Jury Fails To Reach Verdict in Murder Trial

Wanganui Chronicle, 28 November 1947, Page 6

Jury Fails To Reach Verdict in Murder Trial

NEW TRIAL ORDERED LONG CASE ROUND DEATH OF MRS. G. R. RUSDEN (P.A.) Auckland, Nov. 27 The jury failed to reach a verdict at the close of the trial, on a charge of murder, of Mrs. Pansy Louise Frances Haskell, aged 49, domestic, in the Supreme Court today.

A tense and crowded court-room, which had awaited the result for six hours, heard the foreman announce that there was no prospect of agreement. A new trial was ordered by Mr. Justice Callan. With 43 witnesses heard, more than 100,000 words of evidence was recorded and addresses of counsel completed, only the judge’s summing up remained when the hearing entered its ninth day this morning.

The spectators knew it was the critical day. The first of them were waiting outside the court at 8 o’clock and an hour before the commencement at 10 o’clock a thick queue extended from the doors across the cloistered porch and into the grounds. Finally dignity was abandoned for weight and ability in a scramble for the best places in the public galleries. Warned previously by police officials of the strict need for silence, there was scarcely a movement while the judge spoke for a little over two hours. For the first hour of the jury’s retirement a few spectators were prepared to sacrifice hard-won places in the galleries for a rest or a cigarette outside, but when the jurors left for lunch at a city hotel the court was cleared and closed. JURY RETURNS TO REFRESH RECOLLECTIONS Both men and women immediately ran to form queues at the doorways in readiness for reopening at 2 o’clock and then they stood or sat patiently until 5.25 p.m., when the jury returned to have “their recollection refreshed” of evidence given by Mrs. Lavinia Margaret Stubbs, one of the two witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused near the scene of the murder. His Honour spent twenty minutes in reading the evidence in full and the jury again retired to return for a second time at 6.20 p.m.

Accused remained standing in the dock while the registrar (Mr. E. G. Rhodes) asked the foreman if they had been able to agree upon their verdict. His reply was: *TTo, sir!” A murmur and a sigh throughout the galleries was checked by a stern '‘Silence’” from the court crier. His Honour formally asked whether he was to assume from the lapse of time that there was no real prospect of an agreement. The foreman answered. “I think so, Your Honour.” JURORS EXEMPT FOR SEVEN YEARS The judge immediately discharged the jury, reminding them to collect their remuneration for 11 days spent from their homes, and directing them to be relieved from all jury service for seven years. “I think you have earned it,” His Honour remarked. After His Honour granted an application for a new trial by tne Crown Prosecutor (Mr. V. R. Meredith), the senior defence counsel (Mr. M. Robinson) said he presumed that the re-trial would not take place until the February sessions. There was only a matter of 23 days left in the present year. His Honour said he supposed that the strict position was that this was primarily a matter for the prosecution to decide what they desired. There were often reasons of which he was not aware, but when it was known what they desired it would still remain for the court to determine whether they could be given effect to. All he cared to say was that at this date of the year, and with demands on judges, the uncertainty of what judges would be available in Auckland and the difficulty of summoning jurors, there might be grave difficulties about having a trial this year. Accused, who had stood calmly throughout the closing phase of the trial, was escorted down the stairway below the dock as the court adjourned. Jurors met outside the registrar’s office to exchange handshakes after an enforced but apparently happy friendship over 11 days, and spectators, many of whom had eaten nothing since an early breakfast, ran for trams, buses and motor-cars. JUDGE SUMS UP Summing up, Mr. Justice Callan referred to rumours and stories

which may have been circulated concerning the case. His Honour directed the jury to restrict themselves scrupulously only to those things discussed openly and fairly at the trial. It was the jury’s responsibility to determine what reliance it could place on the witnesses.

He referred to long statements signed by accused in various instalments and pointed out that as to typewritten statements she had the assistance of her solicitor, Mr. Robinson.

Referring to accused's suicide attempt. His Honour said there might be a question for the jury whether it was a genuine attempt or not. Dr. Spedding had made rather light of the injuries. Accused had used a safety razor blade, although, according to what accused said, she possessed a blade razor. His Honour suggested that the jury might wish closely to peruse writing by accused in the lodgers’ book, and to consider whether the writing was shaky or firm. Somewhere or other before the end of this statement it turned over to a farewell message of a woman who apparently intended to commit suicide. When did her mind change, if it did? PROSECUTION’S REAL CASE His Honour continued that the only evidence that accused instigated Rix to do murder was evidence by Rix himself, but Rix said he would not murder Mrs. Rusden, and had not even intended to do so. His Honour said there was no evidence at all that accused instigated anyone else but Rix to murder Mrs. Rusden, consequently any other idea would only be a wild guess. The prosecution’s real case was that accused did it with her own hands. The Crown stressed that she had a key to the house, that she was in the neighbourhood disguised as a man and was seen coming away after the murder with a blanched face. The Crown also stressed that a woman could have done the injuries suffered by Mrs. Rusdan. Referring to the submissions by the defence counsel that Rusden or Rix could have done the murder, His Honour said even if it should be shown that each of several persons had an opportunity to commit the murder, the evidence against one might be so strong as to compel a conclusion that this one, and no other, committed it. Any suggestion that Rusden had an opportunity might seem far-fetched. If the alibi of Rix was all false, he could have done it, but what chance had Rix, who had inveigled Mrs. Rusden out to be assaulted in March, 1946, of getting into Mrs. Rusden's house. DISCOVERY OF KEY His Honour referred to the discovery of the key to Mrs. Rusden’s house in accused’s dressing table. On all they knew the key was not available to Rix on June 5.

His Honour asked was it likely or creditable that Rix would have gone to the police after he himself had done the murder? Bad as his character was, his voluntarily going to the police the next day might, in the jury's opinion, go far to clear Rix. It the jury accepted each of the following things he was about to mention, it would be impelled to the conclusion that accused did the murder herself.

His Honour added that whether the jury accepted each of these things was their grave responsibility. His Honour said accused had possession of a key to the Rusden house, and therefore had an opportunity to get in.

Next, she had a motive—a burning hatred of Mrs. Rusden.

Thirdly, the prosecution claimed that accused was seen in the neighbourhood at the crucial time, disguised as a man. The defence counsel had said if the accused was guilty, could it be imagined that she would be so foolish as to leave the key in her drawer? This was a very proper thing for the jury to consider with great care. But, His Honour said, another comment had occurred to him: If the accused, despite protestations to the contrary, was still fond of Rusden, the key to Rusden's house to let herself in as she wished might be a thing she would not like to throw away. She was agitated when officers of the law discovered tbe key. After dealing with accused’s suggestions that the key was "planted” upon her. His Honour said an indisputable fact was that the key was found in her drawer. IDENTIFICATION CRUCIAL After dealing with other aspects of the evidence, His Honour said that unless the jury was satisfied with the part of the Crown’s case concerning the identification of the accused in the vicinity of Rusden’s house, then it was not good enough. This was crucial. But if it was established that accused was in the neighbourhood, then it made an enormously strong case.