Further Pathological Evidence Presented

Manawatu Times, Volume LIX, Issue 7486, 9 June 1934, Page 7

Further Pathological Evidence Presented

Second Expert Witness in the Box Many. WooM-lbe Spectators Turned Away Per Press Association.

AUCKLAND, Last. Night. In the Bayly trial many points of mcdico-legal jurisprudence were raised during the cross-examination of Dr. W, Gilmour, xvhich concluded tiiis afternoon when he stepped down after re-examination. Dr. Gilmour had been 12 hours in the box, during which time he was closely examined on blood group tests, the difference between drowning and comatose asphyxia and the results obtained by the burning of two sheep iirta oildnun on separate occasions, lie was succeeded by Dr. P. P. Lynch, of Wellington, who detailed the conclusion he had drawn from the bones exhibited and a tuft of hair. Public interest was again keen all day, many men and women being disappointed when they tried to gain admission late in the morning and afternoon.

r Mrs. Lakey’s Death. “I come now to the manner of how Mrs. Lakey met her death,” said Mr. Leary. ■I Witness said a previous post-mortem had been made before ho saw her. While putrefaction had set in to some . extent, he had not heard of the ldood- * stained froth until recently. j; “Congestion could be more accurately described as a sign of asphyxia than _ drowning?” asked counsel. “Suffocation, strangulation and . choking, as well as drowning, are nil causes of asphyxia,” replied Dr. Gil- , mour, who added that asphyxia, the ; prevention of oxygen reaching the blood, and coma, could be caused by 3 concussion from a blow from which 1 death could result. Boxers sometimes died as the result of a blow in the t ring. It was possible for death to en- , sue without damage to the brain or the i skull. Coma resulting fatally from . a blow could present the features of . asphyxia to a certain extent after - death. r Mr. Leary then quoted a mcdicai t authority on death by drowning, which i* stated that the less the aspiration of i water into the lungs the greater imt portanco must bo attached to other i possible causes of death. “I think he rather contradicts that > elsewhere,” replied Dr. Gilmour. • Mr. Leary quoted further that if i there was no aspiration of water death was not. due to drowning. ’ Dr. Gilmour quoted another page of the same authority regarding the proi sence of froth, which showed violence - and attempts to breathe. Witness said he would concedo there I was no water in Mrs. Lakey’s lungs. His examination hah yielded evidence i of a severe blow or blows and eonges- ■ tion of the eyes. Dr. MeFarlane had observed congestion of the lungs, i I put it to you that no one can say i how hard the blow would have to be i to kill anybody ?—Oh, no. Then there might have been sufficient damage done to kill her ? —The blow might, have been sufficient to kill her, but it would not account for all the findings. Witness agreed that I lie point was whether Mrs. Lakey ceased to breathe on account of a comatose condition following a blow or on account of tlie supply of air being cut off by water. “I am asking you if there is not room for doubt,” asked counsel. “There is no room for doubt that she died of asphyxia,” replied Dj. Gilmour, who said lie would not. agree that it was debatable. “The findings point, to death by asphyxia,” he continued. “There is no evidence that the air was cut off by strangling, a foreign body in the throat, or any other method. The findings are not consistent with a comatose asphyxial state. They arc entirely consistent with death due to immersion of the face in water while deceased was not making a serious struggle for breath. ’ ’ Conditions for Drowning'. In reply to further questions, Dr. Gilmour said the conditions for drowning depended upon the strugglo for breath. In asphyxial coma there was no struggle for breath. The froth would consist of blood drawn through the nasal passages, which was churned into bubbles by the passage of air. “You would expect some scum from the duekpond to be drawn .into Mrs. Lakey’s lungs with the water 1” asked Mr. Leary. Witness agreed. So the only satisfactory way of telling this froth was from the water would bo to test the ingredient ? —Yes Witness did not see the froth. There was no evidence of cow dung in thclungs. The blood, in the froth would be from the bleeding mouth or nose. Theory of Death. Witness said the theory of death by drowning originated from him. All the symptoms on which he based his opinion were visible. The doctor who performed the first post-mortem was questioned regarding the tuft of hair. Dr. Gilmour said he could not tell how j long it was when it grew. Human hair i singed easily with heat. “This hair has not been noticeably exposed to high temperatures?” asked Mr. Leary.—Witness agreed. Some women had coarser hair than men, added witness. The matter attached to the hair gave a strong immediate reaction of blood under the benzidine test. It would not go into solution under the _otlier test, witness assuming the reason was that it had been subjected to heat. “I suggest the probabilities are very great that the hair would have shown singeing,” said Mr. Leary.—Yes. If ash and cinders were present when the blood was moist one could bo expected s to find some. c Mr. Leary asked wliat proportionate I i '’Continued on Page 8.) v

