One Tree Hill Murder Trial To End Today

Wanganui Chronicle, 27 November 1947, Page 6

One Tree Hill Murder Trial To End Today

JURY WILL CONSIDER ITS VERDICT HIS HONOUR’S SUMMING UP YET TO BE HEARD (P.A.) Auckland, Nov. 26 The jury will tomorrow consider its verdict in the trial of Mrs. Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, aged 49, domestic, who is charged in the Supreme Court with the murder of Mrs. Gladys Ruth Rusden at her home in Horotutu Road, One Tree Hill, on June 5. Counsel for the prosecution and the defence delivered their final addresses today, and Mr. Justice Callan will sum up in the morning. The jurors spent the whole of their eighth day of the hearing listening to counsels’ submissions. No evidence was called for the accused and after the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. V. R. Meredith) had spent two and a-half hours in a review of the salient points of the case he was followed immediately by senior defence c ounsel, Mr. M. Robinson. Speaking for over three hours, Mr. Robinson completed his address at 5 o’clock, when the court adjourned. The public galleries were again crowded. CROWN’S SUBMISSIONS Persons who could be held guilty of murder were the persons who committed the crime and anyone else who helped, advised, counselled, procurred or instigated murder said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Mereditn), addressing the jury. Mr. Meredith said that Mrs. Rusden was dealt at least five blows with a spanner, or a small piece of iron could have inflicted the wounds. The blows would not require any great muscular power. The inference was that there was no struggle ana that she was attacked suddenly. The attack no doubt was continued after she fell to the floor. Accused and the witness Rix were two people who would not be invited by Mrs. Rusden into her house. Anyone possessing a key could enter and attack Mrs. Rusden while she was about her household duties. After Mrs. Rusden's death a key to the front door was found in her handbag. Another key was later discovered by the police in a drawer in accused’s bedroom. I PROBABLE TIME OF MURDER I Dealing with the probable time of the murder. Mr. Meredith said that Mrs. Rusden must have taken in the milk from the front gate some time after 7.25 a.m. He referred to the evidence of the bov Fla»hman. w »o said he saw a woman in tne fCusden house an J noticed her hair. This was was about 8.25 a.m. Then a neighbour said she heard Mrs. Rusden’s characteristic cough at 8.30 a.m. If that was so, then Mrs. Rusden was alive at that hour. Another woman had given evidence that Mrs. Rusden had arranged to visit her at 9 a.m. on the day of the murder, but she never turned up. “So apparently she was laid aside between 9 o’clock and 9.30.” Mr. Meredith said that Dr. Gilmour thought death had probably occurred between 10.30 and 11.30, but that did not fix the time of the attack, for there had been considerable life left after the attack. The assault must have been somewhere in the vicinity of 8.30 and 9.30. Rix would not know the inside of the house as he had never been in. Only Rusden or accused, because she had a key, could enter the place unknown to Mrs. Rusden. Rusden was not there. He clocked in at work at 7.34 a.m. He was seen working all dav. RIX’S MOVEMENTS Referring to the movements of Rix, Mr. Meredith said that Mrs. Clearie, now Mrs. Rix. had testified that Rix got up at 7.30 and went to ring his ! employer, who said that Rix had arrived at work between 8.20 and 8.40. Deliveries of coal and wood by Rix coincided with his employer’s records. None of his deliveries were very close Jo Horotutu Road, where the murder occurred. Even if Rix was bribed he could not have any personal motive. He had said himself that accused had bribed him before and had tried to bribe him again. He went to the police and made statements. If he was implicated in any way, then why should he put his head in the lio n ’ CT mouth and tell the police about a previous assault on Mrs. Rusden? Mr. Meredith continued that Rix had testified that accused had offered him a bar of iron with which to attack Mrs. Rusden. Subseouently a similar iron bar was found in accused’s washhouse bv the oolice. Mr. Meredith suggested that this discovery was significant. Unless he was bribed Rix had no motive but it was abundantly proved that accused had a motive. There were her illicit relations with Rusden and her own statement that she was infatuated with him. Evidence had been given of accused's hatred for Mrs Rusden. Mr. Meredith said he would suggest :hat accused was lurking around the house before the murder was committed and left after it was done. WOMAN DRESSED AS MAN Mr. Meredith referred to witnesses stating that they saw a woman dressed as a man in the vicinity. He said the witness Campbell had identified I this person among thousands at a race meeting. It was possible he was mistaken, but it was “a frightful coincidence.” Another witness, Mrs. Stubbs, who had a better view than Campbell, had identified this person as accused. Mr. Meredith added that accused had a motive and the opportunity for murder. She could have carried a small piece of iron or a spanner In a pocket. Accused was not seen about her own house at the time she was seen near Rusden’s house that fatal morning. The first seen of her that day was when she started a fire in her yard The defence counsel (Mr. Robinson) said he did not propose to sav he was going to show who committed the murdei, but he would show it was possible that some persons called in court may have committed it. The Crown had failed to establish that accused did it. Counsel leferred to evidence ' that Rusden stood silent while two women quarrelled with him in his home. Although protesting that he did not wish to break up his home, Rusden. prior to January, carried on adultery after premising his wife not to do so. It was accused who said she was tired of him and Rusden went home. DEFENCE COUNSEL’S QUESTIONS. Mr. Robinson asked, was it conceivable that the accused would engage Rix to perform the murder after such a sho-’t association? Was it not possible that he was engaged by someone else’ Would the accused go out in a car with Rix on the afternoon of the murder attempt and make an inspection of the locality so that she could be readily identified after the crime had taken place that night? Would Rix do the job without monev in advance? And after the assault would the accused get out at the corner of Green Lan4 Road dressed as a soldier so as to run the risk of being found in the locality?

