MURDER TRIAL CLOSING

Evening Star, Issue 18281, 22 May 1923, Page 8

MURDER TRIAL CLOSING

COOPER'S DEFENCE. LONG, IMPASSIONED ADDRESS. fPua United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 21. When the court resumed after lunch, Mr Treadwell addressed the jury on behalf of Cooper, concluding an impassioned address, lasting 2hr 20min, with the words of a great lawyer of former days : ■ May the spirit.of all truth guide you to an honest and just verdict; but no verdict : can be either honest, just, or true unless it at once satisfies the reasonable scruples of the severest judgment, and yet leave undisturbed and untaxed the tcnderest conscience among you.

Mr Treadwell said the charge against the prisoner was murder, and the punishment for that crime was death. The care and attention to the evidence which the jury had displayed had relieved to some extent his anxiety as to whether from want of care and vigilance on his part ho had failed to adequately present the cose of prisoner. For that care and attention he thanked them. Proceeding, he warned the jury against coming to a hasty conclusion, and said his client did not claim mercy. The law was merciful enough. What he wanted was justice. He claimed that our system of criminal investigation and administration reached the highest known standard, and he pointed out that the presumption under our system was that a prisoner was always regarded as innocent until proved guilty. His client was entitled to the full benefit of that presumption. The only question before the jury was whether or not Cooper and his wife murdered M'Leod’s child. They had nothing to do with the other cases introduced hy the Crown. He then proceeded to trace the circumstances surrounding the birth of M'Leod’s child, which were characterised by the greatest kindness on the part of Cooper. Was it possible, he asked, that this man could adopt this attitude of kindness towards his client and the next moment become an inhuman monster, who could kill her child. The Crown’s theory that all this was done for “ sordid lucre ” was dissipated by the fact that Cooper did not relax his kindness when all chance of his receiving payment vanished. Was it consistent with the theory of murder that Cooper should have sought the services of Dr Wright in connection with M'Lcod's child. Cooper’s desire to secure the adoption of children was not consistent with murder, but it was not remarkable that persons adopting children should desire that their identity be kept a close secret. If Cooper and his wife intended to murder this child they could have easily done so at its birth, when no one was present. That was their golden opportunity. Instead of that they left it with its mother for eight days, excited her mother love, employed a doctor in connection \vith the case, and took other risks which were altogether unnecessary. He scouted the idea that murder was possible under such circumstances. Further, the Jury must remember that the corpus delicti —i.e., the murdered body—could not bo found, and our law' took lip the position that in such circumstances the jury must be satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner right up to the hilt. The jury must be satisfied that the body is dead,* that it was murdered, and that it was murdered hy the accused. They must bo satisfied that accused was the only person who could have murdered and who in fact did murder the victim. On this point he quoted authorities which he claimed refuted the contentions of the Crown. The jury’s difficulty was therefore greater than usual in murder cases, because there was no evidence that the body found bad been actually murdered by the accused. What the Crown relied on for the identification of the body found with M'Leod’s child was the color of its hair; but on this point no two witnesses agreed. M’Leod said it was dark brown and long, Dr Wright said the hair on the body found was black, but nothing was said about it being long. The M'Lcod child was full-grown and healthy, but the medical evidence concerning the body found was conclusive that it was not a full term child, and therefore could not have been M'Leod’s child. At all events there were high odds against it being the same child; and this served as another warning against a hasty verdict. The medical evidence proved that the child found had not breathed completely, but M'Leod’s child was strong and healthy, and had cried and kicked, and Dr Hector said the chances were nine to one that the lungs of such a child eight days old would be expanded. The absence of complete expansion of the lung in the body found was surely evidence that it was not M'Leod's child. As to the weight and age of the child, the medical authorities did not support the theory of the Crown. Another point of identification with M'Leod’s child on which the Crown relied was the time it was in the ground. For the Crown’s case it must have been burned for two months, but Dr Hector, the Crown's scientific witness, said it was not safe to say that it had not been in the ground for five months. If it had been in the ground for months then the whole structure of the Crown’s case fell to the ground. In these uncertain circumstances was it safe to bring in a verdict against Cooper ? The evidence of “ system ’’ introduced by the Crown was evidence of an extremely dangerous class, and had been brought in to bolster up a weak case—a case so weak that it could not have detained any jury five minutes. Discussing Beadle’s children, he maintained that, on the dates, her first child referred to in this case could not have been Cooper’s. That was impossible. Beadle must have been pregnant when she first had intercourse with Cooper. The relations which existed in Cooper’s household might be repugnant, but they in no way proved that Cooper murdered the child. Subsequently Beadle did have a child by Cooper. That indicated that Cooper wanted children. If he desired to murder these children, why in the name of reason did ho wait so long to do the deed ? If the theory of the Crown were correct with regard to Beadle's child it should have been under ground sixteen months; but the doctors said it had been under ground only six months, or perhaps twelve months, which only went to show what part guesswork played in the case of the Crown. With regard to the child buried under the ashes, it was found at the spot known us the ash pit connected with the “ crib,” and the theory of the Crown was that the ashes had something to do with the fire at the Coopers’ house. They had not. They were the ashes that came from the crib, and on this point the case of the Crown burst as the result of its own weakness. The third child bad fair hair. This circumstance was a deliverance, because had the hair been dark it might have been taken for Lister’s child, because it was in the ground from about the time Lister’s child disappeared. The fact that it had fair hair proved it was not Lister’s child, which only went to show how dangerous it was to convict anyone on circumstantial evidence. As to the absence of an official record of adoption, he said it was not remarkable that women who had no children of their own should not want to proclaim the fact to the world. The whole process of adoption involved so much publicity that it was little wonder that adopting parents often shirked the conditions laid down by the law. Counsel then reviewed the statements made by the accused, the first of which was made under pressure, and was the act of a stupid man. After that he told the, police bo would tell them anything he knew. No motive bad been disclosed compatible with murder. In this respect it differed notably from other celebrated cases, for, search as they would, the jury would be unable to discover any motive which would induce the accused to commit such a crime since the Crown’s theory of sordid gain had gone by the board. In no case previously tried in New Zealand had there been so much prejudice displayed as in this case. Ho cautioned the jury against being influenced by public sentiment and newspaper headlines, which, in a desire to create a sen*

sation, sometimes undermined judgment. He adversely criticised the policy of the Crown importing photographs and skeletons into the court. They were only calculated to raise repugnance and passion, while they proved nothing the jury did not already know. Tho jury must not base its verdict on horror and repugnance, but on calm, sure, and unirapassioned judgment. The evidence went to prove Cooper to he a kindly, humane maUj who treated his clients and his own children with the utmost consideration. He asked the members of the jury to try accused on the evidence before the court, and if they had approached the case with any preconceived ideas or prejudices, to banish all such prejudices in the name of justice. The prisoner was not obliged to prove his innocence. It was the obligation of the Crown to prove him guilty. At 4.20 p.m. Mr Wilford asked His Honor if he might postpone his speech on behalf of Mrs Cooper until the morning. His Honor said that if it was necessary in the interests of his client he could not refuse such a request. Mr Wilford assured him such was the case, and the court adjourned.