WHAT could a six-year-old girl child have done so terrible that a grown man or woman could strangle her to death while she lay fast asleep beside her unsuspecting mother whose head was then bashed in?

But, if there was mystery involved here, it was clothed very deftly in the several variations of the story, as related to the authorities over a period of time, by the characters in this case.

We are in the year 1965. It was supposed to be in the time of a gentler Jamaica. On August 23, little Rose Marie Cooper was found dead in her bed, with her mother’s petticoat wound tightly around her neck and a part of the sleeves stuck into her mouth. Winnifred Cooper, her mother, was found “moaning weakly” in a twin bed nearby, suffering from head injuries.

The accused, 71-year-old George White, former postmaster general, was, on June 9, 1966, declared by a Coroner’s Jury with His Honour, the late CA ‘Tony’ Ellington presiding in the Half-Way-Tree Court, to be criminally responsible for the child’s death.

Cooper, who was White’s niece-in-law by his wife and had been living at his Surbiton Road, St Andrew residence for 15 years, gave evidence at the Coroner’s Inquest that her deceased daughter was fathered by White.

But the accused man denied that the child was his and countered that Cooper had recently adopted little Rose Marie.

At the time of the tragedy, only White, Cooper and the six-year-old were living at the house. The gardener, Phillip Cobrand, lived in an outside cottage on the premises.

On Monday, November 28, 1966, when the case was called, senior counsel, the late Vivian Blake, QC announced to the court that he, along with attorney Emil George (later QC) appeared for White and that Queen’s Counsel, the late Huntley Munroe, director of public prosecutions, appeared for the Crown. Trial judge was Justice Kenneth Smith, later chief justice of Jamaica.

Munroe, in an 80-minute outline of the Crown’s case, which he stated was based on circumstantial evidence, offered no evidence against the accused and White

was acquitted.

It was an obviously relieved and seemingly happy White who left the environs of the No 1 Home Circuit Court

that day.

When the proceedings began, Munroe rose and addressed the court thus:

“May it please you, Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, this case may be broken up into a number of segments. I propose to analyse the evidence in respect of those segments and make certain comments and observations relative to those segments.

“Phillip Cobrand is the first witness. I propose to give you a summation of his evidence. He will tell you the relationship between Cooper and White was quite cordial. There were, however, quarrels at times because, as White alleged, Cooper was too rough with Rose Marie. He does not remember any quarrel between White and Cooper within a week or so of Rose Marie’s death.

“On August 22, 1965, Cooper left the house with Rose Marie about 5:00 pm. They returned about between 7:30 pm and 8:00 pm. White was at home on their return. He was awakened about 1:45 am on the morning of the 23rd of August, 1965. White was calling him: ‘Phillip, Phillip! Come here quickly! Rose Marie is dead. She has been strangled and Mrs Cooper is injured. A burglar seems to be in the house.’

“Phillip went to the house through a door on the verandah. He saw White in the dining room. He went to Cooper’s room. There was no light in that room but there were lights in the dining room, in the front bedroom which was unoccupied and the burglar light was burning. This was unusual. It was not on when Phillip retired. The switch for this light is in White’s room.

“He saw Cooper sitting on the floor leaning against a press — within arm’s length of the bed. Blood was on the side of her face. There was blood on the bed which was rumpled. Rose Marie was lying across her bed with her arms at her side.

“White spoke to Phillip. He said he was awakened by the light coming through the fanlight. He came out to investigate. He looked in the kitchen. He saw no one. He heard groaning, looked into Cooper’s room, saw Cooper injured and the baby dead. White remained at the door as he spoke to Phillip. He sent him to call Dr Clive Dryden. He told him the phone was dead. Phillip left to call

the doctor.

“Much has been made about a dog by the name of ‘Sputnik’ — that it was a very cross dog and that whenever anyone came into the yard, it barks. I ask you not to place any significance on the

dog’s behaviour.

“Dr Dryden came. Phillip also says that the room was not ransacked. He also states that he saw no evidence of any of the doors being forced, but he says that one of the burglar bars on a window in a passageway was bent. He did not observe this before. He cannot say if the window was open. He, however, is of the opinion that the space was not large enough to allow an adult to come through.

“Dr Clive Dryden, the next witness, says that on his arrival at White’s house, he saw Rose Marie lying across the bed, dead. Cooper was sitting on the floor leaning against a press, bleeding from a wound over her left temple. She was not fully conscious and was unable to answer simple questions. He examined Cooper and gave instructions that she should be removed to the hospital. There was no intrusion of Rose Marie’s tongue.

