had been proved to bo false, and the Crown had the right to suggest that this had been done for the purpose Of covering up her co-operation with her husband. Subsequently she. adopted a policy of silence, when a simple word from her might have cleared up tho whole mystery. So far ,as Cooper was concerned, the case was particularly clear. The children were traced to him* and he said they wore adopted. The Crown had exhausted every means available to trace those chiK dren without success. Formni demands had been served on him for the production of tL’>' chaldron, but they had not been produced. Was this refusal to produce the jdhildron or to explain their whereabouts comdslcrA with innocent conduct? They simply eaid nothing, leaving tho polic'd to do tho best they could, to clear up tho mystery, Tha Crown’s evidence was uncoitipadiotsd. JCbft-

only reply to the Crown’s case was silence. Ho Baked the jury to judge of the accused's guilt or innocence on the evidence before them. If these little babies were ruthlessly mnrdeivd, then there could bo no sympathy for the accused ; but the Crown did not B«a& vengeance or a victim. It only required justice. Thu court lieu adjourned till 2 p.m,