ST. CLAIR SHOOTING

Evening Star, Issue 20320, 31 October 1929, Page 17

ST. CLAIR SHOOTING

BRADMAN CHARGED WITH MURDER DEFENCE OF INSANITY EVIDENCE OF DR MOORE The most important feature of the case in the Supreme Court yesterday in which William Henry Brauman is charged with the murder of his wife at St. Clair on August 7 was the evidence of Dr Stuart Moore, called by the defence to support the plea of insanity. - ' , Yesterday was the second day ot hearing of the case,_ which was expected to finish some time to-day. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) is conducting the case for the Crown, and Sir C. J. L. White and Mr G. M. Lloyd represent the accused. Yesterday afternoon further evidence was called by the Crown. John Douglas Bacon, bus driver, Mosgiel, said that Mrs Brauman had been a housekeeper at his mother’s house for eight months. The accused had come to witness’s place from Invercargill about Christmas time between 8 and 10 o’clock in the morning. Witness was in bed at the time as ho had been working on a late shift. Mrs Brauman went to the door. He heard Mrs Brauman and the accused arguing the point, and he got up. As the accused was getting quarrelsome witness w;ent to the telephone and pretended to ring up the police. The accused came to him and told him not to bo silly, and pulled him away from the telephone. Ho heard Brauman tell bis wife that she could not got away—he would get her again. Witness told the accused that be had no right to push his way into the house, and that he had better get out. The accused then went away. Mrs Brauman’s conduct was quite proper while she was at their place. Witness bad not told Brauman that ins wife was carrying on with a single man at Mosgiel. He had not given him tho name of. any man. , , To Mr Lloyd: The accused bad hold of Mrs Brauman’s arm when he had called at witness’s place at Mosgiel. Clara A, 11. B. Jane deposed that Brauman boarded at her place in Carroll street for eight or nine months. She had never noticed anything peculiar about accused. During tho last three weeks the accused had stayed at her place his bed had only been used three or four times. The accused used to come into his bedroom in the morning and toss up his bed, and she had told him that he need not give her the trouble of making it up again. The accused usually had his breakfast at about 8 o’clock. She saw the accused on the Saturday previous to August 7 at the St. Kilda tram terminus. He was walking with a lady. He was always quite rational so far as she could judge. Norman John Thompson, clerk, said he lived at Mrs Jane’s boarding house. He shared a room with the accused from about tho end of March till August 7, The accused always appeared rational, and not depressed or worried. He never discussed his family affairs with .witness, and witness did not know he was married. Witness was with the accused on the morning of August 7. They went to a billiard room, and the accused had a game. Ho saw the accused at about half-past 5, when ho said he had been at a football match The accused was of sober habits. He never told witness where he was when ha did not sleep at the house. To witness’s knowledge, the accused did not sleep at the house during the day. William Matthew Brosnan, indent agent, said he advertised for a housekeeper in April. He had received a reply from Mrs Brauman, and had in terviewed her at Mrs Mitchell’s house, and had eventually decided to engage her. The accused had come to bis house shortly afterwards, at about 7 o’clock in the evening, and had told him his name was Brauman, that he understood his wife was coming to keep house for witness, and that he wanted to warn witness that if his wife came to the house he would shoot her ad also shoot him. He asked the accused to come into the house to see what the trouble was about. The accused said his wife was getting a separation order against him, and that if she came and worked for witness she would not go back to accused. Witness asked him why he wanted to shoot him, and the accused replied that he would shoo* anyone he found with her, and he would shoot witness if she came to bis house The accused suggested that his wife was a very fascinating woman, and that anything could happen to her. The accused said he would watch the place if Mrs Brauman came there, and shoot her and witness, too. He was talking to the accused a couple of hours, and accused referred to shooting both his wife and the witness several times. The accused’s final words to witness were that he was fully determined to shoot his wife—that he was just as determined to shoot her as a fisher would be to land a trout.

Andrew Miller Finney, bus driver, said he met the late Mrs Brauman at Mosgiel. He bad already mot the daughters. With his brother he came to Dunedin to meet the girls, the arrangement being to go to the pictures. They met Mrs Brauman and invited her to go to the pictures too. The accused had come behind them near Dawson’s corner, and asked where they were going. Witness said to the pictures. The accused said they were no t—that the girls were under age. Witness asked what that had to do with it, as they wore quite respectable young fellows. The accused told them to clear out, or he would call the police. Witness and his brother did not want any trouble, so they went away. They got a message while they were in the theatre, and went out and saw Mrs Brauman, who asked them to take the girls into the theatre. Mrs Brauman raid that the accused had threatened to shoot her, and that she would give him a chance that night. The girls then kissed their mother and bade .her good-night. To their surprise they saw Mr and Mrs Brauman," who were standing five yards or six yards apart, when they camq out of the theatre. Mrs Brauman then kissed her daughters again and left for the tram, the accused following . behind her. He and his brother then saw the girls to their homes. William Edward Finney, railway sur facemen, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. _ Evidence was also given by Detectives Hart and Jenvey. The latter said that on being called to the scene of the tragedy ne saw the accused sitting on the footpath. The accused was yeaning, and saying: “Oh, my God! " “Oh, my God!” The ambulance driver (Mi Black) had handed him a revolver (produced), He found three empty shells in the revolver and three live cartridges The deceased was lying on the rocks about 20ft from where the accused was sitting. On August 9 he

