ALLEGED CHILD MURDER

Otago Witness, Issue 3337, 27 February 1918, Page 25

ALLEGED CHILD MURDER

TRIAL OF WINIFRED CARRICK. THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED. CHRISTCHURCH, February 19. The trial of W mitred Carrick on a chargo of murdering ner son, Donald Lewis (Jarrick, aged three, was continued 111 tne bupremo Court to-day. Martha Cniilingwoitn gave evidence that tho accused hired a room on. December 7, but she did not occupy it that night. Isabella Patrick, enrpioyed in tile' Parcels Office in Cathedral Square, said the accused left an umbrella and suit case at the office on December 7, returning the following day for her luggage. Thomas Henry Piayiord, a cabman, who drove 1 the children to Burns's house from the receiving home, detailed a conversation with a woman who was anxious to know where ho took tho children. Witness could not swear that the accused was the woman.

Detective Sergeant Gibson gave evidence as to arresting the accused, who denied knowing where the boy was, and declined to inform him where she iiad spent the previous nigiit. This closed the evidence for the Crown, and the court- adjourned to enable the jury to visit the scene of the murder, also the scene of the abandonment of the deceased when he was an infant. Mr O. T J. Alpers announced that he would not call any evidence for the de fence. In opening his address the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Raymond, TC.O.) said the fact wa s clear that an inoffensive baby had been killed, and the jury had to consider who were the persons likely to be included in the category of _ those who might have committed the crime. It was ridiculous to suspect aay of those who resided at Burns's. A well-known quotation was " Show me the motive and I will show you the man." That might not quite apply iri this case, but it had ite significance. The maternal instinct in this case had been shown to be wanting. The mother of the murdered child had withheld the protection , of a mother, and had abandoned it. The jury should reject the nature of the charge of abandonment of the child, but the facts had an important bearing- in the present c?.se, as showing in one aspect .that the mother was careless whether the child lived or died. It might be said that if the woman had wished to get completely rid of the child she would have put it 'straight into the rive*, but the reply to that was that she feared to take the first great plunge. Subsequently, ho suggested, she became obsessed with the desire to be rid of her offspring. Mr Raymond referred to the significance of accused's actions in trying to locate the whereabouts of the child, and the fact that after her arrest her stockings showed that she had been walking about in her stockinged feet Accused had also given a false iceount of her movements to different people, and it was clear that she was out all night on the mghfc of the murder. Under all the circumstances, the jury would have no difficulty m fixing the responsibility for the crime. u u l^- 41 ? *? his add i'ess to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, spoke of the responsibility that lay before the jury of considering the nature of the evidence' and reminded them that there could be only one penalty in the case of accused being .ound guilty, and that was the dejth penalty. Would the jurv bo prepared to take that responsibility? He thought not. u sko u tchod accll3<?<J 's career, and remarked that the woman had had a n ' unfortunate career. Referring to the introduction of a previous charge-against accused as part of the Crown evidence, Mr Alpers contended that it was against the English law, winch had as a basic principle that the hunted fox should be.given a chance. The Crown had attempted to show that the pie' vious abandonment and the present case were part of one transaction. Tne jury must not consider the case from a ' ciam'mal viewpoint, but from that of motive. The motive of abandonment and that of murder were entirely different. It was common for mothers of illegitimate children to abandon their offspring, not >'n the literal sense but by adoption, by the roadside, and by other means. The motive in all such cases had to be found. Shame was a chief motive, but that did not apply in the present case.' The child was three years of age, and all early distresses had passed away. There was no similarity in motives that would have prompted the abandonment of an infant r,nd a brutal murder three years later bv the same person. If, for argument's sake, it wero contended that the two wore carried out by the same person, the jury would abolish from their mind all thought that accused had acted in a selfish manner so far as the child was concerned, and as to her moral character also. The circumstances of the crime of December 8 were entirely circumstantial in regard to ac cuscd. The Crown had endeavoured to show the strength of that evidence. It was his (Mr Alpers) duty to disclose its weaknesses, and it would be for his Honor to balance the two; but, after all that, it was' the jury's job to weigh the whole. He contended that none of the evidence was cogent enough to justify them in finding accused guilty. Ho argued that the Crown had failed to suggest any adequate motive for so foul and revolting a crime, and that thc-ro had been_ no concealment on the part of accused. When accosted by Detective Gibson, accused was actuated in her failure to explain where she had spent the previous night by the fact that she had had an experience of g=iol and of police methoda, and these made her cautious. He sug-

gested that tho fearful force with which the child had been struck pointed to the murderer being a man. It was possible that the father of the child had determined to abduct it, and when it cried had killed it. Counsel admitted that this did not seem credible, but it seemed to him almost as credible as tho story put before them by the Crown. Looking 1 at the evidence, he ventured to say that the jury could not convict, and concluded by emphasising the point that it was tho Crown's duty not to show that the acoused person was the probable murderer, but was in fact the murderer. Mr Justice Chapman summed up mainly on the question of motive. He said the present was a case of circumstantial evidence, the Crown suggesting that the accused was the one person in the world who had a motive for the crime. If the jury found a flaw in that reasoning, accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. The jury retired at 5.12 p.m., and returned at 8 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. Prisoner was thereupon discharged.