Speaker 1: Hilda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and from the team behind the
Speaker 1: front page. The New Zealand Herald's daily news podcast, This
Speaker 1: is Accused the Polkinghorn Trial. Over a series of weeks.
Speaker 1: In conjunction with our usual daily episodes, we'll be bringing
Speaker 1: you regular coverage as one of the most high profile
Speaker 1: trials of the year makes its way through the High
Speaker 1: Court at Auckland. A warning, this podcast contains disturbing content.
Speaker 1: Philip Polkinghorn is accused of murdering his wife, Pauline Hannah,
Speaker 1: who was found dead on April fifth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: He maintains she took her own life. Week eight of
Speaker 1: the trial began with the Crown delivering their closing statement.
Speaker 1: Now it's the defense's turn.
Speaker 2: Your honor, mister Foreman and members of your jury. What
Speaker 2: a final insult. The final insult doctor Pulkinghorn faces from
Speaker 2: five April.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty one through to the day's date has just
Speaker 3: been made.
Speaker 2: It suggested that he's blamed her, his own wife, for
Speaker 2: her death. He's described as the master manipulator. The first
Speaker 2: insult he faced was when the police attended at his
Speaker 2: address on five April twenty twenty one, when they walk
Speaker 2: through that door with our open mind, they would have
Speaker 2: us believe, and I think we can accept. And then
Speaker 2: very quickly saw the rope in the way in which
Speaker 2: it was left by doctor Polkinghorn and gave it what
Speaker 2: they describe as the tension check, and from there his
Speaker 2: property and he was treated in a way that he
Speaker 2: was alleged to have been involved.
Speaker 3: In his wife's own death.
Speaker 1: And so began the defense's closing argument, as given by
Speaker 1: defense lawyer Ron Mansfield. He said, it has been a
Speaker 1: long process leading up to the trial when Philip Polkinghorn
Speaker 1: finally had the chance to show the evidence that vindicates
Speaker 1: his position. Mansfield said his client wanted to help police
Speaker 1: with his interview because he considered that was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. It was an insult because what lay
Speaker 1: behind that was the suspicion they never informed him of
Speaker 1: or gave him the opportunity to respond to then and there,
Speaker 1: Mansfield said, despite grieving the death of his wife, Polkinghorn
Speaker 1: agreed to be interviewed at the scene when he detailed
Speaker 1: quite consistently what happened that morning.
Speaker 2: A master manipulator need not have done so, but he
Speaker 2: did so in the state that he was in in
Speaker 2: between taking messages, making calls, letting people know, as anyone
Speaker 2: of us would like the dignity to do, to let
Speaker 2: people know who loved Pauline off her passing, to allow
Speaker 2: people to comfort you as you might when you suffer
Speaker 2: such a loss. But nonetheless, during that interview, we know
Speaker 2: this attention check took place, and we know things switched
Speaker 2: from open mind and being objective by the attending police
Speaker 2: officers to a focus now on establishing what they were
Speaker 2: quickly coming to think was a potential homicide, despite any
Speaker 2: objective evidence that might allow that assessment to be made.
Speaker 1: They came into that address expecting a full suspension hanging,
Speaker 1: said Mansfield, and failed to turn their mind to an
Speaker 1: incomplete or partial suspension hanging. He said ambulance officers did
Speaker 1: not harbor suspicions, no doubt, because of their more robust
Speaker 1: and informed experience with these type of hangings. He said,
Speaker 1: he can understand the detective going upstairs and pulling on
Speaker 1: the rope and thinking it's odd, but there's no record
Speaker 1: of that moment.
Speaker 2: Wasn't doctor Polkinghorn being asked to assist the police, It
Speaker 2: was the fact that they failed to tell him that
Speaker 2: they considered the situation to be suspicious and that he
Speaker 2: might be a suspect for his own wife's death. Not
Speaker 2: providing him with an opportunity to explain what he had
Speaker 2: done and how he had done it by perhaps showing
Speaker 2: them but without touching anything, just lured him to the
Speaker 2: police station, albeit under a false pretense that they wanted
Speaker 2: an interview, not from a grieving husband who might find
Speaker 2: it cathartic to sit there and talk about his wife
Speaker 2: and what he had found in the way in which
Speaker 2: it appeared during the course of the interview he found it,
Speaker 2: but treating him like a suspect for his own wife's death.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said that Polkinghorn had no idea during his lengthy
Speaker 1: police interview that an asound, forensic team and a photographer
Speaker 1: had been set loose in his house. Mansfield says it
Speaker 1: was another insult given he had been speaking with the
Speaker 1: police openly and honestly to find his home was being
Speaker 1: violated and he was being treated as a suspect. On
Speaker 1: the deleted WhatsApp messages, Mansfield said that came after the
Speaker 1: revelation to Polkinghorn that he was being treated as a suspect.
Speaker 3: And will come back to that.
