CROWN EVIDENCE

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 143, 19 June 1934, Page 8

CROWN EVIDENCE

NEW INTERPRETATION COUNSEL'S SUGGESTIONS. INTENSE PUBLIC INTEREST. Boisterous weather with heavy rain squalls did not lessen public interest in the trial, and when Mr. Xorthcroft resumed his address to the jury shortly after ten this morning, one of the biggest crowds that has yet attended the hearing packed itself into the public parts of the Court. A queue of women waited shivering in the rain outaide, eager for an opportunity to hear counsel's defence. Mr. Xorthcroft methodically traversed the Crown's evidence in detail; challenging the Crown's reconstruction of ' the alleged crime, disputing the prosecutor's interpretation of specific points of evidence, and suggesting many alternative interpretations. It is not expected that the address will be completed until late this afternoon, and there is a strong possibility that it will continue to-morrow. There is also a suggestion that the jury will again visit Ruawaro, the scene of the alleged double murder. Four hours' travelling would be involved in such a visit, and it is thought that most of one day would be taken up. If the suggestion is carried out, it would appear likely that Mr. Justice Herdman not sum up before Thursday. Sitting next to second counsel for the defence. Mr. L. P. Leary, in the Court, was Mrs. William Bayly, wife of the accused, and seated in front of accused were his father, Mr. Frank Bayly, and father-in-law, Mr. Thomas Palmer. When the hearing was resumed this morning, Mr. Xorthcroft reminded the Court that at the adjournment last evening he was discussing various aspccts of the two cartridge Shells and the inferences drawn by the Crown from them. "These cartridges; to which significance was attached by the Crown, were the subject of almost incredible evidence by the experts'. They said that the cartridge case which was found in Lakey's garden was fired from Bayly's rifle. If that was so, it was fired on that Sunday, yet li was tarnished and had a spider's web in it. Detective Sneddon said it had not been used on the Sunday, or words to that effect. The Crown justified its exclusion because of its tarnished condition, yet identified it as having been fired from Bayly's rifle." Mr. Xorthcroft reiterated the views of Lord Campbell as to the danger of absolute reliance on the evidence of scientific witnesses, and said similar views had gone through generations of lawyers. "My friend, Mr. Meredith, with patient insistence, said that the cartridge case found in Bayly's house fell from Bayly's pocket," stated Mr. Xorthcroft. "There is no evidence of that at all. We have been told that these trousers were picked up by a detective from a child's cot. Gentlemen, it may have fallen from the clothes 011 the cot. It may well be that the chubby fingers of the children had picked it up. Anyway, not a scrap of evidence' is there that it came from Bayly's pocket. Further, it was not handed to Bayly. ] will remind you of his speculative, reply, Bayly said, in reference to the cartridge, 'That will be from .my rifle.' So there is 110 positive evidence leading to the identity of this particular shell. Possibility of Confusion. "That was on "October 21. The cartridge found at Lakey's had already been discovered and both cartridges, were out of their containers <511 that same evening, because we find Detective Sneddon telling us that 'We' compared the shell found with the one from Bayly's trousers.' So we know these shells had not at that time been placed in sealed envelopes. It is possible that there was some confusion 111 putting them back in their special containers." Counsel said nothing had been advanced to clear up the strong danger of the two cartridge shells becoming mixed up, either at Ruawaro or in Auckland. On November 12 there lia'd obviously been some handling of the shells. There was the evidence of a detective concerning them 011 that date. Mr. Xorthcroft suggested that this was the first time they had been placed in separate envelopes. 111 his notebook, referring to Xovember 12, Detective Sneddon mentioned sealing them in separate envelopes. Upon that, what confidence could the jury have that there 1 had not been some change ? There was ' ■a further possibility in respect to the I cartridge, cases. J "We. all listened attentively to see what conceivable explanation of this insoluble mystery would be given by Mr. Meredith, in his opening address." said Mr. Xorthcroft. "He had to make some explanation, and all that lie said A >1 " st ' Was possible that Bayly : dron i"- to ' Lakey ' 3 P la c fr and mav have I say that this - - - <=ry IS JU s t as il)solublu now „

