Diss Family History Group

THE SUFFOLK MURDER TRIAL.

JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.

THE JURY'S DECISION.

At Suffolk Assizes, at Ipswich, yesterday, William Gardiner, foreman carpenter, of Peasenhall, and superintendent of the Primitive Methodist Sunday school at Sibton, for the fourth day appeared before Mr. Justice Grantham on an indictment charging him with the wilful murder of Rose Anne Harsent, domestic servant, on Sunday, June 1st. Mr. Dickens, K.C., appeared for the Crown, and Mr. E. E. Wild defended.

At Saturday's proceedings 14 witnesses, including prisoner and his wife, were called for the defence to prove an alibi.

On the reassembling of the Court yesterday the foreman of the jury asked for the letter sent by the accused to his wife since his arrest to enable them to compare the handwriting. Prisoner's wife was sent for to produce the letter.

Mr. Wild then commenced his speech for the defence. He said the case had nearly overtaxed his strength and ability. Prisoner was either an arch criminal who had perpetrated one of the most fiendish and revolting crimes of modern times, or he was a man who had been done an irreparable wrong by unjust suspicion being cast upon him. Counsel said the case for the prosecution rested mainly upon handwriting, and if a man was convicted of murder upon evidence of that sort, which was only made up of opinions, then who would be safe? The jury would, probably, come to the conclusion that the man who wrote the letter making the midnight appointment was the murderer, but he thought he had proved that prisoner did not write it. He admitted there were startling similarities in the letters, but there were also startling dis-similarities, and prisoner’s handwriting might have been imitated by someone else. Regarding the india-rubber shoe imprints counsel explained that he had combatted the evidence for the prosecution, and asked even if there had been such foot marks on the road, might not the murderer have made such marks in order to throw suspicion on the prisoner? Had the prisoner worn these shoes, as alleged, they would have been covered with blood, and would have been destroyed as incriminating evidence. But they were in Court in a clean condition. Gardiner had given evidence, and it was an ordeal that a guilty man would have shrunk from. Gardiner had left the box untouched by cross-examination. If he were guilty, there never was such an actor in the annals of crime or on the stage. During an eloquent passage in counsel’s speech suggesting-a hideous mistake had been made, prisoner covered his eyes, and wept for the first time during the case. Dealing with the evidence of Mrs. Gardiner, counsel declared that if prisoner was guilty the woman must know, and she was his accomplice. The truth of her evidence had been proved. The speech lasted an hour and a quarter, and at the conclusion of an eloquent peroration Mr. Wild was overcome with emotion, and hurried from the Court, while the accused again burst into tears.

Mr. Dickens, in reply, said the murder was obviously carefully premeditated. The only motive for the crime was to dispose of the proof of immorality, and the only man , who fulfilled these conditions was the prisoner at the bar. Davis’s conduct was despicable, but he was entitled to be believed when he said he had never been intimate with deceased. Prisoner went outside his house at 10 o’clock, the time appointed by the letter for the girl to show a light in the window. The writing in the letter was like the prisoner’s. He had india-rubber shoes, with bars across the soles. He had access to the kind of envelope used. He had a knife with blood upon it, and he had been carrying on with deceased. Were all these suspicious circumstances against the prisoner simply remarkable coincidences. By his evidence prisoner charged not on but several witnesses with perjury. Mr. Dickens, in concluding a speech which lasted a little longer than that for the defence, said in the interests of humanity there was only one verdict the jury could return - a verdict of guilty.

Mr. Justice Grantham, in summing up, said he had, never investigated a more complicated case and one where the circumstances were more numerous. It was not the jury’s duty to say whether Wright and Skinner were telling the truth; but if they invented the story it was the most extraordinary invention. The acquittal of Gardiner by those who investigated the scandal was a prejudiced one. Why should Gardiner have told Superintendent Guy he would have nothing more to do with deceased if he was innocent? Concerning the allegation of paternity, there was not a tittle of evidence against Davis. The jury might not be able to say who the murderer was, but murders of this description were invariably committed by educated people, the last persons who would be thought to be guilty of such a crime. His lordship described as remarkable that the prisoner at the church on Sunday morning was not upset at the news of the violent death of his senior choir girl. Never in his life had he heard such a charge as prisoner made against Rouse. If the allegation that that old gentleman had deliberately come into Court to help to hang accused by manufacturing his evidence were true, it was a more diabolical thing than the crime prisoner was charged with. If The jury believed Rouse, prisoner lied in his evidence, and if they could not believe him in one thing they could not in other matters. Again concerning the footprints, they were asked to believe a man who deliberately perjured himself in order to put the rope round Gardiner’s neck. The police had to visit Gardiner’s house four times before they got accused’s india-rubber shoes. His lordship pointed out that the woman’s death was fixed at about, 5 a.m., at which time Mrs. Gardiner admitted she was asleep. The jury must not forget that had she not given evidence the fact would have greatly told against the prisoner. His lordship concluded his summing up, which lasted two hours, with reference to the question of handwriting, and said he thought the evidence on behalf of the prisoner in this respect was lamentably deficient.

The jury retired at 4.15 to consider their verdict, taking with them two letters written by prisoner since his incarceration, and also prisoner’s india-rubber shoes. At their request cups of tea were supplied to them.

At 6.30 the Judge and jury returned into Court, and the Judge said he understood the jury wanted to ask him a question. The Foreman said they wanted information on a question on which there was a little doubt on the part of two jurymen.

The Judge: I understand that you want to ! know what inference you can draw from the fact that no blood was found on the prisoner’s clothes, and that no evidence is given of Prisoner having destroyed anything. These facts are far in favour of prisoner’s innocence, but they are not conclusive. In some other cases guilt has been brought home to the accused where no blood was found on the prisoner’s clothes. If other evidence is not conclusive these facts will materially assist the prisoner; but if other evidence is conclusive the absence of blood ought not to affect the evidence of guilt.

The Foreman: I don't think I need trouble you, but I believe there is one juryman who admits that the latter -

The Judge (interposing): I am afraid you must not say that.

e Foreman: Well, we shall have to retire again.

The jury then retired.

The jury returned into Court at 8.40 p.m.

The Foreman announced that they could not agree.

The jury was accordingly discharged necessitating a new trial.

The prisoner came into the dock to hear the decision in a tottering condition, and was allowed to be seated. Ho had to be assisted out of the dock after the discharge of the jury.