TUFT OF HAIR.

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

TUFT OF HAIR.

PART OF MRS. BAYLY'S. NO PROOF IT WAS LAKEY'S. COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS. Mr. Northcroft submitted there was not a scrap of evidence to prove that the tuft of hair exhibited by the Crown was Lakey's hair. In fact, its significance was quite! to the contrary. "I will remind you, gentlemen, of a most important point —that some of Lakey's hair was not produced here for comparison," added counsel. "Three hair brushes were found by the police in the La key house. Mrs. Lakey's hair could have been produced here as her body was available. I suggest that in one of the three brushes there must have been some of Lakey's hair, which could also have been singled out from Mrs. Lakey's hair for comparison. Dr. Gilmour said there were no conclusions to be drawn at all. He had no right to say this. He examined the brushes but he did not bring those three brushes hero for examination by the defence or by you gentlemen of the jury. These brushes must have been protected by tho police and'they would still bo in their original state.

"I would also point out to you that the hair had 110 roots. This proves that the hair was cut off and not pulled out from the skull. It might have even been portion of Mrs. Bayly's hair, cut off at some time and taken by the children as ji plaything and taken down to the cowshed." Brace Runners and Watch. Concerning the two brace runners with the word "Police"' engraved upon them, found among litter in Bayly's garden, counsel said there were thousands of such braces in frequent use all over New Zealand, and it was not unusual for some of the brace runners to be discarded and placed on a fire or bonfire. Turning to the watch found, the movement and case of which had been cut in halves, Mr. Northcroft said there was 110 evidence that it was Lakey's, or that it was missing on October 15. Stevens, a neighbour of Lakcy's, had said in evidence that Lakey had a watch of the same type, but-that meant nothing. Such a watch might be owned by any schoolboy or working mail. Stevens had also said that Lakcy's watch had characteristic scratch marks inside the back ease, while Mr. Todd, watchmaker, of Huntly, who said he had sold the watch concerned, said there were marks on the back, but that they could only be seen with the aid of an eyeglass. Therefore how came it that Stevens could see the marks with his naked eye?

"Twisting and Turning." "Of all the evidence presented/by the police which might link Bayly with the death of Lakey, which, with a dispassionate view you must know cannot be justified, the most conspicuous was the finding of part of a pipe," said counsel, on resuming after the morning adjournment. "The first observation of any fairminded person would be that the cherrywood pipe was the most common type and that the finding of it would mean no more than the finding of a shirt button. The police knew perfectly well that it was not Lakey's pipe, for his was found at his home unburnt. That is the manner in which the police present the case and ask the jury to follow them in the extraordinary twisting and turning of their minds with which they/tried to fasten suspicion on Bayly." Mr. Northcroft "'en impressed upon the jury that each one of them individually must be satisfied that, in the event of finding Bayly guilty, that six months later—too late—Lakey would not turn up. Reverting to the subject of Mrs. Lakey's death, counsel asked the jury to consider whether the Crown had proved that she had died as they said she had. As he understood the Crown case, Mrs. Lakey was given some sort of blow, rendered unconscious, and, being unconscious, was, with the knowledge of the accused that she was still alive, placed in the water, thereby cutting off her breath —this, to facilitate the murder of Lakey and escape after he had been murdered.

Counsel put it as a proposition of law that if the evidence of the Crown failed to prove that Mra. Lakey did die from drowning in this manner, then the Crown was not entitled to ask for a verdict of murder at the hands of Bayly. If the person who gave Mrs. Lakey a blow thought she was dead when that person placed her in the water, that did not amount to murder. Dr. Waddell had said that Mrs. Lakey might have been breathing so imperceptibly when placed in the water as for it to be believed that she was dead. That did not amount to murder.

"I put it to you, gentlemen, that it has never been proved that Mrs. Lakcy was drowned at all," declared Mr. Northcroft. "If it is not proved that she breathed after being put in the water, tlien it was not murder.

Pathologist Challenged. "Dr. Gilmour had to admit that there was 110 authority to justify the distinction he drew in giving his opinion regarding Mrs. Lakey's death that it was due to drowning," continued Mr. Northcroft. "He admitted that he was relying on his own experiences. Therefore, I invite you to regard his evidence with a good deal of suspicion. I hesitate to attack the honesty and fairness of Br. Gilmour, but when he admits he can point to no authority, then I think I am entitled to ask you to view hie evidence with suspicion. His post-mortem finding does not prove that Mrs. Ijakey's death was due to drowning. He is assuming the very matter the Crown set out to prove." Xot only does Dr. Gilmour have the temerity to dissent from Taylor, who is the author of the standai'4 book 011 medical jurisprudence —the eminent authority and writer, the man whom both learned judges and lawyers take a guide from —but Dr. Gilmour also has .sought to use Taylor against us. Merely because Mrs. La key was in the water docs not mean she was drowned. The police had to look for other causes of her death. Taylor says that only 12 per cent of drowned people have water in their lungs. I invito you, gentlemen, to agree with my contention that there is no evidence of drowning. Before you can convict anyone of murder, whether it be Bayly, or the third person present at Lakey's 011 October 15, you will have to be convinced that she died by drowning. It will have to be justified that Mrs. Lakey's death was criminal and not accidental before any person can bo convicted. There are many reasons why it should be accidental.