MURDER TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26693, 12 February 1948, Page 8

MURDER TRIAL

Crown’s Address to Jury Finished SUGGESTIONS OF MOTIVE The Crown Prosecutor, Mr F. B. Adams, fiinished his address to the jury at 4.30 p.m. yesterday in the Supreme Court in the trial of Phyllis Freeman, aged 33, who is charged with the murder of Mrs Joyce Maysie Morrison over five years ago. Mr Adams, who had begun his address at 4 p.m. on-Tuesday, spoke for six and a-quarter hours. The court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning, when Mr J. E. Farrell will address the jury on behalf of the accused. It will then remain for Mr Justice Kennedy to sum up and for the jury to consider its verdict. Yesterday was the seventh day of the hearing. Mr Adams has with him Mr W. H. Carson, and Mr M. C. Gresson, of Timaru, is junior counsel for defence.

Continuing his address to the jury, Mr Adams mentioned the mentality and character of the accused. Hector Morrison had stated that she came from a good home and was apparently of good character. “ I fear it will .be necessary for me to paint a somewhat different picture,” Mr Adams said. Dealing with the purchase of strychnine from the U.F.S. Dispensary on August 27, 1942, the Crown Prosecutor said that the manager of the dispensary in his evidence, had stated that the accused was known to them and she would have been given strychnine without question. The sale of poisons book showed the signature “ P. Freeman.” If the strychnine was for some other person, then the name of the second person would appear in the book. The manager had stated that the poison was in stock at the time. “The witness Byrne, manager of the dispensary, said that in August, 1942, the only wholesale source of strychnine of which he had knowledge was Kempthorne, Prosser. From the stocktaking figures and the record kept of sales, however, it was certain that a few bottles must have come from another source. Records of incoming amounts of strychnine were not kept. The defence had raised the point whether the type of bottle, -which had been recovered from the dam on the Morrison farm, and which had been exhibited in court, was for sale in the pffermacy in August, 1942. Evidence had been adduced to say that such a bottle might have been on sale at the time, although Kempthorne, Prosser had not released that type of bottle until after August, 1942. To post the strychnine would have been a departure from the established practice of this pharmacy,” Mr Adams said. Three police witnesses had sworn that when the bottle was taken out of the tin which had been recovered from the dam, they had distinctly seen the letters “T-H-A-M S-T.” The U.F.S. Dispensary was in Thames street, Oamaru, and the colour of the letters was similar to a kind of label which the shop had in stock. Those letters were now largely obliterated from the bottle. It was not of much importance to the Crown’s case that Mrs Croft was not present to give her evidence, Mr Adams said. He asked the jury to assume that Mrs Croft —formerly Miss McLeod, the assistant who served the accused in the U.F.S. Dispensary in 1942 and signed the sale of poisons book as witness—could carry things no further. “The poison was sold to the accused and there was no promise to post it out to Mrs Morrison,” said counsel. “The Crown case rests on the sale of poisons book.” Accused's Denials “In a statement made to the police, the accused denied buying strychnine at any time, and said she did not even know what it looked like,” Mr Adams went on. “That was a solemn statement to the police by the accused. She also stated that if strychnine was the cause of Mrs Morrison’s death she did not know how Mrs Morrison got the poisoh. The accused maintained these denials until confronted with the signature in the poisons book of the U.F.S. Dispensary. Then it was a different story—she had bought some, but not for herself.” Counsel submitted that if Mrs Morrison wanted to kill rabbits she would have consulted her husband, who had been accustomed to trapping methods. . , “ Shortly after Mrs Morrison’s death the accused said she discovered a tin in the washhouse containing a jar of strychnine, which she threw into the dam,” Mr Adams said. “The accused said she threw the tin away prior to Miss Pearce’s illness. She declared that she never saw the strychnine before Mrs Morrison’s death.” Describing a subsequent occasion when the accused made .a statement to the police, counsel said that police evidence showed that the accused seemed terrified every time strychnine was mentioned. “There came a change, he said. “The cool, collected woman became the frightened woman, expressing a dread of strychnine and no longer answering questions easily, but with hesitation. The whole story told by the accused in her statements to the police is an improbable one, and is mentioned the significance of the daily new dated July 21, 1942, and the religious journal dated August 8, 1942 found in the tin containing the jar of strychnine which had been recovered from the dam. The purchase of th ® strychnine from the Oamaru dispensary was re corded on August 27. and the death of Mrs Morrison was on October d. “We know the accused bought this strychnine. We know this bottle was found in the dam. Can there be any doubt that this .is the same bottle and that it came from the U.r .o. uispensary?” Mr Adams asked, displaying the exhibit to the jury. Day of Death “ The accused and Mrs Morrison were the only persons known to have been on the farm on the afternoon of October 3. 1942, the day of Mrs Morrison’s death.” he continued. There is no suggestion that Morrison himself was guilty of this crime, nor that he was an accomplice of the accused. Even if this were so, it would be immaterial to the issue. She would be eaually guilty if she and Morrison bad worked together to bring about Mrs Morrison’s death. We have found nothing to support this, however. The accused has said that she arrived at the farm at 2.30 p.m.—an hour and a-half from the time Morrison left to attend Home Guard- If the fatal dose was given in that time, we would have to discard the evidence of the pathologists who said that, by the quantities taken she would have had a relatively quick death. The accused is the only person on whom susoicion itibv rest without reasonably doubt. No one but the accused can tell us about the commencement of Mrs Morrison’s illness and her death. We know the accused bought strychnine, and that she was with Mrs Morrison who. in the course of a few hours, changed from a healthy woman into the body found by her husband when he returned home. “ We now know that the story told bv the accused to the doctor about Mrs Morrison’s • svmntoms before her death was very different to what actually happened,” Mr Adams continued. “It was not a story to be reconciled with strychnine poisoning, from which Mrs Morrison died. The accused apparently bit upon the story to support a sudden rupture of a vessel. The doctor gave his opinion, on which the coroner relied, and Mrs Morrison went to her grave without any inquiry or innuest. “We are not in a position to say how the poison was administered. Ver\<? likelv a similar technique as in the case of Miss Pearce was employed. The accused would have found an opportunity to insert poison into somethin? that Mrs Morrison would consume. We cannot say iust how the problem was solved. She had the ooDortunity to commit the crime and other facts are sufficient to show that she must have done it.” On the day of Mrs Morrison’s death the accused arrived at the- farm