If that view wore acceptable, tlien, why should it not be equally acceptable now, asked Mr. Xortheroft. Supposing Bayly did have such a shell from his rifle and picked up while at Lakey's shell Xo. 70. and came to the conclusion that it was of 110 importance and threw one away, throwing away the wrong one. On the very hypothesis laid by Mr. Meredith, Bayly would be throwing down one from his rifle by mistake and leaving in his pocket the one fired from Lakey's rifle. There were many possibilities along these lines. Photographs Criticised. The micro-photographs of the two shells and test shells were the subject of lengthy criticism by counsel, who said that the system of identification was by 110 means satisfactory. Producing an Australian and a New Zealand shilling, he explained that if each were separately impressed in wax, characteristic markings in both cases would result, with a great many points of similarity, but in one case there would be the Australian coat of arms and 011 the other the figure of a crouching Maori warrior. However many points of similarity were obtained, the basis of the impression would be different, because the coins were made from different dies. It was exceedingly unfortunate that when two of the photographs were mounted at 1 quarter of an inch was cut off in one place. The jury examined photographs of the negatives of the bases of the shells, said Mr. Xortheroft, and he reminded them that Dr. Brown, in admitting there was a marked difference, said it was probable that the striker that made the impression 011 exhibit 70 was clogged That view, however, was, abandoned by Professor Worley, who had said that exhibit 70 was a clearly defined impression and that it demonstrated that the base of the striker had made the impression so photographed. Dr. Brown had found five points of resemblance and Professor Worley 20, but neither had drawn attention to points of dissimilarity. If the jury went about it in the extraordinary manner adopted bv Professor Worley, they would probably find 110 fewer than 123 points of dissimilarity. "Summing up tlie evidence regarding the cartridges," Mr. Xortheroft added, "I suggest that the evidence of tlio experts is entirely unacceptable.- They have proved beyond the possibility of douljt that the cartridge shell which the police claim was found at Lakey's two days after the fatality was fired from Bayly's rifle. We know the shell was old and tarnished, with a spider's nest in it, and its appearance was such that it was demonstrably not associated with the crime. Their identifications are based around chance similarities of lights and shadow.? in different photographs taken at different times. If they could not find them in one photograph, they had to make a group to find them. Even if the evidence of the experts be convincing, the only result is to prove beyond doubt that some blunder has occurred in the handling of the cartridge shells. The one with the spider's nest in it might well have been found under Bayly's back door step. It might well have resulted from the confusion concerning the one found 011 Lakey's and the one found on Bayly. Equally well, it may have arisen from Bayly's young children imagining these things as bright toys and playing with tliem. It may have occurred by° being dropped there quite innocently. Upon a review of the evidence, not the slightest significance can be attached to these cartridge shells at all. Mr. Xortheroft then proceeded to attack the Crown theory that the nerpctrator of the .crime first struck Mrs. Lakcy, cither when she was goinu.to or had arrived at her home, and then lay in ambusli and shot Lakey when lie came up from milking. When the police arrived, he said, Lakey's dog was found tied up. That must have been done by someone familiar with the Lakeye household and able to handle the dog. It could not have been Bayly, for from August, 1D32, to September last year, Bayly was not 011 speaking terms with the Lakeys. ' There were two possible alternatives. Dealing with the first —that the dog came up with Mrs. Lakey— counsel said that tiie dog, when, the altercation occurred, would have made such a commotion as to have attracted Lakey. On the other hand, if the, dog came up with Lakey, and Mrs. Lakey was lying unconscious, would the do? itself not have discovered the body of Mrs. Lakey and have raised a commotion, drawing Lakey's attention to it, and making it impossible for him to walk into a trap? Lakey's Other Gun. Another extraordinary element, continued Mr. Xortheroft, was the reappearance of Lakey's good doublebarrel shotgun. It was known on the Sunday afternoon that • the only guns in Lakey's house were the, pea rifle, Mrs. Lakey's curious gun, and the old double-, barrel shotgun. Yet in some way the good double-barrel gun was brought back and found- hidden in the swamp later with the pea rifle. It was an outstanding feature that this, double-barrel' gun, which was not at Lakey's when 1 the boy Brader was. there after lunch, was ignored by Mr. Meredith, and yet it turned up to be hidden with the pea rifle in the swamp at Bayly's. Owing to the relations between Lakev and i Bayly, it was perfectly clear that'Bayly was not the person to whom the shotgun had been lent.

From a chain of facts which he enumerated. Mr. Northctoft suggested that both the Lakeys were at the house at the time of the trouble. The meal was prepared, a pipe was found in the garden, the dog was tied up, the calves were fed, and the cream in its proper cans. If Lakev had been shot from* an ambush, the cream would have been spilt and not taken into the kitchen. The police had found rto sign of the ground being trodden about by the peri son supposed to be waiting in ambush. If it had been Bayly, he would have left characteristic footprints from his leather boots. If Bayly had gone to La key's with his own rifle, why had lie not taken his own ammunition? Yet Lakcy's ammunition was known to have been in the bathroom and later found in the kitchen with the box lying about. Bayly was certainly not the person to get Lakcy's ammunition without a good deal of ransacking of the house. Asking how Lakcy's ride came to be involved, counsel dealt with the theory that it might have been taken by Lakev to the cowshed and been brought up by liim. When he was fired at he dashed into his house to get his ammunition and was shot by Bayly. Could the jury conceive anything more grotesque? The view of the Crown, he added, was entirely untenable unless some such view as that was accepted. Why Not Shoot? "The Crown's ease is that Mr. Lakev was killed and that Mrs. Lakev, while still alive, was taken and placed in the duck pond to drown. Now, gentlemen, can one imagine why she should be put in the water at all? Why shouldn't the person, whoever it was, have used the pea-rifle on her? Further, why not pUjt both Mr. and Mrs. Lakey in the house after both were shot and set fire to it, and so get an apparent ease of murder and suicide, or, as unfortunately is sometimes the ease, a death pact ?" ' Many writers had likened circumstantial evidence to a bunch of twigs, others likened it to a jigsaw puzzle, and again others likened it to a chain, so that if one link broke the whole chain collapsed. "In drawing attention to this particular metaphor, I suggest that Bayly could not have moved Lakcy's body in accordance with the circumstantial evidence of the Crown, therefore you have the Crown's vital link breaking down." Jurymen Examine Wheels. At this stage Mr. Xorthcroft pointed out to the jury the old cart wheels and frame which stood in the Court at the back. At his request, several i constables moved the wheels to a position immediately in front of the jury box. Several jurymen examined the exhibit after constables had removed pieces of rope from one of the wheels. "Now. gentlemen, you see the vehicle upon which the Crown says La key'a body was removed to the boundary fence," said counsel. "The wheels are in the same condition now as they were | when taken possession of by the police. Will that vehicle carry anything? [Nothing could be done with it until the | whole thing wae tied up and together for transport to Auckland by motor lorry. .Tust note the condition of the wheels alone. I invite you to the conclusion that nothing could be moved on it." The Foreman of the Jury: Your Honor, is it possible to have the vehicle mounted as it was when found? His Honor: Yes, that can be arranged, I think. • Mi*. Meredith: We will arrange that to be done. The Foreman: When the vehicle i« adjusted, can we see it outside to see how it wheel* ? Mr. Meredith undertook to have this done when the wheels were fixed.