FIRE OF QUESTIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 134, 8 June 1934, Page 8

FIRE OF QUESTIONS.

PATHOLOGISTS LONG EVIDENCE.

VALIDITY OF TESTS CHALLENGED.

THIRD WEEK OF BAYLY TRIAL.

The results of Crown experiments in burning a body, the manner in which Mrs. Lakey met her death, and the nature of tests made for blood were three subjects on which Dr. Walter Gilmour, one of the chief Crown witnesses at the trial of William Alfred Bayly, was minutely cross-examined this morning.

This is the third week of the trial, and many more Crown witnesses are yet to be called.

Shortly after the resumption of the hearing this afternoon the cross-examination of Dr. Gilmour by Mr. Leary ended, and re-examination by Mr. Meredith commenced.

HOW IT BURNED.

TEST WITH SHEEP.

DEFENCE QUESTIONS. LONG CROSS-EXAMINATION. LARGE CROWD IN COURT. Attracted 110 doubt by the anticipated cross-examination of Dr. Walter Gilmour by Mr. L. P. Leary, one of the biggest crowds that has so far attended the- trial assembled outside the Supreme Court this morning. Among the members of the public who followed the questions of defence counstl and the answers of the pathological expert with intense interest were 6cveral well-known medical men. Long before the doors of the Court were opened shortly before 10 o'clock, queries of men and women had formed octside the main doors, and, in contrast to the interest taken on other days of the trial, more, men than women waited outside throughout the morning in the hope of having an opportunity, to hear the opinions of the expert. Most of them were disappointed, for few, once they had fought their way inside the Court, left their vantage points. Two petrol drums used by the Crown to carry out their experiments in the burning of the bodies of animals were brought into Court this morning, as well as sheets of corrugated iron, which Dr. Gilmour explained had been placed round the drum to cause draught. i

Mr. Justice Herdman is presiding at the trial and the Crown case is conducted by Mr. V. R. Meredith and Mr. F McCarthy, while Bayly is defended by Mr. E. H. Northcroft and Mr. L. P. Deary, instructed by Mr. B. B. Lusk. Reference to the notes of the second burning experiment mentioned when the Court was about to rise last evening was made by his Honor before cross-exami-nation of Dr. Gilmour started this morning. "I propose to cross-examine on all the burnings," said Mr. Leary in reply to a question by the Judge.

His Honor: You are not obliged to, Mr. Leary.

Mr. Leary: I think the jury should have all the /acts.

His Honor: That simplifies matters then.

Mr. Leary continued his cross-exami-nation of Dr. Gilmour.

Mr. Leary: You made no reference in the Police Court as to the question of burning a body in a nlglit?—No. Were you in a position, then, to eay it was possible to burn a human body in a night?— Yes. Well, why did you not give some evidence on it ?—I was not asked. Did you advise the Crown that it was possible to burn a body ?—Yes. You will concede that it is peculiar the Crown did not lead such evidence? —No. Details of Experiments. The witness said that in the first experiment a fat ewe was used. The quantity of fat delayed the burning very markedly? The second test took place at Mr. Meredith's house, in the back yard. A ram weighing 1421b was burned in a 40ftallon drum. Two sheets of corrugated iron were used to create a draught. A sack and a half of tea-tree was used as fuel. At the same time a gum boot, a pair of light boots, a denture with one tooth missing and a pair of palmernap trousers were burned. At the end of 6.J hours from lighting nothing was left but the entrails.

Mr. Leary: These were pushed back into the flame and left for two and a half hours. By this time everything was completely burnt? —Everything of the body was completely burnt.

If that is so will you explain how you picked out the larger pieces of,bone? — That means bone ash.

Mr. Griffin took out the biggest bones? —Yes.

