MURDER TRIAL

Grey River Argus, 6 September 1939, Page 5

MURDER TRIAL

CLAVERLEY CASE Patience Charged [Per Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, September 5. Arthur John Patience stood in the dock at the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court, to-day, that, on or about October 4, 1938, at Clavericy, irj’ murdered his wife, Harriet Jane Pa-: tience. The hearing is expected to last four days, witnesses to be called by the police totalling 43. Forty-seven exhibits will be produced by the police. The case is being heard by Mr Levvey, S.M. The Crown Prosecutor Mr A' T. Donnelly, with Mr A. W. Brown, is conducting the case for the police, while Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr T. A. Gresson, is appearing for Patience. Edgar Manuel Jones, Public Works Engineer at Claverley, produced a plan showing where spo.l had been deposited between the Taratuhi and Calverley camps. Jones said that heaps of spoil accumulated between 1936 and 1938. In July of this year, there was definite erosion from the heaps, as a result of heavy seas. Patience arrived at Claverley in November, 1936, and took up married man’s quarters about March, 1937. On Oc-: tober 17, he was moved to Rosy Morn camp, 13 miles from Claverley. J. G. Kearton, police photographer, said that he was present when Dr. Pearson carried out a post-morten examination of a woman’s body, r*nJ took photographs of several portions of the body. Photographs which he produced showed ligature markings on the arms an dshou;ders, and marks on the legs and thighs. Three photox graphs were taken of the windpipe, showing a depression in the front thyroid gland, pinned into position by Dr. Pearson. On July 24, he viewed the body under the ultra-violet ray, and on the left upper arm he saw circular marks, similar to vaccination marks. . Th 17-years-old son ot Mrs Patience and accused, Arthur Stevens Patience, saij that, until October 4, 1938, his father and mother lived together at the Claverley camp. Since October 17, 1938 his father had been, working at the Rosy Morn camp. Prior to going to Claveriey, his father, had been a shepherd at the Mendip Hills station. He last saw his towards the end of September, 1938. when he visited Claverley for a day.| He saw his father on the Friday after his mother was reported to be missing. Patience told him that he did not ; know where his mother was, and was going to see if she was with a ni ® ce > Mrs George Patince. He said that Mrs Patience had left a note, taken a little bag, and had gone away. He had said that about £49. which he had kept above the window, was missing. He thought Mrs Patience had taken it. He saw his father aga n two ( days later, when he told him ffiat nisj mother was not with Mrs George Pa-, tience at Christchurch. He seemed X upset over his wife’s disappear-' ance. He saw his father again on October 15. when Patience told him that he still had heard nothing of Mrs Pa-1 tience, and that he was. going to see a lawyer. . He did not mention 'any police inquiries were being made He said that he was packing upto gol to the Rosy Morn camp. Later, his father said that a note had been left onthe table, in which Mrs Patience said that she was sick of camp hfe. In his opinion, the body shown to Mm by the was the body o his mother. Witness added that he re ported his mother’s disappearance to th lr^e C Maud George, married, said that Mrs Patience was her p auat ' J a start Patience and Mrs Patience got on well, but from June or July, 1935, things were not so good between them, the cause of the trouble be ng another woman, Mrs Chapmon. OcX 15, her husband gave £ * note, which accused left. The text o the note was: “Dear Rene. Did Gn y come down here last Tuesday? e left a note saying that " as £ ' of the camp life, so I don t I know where she went to, so please let m know if she has been here. 1 Se of her clothes down., Wnte a letter and let me know. Later. Patience said that he was go.nn to report his wile’s < l,sa PP aa J?" < -his nolice but someone told him that ns ST™ only Hiving Inn, a ftlghU Patience also told them tha s had taken away her clothes ana x*

