CHARGE OF MURDER

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 78, Issue 7016, 7 February 1949, Page 4

CHARGE OF MURDER

FOUND GUILTY FATE OF TE AWAMUTU MAN The final stage of the trial of Cecil Robert Gurr Otto, aged 38, dairy worker, of Te Awamutu, on a charge of murdering Ruth McGregor Stone at Hamilton East on October 23rd was reached in the Supreme Court at Hamilton on Friday. Addresses by Mr A. R. Hill for the defence and Mr J. F. Strang for the Crown were completed in the morning and Mr Justice Hutchinson gave his summing-up in the afternoon. Dr H. M. Bucnangn, superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital, Avondale, for’the past 20 years, called by Mr Strang, said he made three examinations of Otto, the first being at the Waikato Hospital on November 12th. He subsequently examined him at Mount Eden prison on December 17th and January 20th. He had come to conclusions as a result of these examinations and as a result of following the evidence at the trial. On December 9th he. reported that accused had informed him that he had a fractured skull before the war for which he was treated in hospital at Blenheim, witness continued. ” In July, 1947, accused was admitted to the Waikato Hospital suffering from concussion as a result of a motor accident but he refused to stay in hospital. In Possession of Faculties Witness said he found Otto in full possession of his faculties. He ■ gave a clear account of himself and his actions. There was no retardation o.f the thought. He showed no evidence, of delusions, hallucinations or feeblemindedness. Witness said that from the conversation he had with Otto he was satisfied that he had a clear recollection of all that had happened in connection with the events of October 23rd. He appreciated and understood the questions witness put to him. He gave clear and ready answers. Emotional Tension Asked to comment on the evidence of Otto’s sister, Mrs Henderson, witness said this indicated a high degree of emotional tension. The evidence of Mark Henderson indicated that Otto was in a state of tension and irascibility. Witness said that although Constable Douglas had given a very clear account of events when he found Otto in Victoria Street there was doubt in witness’ mind as to whether Otto’s behaviour was altogether genuine or whether it was a roundabout approach to deceased. Witness said he thought there was no connection between the previous fracture of the skull and happenings of October 23rd. He would say that the act which Otto was alleged to have committed on October 23rd was premeditated, said witness. Other Examinations Dr G. Palmer, assistant medical superintendent, Auckland Mental Hospital, Avondale, who said he had been associated with mental hospitals since 1932, gave evidence that he examined Otto on December 18th and January 29th. On the second occasion he was entirely convinced that the conclusions he came to on the first occasion were correct. At the time of his second examination there, was additional evidence of the accused’s ability to think, reason clearly and even anticipate the future intelligently. “At no time that I have seen him has he been in any way certifiable,” said witness. “In fact he would resent the suggestion.” Witness said there was nothing of which he was aware that led him to think Otto was insane on the morning of October 23rd.

Insanity Issue Addressing the jury, Mr Hill suggested that accused was insane at the time of the shooting or if the jury held he was not insane that he suffered sufficient provocation to warrant the jury bringing in a verdict of manslaughter. Mr Hill said the jury would be satisfied that accused lived with Mrs Stone for a number of yeiars. Their association did not have the blessing of any church nor did it carry any legal seal of recognition. However, counsel asked the jury to believe that accused and Mrs Stone were in fact man and wife. The.ir affair was not a casual one. After she left the farm at Tauhei she continued to visit him at week-ends. She assisted him financially on the farm and did a great deal of work. She was in fact what a lawyer would call a common law wife. This happy relationship continued until April or May, 1948.

Deceased’s Conduct Counsel said deceased commenced a double liaison with Byrne on the one hand and continued her association with accused on the other hand. The evidence disclosed that throughout many months she led Byrne to understand she wanted to bring her association with accused to an end. It had been shown that deceased was not honest to Otto. Counsel said he did not think the saga was written by a man in his normal senses. His actions and his attempted suicide suggested an insane mind. The jury must consider whether there was sufficient provocation to cause it to bring in a verdict of manslaughter, said Mr* Hill. He felt sure the jury would reach the conclusion that accused was very greatly provoked over a period of months. Otto was told by deceased of her undying love for him and that she would return to him. However, she did not do so. She. continued her association with Byrne. She so goaded and tormented accused that she finally 'drove him to an act of crime. Important Period

The period just prior to the offence was important, said counsel. On October 21st accused knew that Byrne and deceased were together in a car. Not many days had elapsed since she had expressed her undying love for Otto. Yet there she was lying in accused’s rival’s arms. “We know that accused had had great difficulty in seeing deceased,” said counsel. The Crown would ask why he went to the boarding-house under an assumed name but to a man in his state of mind this was not unreasonable. He did not want

deceased to know he was there until he had a chance of talking to her. Counsel referred to the fact that Otto had made a will. Was it not probable that he had decided that if deceased would not discuss things reasonably he would bring his life to an end? Counsel asked the jury to bear in mind the treatment of Otto by the woman over a period of months. He suggested that she said something that caused his mind to snap. Crown Prosecutor’s Address Mr Strang, starting his address, asked what it had to do with the case whether deceased “strung on” accused. He could not deprive her of her life on that account or even if she was the worst woman in the world. Mr Strang submitted that it was a case in which Otto killed the woman deliberately and there was ample evidence of his intention to do so. He said it was the duty of the defence to give clear proof of insanity. It must show by sufficient preponderance of evidence that he was insane at the time.

