Haigh Smiles As He Is Sentenced To Death

Northern Advocate, 20 July 1949, Page 5

Haigh Smiles As He Is Sentenced To Death

LONDON, Tue. (11.30 a.m.)—John George ilaigh was found guilty at Lewes Assizes today of the murder of Mrs Olivia Durand-Deacon and was sentenced to death. Asked if he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed, Haigh put his head slightly on one side, clasped his hands behind his back, smiled faintly and leplied in a cleai., rather high-pitched voice: “None at all.” . .. While Mr Justice Humphreys was passing the death sentence there was still a taint smile on Haigh's face. , , . . , , , This broadened slightly as, after sentence had been completed, he turned around and went below to the cells with two warders. The jury of 11 men and one woman had rejected one ot the most sensational pleas m i.) u isft criminal history. ....... , . ,

The Attorney General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) who prosecuted, called the case a 'nauseating story of premeditated murder for gain."

Dr Yellowlees had said Haigh drank blood in fantasy. He was certain, but it was impossible to sa.y, whether he drank it in fact, although the doctor formed the opinion that at least Haigh had lasted it.

The jury was not trying the question of whether Haigh was or is insane. Thai question alone was one which was never submitted to a jury. That issue was dealt with by the certification of medical men. His Honor said it was not suggested that Haigh at this moment was insane. The nan was fit to be tried and had ecu tried.

Sir Hartley submitted that Haigh was sane at the time he committed the crime and was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Defence counsel, led bv Sir David Maxwell-Fyle, K.C., produced evidence that Haigh was a paranoic, clever, insane and vain, who lived two lives at once.

Sir David attributed the urge for material gain to egotism, vanity and self-assurance and disorder, in which the subject of Haigh’s mental background allowed him to be placed under the influence of the controlling spirit who led his life. Sir David continued: ‘■When Haigh is not acting under pressure of his delusions, he is lucid, astute and cunning.

The judge added: "Very much against his will. Dr Yellowlees was in the end forced to say: ‘1 cannot doubt that this man did know what he was doing, and that il was wrong,' but the law is that the jury has to decide these matters.’’ The judge said Haigh himself might have given ’evidence and his father might have been called to speak aoout his upbringing., "but no. the defence is content to say: ‘We call an expert upon insanity who has formed an opinion.’ ” UNUSUAL COURSE

“OFFERED BLOOD" The two lives of Haigh were described by Dr Henry Yellowlees, a noted psychiatrist, who was the only witness called for the defence. Dr Yellowlees said he could not state delinitely that Haigh was insane. He added that Haigh had told him during prison interviews of constantly recurring dreams of “the bleeding Christ,” and ‘bleeding trees,” among which he saw "a forest of crucifixes,” and was ottered blood to drink. Dr Yellowlees. dealing with Htiigh’i paranoid condition, said Haigh felt he was like an artist when he had successfully diddled and hoodwinked his fellow creatures.

THE OTHER SIDE “When the delusion presses heavily on him, when the finger of this control is pressing on him—that is when the other side slips away and decreases into nothingness at all. “In this growing egocentricity, Haigh got the delusion and preconception that lie was specially controlled b.y the divine and mystic force behind the world bearing on his mind, and from that came the delusion that this force compelled and demanded that he should commit the murders and drink this blood. . "At the time he committed them—whatever he considered them—there is only one conclusion —he did not know that lie was doing what was wrong.” In his closing remarks, Sir David said: “It is the duty and glory of English justice that anyone who has a mind so clearly displaying these abnormalities and disorders should have that mind considered freely and dispassionately by a jury of his peers. “I believe my client has had that experience, and, if ho has. I leave the verdict in your hands." CROWN’S SUBMISSION Sir Hartley Shawcross then made his closing speech for the Crown. He said he had not called rebutting evidence, because that given by Dr Yellowlees was conclusive that Haigh was not insane, and that he knew full well that what he was doing when he killed Mrs Deacon was wrong and a crime for which he could be punished. Haigh's stories had not been corroborated by any evidence. It was a simple case of a man "not mad, but bad, who carefully planned to commit murder for gain, and who hoped to succeed, as he thought he had succeeded in the post.’ FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE Sir Hartley submitted that Haigh, having thought that in the previous case he had discovered a perfect method of concealing murder, fried to do it again. It was a case in which sanity was only raised as an issue because the charge was a charge of murder, and no other conceivable defence was open on the facts to the defendant.

The judge added that the somewhat unusual course had been adopted of not calling evidence at all for the defence as to the state of mind of the man. or ask a single question of any witnesses as to whether Ilaigh exibibited any peculiarities which would make people think he was not a perfectly sane, ordinary person.

“He objects to the word murder. It was the only sign of touchiness he showed,” he said

Mr Justice Humphreys said it war not clear whether Haigh drank blood because he killed people, or whether he killed people in order to drink blood.

NO SPECIAL INTEREST

“He doesn’t mind them being called killings “He has no special interest in rights or wrongs, jr in the laws of the country or in his victims, because he says he has a destiny to fulfil.” Dr Yellowlees oaid Haigh kne\V well that to kill a person was a crime and punishable by law-, but Haigh said it did not apply in his case. There was a ripple of laughter in the court as the Judge said: "I don’t quite follow. He suggests he wasn't amenable to law?"

