RIFLE SHELLS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 221, 15 June 1934, Page 12

RIFLE SHELLS

University Lecturer’s Evidence RUAWARO MYSTERY Double Murder Charge Against Bayly > By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland. June 14. The opinion that the cartridge shell which fell from Bayly’s pocket liad been fired from the Winchester rifle discovered in the swamp, while another shell found In Lakey’s garden had been fired from Bayly’s Spandau rifle, was advanced by Dr. D. Brown, lecturer in physics at Auckland University, at to-day's hearing in the Supreme Court of the charge of double murder against William Alfred Bayly. Dr. Brown produced a large number of micro-photographs, some taken under a magnification of OS diameters, on which he based his evidence. During his cross-examina-tion of Dr. Brown, which was not completed, Mr. Northcroft resorted to the use of lantern slides made from micro-photographs, the pictures being thrown cn a temporary screen in the darkened court.

Bayly is charged with murdering Ohristobel Lakey and Samuel I’emler Lakey at Ruawaro on October 15, 1903. The Crown prosecutor (Mr. A. R. Meredith), with him Mr. F. McCarthy, is prosecuting, while Bayly is represented by Mr. E. H. Northcroft and Mr. L. P. Leary, instructed by Mr. R. B. Lusk. Mr. Justice Headman is on the Bench. The examination of Senior-Sergeant E. W. Dinnie was continued when the hearing of the charges was resumed this morning. Mr. Dinnie is the sixtyfifth witness called by the Crown, whose case is expected to . finish on Saturday. Re-examined by Mr. Meredith, Mr. Dinnie described how burring on the edge'of a knife would occur, and the effect of this burring when a wood surface was cut. During his explanation Mr. Dinnie used a cardboard blade to emphasise his arguments. Whether a knife left a groove or a ridge on wood depended on which side of the knife was applied to the wood, also on the manner in which the edge was burred. “In my opinion,” he said, “there are sufficient characteristics still visible on the knife to indicate that in all probability that was the knife which made the two wood cuts,” declared Mr. Dinnie. “You say the knife has been sharpened?” asked his Honour. “The knife, in my opinion, has been sharpened, and also has been damaged since the cuts wens made, but I contend that sufficient characteristics are still distinguishable,” replied Mr. Dinnie, who added that the steel had been traced in two positions against the wood after the cuts had been made. Mr. Meredith then intimated that lie would call formal evidence regarding the firing of sixty test shells. Detective Sneddon, who was recalled. described the firing tests carried out at Auckland. Location of Rilles in District. , Further firing tests were described by Detective P. J. Nalder, who referred to shots he had lived at Ruawaro from settlers' rilles. lie produced the cartridge cases discharged from each Run. In reply to Mr. Northcroft, witness said he bad made a house-to-house canvass to trace rifles. In the Ruawaro district he had located ten in all. The police had used the arms register, but he could not say how many settlers had rifles which were not shown in the register. In all 21 weapons had been located. “Of those, 11 were Winchesters?” asked Mr. Northcroft. Witness said he did not know the proportion of Winchesters. After counsel had read a list of the rilles lived witness agreed that 11 of that brand had been discovered. k Detective T. W. Allsopp, recalled, eaid that he also made similar inquiries among settlers at Huntly and Ruawaro. He had discharged 11 test shots from different rifles which, with the 10 fired by Detective Nalder, gave a total of 21 test shells from the district which witness took to "Wellington. To Mr. Northcroft, witness said that of the rifles he tested six were Winchesters. These were owned at dislances of two to 10 miles from Lakey’s place. The police worked in a radius of 10 to 12 miles, and in that area there were about 200 households. All the houses were visited. Recalled, Constable T. D. Elms, of .Huntly, gave formal evidence concern-, lag the handling of test sheds, ami similar testimony was given by Constable D. Robertson, of Huntly. who also fired test shells from a settler's rifle. Dr. Denis Brown, lecturer in physics at Auckland'University College, said that he inspected a piece of timber from Lakey's shed and a knife (produced) which he micro-photographed. On December 13 witness went to Ruawaro and visited Bayly’s cowshed, where he saw an upright (produced) which he removed from the shed. A considerable area of the surface had been shaved off, and two feet from the floor the wood appeared to have been rubbed over with oil or grease. "I formed the opinion that the cuts on both pieces of wood were fairly recent,” declared Dr. Brown, who snld that a cut in timber from the separator room showed no sign of dust. He had micro-photographed part of the cut surface. Photflgraphs of Wood. Witness then produced a series of photographs of both pieces of wood. One photograph made a magnification of 8J diameters, and showed a series of ridges on the wood which in witness's opinion had been caused by turns on the edge of a knife. A second photograph on the same scale showed marks on the cut surface of a second piece of wood. All the lines shown in (his photograph comprised grooves in the wood, all of which had been made at the same time by the same stroke of an Implement. They were not sueyesslve scratches. In his opinion notches on the edge of a knife could make the grooves if the burr were downward on the table. “I compared the two photographs to see if there was similarity in the grouping of the marks,” continued Dr. Brown. "I first superimposed one photograph on the other, but found that the lines on one were on too small m scale to fit the lines on the other. I account for this by the angle at which the knife was held when the cuts were made. I verified this by a subsequent experiment.”