Are we to believe that the false teeth were consumed as well? —Mr. Griffin will tell you that. I was only concerned with the body. Well, I ask you now to tell us whether they -were burnt? —Yes, they were. Were the defence invited to be present at these experiments?—l don't know. Box of Sheep Bones. "We will have a look at the Bones now," said Mr. Leary. The box of sheep bones was produced by Dr. Gilmour, who also produced a piecc of wool from the sheep to show the length of the wool. When these were being shown to the jury, Mr. Leary said he was not putting-them as an exhibit. His Honor: I thought they were being put in, Mr. Leary? Mr'. Leary: No, sir. We were not present at the burning experiment. The other side can put them in if they like. The' exhibit was returned to Dr. Gilmour, who was then, cross-examined by Mr v Leary on. blood tests he had carried . OUt. : Details of Blood Tests. When Mr. Leary asked for the details of the tests, Dr. Gilmour replied: "I have not the details before me, merelv the-results." J C .? nCe . rncd c Wefly with Bayly's " Wh * t »«=•

Mr. Leary: What have you got to say to that, doctor?—l don't endorse it. What objection have you got to it?— Because the test gives reaction with a number of substances other than blood. I can also 6ay — Mr. Leary: Doctor, please tell me— Mr. Meredith complained that Mr. Leary was not allowing the witness to answer his questions. Mr. Leary: I am conducting this crossexamination. Mr. Meredith: My friend has recited only part of the passage and has not read the final part. Mr. Leary: Very well, doctor, please continue to answer my question as to your objection to the high authority I have quoted. Dr. Gilmour: I disagree that the benzidin test gives uncertain results with small quantities of blood. It is stated that benzidin will give a reaction with blood that has been diluted one in 50,000 times. My experience of its use is that with blood the colour reaction occurs immediately. It is a marked blue colour. A substance such as cow manure is much more intense in colour and does not occur with the same rapidity, due to the green in cow manure.

Mr. Leary: This is a trial for murder. You would not rely only on the benzidin test for blood in a medico-legal matter? —No. This was not the only test I carried out. Mr. Leary quoted from Lucas, a recognised authority, and accepted as such by Dr. Gilmour, but witness failed to agree in some respects. His Honor: Is it necessary to have all these passages taken dowi;. Mr. Leary? Can we not just take the authority and the page ? . Mr. Leary: It is important, and I do want them all down. I think this is the last one. • His Honor: I do not wish 3'ou to restrict yourself in any way. If it is desirable wo will have it. Mr. Leary: It is preferable that they should be taken down. "We Cannot Hear." Both Dr. Gilmour ' and Mr. Leary started talking together, and it was difficult to gather what was being said. The foreman of the jury rose and said, "Your Honor, a member of the jury wants to know if the witness can go on without being interrupted. We cannot hear what he is saying. Mr. Leary: Did you test the fabric alone? Dr. Gilmour: No. I Mr. Leary: The most you can affirm is that the blood appears to be human and definitely affirm that it is not I sheep?— No. I On three of the stains oil the trou--1 sera you made a composite test?— Yes.

Dr. Gilmour then rend from his notes: "Bayly's blue dungarees, human stains.'' Mr. Leary: And on the knife? Dr. Gilmour: Human blood on knife. What of the sledge?— Human blood positive."

On Bayly's pea rifle? —Blood present on under surface of barrel —unable to determine if human."

