BAYLY TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 18 June 1934, Page 6

BAYLY TRIAL

ANOTHER WEEK OPENS

CROWN CASE FINISHED

((Per Preu Awoctotion—- Copyright.)

AUCKLAND, June 18,

■The cross ’examination, of Professor F. 1\ Worley was continued, when the -hearing of the RuaWaro .murder, charges was resumed at the Supreme Court th'is morning. * The Crown case is expected to close to-day ;as thefe is only orie further 'Witness to he called, although -it is possible that one or more „police...officers may be recalled.

As-no indication -of the defence, <cQun.sel’si intentions hnye .been it is ■as' yet impossible to say when the case will conclude.

ifthr NfcrthcrofS questioned, /Worley first on the method .adopted by witness to make ■comparisons of knife cuts on two. pieces of ' timber. Witness had found it necessary to make an enlaigement of 11.4 of timber from Baylys, to

gaij ia of -timber from Lakey’s which was enlarged times. I then cut out the photograph and placed it -On .the other,' and found a very remarkable agreement, continued Worley, Who then;described the method of calculation used in reaching his , iconduftions. The jchantoes iof coincidence were one in a million. Aftei the witness had completed his explanation, 'he stated that if there was a line which entirely disagreed, and there were no other means of accounting for that disagreement then his faith in asserting absolute identity of jthe two would be very seriously shak- , en. That is very important remarked, counsel. Re-examined by Mr Meredith, witness said he had found no divergencies : which would shake his conclusion There was ,a .very close similarity of grouping of, the two sets of lines in the hnifemarks. Gerald-Gregory Kelly, a sports dealer of Auckland, .said he had a lifetime | experience of -firearms in New Zea- , la,nd' /and .-Australia, He; had been given a Winchester -rifle on November 7. When he cleaned . the bore on December 6 Detective : Sneddon showed him an , 10.1. cartridge shell. Witness fired | eight shots .with The same (ammunition • from the rifle.. A . comparison with the, test Shells showed the shell, exhibit WO, given him, :had been fired from the same rifle. In reply .to Mr- .Northcroft witness said he had -no microscope. He had •fired no other Winchesters, nor had he compared-the shell, exhibit 70, with shells -from other Winchesters Recalled, Senior -Sergeant E. W. Dinnip identified formally certain -prints as made from photographs taken' by him. ’ . j a Garrol, a surveyor, also re(short v*V®AW Vending * the boundary fences :on Lakeys property, and the .position of the le o al, road -into (Bayly’s. . , Mr Northcroft. stated to bis Honour the position was that Lakey, s fences had to .to the lake-across Bavlv’s legal access - road. W Dtective T. W. -Allsopp stated the fences-were extended.-across to preven cattle getting -fihm one property to the Other. . ? CROWN CASE CONCLUDED NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE 'The Grown case then closed shortly after ill o’clock, when an adjournment was taken. . , , , j Mr Northcroft initiated he would not call evidence. ~ , Mr Meredith commenced fris acituess to the jury at 11.20 la.m. MR MEREDITH’S. ADDRESS, AUCKLAND, June 18.

After remarking that no one bad seen Lakey or Mrs Lakey killed, Mr Meredith quoted the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice on the value of circumstantial evidence. The jury should not be concerned 'With the question ot motive, but the 'evidence of conversations with Stent, hi s quarrels with Lakeys, and the removal of the oream stand. All showed Bayly harboured deep resentment against the Lakeys. Mr Meredith then briefly recapitulated the Lakeys’ habits, which would be known to 'Bayly, who was their nearest neighbour. “If anyone had the opportunity to commit this crime, Bayly was the man,” declared Mr Meredith. How Mrs Lakey Died. Before reviewing the evidence of experts, whose views, he took it, the jufy would accept, as stated, that Mis Lakey had been struck two blows, placed in the water while alive, and there died from suffocation. Many Traces of Blood. There was blood on the implement 'shed, which did not come from Mrs Lakey. That blood came obviously from Lakey. On the Wheels which were found down the paddock was blood which was either that of Lakey or a third party. Appearance of Third Party. “So either that blood I s that ot Lakey who was wheeled by a third party, or of a third party who was wheeled by Lakey,” continued counsel. It was obvious that a third party, who was familiar with Lakey’s house, but did not know the exact details where Lakey placed his cream cans made a mistake. The only object of .taking the iclothes, gujns, and boots from the house was to give rise to the theory of Lakeyis disappearance. Finds on .Bayly’s Property. Mr Meredithi then turned to .the sledge marks which were clearly made by Bayly’s sledge. ' On Bayly’s sledge was human blood. The fact that there was only a small quantity was of no significance. After dealing with Lakey’s 1 clothing, watch, and cigarette lighter,