“That is of some significance because of what it was alleged White said in respect of Rose Marie when he first saw her.

“Herman Hutchinson, a police officer (later senior superintendent), said he got a report on the morning of August 23, 1965, about 2 o’clock and went to 9 Surbiton Road. On arrival, he saw White standing on the verandah. He appeared hysterical. There were lights in the house. ‘Sputnik’ was in the yard. He had to be held before he (Hutchinson) could get out of the car. Hutchinson entered a room which opened onto the front verandah. He saw Cooper lying on the floor bleeding and Rose Marie lying dead on a bed. He asked White what happened. He said: ‘I heard a noise and went to the room and I saw them lying. I don’t know how it happened.’

“This is the first time that White is giving this version. He told Phillip, the yard boy, that he was awakened by the light coming through the fanlight. He came out to investigate. He looked in the kitchen and saw no one, he heard groaning. He looked in Cooper’s room, saw Cooper injured and [the] baby dead.”

“It may be a matter for a jury to say whether the ‘noise’ is to be equated with the ‘groaning’ but White went on to say that the noise he heard was like something banging on a door. This, of course, destroys this equation.

“White went on to tell the constable that he woke up and saw a light in the house and Rose Marie dead.

“It may be said that there are three versions bearing close resemblance to each other, but differing in details, the significance of which must await the evidence of Cooper to see whether any evidential value may be attached to them.

“In answer to questions put by Hutchinson when they entered the room, White said: ‘I went to bed leaving Rose Marie and Mrs Cooper watching TV. About 1:00 am, I was awakened by a noise and light in the house and saw Rose Marie dead.’

“The detective checked the house for signs of breaking but found none. White pointed out no sign of breaking in or out. No window was shown to him (the detective) by White. The detective saw a rag with what appeared to be bloodstains. It was on the floor by the door of a bedroom on the northern side of the house.

“Detective Inspector George Kinghorne will tell you he got a report and went to 9 Surbiton Road at 2:30 am. He saw White and went into a bedroom on the southern side through a door opening in the front verandah. He did not see Cooper, because by then she had been taken to hospital, but saw the dead body of Rose Marie.

“White reported: ‘I went to bed leaving Mrs Cooper and Rose Marie watching TV. Got awake about 1:50 am. I saw the light in the dining room on, which was unusual. I looked in the kitchen. I did not see anyone. I saw this door ajar (pointing to a door leading from the bedroom in which Rose Marie was, into the dining room). He looked in and saw Rosie on her bed with that piece of garment tied around her throat (pointing to a house coat which was on the same bed as Rose Marie). I quickly loosed it, called Rosie and got no answer. Mrs Cooper was lying on this bed resting on one pillow and the other pillow covering her head.”

“Kinghorne, here, asked White what was the condition of the room and White replied: ‘I saw this door ajar.’

“This is the first time that White is mentioning about the door, but no mention of a noise. White had apparently regained his composure as when Constable Hutchinson saw him, he appeared hysterical. The question may be asked: was he gradually formulating his defence? The evidence of Cooper must be examined before any cogent inference can be drawn.

“Kinghorne examined the door but saw nothing to indicate forcible entry through it. White showed how he found the door — one half was open about six inches, the other half was secured by a tower bolt.

“Kinghorne’s conclusion depends entirely on whether Winnifred Cooper can state categorically whether she locked that door on retiring to bed or whether she had locked all the doors

and windows.

“Kinghorne’s evidence must await the evidence of Cooper because Kinghorne cannot say categorically that that house was locked when Cooper retired to bed.

“The inspector then went to a bedroom on the northern side of the house. On the floor there was a reading lamp which was lit. It was beside the bed. The bed appeared not to have been slept in. There was a rug placed over the lamp shade. The door leading from this room to the front verandah was open. There was a soiled bath rag on the floor by the door. It appeared to be bloodstained. White said the rag was his and had come in with the laundry. The laundered clothes were in a tray in

the room.

“The inspector examined the door, saw no signs of forcing. All windows were examined. He saw no signs of breaking. He saw a burglar bar which was slightly bent. It is the inspector’s opinion that a grown child or an adult could not pass through the opening.

“Under the head of Rose Marie, an odd foot of socks was found. This was not White’s. There was no complaint of anything missing from the house.