2.30 p.m. with a letter, which she said had been left in the Freemans’ letter box, addressed to Mrs Morrison, Mrs Adams said. Evidence had been given by rural delivery, drivers that mail was not delivered either to Freemans’ or Morrisons' until approximately 3 p.m. The letter had allegedly been from Mrs Donald Malcolm about the collection of church funds. In her evidence. Mrs Malcolm said she had no recollection of writing a letter to Mrs Morrison on that subject. ‘ The case of the letter is an unsolved mystery but there is no need to solve it, however,” counsel said. “ The Crowrns case is independent of this letter. It is merely the story of the accused.

Question of Motive “ In the case of Miss Rose Hill there is not sufficient evidence to say that strychnine was present in the cake, but there was something wrung because she was ill after eating the cake,” Mr Adams continued. But why 'did she send the cake to Miss Hill 9 Was it a cover for the cake sent’to Miss Pearce and more or less camouflage 9 Why should the accused form the purpose of killing Miss Pearce by sending a cake through the post, and, incidentally, taking the risk that she might poison the whole of the Pearce family? It is hard to find a motive, for such a fiendish act. Yet it W “As* teethe motive, I would say that it wls similar to that which inspired tL murder of Mrs Morrison. The accusedhad supplanted ? h °£ ! 5 at any cost. Because of the letters which were exchanged between Miss Pearce and Morrison, she thought that Miss Pearce might at length supplant her. The fundamental pome about the Pearce case/’ Mr Adams said «fc that the accused, after denying that she sent the cake, ultimately admitted "that she had What innocen explanation can there be for that aC Th’e motive for the false broadcast message dn April 3,1947, was quite obvious, counsel declared. The ac cused wanted Miss Pearce to return to her home in Southland so she would not stay at Morrisons house on her return journey as planned This revealed the accused as a scheming person and not, as she would put it, ’““ontoe day on which Miss Pearce was ill at Morrison’s farm Morrison was ploughing in a paddock just lo s chains away from the house, a distance that could be walked in three minutes and run in considerably less .time by a young woman of 33 years in a state of ’emotion—in which she would be through finding her ‘friend, Miss Pearce, suddenly stricken down. The inference from Miss Pearce’s evidence is that the accused gave her a poisoned iube and stood by and watched her. “Finding that the poison was not having an immediate effect, she forced an A.P.C. tablet in powdered form down Miss- Pearce’s throat Miss Pearce has since tasted an A.P.C. tablet and has said that it has a different taste to the one she swallowed that day at Morrison’s. Pathologists have stated that Miss Pearce’s symptoms were typical of strychnine poisoning.” Mr Adams suggested that statements by the accused about eating a number of jubes and vomiting were invention. “Up to the time she was .arrested and imprisoned the accused still dealt in untruths. That was not the act of an innocent person, but generally the conduct of a person who had something to conceal. I submit, “ Mr Adams concluded, “ that on October 3, 1942. the accused determined that she would supplant Mrs Morrison in her own home, went to visit her good friend with strychnine in her possession, succeeded in getting Mrs Morrison to take a dose, and watched and waited until she died. Then at last she went for help. In the same rooms, in the same house, with the same poison and the same dreadful intention by the accused, Miss Pearce’s illness took place. The same doctor came on the scene. Watched by the accused, and , with help only 16 chains away, Miss Pearce was not able to summon Mr Morrison to her side for him to go for assistance.” The court adjourned until this morning.