Dr Yellowlees had said there was no sex element. "That was really a comfort in a way because we are becoming a bit tired in this court of sex complexes.’ the judge said. “BODIES IN BATII” CASE

It was the jury’s responsibility to say whether Haigh committed murder and whether he was aware at the time that what he was doing was wrong. In that case the verdict should be one of guilty.

Dr Yellowlees replied that Haigh regarded the trial with complete equanimity saying - “1 am in the position of Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate, and you have no power against me unless it is given to you from aboye.”

If they found that he did not realise it was wrong, the verdict should be one of guilty, but insane. If any ot; the jury had the slightest idea that Haigh was insane because of other killings, he would remind them of a man who was convicted of three separate murders—“the bodies in the bath case.”

UNIQUE FEATURE Dr Yellowlees told the court that a unique feature was Haigh’s absolutely callous, cheerful, bland and almost friendly indifference to the case and the crimes he freely admitted haying committed Asked whether Haigh actually drank the blood of his victims. Dr Yellowlees replied: “I think it pretty certain he tasted it.” Dr Yellowlees told Sir David Max-well-Fyfe that tie did not think any psychiatrist could attempt to answer the question whether Haigh was sane or insane, unless he lived with the patient for years. FOREST OF CRUCIFIXES

No one ever suggested that, that man was insane.

As the judge left the court after passing sentence over 1000 people outside applauded and clapped their hands.

It is understood that Haigh will be transferred tonight to Wandsworth Gaol, London. Haigh’s solicitor (Mr .1. Ireland Eager) said it was too early to say anything on the question of an appeal. He had not yet been able to discuss it with counsel.

Sir Hartley added that the alleged urges and impulses of Haigh seemed to have operated to iris financial advantage.

Dr Yellowlees told Sir David that paranoics in general followed the customs of primitive savage people. Haigh had his "tree dream” after a motor car accident.

Giving him the benefit of every possible doubt on the facts, and every weight on the opinions, speculations and theories of Dr Yellowlees, at the end of the day what remained of llie attempted defence? When the jury thought for a moment, the defence fell straight to the ground. SUMMING-UP The judge, in liis summing up, said: "In this case, according to the defence and to the only witness who has been called for the defence, as well as numerous witnesses called for the prosecution, it appears that Haigh is utterly and completely unreliable.” His Honor said that the jury should disregard Haigh's statement for the moment and determine whether the prose.cution had proved that Haigh murdered Mrs Deacon.

A lot of blood from a scalp wound ran into his mouth, reviving his ideas about blood.

Dr Yellowlees tnen described a dream Haigh said he had had of seeing an entire forest of crucifixes which gradually changed into trees, whose branches appeared to be dripping witn dew or rain, then blood. Then the tree gradually assumed the shape of a man holding a cup filled with blood from the trees.

The dream was repeated some nights in succession.

NO PARTICULAR PLAN

Dr Yellowlees added: “Haigh says that after this his killings occur, and I think he said after one or two of them he dreams the same dream.” Haigh bad said these dreams occurred before each killing. Dr Yellowlees said Haigh’s absence of interest in sex or sexual activity was an indication of very great abnormality of mind. Dr Yellowlees added that Haigh told him he had no particular plan before the killings He said of one case that he did not know until a minute before that he was going to kill nis victim, but after the killing took every precaution to avoid detection because he knew murder was punishable by law. Sir Hartley Shaweross then began cross-examination of Dr Yellowlees. Sir Hartley said he did not intend to call evidence rebutting Dr Yellowlees’ evidence, but would submit that there was nothing to rebut. Dr Yellowlees had lokl Sir Hartley that this was the first case in which he had been unable to say whether or not accused knew that what he was doing was wrong. The trial entered its last dramatic stages when Sir David Maxwell Fyfe began his address to the jury, in which he stressed the angle of insanity. His speech lasted 70 minutes. BLACK WORLD

If there was any doubt on the point of murder, the jury would, of course, acquit Haigh, but if murder was proved to their satisfaction, they would go into the question of what had been described as the defence of sanity.

Sir David took horrified listeners in the court into the black world of Haigh’s fantasy and “history of violent alteration of religious experience.” •He said: "it is impossible for any man or woman to come to any conclusion other than that a paranoid constitution exists in this case. “With all the resources of the British Crown, it would have been the simplest matter to contradict either the existence of a paranoid condition or the facts and circumstances which go to make it up." He added that Dr Yellowlees had devoted his whole life to the study of paranoia and he asked the jury to approach the doctor’s conclusion with the attention deserved by such long experience.

Sir David said that the defence’s medical evidence was “substantial and uncontradicted,” and based on the evidence of someone qualified to give an opinion. “CONTROLLING SPIRIT” ">n the question of whether Haigh drank his victims blood, Sir .a said there was a blood motive nrough the whole story, and a fresh series of dreams occurred after Haigh had had an accident, when his head had been cut, and he had lasted blood.