Diss Family History Group

THE VILLAGE TRAGEDY.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

AN ALIBI SET UP.

EVIDENCE BY THE PRISONER.

The trial of William Gardiner on the charge of murdering Rose Harsent was continued at Ipswich to-day, when Mr. Ernest Wild addressed the jury for the defence. He said that it was one of the most difficult cases that it had fallen to the lot of an advocate to deal with. Twenty-two witnesses had been called, and during the five months the accused had awaited his trial the amount of prejudice exhibited and comment aroused were unprecedented in the annals of murder trials. During that time he had been depicted in a waxworks exhibition in the act of murdering the girl. Up to May in last year Gardiner was looked up to by his employers, and by those among whom he lived in a religious capacity as a person above reproach. It had not been even suggested by the prosecution that up to that time a single word could be said against him. Dealing with the evidence of the witnesses Wright and Skinner, as to seeing the prisoner and deceased to go into Peasenhall Chapel one evening in May, 1901, and Skinners evidence that he overheard an immoral conversation, counsel said the story was incredible, and the test made by these witnesses after the murder as to whether voices in the chapel could be heard outside would have only been fit for a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. He would call two architects to say whether voices could be heard outside, and he was going to put prisoner in the box to tell exactly what took place. It should be remembered that there were always those ready to throw mud at persons professing religion, and he suggested that prejudice of the two witnesses made them place a wrong interpretation upon prisoner’s conduct. Prisoner afterwards wrote to the girl complaining of the scandal, and said he would live it down and put his trust in God. These letters of his to the girl were never intended for publication, and they showed of themselves that they were not written by a canting hypocrite. Prisoner would have brought an action against the two men, but they had nothing. He was content that his chapel friends had acquitted him of the charge. He would go into the box and explain the chapel incident. The girl asked him to shut the door, which closed with difficulty. He did so, and they chatted outside for a few minutes about the chapel hymns. Evidence that prisoner went for a walk one night with the girl would be denied, and also the statement that prisoner placed his foot on deceased’s lap in the chapel. Prisoner’s wife did not believe these statements. She had stuck to her husband all through, and she would go into the box and say exactly what took place on the night of the crime. According to the letter received by the girl she was to see her visitor at midnight, and at that time prisoner was at a neighbour’s, and remained till half-past one. Mrs. Gardiner would state that her husband was by her side in bed till six o’clock in the morning. The jury would remember that the girl’s mistress said that she heard a stifled scream during the storm, which was over at half past one, that prisoner could not have committed the murder. Everything, counsel argued, turned on the handwriting, and he could call experts to prove that the letter making the midnight appointment was not in prisoner’s writing. The envelope was of a common kind used at prisoner’s works, but many had access to the stock. Was it not likely the real murderer had used this envelope to throw suspicion on the prisoner. All prisoner’s letters were of a manly character and not immoral. If the young man Davis was the father of the girl’s child, as Mr. Wild submitted he was, all motive for the crime on the part of the prisoner was gone. Counsel next criticised the evidence of the game-keeper Morris as to footprints, and said he would call a witness to prove these were not on the road at four o’clock, so that the murder must have been committed after that hour, and when prisoner was at home. The floor of the kitchen was covered with blood, and yet there was no trace of blood on Gardiner’s shoes or clothes. As to the broken medicine bottle, if prisoner had taken it to deceased’s because he would have brought it back. Counsel continued that as to blood being found on prisoner's pocket knife, he would explain that he used it for gutting rabbits. Dr. Stevenson, the public analyst, found that the murderer left a piece of his clothes saturated with blood and paraffin on the jagged edges, but there was no piece missing from prisoner’s clothes. Concluding, counsel said his witnesses would prove a complete alibi.

Mrs. Gardiner., called, said she had lived a happy and contented life. Prisoner was a good father and husband. The deceased was a friend of hers, and after the scandal remained so. Prisoner was at home on the night of the crime from half-past nine. They left Mrs. Dickerson’s company at half-past one. and went to bed, but witness was kept awake till five or six in the morning, owing to pain in the body. Prisoner lit the washhouse fire in the morning, but did not burn anything. After breakfast he went to the Sunday school class with four of his children. During the morning witness was informed of the girl’s death, which was first supposed to be a case of suicide, and at dinner her husband expressed sorrow at the fact. In the afternoon prisoner attended class again, and did not appear upset. Shown the appointment letter, witness said it was not written by prisoner. The medicine bottle was given by witness to the deceased.

Cross-examined, witness heard the girl was friendly with Davis, and knew she was engaged to a young man named Bob. The engagement was broken off. Witness thought Mr. Rouse was jealous of her husband’s high position at the chapel, and had made up a story about him. At the conclusion of her evidence Mrs. Gardiner gave way to tears.

PRISONER IN THE WITNESS BOX.

Gardiner himself gave evidence. He had known deceased seven or eight years, but had never behaved improperly to her.

Mr. Wild: Did you have anything to do with her murder?

Gardiner: Certainly not. He denied he wrote the letter making the midnight appointment, and corroborated his wife as to his movements on the night of the tragedy, and also as to using the pocket knife for cleaning rabbits.

He did not wear canvas shoes that night.