“I said that Rix was a potential murderer,” Mr. Robinson said. “He does not admit it himself, but there are some things he cannot get away from. Mrs. Rusden was on that ®ccasion marked on the throat and there was an attempt to choke her. How could she have fallen out of a car as Rix said. It did not ring true. Does it not seem that the car used in this incident was owned by Rix’s partner and bought by him only for one purpose. This man has not been produced.” After examining Rix's story of events after the assault on Mrs. Rusden, counsel said the prosecution had made great play of how Rix allegedly got the key to the Rusden house from Mrs. Frost. Rix had said he had received it at an accidental meeting with the accused. Was that likely or possible? TIME OF DEATH. Dealing wltlj the tragedy on June 5, Mr. Robinson said the pathologist, Dr. Gilmour, had stated \hat the wounds could have been inflicted as early as 7 a.m. and the Crown depended upon the schoolboy, Flashman, and a neighbour. Mrs. Kitson, to show ■that Mrs. Rusden was alive at about 8.30. He dealt at length with the former's evidence to suggest that he may have been honestly mistaken in his fleeting glance at the window of the Ruslen house, and said Mrs. Kitson had admitted that the cough she said she heard may have come from the street. There was no proof that the cough heard might have been made by Mrs. Rusden as she .lay dying in the kitchen. The prosecution alleged that the accused had been in the locality between 6.55 and 8.45 a.m., and had produced two sensational witnesses to proved it. The whole of the witness Campbell’s identification was based on the walk and position of the arms of the accused and the Crown had very cleverly produced two witnesses to show that the accused had that walk. Both had made very limited observations of the accused and other witnesses had stated there were no peculiarities. Astute and trained observers like detectives giving evidence in the case had been silent on the point. If Campbell could have positively identified the woman he saw he would have gone to the police before he did. It would be impossible to walk far in the way he had described. Counsel submitted that accused’s account of the burning of rubbish on June 5 was substantially confirmed by the Government analyst's examination. NO INSTRUMENT FOUND. Counsel emphasised that no instrument used tn the murder had been found and no fire could have destroyed it. The prosecution would .have the jury believe that the accused committed the murder, destroyed possibly marked clothing, and then was foolish enough to leave the key to the Rusden house in her wardrobe, knowing this would link her with the crime. It was foolish and impossible. The key could have been lost or destroyed a thousand times more easily than the instrument of the murder. Rusden asked the court to believe that he rose on the morning of the tragedy, had breakfast with his wife and left without bringing in thf milk billy. He further stated that his wife was preparing the fowls’ food and tnat the dishes were lying about. There was nothing to prove it except his own word. Was the jury satisfied he had not inflicted the injuries on his wife before there were any dishes or fowl feed about? Then his alibi would depend on the billy of milk which he may have taken in and put in the cupboard when he returned at night to allay suspicion. He may also have put a red cardigan on the pillow near the window and removed it when he rc'urned. The milk was not examined until 9 p.m.

Referring to Rix, counsel said his alibi should be fixed not only by people who were relatives but by other independent witnesses. According to his own story he got up at 7.10 a.m., and although only 31 minutes away from his business he decided he was late for work. His breakfast had only consisted of tea and bread and butter. He then went to ring up his employer, taking 20 minutes to half an hour to do what a detective had done in two minutes. Then he had breakfast again in the form of a cup of tea, and got to work at 8.30. A person who had received Rix’s ’phor« call at about 7.50 said it came from a public call box. but she could not say what box. Could it not have come from the neighbourhood of Horotutu Road? Rix returned home and met Mrs. Clearie and that was the only occasion thev saw each other. In his own evidence Rix had also stately that later in the dav he was delivering firewcoa in Wheturangi Road. It would not have taken him long to drive to Horotutu Road, commit the offence and go away. No one had been called to check his movements, and the jury had to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt.

SAFETY DEPENDS ON ALIBI. Counsel suggested that after the Magistrate’s Court hearing Rix realised that his safety depended upon his alibi, and if Mrs. Clearie had some reason or other for venturing to give evidence against him he would be in an impossible position. In a matter of a few days a friendship which had been carried on without the blessing of marriage for many years was blessed by marriage. From that moment Mrs. Clearie was not compelled to give evidence against Rix in any criminal trial. After submitting that the police search of Rix 24 hours after the discovery of the murder was foolish, Mr. Robinson quoted from the accused’s statement: “When she expected to die ” and said that she had formed an intention to do away with herself while making notes for a further interview with the police. “Has the Crown proved, beyond reasonable doubt. that the accused murdered Mrs. Rusden . ’ counsel concluded. Are not the matters I have raised open to the gravest suspicion? Does it not convince you that there is such a doubt when there are opportunities for at least two of the witnesses to murder this unfortunate woman? If you think both, or either of these men could have done this thine the lav; is clear and there is a reasonable doubt. Doubt is screaming from the mouths of the witnesses t hemselves.”