THE MAREO CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 26 March 1936, Page 2

THE MAREO CASE

APPLICATION FOR NEW TRIAL APPEAL COURT HEARING ARGUMENT for the grown DECISION RESERVED (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. Further argument for the Crown against the application made by Eric Mareo for a new trial on the charge, of murdering his wife, Thelma Mareo, for which he was convicted and sentenced to death at Auckland, was heard by the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon. The application is being heard by their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Ostler, Mr Justice Blair, and Mr Justice Kennedy. Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C., with him Mr V. N. Hubble, both of Auckland, appear for the Crown, and the prisoner is represented by Mr 11. F. O’Leary, K.C., of Wellington, with him Mr T. Henry and Mr K. C, Aekins, of Auckland. Continuing his argument, Mr Johnstone said the evidence excluded all possibilities except that Mrs Mareo must have taken the veronal herself, or that it must have been given by Mareo. The jury had evidence that, at the crucial time, the prisoner had veronal in his possession, that he had been taking it night by night, and that he hud been warned regarding its effects. Between 6th and 11th April he had bought no fewer than thirty-two tablets. The Chief Justice asked if those purchases had been signed for and Mr O’Leary said there had been some misunderstanding about the regulations and Mareo had not been asked to sign. PURCHASES OF VERONAL There was evidence, said Mr Johnstone, that the purchase had been made after the law was altered, although Mareo claimed he had made the purchases because the law was to be altered. Mareo had actually bought 160 grains of veronal after 6th April, and when Detective Meiklejohn asked him for veronal on 15th April lie produced a phial containing eleven tablets. Tl\cre were twenty-five tablets unaccounted for.

The Chief Justice: “Twenty-five. That is approximately what the doctors claim was taken by Mrs Mareo.” Mr Johnstone: “That is so.”

Mareo, continued counsel, had admitted on isth April that twenty-five tablets were missing, and had said that his wife must have found them and been taking them secretly instead of alcohol. Two witnesses said Mareo had said he had given Mrs Mareo veronal on the Friday. That evidence was in no wise contradicted or shaken. The quantity of veronal given must have been greater than a therapeutic dose, because Mareo made efforts to waken Mrs Mareo on the Saturday morning. If the jury accepted that evidence it was of importance. It accounted for the disappearance of some of Mareo’s stock; it showed that the explanations given by him as to the cause of her sleep were untrue; and it showed that her condition indicated to him the need for medical help which he did not get. There was no doubt that Mrs Mareo did sleep all day Saturday. She was under observation throughout the day except for an hour and a half in the morning. During the whole period when she was' 1 under observation she was unconscious, and unless she had veronal in the room, she would have to get up and go out to the washhouse to get it from where it was hidden in a suitcase. The prisoner spent the Saturday night in the bedroom, but there was no suggestion that she had secured any of the tablets he was carrying on his person.

AN ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS “Supposing she had gone into the washhouse on Friday evening or earlier and taken possession of those things,” said the Chief Justice. “I am just putting that forward as an alternative hypothesis—that would completely alter the position, wouldn’t it?” Mr Johnston: “That is so.” If Mrs Mareo had done that, the Chief Justice continued, she would not need to go to the washhouse on the Saturday morning. The Court did not know how long Mareo had been in the bathroom. Mrs Mareo might even have had time to go. to the washhouse on the Saturday morning. Mr Johnstone said the evidence showed that Mrs Mareo had first fallen out of bed and had been found on tlie floor, and later had been found by the dressing table in a semi-conscious condition. The Chief Justice: “That rather precludes the possibility of her going out on the Saturday morning.” Mr Hubble spoke of the conduct of prisoner. Deceased was practically unconscious from Friday night to Monday morning, and the jury might reasonably and almost inevitably ask why prisoner did not get a doctor. Deceased’s position was such that any husband desiring the welfare of a wife would have called a doctor at least after the Saturday. If there was no satisfactory explanation why he did not call a doctor, the jury was entitled to think that he did not wish his wife to get well—that he desired her dead. The evidence showed that on at least six occasions the desirability o.f securing a doctor was represented to prisoner. THE ONLY EXPLANATION The only explanation given for prisoner was that he had been giving his wife medicine which he had procured from a chemist and was scared to call a doctor because he or the chemist might get into trouble. The jury at the trial rejected this theory, and he contended the jury was entitled to decide whether it would accept the suggestion. Accused knew the illness was not due to the medicine, and he had lied in saying that he had communicated with a chemist instead of a doctor while his wife was in a comatose state. After he knew the cause of death prisoner lied to the detectives as to why he did not get a doctor by saying he thought his wife’s condition was due to liquor. All the evidence was that there was no smell of liquor about deceased, as there would be if she had been lying in bed drunk for three days. A FALSE STATEMENT? The hearing of the Mareo appeal entered its fourth day this morning. Mr Hubble, continuing his address, made further reference to the fact that no smell of alcohol about Mrs Mareo had been observed by any of the occupants of the house over the fatal week-end. In fact, it was submitted that Mareo did not think his wife’s condition was due to alcohol, and the statement he made to the doctor was false. There could be no 1 doubt he knew the properties of veronal 1 in inducing sleep because of his discus- 1 sions with the chemist, Mr Rowbottom. 1 It was a reasonable inference that he

knew it could be used for that purpose. It was of some importance to fix the time at which he had some reasonable intimation as to the cause of her death, and from the evidence it was a fair inference to draw that as a result of the doctor’s visit on Monday, he knew she had been poisoned with veronal.

