MURDER TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 18945, 19 May 1923, Page 5

MURDER TRIAL

CHARGE AGAINST THE COOPERS CROWN CASE NEARING COMPLETION (Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON, May 18. At the Cooper trial this morning, actingDetective McLennan deposed that when Cooper was asked regarding the birth of Miss Lister’s child he denied all knowledge of it. He denied having paid Mrs King any money in connection with the birth of the child. When asked why he made out a receipt in reference to Miss Lister’s child, he refused to an answer. Subsequently he admitted having taken Miss Lister to his place at Newlands, but said Mrs King had made all arrangements for the birth and adoption of Miss Lister’s child. When Mrs Cooper was questioned about Lister’s child she asked where her husband was. When told he was detained at the police station she replied: “I have nothing to say.” Again when questioned at the police station her reply was: “I have nothing to say.” Later, when faced with statements by Miss Lister and Mrs King directly connecting her with Lister’s child, she consented to make a statement, in which she said she had handed Lister’s child over to some lady whom she did not know, but who was sitting .in a motor car near Johnsonville railway station, but she could not say in what direction the car drove away. Next day the male accused offered to make a statement, which he subsequently did. In that statement he said the man to whom he handed Lister’s child was Hugo Lupi. This statement Lupi afterwards hotly denied. When charged with the offence of unlawfully detaining the Lupi-Lister child, neither accused made any reply. Both took up the same negative attitude when served with a formal demand to produce the child. To Mr Treadwell: When interviewing Cooper he was not confused as between Martin Street and Martin Square. He made it quite clear to Cooper that he referred to 19 Martin Street, and not any place in Martin Square. To Mr Wilford: He believed Cooper had convinced McLeod, Lister and Beadle that their children had been adopted. He could not say whether Mrs Cocper was equally convinced. He had not noticed any difference in Mrs Cooper’s manner in interviews before the bodies were found, and after. At the interviews she teemed uncertain what to say, but gave intelligent answers to questions. He made no effort to “wring” a statement from her. Detective McLennan, in further cross-ex-amination, said that all he wanted her to do was to say what she knew of Lister’s child. He now knew Mrs Cooper wished to withdraw the statement she made to him on the ground that it was inaccurate. To Mr Macassey: At all interviews, Mrs Cooper seemed cool and collected, carefully considering every answer she gave to every question.

Acting-Detective Harold said while the police were making inquiries Cooper was left in his charge. In reply to a question by witness, Cooper said someone in Palmerston North had adopted Lister’s child, but 4>e was pledged not to disclose the name of the person who adopted it. He said if let out he could produce the child. He asked witness to take care of a bundle of correspondence and hand it to his solicitor, as vvithou.t this correspondence the police cculd not do much with him. He also asked witness to get into touch with Mrs Tucker and ask her to see Mrs King and tell her not to say anything to the police. To Mr Treadwell: Witness did not tell Cooper he was a detective, and Cooper evidently did not suspect it. Witness was then acting in the capacity of clerk. Inspector Mcllveney deposed that when he asked Ccoper to say what became of Lister’s child Cooper refused to do so. Witness told Gcxsier ho was not charged with any offence, >nd if he acted honestly by the child he had nothing to fear. Cooper made no reply. He denied any knowledge of the girl who took Lister’s child from Mrs King. He said he did not know her and could not describe her. He subsequently asked Cooper what correspondence he had with him. Cooper denied having any. Wit ness then received from Harold a bundle of correspondence given to him by Cocper, whereupon Cooper expressed regret that he had not acknowledged having it. After reading the correspondence witness again asked Cooper what had become of Lister’s child. He then put the whole responsibility cn Mrs King. Mrs King subsequently, in Cooper’s presence, denied the allegations he made, whereupon Cooper called her “a liar.” Mrs Cooper when questioned refused to say anything. In a subsequent interview Cooper persisted that Mrs King was ths only person who knew the whereabouts of the child.

To Mr Wilfcrd: If Mrs Cooper instead of saying “I have nothing to say” had made a reasonable explanation of her connection with the Lister child, he would have investigated it, and if the investigation proved favourable to her he would not have detained her. The last thing he wanted to do was to lay an information against her. Detective Nuttall corroborated the evidence of the two previous witnesses as to interviews with the Coopers. To Mr Wilford: There was nothing in the nature of a “bombardment” cf Mrs Cooper with questions. She made a statement which may have been made for the purpose of helping to extricate her husband from his difficulty. Next morning she asked to withdraw the statement.

