COOPER CASK

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 22 May 1923, Page 5

COOPER CASK

9 NEABING A CONCLUSION. MR. TREADWELL'S ADDRESS. (.iIVT XBLiiOliAl'H. I'HiLSS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, May 21. When the i^uuit lesumeu ti^e cooper ' case arter luncn, ivir. Treadwell commenced ins audrtss on Uenau ot cooper. He said tne .cnarge against the prisoner vas; murder, auu tv& pumsnmeni for that crime was deatn. 'lne care and attention to the evidence which the jury displayed had reheved to some extent his anxiety as to whether, from want ox care and vigilance on ins pare, he had tailed to adequately present tne case of the prisoner, and ior that care and attention he thanked them. ; Proceeding, he warned tne jury against coming to a hasty conclusion, and said his client did not claim mercy. The law was merciful enough, but what he wanted was justice. lie claimed that our system of criminal investiga- : turn and administration had 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 he was proved guilty. His client was en- . titled to the full benefit of that. The only proposition before the jury was whether or not Cooper and his wife murdered the McLeod child. They had nothing to do with the other cases introduced by the Crown. He then proceeded to trace the circumstances surrounding the birth of the McLeod child, which was characterised by the greatest kindness on .the part of Cooper to this woman. Was it possible, he asked, that this man could adopt this attitude of kindness towards his client and the next minute become an inhuman monster and kill the child 'i The Crown theory that ail this was done for "sordid lucre" was disproved 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 McLeod's ' child? Cooper's edsire to secure the 1 adoption of children was not consistent : with murder, and it was not remark- ' able that persons adopting a child should desire their identity to be ivept a close secret. Had 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 with 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 a corpus delicti, i.e., a. murdered body, had not been found, and our law now took tip the position that in such circumstances the jury must be satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner right up to the hilt. The jury maist be satisfied that the body was dead, that it was murdered, and that it was murdered by accused. They must be 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 a murder case, because there was no evidence that the body found had been actually murdered by accused. What the Crown relied on for the identity of the body found with McLeod's child wars the colour of its hair, but on ■ this point no two witnesses agreed. McLeod said it was dark brown and long. Dr. Wright said that the hair on the body found was black, but nothing was said about it being long. McLeod's child was full grown and healthy, but the medical evidence concerning the body found was conclusive. It was not a full-time child, and therefore could not have been McLeod'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 whole of the lungs of the child found had not breathed, but McLeod's child was strong and healthy and cried and kicked. Dr. Hector had said the chances were nine to one that the lungs of such a child eight days old would be expanded, and the absence of complete expansion of the lungs in the body found was surely evidence that it was not McLeod's child. As to the weight and age of the child, J;he medical authorities did not support the theory of the Crown. Another point of identification with McLeod's child on .which the Crown relied was the time rt was in the ground. For the Crown's case it must have been i buried for two months, but Dr. Hector, the Crown's scientific witness, said it was not sale to say it had not been in the ground for five months. If it had been in the ground for. five months, . then the whole structure of the Crown's I case fell to the ground. In these uncertain circumstances, was it safe -to bring in a verdict against Cooper? The evidence of "a system" introduced by the Crown was evidence of an extremely dangerous class, and it 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, counsel maintained that, on the dates, her first' child referred to could not have been Cooper's. TJiat was impossible, and 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 m no way proved that he murdered the child.. Subsequently Beadle did have a child by Cooper, and that indicated that Cooper wanted children. If he desired to murder these children, why in the name of reason did he wait so long to do the deed? If the theory of the Crown was correct with regard to Beadle's child, it should have been under the ground for sixteen months, but the doctors said it j had only been under the ground 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 ashes, it was found nt a spot known as the a^h pit, connected with the "crib," and the theory of the Crown . was that the ashes had something to do with a fire at Cooper's house. They had not; they were the ashes that came from the crib, and on this point the case of the Crown burst as a result of its own weakness. The third child had fair hair, and i this circumstance was a deliverance, be- ! cause had the hair been dark it might I have been taken for Lister's child be- ; cause it was in the ground from about I 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 the adopting parents often shirked the con. ditions 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 he would tell them anything he knew. No motive had been disclosed compatible wuh murder. In this respect it differed notably from other celebrated t^ues. for, search as they would, the yavy would be unable to discover any mou.e which would induce accused to eoaanit such a crime, since the Crown's theory of sordid gam had gone by the boi.id. In no case prev.OL.sly in New Zealand had there been so m^cii prejudice displayed as in this case. He cautioned the jury against being ' influenced Vy public sentiment and newspaper headlines, which in a desire to create a sensation sometimes undermined judgment. He adversely criticised the policy of the Crown in importing photographs and skeletons into Court. They were •only calculated to raise repugnance and passion, while they proved nothing the jury did not already know. The jury must not base its verdict on horror and repugnace, but on calm, sure and ummpassioned judgment. The evidence went to prove Cooper to be a kindly and humane man, who treated his clt ents and his own children with th* utmost consideration. He asked the jury to try the accused on the evidence before the Court, and if they had approaphed the case with..any preconceived ideas or prejudices he asked them to banish all such prejudices in the name of justice. The prisoner was not obliged to prove his innocence; it was the °uilt °n Crown to prove him Counsel then concluded an impassioned address, lasting two hours and twenty minutes, with the words of a great lawyer of former days: "May the spirit of ali truth guide you to an honest and just verdict, but no verdict wilt be either honest, just or true unless it at once satisfies the reasonable scruples of the severest judgment and yet leaves undisturbed and unvexed the indirect conscience among you " At 4.20 p.m. Mr. Wilford asked his »h\ v % m£ ht PostP°ne-his speech on behalf of Mrs. Cooper until tomorrow morning. His Honor said that if it was necessary m the interests of his client he conld not refuse such a request. . Mr. Gilford then assured him that ? uch was the case, and the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow.