COOPER GUILTY

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 22 May 1923, Page 7

COOPER GUILTY

WiFE FOUND NOT GUILTY. DEATH SENTENCE PASSED. (BY TELEGRAVK —PUF.SS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, 2.35 p.m. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Cooper and not guilty against Mrs. Cooper. Sentence of death was passed on ! Cooper. KEEN PUBLIC INTEREST. PLEA FOR FEMALE ACCUSED. ADDRESS BY MR. WILFORD. JUDGE SUMS UP. (BY TELEGIIAI'H —I'ItKSS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, May 22. When the Supreme Court resumed this morning the galleries and floor of the courtroom were again crowded by interested listeners, many hundreds of late comers being compelled to content themselves with a less advantageous , position outside the building. Looking pale and anxious, Cooper and Mrs. ; Cooper entered the dock a few minutes alter 10, when Mr. Wilford commenced his address on behalf of Mrs. Cooper. Mr. Wilford pointed out that Mrs. Cooper was not under trial, for the murder of either the Beadle or Lister children, and only with the murder of M-Leod's child. The Crown was entitled under the law to introduce evidence of "system," hut he asked the jury to remember the fact that any evidence of "system" must not be counted as evidence against his client. Ihe Crown Prosecutor had said yesterday: "So far as the male accused is concerned the case is a clear one.'"' That was a pointed inference that the case against his client was not clear and he thanked Mr. Macassey for saying what lie did. He prooosed to show them not only was the "case against Mrs. Cooper not clear, but that there was a great deal of evidence in her favour. It was the duty of the jury to impartially weigh the evidence/and if as_a result of that weighing they had any doubt then his client was entitled to acquittal. His client had been prejudiced all through the case by the 'atmosphere" which had been created As an instance there was the disappearance or the Beadle children, which had been prominent in tlie case, but the Crown admitted that Mrs. Cooper was absent from Newlands for months before the child was born and for months after it disappeared, so that Mrs Cooper could not possibly be concerned Vr xt> an<l he believed the absence of Mrs. Cooper made it possible for the grave to be dug and the child buried close to the crib. There; was not a tittle of evidence connecting Mrs. Cooper with the disappearance of the Beadle children, and "the case against her wa-s limited to her connection with the McLeod and Lister children. In this connection was it strange that she believed her husband when he told her \n V S havin S the children adopted? All the other witnesses were convinced oy Cooper, and even the police believed his story till something turned up to smash it to pieces. What then was unreasonable in Mrs. Cooper's belief and if she did believe that they were being adopted then the case for the Crown falls to the ground. Her conduct all through was consistent with adoption, and the Crown had net suggested that Mrs. Cooper had killed McLeod's child. They dare not do that Nothing had prejudiced Mrs. Cooper so much as the fact that she had consented to take up a secondary position to Beadle in the household at "Newlands His explanation was that Mrs. Cooper was completely dominated by her husI band, not that there was anything in the nature of coercion in the" ordinary way, but the fact was that she was reduced to the position of household drudge without any mind of her own. All the women who came' to Newlands were "dumped" on Mrs. Cooper. Her wishes were neve* consulted, until her resistance gave out and she left for Dunedin. How then did Cooper obtain this ascendancy over Mrs. Cooper ? He suggested hypnotism or mesmerism, both of which had long passed the experimental stages. That was the only nossiV.c explanation of her extraordinary conduct. In per-' mitting Beadle to t-^-e her place, she was a woman sinnea against rather than sinning. She believed her husband until the bodies were found, and after that her answer to cuestions by the police was, "I have nothing to "say," which was simply the answer of an automaton whose will power was nil. I H* statement made to* the police hebore the bodies were found was intended to save Cooper. It was made under pressure, and that wr.s why it was subsequently withdrawn. Coming next to Cooper's methods, counsel pointed out that he had always employed an intermediary between the mother and himself. He never took a child from its mother himself. In the case of the second Beadle child he employed Effie Adams, and when Adams said she had handed the child .to Cooper to be adopted was her evidence to be believed? Of course it was. Why then not believe Mrs Cooper when she said she believed Cooper when he told her. he had given McLeod's baby to some people who were going to adopt it. Before the jury could convict his client, they must unanimously arrive at the conclusion she did not believe her bus-1 hand. The case was intricate. It was hard to know and hard to see. He could only conclude in the words of Bracken: "Oh- God! That men might see a little clearer, or judge less harshly where they cannot see." j His Honor began summing uj> at 11.23. He said the evidence the jury had to consider was' confined between very narrow limits, "and they had care- i fully to separate the evidence which might be proof against one prisoner and not the other. It was the'duty of the Crown to lay the complete case before the Court, and they must be satisfied that that had been done, and that there was no flaw in the evidence that would raise doubts in their minds. If they had any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of either party, the accused must receive the benefit of that doubt. They must be satisfied that the body of McLeod's child was dead, that it was murdered by - one or both of the accused. To prove this crime it was not necessary that the Crown should produce the body, as counsel for Cooper had suggested. It was only necessary that the Crown should prove the crime, and this was especially so in the case of a very young child. Such a child was in a sense a trust, and common

