THE DEATH SENTENCE

Evening Star, Issue 18281, 22 May 1923, Page 6

THE DEATH SENTENCE

COOPER FOUND GUILTY. . MRS COOPER ACQUITTED. I [Fkk United Press Association.} WELLINGTON, May 22. When tile Supremo Court resumed this morning to hoar the last stages of tho trial of Daniel Richard Cooper and his .wife, Martha Elizabeth Cooper (who are jointly charged that at Rowlands, near Johnsonville, on or about October 20, 1922, they' murdered the infant child of Margaret Mary M'Leod and William James Welsh), tho galleries and floor of the court room were again crowded by interested listeners, many hundred latecomers being compelled to content thcraseJvos with a less advantageous position outside the building. Looking palo and anxious, Cooper and Mrs' Cooper entered the dock a few minutes after 10 o’clock, and at once Mr Wilford commenced his address on behalf of Mrs Cooper. MR WILFORD’S ADDRESS. He 'pointed out that Mrs Cooper was not under trial for the murder of cither of the Beadle or Lister children, only with tho murder of M'Leod’s child. Tho Crown was entitled under tho law to introduce evidence of “system,” but ho asked the jury to remember tho fact that any evidence of “ system ” must not he counted as evidence against his client. Tho Crown Prosecutor had said yesterday s “ So far as the male accused is concerned, the case is a clear one.” That was a pointed inference that the case against his client was not dear, and ho thanked Mr Maoassey for saying what he did. He (Mr Wilford) proposed to show them that, not only was tho case against Mrs Cooper not clear, but that there was a great deal of evidence in her favor. It was the duty of tho jury to impartially weigh tiro evidence, and if, as a result of that weighing, they had any doubt-then his client was entitled to an acquittal. His client had been prejudiced all through the case by an “ atmosphere which had been created. As an instance there was the disappearance of tho Beadle children, which had been prominent in the case, but the Crown admitted that Mrs Cooper was absent from NewJands for months before the child was born, and for months after it disappeared ; so that Mrs Cooper’ could not possibly be concerned in it; and ho believed the absence of Mrs Cooper made it possible for a grave to bo dug and the child buried close to the “crib.* 1 There was not a tittle of evidence connecting Mrs Cooper with tho disappearance of tho Beadle children, and tire case

against lor was limited to her connection with the M'Lood and Lister children. In tins connection, was it strange that she believed her husband when ho told her ho was having the children adopted ? All tho other witnesses were convinced by Cooper; even the police believed Ins story till something turned up to smash it to pieces. What, then, was unreasonable in Mrs Cooper’s belief? And if she did believe that they wero being adopted,' then the ease for the Crown fell to the ground. Her conduct all through was consistent with adoption, and the Crown had not suggested that Mrs Cooper had killed M'Leod’s child. They dare not do that. Nothing had prejudiced Mrs Cooper ' so much as the fact that she consented to take up a secondary position to Beadle , in tho household at Ncwlands. His (Mr Wilford’s) explanation was that Mrs Cooper was completely dominated by he,r husband; not that there was, anything in the nature of coercion in tho ordinary way, but tho fact was that she was re-, clnced to the position of a household drudge without any mind of her own. All the women who came to Ncwlands were “dumped” on Mrs Cooper. Her wishes wero never consulted, until resistance gave out, and she left for Dunedin. How then did Cooper obtain this ascendancy over Mrs Cooper? He (learned counsel) suggested hypnotism or mesmerism, both of which had long passed the experimental stages. That was the only possible explanation of her extraordinary conduct in permitting Beadle to take her place. She was a woman sinned against rather than sinning. She believed her husband until the bodies wero found. After that her answers to questions by tho police was ; “I have nothing to say,” which was simply the answer of an automaton whose will power was nil. Her statement made to the police before tho bodies were found was intended to save Cooper. It was made under pressure, and that was why it was subsequently withdrawn.