Speaker 2: But when you think about the timing of that, and
Speaker 2: given the level of suspicion he is now facing and
Speaker 2: the focus of the police investigation, why would he Why
Speaker 2: would he want the police to learn of something that
Speaker 2: was private and always had been as far as he
Speaker 2: was aware, private between him and his wife in relation
Speaker 2: to what they or what he got up to by
Speaker 2: way of sexual relations outside of their union. It is
Speaker 2: entirely understandable at that point why he might seek to
Speaker 2: delete or remove WhatsApp messages that revealed something which was
Speaker 2: intimate and potentially embarrassing, and certainly something that would damage
Speaker 2: both of their reputations.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said. The police sealed off the Upland Road home
Speaker 1: from April fifth to April sixteen. Hannah's funeral was in
Speaker 1: April fifteen, and Polkinghorn had to investigate purchasing new clothes
Speaker 1: for fear he wouldn't be able to get any of
Speaker 1: her personal effects from the address. Hannah's autopsy happened on
Speaker 1: April six but Polkinghorn wasn't advised of its outcome or
Speaker 1: given any access to either a briefing or a report.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said Polkinghorn reached out to another pathologist because he
Speaker 1: was concerned and couldn't understand what was going on.
Speaker 2: Further in soul, not treating him as a loved one,
Speaker 2: not treating him with any respect, and giving him any
Speaker 2: information in relation to the autopsy. And what would the
Speaker 2: harm have been to share that information with him, To
Speaker 2: share the information that she had died, albeit doctor Keisha
Speaker 2: would have us accept by net compression as if that
Speaker 2: was the only pathology outcome that could be given. What
Speaker 2: would have been the harm to confirm to him that
Speaker 2: what he had found and seen was entirely consistent with
Speaker 2: the pathology that was revealed through the autopsy.
Speaker 1: Polkinghorn then asked to have his own pathologist you the
Speaker 1: position via a second autopsy.
Speaker 2: Why if he had known that he had taken his
Speaker 2: wife's life by way of a homicide, why would he
Speaker 2: involve a pathologists to conduct a second autopsy.
Speaker 3: What he was.
Speaker 2: Seeking to do was just learn why this was being
Speaker 2: treated as suspicious and why he was being treated as
Speaker 2: the suspect.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said. Tongues were wagging around Remuerra because of the
Speaker 1: presence of the police, and soon the press was onto
Speaker 1: it and people soon came to know the death was
Speaker 1: being treated as suspicious.
Speaker 2: When this became public that the death was being treated
Speaker 2: as suspicious and he was the suspect, then everyone around
Speaker 2: him starts to shut down, treats him differently, and he
Speaker 2: becomes isolated. As a matter of common sense, that's how
Speaker 2: you might react if.
Speaker 3: You were told by an authority to whom.
Speaker 2: You thought you could place some reliance on for being
Speaker 2: objective and only relying on evidence, that if someone was
Speaker 2: being treated as a suspect, there must be something to it,
Speaker 2: and that changes everybody's attitude other than those really close
Speaker 2: to him, and that knew better everybody else's attitude towards him.
Speaker 2: What further insult could there be other than being accused,
Speaker 2: as he was now of being the suspect, But for
Speaker 2: it to be effectively leaked in this way through the media,
Speaker 2: so that everybody friends and family became aware of this
Speaker 2: allegation and hence reacted and treated him differently.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said it made people think differently when it eventually
Speaker 1: came time for them to be interviewed by police. Things
Speaker 1: that might have otherwise been duly explained or seen as
Speaker 1: drunken banter that they didn't place much weight on then
Speaker 1: became quite important. Mansfield said, is not asking the jury
Speaker 1: to ignore the evidence from Hannah's family or close friends,
Speaker 1: but to consider how their mind's attitudes and experiences were
Speaker 1: informed by the fact that Polkinghorn was suspected by police
Speaker 1: of killing his wife. Mansfield says, a legitimate issue with
Speaker 1: a contact lens, for example, became him dragging her away
Speaker 1: from a party. Mansfield said, and as just one example
Speaker 1: of how people's views changed in a flick of a switch.
Speaker 1: Then there's the reality he is on his own. The
Speaker 1: only person who was engaging with him was Madison Ashton,
Speaker 1: with whom he had been in a relationship with for
Speaker 1: six years since twenty fifteen. Mansfield asked for the jury
Speaker 1: to consider the context.
Speaker 2: Firstly, as a result of this and police investigation and
Speaker 2: the way in which they are conducting it, he has
Speaker 2: become entirely isolated.
Speaker 3: He is not getting.
Speaker 2: Support other than from his sister Ruth, with whom he
Speaker 2: is needing to stay during the period.
Speaker 3: Of time that this address is out of bounds.
Speaker 2: All others have been informed of the police suspicion, either
Speaker 2: by the media or had been told or.
Speaker 3: By word of mouth.
Speaker 2: The only person, and a person he has known for
Speaker 2: five or six years as has his wife is reaching
Speaker 2: out and communicating with him, And yeah, there's sexual discussion
Speaker 2: and sexual engagement within that entirely consistent with the nature
Speaker 2: of their relationship for that entiret period from twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: that entire period that both he and Pauline have known
Speaker 2: this woman and utilized her services and support.
