BURNT OR BOILED?

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

BURNT OR BOILED?

DISPOSAL OF BODY. . FURTHER ATTACK OX CROWX. The Crown's theory as to the destruction of La key's body was next assailed by Mr. Xortheroft. "Again," he said, "we find the Crown in a difficulty and having alternative theories and not knowing which one should be presented, but presenting bits of both, hoping that some of you may accept one view and some of you another. Apparently the Crown's first thought was that the body had been taken away completely and that it had not been destroyed ' in the locality. Apparently the Crown thought it had been taken away in a motor car." The evidence of Sub-Inspector Sweeney showed that a strange motor car had been reported and an intensive search had been made of the river at Tuakau, on the assumption that Bayly—the police at nil times had made up their minds that Bayly was responsible—had taken the body there in his car. But Mr. Sweeney had satisfied himself that Bf.ylv's car was never out of the place for the period, and so that theory went. Another theory developed and presented in Court "was tnat I,akey's body was cut up and boiled. That was clearly the view entertained by the police at one time, and not entirely abandoned when the case was presented to the jury. However, the police knew that Mr. Furniss, who had referred to supposedly incriminating verdigris rings on Bayly'V copper, was labouring under some delusion regarding that copper. The' copper could not have been in Bayly's cowshed 011 the Friday he, went to town. The police had examined the place thoroughly, and they were taken by Bayly into the washhouse, where the copper and its stand were examined, and evidence had been given that the copper' was in its place in the washhouse. The allegation was a relic of a police theory, because the police, realising there were many gaps in acceptance of the burning theory, still brought it into Court, hoping that some importance would be attached to the evidence of Furniss, notwithstanding, their clear knowledge that Furniss was labouring under a mistake. Not content with taking a statement from Furniss, the police had removed from Bayly's place on November 29 a good many articles which clearly could relate only to their assumption of cutting up and boiling. These included a chopping block, axe, hammers and a hack-saw. The lastnanied, on examination, had a piece of putty in one of the teeth, and not a section*of green boue. Continuing his criticism of the theory of burning the body, Mr. Xortheroft said that "the madness of the thing" lay in the fact that the body first had to be cut up and then the flesh cut away from the bones. That could not have been done without leaving a ghastly mess, and traces of blood, notwithstanding how diligently it was scrubbed or scraped away. It must have been obvious to the police that Bayly's place had not been subjected to anything like that. The Time Factor. "Dealing with the next aspe-Jt of the , destruction of the body—which I take lo be the more important theory jf tiie Crown—that Bayly used the destructor for an incinerator," said Mr. Xortheroft, ; "I . venture the _ opinion that it was pot

possible lor Bayly to do it in the time at his disposal." Counsel then mentioned the experiments which had been conducted by the Crown with the burning of a sheep. This, it was stated, took eight hours, but there was stiil , nothing to say how long it would take to burn tile body of a man. "Not Consistent with Burning." The contention that the condition of the corrugated iron sheets which the Crown had stated Bayly had set up around the destructor to form a, flue wa.s not consistent theory, was then advanced by Mr. Northcroft. Ho had the dcstructor set up on blocks of concrete 011 the floor of the Court and the sheets put in position about it. Then lie drew the attention of the jury to the fact that the smoke marks did not commence until a point twelve or fourteen inches above the top of the drum. The Crown never took the trouble to see if those, sheets fitted. They Jeaid the drum was put on pieces of concrete, although there wa.s no necessity to do so. as there were no holes in the bottom of the drum to assist it in drawing. The mounting of the drum on the concrete would only make it more unstable. Pointing again to the sheets of iron set up around the drum. Mr. Northcroft contended that the bottom of the sheets could not have been driven into the ground, as it was alleged the drum was set up on the concrcte floor. Neither wa,s it possible to turn the sheets of iron under. Tlis Honor: Is there any evidence of that? Mr. Northcroft: No. His Honor: Well, you should not say it. Counsel's Claim. Turning to the jury, Mr. Northcroft remarked. "Gentlemen, I invite you to try it. By no process of reconstruction can those sheets be re-erected so as to show that they were used as a flue. The smoke marks do not fit. At Mr. Northcroft's request, the drum in which the burning of the sheep took place was placed in a more conspicuous spot in the Court, and sheets of iron were set up about it. "Now, gentlemen. see where the smoke occurs," said counsel, pointing to the smoke-stained corrugated iron. At this stage Mr. Meredith interrupted to state that it was not the Crown ease that only the pieces of concrete which had been placed 011 the floor of the Court under Bayly's destructor had been used. Wire Ring Not Heated. Mr. Northcroft: I invite the jury to pay attention to the evidence of the Crown and find if there was any evidence of any other piece of concrete except those there now. The case for the Crown all along, he added, was that these sheets fitted the destructor as a I furnace and they made the oil drum an [ efficient incinerator. It remained for ! the defence to point out that these sheets did not fit. Another extraordinary matter was that the wire ring could not hold the sheets of iron against the drum without being pulled up much tighter. Mr. Meredith had said that that piece of wire showed obvious signs of heating. It was true that one of (he constables had said that it showed some signs of heating, but the jury could look for themselves. The Crown did not ask Mr. Waddcll, the metallurgical expert, to say if the piece of wire had been heated. Counsel contended that it did not show any signs of being heated. At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. (Proceeding.)