Mareo Appeal Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 71, 25 March 1936, Page 5

Mareo Appeal Case

Medical Evidence Questioned

CROWN ARGUMENT COMMENCED

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night

The applieatiou for a new trial in the caso in which Eric Marco is appealing against the death sentence on a charge of wife murder, was resumed in the Court of Appeal to-day. Before Mr. H. F. O’Leary (for the defence) resumed the exuminatiou of tho evidence, he was asked by Mr. Justice Reed whether the hospital bed chart relating to Sirs. Marco had been produced at the trial, lie answered that it had not. Comment was made by tho Court that it was very unusual that this was not done, although there might be some explanation, and it was pointed out that no definite time could be gathered from the evidence at which Mrs. Marco had died.

The evidence of Mrs. Freda Evans and Doris Laura Bransgrove was attacked by Mr. O’Leary in so fas as it imputed that Marco had given his wife veronal on the Friday night. It had been suggested at the trial that they were mistaken and, indeed, in his summing up Mr. Justice Fair had said:— “The weight to be attached to the evidence of Mrs. Evans and Miss Bransgrove is a matter for yourselves. You have seen them yourselves in the box. You may think them perfectly honest and that they think that statement (that he had given some veronal to his wife on the Friday) was in fact made, but it is dangerous in my opinion to act on that evidence.” Even if their evidence were accepted that ho had given veronal to Mrs, Marco on the Friday night, it was submitted that it was something done innocently—that it was given, and must have been given, when she was awake and in full possession of her faculties; that if it were done it was something quite consistent with his innocence; that the giving of veronal innocently on the Friday night did not, and could not, prove the giving of a lethal or killing dose on the Saturday night. One other matter in their evidence was Mareo saying (o them: “They won’t liang me, will they?” A similar statement had appeared in the evidence of Detective Mciklejohn. The words used in both eases were consistent with a troubled frame of mind brought about by Marco’s having brought his wife medicine to bring about a certain result. It was extraordinary how the witnesses had taken a view adverse to accused whenever the evidence admitted of alternative constructions. Analyst’s Procedure When Mr. O’Leary was considering the evidence of tho Government analyst, Kenneth Massey Griftiu, stating that he had recovered 14,7 S grains of veronal from various organs in Mrs. Marco’s body, Mr. , slice Blair remarked: “He states that he extracted veronal from the brain. The process is not to take tho brain out and chop it up, but what is done is that they trike a little piece of it and analyse it, and take that as an indication of what tho whole of the brain contains.”

■Counsel: The analyst does not get tho whole of the brain, but before a piece is sent to him the whole of the brain is weighed by a pathologist.

Air. O’Leary then asked if his junior, Air. Henry, could explain the position.

Air. Henry said: “The uuuylst minces all he gets. Ho takes a known portion and then extracts veronal from

Air. Justice Blair: When the analyst says “I have recovered 2.38 grains” lie means it. is done by calculation after taking a small piece of minced up brain. The same process is followed with the other organs?

Air. Henry: That is so. There are still check portions of the organs loft if we wish to check up on (hem. The whole organ is not destroyed. Proceeding to the evidence of Dr. Walter Gilmour, Air. O’Leary contended that it was inconsistent. The doctor was particular to say Airs. Alarco was recovering from a dose of veronal, and that she was able to waken of her own accord and keep awake for a period of two or three hours, but Air. O’Leary contended that the evidence of tho other witnesses showed that she was asleep within fivo minutes after she had taken milk, aud there was no evidence that she had, of her own accord, asked tor a drink of water. The evidence was that she had been given a drink, counsel continued. It must be admitted that it took some time for the. veronal to take effect. Nobody had suggested that it would induce sleep in live minutes, yet to close up the possibility or probability of Airs. Mareo having taken the veronal herself Dr. Gilmour had said that, from the description of her condition given to him, it would have been impossible for her to get out of bed, and even if it had been within easy reach, in his opinion, it would have been impossible for to take veronal herself.

Air O’Leary considered that witness wanted his evidence to cover tho position as 1 1 whether Airs. Alarco was falling asleep or had been awake. The quantity of veronal recovered from Airs. Alarco’s body was then discussed.

Tli e Chief Justice (.Sir Michael Myers) asked: Is it, after all, of very great importance? This woman did dio of veronal poisoning. Mr.. O’Leary: I appreciate that, but this is of crucial importance. The question to be asked was when did she get veronal. There was no basis for the assertion that she had a total number of doses aggregating 100 grains. Sleep and Coma. After the luncheon adjournment, the evidence of Dr. Gunson was considered. During the trial Dr. Gunson had stated that, after the milk was administered to Mrs Mareo, she might have gone off into a sleep as distinguished from coma, continued Mr O’Leary. She evidently was sleepy then. If she had gone off into a sleep, it would have been just ° natural quiet sleep, and she could

have been easily roused. Her condition of heavy and noisy • breathing was a. symptom of deep coma. The Chief Justice asked: How do you reconcile this with the fact that she fell into a natural sleep while she was being given the milk?

■Mr O’Leary replied that there was nothing to show at what stage she passed from sleep to coma. No attempts were made to rouse her after she hail fallen asleep. The doctors’ evidence was an attempt to get over what hud been said by non-medical. witnesses — that she was going to sleep while the milk was being given to her. In considering the evidence of Detective Mciklejohn, Air O’Leary said it was quite evident there were certain things that Mareo said that were between himself and the detectivo m confidence, but which the detective repeated later on. After this Marco was driven to justifying these statements, and they were then used to show he had endeavoured to Ldacken his wife’s character. The letters shown by Marco to the detective were put in as evidence in the lower Court by the detectivo. Mr O’Leary said that during the courso of the hearing he had endeavoured to make various points that would, support the application, and he could summarise these as follows: (1) All matters prior to the crucial day. April 13 (Saturday), which wer» used to point to Marco's guilt came within the third principle submitted by him in opening—that they were equally consistent with his innocence as with his guilt; (2) All. matters subsequent to Airs Alarco’s death wcre~br.ou.gbt -wit-kiu (lie principle that,' if a prisoner docs an act or makes statements that point to guilt, the Crown must show that these point to the crime charged and to that, alone; (3) As to happenings on April 13, tho Crown’s case had broken down at its main point; that is, the administration of veronal in milk by Marco on Saturday evening. There was, in nis submission, no evidence on which tho jury, as reasonable men, could properly find that veronal had been administered in a let Iml dose by Alarco on that occasion. Other reasonable hypotheses as to his wife’s death, suicide and misadventure, could not be and were not excluded. This concluded the case for applicant. Crown’s Submissions. In opening for the Crown, Air A. H. Johnstone, K.C., conceded that the propositions of law stated by Air O’Leary were substantially correct. However, he desired to emphasise that, in cases depending on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be considered cumulatively. It was not sufficient to point out that there were weak strands in the rope of evidence, provided the ropo was sound as a whole.

It was pointed out that no evidcncO had been called on behalf of Mareo, so that the effect of this application was really the same as if there had been no case to go to the jury, but it was not so treated. Counsel said ho bad spent some hours in a critical examination of the evidence and contended there was no suggestion of misdirection by the trial Judge. He submitted a new trial should be granted only if the verdict was such that the jury could not reasonably fiud as it did. To put it in other words, there should bo a new trial only if there had been a miscarriage of justice. He hold there was ample evidence from which the jury could properly infer Marco’s guilt rather than accept the submissions made on his behalf. The hearing was adjourned,