d reply to Mr. Lcury, Dr. Gilmour v ..aid lie had given no evidence in the ( Lower Court ns to the possibility of burning a human, body, but was prepared then to swear it was possible. “Why did you not do so?” asked Mr. Leary. “Because 1 uus not asked any questions on it,” replied witness, who added that no evidence had led to that point. The literature on the subject did not mention oildrums. Which test did you tell us about e The earlier one. Did the quantity of i'at delay burning ? —Yes. I believe the animal was so large you l had difliculty in getting the flames ah y round tlie body ? Yes. 5 Yet at the end of three hours there t> was nothing left except the internal ,i organs ? —Yes. - Doth burnings had been carried out r in the yard of Mr. Meredith’s house, o witness added. The subject of the ® other experiment was a ram of 1421 b, 0 a sack and a-half of tl-trce of 1411 b. u being used. Gumboots, pairs of walking boots, light boots, braces, Palmer nap trousers, and a denture were burnt - in this lire. No fuel was added after l one and a-half hours and nothing was j left after six and a-quavter hours. That 1 condition was reached in three hours in ; the previous experiment. 5 “That, of course, is why no evidence " was given of this burning yesterday.” ' “The defence was given no notice of this fire,” said Mr. Leary. “You have no right to say that,” said His Honour. y Witness, stating that pieces of bone were picked out after the burning, produced them. Mr. Leary then referred to the blood tests. “In making the precipitin test who prepared the anti-scrum used?” he askI cd. Witness replied thnt the aiiti-seium was obtained from the Commonwealth Government. The pathologist had made two control tests of the anti-scrum before testing the dungaree trousers and all other articles, using human and sheep’s blood for the coniiol tests. Counsel detailed the manner of preparing the anti-scrum by injecting hi: man blood serum into rabbits, witness agreeing this was correct. Dr. Gilmour said that in this test if a cloud was obtained when the extract was properly prepared the conclusion was that the blood was human and nothing more was done. The quantities of blood were so small that there was no residue. _ . “Wo arc in the unhappy position o. being unable to make a check test,” observed counsel. I “I am afraid you will have to accept my results,” replied Dr. Gilmour. Professor’s Opinion. Counsel read an extract from Professor Glaister, stating that reaction could be produced by agents other than blood, while the benzidine test had been abandoned as uncertain. “I would not endorse that entirely,” replied Dr. Gilmour, who admitted that certain plant juices and cow manure would give colour reaction, but disagreed that the benzidine test, gave uncertain results will) small quantities of blood. In' the case of colour reaction with cow manure the colour would' be greenish rather than blue. Counsel then read the opinion of Lucas, who, witness agreed was eminent. Lucas’s opinion was that antiserum must bo proved specific by positive tests of blood of the kind tested for negative tests of other types of blood. Spots on Dungarees. Dr. Gilmour said he used human and sheep’s blood for the control tests. The scrum would be tested fully before being scut. “That is only hearsay,’-’ said Mr. Leary. “Hut you must accept that,” replied Dr. Gilmour. Mr. Leary suggested that witness i could not say three spots on the dun- ■ garccs tested together were all blood. , Dr. Gilmour said the spots, which were very small, together gave the test of human blood, lie would not concede ; that one could be human and the other ', two not. i “I suggest that the best plan of deal- ] ing with the three would have been to test for other animals’ first,” said j counsel. I “I think the spots were too small i to give a reaction singly,” replied Dr. ] Gilmour. s Counsel then suggested the possibil- ; ify of reaction being duo to the pre- l sence of albuminous urine, reading a medical authority. g Witness doubted that this was pos- s siblo with such small stains. The cells a of a dry stain became distorted. He t had not examined the structure of the t stains. Had he had further saline extract. from the stains he would have made further tests. -