SOLDIER ACQUITTED

Grey River Argus, 11 May 1944, Page 3

SOLDIER ACQUITTED

ON MURDER CHARGE Shooting of U.S. Serviceman

AUCKLAND, May 10. The Crown case was concluded this morning in the trial of the New Zealann soldier Thomas Rex Beagle, aged 19 on the charge ot murdeiing an American serviceman by shooting him on March 3 at Papakura camp. A New Zealand serviceman, James Edwards, said that Beagle had told him that the American had repeated his improper suggestion to accused at the sentry-box. Lieutenant Michael James Hewitt, a medical officer at Papakura camp, said he was called to the sentry-box and saw the dead body of an AmenI can serviceman. He found a wound in the chest and another in the neck. ■ Front such a wound death would occur in a few seconds. Sergeant Howard Dickie said he was a member of the provost corps and was called to the scene. When one of his men, after looking at the body of the American, said he was uncertain whether he was dead, accused remarked: “Let me out and I’ll finish him off.” Accused dia not appear to be affected by liquor. To Mr. Tompkins witness said accused had shown him a scar on his wrist. He told witness that when he was a small boy some fellow had ; approached him in the same way as the American soldier, and when he dia not respond the man had cut him with a pocket knife. . . A private in the provost unit, Lionel Williams, said accused told him he had resented the American’s repetition of the suggestion at the sentrybox. „ , _ T Major Harold Hercus, of the New Zealand Medical Corps, sajd he was stationed at the camn. and was callea to the scene, and later saw the accused about 8.45 p.m. He was in emotional distress, but witness did not think he was drunk. . Cross-examined by Mr. Tompkins, he said he had studied psychiatry. He had read the lower Court evidence, and was of opinion that any child having a terrifying sexual experience like that mentioned by Beagle to witnesses would never forget it. That might affect thought and conduct for the rest of one’s life. Counsel: Would you say that the violent reaction in the afternoon of wanting to fight the American was consistent with this condition of

mind? Witness: Yes. From what witnesses said Beagle tried to strike the American when the suggestion was made at a' public house. When he was at the sentry-box he had a rifle m his hands. It seems to me perfectly possible that he could not get away from this nightmare of homosexuality, and used his rifle to do it. ‘Counsel: Would you say he was acting in a case like that by trying to escape his terror or fear by this action? , . Witness; Yes, fear being the dominant element in this motivation. Counsel: Would he be likely, in view of his history and his background, to lose control of himself? Witness He would. Counsel. Would you describe his action as one of shooting blindly? Witness: Perhaps blindly is as good a word as any to describe it. He would act without , his full critical faculties brought to bear on his immediate action. Witness said he thought accused s action in wanting io go back to the American when it was suggested that he might he dead was consistent with the reactions he (witness) had described. Accused’s mind might be stirred up again on that being mentioned. He believed a man could act under intense emotion arjd still appear outwardly calm, but emotional reaction could last for a long time. Re-examined by Mr. Meredith, witness said he had not specialised in psychiatry, but' had studied human behaviour. Whether a normal man would want to assault anyone making an improper suggestion was a question of individual cases. “Most fellows whom I have asked said they don’t know whether they would strike a man or not when he made similar suggestions,” added witness. While fear might dominate a mom’s feelings, it did not always follow that a man would want to run away from a thing he feared. There were other factors to be considered when seeking to determine whether a man would keep company and go for a , meal with a man who had made improper suggestions. I Mr. Tompkins, counsel for defence, i said he did not propose to call evidence. : The Crown Prosecutor, Mr, Mere-

dith, addressed the Jury. He said the only legal defence for the accused was justification, and a plea of such provocation as would cause accused to act in the heat of passion and without self-control. An insulting suggestion had been made in the afternoon and in the light of a boyhood incident recalled during the case, one would have expected the accused to have thoroughly assaulted the American, or to have told him off and left him. Instead he argued and nagged and eventually they dined together and went together in friendly wav to Papakura Camp. The slackness of the guard there, commented Mr. Meredith, was quite irrelevant to, the case, as also was the question whether or not. Vallely, Corporal of the guard, was prejudiced against the accused. Counsel stressed that accused had said to Vallely “I’m going to shoot this Yank,” and that a few minutes later, the American was shot. The story of the boyhood incident was mentioned only when accused was faced with the grave responsibility of the American’s death. How the ‘accused had reacted to the first suggestion had to be remembered, also that the second suggestion of an insulting nature came to accused after he had had a meal, and had some hours to recover from any effects of drink. Therefore, counsel submitted, that evidence supported the charge of murder. If the jury [felt that accused had been so horrified b v the improper suggestion as to [completely lose self-control, then the charge might be reduced to manslaughter. , THE VERDICT. P.A. AUCKLAND, May 10. A verdict of “not guilty” on the charge against the New Zealand soldier, Thomas Rex Beagle, aged 19, of having murdered an American serviceman on March 3, was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court. The trial commenced on Monday morning, and evidence was given by 21 witnesses for the Crown. It was alleged that the accused shot deceased with a rifle in a sentry box at the military camp at Papakura. The case was heard before Justice Fair. Messrs Meredith and Williams appeared for the Crown and Messrs Tompkins and Wallace for the defence. At the conclusion of the Crown case, Mr. Tompkins said he did not propose to call evidence for the defence.'