Senior-Detective Lewis corroborated the evidence of the previous police witnesses regarding interviews with the Coopers. Ccoper told him he had not given Lister’s child to Lupi, but to a man who was to give it to a married couple whom he could not name. When witness offered to find the child if only 1 Cooper would give him the necessary information Cocper made no reply. After lunch, Lewis, in cross-examination by Mr Wilford admitted Mrs Cooper might have reached her home after handing over the baby to Cooper in the time specified by Miss Lister, fifteen minutes.

Formal evidence was given by. Court and Registry Office officials that no record had been made of the adoption of the Lister child, the birth of which was registered on January 8, 1923. There was no record of its death.

Mr Macassey said he would now call evidence regarding Miss Beadle’s children.

Beatrice Irene Beadle, housemaid, gave evidence that she became acquainted with the Coopers in Dunedin four years ago and then came to Wellington and lived with them at Island Bay, where she was intimate with Cooper, whose wife knew this and made no objections. On June 10 1920 witness gave birth to a boy at Lyttelton, where Cooper had taken her for confinement. The child was taken later to Mrs Adam,' ChriJtcfcOrth, where witness understood it was to remain permanently. She and Cooper then came back together to Wellington. When the child was about a month old Cooper received a letter from Adam saying that the baby was unwell. Witness and Cooper went to Christchurch and got the child and brought it back to Wellington. She went to Cooper's house, Adelaide road. After it remained there for two or three days, Cooper said he was arranging for someone from the country to adopt it. Witness went out on the afternon when the people were coming to take the baby away, as she was upset. When she returned, Cooper was in the house and said that the people had called and had taken the little one away. He told her not to worry or ask questions. She said that had she known the child was not going to be adopted, she would not have parted with it. This was sometime in July. Witness had not seen or heard of the child since. She continued to live with Coopers and went with them to Newlands in March, 1921. Witness had not signed anything relating to the adoption of the child, of which Cooper was the father. Later she made a formal demand for possession of the j/iild but it was not produced.

Cross-examined by Mr Treadwell, witness said that while living with the Coopers, she acted very often in the capecity of secretary to Cooper and was acquainted with the details of his business.

To Mr Wilford: Mrs Cooper was not at home when her child was taken away and so far as witness knew she had nothing to do with its going. On November 27,1921 witness gave birth to a female child. Cooper w’as the father of this child also. Twelve days later it was taken to Newlands. Mrs Cooper was absent in Dunedin at this time and had nothing to do with the child. Re-examined witness said that she had not noticed that Cooper exerted any undue influence over his wife. Lily Olsen, midwife Lyttelton, gave evidence relating to the birth of Beadle’e child similar to that given in the lower Court. Cooper came with Beadle to arrange for confinement. They passed as man and wife under the name of Reid.

Matilda M. Adams, Christchurch, stated that she saw an advertisement in June 1920, asking for someone to mind a baby. She answered it, and a few days later accused (Cooper), came to see her and she agreed to take a male child, for which she was to receive 12s 6d weekly. That evening Cooper and the young woman Beadle brought the child which was to remain with witness for a fortnight. The child was quite healthy. A week later owing to bereavement in witness’s family she wrote to Cooper, who came with Beadle and took the child away. It was still in perfect health. Cooper paid for the child’s keep and that was the last witness saw of Cooper, Beadle or the child.

Acting-Detective McLennan, gave evidence as to interviews he had with the two accused regarding Beadle’s child. They both replied they had nothing to say. He later made a demand on both the accused for the production of this child by January 29, 1923. Cooper said that he could not very well produce the child while he was under arrest. Witness said that the police would give any assistance required if accused would say where it was. The child was not produced and a charge was then laid against the accused of unlawfully detaining the child. Neither made any comment. Acting-Detective Harold corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Formal evidence was given that there was no record in the registrar’s books of any adoption of Beable’s child, nor was there any record of its birth or death. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The Crown Prosecutor said that he expected to complete bis evidence by mid-day on, Saturday and close hia~qre* on, JKnnjri jy,