Witness demonstrated with a cardboard knife and * ahect of paper how

I the notches could leave marks closer together If a knife were drawn across at an angle. Witness said that he then photographed the second piece of timber on a larger scale of 10,6 magnifications. When this was placed in conjunction with the other photograph witness found . definite correspondence in. the grouping. "I decided that the similarity in grouping was so great that it was- very unlikely for it to happen by accident,” proceeded Dr. Brown. “I came to the definite conclusion that the same instrument was responsible for both cuts. It Is possible to calculate the chances of agreement in the grouping occurring accidentally. In my opinion, agreement by accident would not happen more than once in a million times. This is based not so much on the agreement in the lines as on the disagreements in the lines.” Witness said that he then made a micro-photograph of 8J magnifications of part of the knife blade, and on comparison witli the other photographs lie found very definite similarities between the notches on the knife and the marks on the wood, although the correspondence was, not so close as between the two pieces of wood. If the knife had an unsymmetrical notch the middle of the notcli would change as the edge of the knife was sharpened away. At the request of Mr. Meredith, Dr. Brown demonstrated his argument with a blackboard drawing. “J concluded that the knife was consistent with having made those marks, although it was quite incapable of making those marks when it came to me,” he continued. "You are not in a position to say that these marks were made with this knife?” asked his Honour. Lines on Bayly’s Steel “It is impossible to say it. made them, but the knife is consistent with having made the marks,” replied Dr. Brown, who then produced microphotographs of Bayly’s steel. He described the formation of lines on the tip of the steol on the photograph of the cut on the timber in Lakey’s shed. There were two gorups of lines visible in the top and bottom corners. Witness photographed one group separately, and when the photographs were super-imposed the similarity of the ridges on the steel and flic parallel lines on the wood could bo seen, i “I formed the opinion that the marks on the wood had been made by this steel or a steel of similar type.” declared Dr. Brown, who added that the marks indicated that they had been made by a rounded instrument being pressed on the wood.

Witness said that he had fired cartridges in both of the Winchester Spandau pea-rifles produced, tisiyg I.C.T. ammunition. He had retained the cartridges. He had also received a pea-rifle cartridge from Detective Sneddon.

Dr. Brown stated that the cartridge li’e had received from Detective Sneddon had been further micro-photograph-ed, while he had also taken a microphotograph of the striker pin of a Winchester rifle. He produced a folder showing these photographs.

In reply to his Honour, Mr. Meredith said the shell received from Detective Sneddon, exhibit 70. was that which fell from Bayly’s pocket. Dr. Brown then produced further photographs of a test shell fired from Bayly’s Spandau rifle. “The shell, exhibit 70. and a test shell from the Winchester rifle found, in the swamp, both have rectangular striker marks, while the striker mark on a shell fired from the Spandau rifle is circular,” continued Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown added that lie had arranged the micro-photographs of the rectangular striker marks of two shells alongside for the purpose of comparison. On the left side of each could be seen two projections which corresponded closely in position in the bottom right-hand corner. Each rectangle could bo seen, the formation resembling a series of teeth. A further series of photographs taken at Wellington with another camera showed indentations on the right side of the striker pin, which were in the position of the corresponding marks shown in the other photographs, allowing for the difference in magnifications. Witness then produced micro-photo-graphs of a magnification of 68 diameters of the bottom corner reel angles on the shell, exhibit 70, also tlie test shell from the Winchester. On both were a line series of lines. The number of angle lines appeared the same in both photographs. These lines could also be seen on the striker pin itself. Conviction Reinforced. “These photographs reinforce my conviction that the shell, exhibit 70, was fired from the rifle recovered from the swamp,” declared the witness. Another shell handed him by Detective Sneddon contained an insect’s web. This exhibit was also microphotographed. “This is the shell found on Lakey’s property?” asked his Honour. Mr. Meredith concurred. Witness had compared the striker mark on this shell' with two test shells fired from the Spandau. “The photographs are entirely consistent with the view that the shell found in Lakey's garden was fired from the Spandau rifle,” continued witness. A comparison of the rings of ■ the striker mark had also been made with two additional test shells. Another shell given witness by Constable Mills appeared to' have been fired from the Spandau rifle. “This shell came from Bayly’s steps?” asked his Honour. “Yes,” replied Mr. Meredith. Witness stated he had made microphotographs of 7G shells from 16 Spandaus and GO other rifles. He bad 1 been given shells by Detectives Allsopp and Sneddon and other police officers. Included in ihese rifles were a number of I'KI'J Winchesters obtained from the Colonial Ammunition Company and private individuals. Witness had been told that some of the shells bad been fired from the same Winchester, using a number of different 1902 model bolts. The striker marks on these shells had been microphotographed. He had compared ab the shells with the striker marks on the shell, exhibit 70. also the other shell exhibited and found no similarity. In fact, he had found no two which bore marks which would lend to the conclusion that they had been tired from the same rille. Witness had also compared nil lit., shells from 10 Spandaus with each other and could find no two similar. Exhibited to Jury. Witness then showed the jury microphotojjraplis of shells from all the Spandaus, also producing prints of micro-photographs of GO other shells. In reply to Mb. Northcroft. Dr. Brown said he had photographed two pieces of timber with the light in such a way as to best show up the ridges and grooves. His method had been to examine each specimen under more than one lighting. In the case of two photographs he had invited the jury to compare, both were illuminated from the right. Counsel produced a diagram illustrating the manner in which. th» aide