Mr Strang submitted there was nothing in the evidence to show that Otto did not know what he was doing at the time of the shooting and that what he was doing was wrong. Dealing with the manslaughter issue Mr Strang said the case was not analagous to that of a husband who comes home to find his wife in the arms of an adulterer and kills her straightaway. It was not a case of sudden provocation.

In summing up, His Honor spoke of the difference between a • verdict of murder and one of manslaughter. Dealing with the insanity issue His Honor said that *the onus of proof rested on the defence that set.it up. In this case there was no medical evidence to support the insanity plea. His Honor said the jury might think that in her evidence Mrs Henderson was inclined to be dramatic and to overstate the position. The jury retired at 2.48 p.m. Thursday’s Evidence

“I am not going to set up a defence to prove that accused did not shoot Mrs Stone,” said Mr Hill, opening the case for the defence on Thursday afternon . “The evidence on that point is overwhelming. I wonder if there has been a murder case in this country when the circumstantial evidence was so strong.” Mr Hill said that as the Crown prosecutor had mentioned previously the question of insanity would be raised. There were two alternative questions which the jury would have to answer. Did accused know and understand the natural consequences of his actions at the time of the shooting? In other words, did he know what he was doing ? And did he know that what he was doing was wrong? Could he be said to be able to appreciate the consequences of the particular act he was doing at the particular time?

Onus of Proof Mr Hill said he agreed with the submission made by the Crown prosecutor in opening that the onus of proving insanity lay upon counsel for defence. The Crown must prove its charge beyond all reasonable doubt, said Mr Hill. The onus on him was not so strong. He must merely show on the evidence that it was more probable on the whole that the state of nlind of the accused was either that he did not understand the consequences or that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. “Our criminal law provides that where a person kills another on provocation or on sudden quarrel that he may be guilty of manslaughter,” continued Mr Hill. “Let me tell you that it is open for any jury in any murder trial to bring in a finding of manslaughter.”

Sister Gives Evidence May Kathleen Henderson, of Te Awamutu, sister of accused, said she first met deceased in 1943. She did not see her again until 1945 when she learnt that accused and deceased had been living at Tauhei as man and wife. Deceased was known as Mrs Otto. Deceased’s manner to accused was always affectionate and was most demonstrative in her affection for him. She was most co-operative on the farm. Subsequently accused suffered from ill-health. -Deceased secured employment in Hamilton and accused at Horotiu. They decided to pool their resources. Early in 1947 her brother injured a hand. About that time accused and deceased took up resi-dence-in a flat at Hamilton East. Witness gave her impressions of the effect on accused’s mind of deceased’s association with a man named Byrne. Witness Concerned Witness said she became so concerned about the state of accused’s mind that she went to see a doctor about the matter. Witness described accused’s state of mind and behaviour seveial days before the shooting. He seemed very upset. Answering Mr Strang, witness said that it was not until after the shooting that she knew of Nancy Gibbs’ presence at Te Awamutu.

For a few weeks before the tragedy she thought accused was quite unbalanced, said witness. She did not take, any action as she lacked the courage of her convictions. Witness said that after deceased’s death she read the document written by her brother which was termed the saga. She said she was neither proud nor ashamed of the document. “Not Surprised”

“I was not surprised when the tragedy occurred because of his obsession for her,” said witness answering a question by Mr Strang as to whe>ther she had reason to anticipate the shooting. To His Honor witness said accused had told her that on the night he held up deceased and the Palmers at the point of a rifle he had intended to bring deceased away from them. Mark Henderson, journalist, of Papakura, nephew of accused, said he worked on his uncle’s farm for several months in 1947. His uncle was suffering from eye trouble and was unable to cope with all the work. Witness first met deceased several years before he went to the farm. On several occasions when his uncle was in a violent rage witness thought accused’s mental condition was not normal. Before he left the farm in 1947 witness began to wonder whether it was safe for him to stay there. Constable W. A. Douglas, of Hamilton, said that in the. early hours of May 28th he found accused wandering in the main street. Accused was not wearing shoes and when spoken to Otto did not take any notice. Witness

formed the impression that accused was walking in a trance or perhaps suffering from loss of memory. He took him to the police, station. Accused was still unable to speak and kept staring. In his possession was found a letter addressed to deceased. Witness went to the address shown and deceased told him she knew the man. She read the letter. She told witness Otto was an old acquaintance and wished to have nothing to do with him. She said that in her opinion he was mad. She accompanied witness to the police station to identify him and spoke to him in very endearing terms. Later accused seemed to regain his normal senses and he was allowed to leave the police-station. Views of Pathologist

Dr M. R. Fitchitt, pathologist at the Waikato Hospital, who conducted a post-mortem examination, said death might not have been and it would have been possible for deceased to run a few yards and then collapse. However, death would occur within a few minutes. Witness said that on October 26th he inspected the window of the daily where the shooting took place. He noticed what appeared to be a bullethole in the glass of the front window*. He concluded that the bullet passed first through the body of deceased, then through the window in front of the shop, then through the inner opaque glass and finally lodged in a cubicle in the shop. Verdict of Guilty A verdict of guilty of murder was returned by the jury after a retire-

ment of 10 minutes. Asked by Mr Justice Hutchinson if he had anything to say before the pronouncement of sentence, the accused said: “I would like to express my profound regret for what I did. I would like to thank Mr Hill for the very capable manner in which he conducted the defence. I would also like to thank the Court for the very fair trial I have received.”

His x Honor sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment with hard labour for life. Otto showed no signs of emotion when listening to the sentence. The members of the jury were exempted from service for five years.