Mr Meredith said the bones were these of; a liiuscukr, middle-aged male, such as. Lakey. . y

jfai Bayly’s shcepdip was found a tuft of hair, similar to Lakey’s, while in tlic orchard were found fragments ot materials of similar clothing worn by Lakey. A (cigarette lighter which must beyond probability be Lakey’s was found in the shcepdip, while under the car shed were found parts of a witch similar to Lakey’s.

‘‘So you 'have round Bayly’s house, r bones corresponding to Lakey’s, l'cmna'nlis of doth corresponding to Lakey’s clothing, a cigarette deal ly Lakey’s, teeth corresponding to Lakey’s, burnt footwear corresponding t{o;'Lakey’s, and a watch the same as Lakey wove,” ((jontiiiued Mr Meredith. Lakey disappears. You have a trail of blood down to Bayly’s fence, and then these gruesome exhibits round Bayly s house. Mr Meredith exhibited a diagram showing parts of a skeleton identified by experts. The bones were burnt with actual flesh on them. “You are forced to the conclusion that these bones with flesh on them are those of the unfortunate Samuel Lakey,” continued; Mr Meredith, who then recapitulated Hhe 'evidence the exhibits taken from Bayly’s cowshed, '.and the drum, and corrugated iron sheets found on Bayly’s property, which were capable of performing such a burning before the police recovered the drum. It was cut in two for gome reason—-it is suggested, to conceal its identity, If the jury reached the conclusion that Lakey’s 'body had been burned in the cowshed, it is inevitable it must have been by Bayly. How could anybody take the proceeds of that binning, ah dig the garden at Bayly’s backdoor? Can it be suggested a person, other than Bayly, could bring the.-Wy over from Lakey’s, burn it, wait Tor the embers to cool, and then bury them at Bayly’s back door? asked the prosecutor. i Mr Meredith then referred to t.ie cartridge case which fell from Bayly’s pocket, identified as from Lakey’s rifle/; If that pearifle had not been used 01 handled, it was not necessary for anyone to remove it from the house. There was also the question of the other cartridge which was found in., Lakey's Spand'au rifle, which he had only pos-. sessed for three days.. When Bayly’ 1 - knife was first seen it bp'd, & razor, edge, but wlien next seen, the blade ha rl changed in character. Leaving aside this particular- of the knife, there, had. been a shave mark in Baylv's separator room, apparently cutting off a patch o blood ...There was also a shave mark on ■the wheels, but the wood was of particular hardness-which did not . give an impression to the knife b’nde. There was -also a cut mark in Lakey’s implor ment shed. If they wre mode at the same time the cuts had been made fo" the same -purpose. The opinion of. riMfe experts, was that the Ms., m Bayly’s cowshed and Lakey’s implement shed' wore' made by the same knife. Who--could make" cut marks in Bavlys. separator room other then Bayly himself? iMrMeredith. Mr Meredith stated, the theory of Lakey’s disappearance had been promulgated bv Bayly at the earliest onto fasten the suspicion upon W right .by reporting n prowler to the police, but this failed, because the police of-, uccr- was billeted at Wright’s. Ar innocent man does not want to raise, suspicion wrongly,’’ declared the prosecutor. “Every fact points to the conclusion that Lakey was taken to Bayly’s and burnt there. If it had not been that the cows were turned out into that paddock, and other neighbours bad seen there was something port unity. Accused had endeavoured amiss at Lakey’s household, no mpunes would have been set afoot until the fallowing morning when the cream carrier would have seen no cream had put out. If that other 24 hours had been given to Bayly, the utter destvni'tinn o f what was left in tne drum wMd have been such that no one on earth would ever have found a tiac toondoded Msi address at 12.50 aftr speaking for an hour and a half.