Speaker 3: And I'll come back to that.
Speaker 2: And secondly, given that she's the only person that's reaching
Speaker 2: out to him, that's communicating with him, it is hardly
Speaker 2: surprising that their relationship draws close and of the kind
Speaker 2: that you.
Speaker 1: See discussed in that context, Polkinghorn's meeting with Ashton in
Speaker 1: Mount Cook Village twenty five days after Hannah's death can
Speaker 1: be understood. Mansfield said that isolation continued for sixteen months
Speaker 1: as police continued their investigation and then charged him with murder.
Speaker 2: He might have thought that was the final insult he
Speaker 2: would face and have to bear, the final insult he
Speaker 2: would need to address when it came to trial, But no,
Speaker 2: the final insult came when it was suggested that he
Speaker 2: was to be blamed for blaming his own wife for
Speaker 2: her own death. If you want to add insult to
Speaker 2: injury there you have it, and that is with the
Speaker 2: Crown knowing full well that the forensic material in this
Speaker 2: case does answer this case for you. It provides the
Speaker 2: complete answer and it always has it has provided the
Speaker 2: complete answer from the sixth of April, the date that
Speaker 2: the autopsy was conducted and the report was given.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said that the pathology and what was found at
Speaker 1: the house provides the complete answer that Tanner sadly died
Speaker 1: by a partial or incomplete hanging. When you look at
Speaker 1: the scene fairly, it was entirely consistent with Polkinghorn's police interview.
Speaker 1: He said, the.
Speaker 2: Answer has always been in the pathology. The answer is
Speaker 2: still in the pathology. The problem is the answer doesn't
Speaker 2: justify the way in which doctor Polkinghorn was treated. The
Speaker 2: answer doesn't justify how long his address was under the
Speaker 2: control of the police so that they could search it
Speaker 2: in the way that they did.
Speaker 3: The answer doesn't.
Speaker 2: Justify the very long way he had to wait until
Speaker 2: he found out that he was going to be accused
Speaker 2: of his wife's death, and it justified or answer why
Speaker 2: we're here today. So they had to seek to justify
Speaker 2: it through some other means by seeking to build a
Speaker 2: motive for a crime. That has simply not been conducted,
Speaker 2: a murder that has not been committed, And that is why,
Speaker 2: and that is the only reason why. The absence of
Speaker 2: pathology that helps him, the absence of forensic evidence from
Speaker 2: the scene, the absence of any other evidence that you
Speaker 2: would ordinarily find associated with a homicide. That is why
Speaker 2: we have been here weeks touring through potential motives for
Speaker 2: a crime that has not been committed, For a murder
Speaker 2: that has not occurred.
Speaker 3: He has needed to.
Speaker 2: Effectively take over and prosecute as if he needed to
Speaker 2: establish that his wife died by way of suicide, even
Speaker 2: though he has no onus or burden to prove anything.
Speaker 2: And that you might think is entirely consistent with an
Speaker 2: innocent man who finally gets an opportunity to establish his
Speaker 2: innocence before our community, some of which has already condemned
Speaker 2: him before having heard any evidence. This has been a
Speaker 2: trial prosecuted by emotion, and where the victim is logic.
Speaker 3: A trial run by emotion.
Speaker 2: Allows our murder mystery fantasies to run wild. And what
Speaker 2: a blockbuster by learn of friends closing address was to
Speaker 2: you our own very own modern day murder mystery.
Speaker 3: It was like a binge of every murder.
Speaker 2: She wrote, all in one session, by our own, our
Speaker 2: very own Angela Lansbury presenting, or I suppose more correctly
Speaker 2: put she was presenting the script written by the police.
Speaker 3: The murder.
Speaker 2: The police wrote the murder they started writing immediately after
Speaker 2: the tension check.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said, of the four pathologists heard in the case,
Speaker 1: only two had potential examples of this phantom theory of
Speaker 1: a potential death by way of homicidal strangulation but leaving
Speaker 1: no injury at all.
Speaker 2: Is this where we are to see this particular case
Speaker 2: falling to be that exception, to be that phantom, to
Speaker 2: be that case where despite the absence of any expected
Speaker 2: injury from a homicidal strangulation, there is none.
Speaker 3: We have unmarked the phantom.
Speaker 2: Folks apparently, and it's doctor Polkinghorn.
Speaker 1: It's a phantom murder that none of the four pathologists
Speaker 1: had been able to confirm themselves, Mansfield said. In Polkinghorn,
Speaker 1: without any training in martial arts, without being a big
Speaker 1: or strong man, while yes he did brag about his fitness,
Speaker 1: managed to kill his wife without leaving any of the
Speaker 1: telltale signs.
Speaker 2: It sounds absurd because it is it sounds unachievable because.