Coming next to Cooper’s methods, counsel pointed out that he always employed an intermediary between the mother and himself. He never took a child from the mother himself. In the case of the second Beadle child lie employed Effie -Adnms. When Adams said she handed the child to Cooper to bo adopted, was her evidence to bo believed ? Of course it was. Why, then, not believe Mrs Cooper when she said that she believed Cooper when he told her he had given M'Leod’s baby to some people who were going to adopit it? Before the jury could convict his client they must unanimously arrive at the conclusion that she did not believed her husband. The case was intricate. It was hard to know and hard to see. He could only conclude an the words of Bracken—“ Oh, God, that men might see a little clearer, or judge loss harshly where they cannot see.”

JUDGE SUMS UP. His Honor began summing up at 11.23. He said that the evidence which tho jury had considered was confined between very narrow limits, and they had to carefully separate the evidence, which, in fact, would be proof against one prisoner and not tho other. It was tho duty of tho Crown to lay a complete case before the court, and they must bo satisfied that that had been done—that there was no flaw in tho evidence which would raise doubts in their minds. If they had any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of either party tho accused must receive the benefit of that doubt. They must be satisfied that tho body of M'Leod’s child was dead, that it was murdered, and that it was murdered by one or both of tho accused. To prove this crime it was not. necessary that the Crown should produce the body, as counsel for Cooper suggested. It was only necessary that tho Crown should prove the crime, and this was especially so in the case of a very young child. Such child was, in a sense, a trust, and common sense dictated that the last person known to be in charge of it could bo held responsible. Evidence had been, submitted to the jury, all of which wont to show that tho body found near Cooper’s bouse, and which tho Crown claimed was M'Leod’s child, had not been honestly dealt with. His Honor then proceeded to justify his action in admitting tho evidence nf “ system,” the principles of which ho explained in detail, illustrating them by particulars of celebrated cases. Cooper, in one of his statements, made admissions which were tantamount to an admission of a “ system ” in the receipt of young children and their adoption. It was therefore open to the Crown to show what bis system was. They were not to convict Cooper of murdering M'Leod’s child because they believed he murdered other children, but the evidence of “ system ” submitted would aid them in arriving at a conclusion regarding M'Leod’s child. After dealing with tho element of accident in causing the deaths of young children, His Honor pointed out that four children were missing, and three bodies wore found on Cooper’s property. What then were the chances of three accidental deaths on a nineteen-acre farm? If all tho farms in New Zealand wore dug over, on how many would bodies of infant children be found? Not on many, he thought. So they had to consider how no less than three were found on Cooper’s ninetecrvacro farm. Then, what chance had_ some invader of having placed the bodies there? Cooper had suggested that Lupi and' Gonlder might have placed them there, but that suggestion,i<td been disproved. Was it, then, mere coincidence that four children were missing and three bodies wore found on tho Cooper property ?

Cooper’s story of bow he handed Lister’s child to Lupi for adoption was now proved to be a pure fabrication, and it was for the jury to consider how that bore upon his statement regarding M'Leod’s child.. They had to remember that not a.t any time during the long inquiry had Cooper made any staitement which would help the police to clear up tho mystery. Was it feasible, if Cooper had properly given tire child to Palmerston North people to adopt, that they would not now come forward and produce tho child? And what had Cooper done to help himself? Nothing, except ooncoot a story about Lupi, which tad been proved to bo' untrue. He had not said one word which would help to disclose the whereabouts of tho missing child. The motive was to be found in tho money arrangements Cooper made with Welsh and Lupi, though it was not necessary for tho Grown to prove motive. So far as Mrs Cooper was concerned, if they believed she was so much under the influence of Cooper as to believe the story of adoption, then they must give her the benefit of the position which tho law allowed to such a one; but in order to arrive a.t a conclusion as to what she really did believe, they had to consider tho untrue statement she made regarding Lister’s child; andl when she withdrew that untrue statement she never afterwards made any explanation which would clear the matter up. Later mi, when she was not under the “ evil eye ” of her husband, she persistently refused to say more than to refer tho police to her solicitors. This and her untruthful statement must be considered when the jury was deliberating on her mental attitude. If hero was la doubt, she must get the benefit cf that doubt.

JURY RETIRES. At two minutes to 1 the jury retired, and His Honor adjourned the court.

VERDICT AMO SENTENCE.

WELLINGTON, May 22 (2,49 p.m.)

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Cooper and not guilty in the case of Mrs Cooper.