and Detective Kearton had gone to Mrs Jane’s and found a handbag (produced). It was looked. Witness found a farewell letter of two pages in the hag, a notebook, and a copy of a separation agreement between Mrs Brauman and the accused. There was also a summons, and copies attached to it of evidence taken in Invercargill, and a letter signed by “J. Walker,’* and other letters. He had arrested the accused on a charge of murder on August 21. The accused said when he read out the charge: “Did I murder her?” Witness said “Yes,” and the accused replied: “I don’t remember that. 1- The deceased was born on April 4, 1894. Mr Adams said he had only one more witness, Mrs Mitchell, who was on her way from. Tapanui. It was agreed to hear her evidence this morning, THE DEFENCE OPENED Mr Lloyd, in opening the case for the defence, intimated that a plea of insanity would be put forward. The charge against tho accused, he said, was the most serious of all crimes, and the possible defences in the case had all been already mentioned. He did not intend to discuss manslaughter, with its attendant element of provocation. The onus of proving the case was upon the Crown. It might be said that it was common ground that the accused shot his wife on the night of August 7. According to law the accused was presumed to be sane at the time of the commission of the offence until the contrary was proved. The defence would be that or insanity. If that defence were to be established, the law required it to be proved that at the time of the commission of tho offence the accused personally was incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act, and, secondly, that he was incapable of knowing what he was doing was wrong. The question of insanity could only be satisfactorily answered by those who had made a life study of mental diseases. The defence would call an expert who would give the result of a careful and exhaustive rtudy of the mental capacity of the accused. Learned counsel said he would like to draw attention to the question of partial insanity. A man might seem perfectly sane and rational to a layman, but the same man might be quite insane to a specialist. The law of insanity did not mean necessarily that a man was a raving lunatic or that he had the mind of a child, and he would read from a text book His Honour: It is not permissible to read from a text book to the jury. It is merely a form of hearsay. Learned Counsel said that the evidence tendered by the defence would show that although a man might bo perfectly normal and sound, on the first) blush a closer examination might show his mind to be unsound in certain aspects. Medical text books would support this contention. The jury was entitled to take into consideration, on the question of insanity, the mode of the commission of the crime, the relationship existing between the husband and the wife, between the husband and tho_ mother-in-law, between the mother-in-law and the wife, and between the accused and his children. They were also entitled to take into account the evidence regarding delusions of insanity and the delusions of jealousy, and the state of the accused’s mind. They were-further entitled to consider whether the accused acted upon an insane and sudden impulse and whether that impulse was due to the accused’s diseased mind. If the accused’s mind was so diseased as to make his actions absolutely uncontrollable and he failed to realise the nature and quality of the act and to realise that he was doing wrong, they wore entitled to acquit him. The defence would endeavour to prove that the accused was acting on a sudden impulse consequent on a diseased state of mind which prevented him from realising the nature and quality of the act, and that he was doing wrong. The accused was standing a trial for his life, and he asked them to weigh the facts which would be submitted to them by the defence as impartially as they had already considered and weighed the evidence placed before them by the Crown.

