CROWN’S CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26692, 11 February 1948, Page 6

CROWN’S CASE

ADDRESS TO JURY NO EVIDENCE OF INSANITY “ The charge on which you are called upon to bring a verdict is the most serious known to the law —the charge of murder,” Mr Adams said in his address to the jury. While the jury would have to consider the whole of the evidence that had been adduced, including that concerning Miss Pearce, it was asked .only to reach one decision. That was in regard to the alleged murder of Mrs Morrison. The rule of law was that in a capital charge no other charge could be considered. Evidence had been tendered of the administration of poison to the witness Pearce, as well as to the deceased woman, Mr Adams continued. Under law the Crown could ask the jury to consider other facts, such as those concerning Miss Pearce in arriving at a decision whether the accused was guilty in respect of Mrs Morrison’s death.

“It may have, occurred to you that the evidence in the case has scarcely defined any adequate motive for the accused to perform this, dreadful act,” Mr Adams said, “ and that the absence of motive and the nature of the alleged crime would lead to the thought of the accused’s insanity. It may occur to you that the Crown has not led evidence in that direction.

“The matter of insanity rests with the accused. A person is sang in the eyes of the law until the contrary is established. I am in a position to say that the defence will not be along these lines, so it follows that you may put the question of insanity entirely out of your minds. When counsel have finished their addresses, it is a matter for the judge to direct you on matters of law. As the defence of insanity is not being raised by the accused herself, it, does not come up for consideration.

“In the course of cross-examina-tion of Crown witnesses, counsel for the defence have asked questions which seem to have .implied some fact,” counsel continued- “ The witness Hector Morrison, questioned concerning alleged misconduct with the accused, gave complete denials. No fact was elicited in the cross-examina-tion that supported the suggestion. The witness’s denial was the only evidence. The Crown Prosecutor said that one fact was presumed to have been established in the casiL It was that Mrs Morrison met her death by strychnine poisoning. The evidence of the pathologists and the analysts was before the court, and there was no evidence to say they, were wrong. That evidence had stated that the presence of a smali s quantity of strychnine in the body five years after death satisfied the expert witnesses that there was many times the quantity in the body when Mrs Morrison died, “The Crown case rests on the that the finding of .eleven-sixtieths of a grain of strychnine in those circumstances had established in the minds of the people who know about these things that a much greater quantity of the pioson was in Mrs Morrison s body at the time of her death, Mr . Adams said. “It is assumed that this fact is as fully established. as a fact could be in a court of justice. . “ Mrs Morrison met her death, in my submission, by taking into her mouth a quantity of strychnine poison on October 3, 1942. Her death was due to one of three things—suicide, accident, or murder,” Mr Adams went on. “In evidence, Hector Morrison said his wife was not taking any poison at the time of her death. Mrs Morrison’s doctor gave her medical history, and it was shown that she was not consulted by him for 18 months prior to her death, and at that time she was in excellent health. There is no reason to imagine that she was taking medicine containing strychnine swallowed too much, and was accidentally killed.. he said. li If she had done anything of that kind she would have mentioned it. to the accused when she arrived at Mrs Morrison’s on October 3,194 Z. Discussing the possibility of suicide, Mr Adams said there was a complete absence of evidence to that suicide was likely, let alone that it had occurred. There was no episodes oi occurrences to cause Mrs Morrison to take her own life. Mrs Morrison s sister had stated in her evidence, that Mrs Morrison lived happily until her death “The two sisters had planned to go shopping on October 5, two days after Mrs Morrison’s death, ’ Mr Adams said Other witnesses had told the court about Mrs Morrison’s happiness. The Crown Prosecutor dealt with the defence’s suggestion of impropriety between the , accused ana Morrison when his wife was away from home in July, 1942. Morrison had denied that as well as other suggestions about his taking advantage of the 3C “ What bearing has that upon the case? ”Mr Adams asked. There is no evidence in support of the allega-tion-nothing 'but _ the insinuation which lies in the asking of these questions. We are not concerned whether he was faithful to his wife or not. For 10 days in the month of July, 1942 however, the accused was alone witli Morrison as his housekeeper. On August 27 she went into town and signed the sale of poisons book for one ounce of strychnine and then on October 3 Mrs Morrison died. Has that any bearing on the motive for the Crown to establish? “ What motive led the accused to go to Morrison’s home on October 3 to see her friend, Mrs Morrison, and administer a dose a strychnine poison. Mr Adams asked. “The only one I can suggest is that if Mrs Morrison was out of the way, the accused might supplant Mrs Morrison in the home. It immorality had taken place at the time one can well imagine that the accused had entertained these motives. Mr Adams detailed the evidence telling of the friendship between the accused and Mrs Morrison. Morrison had stated that he suspected no animosity between the two women. The accused said in a* statement made to the police that she expected Morrison to marry her,” Mr Adams said. That may have some bearing on the motive. She says it is true, Morrison denies it. It is reasonable to assume that she pictured herself, not as housekeeper, but as wife in his house. That may have had some bearing on the cakes sent to Miss Pearce and Miss Rose Hill in 1946, the broadcast message last year, and the alleged attempts to poison Miss Pearce in May last year.” At this stage the court adjourfied until this morning, when Mr Adams will continue with his address.