MURDER TRIAL AT TIMARU

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22318, 4 February 1938, Page 22

MURDER TRIAL AT TIMARU

Second Day Of Hearing THE ARUNDEL TRAGEDY Medical Witnesses Gross-Examined IFrom Our Own Reporter.] TIMARU, February 3. The second day of the trial for murder of Randall Reginald David Smith was heard in the Supreme Court at Timaru to-day, before Mr Justice Northcroft. Medical witnesses were called in the morning, and a feature of the day's proceedings was the close questioning by accused's counsel of Dr. C. S. Fraser, of Timaru, who made the first post-mortem examination of the body of the 70-year-old Arundel storekeeper, William Gaby; whom Smith is accused of killing. In the cross-examination it was disclosed that the heart and lungs, of which no microscopic sectioned examination had been made by Dr. Fraser. had been burned in the Timaru Hospital destructor. To this counsel commented that the destruction of these organs did not give the defence much chance of checking whether the cause of death could have lain in these organs. Both Dr. Fraser and another medical witness—the second in answer to his Honour—said that they were convinced that the primary cause of death was concussion from the blow Gaby had received. Later in the day a statement alleged to have been made in Christchurch by accused, which quoted him as admitting striking Gaby when the storekeeper returned to the store as witness was robbing it, was read in Court. After the reading of the statement, which concluded the Crown's case, it was announced that the jury desired that a man named Mathiesnn. one of the two who found Gaby dead at his store, should be called, and also desired that questions might be asked, for jurors, of witnesses heard previously. His Honour asked the jury to supply him with a written list of th<? questions the.jury thus desired to ask, and said that their request would be granted. When the Court adjourned until to-morrow morning, the jury left by car to see the scene of Gaby's death.

Dr. A. L. Haslam, with him Mr E. S. Bowie, appeared for the accused, and Mr W. D. Campbell, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown. Photographs Produced

Constable J. B. Kearton, police photographer at Christchurch, resumed his evidence, begun yesterday, when to-day's sitting began. He produced a piece of board, found outside the door, a box which was used as a doorstep at the back of Gaby's hut, and also a wooden platform. The first piece of board bore nail marks from a pair of boots, and the other two ob' jects showed signs, witness said, that something had been dragged across them. He also produced portion of the flooring of Gaby's kitchen, bloodstained, and also showing indications that something had been dragged across, it.

Witness said he photographed the nailmarks on the piece of board outside the store, and also/ photographed the sole of a right boot. By superimposing a transparent photograph of the board, with its marks, on to the photograph of the .sole of the right boot he showed that the marks on the board corresponded with the position of the nails in the boot. * The jury was issued with copies of these transparent photographs, and from the witness-box Constable Kearton traversed at length the method of showing that individual nails in tht* boot fitted the individual marks on tho board. To Mr Bowie, witness said he knew that the boots were the ones that had been recovered from the Timaru shop The pressure used to make the marks' was more than usual, consistent with a supposition that they had been made By someone dragging something heavy. No Fimrer Prints To his Honour witness said that no nnger prints were found sufficiently ""£• r e , d to Sive satisfactory results. +w S , Hon f"f : Is that an indication that gloved hands were used?— There were marks which may have been caused by gloves, or fingers covered With some substance. Dr. C. S. Fraser, of Timaru, said that on September 12 he performed a post-mortem operation on the body of a man whom he was told had been killed at Arundel. There was a lacerated wound over the left eye. He found no fracture of the skull. The brain showed traces of haemorrhages of a character associated with concussion. Before making the post-mortero examination he also took two specimens of blood from the body. He examined particularly the heart and lungs. The lungs showed an oldstanding pleurisy, but nothing suggestive of being a cause of death. He found no evidence of obstruction in the air passages. The valves of the heart were normal and there was no obstruction there. The muscles, arteries, or valves of the heart showed no cause of death. Death was due, in witness's opinion, to concussion of the brain, which could be in accordance with the wound over the eye. Such a wound would be such as would be made by a blunt instrument. A piece of firewood such as that shown him in Court could cause such a wound. He could see no other cause of death than concussion of the brain Notes Examined

Dr. Haslam sought and received permission to examine the rough notes Dr. Fraser had made of the external condition of the body. In cross-examination Dr. Fraser said that it was not general practice in his experience to write down notes on the internal examination made in a post-mortem operation while the operation was in progress. Pathologists who could afford a paid amanuensis would do so, but the fee the Government allowed the ordinary general practitioner would-not allow the employment of such an amanuensis. It was very difficult for the man performing the operation to write his observations down.

When. Dr. Haslam quoted advice to pathologists from a book—which Dr. Fraser agreed to be an authoritative treatise on medical jurisprudence—Dr. Fraser said he would not differ from the advice therein for those making post-mortem operations to record all their observations at once. But he upheld his assertion that it was not general practice among practitioners who could not afford an amanuensis to take such a running record. Witness maintained that when he made his Statement on the findings of the infernal examination of the body the facts were still fresh in his mind.

