NEARING THE END

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1936, Page 5

NEARING THE END

MAREO RE-TRIAL r ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. (Per Press Association —Copyright)., AUCKLAND, June 16. > At the Mareo trial yesterday afternoon, the Crown called G-eorge Seymour Dennis Sheard, of Mount Eden, who in 1928 was a member of the Humphrey Bishop musical comedy company. He said in Adelaide he was the tenor, of the show and Thelma Trott, afterwards Mrs Mareo, was the soprano, and they sang duets. He saw her every day and night for five weeks, and she stayed with his people for three of the four weeks. “I’ve no knowledge of her ever taking veronal during that period,’! said witness. “She was not dopey and depressed. On the contrary, brightness was one of her greatest assets. I knew her on tour in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand for about two and a half years, and never saw any signs of the dopiness which has been , referred to.. Miss Trott not only did her ordinary show work but also acted as Humphrey Bishop’s secretary.” Cross-examined by. Mr O’Leary, witness said he realised Mrs Mareo would be an asset to Mareo. R e-examined \by /Mr Meredith, v he* said in view of Mms Trott’s experience with Humphrey Mshop she would be a n asset;as a secretly, >7 .' ; Counsel for the defence in the Mareo. retrial, Mr O’Leary/K.C., addressed the jury. He askedff them to con-', sider what would be the end of the trial for the man in the dock, charged with murder, the .penalty of which they knew. Would he be free to return; tvj his children and his ’ friends, ; or would he return to the cell where' lie had been incarcerated ? . . • ~:.. Veronal was not a murderer’s weapon, counsel went on. The records showed that deaths from veronal - inf the case of adults rose, in the main, from misadventure and suicide. What might kill one person *, might have; 5 little or no effect On another. A person setting out to murder by; veronal, said Mr O’Leary, could have no idea as to how much to give. The Crown had selected, the possibility that Mareo had given veronal to Mrs Mar-‘ eo. He did it, the Crown said, at a time when Mr and Mrs Mareo were paid to be happy, and when Freda; Stark was present. - The defence coni-' tended that the most likely alternative was that'Mrs Mareo, by accident or design, took veronal herself. It vias most likely, and most consistent, that, she had some, innocently, on the Fri-. day night; that, on Irhe Saturday, she got up, after the manner of persons under the influence of veronal, qr even without getting up, and took a store of veronal, and that was what 1 killed her. j Mr O’Leary dealt next with the relations between Mareo and Eleanpr Brownlee. He spoke of the quarrel which took place, after the Dixielandparty, when Miss Brownlee brought Mareo home drunk. That in itself, was an indication that there, was no-> thing improper between them. A man did not bring home his mistress into.; the bosom of his family. >; When he was allegedly murdering this woman, said counsel, Mareo was; drafting a letter to J. C, Williamson, T united, asking them to take over. “The Dutchess of Dantzig,” the play in which his wife played the leading part. Thelma Mareo was essential to Mareo’s future projects, and, yet, the |urv was asked to believe that he had murdered her. It might be suggested j that Miss Brownlee was to take Mrs I Mareo’s place, hut she was not an actress. ' f

“To procure veronal Mareo went to chpwifjtp who said Mr O’tearV. “He he was taking veronal,iiiafijFts|jtli others. l ihe ; was taking it. Are those the actions of a guilty he. not haye got rid of thd -stuff:-had he been guilty? All Mareo’s actions in regard to veronal were frank, and were certainly not those of a guilty man. As soon as his 'wife died, he candidly admitted' the possesion of veronal. He neyer hesitated. He thought that his wife’s condition was due to medicine he had given her, and he was not candid about the medicine, because he thought he had committed an offence. I ask you: to contrast his actions over the cojx rective medicine, and his action re-, garding veronal. On the one hand, he was candid, truthful and straightforward ; but on the other he was not.”

Mr Meredith, in addressing the jury, attacked the defence evidence. ”1 am going to nut it to you,” said Mr Meredith, “that the evidence has no beariner.i or .practically none, on this case. The whole case now depends on careful consideration of incidents froip the Friday night to the Monday afternoon, when Thelma Mareo died. It was surprising that it was necessary to bring people from Australia to .prove Mrs Mareo’s drinking habits. There should liave been plentv of people in New Zealand and in Auckland who knew her intimately. People who knew' her in Australia and performed with her there, said they knew nothing of these accusations.

“Dr Giesen, who was called for the defence,” said Mr Meredith, “put up a most amazing proposition. He was a man who, admittedly, studied the case from the outset, and advised the defence.- He advised the • defence that everyone was wrong, but he did not come to the last trial and give evidence, and it was only now that he got into the firing line. Dr Gie-

sen’s theory was only one contradiction of several reputable men who gave their evidence with certainty, and who were supported by textbooks." purely, out of thousands, of medical men in •New Zealand, there must have ■■•( been some who would have come forward ♦in the interests of justice to support Dr Giesen.” Mr Meredith had not finished when the Court adjourned.