In your evidence last night you said that in the testing of the trousers you started with the benzidin test, and then in some cases you examined for crystals and in some cases you used the precipitin test? —I used the precipitin test in all cases 011 the trousers. Who prepared the anti-serum ?—The Commonwealth Laboratory. You simply have their word for it that it was human anti-serum ?—Yes, I had their test tube. I tested it with known human scrum, and sheep and pig scrum. Is that everything?— That is ample. You won't come along with any other later on?—I might have used control tests. Ah, ah, I thought so!—I am telling you the routine. 1 cannot tell you the control tests. • But it is of the highest importance. Well, then, what is the routine? Dr. Gilmour described in detail the routine. "When I came to do the actual human test," he said, "the controls I used were human blood<" serum one in 1000 and sheep serum diluted one in 50." Mr. Leary: So far as you are concerned, the only control tests you can swear to are in this particular tube? Dr. Gilmour: That is so. When you make a test, if what you are testing is human blood you get a reaction- in the test tube? —Yes; a certain cloudiness appears. Then you know it is human blood?— Yes. You tell us the cloudiness appeared 011 the bloodstains on Bayly's trousers? —Yes. Nothing more was done?— Yes, after getting the extract properly prepared and labelled. That completes tlie routine?— Yes. Having used the saline solution for the test, is it any use for another purpose?—No, it was thrown out. There was very little left. So we arc in the unhappy position of [ not being able to carry out any check tests?—No, I'm afraid you will have to accept my word. Mr. Leary: Well, we are not prepared to yet. Validity of Test Challenged. Counsel questioned the pathologist at length concerning tho routine of the benzidin test. He quoted Professor Glaister in "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" as stating: "We do not put our trust in the benzidin test and have completely abandoned it for the reason chiefly that the reaction obtained from the presence of minute amounts of known blood is uncertain and doubtful, and also because • a reaction may be produced by substances other than blood."

The benzidin test was inconclusive that it was human blood?— Yes.

Let us assume that the smallest was a fruit stain. Would you have not got a positive from the other two? —Yes, but I disagree that there was a fruit stain.

Well, wc will see. We know that besides the precipitin test the only other test was the benzidin test and that is not conclusive that it was human blood. So surely you cannot .say that the three tiny spots assembled for one precipitin te?t can be definitely established? —I will coneedc that, Mr. Leary. Extent of the Tests. When it is a case of life and death, had you sufficient of the saline solution, and this had been pointed out to you. you would have carried out these further tests I have outlined in fairness, would you not ?—Yes. We are unfortunate in that we could not make check tests and you arc unfortunate in not being able to carry the matter to its logical conclusion?— Yes. Now, doctor, wo will go back to the death of Mrs. Lakey. You conducted the second post-mortem after the body had been dissected and the organs exa mined ?—Yes. The vault of the skull was off and the brain out?— Yes. Putrefaction may have set in, in some, respects ?—Yes. You had not the same advantage had you examined her on the first day?— No. You found certain things yourself and you were told of others?— Yes. So far as your own observations went you found a congested condition of the eyes and half-opened lids and the congested condition of the windpipe and lungs ?—Yes. So far as those go they may be more accurately described as signs of asphyxiation than drowning?— Yes. Asphyxiation consists of the cutting off of oxygen from the blood?— Yes. There are a number of causes of asphyxia other than drowning?— Yes. The real problem in this case is to assign the cause of the asphyxiation you found ?—Yes. I suggest, doctor, a form of asphyxiation nii<rht arise from concussion from a blow that could not be defined as murder. but to a condition following coma? —Oh, yes. Coma is insensibility ending in death? —Not necessarily ending in death. It may end in death, though?— Yes. It is a brain condition?— Yes. Coma ending in death can be .said to be death commencing at the brain?— Yes. Coma can be caused bv other things— eoT.cussion or a blow?— Yes. One of the commonest forms of concussion is the knock-out blow in boxing?— Yes. Indeed, boxers sometimes die as a result of knock-out blows?— That is so. Cause of Mrs. Lakey's Death. Dr. Gilmour said there was no water in Mrs. Lakey's lungs, Mr. Leary: The doctors who'made the first post-mortem will be called, and Dr. MacFarland will say she did not. die of drowning?— Yes. You examined the abrasions?— Yes, but I don't think Dr. MacFarland mentioned the congestion of the windpipe. You found evidence of a severe blow, a knock-out blow. No man can tell how severe a blow would be needed to kill anybody. That would be capricious, would it not? —Yes. A blow might have been sufficient to kill her? —Yes, but it would not account for all the findings.

The fine distinction in this case is as to whether Mrs. La key ceased to breathe through a comatose condition, or whether she had the air cut off by water?— Yes, that is the distinction.