“Now, the second segment of the case affects Gladys Logan. Her evidence is of no assistance. It is not relevant to what you as a jury, are called upon to decide. So I pass

that over.

“Now, the third segment, and in my view, the most important one, is Cooper’s evidence. The first part of her evidence deals with the paternity of Rose Marie. You are not here to decide who is the father of Rose Marie; so I move on. She said that White loved Rose Marie and was very helpful to her. She speaks of a loan of £300 by White to her which she has since repaid – White having on more than one occasion, demanded repayment. White had told her on more than one occasion to find somewhere to live — the last time being in 1964. Apart from this, they got on all right and she was of the opinion that the atmosphere at Surbiton Road was alright for Rose Marie.

“Now, you as jurors are not concerned with what you heard on the streets. Unfortunately, at the Coroner’s Inquest — and I shall come to discuss that aspect — you may have read of a letter that was tendered at that inquest. I do not propose to discuss the contents of that letter nor, indeed, to refer to it because what flowed from it is evidence completely inadmissible, and I do not propose to burden you with the inadmissible evidence. White knew that she was applying for a passport for Rose Marie. White never told her to find somewhere to go in August. He knew of the £1,000 which she had loaned to Feurtado.

“On August 22, 1965, she watched the wedding procession of the Hon Edward Seaga; Rose Marie was with her. She returned home about 7:15 pm. White was at home. He let them in through his bedroom door which opens unto the back verandah. She saw him lock the back door. She watched TV until 8:30 pm and then had supper. She turned off the TV. White had retired to bed as also Rose Marie. She turned the lights out and closed the kitchen door, and went to her bedroom. She pushed up a window in the living room when she was watching TV. She thinks she did close

that window.

“Her bedroom opens on to the front verandah at the side. She went into the bedroom on the northern side to the bathroom, turned on the light in that room and turned it off when she was through. She also turned off the living room light when she retired. The door opening on the verandah was locked. No window was open. The window in the passage was kept closed. There were no lights in the house when she retired to bed about 9:30 pm. She remembers hearing White saying ‘something had happened to Winnie.’

“She groaned but cannot remember anything else. She did not feel any blow to her left temple. That is

her evidence.

“Under cross-examination, Cooper said she did open a living room window but did not open any doors. She closed the windows before going to supper. She did not see ‘Sputnik’ when she came home at 7:15 pm. Sometimes ‘Sputnik’ would be away for two or three days.

“Is that an unusual behaviour for a dog?

“The bedroom door opening into the dining room could have been closed but not locked.

“In re-examination, she said that the top part of the passage window is always down unless there was rain.

“When the question of any breaking in or out is examined, the result appears to be tenuous. There is no certainty whether Cooper locked that house thoroughly. The door pointed out by White to Inspector Kinghorne, Cooper alleges it could have been closed but not locked. The moment this situation arises, whatever inference of significance could be attached to Kinghorne’s findings is rendered purgatory and is of no assistance if the Crown is relying on circumstantial evidence.

“The Crown is then left with the situation: Someone could have broken into that house or got in and broken out.

“Having regard to this aspect, one must examine the other pieces of evidence on which the Crown would rely to forge the chain

of circumstances.

“As I understand the principles governing circumstantial evidence: It must always be narrowly examined, if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused person’s guilt, from circumstantial evidence, to be sure that there were no co-existing circumstances which could weaken or destroy the inference.

“Applying this principle as also the test laid down in the case of R v Treacey (1941) 2 AER, page 229, namely, whether the three elements in cases of circumstantial evidence were present — the test laid down (1) opportunity (2) interest and (3) conduct.

“Having regard to Cooper’s evidence, White loved Rose Marie. The relationships in the home were cordial; the atmosphere was ideal for Rose Marie. Would not this piece of evidence weaken any inference of motive, interest or conduct?

“You are not there to speculate. You are not there to ask yourself — Is Winnifred Cooper coming to the rescue of George White? You do not return verdicts on speculation, but on evidence that the Crown presents.

“Now let us examine the statement of White. There is a principle in law that where a jury may be in doubt and lies are told, then you look at those lies or you may attach some amount of significance or importance to the lies when the evidence is of a certain standard of cogency.

“I am going to break down White’s evidence into nine segments and I am going to show that it appears White, if you believe the evidence, told little white lies or big white lies. And what are those

nine segments?

