WHOSE BONES?

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 145, 21 June 1934, Page 8

WHOSE BONES?

ARE THEY LAKEY'S ? COUNSEL'S DOUBTS. "MAORI BURIAL GROUND." POLICE AGAIN ATTACKED. Since senior counsel for the defence, Mr. E. 11. Northcroft, opened his address on behalf of accused three days ago, public interest in the trial has been intensified and there has been a long and continuous file of men and women passing in and out of the Court. When the luncheon adjournment came to-day, counsel had spoken for three full days, and. his words during the whole of that time had been followed with intense interest. Not since the early days of the trial, when excited women scrambled and pushed for seats, has public interest been as keen as in the past four days. At 8.30 this morning, almost an hour and a half before the doors at the public entrances were opened, men and women had gathered outside the Court, and all morning queues waited outside in the hope of catching a glimpse of accused and hearing the story which is being unfolded on his behalf.

Bayly himself sits in his corner of the dock, apparently unmoved. In front of him are his father, Mr. Frank Bayly, his father-in-law, Mr. Thomas Palmer, a stenographer, engaged by the defence, and Mr- K. B. Lusk, his solicitor. Dressed in a smart navy blue coat with fur collar, and brown hat, Mrs. William Bayly, wife of accused, sits alongside Mr; L. P. Leary, and seated by Mr. Northcroft, as he -addresses the jury, are the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. E. Meredith, and his assistant, Mr. F. AlcCarthy. Broken Before Burning. In continuation of his address this morning, Mr. Northcroft reminded the jury that it was the duty of the Crown to prove, not merely surmise, that Lakey was actually dead.. The Crown asked the Court to assume that Lakey was dead by the presentation, of certain charred bone, but counsel suggested that they -were merely miscellaneous bones, many ; .of which had not the encrustation on them claimed by the medical ■witnesses. The Crown experts' views also were that the bones had all been burnt at the same time, and they asked the jury to assume that all the bones must have arisen out of the burning of Lakey's body.

"The hones found outside the separator room door were markedly different from the skull bones," continued counsel. "Dr. Lynch has told ue—l will read his words so that there will be no challenge as to the fairness of what I say — that he believed the burning caused the breaking up of the bones. I suggest, gentlemen, that they were deliberately broken up to make them suitable exhibits for the police case, and I refer particularly to the ekull bones."

Here Mr. Northcroft asked Mr. Leary to show the jury a certain piece of skull bone, and as Mr. Leary was about to hand the exhibit to the> jury, his Honor remarked, " The police will do that, Mr. Leary. Mr. McLean is here for that purpose."

Mr. Northcroft: I will myself exhibit it. There is no objection to that, surely. The point I make is that there can be no doubt that that piece of bone has been broken by being pounded on a clay surface. The doctors claim that it was broken up in the drum while it was being burnt. When these bones are examined with a mind not obsessed with the guilt of Bayly, characteristics such as I have pointed out are shown. Again I put it to you that this piece of bone was broken up on clay. If the police had been as zealous in ascertaining all the facts as they were zealous in their efforts to get incriminating evidence against Bayly, they, too, would have noticed that it had been broken on clay.

Mr. Northcroft next showed the jury a piece of tibia, or shin bone. The experts had said that it was possibly of human origin. Counsel suggested beyond possible challenge that it was smashed before being put into the fire. He believed that a handful of bones, plus a skull, had been thrown into a small fire and burnt to help the' police in their suggestions against Bayly. Counsel said this was not the only VUAter he could reasonably invite the I rela,tin ß. to the idea that collection, of. bones had

His Honor: It is difficult to remember all the evidence, Mr. Northcroft. Can you show me in the cross-examination of cither of the pathologists where they were questioned about tlvis piece of tibia? Was Dr. Lynch, or Dr. Gilmour specially cross-examined about it? "I don't think so, sir," said Mr. Northcroft. Mr. Northcroft: If every doctor was cross-examined on every piece of bone, then, instead of being here four weeks, we would have been here four months. If any comment is made that they were not specially cross-examined about it, I put it to you that these experts examined it with tile utmost care, and that it was their duty to put it to you and not wait to be cross-examined upon it. If there were no counsel here for the defence, it would be the duty of the witnesses to tell the truth, the whole truth and not only one part. Taking one piece of bone from a Crown exhibit, which lie said Dr. Gilmour had stated might be human, counsel. pointed out that it was not even burnt at all. "That, I put to you, is strong evidence that a collection of bone was placed about Bayly's place to incriminate him. I also suggest to you," said Mr. Northcroft, "that if these bones were part of Lakey, as the Crown suggests, you would have found part of the lower jaw and his natural teeth. It is a well-known fact, and one that I omitted in cross-examination, that in an old skeleton you never find the lower jaw."

Mr. Northcroft then produced part of an elbow joint which the doctors said could be fitted together with another part of the same joint. Counsel's observation on this was that it was pure guesswork on the part of the doctors. They had claimed that because these two pieces fitted that both must have come from the' same skeleton. "Not From Same Skeleton." "Even for a moment accepting the doctors' evidence that the two pieces of elbow joint came from the same individual, I suggest there is nothing to show that they eame from the same skeleton as the pieces of skull," said counsel. "Dr. MacCormick has said so, and he further told Mr. Leary that from the bones found it was possible to tell the height or the . width of the skeleton. The skull may have even been a woman's skull, and the suggestion that no duplicates were found does not prove anything. Apart from the pieces of skull, there are only a few pieces of other human bone found, a little from the backbone, the elbow, a finger, and from the heel. All the bone gathered by the police, as I said before, does not comprise three per cent of the average human skeleton."

Counsel reminded the jury that they had to consider whether the whole body was burnt or whether a few bones only were burnt. As an example, counsel said that if a house was burnt down and a loaf of bread was burnt, and anyone was shown pieces of burnt crust, that did not prove that it was burnt as one entity. On a proper examination, which could be applied to the bone exhibits on such a . serious charge as this, he asked the jury whether they were prepared to say that the bones had been burnt with flesh on them as the police witnesses had stated because of the presence of charred, bubbly material, or whether they came from fuel. Could the jury believe that they were all burnt together ? Counsel said that the bones had been brought along and scattered about on Bayly's property to create the impression of guilt' against him. "I put it to you, gentlemen, that they could have come from a collection of miscellaneous bones from a Maori burial ground, or from the ' digs' of any medical student." No Evidence of Sex. Even were the jury satisfied that the bones came from the same skeleton, was it satisfied that the bones were tho6e of Lakey? There was no evidence of the sex, but only some evidence that they were those of a muscular person. Dealing with related articles on which the Crown suggested that the jury should tome to the conclusion that the bones were those of Lakey—the watch and the lighter—counsel said that they were not found under circumstances to link them up with the remains. There was nothing to prevent the person responsible for sowing the seeds of suspicion on Bayly's place putting them where they were found. Nor was the identification of the lighter conclusive. The witness, Miss Venn, was not asked to identify it from a number of others, but was given the very lighter and asked if she recognised it; All she said was that it was like the one she knew Lakey had. The same applied to the evidence of Elsie Slater.

What was there to prevent Bayly himself having got some of the material from which the wick was made from Mrs. Lakey when they were on friendly terms? asked Mr. Northcroft. He concluded his comment on the subject by saying the evidence in regard to wick and lighter was extraordinarily unsatisfactory. The tuft of hair recovered from the sheep dip was then handed to the jury, who examined it intently with a magnifying glass. Dr. Gilmour, said counsel, had described it "as being brown, whereas neighbours had said Lakey's [ hair was ginger, going grey. If the hair proved anything, it was that it was not I Xiakey's.