DR STUART MOORE’S EVIDENCE The first witness called by Mr White was Dr Stuart Moore, who said that for over twenty years he had made a study of abnormal psychology, cases of nervousness, and cases of delusion such as was said to be found in the present case. He had studied the case of Brauman, with whom he had spent considerable time at tho police station. “ 1 concluded that Brauman was insane,” continued the doctor. “In the first place, if one throws one’s mind back to before the occurrence of the tragedy, one is forced to the conclusion that it would have been quite possible —in fact, it would have been one’s duty—to have advised his certification a"d committal as insane had one’s advice been asked. For various reasons he could easily have been certified then. He was a man who was constantly brooding over his persecution by his mother-in-law; he had attached a great deal of importance to the immorality ” Mr Adams: “The witness is giving no indication of the data_ on which he is forming his conclusions. There ought to be some limit.” His Honour: “It is proper to disclose the data upon which he has formed his conclusions.” Mr White: “ I will elicit that.” Dr Moore said he had been supplied with copies of the depositions taken in the lower court and with copies of letters, etc. He had carefully perused the depositions. His opinion was based upon his perusal of the depositions and the statements made by Brauman himself. Mr Adams said the witness ought to be speaking upon evidence before the court. His Honour said there was some difficulty. The witness had to consider the case prior to the evidence being taken in the Supreme Court. In any case, there might be variation between the evidence in the two cases. . Mr Adams: “There was not much in this case.” He _ claimed that the opinion of the witness ought to be based on the material before the jury. His Honour: “ You may proceed, Mr White.” Dr Moore said that Brauman was brooding over the persecution by his mother-in-law and his allaged immorality and also the alleged immorality of his wife at that time. The nucleus of his emotional life seemed to be limited to his mother-in-law* and not to his relation to his wife. Everything seemed to be subsidiary to them. Some of his statements concerning Ins raother-in-law were very- highly improbable. For instance, he said to witness that his mother-in-law was constantly suggesting to him that they should come to an arrangement by which his wife w-ould have gentlemen friends and he would have lady friends. His mother-in-law, he said, did not believe in one man being tied to one woman or one woman being tied to one man. Of course that might possibly be true, but it seemed to be in a high degree improbable. At that time he was shadowing and spying upon his wife, though he was judicially separated from her, and he assaulted her. He had in very convincing manner threatened to shoot persons and had repeatedly threatened to shoot his wife. Before the tragedy he was a jealous man, a persecuted man, .with quite an

abnormal emotional attitude, the centre of which was his mother-in-law —a man who not only threatened violence, but who actually used violence. Mr White asked if any importance could be attached to the openness under which the act was committed. Dr Moore: “Yes. The openness with which he advertised his intention was an invitation to others to prevent him from doing it.” Witness went on to say that it opened a way of escape to Brauman from his conflict, and the open way in which the tragedy was enacted seemed to show that, in the absence of _ some final stimulus, his impulse, which was like a cocked gun, would not go off. Before the act he was brooding ovpr the question of killing his wife, but his boasts that he was going to do it and their openness seemed to show that he was not finally' decided ant that it required this_ last stimulus to precipitate his action. Dr Moore further stated that the most important fact in this man was in relation to his mother-in-Iw. “ Logically, if we take his attitude and if killing is going to be permtted at all, it was the mother-in-law he should have killed,” said Dr Moore. “She was the original persecutor; she it was who was responsible for his wife’s degradation : she.it was who was going to deprive him of all happiness and degrade his wife and family morally. His wife he loved; she had said, he told me at the police station, that she did not want to break up the home: and his mother-in-law had said: *To hell with 1 ome and to hell with the kids. If I did not consider my youngsters when I left my husband I would have had a far better time. So that if the killing was to be logical it was the mother-in-law who should have been killed. She it was who was the successful rival with Brauman for the affections of his wife. Yet he killed his wife. Before I saw the letter left at Shades’ I had concluded that this killing of the wife was intended to be a blow at the mother-in-law in some way, or that the wife was in some way a substitute for the mother-in-law.”

Dr Moore wont on to quote portions of the letter and said that they showed that Brauman’s impulse was to destroy the wife that he confessed he loved, not the successful rival, not the persecutor. Mr White: Would you say that was an insane attitude to adopt? Dr Moore: Yes, I think so.

