CLAVERLEY TRIAL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 257, 31 October 1939, Page 8

CLAVERLEY TRIAL

MURDER ALLEGATION

CROWN PROSECUTOR S ADDRESS

[ Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. Oct. 30. The whole case for the defence would be made up of the criticism of the case for the Crown, said the Crown Prosecutor. Mr. A. T. Donnelly, beginning his address in the Patience murder trial in the Supreme Court. Evidence of the Crown was the only evidence before the jury, said Mr. Donnelly. It had not been attacked or shaken in any serious way by the defence. The Crown said that the death of the woman was proved by facts which were inconsistent with any innocent explanation. If it was held that the body was that of Mrs. Patience then the case was proved. If the body was not that of Mrs. Patience, where was she? Patiences own actions supported the Crown, continued Mr. Donnelly. When told that the inquest on the body was to be held, he said he did not think he would bother to go. The Crown held that Patience had strangled his wife and on the night of October 14 had buried her by the beach and left her. Patience’s relationship with Mrs Chapman was peculiar in that his wife knew of it and Mrs. Chapman wanted Patience in a position where he could eventuallv marry her. The Crown held that Patience had brutally killed his wife, buried her and tried to brazen it and had lied to the police, her relations, and neighbours. He had almost escaped, but his wife had returned from the dead and he had not escaped. For the defence. Mr. R. A. toung said the Crown held that Patience, a normally peaceful man. had suc ‘ de ”'> become a killer. The Crown held that the body was that of Mrs. Patience, but later he would hold that it was not. Sufficient proof had not been brought from that. ••What man could describe the bod of his wife in other than genera! terms’" asked Mr. Young. “In addition to Steve Patience, who gave evidence. the Patiences had another son. Jack, living about 40 miles from Ka.koura. but he was not called to settle bodv. Patience could not u.entif.v the bodv and Steve Patience was uncertain. Why was Jack Pabence not called’ He was not called because a negative answer would have crippled the police case." contended Mr. 'OUJIB- - George, a close friend of het aunt, had spoken of the "fineness ot the bodv, whereas the doctors had remarked'on its plumpness. It was.impossible that Mrs. Southcn could have seen in the skuU features of he. daughter. Surely under the ■ rcumstances she had persuaded berseb sh. was being taken to see the nody of her daughtei. The Crown Prosecutor had thrown down a challenge tv hen he spoke of two mysteries, but for the Crown to prove its case. Where was the ring on the linger or the mark where it had been? ina. was a decisive factor in identification. If that was her body, was she murdered? That was the next question. Because of Mrs. Chapman, the jury was asked to believe that the motive was proved, but Patience and his wife had lived happily for 20 year.-. All the police could hrlr’ up was that she had once reproached him for not taking her out in the car. Patience ano Mrs. Chapman had committed adultery hut that was not a crime. There seemed to be no reason why the alliance should have ended without the death of Mrs. Patience, the union oetween Patience and Mrs. Chapman being for consummation of desireonly? The motive for murder wav missing. . , , Mr. Young said that the Crown had supplied no real facts, only theories.. "It must be unique for a jury to be asked to enter a verdict of guilty in a case of murder where the cause of death was not known. he said. Usually the body in a murder case showed signs of the cause of death, but In this case there wore only theories. Admitting that the ribs could be broken in many ways, the doctorhad said ft could be done by kneeling on them. If a man had broken nine ribs, he must have jumne i on the body, but that was not enough to have caused death. They said t. searched further and found a dent in the trachea. In spite of the violence alleged, however, there was not even a bruise on the throat. The cb.e=t was not bruised and no cartilages in the throat were broken. Such indentation could only have been made by a man holding his thumb thcr- for hours. The whole evidence pointed to the fact that that indentation was caused after death. Mr. Young finished his address this afternoon and the Court was adjourned until to-morrow morning, when the Judge’s address is expected to occupy two hours.