Speaker 1: It is if that is the way this case is
Speaker 1: being prosecuted based on this theory, this phantom that potentially exists,
Speaker 1: that tells you a great deal, said Mansfield. He said
Speaker 1: that the pathology is evidence based, and the two defense
Speaker 1: pathologists said they would have reported this death by way
Speaker 1: of hanging, and there's no need to leave it open.
Speaker 1: In cases of a strangling of an intimate partner, the
Speaker 1: red mist comes down and the assailants don't care about
Speaker 1: if they're leaving injury. But there are none on Hannah's neck,
Speaker 1: which you'd expect in a partial or a complete hanging.
Speaker 1: There were no injuries on Hannah from her fighting for
Speaker 1: her life, none of the scratches or bruises that can
Speaker 1: occur as she fought back and trying to release the
Speaker 1: pressure for coverage of other news events in New Zealand.
Speaker 1: Listen to the front page The Herald's daily News podcast
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts onto the injury to Polkinghorn's head.
Speaker 1: If that injury was left by Hannah, there was no
Speaker 1: signs in her nails, nor in her three rings. It's
Speaker 1: an injury. Polkinghorn didn't even know he had Mansfield said.
Speaker 2: And you might think, as a matter of logic, if
Speaker 2: he had been involved in an altercation with her where
Speaker 2: there was some form of struggle and he sustained any
Speaker 2: form of injury, then he would know and might seek
Speaker 2: to attend to that that he might have an explanation
Speaker 2: for it, given he's the master manipulator when he's asked
Speaker 2: about it, as he was at the scene by the
Speaker 2: attending ambulance and by the police.
Speaker 1: The other injuries to Hannah's body, like her nose, her back,
Speaker 1: her bruises on her arm, could not be shown to
Speaker 1: be consistent with any assault or altercation that might occur
Speaker 1: between two people in a homicidal strangulation. Mansfield said.
Speaker 2: The crowns say you should use your logic and consider
Speaker 2: them as consistent with an assault, because the Crown has to.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it point to some form of injury of an assault,
Speaker 2: even though on the evidence it's not there.
Speaker 3: Because the Crown wants you to accept.
Speaker 2: Its emotional plea that this was a homicidal strangulation which must,
Speaker 2: by its varying nature, have incurred some struggle at some
Speaker 2: time for some length, and the Crown, once it realized
Speaker 2: that the absence of those kinds of injuries was a
Speaker 2: real problem for its case. And despite the proferet or
Speaker 2: advice you have had from four pathologists tells you that
Speaker 2: logically you should consider these injuries as consistent with an assault,
Speaker 2: entirely contrary with.
Speaker 3: The evidence that you have heard in this trial. That's
Speaker 3: not logic.
Speaker 2: That's the crown and you going rogue if you agree
Speaker 2: with that kind of approach.
Speaker 1: Blood pulling in her legs and the disappearing belt mark
Speaker 1: also fit with her death being a suicide, Mansfield said. Next,
Speaker 1: the defense lawyer told the jury he'd take them through
Speaker 1: the relationship between husband and wife and the use of math.
Speaker 2: It's murder, one oh one. For there to be a murder,
Speaker 2: their first must be a culpable homicide. And we've already
Speaker 2: discussed whether on the forensic evidence you have before you,
Speaker 2: a case where a culpable homicide, so a strangulation, homicidal
Speaker 2: strangulation has been established, and it hasn't. Every good murder
Speaker 2: mystery starts at that point. Someone dies, usually in the
Speaker 2: first five minutes, and usually the death is obvious, as
Speaker 2: is the cause. The real issue is looking for who
Speaker 2: might be the perpetrator of it. Here we can't even
Speaker 2: start from that position. But a lot of time in
Speaker 2: this trial has been invested in creating the villain that
Speaker 2: every murder mystery requires.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said that Alicia McClintock's framing of Polkinghorn as the
Speaker 1: master manipulator is designed to turn the jury off his client.
Speaker 1: He said that the Crown solicitor has attributed an arrogance
Speaker 1: to Polkinghorn not born out by the evidence.
Speaker 2: None of us would want to be exposed as the
Speaker 2: two individuals the subject of this prosecution have ended up
Speaker 2: being exposed, but no one more so than doctor Polkinghorn.
Speaker 2: His entire lifestyle has been laid bare. I would say,
Speaker 2: unnecessarily before you simply to create the villain that the
Speaker 2: Crown want you to see him as.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said, Polkinghorn had a number of faults and some
Speaker 1: members of the jury may see his traits or conduct
Speaker 1: as something they might not like in a friend or partner.
