WAS VERDICT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 79, 12 March 1931, Page 2

WAS VERDICT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE?

T ONDON papers just to hand show that there was a marked difference of opinion regarding the justice of the verdict of guilty in the case of Rouse, who was executed on Tuesday for the murder of an unknown man, whose body was found in a blazing car. It has been stated since that Rouse confessed to the murder, hut the opinion expressed in some London newspapers was that the evidence given at the trial did not warrant the verdict. The Judge’s summing up which follows could not be said to be unfavourable to accused; Mr. Justice Talbot, in summing up, referred to an inadvertent mis-state-ment when Mr. Birkett, for the prosecution, addressed the jury earlier in the trial. “He said, purely by inadvertence, that the question before you was whether this man had committed the murder with which he was charged or not,” said 'Mr. Justice Talbot. “That is not the issue. The issue is whether it is proved to you so that no real doubt remains in any of your minds. It may sound a verbal distinction, but it is vital.” The Judge said they would have to go back a long way in legal history to find such an exceptional case. “I should say, in my opinion, that there is no theory which is even plausible which can be made good or established as to why this man did this murder.” Other points in the Judge’s summing-up were: — If the case for the Crown were true this man, if he did it all deliberately, would go off as quickly as he could. There were serious improbabilities in the defendant’s story, but it did not follow that he was guilty because he told lies.

Reviewing Rouse’s actions the, Judge said it was very difficult to understand why, if he were a guilty man. hiding until the coast was clear, he got out of that ditch. “I should think that if he had lain down in that ditch it would be long odds that he would never have been noticed. “1 should think it is impossible to attach any importance to the presence of one human hair on the mallet. It tells in favour of the defence that there was no blood and no trace of skin. “I do not at all understand the conduct of the police on that early morning. “It seems to me a most astonishing thing that when the remains of a dead body had been found in a burning car they should not, as an elementary piece of police work, have taken the utmost care to see that the car and its contents remained as they were until they had been properly examined.” ' “Most Facile Liar” The Judge said there was no doubt that Rouse, by his own confession, was a most facile liar, but because he thought he was going to make his position better by telling some fictitious story it did not follow that he was guilty. If Rouse had any intention of disappearing that intention was certainly abandoned when he got the seat in thfe coach to Wales and went to a house where he was well-known by name. What possible grounds could be put forward for his intention to disappear? There was no evidence of any crisis in his affairs or of any urgent difficulty of any kind, and he was in good employment. Career of Rouse A London paper had this to say after the trial. The career and character of Rouse, who is aged 36, make a profoundly interesting study. Good-looking and 1 with a personality that is in many ways striking, he is yet shown to have been vain and superficial. His power over women is unquestioned. With one exception all his women friends with whom I have spqken profess undying devotion and belief in him. Unlike other Don Juans, ht> had this quality—he never appeal’s to have cast aside a woman whom he thought he could claim as his own. Rouse was born at Herne Hill in April, 1894. After leaving an elementary school he became apprenticed to the trade of carpenter. As a workman he was efficient and interested in his job, but the war broke out and in the first few weeks he volunteered for active service, and joined the Territorials. He married Miss L. M. Watkins in November. 1914, when he had completed his training and was ready to go abroad. He proved an excellent soldier, his military bearing was conspicuous even in the witness-box, but he received shrapnel wounds at Festubert in May, 1915, and was invalided home. Charge of Bigamy His outdoor work as a traveller — ho never wont back to the bench—gave him opportunities which proved his undoing. The girls to whom he made love, and who have been mentioned in the case —Helen Campbell, Nellie Tucker and Ivy Jenkins —were all very young, very pretty and of much charm of character. He went through a form of marriage with Helen Campbell at Islington Parish Church in November, 1924. He met Nellie Tucker in 1925, and Ivy Jenkins in 1929. If he had not been sentenced to death Rouse would have been charged with bigamy. His wife became aware of something of his complicated life, but she endeavoured to reconcile herself to the situation, and she still declares her belief in him. In the last few months of his career Rouse became more deeply involved financially, as his responsibilities increased. The strain was becoming too groat. Whether the crime was premeditated over a long period, or whether it was merely prompted by the chance meeting with a stranger, may never be known. Editorial Comment In a leader, the Loudon “NewsChronicle” says:— A great many people were surprised at the verdict on Alfred Arthur Rouse. The man himself is not likely to have attracted any pub-

THE TRIAL OF ROUSE LONDON PRESS OPINION

lie sympathy.” His unsavoury past, his facile and wholesale lying, his demeanour in the witness-box, all served to make him a somewhat repulsive figure. This, however, is only • remotely and indirectly relevant to the issue. The question, as the Judge pointed out in his admirable summingup, was not whether,,Rouse committed the horrible and extraordinary murder of which he was accused, but whether the crime was so proved to the jury that no real doubt remained in the minds of any one of them. The jury gave a courageous and honest answer to that question. But the Judge himself noted very properly certain weaknesses in the delicate chain of circumstantial evidence forged by the prosecution; and, at any rate, to the lay mind the evidence, though it builds up a case of the gravest possible suspicion, suggests many conflicting and perplexing considerations.