The doctor went on to say that Branman had told him that his mother-in-law once said to his wife: “If you take him in preference to me after all I have done I won’t look on the same side of the street as you!” “There,” continued. the witness, “wo have the mother-in-law turning her vengeance in a milder way on to the loved object, her daughter, not on to the successful rival, the husband.” Witness went on to recount some damaging statements the accused had made _ against the morality of the mother-in-law. Mr Adams said he though there ought to be a limit to the extent to which the witness dragged out in open court merely the matter of conversations with the accused. There were no means of checking or verifying them. A most damaging statement had been made about another person. Dr Moore: I would be very glad to be relieved of the necessity. I regard these things as delusions and I think they are in the highest degree improbable. His Honour: I shall not stop the witness. Mr Adams: I just wish to make my protest. His Honour said the witness was just reporting tho statements of a person and was not vouching for the truth of what was referred to. Dr Moore said that if it were not a trial for murder he would not mention these matters. He believed they were delusions. He did not think they were true. Mr White: Your reason is to show the extreme views he had? Dr Moore said the accused was much more indefinite in the statements he made about his wife. The accused made the statement that on one occasion his mother-in-law tried to poison him. He said he ordered her out of the house as a precaution and buried all the food after she had gone. Mr White asked if the conversation of accused wms interesting. The Witness: Extremely boring. He gives all sorts of trumpery insignificant details. He speaks so much and not to the point. _ The accused displayed a lack of ordinary emotion which normal persons exhibited in their conversation. Mr White; Do you say he is simulating insanity? The witness replied that the accused was not pretending to be insane. He would say that on the night of tho tragedy tne accused was suffering from mental disease, Mr White asked the witness his opinion of the statement by tho accused “Then everything went black.” Tlie witness said this could quite easily be true. Here was a man planning to kill his wife—hesitating to kill his wife, and giving all the world an opportunity of stopping him from doing it. Under the delusions of persecution and infidelity combined, there was a strong stimulus that might surely make a man who was suffering from a diseased state of mind to see red—that was to say, not see at all. It seemed to him quite probable that such a thing might occur. He did not say it did occur. The accused, witness thought, understood before the tragedy, when he was talking about killing his wife_, what he was talking about. The point was what happened at the actual moment. Witness, continuing, said that so far as he could see accused had remorse over his intended crime, but there was an absence of remorse after the crime. The delusions of infidelity and persecution were exaggerations and distortions of normal phenomena. Then they had also the inconsistency of the man.. It was not that he loved or hated—thought this or the opposite, but that he loved and hated—thought this and the opposite. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY CROWN PROSECUTOR. Mr Adams: A great many persons are inconsistent without being insane? Witness: Yes. To some fextent, Mr Adams: Arc these inconsistencies that you refer to great? The Witness: Take the accused’s attitude to his wife. He expresses love for her, and he assaults her. If that is not inconsistency, what is? The Crown Prosecutor: Is it not the inconsistency of a jealous man? Witness said the accused’s was delusional jealousy, which was not unusual. •The Crown Prosecutor: What other inconsistencies are there? The witness said there were inconsistencies in the accused’s statements from an ethical standpoint. The Crown Prosecutor: “ God forgive me.” Is that the ordinary phrase of a man doing a wrong thing? That sentence might very well be used by any man doing a wrong thing. Witness: Yes, certainly. The Crown Prosecutor: Do you really contend that this letter shows that the man might have thought ho was doing right and not wrong? Witness: Certainly, combined with the rest of the facts. The Grown Prosecutor asked if it was not perfectly clear that when the ac-

cused wrote the letter he knew his intention was a guilty intention, and knew it beyond cavil or doubt. The Witness: He is centred between two ideas. The Crown Prosecutor: Where does he say it is right? Could there be any doubt that what the accused intended was a crime? The Witness; He knew and he did not know that his intended act was a crime.

The Crown Prosecutor: Is that merely a possibility that at the time the accused did not know the nature and quality of his act? Witness: I am not certain of that, and not prepared to swear that at that time Brauman did not know the quality and nature of the act. I am not prepared to say that. The Crown Prosecutor: Are you prepared to swear that when the accused killed his wife he did not know that he was doing wrong? The Witness: lam prepared to swear that his sense of right and wrong was, in my opinion, confused, for the reason that he did not clearly appreciate the ethical issue. Therefore he did not know.

The Crown Prosecutor; You have taken a considerable interest in crimi,nal matters. I think you have been connected with the organisation known as the Howard League, which is a league intended to rectify matters dealing with criminals. I think you would not bo unwilling to admit that your views on these matters differ from those of most of the general community The Witness: In what respect? The Crown Prosecutor: Do you approve of the methods of punishing criminals?

Witness: Not completely, but nobody does. The Crown Prosecutor: You are in revolt against the methods, are you not ?

Witness: No; my position in the Howard League was not of my seeking. The Crown Prosecutor: Do you regard it as a desirable reform that our methods of dealing with criminals should be radically changed P Witness; lam not a revolutionary.

The Crown Prosecutor: Do you or do you not desire a radical change in the methods of dealing with criminals? Witness: I won’t express myself like that. I do think that at the present time we fall far short of ideals, but these ideals can’t be realised in a day, and I am not one of those who think that society can he changed suddenly by the ideas of idealists. I know that you have to have punishment. I don’t want you to represent mo as a person who thinks the whole judicial system is wrong. The Crown Prosecutor: I suppose you believe in treatment by skilled psychiatrists P

Witness: Yes, but I don’t believe in the absence of punishment. The Crown Prosecutor: The evidence you have given in the court to-day is really a thesis on psychic-analysis, isn’t it?

Witness: No, that is behind it. I have not given my theories. I have had to stick to the facts.

In further reply to Mr Adams, witness said that he did not approve of the legal definition of insanity. No medical man did. They were at the age of controversy between law and medicine.

His Honour said he would like to make one point clear, as there seemed a doubt about it in the record of the evidence. He asked witness; “ Are yon prepared to .swear that, when killing his wife, the accused did not know he was doing wrong? ” Witness: I am prepared. The court then adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.