MEDICAL evidence. said that he ’afterlt was found on July 20. Tlw right foot and half of the Heg, the wt foot and most of the tissue ftim the face were gone. Most of the scalp was also gone. He considered that the body had been just recently ex nosed. There was no sign of decomposition. In that country if it had been exposed, it would have been atPackel by hawks or gulls or vermin within a few hours. PATHOLOGIST’S EVIDENCE. Doctor A. B. Pearson pathologist at the Christchurch Public Hospital, gave evidence of conducting the postmortem. He said that death appeared to have occurred some months before his examination, which began on July 22 Parts of the body were well preserved. The appearance of it was consistent with its having been buried .in clay for some months, then bell \B “} the sea for some time, and then dried out on the beach. SIGNS OF VIOLENCE. There was a bruise in the pit of the stomach and the ribs bore signs of violence during life. Three ribs m the front and six at the back Were broken. The damage to the front ribs would be caused by heavy crushing. These injuries would not be fatal, but they had most probably occurred before death, certainly not long after. It was very unlikely that they could have been caused by rocks on the beach. There was a bruise on the left side of the neck, but it was not deepseated. The windpipe showed an indentation which ran down the right side, and towards the front. This injury to the windpipe could have been caused by pressure of a finger or the thumb. If the woman was injured in this way by someone using a hand to do it, her head would have had to be thrown back. The indentation of the windpipe would not have been caused iby. any enlargement of tjie gland or disease. There was no definite indi-

cation of the cause of death. The injuries to the ribs could have been produced by pressure of the knee on the chest. Mr Donnelly: Would it have been possible to place a knee on the woman’s chest, one hand on her throat, and the other hand over her mouth ? Dr. Pearson: Yes. Could, such combination produce death'? —’Yes. In a short space of time ?—Yes. BODY WRAPPED IN SACK. Dr. Pearson said that if breathing was stopped in this way, the signs of it would have disappeared by the time he made his examination. The body showed signs of having been wrapped in something. There were signs of some sacking. The imprints were clearest on the arms and the thighs. There were also some ligature marks on the arms and thighs and the back of the shoulder. He would infer that the body had been wrapped in sacking material and bound up, then buried. There was an indication also that the woman had been wearing a woollen singlet. There was no indication of sudden death from internal causes. It appeared that some such article as broad tape or flax had been used to bind the arms and shoulders. The brain was completely disintegrated and cerebral trouble was possible, but in cases of cerebral trouble, it was usual to find degeneration of the blood vessels, and there was no sign of that in this body. The indications were against a suicidal death. The body could not have wrapped itself up as it apparently had been. Drowning could not be excluded as a possibility, but taking everything into consideration, it could not have been a suicidal drowning.

ANATOMY PROFESSOR’S VIEW. Professor W. P. Gowland, Professor of Anatomy at the Otago Medical School said that he had examined the body and considered it that of a person of middle age. There had been no teeth in the jaws for ten, fifteen oi more years. The indentation of the windpipe could not have been a congenital abnormality. Mr Donnelly: In your op-n-on, could that injury to the windpipe have been produced by the use of a hand . Professor Gowland: Well, there must have been some pressure, and there was most likely pressure of air inside too. He agreed with Dr. Pearson that the injuries to the ribs were just the sort of injuries produced by crushing. They could have been produced by a man kneeling on the chest. Doctor P. P. Lynch, consulting pathologist to the Wellington Hospital, gave corroborative evidence, rhe indications were that the body had been put in sacking, perhaps a sack, and then bound round a number of times with cords or ligatures of some sort. The positions of the ligature marks on the arms were such that they could have been caused if the body had been bound with the arms at the sides. The fact that there was an imprint made by sacking on the skin, indicated that the covering of sacking must have been pressed against the skin for a considerable time. The fractures of the ribs could have been caused by pressure of the knee, but it would require to be very considerable. In considering the injury to the windpipe there must be observed the possibility of the material having pressed heavily upon it, but the bruise in the side of the neck and the injury to the chest did add significance to the possibility of pressure or violence from the condition of the body he did not think it possible to say what was the cause of death. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow.