Dr. Mahey also thought that there was the possibility that the accused
had suffered some brain damage. Such evidence as this was of course
very relevant and material in the light of the defences raised on
behalf of the accused and required careful and intelligent assessment
by the jury.
The Crown's case, as I see it, was that the accused because
he was angry decided to put an end to the story by annihilating the deceased and so he sought his moment to invade the deceased's
To that end
premises when she was alone to accomplish the deed. there were witnesses who saw the accused that morning about 7.30 a.m.
in the vicinity of the deceased's premises when she was watering her garden and who say that the accused and deceased even spoke at that
His version of the facts time. Of course the accused denied this.
is that he had a giddy spell that morning, and after relaxing on a stone for some time to catch himself, then washed some clothes and
read his Bible and later about 9.00 a.m. went to the shop to buy stout before going to the hills to get the bush broom for his sister. The Crown also placed reliance on the piece of cord and the knife which the accused made use of in the execution of his deed and urged that the accused had collected at least the knife on the 18th January, 1977 in anticipation, if the evidence of P. C. Pickering was to be believed. But the accused said he only collected those items that very morning just before leaving to go on his way to cut the bush
broom. Which story was the more credible?
As the events turned out
we know that the accused had not booked his passage as yet. One wonders, would he not have had that confirmed if in fact he had planned to escape after carrying through his deed?
Defence Counsel
in his address to the jury wondered why the accused if he had really planned the deed would select a short piece of cord to assist him in the execution of that deed. Why not something more substantial?
The answer to this issue was not an easy one.