The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1917-07-14 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

CARD. je25131714  as his wife and child were going to the pictures. For a man to have uttered those words if he was guilty of such a crime passed all human belief. That the should have been killed at the e.. Ame time as the mother was a point that wait urged against the prisoner, but he (counsel) submitted that it was in his favour. If the prisoner had wanted to kill his wife he could have chosen the time for doing it. The prisoner could have found a hundred opportunities for committing the crime whilst the child was abeent. If he was guilty he knew that he was leaving his little boy starving and unattended upstairs, and yet after he was arrested he asked that some of the money he received as commission should be sent to relatives for the care of the boy. Was that consistent with the suggestion that the prisoner was guilty? As to prisoner's behaviour on the night of the murder, counsel appealed to them to consider it in the light of their experience of life. Time and again they had no doubt found people who externally had the appearance of beinghard to be possessed of tender hearts." When he first arrived home and at the office of the Chief Constable the pi isonee broke down and sobbed, and he also showed ffionsideration .by asking the Chief -Constable to telegraph that his wife and child had passed away, remarking-that it would break the old lady's- heart if she knewthat anything had happened to the child called "Mettie." Could that possibly be the behaviour of a man who had done to (Lath his wife and child in- the • • - • MOST BRUTAL MAINIVER IMAGINABLE?  As to the crime being committed by some stranger, it was evident that if the police instructed special constables to search- the neighbourhood there .nust have been some lingering hope, some outstanding possibility in their minds that it was committed by some wandering ruffian. Would the pollee have caused the neighbourhood to be searched if the prisoner's external conduct that night had teen so flagrant as to deserve the criticisms that had been. passed upon it by the counsel for the prosecution? All the Info.ts on. the ptisaneets clothing were Of a unnute character, and were More consistent he suggested with the explanation that he nad cut himself' whilst shaving than the other explanation vanced by the prosecution. Dr. Spilsbury had stated that the bbodstains might possibly be three • weeks old, while )diss Sparice, another witness, stated that three or four weeks previously the prisoner told her be had cut himself whilst shaving. That there were fea:ne on the overcoat .as *ell: as the waistcoat and trousers also pointed to the probability that they were caused whilst the prisoner was shaving. As to the stain on the boots even if prise, net was never allowed into the scullery, it might have been transferred there from one of the boots of the eanstabies wha.had been walking in the scullery. Though it was stated, that there were quarrels, lifra. Law, who was well acquainted with Mrs.Hodgson, had told them that she bad never seta any marks of violence on Mrs. Hodgson and had never heard any complaints from her. Though the . relations . that eluded between Rodgson and Miss Llewellyn Were such as aroused a gertain, -emeunt. of odium in the -minds of- rightminded people, there were no penalties of :the law for sueh relations, and except as a, motive for the crime they had no bearieg wn-the Came. Miss Llewellyn -told them the previous day that she knew the prisoner was married and could not give any aoeount as to why she told untruths before the Coroner . and the magistrates. They should not therefore attach credibility to the evidence of the girl and disbelieve that of the man. Mr. Linden Riley closed by an appeal to the jury, his address having occupied exactly two hours.