HASKELL RETRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26713, 6 March 1948, Page 8

HASKELL RETRIAL

COUNSELS’ ADDRESSES

CLOSING STAGES REACHED JUDGE'S SUMMING-UP TO-DAY P.A. , AUCKLAND, Mar. 5. The case for the defence was partly outlined this afternoon by the senior counsel, Mr M. Robinson, in the retrial of Mrs Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, who is charged with murdering Mrs Gladys Ruth Rusden at Horotutu road on June 5. When the court resumes to-morrow Mr Robinson will conclude his address and Mr Justice Finlay will sum up, after which the jury will consider its verdict. After the Crown’s case ended at 12.15, Mr Robinson said he was calling no evidence. The senior prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith, then addressed the court until the luncheon adjournment and again in the afternoon until shortly after 3 o’clock. “ We should carry our minds back to that little huddled figure by the gas stove in the kitchenette and to remember that the issue is: Who is responsible for the death of that woman who did no wrong to anybody? ’’ said Mr Meredith in opening his address to the jury. Dealing with the facts, Mr Meredith said there was no question that Rusden was not in the house or within miles of it when the injuries were inflicted. What would he have to gain by the murder of his wife? It could only bring what it had brought to him —ruin. It was quite clear he could have the accused as much as he wanted without that. Rix was a bad character —there was no question of that—and anything he said must be scrutinised and great caution exercised in accepting it. It was noticeable that among his convictions there were none of violence. Rix had told a remarkable story, but what was more remarkable was that in practically everything where the story could be checked it was true. , ... Referring to the accused, Mr Meredith said there was overwhelming evidence of her enmity toward Mrs Rusden. There was evidence of her desire to get rid of Mrs Rusden so that the accused might have her husband. The accused had expressed the intention of injuring and even to murder her. She had all the opportunities of doing it.” No Sympathy Asked

" I am not going to endeavour to ask for your sympathy because the accused is a woman, or because of the serious consequences that would follow a conviction, or because of your hatred of Rusden and Rix,” said Mr Robinson at the opening of his address. It was impossible to come to a decision on the major issues alone and it would be necessary for him to go into the matters much more fully than the Crown Prosecutor. In considering the case only on the evidence they had heard, the jury had a difficult duty because of the amount of publicity it had received and because it was a second trial. There could be no doubt that the witnesses had become somewhat hardened to the atmosphere of the Court and had anticipated the cross-examination. The only question was. did the accused commit murder?

Sincere Evidence

'“When you compare the accused’s written statement to the police with the evidence you must come to the conclusion that it is true, honest and sincere, and that witnesses are lying in material ways with the one and only purpose of concealing their guilt, continued Mr Robinson. 44 Why should Rusden lie about his association with the accused? Is it not possible that he does not want you to think he wanted to get rid of his wife, or to suspect him of being in any way associated in a murderous attempt on her life on March 5, 1946? Evidence in respect of that assault was that of Rix, and the jury must bear in mind that he was a dangerous criminal, racketeer and gangster on his own admission. He was a potential murderer and his account was a very clever story to conceal the real and true facts of that 'incident. Rix had his hands round Mrs Rusden’s throat. If she had not screamed that night what would have happened? Would Mrs Rusden have survived March 5? The car that was used was Collins’s, who was negotiating to be Rix’s partner in business. Where was Collins? A new witness had been called and counsel was sorry there had not been more. “I contend that the murder might have been committed before Rusden went to work,” said Mr Robinson. “Dr Gilmour was quite definite as to the time of the administration of blows. There was no positive proof that Mrs Rusden was alive at 8.30 a.m. Rix’s alibi depended on his wife and her daughter. After depositions had been taken in the Magistrate’s Court Rix and the woman he had been living with for years were married. The jury knew that a wife could not give evidence against her husband. Was the marriage effected for the one and only purpose of silencing Mrs Clearie against Rix for all time?”