I —— " sense dictated that the last person known to be in charge of it could bo held responsible, and evidence had been submitted to the jury, all of which went to show that the body found near Cooper's house, and which the Crown claimed was McLeod's child, had not been honestly dealt with. His Honor then proceeded to justify his action in admitting evidence of "system," the principles of which he explained'in detail and illustrated them by particulars of celebrated cases. Continuing, His Honor said that Cooper, in one of his statements, made admissions which were tantamount i/O an admission of "system" in the receipt of young women and the adoption of their children. It was therefore open to the Crown to show what this system was. They- were not to convict Cooper of murdering McLeod's child because they believed he murdered other children, but the evidence of "system" submitted would aid them in arriving at a conclusion regarding McLeod's child. After dealing with the element of accident in causing the deaths of young children. His Honour pointed out that four children were missing and three bodies had been found on Cooper's property. What then were the chances of three accidental deaths on a 19-acre farm? If all the farms in New Zealand were dug over on how many would the bodies of infant children be found? Not many, he thought. So they had to consider how no less than three were found on Cooper's 19-acre farm. Then, what were the chances of some invader having placed the bodies there.. Cooper had suggested that Lupi and Goulder might have placed them there, but that suggestion had been disproved. Was it then a mere coincidence that four children were missing and three bodies were found on Cooper's property? Cooper's story of how he handed Lister's child to Lupi ' for adoption was now proved to be a pure fabrication, and it was for the jury to consider how that bore upon j his statement regarding McLeod's child. Cooper's treatment of Beadle's second child might have a bearing on the fate of McLeod's child. Then they had to remember that hot at any time during the long inquiry had Cooper made any statement which would help j the police to clear up the mystery. Was ! it feasible that if Cooper had properly i given the ch/.l to Paimerston North ' people to adopt that they would not now come forward and produce the child, and what had Cooper dor«o to help himself? Nothing, except concoct, a story about Lupi which had been proved untrue. He had not said one word which would help to disclose the whereabouts of.the missing child. The motive was to be found in the money arrangements Cooper made with Welsh and Lupi. though it was not necessary for the Crown to prove the motive. So far as Mrs Cooper was concerned if they believed she was so much under the influence of Cooper as to believe the story of the adoption, then .they must ..give her the benefit of the position which the law allowed to such a, one, But to arrive ,at a conclusion as to what she really did believe they had to consider the untrue statement she had made regarding Lister's chil<4 and when she withdrew that untrue statement never afterwards made any explanation which would clear the matter up. Later on, when- she was not under the evil eye of her husband she persistently refused to say more than that she would refer the police to her solicitor. This and her untruthful statement must be considered when the jury was deliberating on her mental attitude. If there was a doubt she must get the benefit of the doubt. At two minutes to one the jury retired, and His Honour adjourned the Court till 2,15 p.m.