Organs Destroyed After further questions by Dr. Haslam on the details of the internal examination, witness was again asked to agree or disagree with a statement in another textbook that it was always advisable to make a microscopic section examination of the heart. Witness further said that he would admit that it was unfortunate that he had not made such a microscopic section of the heart. Dr. Fraser added that after the examination he made, the porter at the hospital had put the heart and lungs in the hospital destructor, thinking they would not again be needed. Witness took the responsibility for that, because he said that when he finished the operation he left the heart and lungs on a table, and told the porter they could be taken away. Dr. Haslam: That does not leave the defence much chance, does it? Counsel further contended, in the form of a question to Dr. Fraser, that if only the brains and stomach from the body were sent to Christchurch Cor pathological examination, a check could not be made by others of the possibility that other organs, such as the heart and lungs, might have been the cause of death. Dr. Fraser agreed that that was so. adding that he was convinced that the wound on the foreh-ad and the resultant concussion were the cause of death, but had nevertheless made a routine examination of the other organs. ~ , "The heart and lungs are vital organs, are they not, doctor?" asked Dr. Haslam. "They are vital in life, but they may not always be in death." Dr Fraser replied. Explaining why he had preserved the stomach, to be sent to Christchurch, Dr. Fraser continued that he was of opinion that the injuries to the brain were the cause of death, but sent the stomach as a precautionary measure. He agreed that with the heart and lungs destroyed others making an examination would have no chance of seeing for themselves if the cause of death lay in those organs. However, he was quite convinced that the brain injury was the cause of death. , Dr Haslam: But, like lawyers, and others, doctors are fallible, I suppose? Witness: No one is infallible Pathologist's Evidence

Dr. E. F. Thomson, assistant pathologist at the Christchurch Public Hospital, said he also made a post-mortem examination on the body of an elderly man at the Timaru Hospital on September 12. The heart and the lungs were not available for examination, he said. Accepting Dr. Fraser's statement that the condition of the heart and lungs was normal, witness said, he was of the opinion that the cause of death was concussion of the brain and shock, both the result of a severe blow on die head. He described the wound over the left eye, and illustrated his description by exhibiting a strip of skin taken from Gaby's forehead, (showing the wound. Witness agreed that a blow from a piece of firewood such as that shown him in Court could cause the wound. He thought that a blow from such a weapon could cause death, especially to an elderly person. Witness said that he had visited Gaby's store at Arundel, taking away some soil, on which there was a dark stain. He afterwards examined the stain and found that it was caused by human blood. He also took two stains from the back door. These were removed on chips of wood. These also were made by human blood. Blood was also taken from the floor of the kitchen.

Later witness received other portions of wood on which were stains of human blood.

On September IT witness received from the police an overcoat and a pair of trousers. The overcoat had numerous stains on it, but witness paid particular attention to two areas on the right-hand side of the coat. Both these areas appeared as though they might have been sponged. He removed two parts and discovered positive traces of human blood. On the trousers were other stains, and those he tested were caused by human blood. A pair of boots witness also received from the police also had some brownish stains. Tested, these stains also responded to the test for human blood. Another bundle of clothing received from the police contained a coat, a shirt, and a scarf, all showing traces of blood. Two tubes of blood taken by Dr. Fraser in his post-mortem examination of Gaby were also classified by witness. His classification proved the blood in all the stains of which tests had been made—of the stains on the floor, on Gaby's coat, and the clothes it was alleged Smite had discarded— belonged to the same group No. 2. This did not prove that the blood all came from the one person, but proved that it might have. Practice of Pathologists To Dr. Haslam witness said it was the practice of a pathologist to take notes himself or dictate them to some other person while making a postmortem examination. He agreed with the text-book that it was desirable for all practitioners to take notes; but would not say it was essential. He agreed that the reason for the practice was a non-medical one—based on the fact that persons sometimes forgot. Dr. Haslam took the witness stage by stage through his findings as set out in his detailed report on the examination he made of Gaby's body. Special reference was made to that section dealing with Gaby's liver, which the report said showed signs of venous congestion. Gaby had been suffering from chronic nephritis—a hardening of the veins and arteries, which witness said was normal in a man of Gaby's age. To Dr Haslam witness said that Gaby's kidneys were not 100 per cent normal. A pathologist always removed the kidneys from the body on a post-mortem examination. He did not think that in this case the congestion could have been detected By inspection without removing the kidaeys. Asked whether the condition of the spleen, kidneys, and liver might be likely to affect Gaby'ss heart and lungs, witness said there might be some microscopic evidence of a degenerate change in the heart, but changes in those organs would not necessarily have any bearing on the appearance of the lungs. He said htat a pathologist always took sections of every organ. Asked if the presence of the heart and lungs was vital to determine the cause of death, Dr. Thomson said that It was certainly necessary to see them. His Honour's Questions «To Dr. Haslam witness said he had heard the evidence of Dr. L. C. Mail, of Geraldine. the first medical man to see Gaby's body, and had heard Dr Mail say that the neck and face had been congested, livid, and swollen He knew that Dr. Mail had volunteered the opinion in the lower Court that this condition was consistent with suffocation. Congestion of the lungs need not necessarily accompany suffocation. It depended on the time elapsing before death. He had heard the evidence that Gaby was found lying in a pool of blood, and when he saw the body the nose was slightly flattened, as though resting on the floor. Witness told Dr. Haslam, answering a further question, that he could not say that Gaby had not died of suffocation, because he had not seen the lungs or the heart. , . .. His Honour asked whether, in the absence of the heart or lungs, which could not be tested scientifically, witness could see any reason to believe that death might have been due to some internal disease of those organs.

Witness replied: I don't think so. His Honour then asked if witness thought that what Dr. Fraser did was sufficient to justify saying that those organs were not diseased so as to cause death. Dr. Thomson replied that he thought Dr. Fraser's examination was sufficient to exclude gross manifestations of a disease which would have been evi-