Speaker 1: But this is not a court of morals. That includes
Speaker 1: not judging his meth use or his use of sex workers.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said the evidence shows that Hannah was involved at
Speaker 1: the outset of the relationship between Polkinghorn and Ashton in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, and spoke of his use of sex workers
Speaker 1: in the Longlands recording where she was less concerned about
Speaker 1: sex workers and more that her husband was seeing a
Speaker 1: woman in Auckland. Mansfield asked the jury not to put
Speaker 1: their values on other people, and this is how Hannah
Speaker 1: and Polkinghorn chose to live their life, and she made
Speaker 1: her own choices in twenty nineteen around those relationships. He
Speaker 1: said that Hannah was independent, intelligent, and earning an incredibly
Speaker 1: good salary and would have been entitled to her share
Speaker 1: of around ten point five million dollars worth of assets
Speaker 1: if they separated. Mansfield said it would have been divided
Speaker 1: between the two of them. He said messages from the
Speaker 1: end of twenty two twenty and early twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: show that Hannah and Polkinghorn still loved and supported each
Speaker 1: other despite how they operated their relationship, and there's no
Speaker 1: evidence Polkinghorn wanted to run off with Ashton. That might
Speaker 1: have changed after Hannah's death when he was isolated and desperate.
Speaker 1: There were clear tensions behind some of the things Hannah said,
Speaker 1: such as the dispute at Auckland die but Hannah made
Speaker 1: it clear to her family that she was not physically
Speaker 1: battered despite Polkinghorn being beastly. Mansfield said he can't comment
Speaker 1: on the recollections of the readings of a dinner with Hannah,
Speaker 1: in which she allegedly described Polkinghorn attempting to strangle her.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not going to suggest that Physic and John
Speaker 2: read and are liars.
Speaker 3: But I am going to.
Speaker 2: Sedest that you need to look with Kia at what
Speaker 2: they say when you contrast that against what she was
Speaker 2: clearly saying to her own Bruce and Rose at Longlands.
Speaker 2: I'm not physically bettered, i am not abused. I am safe, Darling,
Speaker 2: Please think I am safe. I'm not a scapegoat or
Speaker 2: a door mare.
Speaker 1: There is absolutely no other evidence of physical violence in
Speaker 1: Hannah and Polkinghorn's relationship. He said. To go from no
Speaker 1: violence to controlling and violence doesn't fit comfortably with what
Speaker 1: others report of their relationship, Mansfield said. Onto auckland I
Speaker 1: and the issues there, Mansfield said Polkinghorn's anger was not
Speaker 1: about money, but about getting less than two doctors who
Speaker 1: had left acrimoniously despite him being a founder of the clinic.
Speaker 1: Onto the mathe Use, Mansfield said Crown witness Dr Emma
Speaker 1: Schwartz's evidence was that people who use myth might be
Speaker 1: prone to increased violence, but she made it clear it
Speaker 1: wasn't a risk for everyone who used math or even
Speaker 1: those with a meth use disorder. It would be hard
Speaker 1: to understand why polking Horn would resort to violence when
Speaker 1: it hadn't been a signature of their relationship, says Mansfield.
Speaker 2: And you might just see that from the basic stats
Speaker 2: that exist within our community regarding methamphetamine use. It's everywhere.
Speaker 2: And if everyone who used methamphetamine and the kind of
Speaker 2: way that we know doctor Polkinghorn used methamphetamin became violent
Speaker 2: or became homicidal all of a sudden, then our courts
Speaker 2: would be even fuller than they are, and considerably so.
Speaker 1: Thirty seven point seven grams of math may have been
Speaker 1: found at the Upland Road home, but Mansfield said there's
Speaker 1: no evidence of Polkinghorn's meth use and that just represents
Speaker 1: how much had been bought at one time. Mansfield said
Speaker 1: there's no evidence of Polkinghorn having turned agitated because of
Speaker 1: meth use, with only one reprimand at Auckland Eye for
Speaker 1: being critical of support staff. Meth can linger in urine
Speaker 1: for up to seven days in regular users, so the
Speaker 1: meth found in the toilet water in Hannah's bathroom might
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with its use the night of
Speaker 1: her death, Mansfield said, and the investigation into the discovery
Speaker 1: of the sweet puff pipe at Auckland Eye in October
Speaker 1: twenty twenty did not prove conclusively that it belonged to Polkinghorn,
Speaker 1: and meth traces were also found in other consultation rooms.
Speaker 1: Paramedics and the police officer who took Polkinghorn's first statement
Speaker 1: didn't notice anything to suggest he was on a come
Speaker 1: down from meth use. Onto sex workers, Mansfield said, Polkinghorn
Speaker 1: developed an interest the lives of these women and the
Speaker 1: fact he helped them with personal and financial issues says
Speaker 1: a great deal about him. Ultimately, the use of sex
Speaker 1: workers may have been another factor that led to Hannah
Speaker 1: feeling down and seeking to take her own life.
Speaker 4: Mansfield said, if a relationship was tested, if she fared
Speaker 4: being on her own, or she was.
Speaker 2: Concerned about how that might appear to others, especially if
Speaker 2: the concern related to medicineation are known. A well known
Speaker 2: sex worker in Australia that might have had an impact
Speaker 2: on her that impacted on a decision to take her
Speaker 2: own life that morning. The problem with the crown theory
Speaker 2: regarding his relationship with sex workers equally applies to providing
Speaker 2: another risk factor for Pauline that might have meant that
Speaker 2: she saw suicide as a decision for her that morning.