The Chief Justice made reference to tile publicity that had attended the proceedings in the lower court, and said ho did not want to discuss it, but just to find out what was the position. Mr Hubble said that the case had been “featured” in the Press. The next matter for consideration was the evidence from which the jury could find that Mareo made untrue statements to the police regarding the veronal itself. Once the jury came to the conclusion that he gave her veronal—and this would apply not only to Friday night but also to Saturday night—has subsequent statement to the police that he never gave her any veronal would appear incorrect. In his statements to the detectives he once stated orally and once in writing that he had at no time given her this drug.

SUBMISSION OF MATTERS ESTABLISHED

Without attempting to give an exhaustive list of facts which the jury could properly find, he submitted that the following matters had been established : (1) That Mrs Mareo died of veronal poisoning. (2) That neither Graham Mareo nor Freda Stark administered the veronal. ■(3) Administration was in at least three doses, one on Friday night, one on Saturday morning and one about midnight on Saturday. (4) Mareo himself had the opportunity of administration at all three times. (5) Mareo himself at all critical times was in possession of a large supply of veronal purchased shortly before, and from this supply a number of tablets were missing, sufficient at least to make up a lethal dose. (6) Of three occasions the jury were entitled to find he did give her veronal on Friday night and on Saturday night. Having found these two facts from the evidence, and viewing all the circumstnees, the jury could find then, though only then, that he gave her all three doses. (7) That he deliberately refrained from calling the doctor and gave two false reasons for this.

(8) That he told the police he never gave his wife any veronal and this statement was untrue. (9) As a result of these matters and all other inferences which they might properly draw from the evidence, the jury were entitled to find the prisoner administered doses of veronal amounting in all to a lethal total dose with intent to cause his wife’s death. In conclusion, it was submitted that on the application before the Court not only had the Crown shown that the verdict was one which 12 reasonable men, having regard to all circumstances, could properly find but that examination of the facts went further than the Crown had to go and showed the verdict was a proper one.

COUNSEL F'OR PRISONER IN REPLY

Mr O’Learv in replying, submitted that the Crown had failed to meet the attack on a vital part of the Crown’s case—the administration of a large dose by Mareo on Saturday evening. The difficulties in proving this final administration had caused the Crown to attempt to get away from the doctor’s evidence £s to amount of veronal administered to Mrs Mareo.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE ATTACKED Mr O’Leary attacked the medical evidence with relation to the distinction between sleep and coma. Unless direct connection could be established between the giving of the milk on Saturday night and the sleep that ensued it was doubtful that veronal had been administered in the milk. The administration of sal volatile may have caused digestion oi the veronal that was already in the system. It could not be submitted that the admission of the giving of a. dose on the- Friday night was proof that Mareo gave his wife a further dose on Saturday night. Mrs Mareo’s condition on Saturday morning was open to more than one interpretation. A further matter as to the Saturday night was that the doctors had based then* opinion on the contention that a person who is recovering from coma induced by v ®*°“ nal never relapses into a fatal coma alter regaining consciousness without a fuitnei dose. There was a period of one quarter of an hour between the last time Miss Stark was with Mrs Mareo and when Mrs Mareo called out for her. There was no evidence that Mrs Mareo might not have taken veronal herself in that time. On the expert evidence, Mr O’Leary said that he thought he was entitled to this criticism of it. In matters on which he had been able to check their opinion, it was found that they were wrong.

MAREO’S ACTIONS AND CONDUCT

As to Mareo’s general actions and conduct, counsel submitted that on this and all related questions his conduct could relate to four different offences: Firstly, to a charge of murder deliberately committed ; secondly, because his wife had died of veronal poisoning and he brought veronal into the house; thirdly, a charge of manslaughter through having failed to get a doctor; and, lastly, of having done something to bring about a certain result. QUESTION OF PUBLICITY At the close of Mr O’Leary’s argument the question was raised by the Chief Justice as to the publication of any matter which might have prejudiced the case for the Crown or for the prisoner. Mr Justice Reed stated that so far there was no law in any part of the British Empire prohibiting the publication of evidence in the lower court. The Court reserved its decision.