“(1) He denies paternity of Rose Marie; (2) On August 23, 1965, about 1:50 am, he says, he was awakened by himself and saw light through the fanlight above his room; (3) He opened his bedroom door and observed light in the dining room was on. He opened the bathroom door and not seeing anyone, went across to the pantry and kitchenette. Not seeing her, he went to her room and noticed the door was not locked but ajar, it was in darkness. He heard groaning. He switched on the light; (4) He saw Cooper lying on her bed on her back, her head completely covered with a pillow. It was saturated with blood, also the bed linen. He does not remember if the bed was ruffled. He removed the pillow and called her but got no reply; (5) he looked across to Rose Marie’s bed. She was lying on her back with both hands stretched out. He observed a part of her mother’s morning coat tied tightly around her neck and another portion stuck in her mouth. She was gagged. She appeared dead. He moved the tension from around her neck and mouth; (6) As far as he can recall, the room was not ransacked; (7) he called Phillip and told him to get Dr Dryden. He tried to get the doctor by telephone but could not get him but finally did; (8) On going to meet Dr Dryden, who had stopped by the front door, he observed that a part of the twin door was ajar; and (9) when he called Phillip, Cooper slipped off the bed and was sitting on the floor.

The facts as disclosed at 2, 4, 5 and 8 if White’s statements to the police are correct, then 2 and 7 are lies, and the medical findings condemn 5 also as a lie. Can any inference be drawn to strengthen the links of the chain of circumstantial evidence? Can it be said that these lies bring home guilt? Can it be said that he had recourse to falsehood in order to establish his innocence? Assuming that these answers are in the affirmative, the Crown is still confronted with these three elements — opportunity, interest,

and conduct.

“They may very well lend weight to the suspicious circumstances, but is the evidence of the character and nature that a jury should be asked to found a verdict? The Crown is left with this pattern – (1) No evidence to say categorically that there was not breaking; (2) No evidence of motive; (3) No evidence of interest in the killing of Rose Marie; (4) Equivocal evidence of opportunity because of (1); and (5) the unreliability of the evidence of Cooper because of the effects of the injury

she received.

“Dr Sanguinetti rules out strangulation by the house coat and finds that Rose Marie was throttled; that is, hands were placed around her neck and squeezed hard. She was manually strangled. He found abrasions that could have been caused

by fingernails.

“Dr Masson said Winnifred Cooper suffered from a depressed fracture under a crescent shaped cut in the left temporal region of the skull. The left temporal lobe of the brain was extremely damaged. Injury could have been caused by a solid heel of a shoe.

“In view of those injuries it is quite understandable that she does not remember anything of the accident. He would, however, expect her to remember other things that happened earlier that day.

“Now, Mr foreman and members of the jury, the Crown is not entirely unmindful of the fact that the verdict is that of a Coroner’s jury, but the Crown’s main responsibility is to examine evidence that was adduced at the inquest and to equate it with the legal principles that are involved and to see whether in the particular circumstances, the verdict of the jury is reasonable

or unreasonable.

“In examining this particular aspect, one has to ask oneself, whether in fact there was adequacy of direction in respect of the many and involved principles of law. The Crown is not in a position to say what was the nature and the extent of the Coroner’s directions to the jury with particular reference to circumstantial evidence — a somewhat intricate and difficult branch of law.

“The Crown is rather hesitant to adopt this measure, but it is not without precedent. In September 1955, a situation arose where a Coroner’s jury returned a verdict of manslaughter and the prosecution in that case offered no evidence on the ground that it was quite clear from the Coroner’s summing up that it took the view that the child’s death had been accidental.

“I, therefore, crave leave of the Court to offer no evidence and I accordingly I ask Your Lordship to direct the jury to return a formal verdict of

not guilty.”

Justice Kenneth Smith: “…You have heard a very full opening of the case to you by the learned director of public prosecutions. He has analysed the evidence very carefully and, of course, in cases like this, it is right he should do it, because people outside — people who have read or heard of this matter — they form their own views about it. They, perhaps, may have had a little trial by themselves. But, as you were told, you decide cases on the evidence you have heard in this Court…

“No evidence is offered before you on which you can return a verdict in this case and you are obliged, in the circumstances, to return a verdict of not guilty, and I would ask you to return

that verdict.”

Next week: Kidnapped, raped and murdered in dancehall saga

Sybil E Hibbert is a veteran journalist and retired court reporting specialist. She is also the wife of Retired ACP Isadore ‘Dick’ Hibbert, rated among the top detectives of his time. Send comments to allend@jamaicaobserver.com.