Speaker 3: It seems odd, you.
Speaker 2: Might think, when if he was interested in a relationship
Speaker 2: with medicination aught along and Pauline was in the way,
Speaker 2: he couldn't just separate as they had discussed in twenty
Speaker 2: nineteen and go their own way, he said.
Speaker 1: The Crown relies on a number of actions they say
Speaker 1: were inconsistent with a grieving husband, such as the search
Speaker 1: for leg edema after strangulation. Mansfield said that with police
Speaker 1: giving him no information, Polkinghorn wanted to know why the
Speaker 1: death was still being considered suspicious.
Speaker 2: There is nothing indicative of this search unmasking the murderer
Speaker 2: as promoters. That is just scare tactics and frankly quite bizarre.
Speaker 2: He is not simply conducting a search checking to see
Speaker 2: whether he left behind a clue. What he's endeavoring to
Speaker 2: do is to find out why it's thought that his
Speaker 2: wife's death was suspicious and whether the swelling he's noted
Speaker 2: in her leg might be indicative of that concern, and
Speaker 2: you know it wasn't. It wasn't indicative of that concern,
Speaker 2: because that kind of swelling is indicative of death by
Speaker 2: way of homicidal strangulation as much as it is death
Speaker 2: by way of suicide.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said that police had no reason to influence Paul
Speaker 1: Adrian's into not making a statement other than saying people
Speaker 1: don't have to talk to police onto Alison Ring. Interactions
Speaker 1: between the two souring was understandable, but there's nothing suspicious
Speaker 1: in him showing her the note he believed to be
Speaker 1: a suer side note from Hannah. On the Crown's suggestion
Speaker 1: that Polkinghorn planted blood on the steps of his home
Speaker 1: to explain his head injury, there was no evidence otherwise
Speaker 1: of any altercation with Hannah, and the injury to his
Speaker 1: head could be described as nonspecific, Mansfield said. Polkinghorn always
Speaker 1: knew there was going to be the risk of contamination,
Speaker 1: and the report furnished to the Crown makes that clear,
Speaker 1: but consistent with an innocent man. He went to the
Speaker 1: expense of enlisting overseas expert Dr Timothy Scanlon to assess
Speaker 1: that area.
Speaker 4: Mansfield said, why would you go to that cost and
Speaker 4: face that obvious criticism unless you were driven to prove
Speaker 4: as beast you could that you didn't have an altercation
Speaker 4: with your wife and this was not an injury caused
Speaker 4: by that altercation, even though you knew that.
Speaker 2: But no pathologist, no doctor could say it was specific
Speaker 2: of an altercation, And if there had been an altercation,
Speaker 2: they would have expected quite different injuries to different parts
Speaker 2: of both of them. The reality is that that evidence,
Speaker 2: despite criticism, simply establishes his motivation to establish his innocence.
Speaker 1: And onto the blood found between Hannah's fingers.
Speaker 2: Not one pathologist placed any weight on the blood that
Speaker 2: could be found between her fingers as indicative or of
Speaker 2: assistance to you in relation to the manner upon which
Speaker 2: your death might have occurred. And that's relevant, folks, because
Speaker 2: now the crown seek to rely on that is somehow
Speaker 2: indicative of it being a homicidal killing.
Speaker 3: Rather than death.
Speaker 2: By way of hanging, whereas the expert evidence you have
Speaker 2: heard tends to suggest that also.
Speaker 1: Other factors like redness on Hannah's legs, bruises on her
Speaker 1: right arm, and the disappearing beltmark are consistent with what
Speaker 1: Polkinghorn reported about Hannah's death. When you think about the
Speaker 1: suggestion that he is a master manipulator, Mansfield asked the
Speaker 1: jury to consider the other aspects of Polkinghorn. Mansfield turned
Speaker 1: to people who spoke highly of the accused, noting that
Speaker 1: they do so despite knowing they'd be named and associated
Speaker 1: with him. He referenced colleagues and patients who thought highly
Speaker 1: of him, of how Polkinghorn would wave fees on surgeries
Speaker 1: for those who couldn't afford them, even meeting them on weekends.
Speaker 1: Despite this, Mansfield said, Polkinghorn is not a perfect man,
Speaker 1: but none of us are, and the jury can't deliver
Speaker 1: just if they only focus on the negative.
Speaker 2: None of us would like all our messages drawled through
Speaker 2: our inter net searchers, reviewed by others, or our personal
Speaker 2: lives turned upside down in the way in which his
Speaker 2: life and his wife's life was turned upside down as
Speaker 2: a necessity because of this allegation. None of us could
Speaker 2: stand there and say we are perfect, and none of
Speaker 2: us would try if we knew that that kind of
Speaker 2: review of our lives would take place. There would always
Speaker 2: be things we wouldn't want others to know, and there
Speaker 2: would always be things that we would want to keep
Speaker 2: to ourselves and not be judged for. If you expect
Speaker 2: that for yourself, I just asked that you expect and
Speaker 2: ensure that for him.