She was comatose, but there were no characteristic signs of drowning dtie to water in the lungs?—Xo.

Doctor, this is a very serious matter. Is there any possible room for doubt? —In my opinion, there is no room for doubt that she died from asphyxia due to drowning.

"There can be only one explanation of the cause of death," declared Dr. Gilmour in reply to further questions.

Mr. Leary: Supposing now that you knew nothing of Mrs. Lakev having been in the water. If she had been found not in the water but on the land, on the findings mentioned, would you go to the length of advising an insurance company to pay out on the footing of death by drowning?

Dr. Gilmour: No. My opinion is partly base-el on the fact that she was in the water. The findings point to death from asphyxia. There is no evidence that the air was cut off by strangling or other methods. The findings are not consistent with a comatoseasphyxia death. They are entirely consistent with a death due to the immersion of a face in water while deceased had not made a serious struggle for breath.

This matter is well discussed in medical books. Can you quote me anything which differentiates between asphyxia from coma and other forms of asphyxia? —No, because they do not go into details. I am going on my own experience. . So the distinction rests on your own experience?— Yes, my own experience and judgment and inference. What did you observe in Mrs. Lakey that was not typical of asphyxia? — Nothing. This froth that is said to exist makes some difference as to the cause of her death? —Yes, it would be from the water drawn into the nasal passages.

This would involve the taking into her nose of the water from the duck pond? —Yes. Where would the blood come from? — From some bleeding. It might be in her throat. If she was lying on the ground with her nose bleeding she would swallow some?— Yes. The first theory of Mrs. Lakey's death by drowning came from you? — Yes. Hair Found in Sheep Dip. Counsel then referred to the exhibit of hair found in Bayly's sheep dip. Can you tell us how long the tuft of hair was? It had no roots and had 'not been pulled out? —Yes. You received Mr. Lakey's hair brush? —Yes. You said you could tell the se:i by the coarseness of the hair?—No, I said it was like a man's hair because of its coarseness. Some women have coarse hair? —Yes. You have said there was blood on the hair. Did you make any tests at all?— I made the benzidin test and it gave a strong reaction. . It would not go in solution, as it probably was subjected to heat. There is nothing in the specimen which suggests its subjection to heat? —No, I can only assume its subjection to heat because it would not go in solution. Human hair singes easily, and surely that is a reason why this exhibit has not been heated?— That is not a good reason. Blood coagulates at a low temperature well below the boiling point of water. On the Crown hypothesis there was a flsinie, and the chances are that the hair [was in the flame?— Yes.

And the probabilities are very great that it would show some singeing?— Yes, if it had gone through fire.

Well, we will leave that just now and go to the bones. Over 00 pieces were identified as human? —Yes, 55 were from the human Ciktill and seven from other parts of the body. What was the weight of the bones definitely' identified as human?-—Just over four ounces. And what is the weight of a human skeleton?— About 10 pounds. Cross-examination Ends. After lunch. Dr. Gilmour said that most of the bones found were quite black. This was due.to animal matter in the bone. Mr. Leary: Assuming for the sake of argument that Mrs. Lakey's blood, the blood on the implement shed, the wheels and frame and the blood on Bayly's trousers had been grouped, very valuable inferences would have been available to the jury?— Yes. If two kinds of blood had been found on the Lakey property, then it would prove that two people had bled there?— Yes. If the blood of the suggested assailant is not of the same group as that of the victim it would be proved that the blood on the victim could not have come from the victim?— No.

Xovv doctor, take the converse, if the blood on the victim and on the assailant proved to be the same. That would show that the blood came from the victim?— Yes, but that wouldn't prove that it cam© from the victim but from another of the same blood group. Then the tests carried out arc likely to prove innocence rather than guilt?— Exactly, that is their value. This last, question closed Mr. Leary'e long cross-examination at 2.35 p.m. (Proceeding.)