groove nearest the light was in a shadow and tlie side ridge furthest from the light was in a shadow. “Did you place the light so that the darkened sector of the grooves would be half the grooves?” asked counsel. “I did-not arrange it to illuminate exactly half the grooves,” replied Dr. Brown, who said lie did not think it practicable, as the grooves were irregular. Tlie proportion of lighting was not the same in all the grooves for this reason. Witness could estimate the amount of grooves illuminated by inspecting the photographs. Counsel then brought a lantern into use to throw slides made from the micro-photographs on a screen erected in tlie body of the court, which was darkened. Using a pointer lie closely examined Dr. Brown as to the amount of tlie grooves as shown on the enlargements on the screen was in darkness. In the majority of cases, witness said, half or a little more than half the grooves were in a shadow. Another photograph was then thrown on the screen. “That little piece of shadow is all you can say is groove 1?” asked counsel. Witness: “That is so.” He agreed that groove 1 was clearly shown on the wood from Bayly’s. Association of Lines. “Is it not the fact you got au association of lines 1. to 8 in one place and an association of lines 1 to 8 in the other place, which justifies your calculation?” asked Mr. Northcroft. Witness said he had not included line 1. in his calculation. It was hard to take a photograph to bring all the lines out. ‘ , “I put it to you it was left out because it is not there.” said counsel. "That is not so,” replied Dr. Brown, who declared he could point out line lon one photograph. ' “Can you show it on any other photograph?” asked counsel. “Those are the only photographs I have submitted,” replied Dr. Brown. “Did you examine any other steel of this type?” asked counsel. “I purchased another steel of the same make,” replied Dr. Brown, who added that the steel had tlie same lines and the same spacing as the steel exhibited. He agreed that the position of Ihe lines would be the same on every steel of that make. Did you find any peculiar characteristics in this steel comparable with the marks on the wood which are not on the steel you purchased?—“No.” Any steel of that sort, therefore, could have mode those marks? pursued Mr. Northcroft.—“Yes.”

Can you attach the slightest importance to those steel marks as showing that they were made by that particular steel?—-‘‘l think my statement was that the steel was consistent with having made those marks.” Further questioned, witness admitted that taking the steel marks alone he did not think they would be of the slightest, use. Witness said he had concluded that: the knife probably had been held at right-angles on one occasion, but it may have been inclined in the photograph of the second timber. It must, have been inclined further if the cut was made by the same knife. If one set of lines were straight and parallel and the other set curving on the. same timber witness would say they were not made by the same cut. Diagram on Blackboard. Counsel then drew a diagram of the lines on a blackboard, which lie stated represented the lines of one photograph. suggesting that certain lines in the photograph were curved and others straight and parallel. “Will you admit that the lines on the right are substantially more parallel than those to the left?” he suggest ed. “Yes." replied Dr. Brown. If there is n difference hi alignment. does it not: show they belong to different, cuts? —"No. I do not. think that is so.” replied witness, who said be thought tlie group ar. the left was completed before the group on the right was begun. “In other words, they are two separate cuts," observed counsel. Witness admitted he had noticed some lines less divergent than others. “I will admit: they are practically parallel and not in alignment with tlie others.” he added. “If I had not had my attention drawn to it tlie jury would not have heard it from you?” asked counsel. “No." replied Dr. Brown, who stated he had not drawn the jury's attention to all the factors he had considered. He admitted the matter was one of importance. In the morning he would demonstrate how they could get a group of parallel I’iics and a group of converging lines with one knifecut,