Speaker 3: Police.
Speaker 1: Paulkinghorn didn't need to provide his voluntary statement to police,
Speaker 1: Mansfield said, but he thought he was doing justice to Hannah.
Speaker 2: If he was this intelligent master manipulator, then he would
Speaker 2: be in that interview driving home a couple of things.
Speaker 2: He would be in that interview driving home how he
Speaker 2: found his wife, and being very clear around the arrangement,
Speaker 2: the way in which the rope was tied, how long
Speaker 2: it was horrod was connected to the belt, and how
Speaker 2: the belt was around her neck.
Speaker 3: He would be able to.
Speaker 2: Tell you about that with clarity or the detective, because
Speaker 2: that would be key to the very setup he's meant
Speaker 2: to have made this mocked suicide. What would be the
Speaker 2: point of going to this effort of showing a mock
Speaker 2: suicide in then not being able to tell the police
Speaker 2: with some accuracy around how it was.
Speaker 1: If Polkinghorn was a mastermind, cold blooded killer, he wouldn't
Speaker 1: have got Hannah down and covered her with a sheet.
Speaker 1: Despite what people think about his interest with sex workers
Speaker 1: and fascination with pornography. Polkinghorn loved Hannah and she loved him.
Speaker 1: Man's Field said he told the jury those who have
Speaker 1: had long term relationships or friendships will know they're not
Speaker 1: always perfect. Onto the evidence from the electricity experts, Mansfield said,
Speaker 1: both of them said the washing machine could have been
Speaker 1: used up until eleven thirty pm the night before her death.
Speaker 1: That's important because it shows her large acrylic toenail did
Speaker 1: not come off in the fight. On Hannah's room, Mansfield
Speaker 1: said it was not disheveled, but in a state of
Speaker 1: being tidied, and Hannah had planned on finishing doing the
Speaker 1: washing later. Mansfield then addressed Hannah's trip to the tip
Speaker 1: and said it showed she knew where the rope was.
Speaker 1: He said there also isn't any evidence of the rope
Speaker 1: being cut that night.
Speaker 2: Doctor Polkinghorn talks and his interview about handling the rope
Speaker 2: days earlier and sealing the rope by burning the inns.
Speaker 2: He doesn't talk about two ripes and a fair in
Speaker 2: the interview. He seems very confused by the suggestion that
Speaker 2: there were two ropes, which adds weight to this point
Speaker 2: I've made earlier that if he had secured the rope
Speaker 2: to secure her in a way to mask her death
Speaker 2: by suicide, he would know whether there was one or
Speaker 2: two ropes and make it very clear, because why would
Speaker 2: he not want to look very clear about that? But
Speaker 2: there was no rope cut as part of the exercise
Speaker 2: of Pauline taking her own life. If so, there would
Speaker 2: have been tailtale signs of rope fiber found in that
Speaker 2: house and around, and Fiona Mathison would have found it
Speaker 2: because she was specifically looking for it.
Speaker 1: He said. It's pointless to view Polkinghorn's phone being placed
Speaker 1: on airplane mode as being suspicious, as the only benefit
Speaker 1: of this would be to track his movements if he
Speaker 1: left the address, which no one in this case is.
Speaker 1: Polkinghorn only remembered his phone was on airplane mode after
Speaker 1: his one one one call, and he told police about
Speaker 1: the airplane mode situation, Mansfield said. Polkinghorn also never said
Speaker 1: he turned on the toaster and the jug at the
Speaker 1: same time, only that he put toast in the toaster.
Speaker 2: It needed to be responded to because this suggestion he
Speaker 2: didn't turn the jag on and put toast and the
Speaker 2: toaster became a key point for the Crown in trying
Speaker 2: to establish he was telling lies. Believe it or not,
Speaker 2: Tea and Toast was meant to disclose whether he was truthful.
Speaker 1: Removing the belt from around Hannah's neck and lying her
Speaker 1: down is entirely a natural consequence and would not have
Speaker 1: been convoluted. Polkinghorn's account of the rope matches with the evidence,
Speaker 1: and the rope expert confirmed the knot would have held
Speaker 1: Hannah's weight, Mansfield said. On the cut on his head,
Speaker 1: Polkinghorn told the police he didn't know how he got it,
Speaker 1: but one of the Crown prosecutors described it as a cut,
Speaker 1: not a scratch. Mansfield said it could have happened at
Speaker 1: any occasion. On Hannah's mental health, Mansfield said the death
Speaker 1: of her mother, fears of Polkinghorn seeing someone else, the
Speaker 1: combination of medication and alcohol, and her perfectionist attitude can
Speaker 1: contribute to poor mental health or depression. Mansfield said there's
Speaker 1: no evidence she was dragged after her death, or that
Speaker 1: there was a fight between the two that left her
Speaker 1: with no injuries.
Speaker 2: It's implausible tissitis that could happen, that her life could
Speaker 2: be taken by way of a homicidal strangulation, and there
Speaker 2: be no injury and or a sign anywhere in that
Speaker 2: bedroom consistent with that. No urine, no blood, no DNA nothing,
Speaker 2: no damage, no scrape, no dragging, nothing.
Speaker 1: The other suggestion put to the jury by the Crown
Speaker 1: is that Polkinghorn did it by stealth, that he managed
Speaker 1: to achieve his wife's death without leaving an injury, and
Speaker 1: he was able to bring her downstairs to mock up
Speaker 1: the hanging. Mansfield said this suggestion made no sense as
Speaker 1: there was no premeditation, no planning, no evidence he planned
Speaker 1: to kill his wife. He alleges this is some of
Speaker 1: the most gravest nonsense New Zealand courts had heard for
Speaker 1: a long time. Continuing on mental health, Mansfield addressed to
Speaker 1: the evidence of Hannah's sister Tracy. Mansfield said he fully
Speaker 1: accepts anxiety and depression can come and go, but said
Speaker 1: it's important not to lose sight of the evidence about
Speaker 1: Hannah's mental health issues. He reminded the jury of evidence
Speaker 1: from Hannah's sister, Tracy Hannah, who claimed Hannah told her
Speaker 1: she'd tried to kill herself back in nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 1: who Mansfield said that the suggestion Tracy has lied about.
Speaker 1: This is unfortunate.
Speaker 2: She was upfront and told you what she knew in
Speaker 2: the extent of it, and she was text about what
Speaker 2: she did or didn't do back then when she was
Speaker 2: a young person herself, and she needed to respond to
Speaker 2: that as be she could, and entirely emotional circumstances. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I obviously endorsed that evidence as reliable was given to
Speaker 2: the police. It was consistently given to you, and it
Speaker 2: wasn't embellished in any way that you might expect it
Speaker 2: could have been if it was aimed at assisting one
Speaker 2: party over the other.
Speaker 1: Mansfield said that Hannah had tensions with her brother Bruce
Speaker 1: over dealings with their family farm. He said that in
Speaker 1: Hannah's own words in the Longlands recording, she spoke about
Speaker 1: not being physically battered, though perhaps emotionally so, and that
Speaker 1: she loved Polkinghorn and didn't want to leave him, despite
Speaker 1: knowing other men who fancied her. Mansfield said no one
Speaker 1: was forcing her to participate in the sexual activity with
Speaker 1: sex workers, and when she wanted to stop, she did.
Speaker 1: Hannah's own emails detail how Polkinghorn was being supportive during
Speaker 1: her work stresses. Other witnesses testified about noticing Hannah's stress.
Speaker 1: In early twenty twenty one, Hannah's boss approached her over
Speaker 1: her habit of sending emails early in the morning. In closing,
Speaker 1: Mansfield said, there cannot be a suggestion that Hannah was
Speaker 1: trapped from a relationship that she couldn't exit. If Polkinghorn
Speaker 1: didn't realize how good he had it, that's a matter
Speaker 1: for the couple. And there's a difference between being selfish
Speaker 1: or self focused and taking someone's life emotions aside. All
Speaker 1: the evidence clearly establishes that Pauline died by suicide. Mansfield said,
Speaker 1: there is.
Speaker 2: No justice for Pauline if you ignore her vulnerabilities and
Speaker 2: do not respect the decision she took. That is not respect,
Speaker 2: That is not understanding, and that is not following your oath.
Speaker 2: It is just being emotional vigilantes. We all need to
Speaker 2: expect more. The decision you make must be on the evidence,
Speaker 2: that is the oath that you swore. It can't be
Speaker 2: based on emotion, and it can't be based on a
Speaker 2: foundless theory that he wanted her out of his life
Speaker 2: and he was prepared to kill her, for which there
Speaker 2: is no forensic evidence to support. Hold him morally to
Speaker 2: account if need be, as he has been in this
Speaker 2: very public way. But you cannot convict a man of
Speaker 2: murder when they did not do it out of anger
Speaker 2: or sympathy, let alone the man poorly loved with all
Speaker 2: her heart.
Speaker 3: Is that the way she should be remembered.
Speaker 2: If you believe in the need for evidence of a
Speaker 2: crime before you convict any man, the crown obligation to
Speaker 2: prove a charge here at deliberate killing to the required standard,
Speaker 2: and you believe in honoring your oath, you already know
Speaker 2: the correct verdict in this case, and it's not necessary
Speaker 2: for me to tell you.
Speaker 1: You can listen to episodes of Accused the Polkinghorn Trial
Speaker 1: through the Front Page podcast feed or find it on
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. This series is
Speaker 1: presented and produced by me Chelsea Daniels, with producer Ethan
Speaker 1: Siles and sound engineer Patti Fox. Additional reporting from The
Speaker 1: Heralds Craig Capatan, George Block, and Katie Harris. And for
Speaker 1: more coverage of the Polkinghorn Trial, head to Ends at
Speaker 1: Harold dot Co dot enz